Mixer/Control Surfaces - I need advice!

K

KiFF BluEs

New member
If I were using something like the TASCAM FW-1082 or M-Audio's Project Mix, would I be able to perform similar functions to an actual recording unit such as using the faders to control effects? It seems like I would still have to use my mouse to do certain things like that on Cubase. For example, I think I would still have to click the "Write" button in Cubase's mixer instead of just pressing a button on the control surface to activate it. I think most digital mixers have something called "Auto-Mix Mode" (I think that's right) button which records the faders, channel ons and offs, effects, etc (basically "Write Automation" on Cubase).

Anyway, it seems like I'd be moving all over the place with these all-in-one units. I'd be reaching for the mouse, than going back to the board, than back to the mouse, etc etc. It kind of defeats the purpose. I think I'd rather be using some digital mixer where everything is right there. However there is a good chance I may be mistaken about the functions of units like M-Audio's project mix. Maybe they are capable of those things?
 
I use a Mackie Control with Samplitude Professional, and love it. I can't speak to the particular controllers you mentioned, but generally there are things you will still use your mouse or keyboard shortcuts to do. But I can control a lot of things from the CS, including pushing faders to control effect sends. My two requirements for a CS to be usable are motorized faders and track names displayed. If I have to hunt for the fader position, or look back and forth from screen to CS to know what track is what, I'll end up sticking with the mouse.
 
This is what I don't understand...if a control surface is only really capable of doing half the functions you want it to do, why would you even buy one? I don't know, but now i feel like I'd just want to have everything in one unit. If you are going to use a control surface, why not just get a real mixer that is capable of everything you need without ever having to reach for a mouse or deal with software? Is there really such a huge advantage to computer-based recording that makes people go out and buy control-surfaces? I'm missing something, lol.
 
I have the Tascam US-2400 control surface and it has made mixing 100% easier. Yeah ok I have to click on the screen a couple times, but then I have to click on the Cubase icon on my desktop still to open Cubase, my control surface doesn't do that for me. Damn. I also still have to type the track names in myself and control the 'File' 'Options' 'Device' etc menus with the mouse. I never expected otherwise.

However, what it does do is give me the ability to control each track with a fader, control EQ's, sends pans etc etc. And I can just hit a play button to play. It also has a jogwheel which is without a doubt the best thing ever invented, I can jog back at my own speed, rather than holding my mouse down and waiting.

It's useful to say the least to be able to adjust the faders on more than one track at once. Something that's impossible with a mouse. I can even use 2 hands to work my EQ's. Dual knob action!! Triple if you are particularly dextrous! It also has motorised faders, so any automaton I do causes the relevant faders and knobs to move. And when I load up a project, my faders jump into position.

Personally I hate mixing with a mouse, you just can't feel it well enough, but I do like my software. A control surface gives me more control over my mixes without a doubt. Yeah so I have to click on a couple of things. But then I don't thing any control surface or mixing board under the sun is going to let you do complex wave editing, hitpoint editing etc etc. A mouse is a handy and neccessary tool. A control surface makes life so much easier however. Rather than thinking of it as a control surface as replacement for a mouse, think of it as a very useful addition. :)
 
I use Cubase, and I don't think any control surface would be able to use faders to control effects (because you don't even do that in Cubase's mixer, it's something wierd). That's something that is important to me for mixing. I'd like to be able to control all my tracks effects, channel ons, volume, etc, while mixing from the control surface. When mixing a song I don't want to be moving back and forth from the PC to the CS, you know?
 
The Mackie Control has a add-on called the C4, which is set up to control plugins and what not. I have not used one and cannot say that it actually controls all plugin's, but it claims that it does.

Behringer makes a similar unit. As far as I know, those are the ONLY two on the market that control plugins.

Thus, you really don't save that much time with fader controllers! With how long it takes to "record" a fader move with a controller, I can just draw an envelope in the software, and actually have it be VERY precise! NO latency!!! (yes, latency IS an issue with fader controllers..your milage may vary).

The studio that I work at sometimes still uses a SAC 2.2 controller, but really, it doesnt' get much use! By the time I move my hand from the mouse to it, click a couple of bottons to get to the function I want, I could have done it with the mouse already.

I will not pay for a controller until ALL my plugins can be controlled by it too! I want faders AND knobs that can control my DX and VST plugins from the interface. Simply, the Tascam unit cannot offer that. I suppose they could work on it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Than I think I'd rather just get a real mixer...and in a few years when they have perfected the mixer/audio interface/controlsurface I'll switch lol.
 
I see your point. However I'm pretty sure the US-2400 can be used to control effects, but I think it depends on the effect. Its possible that you would have to map the controls and could get real fiddly...I'm not sure... What I would like to get is a dual monitor setup, as aside from what my CS can do, there is no escaping that there is a lot of clicking in Cubase wth all the switching windows. I also think it would be nice if there was a button on the CS to open the selected track, kinda like when you press the 'e' button on a track in cubase.

That said, I couldn't do without my control surface. A little bit of clicking here and there doesn't bother me as I spend hours and hours programming midi drums and get real anal about the velocities. So either way I look at it, there is no escaping the mouse. :p
 
I couldn't do without my control surface. A little bit of clicking here and there doesn't bother me as I spend hours and hours programming midi drums and get real anal about the velocities
Click to expand...
That reason wouldn't really apply to me. I'm not a big MIDI user. I just want to record my band, or myself.
 
KiFF BluEs said:
That reason wouldn't really apply to me. I'm not a big MIDI user. I just want to record my band, or myself.
Click to expand...

Fair play then :) What works for one doesn't neccessarily work for another for those very reasons :) Thats the great thing about music :)
 
I can get pretty close to never reaching for my mouse with the MCS, but really, why the all or nothing attitude? If you go to an analog mixer to get away from your mouse, you're going to be using outboard gear and reaching over to the rack to deal with a much more cumbersome set of controls with a tiny little lcd display, navigating through buried menus. Or, you can use your mouse on VSTs and there you are again.
 
Good point.
Well, now I'm faced with these options:
1. Get a recording board
2. Get an audio interface and use Cubase's mixer
3. Get an audio interface and a control surface
4. Get something like M-Audio's Project Mix (which combines a control surface and audio interface into one unit)
 
Here's what I need to know now (sorry if I say something that's been answered, I'm just typing my thoughts lol)

- If I go with the computer based methods (methods 2, 3 or 4) is it worth it to get a control surface?
- If it is in my best interest to use a control surface, should I go with method 3 or 4? Some people said method 4 would not be as good as using a Firepod with a control surface. Can someone tell me what to look for when comparing specs for audio interfaces?
- Does anyone think I shouldn't be using methods 2-4 and go with method 1?

(sorry if these questions are not relevant to the "Mixing / Mastering" section of the forums. if necessary, it can always be moved)
 
Dual LCD monitors make Cubase lots easier.

legionserial said:
What I would like to get is a dual monitor setup.


By all means GET a dual graphic computer card and 2 LCD monitors they give you SO much more space for all the Cubase Windows. I have that set up and would not be without it. I can load up several windows, mixer, FX etc on screen and still have all my tracks etc showing too.


Choctaw
Click to expand...
 
Getting a recording board means you only have a board. You would have to get a medium to record to such as a 8, 16, 24 or 48 track reel to reel tape machine or a computer daw set up using AD DA converters. If you are looking for an all in one box you could get something like a Rolan VS 880 and have 8 tracks direct to hard disk but theres no way to edit with that.

What I would recomend for the ease of things get an interface with nice pres like a Mackie Onyx 400F or 1200F and then get a control surface like the Tascam US-2400 or Mackie MCU.

If you do want to go with a large format recording board it will be quite a bit pricier. I got a 32 channel 8 buss Soundtracs Mixer for $2500 after shipping and 3 M-Audio Delta 1010 PCI units for AD/DA conversion for $1200. Then after that you need to take cabling into consideratino. I lucked out because the guy who sold me the board also through in 4 48 pt. TRS patchbays and 5 16 point 12 foot TRS snakes so I didn't have to buy that after the fact. Then even with this set up I'm going to be using my mouse to arm the recorders, set track I/O, tweak the few plugins I use ect. So in this day and age unless you plan on spending thousands on a board a large reel to reel system and a ton of outboard gear you goign to end up having to use your computer.
 
I was thinking this now:

-Get a good computer
-Get a good audio interface with good pres
-Get the Mackie MCU (or some other good control surface)
-Of course the monitors, headphones, mics etc etc etc
-I could add more pres later if needed

That would be the basic setup I guess. Later on, I heard I might need an 8 bus console? What are those for and why would I need one?
 
You need lots more research and knowledge

KiFF BluEs said:
I was thinking this now: -Get a good computer
-Get a good audio interface with good pres -Get the Mackie MCU (or some other good control surface) -Of course the monitors, headphones, mics etc etc etc -I could add more pres later if needed - Later on, I heard I might need an 8 bus console?

Christ man, you should get some books and some more understanding about how this recording works and does not work. There are so many different ways you can do things. People all have different things they use, and some of us think that what we use is the only way. That is not the case, really learn more before you buy, an know for sure that there will always be something else people tell you to get. That deal about the 8 bus console for one thing is a spoof for sure. Software will do about everything these days, the other stuff is just a way to blow some bucks and make things more complicated..........they are complicated enough as it is. Thats my 2 cents, and only my opinion from what has been said here. Don't go out and buy a big lemon for yourself, and wish you had gotten something else, that can happen real easy, if your easy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
so than what I said before minues the console than? lol.

also, choctaw, in your sig it says you use a mackie mixer. is that for the preamps?
 
Kiff you don't need a mixer at all in this day and age. It would be easiest on you to go with an interface and a control surface. I went though an analouge purist phase and bought a large mixer. I don't regret it but if your 17 and starting up I would recomend sticking to a digital setup.

Peace,
Kyle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top