recording individual tracks onto hard disk rec

M

Modern_Talking

New member
hi guys .. I' hope I'm in the right forum .. if not, please do move it to the right place .. :)

here's my setup .
Behringer mx 9000 mixer
Fostex VF160ex H.Disk
Lexicon MPX1 effect (sub group insert 3&4)
T.C Electronics effect unit (sub group insert 5&6)
31 band E.Q (sub group insert 1&2)
2ch Compressor (sub group insert 7&8)
Yamaha Motif ES Rack module (Assign L/R, 1,2,3 & 4)
Roland JV 1010 module (Assign L/R)
Events 20/20 monitors
AKG Headphoes

Main Insert ch's on MX 9000 = Aphex 204 Aural Exciter
Sub 1 & 2 Insert ch's = 31 Band E.Q
Sub 3 & 4 Insert ch's = Lexicon MPX1 effect unit
Sub 5 & 6 T.C Elect. effect unit
Sub 7 & 8 Art Compressor

Now, as you can see above, that's the way I've connected my effects and compressors etc to the MX 9000 mixer ... I have not connected my Fostex vf160ex yet ... This is where I'm lost ...

On my MX 9000 mixer's input ch I have used up the 1st 6 inputs for the Motif EX rack. Meaning, on the Motif the L=ch 1, R=ch2, Assign 1=ch3 ...., Assign 4=ch6... On the JV 1010 it's L=ch7 and R=ch8 ..

I am using Cakewalk 9 as my sequencing software and I am doing mostly MIDI tracks..

Now I've done all my balancing and everything sounds great on the headphones and on the monitors.. But the problem is that everything is coming out of the MX 9000 is in 2 ch (stereo) (I mean the main outs from the board)...

I want to record the above channels individually into my Fostex hard disk recorder.. But if I pull out the input cables form the mixer and connect them to the input channels on the fostex recorder, I loose my effects and eq's and compressions and all the setting that I tweeked on the mixing board, since it's now not going thorugh the mixing board but straight from the module to the hard disk recorder.
And yes, I have individual channels assigned from the sound modules (as indicated above) to the mixing board... I tried using the direct out on the mixing board which helped but theere was no effects or eq's etc. The signal was dry .. I guess that's why it's called direct out .. heheheh!! lol..

So, can anyone tell me, how it is possible, to route my individual tracks from the mixer with all the effects and eq's I hear from the Main Outs, into separate outs, into the hard disk recorder for individual channel recording.
Remember, I am using my Sub outs on the mixer which have effects connected to the insert channels... This way some channel (eg ch 4,5) I don't want any effect but the rest of the effects (compression & E.Q) I would like to have.

I hope I explained myself clearly and someone could give me some suggestion in getting this thing to work this way .... I have everything well balanced and sounding great, but don't want to just take the 2 stereo outs form the mixing board and connect it to the hard disk recorder ... Then I'd have everything going to 2 tracks only and later on if I want to cut out any instrument, I won't be able to do that ... That's why i wanted to record them individually ...
thanks for taking the time to read this and your help or suggestion is greatly appreciated ...
peace ..
 
One option to consider is to actually record the channels dry via the direct outs the way you tried it. This is fairly common practice because it gives you a clean canvas to work from when mixing in you DAW or from your HDR; the FX can be added during the mixing stage as needed. Otherwise you'll be recording wet signals with no way to "undo" the FX should they not fit right in the mix.

If the dry recordings are not an option for you (though I'd think pretty hard about that before making a final decision), you could run your FX boxes in series between the mixer and the recorder. In other words, you'd have something like this: direct out --> FXbox --> HDR. If you used the channel strip direct outs, you'd have to choose which FX to apply/plug into which channel strip. Since you're doing everything MIDI and aren't doing a live bio-recording, you could always record just a few tracks at a time with the FX you need, then move the FX over to the other strips as needed and record those next.

A third/fourth option (if the mixer has the capacity for this) is just send the wet sub outs to the HDR via the sub out jacks. If the mixer has no sub out capability, then return those subs to unused channel strips (if available) and then direct out those strips to the HDR.

HTH,

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
One option to consider is to actually record the channels dry via the direct outs the way you tried it. This is fairly common practice because it gives you a clean canvas to work from when mixing in you DAW or from your HDR; the FX can be added during the mixing stage as needed. Otherwise you'll be recording wet signals with no way to "undo" the FX should they not fit right in the mix.

If the dry recordings are not an option for you (though I'd think pretty hard about that before making a final decision), you could run your FX boxes in series between the mixer and the recorder. In other words, you'd have something like this: direct out --> FXbox --> HDR. If you used the channel strip direct outs, you'd have to choose which FX to apply/plug into which channel strip. Since you're doing everything MIDI and aren't doing a live bio-recording, you could always record just a few tracks at a time with the FX you need, then move the FX over to the other strips as needed and record those next.

A third/fourth option (if the mixer has the capacity for this) is just send the wet sub outs to the HDR via the sub out jacks. If the mixer has no sub out capability, then return those subs to unused channel strips (if available) and then direct out those strips to the HDR.

HTH,

G.
Click to expand...

hi there and thanks for the response ...
Very interesting tips there ...
1. I did try recording dry from the direct outs into the h.D recorder, and then tried to use the effects and tools on the recorder.. Didn't have any success.. I tried alot of tweaking but it didn't sounds as good as it was sound with my external rack effects...
But yes, that's what I also thoough about hooking up from the direct out an FX unit and then into the HD recorder ...
One quesiton though ... Is it a good idea to daisy chain effects becuase the way i have them now, I have like delay/reverb/chorus going through 1 channel (like for eg: a synth pad tone) ...

I also though of this idea and correct me if I'm wrong ..

I was thinking of getting a 2nd 32ch board with 8 sub outs ...
I was going to run for example, my drums (electronic left/right) into mixingboard #1 on channel 1 & 2 and then use the sub switch on the faders and send them to sub 1 (left) and sub 2 (right) and the rest of the switch (3/4,5/6,7/8 & L/R) all turned off... Then connect the 1 & 2 sub output jack from the mixer #1 to ch 1 & 2 on the HD recorder.. Also I will connect a reverb FX unit to the inserts of sub 1 & 2 ..
Then go on the same way for sub 3 & 4 .. I would connect say a bass module to ch 3 on mixer #1 and turn on only sub switch on ch 3 and then take the sub 3 out and connect it to the HD recoder on ch #3 and keep going till I use all 8 sub channels ...
Now I won't be using my main outs anymore because all my individual channels will be sent out to the sub groups and my mixer does have dual parallel 8 sub outs ...
So, this is where I though of getting a 2nd mixer just incase I have more than 8 tracks (or instruments) and I would do the same on the 2nd mixer too ..

The only draw back that I found with this setup was that I would maybe have to go out and buy a few more FX's and compressors... becasue 1 FX would be on sub 1&2 insert which is the DRUM Fader. And then lets say my piano sound are coming out from sub 5 fader and I need some reverb there, I guess I'd have to buy another reverb unit because my 1st one is being used by sub group 1 & 2 inserts ...

I hope I didn't loose you here, but your above suggestions sound pretty good too .. And I think your last suggesting is pretty much close to what i mentioned above ... And yes, my mixer has 8 sub outs.. Actually it has 16 outs, but they are parallel.. Meaning the same sub out has 2 of the same jacks ....

thanks for your help and will give all these a shot and see what come best ... Even though I like the idea of going dry from the direct outs into the HD, but dam, it's not sounding the way it sound when coming wet from the mixing board .... And I do know that the new fostex vf160ex has some pretty good FX's and mastering tools ... Maybe I'm not going it right or doing something wrong ...
I wish I could post up some of my clip that I recorded using wet signal and dry signal from the mixer into the HD recorder, for you guys to hear and give me some feed backs as to what could need improvement or the whole thing needs fixing ... heheheh~!!!! ...
but thanks for the suggestions ... will go and give it a try again ... :)
 
Yeah, it sounds like your sub idea is in concept the same thing I was referring to in my final option.

No, there is really no "problem" with daisy-chaining FX or running FX in series. That's were the term "FX chain" come from! :D There are some things to watch out for when doing so, though. Two of the biggest are 1) assembeling the chain in the optimal order, and 2) setting the optimum gain staging (i.e. the input and output levels for each device from the mixer to the HDR, inclusive, for maximum signal to noise ratio. But as long as you keep an eye on both of those, you're OK to go with the chaining. A good general rule is to keep the signal path as short as possible, but if you need to wetten a signal with more than one process then you need to by definition lengthen the path to add those devices.

The crux of your problem is that you have more tracks than you have FX channels, which is going to always be a problem if you want to record everything wet and are unwilling to do any pre-mixing (e.g. sharing effects via aux busses, sub-mixing to your sub busses before applying FX, etc.) Unless of course you want to go out and buy 8 or more channels each of EQ, comp and verb. That would work great, but can get expensive ;)

The question I have for you is, does the Fostex have any device insert or aux loop I/O of it's own? I hear you completly when you say that the soft FXs just don't sound as good as your external iron. I was hoping there was some way of chaining in the FX boxes to the HDR. If so, then what I'd probably want to try would be to record your stuff in thourgh the mixer to the Fostex as dry as possible (or as is reasonable). Then using either some kind of insert or aux loop I/O that (hopefully) the Fostex has on it, apply the FX as needed during the mix using your good iron that you've chained to the Fostex instead of the mixer..

If the HDR doesn't have insert capability like that, can you at least run direct or main bus outs from the HDR into your outboards and then bounce those wet signals back into the HDR on some new bounce tracks? This would also give you the advantage of an undo route; you'd have your wet bounce tracks, but you could easily fall back to the dry tracks if need be in case the wet stuff is just getting the mix too soggy.

It seems to me that something along those lines would be one heck of a lot cheaper than getting a second 8-bus board (which still does not increase the number of potential FX channels you have available) and/or going out and buying multiple duplicate channels of FX boxes for every channel strip used.

Am I making any sense or am I completly mis-reading your situation?

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Yeah, it sounds like your sub idea is in concept the same thing I was referring to in my final option.

The crux of your problem is that you have more tracks than you have FX channels, which is going to always be a problem if you want to record everything wet and are unwilling to do any pre-mixing (e.g. sharing effects via aux busses, sub-mixing to your sub busses before applying FX, etc.) Unless of course you want to go out and buy 8 or more channels each of EQ, comp and verb. That would work great, but can get expensive ;)
Click to expand...

hey bro,
thanks a million for all your suggestion and everyone of them was useful .. I had a quick bite to try it out yesterday before I headed out for work and had a very nice sound coming out through the subs, into the H.D .. So I guess my final layout would be to go with subs now because my recording does involve wet signal from the mixer and the using the subs on the mixer and then into the H.D recorder wass a great idea .. and works like a charm too ...
And yes, maybe I'd go out a buy a few more FX's or should I say at least the main FX's unit that I need for the individual sounds and hook them up to the sub inserts too ...
O ya .. You know how some or maybe most of the mixing board, they have inserts on every channel or fader .. if you insert an FX unit into 1 of the insert channels, the signal becomes wet, right ... and when I route that channel to SUB GROUP, the wet signal will be going in there right... Not just dry signal ... I didn't try that yet, but I am going to try that today ..

SouthSIDE Glen said:
The question I have for you is, does the Fostex have any device insert or aux loop I/O of it's own? I hear you completly when you say that the soft FXs just don't sound as good as your external iron. I was hoping there was some way of chaining in the FX boxes to the HDR. If so, then what I'd probably want to try would be to record your stuff in thourgh the mixer to the Fostex as dry as possible (or as is reasonable). Then using either some kind of insert or aux loop I/O that (hopefully) the Fostex has on it, apply the FX as needed during the mix using your good iron that you've chained to the Fostex instead of the mixer..
Click to expand...

As for the fostex, it does have 2 insert jacks... not sure if it's for the 1st 2 channels or the main outs ... All it says 'insert' on the recoder .. But even the above one you mentioned about recoridng dry into the HD and then bouncing wet to another channels sound excellent too and I will try that too ... I guess there are so many ways one could do this... I guess the best method would be which is more easier and better sounding to do .. Of course I care about sound quality more than anything and I'm sure a lot of us feel the same too .. but I prefer to stay away from complicated mixing with all that high class definations .... hehehehehe!!!! :D
but I'm still learning too and this is so much fun ...

SouthSIDE Glen said:
If the HDR doesn't have insert capability like that, can you at least run direct or main bus outs from the HDR into your outboards and then bounce those wet signals back into the HDR on some new bounce tracks? This would also give you the advantage of an undo route; you'd have your wet bounce tracks, but you could easily fall back to the dry tracks if need be in case the wet stuff is just getting the mix too soggy.

It seems to me that something along those lines would be one heck of a lot cheaper than getting a second 8-bus board (which still does not increase the number of potential FX channels you have available) and/or going out and buying multiple duplicate channels of FX boxes for every channel strip used.

Am I making any sense or am I completly mis-reading your situation?
Click to expand...

Yes you right ..... I'm going to hold on in buying that 2nd 8 bus mixer... I want to see some results with the 8 bus I have right now and if I find everything going exactly like we discussed above and I need more individual outputs, then I'd make another setup just like we did with the above configuration to get that final and finishing touch to the song ... So far everything is looking good and very anxious to try it out .... I work 2 jobs, so the weekends, is what i spend more time in my studio and experiment at the same time ... All your suggestions and help is very much appreciated and thanks again for everything ... When I do a final copy of my mix, I'd sure upload it to you and you can tell me how it sounds and if anything needs to be corrected ...

thanks bro ... and have a good one!!!
 
individually midi recording

hi ...
Sorry, but I forgot to ask one mroe thing ..

I have 10 midi tracks that I sequenced or should I say were sequenced by someone else ... drums,bass,guitar,stings,piano etc etc etc ...

If I wanted to record these tracks individually one, one at a time onto the H.D recorder, wet or dry, doesn't matter ... How would one do that ...

I tried from example to record first the sequenced drum from that midi file by muting everything out except the drum ch ... Which worked ok ..

Now I wanted to record the sequenced bass and muting all the tracks on the sequencing software except the bass track ... But the timing didn't quiet fit in properly with the previously recorded drum track on the H.D recorder ..
maybe I'm doing it the wrong way ... I guess 1 way would be to use the direct outs from the mixer board or the assign outs from the sound module and connect them to the H.D channel faders individually and then simultaneously record them ... but what if I wanted to record that midi tracks seprately and individually ...

thanks bro...
 
First, regard your earlier Q about using FX on a channeel insert before sending that channel over to a sub bus; yes the wet sugnal from the FX will go to the sub. The way to think of a channel insert jack is to think about the word "insert" physically. Think of any boz that's looped into the insert as being inserted into/becoming part of that channel strip. If you plug a compressor into the insert loop it's just like adding the attack, threshold, gain, etc. knobs of the compressor right to that channel strip on the mixer.

As far as recording the tracks in seperately, there are two ways to sync them up. The "pro" way would be to use a clock source/time code signal to synchronize all the tracks to the same time. It sounds as if your not set up to be able to do that though. That's OK, there is another way...

You've seen the pros do this on movies where they have those black-and-white clap boards that they slap together before the director yells "Action!". You can do it just by adding a MIDI click sound at the same time at the beginning for every track on your Cakewalk source tracks. Then when you get them all over to the Fostex, you just need to line up those clicks like ducks in a row to get all the tracks synched with each other.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
First, regard your earlier Q about using FX on a channeel insert before sending that channel over to a sub bus; yes the wet sugnal from the FX will go to the sub. The way to think of a channel insert jack is to think about the word "insert" physically. Think of any boz that's looped into the insert as being inserted into/becoming part of that channel strip. If you plug a compressor into the insert loop it's just like adding the attack, threshold, gain, etc. knobs of the compressor right to that channel strip on the mixer.

As far as recording the tracks in seperately, there are two ways to sync them up. The "pro" way would be to use a clock source/time code signal to synchronize all the tracks to the same time. It sounds as if your not set up to be able to do that though. That's OK, there is another way...

You've seen the pros do this on movies where they have those black-and-white clap boards that they slap together before the director yells "Action!". You can do it just by adding a MIDI click sound at the same time at the beginning for every track on your Cakewalk source tracks. Then when you get them all over to the Fostex, you just need to line up those clicks like ducks in a row to get all the tracks synched with each other.

G.
Click to expand...
hey ... the 2nd one sound pretty easy to do ... that way, the clicks will be easily to identify when lining them up ... thanks ... will try that out ..
thanks for help ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top