Can someone Help me Set up a Studio?

[Bguzaldo]

Easily one of the most frustrating things I've ever delt with. I just can't seem to get any straight answers about how I want to set up my studio.

Here's the deal...

I've been recording for about 2 years and I've got the Audio interface computer set up going and to be frank it's just not me, I hate being all digital and "new wave" Its just not working out for me. It just freaks me out sometimes to think that my music is turning into 1's and 0's and my compression is created by a math equation. I HATE MATH! So knowing that a new studio set up is gonna cost me I've already starting fillin up the piggy bank . What I'm looking for pretty much is a set up based around a console not a computer. I'm pretty set on the Allen & Heath Mix Wizard 3 the 16 channel board. It's got Inserts on every channel, direct outs on every channel, phantom power, good EQing with 2 sweepable mids a HPF, its pretty "bitchin" haha...

Now here lies my problems. I want to do all the mixing on the board. I have a patch bay(even though I'm a n00b I can adequately operate one!!) and a rack of processors. What am I gonna need to be able to record to a computer but still do all of my mixing on a Board? Am I gonna need a separate mix down console? So then I'll track with one console with a nice A/d Converter going to the computer then a D/A converter going to the mix down board? Can I do it all with one board?(Preferred option) Are there magical converters that can send the signals back to their respectives channels on the board?!

I talked to a rep at sweetwater today about getting the Delta 1010, it has 8 channels of conversion and since the mixer I'm looking at has 16 channels he told me to go from them mixer outs 1-8, into the delta in 1-8 and then the delta outs 1-8 into the mixer line ins 9-16 and it make sense and all, but I see that getting messy when I want to use all 16 channels.

I just wanna be able to set up 16 mic's on my mixer, hit record on my computer, and then playback and mix on my mixer. I have torn through all of tweaks studio set up guides mercilessly to no prevail, the guy at sweet water thought I was totally insane, and Eddie Kramer won't return my calls!

Please Help!!

-Barrett

 

[mixsit]

... he told me to go from them mixer outs 1-8, into the delta in 1-8 and then the delta outs 1-8 into the mixer line ins 9-16 and it make sense and all, but I see that getting messy when I want to use all 16 channels...

That would if I recall be 'split style routing. An alt to that is an ‘in-line setup where your mixer has both tape’ return inputs (d/a's in this case) and mic/line record inputs patched to each channel and you switch between the two functions. Either has its advantages, often you can do a bit of both methods. If you have plenty of mixer, split makes sense as you don't have to reconfigure the channels between tracking and mix mode.
With less mixer available you could for example go 'in-line during a high track count initial tracking stage, then swap most of the mixer to mix mode with a few channels set aside to remain in tracking mode for over dubs. Thus a more modest mixer could function in a bit of both modes. I did that for a while on the 24-8 (not quite enough channels for staying complete ‘split mode) before going ITB. A couple 8 ch A/D D/As and off you go.

 

[drossfile]

you could go the standalone daw route. i'm still using one (an akai dps12), and i know there are people around here who use tascam 2488s, korg d3200s, boss br1600s and the like. they all have mixers integrated, so they act as a computer, control surface, and mixer all in one box.

some people really have disdain for these machines, but i'm fond of having my hands on a console, and while it has its drawbacks, those drawbacks are mostly inherent to how archaic my daw is (bought new in 2000). the newer ones are much easier to transfer data to and from a computer for additional manipulation.

the other route you could go is getting a digital mixer to interface w/ your computer. i've considered doing this myself once i make the leap to comp recording.

that's my input anyway. i'm no expert, and frankly i know very little about computer recording in general, as i've never used my pc as a daw.

good luck!

 

[gecko zzed]

I hate being all digital and "new wave" Its just not working out for me. It just freaks me out sometimes to think that my music is turning into 1's and 0's and my compression is created by a math equation.

I admit to being confused. Your proposed solution is still going to leave you solidly in the realm of "1's and 0's". If this is really the heart of your discomfort, you would need to move to an analog, say, tape-based sytem.

However, if it's just the absence of manual control that irks you, rather than the digitial process itself, you might look at the A&H Zed R16, which sends 16 channels in and out of the PC via firewire.

 

[mjbphotos]

As answered, if you want to do it on a computer, you are going to need an interface with 16 ins and 16 outs that can handle both at the same time.

 

[Bguzaldo]

I admit to being confused. Your proposed solution is still going to leave you solidly in the realm of "1's and 0's". If this is really the heart of your discomfort, you would need to move to an analog, say, tape-based sytem.

However, if it's just the absence of manual control that irks you, rather than the digitial process itself, you might look at the A&H Zed R16, which sends 16 channels in and out of the PC via firewire.

Yeah I thought about that, and I guess I was a bit confused myself, It's majoritively the manual control issue, but down the line would I be able to hook up, say a 24 track tape machine to the ZED for a complete analog system?

Thanks so much for the clearification,
-barrett

 

[Bguzaldo]

you could go the standalone daw route. i'm still using one (an akai dps12), and i know there are people around here who use tascam 2488s, korg d3200s, boss br1600s and the like. they all have mixers integrated, so they act as a computer, control surface, and mixer all in one box.

some people really have disdain for these machines, but i'm fond of having my hands on a console, and while it has its drawbacks, those drawbacks are mostly inherent to how archaic my daw is (bought new in 2000). the newer ones are much easier to transfer data to and from a computer for additional manipulation.

the other route you could go is getting a digital mixer to interface w/ your computer. i've considered doing this myself once i make the leap to comp recording.

that's my input anyway. i'm no expert, and frankly i know very little about computer recording in general, as i've never used my pc as a daw.

good luck!

Yeah I started off as a multitrack guy when I was 14, I had a Fostex MR-8! I did love its ease of use and hands on functions, it just seemed so unexpandable. Would you happen to have support on the contrary?

Thanks a ton for the help,
-Barrett

 

[Bguzaldo]

That would if I recall be 'split style routing. An alt to that is an ‘in-line setup where your mixer has both tape’ return inputs (d/a's in this case) and mic/line record inputs patched to each channel and you switch between the two functions. Either has its advantages, often you can do a bit of both methods. If you have plenty of mixer, split makes sense as you don't have to reconfigure the channels between tracking and mix mode.
With less mixer available you could for example go 'in-line during a high track count initial tracking stage, then swap most of the mixer to mix mode with a few channels set aside to remain in tracking mode for over dubs. Thus a more modest mixer could function in a bit of both modes. I did that for a while on the 24-8 (not quite enough channels for staying complete ‘split mode) before going ITB. A couple 8 ch A/D D/As and off you go.

So with this style would you have to designate tracking channels and monitoring channels? Say if I had a 16 track board, would i have to use 8 to track and the other 8 to monitor simultaneously? I'd think this way would limit the amount of tracks I could use or just take a ridiculous amount of patching.

Thanks,
-Barrett

 

[drossfile]

Yeah I started off as a multitrack guy when I was 14, I had a Fostex MR-8! I did love its ease of use and hands on functions, it just seemed so unexpandable. Would you happen to have support on the contrary?

Thanks a ton for the help,
-Barrett

yeah, i'd have to concede that they don't seem expandable like a motu system. but the d3200 (and others i'm sure) offer 12 simultaneously recorded tracks, and 32 played back. plus it has usb data transfer. not sure if you have need of more than that--i know i certainly don't, but i'm just a 1-man band in a basement. no professional aspirations here.

i started w/ a fostex cassette 4-track in '97. not sure what model it was, but i can assure you those recordings sound terrible (mostly because of my lack of skill though)!!! didn't take me long (only 3 years) to upgrade.

 

[Bguzaldo]

yeah, i'd have to concede that they don't seem expandable like a motu system. but the d3200 (and others i'm sure) offer 12 simultaneously recorded tracks, and 32 played back. plus it has usb data transfer. not sure if you have need of more than that--i know i certainly don't, but i'm just a 1-man band in a basement. no professional aspirations here.

i started w/ a fostex cassette 4-track in '97. not sure what model it was, but i can assure you those recordings sound terrible (mostly because of my lack of skill though)!!! didn't take me long (only 3 years) to upgrade.

Very cool, Thanks for the info!
-Barrett

 

[mixsit]

So with this style would you have to designate tracking channels and monitoring channels?

For 'split style, yes.

Say if I had a 16 track board, would i have to use 8 to track and the other 8 to monitor simultaneously? I'd think this way would limit the amount of tracks I could use or just take a ridiculous amount of patching.
Thanks,
-Barrett

And again, that's where 'in-line shines. The tape returns stay patched to 'tape in's, you switch the mixer inputs from mic' or tape', which ever mode that channel is in.

 

[Bguzaldo]

For 'split style, yes.


And again, that's where 'in-line shines. The tape returns stay patched to 'tape in's, you switch the mixer inputs from mic' or tape', which ever mode that channel is in.

Ok I gotcha now, sorry I'm a bit "slow". What mixers are examples of 'in-line mixers?

Thanks again
-Barrett