Hi, I have been thinking about upgrading to an outboard mixing setup. Kind of along the lines of the "hardware vs. software mixing" thread. My biggest concern with this switch, is automation... In cubase, automating something like volume is very easy. You can see the curve as it runs through the song, and you can easily modify and change the curve, typing in the exact time and attenuation or gain that is desired. I have never done automation on a real console, but it seems like this would be a HUGE task in comparison if you have to do it 'live'... i.e. play the song with the automation in write mode, and then manually move the faders to the exact right spot for the given moment, and not make any manual errors (for instance, you move it to far by accident)... Am I missing something, or is it as frustrating as it sounds? My reasons for wanting to do this, are: I've heard that analog summing is better, better ergonomic control of the work environment, easier access to use real hardware at inserts points in combination with plugins (this is the biggest reason acctually). I'm just not so sure that this would acctually make me get work done any faster.... Also, it seems that the only boards with automation, inserts, and more than 4 busses are really expensive... but that's another matter..
Console automation vs. Cubase
- Thread starter SmattyG
- Start date
skippy
New member
Even on a megabuck automated console, the fader moves are read and stamped with the current timecode- you can type in moves, or you can have the console simply read theh fader position in real time. It's just a different razor blade for a different beard- it still shaves.
But having said that, who's to say that you can't do a combination of the two (and spend a lot less than megabucks)? I use the automation in Cubase to put volume envelopes on individual bed tracks, and I always use MIDI from Cubase to automatically mute and unmute channels on my board (Soundcraft Ghost: it has mute automation, but not fader automation) to reduce the workload. I then manually handle the faders for interesting/bitchy/nonobvious/important/creative work, since I'm an old analog guy and I just have to have faders under my fingers. Basically: let the hardware do the drudge work!
I set up Cubase to output as many channels as I want in parallel (I have converters for 24 tracks, if needed), route them to board channels, and then all the final summing is done in the analog domain in the board. I don't seem to mind the sound of pre-output digital scaling of single tracks, or even small submastered groups of tracks, when Cubase is doing the volume envelope thing for me on the routine stuff- but the real top-level summing is all still done in the analog domain, and the important fader moves still come from my fingers in real time.
I look at this (Cubase's automation, and MIDI control of the channel mutes) as a tremendous labor-saver. It routinely turns insane gymnastic mix sessions that would have required many hands and several passes into first-time two-handers: I can set it up so that all I have to pay attention to in real time are the important bits. This is *incredibly* useful. Shoot, in terms of S/N, just having the channels always mute whenever you want without having to go move your hands to punch them out is a huge win...
There are lots of ways to skin that cat, once you decide to adopt a hybrid approach! But your mileage may vary: one size does not fit all...
But having said that, who's to say that you can't do a combination of the two (and spend a lot less than megabucks)? I use the automation in Cubase to put volume envelopes on individual bed tracks, and I always use MIDI from Cubase to automatically mute and unmute channels on my board (Soundcraft Ghost: it has mute automation, but not fader automation) to reduce the workload. I then manually handle the faders for interesting/bitchy/nonobvious/important/creative work, since I'm an old analog guy and I just have to have faders under my fingers. Basically: let the hardware do the drudge work!
I set up Cubase to output as many channels as I want in parallel (I have converters for 24 tracks, if needed), route them to board channels, and then all the final summing is done in the analog domain in the board. I don't seem to mind the sound of pre-output digital scaling of single tracks, or even small submastered groups of tracks, when Cubase is doing the volume envelope thing for me on the routine stuff- but the real top-level summing is all still done in the analog domain, and the important fader moves still come from my fingers in real time.
I look at this (Cubase's automation, and MIDI control of the channel mutes) as a tremendous labor-saver. It routinely turns insane gymnastic mix sessions that would have required many hands and several passes into first-time two-handers: I can set it up so that all I have to pay attention to in real time are the important bits. This is *incredibly* useful. Shoot, in terms of S/N, just having the channels always mute whenever you want without having to go move your hands to punch them out is a huge win...
There are lots of ways to skin that cat, once you decide to adopt a hybrid approach! But your mileage may vary: one size does not fit all...
DeadPoet
carpe diem
Yo Skippy.. I think we have similar setups: I've just bought a 32ch Ghost (picking it up next week) and a 16ch soundcard, and I would like to mix on the board with mute automation coming from Cubase...
Could you explain how you hooked your board to the PC ? Is the ghost master or slave ? MTC ? LTC ? MMC ??
TIA,
Herwig
Could you explain how you hooked your board to the PC ? Is the ghost master or slave ? MTC ? LTC ? MMC ??
TIA,
Herwig
skippy
New member
In my rig the Ghost is always the slave: the master is either Cubase or my Fostex D1624 depending on the operating mode, outputting MTC. I then drive the Ghost with SMPTE timecode, which I convert from the MTC with a JL Cooper converter box. I found that the Ghost's ability to deal with MTC is fairly spotty depending upon the mode that the machine control setup is in- but SMPTE is always there, and always bombproof.
I generally use the rig in one of two modes. In the primary tracking/overdubbing mode, I use the Ghost's machine control to control the Fostex via 9-pin protocol. That way I only need the Fostex remote to arm tracks. Everything else is done with the machine control hardware on the Ghost, and is very nice and convenient. For some reason, track arming via 9-pin doesn't work with the Fostex- but it's less awkward to use the remote in any case, so no big.
After most of the tracking is done, I usually fly the raw tracks over to Cubase via ADAT lightpipe, and I start playing around with mixing/editing/hacking in that environment. At that point, record/playback goes over to mouse control, and the Ghost merely displays/chases timecode (and I'll sometimes use the Ghost's internal scene memory to do muting, if I'm not going to bother to set up Cubase for a simple session- you can do it either internally via scene automation, or externally via MIDI). Once I have the tune in Cubase, then the mute control is simple MIDI note-on/note-off events, just like any other MIDI device.
I have not yet set up the Ghost to control Cubase directly via MMC, and I need to do so- the MIDI routing is there. When you do that, the Ghost will send out a block of note-on/note-offs reflecting the current state of all the mutes each time you hit play on the machine control- which makes it trivial to get a snapshot of the board's state into the program as a default. Switching the Ghost from 9-pin to MMC is very straightforward, a simple front-panel tweek- I just haven't made the time to sort it out yet, since my working style is still very Fostex-centric.
In fact, I have found that a very powerful setup is to configure Cubase as sync slave, and then let it chase the MTC from the Fostex, as the Ghost chases the SMPTE. This then gives the Ghost machine control over both the D1624 and Cubase *simultaneously*, in perfect sync lock, and makes it possible to track to both units at once (having a safety can be very useful for certain one-try-only sessions).
In any case, I really never expected to make that much use of the mute automation, but it is incredibly useful once you start regarding it as a labor saving device.
There's a lot of flexibility here, and the system is easy to adapt to whatever I need. The only funny things required were the JL Cooper MTC-SMPTE converter (I didn't expect that, but that requirement came bacause I needed the 9-pin protocol for the Fostex, and there's a timecode problem with the 9-pin setup), and a Midiman 2:1 merge box (so that either Cubase or the Fostex can be the timecode master without needing to crawl on the floor).
Hope that helps. You'll have a lot of fun with the Ghost, and you'll get a lot of good from it!
I generally use the rig in one of two modes. In the primary tracking/overdubbing mode, I use the Ghost's machine control to control the Fostex via 9-pin protocol. That way I only need the Fostex remote to arm tracks. Everything else is done with the machine control hardware on the Ghost, and is very nice and convenient. For some reason, track arming via 9-pin doesn't work with the Fostex- but it's less awkward to use the remote in any case, so no big.
After most of the tracking is done, I usually fly the raw tracks over to Cubase via ADAT lightpipe, and I start playing around with mixing/editing/hacking in that environment. At that point, record/playback goes over to mouse control, and the Ghost merely displays/chases timecode (and I'll sometimes use the Ghost's internal scene memory to do muting, if I'm not going to bother to set up Cubase for a simple session- you can do it either internally via scene automation, or externally via MIDI). Once I have the tune in Cubase, then the mute control is simple MIDI note-on/note-off events, just like any other MIDI device.
I have not yet set up the Ghost to control Cubase directly via MMC, and I need to do so- the MIDI routing is there. When you do that, the Ghost will send out a block of note-on/note-offs reflecting the current state of all the mutes each time you hit play on the machine control- which makes it trivial to get a snapshot of the board's state into the program as a default. Switching the Ghost from 9-pin to MMC is very straightforward, a simple front-panel tweek- I just haven't made the time to sort it out yet, since my working style is still very Fostex-centric.
In fact, I have found that a very powerful setup is to configure Cubase as sync slave, and then let it chase the MTC from the Fostex, as the Ghost chases the SMPTE. This then gives the Ghost machine control over both the D1624 and Cubase *simultaneously*, in perfect sync lock, and makes it possible to track to both units at once (having a safety can be very useful for certain one-try-only sessions).
In any case, I really never expected to make that much use of the mute automation, but it is incredibly useful once you start regarding it as a labor saving device.
There's a lot of flexibility here, and the system is easy to adapt to whatever I need. The only funny things required were the JL Cooper MTC-SMPTE converter (I didn't expect that, but that requirement came bacause I needed the 9-pin protocol for the Fostex, and there's a timecode problem with the 9-pin setup), and a Midiman 2:1 merge box (so that either Cubase or the Fostex can be the timecode master without needing to crawl on the floor).
Hope that helps. You'll have a lot of fun with the Ghost, and you'll get a lot of good from it!
DeadPoet
carpe diem
Wow, thanks, great post !! I've been reading both manuals (Cubase & Ghost's) to figure out how to control transport and the 4 midi faders from the Ghost to cubase, but I guess it comes down to trial & error. Luckily my setup is easier then yours, but it's great to hear that it actually works.
Thanks again,
Herwig
Thanks again,
Herwig
Skippy,
Thanks a lot for that post! You totally answered my question! Now that you have explained how you do it, I realize, that it can only make things easier... or should I say, it can only make things more flexible. I have to say, that is a fairly expensive board, although I'm thinking that I could get away with less. Esspecially since you are saying that it is not even necessery to use the automation on the board... At the same time, all of that synchronization stuff would be pretty important as I upgrade stuff in the future... and I'm sure that overall quality is an issue too. Might have some more questions for you as I think of them
Thanks!
Thanks a lot for that post! You totally answered my question! Now that you have explained how you do it, I realize, that it can only make things easier... or should I say, it can only make things more flexible. I have to say, that is a fairly expensive board, although I'm thinking that I could get away with less. Esspecially since you are saying that it is not even necessery to use the automation on the board... At the same time, all of that synchronization stuff would be pretty important as I upgrade stuff in the future... and I'm sure that overall quality is an issue too. Might have some more questions for you as I think of them
Thanks!
skippy
New member
Mixing boards are an investment. If you buy an underpowered board, you'll eventually have to unload it (probably at a loss) and buy the one you really needed to start out with _anyway_. "Buy it right or buy it twice" is an oft-heard motto around these parts.
I still have the underpwered board I bought first this time (prior to the Ghost), and it makes its living doing live work now, since I'd lose my butt selling it. And I knew better, having built and run a studio back in my misspent youth... When it comes to capital equipment, treat your acquisitions as investments- not as conveniences.
Spend some time thinking about what you really need, and how you really want to do it- and then work out the finances to do that. If you go on the cheap to start out, it will usually end up costing more in the long run. A good mixing board really is an essential piece of capital equipment for any recording venture...
Don't be shy about checking with the equipment brokers for used large-format boards as well. In this economy, you can land some damned fine deals on serious hardware, if you are willing to dig- and that might get your flying faders for you, in addition to mutes. Ebay isn't the only way to fly. My Ghost came straight from Soundcraft as a refurb, with full factory warranty (it was the demo board in their booth at NAMM a few years ago). There's a difference between bargain hunting and cheaping out!
Mostly, caveat emptor. Figure out what you really need, and then pursue that with all barrels blazing...
I still have the underpwered board I bought first this time (prior to the Ghost), and it makes its living doing live work now, since I'd lose my butt selling it. And I knew better, having built and run a studio back in my misspent youth... When it comes to capital equipment, treat your acquisitions as investments- not as conveniences.
Spend some time thinking about what you really need, and how you really want to do it- and then work out the finances to do that. If you go on the cheap to start out, it will usually end up costing more in the long run. A good mixing board really is an essential piece of capital equipment for any recording venture...
Don't be shy about checking with the equipment brokers for used large-format boards as well. In this economy, you can land some damned fine deals on serious hardware, if you are willing to dig- and that might get your flying faders for you, in addition to mutes. Ebay isn't the only way to fly. My Ghost came straight from Soundcraft as a refurb, with full factory warranty (it was the demo board in their booth at NAMM a few years ago). There's a difference between bargain hunting and cheaping out!
Mostly, caveat emptor. Figure out what you really need, and then pursue that with all barrels blazing...
skippy said:
I totally agree... I have been doing this just long enough to start replacing stuff, and I'm now realizing that it is not worth buying anything unless it is specifically part of what I need to get to the next level! Part of this is research so that I can build my "master-plan' so to speak. Thanks for your advice skippy, it is invaluable!