DAW to Analogue Mixer Help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter shnabz
  • Start date Start date
S

shnabz

New member
Since i started producing, ive done everything in my DAW, but now i want to have the control at my finger tips, but not a mouse and keyboard. So im buying an 32ch analogue desk. Now can someone varify if it is this simple?;

Buy a soundcard for the pc, e.g. 10in 10out
put the outs into the console's channel strips.
---Is that it?

Could i then also...
Send midi info from DAW to synths, which can then also be sent into soundcard, which i could then add an effect, and send that back out of the soundcard to a channel strip?

How would the timing work, i can imagine everything being out of sync, would latency be an issue for the effects? or everything?
If so, could i "delay" things so that it will be in sync?


Thanks for reading,
MrMike...
 
You should really get a control surface with the same number of faders as your sound card has inputs.
 
while a console will certainly give you hands on setting up to do,
the control is still very much done by mouse and keyboard.

If this is your only reason for the change of hardware, perhaps you might be interested in some of the euphonix control surfaces?
 
If your only buying a converter with 10ins and outs why do ya need a 32 channel mixer? Unless you plan on expanding later. Yes just set each track you want to the out you want. Do whatever ya want to do with your mixer, and record the main-outs while playing back the song. That's how I do it anyway.
 
You've had some good advice. Analogue mixers are great for setting up headphone monitoring but, despite their name, they're pretty useless for actual mixing. A control surface that lets you manipulate your DAW controls with real faders sounds much more what you need.

....and, to answer your specific question, yes--latency would be a big issue with the routing your describe.
 
Bobbsy said:
You've had some good advice. Analogue mixers are great for setting up headphone monitoring but, despite their name, they're pretty useless for actual mixing.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to more or less disagree with that. I suppose it's a matter of personal preference but I'm mixing on an analog console and for me, I much prefere that to mixing in the box.
 
It's weird.

I actually prefer mixing live events to working in the studio (though I like the results from the studio once I'm done). You'd think this would make me a fan of doing my mixes...er...on a mixer. But it doesn't.

Unless you have a form of automation, mixing by hand just doesn't have the precision I'm looking for. Small errors that aren't even noticed in a live performance come back to haunt me when I hear them over and over on a CD. The most I'll use a mixer for is as a control surface to set the automation system to "something close"--then I go back and tweak the timing and balance of every change I've made to be spot on to the beat or syllable. This isn't possible with a simple analogue mixer though.

So, that's where I'm coming from....

(And all this is before getting into the hassles of latency and such.)
 
Thanks for all the replies.

The reason i want a analogue isn't just because i want a control surface, but a friend of mine is selling bits and bobs from his studio, i love the sound of some of the synths he has and have the opportunity to use them, with that i will be getting a few compressors, and effects racks, so a mixing desk is necessary.

About the latency, i dont understand how there will be that much latency.

At the moment i have a hercules rmx dj mixing console, with built in soundcard, 4in4out(2stereo) i have my virtual vinyl's on a set of 1210's and the latency is only 2 miliseconds (96 buffer size)
 
The latency will build up each time you feed in and out of the computer--and to mix on the analogue mixer you'll have to pass in and out a couple of times. Adding effects (in the computer) will add more latency again. Finally, as the track count goes up, I suspect the buffer size will have to go up as well.

If you get a good deal on the synths and mixer, by all means go for it. The mixer can still be a useful animal even if you don't do the actual mix on it...for example, you may end up feeding line level audio from several synths at once into the mixer then feeding simple stereo audio into your sound card an DAW. It may also help you set up really good headphone monitoring.

And, at the DJ side, that sort of mixing is fine--I was speaking more of really detailed mixing of lots of raw tracks...for that I like the accuracy of "in the box" or via a control surface.

Bob
 
If you're getting a mixer and rack effects, it makes sense to get a standalone hard disk recorder to go with it. Then it's a simple matter of running the mixer channel ins and outs to the recorder, and the stereo main outs to your sound card for mixdown.
 
Oh, and I want to hear all about the synths you're getting. I never met a synth I didn't like. :D
 
Bobbsy said:
You've had some good advice. Analogue mixers are great for setting up headphone monitoring but, despite their name, they're pretty useless for actual mixing.
Click to expand...

Now I wouldn't say they are completely useless. I love the EQ on a toft atb console. But for the most part, yeah, technology man!!!!!!!!! haha
 
diggy_dude said:
If you're getting a mixer and rack effects, it makes sense to get a standalone hard disk recorder to go with it. Then it's a simple matter of running the mixer channel ins and outs to the recorder, and the stereo main outs to your sound card for mixdown.
Click to expand...

I get the attraction of the standalone recorder, for lots of I/O. Portable. But then you miss out on the hybred of mixer DAW. Automation, (editing and clean-up!). You still have plugs and either mix option.
 
My system is a hybrid. I can still automate tracks (and I do), use the cosole EQ or software EQ, plugins or hardware processors. It's a pretty powerfull setup and it sounds great to me. I do however sacrifice a SMALL amount of mix repeatability but that's OK with me.
 
OT aside...is anyone besides me old enough to remember the dreaded days of dubbing/mixing charts? Those dreaded bits of paper with a column for each source track, annotated with every level change in every track throughout the whole mix. I recall the day we upgraded to a "rock and roll" system which meant there was a sync lock between the source tracks and the destination machine for the mix meaning we could actually stop and do a punch-in if a mistake was made. Prior to that, a mistake on the last change meant going back to the beginning again!

...maybe it's my distant memories of this that have me so anti manual mixing!

Bob
 
Bobbsy said:
OT aside...is anyone besides me old enough to remember the dreaded days of dubbing/mixing charts? Those dreaded bits of paper with a column for each source track, annotated with every level change in every track throughout the whole mix. I recall the day we upgraded to a "rock and roll" system which meant there was a sync lock between the source tracks and the destination machine for the mix meaning we could actually stop and do a punch-in if a mistake was made. Prior to that, a mistake on the last change meant going back to the beginning again!

...maybe it's my distant memories of this that have me so anti manual mixing!

Bob
Click to expand...
Sounds a bit more advanced than I ever did. I've been aware of mixing in sections but never did it to the half track.
We just had all the tape next to the faders with a bunch of marks on'em and trying to catch the moves on time in the right sequence.
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top