Dr. Varney
Pimp
I think Rick Fitzpatrick was joking. No one with any sense would make that kind of rash generalization and be able to keep a straight face. I know, because I just did it then. 
D
dintymoore
Guest
dinty....... you just bring out the pocket fader fun in all of us!
Well, here's some more... how about buying one of these 64 input USB/MIDI Doepfer cards and then a bulk bag of faders from Hong Kong.
Make your own damn console. There.
You could probably find free old graphic eq's that could be gutted and used.
O
oretez
Hwy 50
re: pocket fader et al (rip)
unfortunately, even while I will recommend the Behringer fader offering it, or rather its price + feature set (i.e. motorized faders), killed a lot of interesting product that lacked motorized
I say unfortunate because the actual faders on the Bhrngr are not particularly good, accurate or sensitive . . . but they are motorized and interestingly enough it does not seem to break in 90days
probably close to 2 decades ago I got started with faders controlling digital audio with, I think it was the first fader board I had (and it in turn was suggested by my use of what a Rolland GK1 (plus the control box) could control with just a couple of knobs), Peavey PC1600 (then 1600X) both of which I still have and use on occasion. These not only controled various synth parameters, and parameters in 'sequencers' that could be used to mix audio, but could control (still via midi cc #s) audio directly via rack mount VCA controled mixers. The VCA mixers did not have particularly sensitive 'steps' . . . so some of you can imagine the issues involved not only with lack of fold back from software to physical fader position (the thing 'motorized' alleviates), but also potential zipper noise from the VCA control itself. even while there were issues, there were still strategies for workarounds. When I first migrated to Nashville in '94 had a friend, who had always ben hi-end, top of the line, & felt he was consistently ahead of the tech curve was justly proud of his in-line (transformerless) 48 channel desk with automation. Unfortunately his automation was limited (in 94) to 'scene' automation with computer memory being what it was could save a lot fewer then 100 scenes per project. I, on the other hand, had what I thought of as 'jam-sync' automation (not an industry standard term, but what would be IS terms were just arriving). Limitation of mine was that I could only control 8 tracks at a time, and had to page through 12 individual 'pages' to access all potential tracks. Admittedly, at this time, my project-studio (i.e. 'home') was based around 8 track cassette format (with some overdub support from nascent desk top digital) so as a rule 8-16 track automation was fine . . . tended to lack the fingers to control more faders anyway
the whole thing was a slowlly evolving rube goldberg setup and there probably were fader boards more sensitive then Peavey, the faders were only 60mm (though while pc1600 cost in the neighborhood of $500 in 93/94 the entire rig, including two VCA mixers, all the patch bays and cable to cobble the thing together was far less then what was then the nearest thing on the Market (though still a year or two away) the Yamaha 02R @ about $9k . . . five years later the very nice Sony DMX r100 (think mini oxford desk) was still $10k) so for the price I lived with 60mm faders and having to, step by step, deal with zipper issues and lack of foldback on fader position)
As an inexpensive to explore hardware fader control over software based mixing the Behringer unit is hard to beat . . . but like a lot, if not most, of Behringer gear, it has a built in obsolescence, not due, primarily, to build quality
but because as you use it, if you really learn from it, its limitations should push you to point where you have to replace it with something a little more sensitive, a little more precise. Which is a problem with all aspects of the recording endeavor. While I thought seriously about the DMX R100 and am still not entirely sure whether I regret the decision to pass, (I still 'like' the idea of standing in front of something that looks like a 'proper' desk) by using the low rent tools I did I adapted to, then adopted efficient ways of doing things (mixing ITB) for which tradition tools were not necessary. I am figuring that the next big move will probably be with touch screen monitors (something that, currently, would cost as much as the DMX r-100 would have then) . . . but even now I'm not sure how well that (touch screen) will or can unify ITB attributes with tactile analog attributes . . .
don't know whether it is obvious to any one else, even to the most particular of clients, but I can easily distinguish a mix I've worked on using an analog set of faders vs. one completely ITB . . . I do not think I could distinguish this in other's mixes, nor do I think of it as one process being superior, in any way, to the other . . . but for me the 'feel' is different . . . a different kind of question came (not on a forum but with regard to a mix I did last year, ending in Sept. or Oct.) in which I had to review a mix that was hybrid . . . but one the things that leapt out (in addition to wishing that I had, had a better room for the final mix . . . was not happy with bass detail at all . . . but that is a different story) was the relationship between a metal body resonator slide part, last thing recorded and added to mix as pretty much the last element of the entire project, that wove in and out, in the background, in contrast with a harp part that also wove in and out in the background. Harp was all in the box, slide gtr was done @ a PT facility outside of Austin where the final touches on the mix for that tune were physically executed via a control surface, motorized fader board . . . that review, after not listening for almost a year, was just a day or two ago and I still can't tell you why I think I can 'hear' a difference in how the slide gtr prt was mixed (into the mix) . . . I'm not overjoyed with the mix but then I never am but I don't hear anything (except perhaps the bass) egregiously wrong . . . without remembering details of the tune (reason I went back and listened to it before responding to client) that I had been 'thinking' differently on the stl gtr vs hrp just, as I said leapt out at me. If I had played either gtr or hrp (something i've been known to do) the details and minutia of the performance would have been what would have dominated initial review . . . the tactile process of mixing would have been subsumed by the psychological of the playing
I do not believe a tactile analog control surface is necessary for everyone or even necessarily advisable for anyone (a matter of personal aesthetic taste) . . . but the 'performance' is different for me when standing in front of an array of faders (& standing is something I'm far more likely to do at a desk then ITB)
unfortunately, even while I will recommend the Behringer fader offering it, or rather its price + feature set (i.e. motorized faders), killed a lot of interesting product that lacked motorized
I say unfortunate because the actual faders on the Bhrngr are not particularly good, accurate or sensitive . . . but they are motorized and interestingly enough it does not seem to break in 90days
probably close to 2 decades ago I got started with faders controlling digital audio with, I think it was the first fader board I had (and it in turn was suggested by my use of what a Rolland GK1 (plus the control box) could control with just a couple of knobs), Peavey PC1600 (then 1600X) both of which I still have and use on occasion. These not only controled various synth parameters, and parameters in 'sequencers' that could be used to mix audio, but could control (still via midi cc #s) audio directly via rack mount VCA controled mixers. The VCA mixers did not have particularly sensitive 'steps' . . . so some of you can imagine the issues involved not only with lack of fold back from software to physical fader position (the thing 'motorized' alleviates), but also potential zipper noise from the VCA control itself. even while there were issues, there were still strategies for workarounds. When I first migrated to Nashville in '94 had a friend, who had always ben hi-end, top of the line, & felt he was consistently ahead of the tech curve was justly proud of his in-line (transformerless) 48 channel desk with automation. Unfortunately his automation was limited (in 94) to 'scene' automation with computer memory being what it was could save a lot fewer then 100 scenes per project. I, on the other hand, had what I thought of as 'jam-sync' automation (not an industry standard term, but what would be IS terms were just arriving). Limitation of mine was that I could only control 8 tracks at a time, and had to page through 12 individual 'pages' to access all potential tracks. Admittedly, at this time, my project-studio (i.e. 'home') was based around 8 track cassette format (with some overdub support from nascent desk top digital) so as a rule 8-16 track automation was fine . . . tended to lack the fingers to control more faders anyway
the whole thing was a slowlly evolving rube goldberg setup and there probably were fader boards more sensitive then Peavey, the faders were only 60mm (though while pc1600 cost in the neighborhood of $500 in 93/94 the entire rig, including two VCA mixers, all the patch bays and cable to cobble the thing together was far less then what was then the nearest thing on the Market (though still a year or two away) the Yamaha 02R @ about $9k . . . five years later the very nice Sony DMX r100 (think mini oxford desk) was still $10k) so for the price I lived with 60mm faders and having to, step by step, deal with zipper issues and lack of foldback on fader position)
As an inexpensive to explore hardware fader control over software based mixing the Behringer unit is hard to beat . . . but like a lot, if not most, of Behringer gear, it has a built in obsolescence, not due, primarily, to build quality
but because as you use it, if you really learn from it, its limitations should push you to point where you have to replace it with something a little more sensitive, a little more precise. Which is a problem with all aspects of the recording endeavor. While I thought seriously about the DMX R100 and am still not entirely sure whether I regret the decision to pass, (I still 'like' the idea of standing in front of something that looks like a 'proper' desk) by using the low rent tools I did I adapted to, then adopted efficient ways of doing things (mixing ITB) for which tradition tools were not necessary. I am figuring that the next big move will probably be with touch screen monitors (something that, currently, would cost as much as the DMX r-100 would have then) . . . but even now I'm not sure how well that (touch screen) will or can unify ITB attributes with tactile analog attributes . . .
don't know whether it is obvious to any one else, even to the most particular of clients, but I can easily distinguish a mix I've worked on using an analog set of faders vs. one completely ITB . . . I do not think I could distinguish this in other's mixes, nor do I think of it as one process being superior, in any way, to the other . . . but for me the 'feel' is different . . . a different kind of question came (not on a forum but with regard to a mix I did last year, ending in Sept. or Oct.) in which I had to review a mix that was hybrid . . . but one the things that leapt out (in addition to wishing that I had, had a better room for the final mix . . . was not happy with bass detail at all . . . but that is a different story) was the relationship between a metal body resonator slide part, last thing recorded and added to mix as pretty much the last element of the entire project, that wove in and out, in the background, in contrast with a harp part that also wove in and out in the background. Harp was all in the box, slide gtr was done @ a PT facility outside of Austin where the final touches on the mix for that tune were physically executed via a control surface, motorized fader board . . . that review, after not listening for almost a year, was just a day or two ago and I still can't tell you why I think I can 'hear' a difference in how the slide gtr prt was mixed (into the mix) . . . I'm not overjoyed with the mix but then I never am but I don't hear anything (except perhaps the bass) egregiously wrong . . . without remembering details of the tune (reason I went back and listened to it before responding to client) that I had been 'thinking' differently on the stl gtr vs hrp just, as I said leapt out at me. If I had played either gtr or hrp (something i've been known to do) the details and minutia of the performance would have been what would have dominated initial review . . . the tactile process of mixing would have been subsumed by the psychological of the playing
I do not believe a tactile analog control surface is necessary for everyone or even necessarily advisable for anyone (a matter of personal aesthetic taste) . . . but the 'performance' is different for me when standing in front of an array of faders (& standing is something I'm far more likely to do at a desk then ITB)
D
dintymoore
Guest
The system I had from around 1989 to last year was based on three Yamaha DMP11 digital mixers digitally linked. Each one accepts 167 Control Changes and you could use the faders on the front to record control changes.
It ended up being 24 channels with full automation and it was a very good system. I'm not sure how many home studios were totally automated in 1989. Three other musicians liked it so much that they each bought three DMP11's and I set up their studios.
That's 12 DMP11's total at $1,500 each in 1989 money... the guy at Guitar Center loved me and every time I got an order there would be $50 worth of cables thrown in on top.
It ended up being 24 channels with full automation and it was a very good system. I'm not sure how many home studios were totally automated in 1989. Three other musicians liked it so much that they each bought three DMP11's and I set up their studios.
That's 12 DMP11's total at $1,500 each in 1989 money... the guy at Guitar Center loved me and every time I got an order there would be $50 worth of cables thrown in on top.
Dr. Varney
Pimp
A very interesting read, Oretez. Thanks! 
Dr. V
Dr. V
ez_willis
.
i KNOW he wasn't.
thajeremy
registered abuser
I cant believe I just read this entire thread......
M
moresound
Loud Sun Studios
I cant believe I just read this entire thread......
And what have we learned to day?
S
SteveCPerrino
New member
I hate to just jump into this argument, but here's my position:
Digital recording gear is much easier for the "common musician" to get simply because its cheaper. Get a decent mic for $100, audio interface for roughly the same price, and a decent software. Sometimes that's all that people want.
I understand analog can sound better, but times are changing. You can do whatever you want, just let people do what they want. If someone wants to use digital gear with physical faders, then that's their deal, not yours.
Anyways, back to the ACTUAL purpose of this thread. They do sell control surfaces, some are relatively inexpensive, some are very expensive. I guess it depends on how much you really feel like you need the physical faders. I almost bought the Euphonix control surface, but I decided that I personally would rather spend money on things like mic pre's and studio instruments rather than on something that is purely for convenience.
Just my opinion, but the option is out there.
Digital recording gear is much easier for the "common musician" to get simply because its cheaper. Get a decent mic for $100, audio interface for roughly the same price, and a decent software. Sometimes that's all that people want.
I understand analog can sound better, but times are changing. You can do whatever you want, just let people do what they want. If someone wants to use digital gear with physical faders, then that's their deal, not yours.
Anyways, back to the ACTUAL purpose of this thread. They do sell control surfaces, some are relatively inexpensive, some are very expensive. I guess it depends on how much you really feel like you need the physical faders. I almost bought the Euphonix control surface, but I decided that I personally would rather spend money on things like mic pre's and studio instruments rather than on something that is purely for convenience.
Just my opinion, but the option is out there.
bunt
Hand-Crank Mixer
You mean like they've been doing for some odd 50 years?:
well, maybe longer than that...
1903
Lynde Bradley and Dr. Stanton Allen form the Compression Rheostat Company with an initial investment of $1,000.
Attachments
TheChikenMaster
I'm Unbalanced
You mean like they've been doing for some odd 50 years?
ooo ooo im under 25 and i have a tascam 22-2 and im about to throw out my computer and just do live recording
Steenamaroo
...
me too!
duno what i'm tryin to prove tho. someone gave me it and i don't use it.
TheChikenMaster
I'm Unbalanced
if you want to use physical faders with your daw get one of these ssl
http://www.solid-state-logic.com/resources/gallery/c100/C100_CBS_Price_Is_Right_large.jpg
http://www.solid-state-logic.com/resources/gallery/c100/C100_CBS_Price_Is_Right_large.jpg
M
moresound
Loud Sun Studios
Steenamaroo
...
damn,,,i threw one of those out last week,
if i'd known, i would have kept it for ya!
if i'd known, i would have kept it for ya!
M
moresound
Loud Sun Studios
I do television work from time to time and it's kind of weird now.
You go into the booth and there is a huge digital console with all of the bells and whistles in it and off to the side is a whole wall of near empty racks.
The only thing in about a 50+ space rack is a small headphone amp and a multi band compressor. And then the occasional espresso machine.
You go into the booth and there is a huge digital console with all of the bells and whistles in it and off to the side is a whole wall of near empty racks.
The only thing in about a 50+ space rack is a small headphone amp and a multi band compressor. And then the occasional espresso machine.
