Signal routing questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris F
  • Start date Start date
Chris F

Chris F

New member
I'm not sure which forum to post this thread in, so I'll post it here and hope it's in the right place. I'm using a MOTU 1224 with a Mac G4 800, and I love the sound and flexibility of the system for clean direct to hard disk recording. The problem I'm having is in the mixing stage...while I love the automated mixing capabilities of the system, I can't say that I'm happy with the quality or ease of use of the plug-in effects that come with Audio Desk (the program that comes with the MOTU unit - the digital audio portion of Digital Performer). I'm looking for some routing/mixing options which will make the process a bit more intuitive and easier to use.

My signal chain (as I understand it, which might not be very well):

Mic to mixer (Soundcraft M12), direct out to 1224, into the PCI interface on the G4, into Audiodesk.

So far, all is well and good. But at this point, I'd like to be able to use some outboard effects and EQ and run the signal back into Audio desk, which I guess means recording another set of tracks. (I'm recording mostly acoustic jazz - Grand Piano, Acoustic Bass, and Archtop Guitar, and I hope to add drums in the near future.) I'd like to be able to route each track so that it comes out of the computer, have the option of adding Graphic EQ or Reverb (and possibly some RNC compression), and then routing the signal back into Audiodesk. The M12 has plenty of features to do this - including 4 stereo aux channels, but I'm such a newbie to mixers that I have no idea how to patch the wires together to make this happen, and I'm not sure how to use the aux 1-4 pots on each channel to control the amount of effect added to the track.

Any help anyone can offer on the routing/control of signal with this setup would be greatly appreciated. I do have some more questions, but they can wait until I understand these basics first.


Thanks,

Chris Fitzgerald
 
Being a PC guy, I know almost nothing about DP or its little brother - however, If I were recording Jazz musicians, I would find a safe, lockable room to hide in before running their pristine tracks through yet another D/A/D cycle, even with converters costing 2-3 times that of the MOTU ones.

If AudioDesk allows it, you might try getting more familiar with their host-based EQ, and saving for a higher-end EFX package in software. For a small jazz ensemble, you shouldn't run out of horsepower with just a few tracks on the G4.

If you really want to go outboard for, say, a dedicated reverb box, Roland's SRV-330 D (for digital) has been offered for a few months in several major mail order houses for pretty reasonable prices. Going to/from that with a SP/DIF cable would save having another conversion on tracks. It goes up to 48k@24 bit.

I wouldn't use GRAPHIC eq on an enemy's tracks, let alone a friend's - If you saw the phase shifting, comb filtering, shit-disturbing things a graphic does to audio signals, you wouldn't even use it for a paperweight. You're much better off using parametric, very gently, and cutting instead of boosting wherever possible. Better yet, get things sounding right BEFORE you track them. The RNC, on the other hand, has few known enemies on this planet...

If you insist on going out and back into the computer for mixing, you can get INSERT cables (TRS phone, to two TS phone) that plug into the insert points on your mixer. You can return the signals from the 1224 outs into the inserts, which will bypass the line or mic inputs. Most (not all) mixers use tip=send, ring=return, commercially available Y cables should be marked which is which. I don't recall whether the 1224 has TRS 1/4" connections or XLR - you might need different cables depending. Take the stereo outs from your mixer back to two un-used inputs on the 1224, and arm those channels for record in AudioDesk.

An aux send is a separate mix of whatever channel inputs you want to include. You adjust the aux 1-4 knobs for however much of each channel's input you want in each aux out. If aux one goes to your main reverb, then you would set the aux return to a mid-level, adjusting levels wherever necessary to a good strong level (not clipping) - then, you use each channel's aux control to add more or less of that channel to the input of your reverb unit.

The higher level you can maintain at each point in the signal path without clipping, the better signal-to-noise ratio you will get.

Hope this helps some, like I said I have NONE of the hard/software you mentioned... Steve
 
A great reply from Steve. I'm surprised you seem so against an analog mixdown.

If I may offer a simple explanation you basically need to get whatever tracks you want to run through the mixer out of the Motu and into the mixer (great suggestions above) then run the master outs of the M12 back into the Motu and record that for your final mixdown.

If you simply want to run a track or two through an outboard effect you can also route an output from the Motu into the processor and back into the motu and record that channel on a new track.
 
Hey TRk, I'm not against an analog mixdown if you're mixing to analog, preferably 30 IPS 1/2" (wish I had one)

What I AM against, is un-necessary conversions. Comes from the desire to "do no harm" to the sound. I mix in Samplitude at 32 bit float, which even at 44.1 k sounds very close to analog to me. Samp stores the files at that depth, and the only time the sound gets crammed back into "CD quality", is when you mix to file and burn a CD. This has the main benefit of "throwing out less baby with the bathwater" - I know it sounds better from my own listening; the explanation that I like best has to do with math remainders, less of which get thrown away with each digital operation. If you so much as change the level of a digital track by 1/2 dB, you've done a math operation. Imagine 24 tracks of multiple math operations at 16 bit, vs. 24 bit with an 8 bit mantissa. (32 bit float) you have 256 times as much precision for each math operation, then you only throw away the 8 extra bits ONE TIME, at mixdown. Gotta sound better, and it does... Steve
 
knightfly said:
Being a PC guy, I know almost nothing about DP or its little brother - however, If I were recording Jazz musicians, I would find a safe, lockable room to hide in before running their pristine tracks through yet another D/A/D cycle, even with converters costing 2-3 times that of the MOTU ones.

I've heard this before, and yet I still say that the plug ins on Audio desk sound like crap, even compared to the cheapo rack reverb that I have. With the rack unit, I can dial in a sound in seconds, and with the reverb plugins, I can sit there for hours dicking around with parameters that I don't understand, and the result still sounds fake compared to what I get from the rack unit. Or, it could just be that I'm too stupid to figure out how to make the plug in FX really work. :) But trust me, it ain't for lack of effort.

I wouldn't use GRAPHIC eq on an enemy's tracks, let alone a friend's - If you saw the phase shifting, comb filtering, shit-disturbing things a graphic does to audio signals, you wouldn't even use it for a paperweight. You're much better off using parametric, very gently, and cutting instead of boosting wherever possible.


I hear from a lot of people that Graphic EQ's are the SPAWN OF SATAN, and yet.....it's the plug in parametrics which seem to leave large holes in the tone when I use them. I'm down with the whole "don't boost anything - only cut, and then only gently" philosophy. But let me ask a question which I hope isn't too overtly dense:

What's the big difference between a graphic and parametric EQ aside from the fact that you can program a parametric? I mean, if you have a 31-band graphic, your distance between "notches" is fixed at something between 1/3 and 1/2 octave, right? So if you cut 100 hz on a 31 band graphic, how is that different from cutting 100 hz on a parametric with the bandwidth set to .33 octave? I understand that you can program more specific cuts with a parametric, but I'm not sure that I'd want to try cutting a thinner slice than that anyway...at least, I haven't had any luck so far trying to do so.

Better yet, get things sounding right BEFORE you track them. The RNC, on the other hand, has few known enemies on this planet...

And I'm hoping it will be a good unit to use as a "limiter" to cut the spikes on grand piano and archtop tracks on the way in, so I don't have to worry about clipping. I hope I won't even be able to tell it's there!



If you insist on going out and back into the computer for mixing, you can get INSERT cables (TRS phone, to two TS phone) that plug into the insert points on your mixer. You can return the signals from the 1224 outs into the inserts, which will bypass the line or mic inputs. Most (not all) mixers use tip=send, ring=return, commercially available Y cables should be marked which is which. I don't recall whether the 1224 has TRS 1/4" connections or XLR - you might need different cables depending. Take the stereo outs from your mixer back to two un-used inputs on the 1224, and arm those channels for record in AudioDesk.

Okay, I'm a dummy, but where do the effects figure into the above scenario? And how does it save me extra noise? Sorry! I'm pretty naive about this stuff.

An aux send is a separate mix of whatever channel inputs you want to include. You adjust the aux 1-4 knobs for however much of each channel's input you want in each aux out. If aux one goes to your main reverb, then you would set the aux return to a mid-level, adjusting levels wherever necessary to a good strong level (not clipping) - then, you use each channel's aux control to add more or less of that channel to the input of your reverb unit.

The higher level you can maintain at each point in the signal path without clipping, the better signal-to-noise ratio you will get.

Hope this helps some, like I said I have NONE of the hard/software you mentioned... Steve
Click to expand...


Actually, it helps a lot, even if I only understand some of it. I'm a professional musican, and a much better player than recording engineer....but I'd like to learn more about the recording end as well. Thanks for your patience. :)

Chris
 
Chris F said:


I hear from a lot of people that Graphic EQ's are the SPAWN OF SATAN, and yet.....it's the plug in parametrics which seem to leave large holes in the tone when I use them. I'm down with the whole "don't boost anything - only cut, and then only gently" philosophy. But let me ask a question which I hope isn't too overtly dense:

What's the big difference between a graphic and parametric EQ aside from the fact that you can program a parametric? I mean, if you have a 31-band graphic, your distance between "notches" is fixed at something between 1/3 and 1/2 octave, right? So if you cut 100 hz on a 31 band graphic, how is that different from cutting 100 hz on a parametric with the bandwidth set to .33 octave?
Click to expand...


Boy, that question really dried up this thread. Anyone? If it was such a stupid question, please shoot it down in flames - I'd like to understand this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top