Turning a mixer into a control surface.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erockrazor
  • Start date Start date
Erockrazor

Erockrazor

I mix in (2x) real-time
When I see pro's mixing their work in a fancy control room, they're always doing their MIXING on the big MIXER console.

I dont understand how to make my setup work like this. Is my only option to have a digital control surface that hooks into my computer using firewire or usb?

I want to understand how the mixer is hooked up to these rigs but I'm not really sure where to get started. Any direction is appreciated.

And no I'm not buying a crazy mixing console ... just curious.:) Erockrazor
 
Erockrazor said:
When I see pro's mixing their work in a fancy control room, they're always doing their MIXING on the big MIXER console.

I dont understand how to make my setup work like this. Is my only option to have a digital control surface that hooks into my computer using firewire or usb?

I want to understand how the mixer is hooked up to these rigs but I'm not really sure where to get started. Any direction is appreciated.

And no I'm not buying a crazy mixing console ... just curious.:) Erockrazor
Click to expand...
Well many of these large mixing desks work similar to a control surface, automated mixdown, etc. Others are connected so that each track is recorded on it's own channel, which is then sent back to the channel strip of the mixing desk, where it can be mixed, and bounced down to stereo(or lesser tracks, eg busses) and rerecorded. This is how i would imagine it could be done.

There are also large control surfaces, control 24(ok, it's not that large), which allows you to do everything within protools. These are connected via Ethernet, i believe.
 
The way that I thought I could do it was use my firewire interface and record the tracks. Then make each individual track go out into the mixer's individual channels. Then this would limit me to a stereo track unless my mixer had individual outputs for each track. If I had a more certain recording space maybe I'd try harder to get a mixer to be my control surface. Thanks for the quick response.:)Erockrazor
 
I expect that it is much easier to mix within the box/with a control surface, than the analogue style method i suggested. Also, the signal does not degrade like it might rerecording.
 
Erockrazor said:
The way that I thought I could do it was use my firewire interface and record the tracks. Then make each individual track go out into the mixer's individual channels. Then this would limit me to a stereo track unless my mixer had individual outputs for each track. If I had a more certain recording space maybe I'd try harder to get a mixer to be my control surface. Thanks for the quick response.:)Erockrazor
Click to expand...
Well, what you want to do when mixing in this way IS bounce down. So limiting you to a stereo track is fine, although you have to know exactly what you're going to do, and when, before you do it(with levels etc). It's like mixing in real time, although you get more tries if you make a mistake.
 
I figure if I take the method I was saying, there wouldn't be much signal degradation when bouncing straight to two tracks. I figured I can route the 2 stereo tracks back into the interface as my mixdown. Doing this while not altering the other tracks that I do have recorded. I would love to be able to use some outboard gear in this way ... it would complete me!
 
Erockrazor said:
I figure if I take the method I was saying, there wouldn't be much signal degradation when bouncing straight to two tracks. I figured I can route the 2 stereo tracks back into the interface as my mixdown. Doing this while not altering the other tracks that I do have recorded. I would love to be able to use some outboard gear in this way ... it would complete me!
Click to expand...
Then give it a go. Imo, it's a lot more hassle than it's worth. A control surface makes things a whole lot easier. You can spend a lot more time perfecting the track, with automation, than trying to mix everything in real time. It is also much easier adding effects, although you could probably add the effects in the box, then route back to the mixer. Have fun with it though. :D
 
lowbudgetrecord said:
Where did you guys learn all of this??????
Click to expand...
I don't really know. I went to college and learned a bit about music tech, and i knew a bit before. But i basically just work it out as i go along, so it isn't really something learned. You just have to learn to use mixing desks etc, then you basically know how to do things you've never done before by just thinking about it.

Obviously there is a hell of a lot of stuff you can learn though, and a lot of what i know was learned here at HR bbs.
 
pandamonk said:
Then give it a go. Imo, it's a lot more hassle than it's worth. A control surface makes things a whole lot easier. You can spend a lot more time perfecting the track, with automation, than trying to mix everything in real time. It is also much easier adding effects, although you could probably add the effects in the box, then route back to the mixer. Have fun with it though. :D
Click to expand...


I've done it this way..


any effects were just added in the box and levels and eq were run on my mixer.. I discovered that it really isn't the best choice for me until I get a bigger mixer. i only have a yamaha mg 12 which means I can only work with a very limited amount of channels at a time. This defeats the purpose really if you have 8 channels for drums 4 for guitars (2 or 3 electric or 2 e and 1 acoustic with a bass track) plus vocal tracks.. also very limiting when you wanna use the distortion and cleans on seperate tracks.. I wouldn't do it this way again until I get a big enough board.
 
Unless you can afford a desk with a decent number of channels, that offers some sonic character to a mix, there isn't much point, as you lose automation (one of the big losses in my mind). Plus, the amount of money you would have to spend to get something that would actually make your time worthwhile would be fairly high (i.e. something that is more than a couple hundred bucks). Just one man's opinion :)
 
eeb said:
I've done it this way..


any effects were just added in the box and levels and eq were run on my mixer.. I discovered that it really isn't the best choice for me until I get a bigger mixer. i only have a yamaha mg 12 which means I can only work with a very limited amount of channels at a time. This defeats the purpose really if you have 8 channels for drums 4 for guitars (2 or 3 electric or 2 e and 1 acoustic with a bass track) plus vocal tracks.. also very limiting when you wanna use the distortion and cleans on seperate tracks.. I wouldn't do it this way again until I get a big enough board.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and enough outputs. I'd suggest at least 16, but probably more.
 
cusebassman said:
Unless you can afford a desk with a decent number of channels, that offers some sonic character to a mix, there isn't much point, as you lose automation (one of the big losses in my mind). Plus, the amount of money you would have to spend to get something that would actually make your time worthwhile would be fairly high (i.e. something that is more than a couple hundred bucks). Just one man's opinion :)
Click to expand...
I agree, but he did ask :D
 
pandamonk said:
I agree, but he did ask :D
Click to expand...

He did indeed :) And that actually explains how I learned a lot of this stuff (since he also asked about that) - by simply reading a LOT on this site and others. Asked some questions, read about a lot of things I didn't think I even had much interest in, and a lot of that info came in handy down the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top