The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-26-2020, 11:45 PM
ethanay ethanay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: TBD
Posts: 171
Default very simple, compact analog-style recording and mixing signal chain and workflow?

TLDR

I'm looking to put together my first dedicated (literally, tiny!) music production space. It will mostly be focused on composition, arrangement, recording and mixing physical instruments (keys, bass, drums, guitars, mando, etc; electric and acoustic). Some super-simple solo instrumentals (I have a 30 minute concerto for solo guitar that I composed in 2015 and I still need to record) up to some more complex poppy multi-instrumental arrangements with vocals. All sorts of stuff, folky, bluesy, jazzy, funky, poppy, rocky, groovy. You know, music. The space is literally tiny, as in it's literall in one corner of a tiny house. I have a section of 7 feet of wall space, and part of that will be taken up by a fairly nice digital furniture-style piano. I will line the walls above and to the side with shelves and am thinking about designing a flip-down standing desk for a workspace. The rest of the space has other instruments/furniture but could house some outboard gear on shelves, etc. Nick Batzdorf knows about this, I was going to buy or build one of his VI composer's desks until we had to downsize our tiny house and I had to go back to the drawing board

I'm finding that I don't really do well with DAWs, symptoms: distracting and frustrating, inconsistent and unreliable and so I haven't been able to get as much work done on my solo projects as I've wanted. ONE of the problems is a vicious cycle: every time I try to get "in the box" I feel like the box chews me up and spits me out. And I think a part of that is that I just need a bit more tactile experience with recording and mixing OTB. Another issue might be that I've never had the luxury of a dedicated DAW computer. It's always been a multi-use laptop. I really want an analog-style multitrack workflow for recording, mixing and mastering, as much outside the computer as possible. I want knobs and buttons, not screens. I want one function per feature, not 7 (with 6 hidden). I want dedicated hardware. That's the gain knob. That's all it does. That's the variable Q knob. That's all it does. That's the threshold knob. That's all it does.

I currently have a Avantone CK7 into Tapco Mix60 that I run into a Tascam DP-006, which would be near-perfect (if a little cramped) for my current needs if it had 24-bit recording and the ability to route a submix of individual tracks or stems for mono or stereo processing through an outboard M/S matrix, compressor, EQ and FX (track-assignable stereo inserts??). But it only has stereo/dual mono in and stereo master out and of course the DAC is IMO an afterthought because I'm supposed to dump my tracks into a computer and I've avoided and tried and avoided and tried.

I don't need a ton of tracks -- minimum stereo recording and a minimum of 6 mono (3 stereo) playback for the MTR, and a minimum of 4 mono/2 stereo outs because I won't be mixing more than a mono or stereo signal (individual mono or stereo tracks or mono or stereo stems) at a time, but need to do so "in context" of the rest of the signal. So if I can't have the entire MTR project playing at once, then I can at least have a mixdown of it (with or without the specific target tracks being mixed). And for recording I can always bounce and mix down

I was thinking of a little stereo/dual mono 500-series kit (e.g., dbx 560a compressors + dbx 530 EQ behind something like an IGS Bison M/S module up front) maybe with the Zoom L12 (which looks like it can do 4 analog outputs) as the mixer/MTR/mic pres and something like the TC Electronics M100 for outboard signal processing. The Zoom L series seems to be the only MTR/mixer I can find that has latency compensation for DAC/ADC and outboard DSP and the ability to route submixes for outboard processing, but I also need to confirm that. From what I've read on these forums, latency is less an issue compared to a workflow that is constantly doing ADC and DAC. I don't want to assemble such a system only to find that I have latency and misalignment issues or I'm screwing my sound simply by mixing it! I was hoping maybe someone with more experience can shed some light on this.

How I imagine that process will look for me is a multi-track recorder/mixer hooked up to something like a 6-slot 500-series module bay that has a stereo mid-side processor (IGS Bison) feeding a compressor/limiter (dbx 560a) and parametric EQ (dbx 530) x 2. (so the linear chain is M-S > compressor > EQ > compressor > EQ). This will give me some mid-side mix processing (the Bison has inserts on it so I only need one, thankfully!), the ability to mix stereo or dual mono tracks in parallel, and also the ability to sandwich EQ > compression > EQ or compression > EQ > compression for mono tracks that really need it, without needing to repatch the module order on the chassis (which is also an easy possibility). I'm not looking for "magic" so much as "bang for buck" flexible tools that do several things well. Adequate and effective. Accessible. And a known quantity. Physical. Tactile. Visible. The psychological aspect of this for me is huge. A DAW is so abstract and I have yet hear of someone who hasn't had a noticeable buffer xrun in the middle of a project for no apparent reason, even on dedicated systems.

Ideally, I really want to try to learn a nice, concise and reliable and stable analog-style workflow that lets me focus on my arrangements/recording/performance before I attempt to go back into learning and working with the more abstract, less tangible complexities of a computer-based DAW. I enjoy pushing buttons, twisting knobs and tweaking faders and don't want a keyboard or mouse or tons of menus involved in the process yet. To me, this is analogous to a composition workflow valuing the importance of abstaining from notating anything, for example, until the idea is really well developed and clear in your head. If you go to notation too quickly, you engage the wrong part of your brain and lose the creative thread. I've felt that sort of thing happen to me when I've "gone into the DAW" with too little analog-style recording and mixing experience. I just get lost and shut down and the creation stops and I hide behind my unrecorded lead sheets and instruments...which means I compose more! But I'm not getting anything finished and it's piled up for YEARS

So, apart from the sonic possibilities of imparting an "analog sound" to a recording, I think one of the greatest real-world uses of analog mixing combined with digital recording is psychological and pedagogical for those of us (me) who have a lot to learn about the fundamentals. So if I really drill down, here, I want a very tactile, limited non-digital analog-feeling experience (even if it is digital) that helps me stay focused and doesn't overwhelm me on the front end. I don't necessarily want all the A/D D/A, latency, etc. Maybe the latency isn't really an issue. Maybe the D/A A/D won't be anything worse than a Beatle's or Hendrix record. Modern sound quality is pretty amazing. I can't help but wonder what the engineers who recorded Wes Montgomery's Full House album with a literal truckload of equipment would think about today's offerings from Tascam and Zoom (e.g., the Model 12 and L12, respectively). I doubt they would turn their noses up at something like that or complain about mic pre quality! I am willing to consider a dedicated computer setup if it can acheive that experience of dedicated knobs and buttons for a focused workflow and completely forget I'm working on a computer. As in, display optional. Turn it off and mix with the ears. That sort of thing. I'm good with computers, but don't want to be. I don't know. I feel like a sonic babe in the digital woods here. Haven't set a budget yet.

Please. Haalllpp?

I've written a lot more on this topic while researching. This is already the TLDR. Apologies. But also you're welcome for not dumping the full-length version onto you. It does have more colorful language...

Last edited by ethanay; 05-26-2020 at 11:47 PM. Reason: adding yet more info that I'm apparently supposed to have in there
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-27-2020, 07:04 AM
Rudy4 Rudy4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanay View Post
TLDR

I'm looking to put together my first dedicated (literally, tiny!) music production space. It will mostly be focused on composition, arrangement, recording and mixing physical instruments (keys, bass, drums, guitars, mando, etc; electric and acoustic). Some super-simple solo instrumentals (I have a 30 minute concerto for solo guitar that I composed in 2015 and I still need to record) up to some more complex poppy multi-instrumental arrangements with vocals. All sorts of stuff, folky, bluesy, jazzy, funky, poppy, rocky, groovy. You know, music. The space is literally tiny, as in it's literall in one corner of a tiny house. I have a section of 7 feet of wall space, and part of that will be taken up by a fairly nice digital furniture-style piano. I will line the walls above and to the side with shelves and am thinking about designing a flip-down standing desk for a workspace. The rest of the space has other instruments/furniture but could house some outboard gear on shelves, etc. Nick Batzdorf knows about this, I was going to buy or build one of his VI composer's desks until we had to downsize our tiny house and I had to go back to the drawing board

I'm finding that I don't really do well with DAWs, symptoms: distracting and frustrating, inconsistent and unreliable and so I haven't been able to get as much work done on my solo projects as I've wanted. ONE of the problems is a vicious cycle: every time I try to get "in the box" I feel like the box chews me up and spits me out. And I think a part of that is that I just need a bit more tactile experience with recording and mixing OTB. Another issue might be that I've never had the luxury of a dedicated DAW computer. It's always been a multi-use laptop. I really want an analog-style multitrack workflow for recording, mixing and mastering, as much outside the computer as possible. I want knobs and buttons, not screens. I want one function per feature, not 7 (with 6 hidden). I want dedicated hardware. That's the gain knob. That's all it does. That's the variable Q knob. That's all it does. That's the threshold knob. That's all it does.

I currently have a Avantone CK7 into Tapco Mix60 that I run into a Tascam DP-006, which would be near-perfect (if a little cramped) for my current needs if it had 24-bit recording and the ability to route a submix of individual tracks or stems for mono or stereo processing through an outboard M/S matrix, compressor, EQ and FX (track-assignable stereo inserts??). But it only has stereo/dual mono in and stereo master out and of course the DAC is IMO an afterthought because I'm supposed to dump my tracks into a computer and I've avoided and tried and avoided and tried.

I don't need a ton of tracks -- minimum stereo recording and a minimum of 6 mono (3 stereo) playback for the MTR, and a minimum of 4 mono/2 stereo outs because I won't be mixing more than a mono or stereo signal (individual mono or stereo tracks or mono or stereo stems) at a time, but need to do so "in context" of the rest of the signal. So if I can't have the entire MTR project playing at once, then I can at least have a mixdown of it (with or without the specific target tracks being mixed). And for recording I can always bounce and mix down

I was thinking of a little stereo/dual mono 500-series kit (e.g., dbx 560a compressors + dbx 530 EQ behind something like an IGS Bison M/S module up front) maybe with the Zoom L12 (which looks like it can do 4 analog outputs) as the mixer/MTR/mic pres and something like the TC Electronics M100 for outboard signal processing. The Zoom L series seems to be the only MTR/mixer I can find that has latency compensation for DAC/ADC and outboard DSP and the ability to route submixes for outboard processing, but I also need to confirm that. From what I've read on these forums, latency is less an issue compared to a workflow that is constantly doing ADC and DAC. I don't want to assemble such a system only to find that I have latency and misalignment issues or I'm screwing my sound simply by mixing it! I was hoping maybe someone with more experience can shed some light on this.

How I imagine that process will look for me is a multi-track recorder/mixer hooked up to something like a 6-slot 500-series module bay that has a stereo mid-side processor (IGS Bison) feeding a compressor/limiter (dbx 560a) and parametric EQ (dbx 530) x 2. (so the linear chain is M-S > compressor > EQ > compressor > EQ). This will give me some mid-side mix processing (the Bison has inserts on it so I only need one, thankfully!), the ability to mix stereo or dual mono tracks in parallel, and also the ability to sandwich EQ > compression > EQ or compression > EQ > compression for mono tracks that really need it, without needing to repatch the module order on the chassis (which is also an easy possibility). I'm not looking for "magic" so much as "bang for buck" flexible tools that do several things well. Adequate and effective. Accessible. And a known quantity. Physical. Tactile. Visible. The psychological aspect of this for me is huge. A DAW is so abstract and I have yet hear of someone who hasn't had a noticeable buffer xrun in the middle of a project for no apparent reason, even on dedicated systems.

Ideally, I really want to try to learn a nice, concise and reliable and stable analog-style workflow that lets me focus on my arrangements/recording/performance before I attempt to go back into learning and working with the more abstract, less tangible complexities of a computer-based DAW. I enjoy pushing buttons, twisting knobs and tweaking faders and don't want a keyboard or mouse or tons of menus involved in the process yet. To me, this is analogous to a composition workflow valuing the importance of abstaining from notating anything, for example, until the idea is really well developed and clear in your head. If you go to notation too quickly, you engage the wrong part of your brain and lose the creative thread. I've felt that sort of thing happen to me when I've "gone into the DAW" with too little analog-style recording and mixing experience. I just get lost and shut down and the creation stops and I hide behind my unrecorded lead sheets and instruments...which means I compose more! But I'm not getting anything finished and it's piled up for YEARS

So, apart from the sonic possibilities of imparting an "analog sound" to a recording, I think one of the greatest real-world uses of analog mixing combined with digital recording is psychological and pedagogical for those of us (me) who have a lot to learn about the fundamentals. So if I really drill down, here, I want a very tactile, limited non-digital analog-feeling experience (even if it is digital) that helps me stay focused and doesn't overwhelm me on the front end. I don't necessarily want all the A/D D/A, latency, etc. Maybe the latency isn't really an issue. Maybe the D/A A/D won't be anything worse than a Beatle's or Hendrix record. Modern sound quality is pretty amazing. I can't help but wonder what the engineers who recorded Wes Montgomery's Full House album with a literal truckload of equipment would think about today's offerings from Tascam and Zoom (e.g., the Model 12 and L12, respectively). I doubt they would turn their noses up at something like that or complain about mic pre quality! I am willing to consider a dedicated computer setup if it can acheive that experience of dedicated knobs and buttons for a focused workflow and completely forget I'm working on a computer. As in, display optional. Turn it off and mix with the ears. That sort of thing. I'm good with computers, but don't want to be. I don't know. I feel like a sonic babe in the digital woods here. Haven't set a budget yet.

Please. Haalllpp?

I've written a lot more on this topic while researching. This is already the TLDR. Apologies. But also you're welcome for not dumping the full-length version onto you. It does have more colorful language...
So pick up a multi-tracker (I like my Zoom R24 just fine...) and do the creative work without getting bogged down in the minutia. It only takes a couple of feet of space to create a useful and creative work environment. "Menus" are minimally necessary for selecting a new project and are unnecessary to the creative process. Tascam and others also make comparable multi-trackers, just make sure you can record with 24 bit resolution. The ability to route output to multiple locations isn't going to hone your creativity, or any of the other stuff that serves to over-complicate the process of making.

Once you get proficient with actually producing a completed composition that you're happy with you can THEN refine your process with as much of the fairy dust as you want.

I once had a friend that observed that I was guilty of the over-thinking just about everything I turned my attention to. He summed it up by saying "Don't be so heavenly-bound that you end up being no earthly good".

It helped to convert me from someone who "does" rather than someone who expends excessive amounts of energy "thinking about doing".

Last edited by Rudy4; 05-27-2020 at 07:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-27-2020, 07:47 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,884
Default

Boy I don't know ??


Understanding you state being frustrated trying to use a DAW (yes there is a definite learning curve )
And Since I personally prefer Analog to digital sound wise I include an analog front end and a couple FX in my system.
BUT unfortunately
The complexity of your stated goals and types of music and multi instrument arrangements, and the gear you are talking about IMO literally scream for a DAW to actually "simplify" things in the long run.

In other words what you are describing "in total" is just as likely if not more to distract from creativity in analog, as it is in digital. And possibly your anticipated analog cure may be worse than the digital disease. ? Not trying to change your mind just suggesting step back and perhaps reconsider. Hard to say for certain because everybody is different ...

Also I have no clue what this statement means ?
Quote:
" A DAW is so abstract and I have yet hear of someone who hasn't had a noticeable buffer xrun in the middle of a project for no apparent reason, even on dedicated systems."
Could you explain what a "buffer xrun" is ????? if you are talking about a buffer "error" ( not able to load audio fast enough) stoping playback ? In 17 years I would say the times that has happened to me is less than 10 total, and always during playback never recording, and always because I forgot to increase the buffer size for complex arrangements during mixing and playback... User Error !!!!


Just sayin'
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1

Last edited by KevWind; 05-27-2020 at 08:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-27-2020, 10:58 PM
ethanay ethanay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: TBD
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy4 View Post
So pick up a multi-tracker (I like my Zoom R24 just fine...) and do the creative work without getting bogged down in the minutia. It only takes a couple of feet of space to create a useful and creative work environment.

Once you get proficient with actually producing a completed composition that you're happy with you can THEN refine your process with as much of the fairy dust as you want.
Do you mean re-record, or do you export the entire project, or stems, or a stereo into DAW for the finishing touches / "fairy dust?"

Quote:
I once had a friend that observed that I was guilty of the over-thinking just about everything I turned my attention to. He summed it up by saying "Don't be so heavenly-bound that you end up being no earthly good".

It helped to convert me from someone who "does" rather than someone who expends excessive amounts of energy "thinking about doing".
I like that quote, thank you! That is actually part of the larger tiny house project and we are also "Marie Kondo'ing" (The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up) our lives. This is part of a much larger process of simplifying and streamlining our lives so we can focus on what truly matters. That's part of why I'm posting here, to get this sort of feedback and keep me honest and I appreciate the feedback and input.

So, yes, I agree with you, that is my same goal, but I would also like a little bit of grace in that I am in the midst of making a TON of intensive decisions about keep/get rid of/replace, with music gear but also EVERYTHING (clothes, furniture, books, kitchen equipment, etc). It's exhilarating but exhausting at the same time! But we are keeping our eyes on the prize and that clarity of vision is helping us through.

I just felt really stuck and muddled about these sorts of decisions and this input is really helping to lend me some much-needed clarity.

What you said above is reinforcing a lot of my intuition that I was second-guessing, I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Boy I don't know ??

Understanding you state being frustrated trying to use a DAW (yes there is a definite learning curve )
And Since I personally prefer Analog to digital sound wise I include an analog front end and a couple FX in my system.
I'd love to learn more about your "analog front-end and couple FX" if you could speak in more detail about that?

Quote:
BUT unfortunately
The complexity of your stated goals and types of music and multi instrument arrangements, and the gear you are talking about IMO literally scream for a DAW to actually "simplify" things in the long run.

In other words what you are describing "in total" is just as likely if not more to distract from creativity in analog, as it is in digital. And possibly your anticipated analog cure may be worse than the digital disease. ? Not trying to change your mind just suggesting step back and perhaps reconsider. Hard to say for certain because everybody is different ...
Yes, I've gotten that feedback from multiple people, and I'm listening to it and giving it very serious consideration. I was wondering if you could ground this a bit for me and speak more specifically to the problems that you see arising? Thank you!

Quote:
Also I have no clue what this statement means ?
Could you explain what a "buffer xrun" is ????? if you are talking about a buffer "error" ( not able to load audio fast enough) stoping playback ? In 17 years I would say the times that has happened to me is less than 10 total, and always during playback never recording, and always because I forgot to increase the buffer size for complex arrangements during mixing and playback... User Error !!!!


Just sayin'
Thank you for sharing your experience! Do you use a purpose-built computer for your DAW, or does your computer do double duty? I think part of my problem may have been that I've been trying to have a laptop that is both our home laptop as well as my music production laptop. There's a bit of tug of war there...

xrun: x is a variable, so it's short for buffer underrun or buffer overrun. A buffer underrun is when the CPU fails to fill the buffer quickly enough with new data. A buffer overrun is when the CPU fails to process the data in the buffer fast enough to route it to where it needs to go in time, so the last bit of the buffer gets dropped.

Yes, maybe that's part of my problem is trying to mix at too low of a latency. But also (this was mostly a problem with Windows, less a problem with Linux and Mac), not feeling like I could depend on and trust the computer to record without any xruns ruining an otherwise-perfectly good take. What latency settings do you find stable and usable for mixing and also recording process? I don't have a sense of what the "real world" uses and expectations for latency are, I see people mostly bragging about how low their latency can go or complaining that they can't go low enough without getting xruns and running out of DSP.

I don't think I'll ever feel the need to go greater than 48khz sample rate @ 24 bit depth, I'm not sure I see the point of the higher resolutions and bit depths except maybe for D/A and A/D conversion. Definitely 32-bit floating point for processing.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-28-2020, 12:15 AM
phcorrigan phcorrigan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 2,415
Default

Not exactly what you've specified, but looks like it would meet your criteria for simplicity:

https://www.izotope.com/en/products/...0aAvS6EALw_wcB

There are a couple of message threads about it here.
__________________
Patrick

2012 Martin HD-28V
1984 Martin Shenandoah D-2832
2018 Gretsch G5420TG
Oscar Schmidt Autoharp, unknown vintage
ToneDexter
Bugera V22 Infinium
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-28-2020, 01:46 AM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

I gotta say, just reading all that sounds *complex*, and my first thought would be that dealing with all that would get in the way of just making music. I'd think you could handle everything you need with a computer and a decent interface. Add a control surface if you want tactile mixing feel. If you want an analog front end, add an analog preamp.

I wonder if you've encountered the wrong software. I don't get the stuff about buttons doing multiple things, for example. I use mostly UAD plugins, which have control interfaces that look and act exactly like the hardware (and sound great). Each button does one thing, just like the equivalent hardware. All the concerns about buffering and so on, just seems like your computer is underpowered or your settings are wrong. Latency should also not be a substantial issue with any modern DAW (ProTools, Logic, Luna, StudioOne, etc) and a good interface.

A recent desktop computer with a good-sized screen, say an iMac, with a good interface, maybe a UAD Apollo (so you can take advantage of their plugins, which sound and operate very "analog"), a good set of monitors, and a few solid mics should be a simple, clean and great sounding setup that offers virtually no distraction from creating music.

My setup tends to grow tentacles, but it comes down to preamp->interface->Mac + mics and speakers. I have everything set up, including mics. Going from "I should record this", to actually tracking takes a few seconds, as long as I don't get distracted reading AGF or something...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-28-2020, 07:53 AM
Rudy4 Rudy4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,796
Default

Do you mean re-record, or do you export the entire project, or stems, or a stereo into DAW for the finishing touches / "fairy dust?"
**************
Everyone finds their personal comfort level with doing projects, so your exact methodology is going to be different from mine. My process is really two-pronged, as I love the simplicity of the multi-tracker for audio capture. It works each and every time and frees you from all of the distractions of using a computer-based system when your mental capacity is better used for the creative process. I use this same process for everything, from multi-tracking by myself to recording live projects for other folks who have 4 or 5 piece bands.

The second part of the process is dumping the raw 44.1khz 24 bit tracks to my PC where it's easy to do editing. That can be as simple as mixing levels, topping and tailing tracks, and applying fade ins and fade outs. At that point you can render to wav, mp3, or anything else that you may wish to use. Even the live band stuff is normally less than 16 tracks, so no stems required. Part of the entire process for me is "Keeping things simple".

The "fairy dust" would normally be all the other audio enhancements that you might (or might not...) want to add to the process. Typical for me might be EQ, reverbs, or mastering plug ins applied before rendering.

For me, the important elements are what frees me up from the computer so I can record when and where I choose to. The computer comes later, when you can best use it for what it is best at.

**************
I like that quote, thank you! That is actually part of the larger tiny house project and we are also "Marie Kondo'ing" (The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up) our lives. This is part of a much larger process of simplifying and streamlining our lives so we can focus on what truly matters. That's part of why I'm posting here, to get this sort of feedback and keep me honest and I appreciate the feedback and input.

So, yes, I agree with you, that is my same goal, but I would also like a little bit of grace in that I am in the midst of making a TON of intensive decisions about keep/get rid of/replace, with music gear but also EVERYTHING (clothes, furniture, books, kitchen equipment, etc). It's exhilarating but exhausting at the same time! But we are keeping our eyes on the prize and that clarity of vision is helping us through.

I just felt really stuck and muddled about these sorts of decisions and this input is really helping to lend me some much-needed clarity.

What you said above is reinforcing a lot of my intuition that I was second-guessing, I suppose.

**********************

Nothing wrong with Kondo'ing your entire life, as well as the audio portion of your life. I think we can ALL benefit to looking at all the stuff we have accumulated and asking the "Does this bring me joy?" question.

I've done the same cleansing process (...more than once!) in my life and found it to be truly cathartic. One of the adaptive methods I personally used was the result of asking myself what to do with all of the items that I really wasn't using but couldn't bear to discard. I placed many of those things in boxes and stored them for the next year. It's much easier to shed those items after giving them a one year "cooling off" period. If you haven't used them in a year then it's easier to move the boxes onward. I like to take them to our local humane society yearly "Garage Sale", the proceeds greatly offsetting their operating expenses for the following year.

Last edited by Rudy4; 05-28-2020 at 08:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-30-2020, 07:24 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,884
Default

My Analog front end, is not completely dissimilar from what you are proposing in your OP but actually less complex ...

Only three outboard (of DAW) pieces,,, 2 analog, one digital

#1 A Designs MP2A two channel tube mic pre.

#2 IGS Tubecore 3U two channel Mastering compressor. Always sits on my mix bus while mixing.
But I also may use it double duty for recording after the mic pre.

#3 Bricasti M7 stereo (2 channel) reverb processor mostly use it mixing seldom feel the need on recording.

I find the Pro Tools bundled plugin EQ (which I usually only use for subtractive EQ ) to be adequate, so I have not yet gone to an external analog EQ option

I use a dedicated studio computer but a regular Mac Pro Mid 2010 But I have upgraded the graphics card and the disc hard drives to PCIe SSD's

x run OK Yes buffer errors .
Buffer settings :
I tend to record @ 32 samples and do not get errors while recording one or two tracks at a time. But IMO you can easily record at 64 and not have any ground shaking delay to worry about, at 128 you may notice a bit but IMO also not disorienting (More like hearing yourself acoustically in a live room) at 256 and higher I do begin to notice unwanted delay.

Generally I do not reset for mixing unless I get an error (usually only with 8-10 or more tracks) and it is not an issue (no loss if it stops while playing back ) to just reset to 500 or 1024

Also most DAWs and interfaces offering input monitoring for recording which lets you hear yourself before any noticeable system delay

Imo the advantage of using a DAW or Hybrid DAW analog system is the vast flexibility in internal signal routing, huge access to multiple FX, and having pre existing templates with everything all set up = routing, levels , Fx etc. . So all you need to to do is > launch the DAW, select the template, and hit record..... I think a complex analog system would be not be as fast a path to getting to recording and creativity
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1

Last edited by KevWind; 05-30-2020 at 07:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-30-2020, 08:15 AM
paulp1960 paulp1960 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,055
Default

The OP said himself that space is at a premium. You can't get a much simpler setup than a computer, DAW software, audio interface and a bunch of microphones, headphones and a good quality monitoring solution. Not forgetting the all important room treatments.

I think in the early days of digital recording when AD convertors were only 16 bit there was a tendency to use analog compression and or limiting before the AD convertor to help get a "hot" signal recorded. I think with today's 24 bit recording we don't need to worry so much about using as many bits as possible.

I use Logic Pro X on Mac computers and it's a very reliable setup. I don't find myself fighting the system at all. It helps me to make music and be a better player. I think OP should get over the fear of the computer. Nearly all music is recorded on computers these days. I don't see how something like a 24 track Zoom recorder could be much simpler than using my DAW.
__________________
Yamaha AC3M Acoustic Guitar
Gretch G5220 Electromatic
Squier Classic Vibe 50s Telecaster
Squier Vintage Modified Telecaster Special
Yamaha BB414 Bass

Last edited by paulp1960; 05-30-2020 at 10:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-09-2020, 12:10 AM
ethanay ethanay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: TBD
Posts: 171
Default

Thank you all for taking the time to read and post your input. It has given me a lot of food for thought. I have "bitten the bullet" so to speak and bought a copy of Harrison Mixbus to play around with and learn. I'm not sure I will feel the need to upgrade to the 32c version.

One of my concerns is that I absolutely hate mouse-based control interfaces. But https://rucoproaudio.com solves that for me. I have a message out to Russell to see if a RuControl + expansion modules will allow me direct control over the interface without having to mouse mix. I really like the knobbiness of it.

IMO most control surfaces completely miss the mark and are fader-focused, even to the point of expecting you to use the faders to adjust on-screen knobs. I think the reverse is much easier and more intuitive. Plus, I really don't mind pushing faders with the mouse as much as I mind "twisting knobs" with a mouse. I want to grab a knob and hear the difference, not have to click and hold and draw abstract shapes on screen.

Another part of the issue is that I'm recovering from lifelong chronic illness. I'm 36 and only found successful treatment ~6 years ago. I am just getting to the point now where I can finally think about recording compositions that have been building up. Pandemics aside, I don't know whether playing live will be an option for me again, but I would at least like to share recorded music. And hopefully recover enough to have consistent enough health

I find the entire music production process fascinating. But I consider myself a composer/arranger/musician first, producer and engineer second. I worry that I'm spreading myself thin by trying to do too much, but also recognize I might have a skewed sense of what's realistic due to spending so many years exhausted, disoriented and in chronic physical pain.

I also like the analog domain in that it provides very clear limits. I have a tendency to learn my equipment inside and out, so I need to impose limits on myself, learn deeply and perform well vs feel spread too thin by too many options.

I also come from IT and so I have a sense of how fickle all computer workstations can be (Windows, Mac, even Linux, everything has glitches due to the networked complexity). But I am questioning my (earned?) paranoia and cynicism here thanks to gentle pushback from you all, thank you for that.

I am really looking for the shortest distance between my finished arrangements and a decent stereo mix that gets out of the way enough for listeners to enjoy the song. Computer-based work often feels distracting to me, I have found that dedicated hardware seems to "hold me accountable to focus" more than multi-purpose hardware/software, so that is an ongoing concern I will need to address.

I will respond individually. But I just wanted to give a general thank you and update for reading and giving input, and let you know I'm taking it all very seriously into consideration.

I am biting the bullet and giving the DAW serious reconsideration. I am limiting myself to the built-in Harrison plugins as well as two additional sets of plugin packs from EQ10 (http://eq10q.sourceforge.net/) and CALF (https://calf-studio-gear.org/). It's way more than I need and I might never move beyond the built-in plugins.

Thank you!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-09-2020, 12:13 AM
ethanay ethanay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: TBD
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phcorrigan View Post
Not exactly what you've specified, but looks like it would meet your criteria for simplicity:

https://www.izotope.com/en/products/...0aAvS6EALw_wcB

There are a couple of message threads about it here.

This looks really interesting, thank you for putting it on my radar! I will search out those message threads and take a closer look.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-09-2020, 12:29 AM
ethanay ethanay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: TBD
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
A recent desktop computer with a good-sized screen, say an iMac, with a good interface, maybe a UAD Apollo (so you can take advantage of their plugins, which sound and operate very "analog"), a good set of monitors, and a few solid mics should be a simple, clean and great sounding setup that offers virtually no distraction from creating music.

My setup tends to grow tentacles, but it comes down to preamp->interface->Mac + mics and speakers. I have everything set up, including mics. Going from "I should record this", to actually tracking takes a few seconds, as long as I don't get distracted reading AGF or something...

That is what I am trying to do. First, with a laptop, which I acknowledge is more hit and miss, but would work better in terms of form factor overall. If I can get it to work reliably enough then it will be on a stand with a dedicated 24" or 27" screen above it so I can have a dual monitor setup.


Designing and setting up the space itself is going to be tricky. I have 7 x 7.5' mezzanine, which will also have a 54" sectional couch and a digital furniture piano (which is very important for my composition process, as important as an acoustic guitar or mandolin or my bass or my voice).


All joking aside, the "as long as I don't get distracted" part is pretty huge for me, coming from a background of sometimes being bedridden for days or even weeks. My Tascam DP-006 doesn't let me browse the internet and that is a wonderful thing!


I would use it to track everything if it could record 24 bit. I just finished doing quite a bit of research on the history of bit depth and I feel less concerned considering 16 bits still offers more capture headroom and dynamic range than was available on even some of the most iconic recordings in history. Given that everything in the DAW happens at 32+ bit floating point and modern DAWs seem to take steps to mitigate compounding rounding errors and aliasing, I feel less concerned about throwing (well-recorded) 16 bit 44.1khz tracks into the mix.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-09-2020, 12:42 AM
ethanay ethanay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: TBD
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy4 View Post
Do you mean re-record, or do you export the entire project, or stems, or a stereo into DAW for the finishing touches / "fairy dust?"

I am still sorting that out. Ref my reply to Doug Young, I am considering doing my MTR via my DP-006 for the same reasons as you, and then dumping them into the DAW for the final mix / master. I like that workflow as the unit has no EQ or compression, so my focus is on getting mic placement, performance and gain staging right.



I had concerns about doing that at first as the unit is "only" 16-bit 44.1khz, but I just listened to a few great explanations about how DAWs handle data during their DSP calculations to avoid unnecessary rounding errors or aliasing, and even when that stuff happens, it is often unperceptible in the finished product.

Quote:
**************
Everyone finds their personal comfort level with doing projects, so your exact methodology is going to be different from mine. My process is really two-pronged, as I love the simplicity of the multi-tracker for audio capture. It works each and every time and frees you from all of the distractions of using a computer-based system when your mental capacity is better used for the creative process. I use this same process for everything, from multi-tracking by myself to recording live projects for other folks who have 4 or 5 piece bands.

The second part of the process is dumping the raw 44.1khz 24 bit tracks to my PC where it's easy to do editing. That can be as simple as mixing levels, topping and tailing tracks, and applying fade ins and fade outs. At that point you can render to wav, mp3, or anything else that you may wish to use. Even the live band stuff is normally less than 16 tracks, so no stems required. Part of the entire process for me is "Keeping things simple".

The "fairy dust" would normally be all the other audio enhancements that you might (or might not...) want to add to the process. Typical for me might be EQ, reverbs, or mastering plug ins applied before rendering.

For me, the important elements are what frees me up from the computer so I can record when and where I choose to. The computer comes later, when you can best use it for what it is best at.
As much as I find the whole production process fascinating and interesting, I don't want to spend a ton of time in the mix and master process. I'd rather focus most of my energy on composition, arrangement, performance, and recording. I made a diagram reflecting this: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wrTKq1N9CJo3tBnm9


Quote:
Nothing wrong with Kondo'ing your entire life, as well as the audio portion of your life. I think we can ALL benefit to looking at all the stuff we have accumulated and asking the "Does this bring me joy?" question.

I've done the same cleansing process (...more than once!) in my life and found it to be truly cathartic. One of the adaptive methods I personally used was the result of asking myself what to do with all of the items that I really wasn't using but couldn't bear to discard. I placed many of those things in boxes and stored them for the next year. It's much easier to shed those items after giving them a one year "cooling off" period. If you haven't used them in a year then it's easier to move the boxes onward. I like to take them to our local humane society yearly "Garage Sale", the proceeds greatly offsetting their operating expenses for the following year.

Yes! It can get overwhelming, but the results speak for (and often pay for) themselves in so many ways. We also practice Holistic Decision Making, the core part of which is creating a "context" that succinctly expresses your core values and quality of life and allows you to make sound decisions in complex and uncertain circumstances and have found it really helpful, e.g., in the tidying process. Clarity doesn't come easy, though. My thinking on music workflow has been clear as mud, but it feels like the sediment is starting to settle back down to the bottom of the jar again
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-09-2020, 03:26 AM
ethanay ethanay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: TBD
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
My Analog front end, is not completely dissimilar from what you are proposing in your OP but actually less complex ...

Only three outboard (of DAW) pieces,,, 2 analog, one digital

#1 A Designs MP2A two channel tube mic pre.

#2 IGS Tubecore 3U two channel Mastering compressor. Always sits on my mix bus while mixing.
But I also may use it double duty for recording after the mic pre.

#3 Bricasti M7 stereo (2 channel) reverb processor mostly use it mixing seldom feel the need on recording.

Whoa! this is some nice gear. It might make sense for me to add eg the TC Electronics M100 as an aux send on my mixer going into my MTR so I can get some reverb or delay on a monitor feed, I hadn't thought about that yet. Or maybe I'll replace that setup with the Spire Studio if it's really as good as it claims.


Quote:
I find the Pro Tools bundled plugin EQ (which I usually only use for subtractive EQ ) to be adequate, so I have not yet gone to an external analog EQ option

I use a dedicated studio computer but a regular Mac Pro Mid 2010 But I have upgraded the graphics card and the disc hard drives to PCIe SSD's

x run OK Yes buffer errors .
Buffer settings :
I tend to record @ 32 samples and do not get errors while recording one or two tracks at a time. But IMO you can easily record at 64 and not have any ground shaking delay to worry about, at 128 you may notice a bit but IMO also not disorienting (More like hearing yourself acoustically in a live room) at 256 and higher I do begin to notice unwanted delay.

Generally I do not reset for mixing unless I get an error (usually only with 8-10 or more tracks) and it is not an issue (no loss if it stops while playing back ) to just reset to 500 or 1024

Also most DAWs and interfaces offering input monitoring for recording which lets you hear yourself before any noticeable system delay

Imo the advantage of using a DAW or Hybrid DAW analog system is the vast flexibility in internal signal routing, huge access to multiple FX, and having pre existing templates with everything all set up = routing, levels , Fx etc. . So all you need to to do is > launch the DAW, select the template, and hit record..... I think a complex analog system would be not be as fast a path to getting to recording and creativity
Thank you for sharing this experience, it gives me some grounded things to shoot for. What sample rates do you run at? 44.1k?


Yes, but the time I set up my microphones and cabling, it is 6 of one, half dozen of the other for whether they are feeding an analog mixer into a MTR or an interface into a computer DAW. And my interface does have hardware monitoring, which is nice.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-09-2020, 08:16 AM
Rudy4 Rudy4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,796
Default

When you're considering bit depth in your audio capture don't confuse it with the architecture of how a DAW handles signal processing, i.e. "32 bit floating point", etc.

Here's a brief overview of bit depth copy/pasted from my "Simple home recording info" webpage:

http://web.archive.org/web/201604060...ecording1.html

*************************************
The Magic of higher bit depth, and why you should care:

Should we record audio at 16 bit or 24 bit? That’s very good question that needs just a bit of explanation. Bit Depth can be thought of as analogous to the megapixel resolution in a digital picture; the higher the bit depth the higher the quality of the audio.

Again, without going into the boring background on exactly what the binary number system is and how it is used in digital audio, all you really need to know is that audio resolution increases tremendously as we move from 16 to 24 bits. In fact, with binary numbers the total doubles each time we add a bit, so you can see that the increase becomes increasingly more dramatic as each new bit number is added. How dramatic? Well, a 16 bit binary number has 65,536 individual points of amplitude that can be captured. A 24 bit number can have 16,777,216 individual points, exactly 256 TIMES more than a 16 bit number! Now you can understand the dramatic increase in “resolution” when going from 16 bit to 24 bit digital audio.
*********************************

Note: I'm fully aware of the arguments that a simplistic statement such as that can bring up. It's presented withing the context of the entire write up from the website link and should not be thought of as an ultimate definitive explanation. It's written to be easily digestible for the home recording newbie, so take that into consideration.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Tags
analog, daw, digital, mixing, recording

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=