For XITE-1 this isn't necessary, but for tracking in Scope, it seems like all we have are mixers.
I do have a great strip from DAS, and Celmo. But they would be so much better if there were some inserts.
For instance, when tracking w/ VDAT, I usually have to use a mixer. I do love mixers, but the amount of DSP required makes it tough to have really big synth presets in QWave, Solaris, Prowave, and Multi-Synth. Actually the inserts in these synths are a life saver, but they do lack the quality EQ / Filtering and Dynamics of a good mixer, or channel strip.
Therefore, I beg for a high quality Channel Strip w/ the choice of Pre / Post inserts.
I think the new DAS strip looks to be a great choice. Their SL9000 was a decent strip, especially the gate section. It choked off the tails of effects really well. But I am interested in something like their new strip, but with inserts added.
This would be a great way to record / track w/o having to load those high quality giant mixers.
Channel Strip w/ Pre / Post Inserts
Actually another way is to have a high quality mixer where strips are used in a modular fashion.
You need 1 or 2....fine, 4 or 8........great...........8 or 12............yeah................16 or 24........oh boy.
I love my top shelf mixers, but I was amazed at my friends SSL hardware mixer. He started off with four channels and a master and AUX section. He now has 8 channels, and I am sure he will be adding more, but they aren't cheap.
It would be easier to have these for the old style cards since they have DSP limitations.
Just kicking off and on a mixers channel is a great way to save DSP, but having a complete strip for each channel w/ presets and inserts can really be a great plus. SpaceF mixers are very close to that already w/ their considerate sub presets etc. But for the sake of screen real estate and true workflow I could envision a modular design being very useful.
I've never tried it yet, but at0m showed me a modular way to use a compressor and envelope follower, and Wolf's Modular connections seem very useful also.
I guess I want everyones greatest ideas in one modular concept package.
I shall quit while I'm ahead.
And while I'm at it..........all 5.1 capable......
You need 1 or 2....fine, 4 or 8........great...........8 or 12............yeah................16 or 24........oh boy.
I love my top shelf mixers, but I was amazed at my friends SSL hardware mixer. He started off with four channels and a master and AUX section. He now has 8 channels, and I am sure he will be adding more, but they aren't cheap.
It would be easier to have these for the old style cards since they have DSP limitations.
Just kicking off and on a mixers channel is a great way to save DSP, but having a complete strip for each channel w/ presets and inserts can really be a great plus. SpaceF mixers are very close to that already w/ their considerate sub presets etc. But for the sake of screen real estate and true workflow I could envision a modular design being very useful.
I've never tried it yet, but at0m showed me a modular way to use a compressor and envelope follower, and Wolf's Modular connections seem very useful also.
I guess I want everyones greatest ideas in one modular concept package.
I shall quit while I'm ahead.
And while I'm at it..........all 5.1 capable......
-
FrancisHarmany
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Haarmania
Channel strips.... I didnt even know what they where
another channel strip. of course it be very fun if you have 4 AUX output channels and you can manually route them anywhere you want for each strip....
(all doable in modular btw..... expect for 4 stereo aux. you'd have 3)
I wonder how they do it with dynamix mixer. but that doesnt have aux or other fancy modulation.....
so I guess we need a modular module with a cool pop-up surface ?!?! the modular module is simple: fader, panning, pre/post inserts and 3 rotator knobs.
the modular module has 8 outputs. the 3 rotator knobs mixer the main stereo signal to the 6 lower outputs, so you have your aux.
writing this I am thinking this doesnt solve anything because you still have to mix everything together somewhere, and it cant be modular..... no enough inputs.
all and all it would be quite a challenge to get this to work smoothly. especially when you want stuff like modulation signals, midi feedback, ........, hmmm.. guess
we dont need the modular strip after all ?
*sigh* all this typing to discover it wont work! anyway I wrote it, might as well post it for the wikipedia qoute
I guess its almost impossible to automaticly connect everything after you addChannel strip
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •
Jump to: navigation, search
An audio channel strip may be a stand alone unit or one of many units built into a
mixing desk. As a minimum, the unit will include a microphone preamp and some
form of audio equalisation. Some designs also offer other facilities including audio compression, de-essing, noise-gating and limiting.
another channel strip. of course it be very fun if you have 4 AUX output channels and you can manually route them anywhere you want for each strip....
(all doable in modular btw..... expect for 4 stereo aux. you'd have 3)
I wonder how they do it with dynamix mixer. but that doesnt have aux or other fancy modulation.....
so I guess we need a modular module with a cool pop-up surface ?!?! the modular module is simple: fader, panning, pre/post inserts and 3 rotator knobs.
the modular module has 8 outputs. the 3 rotator knobs mixer the main stereo signal to the 6 lower outputs, so you have your aux.
writing this I am thinking this doesnt solve anything because you still have to mix everything together somewhere, and it cant be modular..... no enough inputs.
all and all it would be quite a challenge to get this to work smoothly. especially when you want stuff like modulation signals, midi feedback, ........, hmmm.. guess
we dont need the modular strip after all ?
*sigh* all this typing to discover it wont work! anyway I wrote it, might as well post it for the wikipedia qoute
Just use LimFat 
It's one of the best limiter available on scope, and has very strict internal design for phase coherence and dsp management. Just not as toyish as the panel may suggest. It is a single channel for recording and or post production.
The insert lanes can be put before or after the lim/fat , and the lim/fat can also be placed as Fat/Lim. The limiter is an evolution of a previous model of the Meek VC2-QCS channel, but here in a more versatile version as you can go very very hard on pumping (and reversely, very gently, which is cool for recordings).
The inserts allow you to use all eqs/compressors/else of your collection.
It is not made for synths only. The majority of materials used for the making off where voices/guitares/bass and old recording (vynil sources), but also modern stuff like big mainstream hip hop/rnb production or trance (all dance style have maxed out gains, and no peaks).
It is also ready for multiband, when i have a multiband and hi freq that i'm satisfied with.then it will be time to redo the surface in 3d to impress people
To put it in all mixers channels... well, don't know, it wouldn't be used in 50% of the time if it is on all every single channel , and it is sometimes better to limit/compress groups anyway generally speaking. It is true that it is great on stereo synths outputs too (your tip
Have fun
It's one of the best limiter available on scope, and has very strict internal design for phase coherence and dsp management. Just not as toyish as the panel may suggest. It is a single channel for recording and or post production.
The insert lanes can be put before or after the lim/fat , and the lim/fat can also be placed as Fat/Lim. The limiter is an evolution of a previous model of the Meek VC2-QCS channel, but here in a more versatile version as you can go very very hard on pumping (and reversely, very gently, which is cool for recordings).
The inserts allow you to use all eqs/compressors/else of your collection.
It is not made for synths only. The majority of materials used for the making off where voices/guitares/bass and old recording (vynil sources), but also modern stuff like big mainstream hip hop/rnb production or trance (all dance style have maxed out gains, and no peaks).
It is also ready for multiband, when i have a multiband and hi freq that i'm satisfied with.then it will be time to redo the surface in 3d to impress people
To put it in all mixers channels... well, don't know, it wouldn't be used in 50% of the time if it is on all every single channel , and it is sometimes better to limit/compress groups anyway generally speaking. It is true that it is great on stereo synths outputs too (your tip
Have fun
Last edited by spacef on Thu May 22, 2008 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
FrancisHarmany
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Haarmania
with a stand-alone channel strip, if you wire an effect BEFORE the strip, that's a pre insert. likewise, putting a device after the strip is like a post insert(depending on where the insert would have been inserted, pre/post eq, fader, gain control, etc)....
for me, such things are moot. i use high quality mic pres and choose a mic. i don't need anything else going to tape. after it's recorded i'll use eq, comnpression, etc. the normal inserts work fine. if i want, i can send the signal directly to an effect before or after the mixer. why would i eq or compress BEFORE i get to tape? when recording, monitoring is not optimum and i can't hear the track in it's proper relation to the rest of the music, so any choices i make are more than likely f*cked, and once things like compression and eq are recorded, they can NOT be undone!
i understand the desire to see a finished product immediately, but this is foolhardy. mixing and tracking are two ENTIRELY different operations, which require very different setups to do them properly and efficiently. there's a reason that the big boys begin a project by recording all the music and then later, mixing all the music.....make all the rough mixes using the sequencer mixer you like. once you've listened to those, change the setup to mixing and just do only that. it should take several hours, at the very least, to mix just one tune, if you know what the tools are for....
JMHO....
for me, such things are moot. i use high quality mic pres and choose a mic. i don't need anything else going to tape. after it's recorded i'll use eq, comnpression, etc. the normal inserts work fine. if i want, i can send the signal directly to an effect before or after the mixer. why would i eq or compress BEFORE i get to tape? when recording, monitoring is not optimum and i can't hear the track in it's proper relation to the rest of the music, so any choices i make are more than likely f*cked, and once things like compression and eq are recorded, they can NOT be undone!
i understand the desire to see a finished product immediately, but this is foolhardy. mixing and tracking are two ENTIRELY different operations, which require very different setups to do them properly and efficiently. there's a reason that the big boys begin a project by recording all the music and then later, mixing all the music.....make all the rough mixes using the sequencer mixer you like. once you've listened to those, change the setup to mixing and just do only that. it should take several hours, at the very least, to mix just one tune, if you know what the tools are for....
JMHO....
Agreed.
But with synths and samplers I prefer getting the exact sound I like first, w/o compression or effects, but rather Limiting, which is just a high ratio of compression it seems.
The gate will actually clip the sound prior to recording making it easier during a mixdown.
I agree when using mics and a good pre that a good hot un-effected signal is the way to go.
But from my experience samples and synths depending on the instrument or preset, work best for me when I get the sound I think will fit first during tracking, then of course add the effects through an AUX or whatever method is comfortable during a mixdown,
For real instruments tracking w.o effects is definately the optimum way to go.
Actually SpaceF's LimFat is a perfect tool.
I really need a high quality gate to stick on it's insert.
One example of a synth needing a gate: You have the perfect sound, but the envelopes sustain is just a little too long. Logical move would be to shorten the sustain amount. But sometimes this will have an effect on the sound of the LFO's modulation target, which takes away form the desired effect. So by leaving the preset alone and just clipping the tail via audio gate, leaves plenty of desirable space between the instruments during mixdown, which is much easier for me.
Your method of tracking and recording are sound, no doubt. But in a virtual recording studio, where we record virtual instruments, it seems as though whatever trick works is where it's at for me.
So now I beg for a virtual gate.
But with synths and samplers I prefer getting the exact sound I like first, w/o compression or effects, but rather Limiting, which is just a high ratio of compression it seems.
The gate will actually clip the sound prior to recording making it easier during a mixdown.
I agree when using mics and a good pre that a good hot un-effected signal is the way to go.
But from my experience samples and synths depending on the instrument or preset, work best for me when I get the sound I think will fit first during tracking, then of course add the effects through an AUX or whatever method is comfortable during a mixdown,
For real instruments tracking w.o effects is definately the optimum way to go.
Actually SpaceF's LimFat is a perfect tool.
I really need a high quality gate to stick on it's insert.
One example of a synth needing a gate: You have the perfect sound, but the envelopes sustain is just a little too long. Logical move would be to shorten the sustain amount. But sometimes this will have an effect on the sound of the LFO's modulation target, which takes away form the desired effect. So by leaving the preset alone and just clipping the tail via audio gate, leaves plenty of desirable space between the instruments during mixdown, which is much easier for me.
Your method of tracking and recording are sound, no doubt. But in a virtual recording studio, where we record virtual instruments, it seems as though whatever trick works is where it's at for me.
So now I beg for a virtual gate.
garyb wrote: i understand the desire to see a finished product immediately, but this is foolhardy. mixing and tracking are two ENTIRELY different operations, which require very different setups to do them properly and efficiently. there's a reason that the big boys begin a project by recording all the music and then later, mixing all the music.....make all the rough mixes using the sequencer mixer you like. once you've listened to those, change the setup to mixing and just do only that. it should take several hours, at the very least, to mix just one tune, if you know what the tools are for....
JMHO....
Hi Garyb,
this is a sound advice and everybody should do like you say.
In my case, I am very used to the tools I am using and I've been slightly limiting every voice recording i've done the last few year. It works very well if the effects are gentle and almost non heard (like a limiter that would limit a pop/peak and avoid doing the recording again). I think it is a matter of habit . It can bring something more too, to have a final sound before recording, as it changes the interpretation (like a rock band guitarist and all his pedals to make "his" sound: noone would switch his pedals off during his wild solos).
Personally, i get better recordings like that, it is easier to record/mix (for me) and as long as it is gentle and just for limiting clipping peaks, i have gained time not redoing some stuff - and i even heavily compressed/limited again after recording for the final effect.
I began with voices , but i do it with everything now.
But it cannot be undone, so it is really for those who already know exactly what effects they will be using, and how, and on material that they know how they react to those treatments.
Also for synths in scope, I think they need a limiter in the output stage anyway (it depends on the sound, but in general it sounds better with a limiter straight way because of the high peaks in synths, it allows to record at higher volumes and get a steadier sound).
Just to chat
Regards
Mehdi
yes, you guys are right for sure. for synths, i can understand... especially for the basic sound. for the final polish, i think that it's still best to wait...
Jim, when you say "in a virtual recording studio, where we record virtual instruments, it seems as though whatever trick works is where it's at for me", i have to agree with you. "whatever trick works" is always a good method.
especially for the basic sound. for the final polish, i think that it's still best to wait...Jim, when you say "in a virtual recording studio, where we record virtual instruments, it seems as though whatever trick works is where it's at for me", i have to agree with you. "whatever trick works" is always a good method.
I love discussions with such knowledgable chaps as you guys.
I first realised how necessary a Limiter was with synths back in the '80's.
My Oberheims are ( were
) so incredibly FAT they would punish the bassist and the patches could be treated w/ filtering, but then as I said earlier, the character elsewhere would suffer.
So the FOH guy ran me through a DBX 1U via the PA, and the difference was noticable immediately. So I bought one for onstage where I could set it as a constant smoothing device.
SpaceF's LimFat is a perfect synthesizer tool. Invert / Pre-Post options, a great 2 band EQ. Plus the levels are so controllable in every aspect.
When I use a synth preset for Multi-Synth or Solaris, several have LimFat in the insert effects slot, as they can take an already awesome sound, and enhance it further.
Maybe I will look into using Modular somehow to get the desired results I seek.
But I have had a great chat w/ you cats.
I first realised how necessary a Limiter was with synths back in the '80's.
My Oberheims are ( were
) so incredibly FAT they would punish the bassist and the patches could be treated w/ filtering, but then as I said earlier, the character elsewhere would suffer.So the FOH guy ran me through a DBX 1U via the PA, and the difference was noticable immediately. So I bought one for onstage where I could set it as a constant smoothing device.
SpaceF's LimFat is a perfect synthesizer tool. Invert / Pre-Post options, a great 2 band EQ. Plus the levels are so controllable in every aspect.
When I use a synth preset for Multi-Synth or Solaris, several have LimFat in the insert effects slot, as they can take an already awesome sound, and enhance it further.
Maybe I will look into using Modular somehow to get the desired results I seek.
But I have had a great chat w/ you cats.