jksuperstar wrote:When using the STM2448 or 4896, do you guys use the busses at all? I find it very limiting that the busses only allow 1 connection...a signal cannot be sent to multiple busses simultaneously. Any way around that? I'm using SpaceF's modular mix still, but it is complicated to get a new project up & running quickly. Much like building a synth in Modular when I need a simple sound now!
The only thing I've been doing is using the direct outs sent into SpaceF's Route 247, in order to get more busses. That has it's drawbacks, too.
Any suggestions?
direct outs can go back into multiple channels on the same mixer.
this behavior of busses is how an actual recording mixer works 99% of the time.
sending a signal to multiple busses is not a simple mix....
jksuperstar wrote:When using the STM2448 or 4896, do you guys use the busses at all? Any suggestions?
Here I used the STM busses to do some sidechain compression. One bus runs uncompressed, the other through a DAS 1610 compressor back to main mix via AUX returns.
irrelevance wrote:Sorry while I respect the opinions of all contributors of this thread so far I have point out that opinion touted as fact still remains an opinion which at best is subjective and at worst self limiting. imho
I know many producers who mix completely within their daw of choice who are in demand producers producing good quality music and earning good money (although they do deserve more) for their efforts. If anyone here can honestly and successfully A/B two tracks mixed down in scope and native applications in a blind test let me know....further more compress those tracks with whichever lossy algo is in favor and the chances of successful identification are even more unlikely.
I would rather see scope promoted on the rational, objective merits such as affordability, reliability and perhaps scalability all important factors for pros, amateurs and hobbyists alike. All of whom should be considered on equal footing in the pro audio world because all keep the industry afloat. More money has never equated to more sense nor should it be considered the marker for professionalism or discernibility.
rant over
In a mixer, you will need several dithering points throughout the signal path. All of these take some processing power. And it takes a bit more to do it right. Supposedly, this is something that many DAWs do not do/get right.
Information for new readers: A forum member named Braincell is known for spreading lies and malicious information without even knowing the basics of, what he is talking about. If noone responds to him, it is because he is ignored.
the idea of a true A/B test is a pointless one. it can't be done. the same processing isn't available in every system. it's certainly true that mixing completely within the DAW can give great results, if the engineer is good.
this reminds me of a buddy who asked me, "is there really that much difference between a $100 mic pre and a $1500 mic pre?". he couldn't hear enough difference to justify spending extra money, untill he began mixing a lot. then the difference began to slap him in the face. for most people doing music at home for their own pleasure, there's no difference. most of those people don't even know what to listen for. most have NEVER heard the real hardware that their software was designed to emulate. that doesn't mean that there's no difference...
hardware is still best. NO digital ANYTHING can truly compete 100% with the best analog hardware, at least as far as sound is concerned. next is Scope and ProTools and other dedicated high end digital processors. then come commercial and free plugins for your favorite daws. that's just how it is. it's not likely to change. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz_D-greh8Q
garyb wrote:...hardware is still best. NO digital ANYTHING can truly compete 100% with the best analog hardware, at least as far as sound is concerned. ...
signed...
I just told the 1176 hardware unit from the Waves plugin in a vocal track (full mix, Rock, blind test)
though I never used the box myself... the difference was just too evident
