Mixing in Scope

[Neil B]

All very interesting & appreciated.

lagoausente - I do tend to agree with Gary B and Im probably the most unlikely person to do that - let me explain:

I never have been, and never will be a great or even reasonable musician, more of a composer perhaps. So I should agree with you that its better to spend more time on the music (because it takes me longer).

Im not great at mixing or engineering either, so Scope has always been a big mountain for me to be on. I will never get to the top of it either.

But when you put them together - what can I say?
If you are a musician, then you must have an ambition to produce quality.
To produce quality you have to understand the studio and what it is capable of.
When you learn something new, your next track sounds like a better production, even if it isnt musically one of your favourite compositions.


So I love the frustration of climbing the Scope mountain, or the engineering mountain. If I write something, I want to listen to the best version of it as possible and use what skills I have and what I learn in that track to make the next one better.


Hence this thread on techniques

[Fluxpod]

Another thing worth to mention as there is a lot of bs around in various i-net fora.
Never mix too loud.There is a common belief-misunderstanding about "loosing bits" which is straight up horse manure.Mix moderate.Dont push it.Modern sequencers and scope use floating point math with a giant resolution.Mix moderate and dont push all faders up in desperation.And i cant stress this enought.Many many modern mixes sound like shit because people dont understant gain staging in floating point environments.If you want to push it...use tape or drive plugins on single tracks.There is no need to push a mix into obscure levels to make it "loud".

[garyb]

yeah, that's all a remnant of the analog tape days.

[Neil B]

Thanks to all for your contributions
Stems seems to be a new buzz word to me at least
I am seeing it in many places
Care to expand on it for a thicko please Fluxpod?

[Fluxpod]

Thanks to all for your contributions
Stems seems to be a new buzz word to me at least
I am seeing it in many places
Care to expand on it for a thicko please Fluxpod?

Glad to.I combine Drum elements like as example drums from Kontakt-stylus rmx-battery-addictive drums from single channels in the cubase mixer into a group or seperate channel which output goes to scope as one stem/stereo track.I sometimes do 2 or 3 of those for drums(now 2 or 3 stems) then add synth stuff-fx into other stems.So that i have 5 stereo tracks via adat(4) and s/pdif(1) into scope and combine them with the analog in for my Microwave2 and the scope synths efx in the mixer which is in 99% the stm 24.Then i return the mixer Master out from scope into the cubase pc and just monitor that.That all thru totalmix of my rme multiface.
It sounds like a total clusterf...but suits me fine.

[Neil B]

So basically stems are group tracks or stereo outs of cubase to asio in scope saving a few asio ins and outs
If not group tracks then at least a logical way of handling your asios for mixing in the scope environment and making sure that the scope mixer has enough inputs.

Thanx

[Fluxpod]

Almost.I have scope in a extra pc so i go via adat and s/pdif from sequencer pc to scope pc.I dont use any asio modules on the scope pc.When you have one pc for sequencer and scope there is imo no real need to mix down into stems to save asio channels exept if the projekt goes really really big as in 50+ channel.
I pretty much have to do it because i only have 1 adat+ 1 s/pdif out on the main pc.....I want to buy-trade my multiface for a digiface when i have time-money for that.

[garyb]

So basically stems are group tracks or stereo outs of cubase to asio in scope saving a few asio ins and outs
If not group tracks then at least a logical way of handling your asios for mixing in the scope environment and making sure that the scope mixer has enough inputs.

Thanx

more or less.

this kind of thing isn't unheard of in the hardware world either.

[irrelevance]

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

[garyb]

it's impossible to do a blind mixdown to a/b tracks. the same tools aren't in each kit.

it's also uneeded. if you can't tell the difference in your OWN work, then it doesn't matter.

[ARCADIOS]

Mixing in scopes mixers is really nice.... but the doublication with the sequensers mixer makes things just A MESS.

XTC is the best.

i wish scope was hardware.. but it isn't. it is software. And having 1)scopes mixer + 2)sequenser mixer + 3) your REAL hardware mixer...... MAN.... 2 many mixers!!!

[garyb]

Scope is hardware. it has a software interface and with all due respect, a real hardware mixer would be just as much trouble. if one mixes in Scope, there's very little reason to play with the sequencer's mixer. it seems that sequencers are destroying any knowledge of how to use things like compressors and other audio devices. it's just too easy to keep inserting plugins until there's no more resources and the sound has been mangled. i really can't believe how much junk some people use to "mix".

[ARCADIOS]

Scope is hardware. it has a software interface and with all due respect, a real hardware mixer would be just as much trouble. if one mixes in Scope, there's very little reason to play with the sequencer's mixer. it seems that sequencers are destroying any knowledge of how to use things like compressors and other audio devices. it's just too easy to keep inserting plugins until there's no more resources and the sound has been mangled. i really can't believe how much junk some people use to "mix".

well....
you mean scope cards are hardware...
scope mixers are not hardware.

the good sequensers of the market can do the job. and if you are in XTC you can use scopes plugins. + you can have all the automation +..........
my opinion always....

in XTC sound quality is same as SFP mode sound quality....

[Mr Arkadin]

Well it really isn't that difficult ARCADIOS. I use Cubase, bus to Scope mixer and use Cubase's automation for riding levels. Job done. No latency either.

[lagoausente]

Scope is hardware. it has a software interface and with all due respect, a real hardware mixer would be just as much trouble. if one mixes in Scope, there's very little reason to play with the sequencer's mixer. it seems that sequencers are destroying any knowledge of how to use things like compressors and other audio devices. it's just too easy to keep inserting plugins until there's no more resources and the sound has been mangled. i really can't believe how much junk some people use to "mix".

I really dont understans what you mean regarding how compressors works, dont they work just the same in the sequencer mixer than in scope mixer? At least regarding the structure of mix?

[garyb]

sure they do!

i wasn't insinuating that compressors in native apps don't work properly. i was saying that people use plugins like candy, inserting all they can, instead of learning how to use things properly. in the real world a good compressor is some serious cash, so you don't waste them or use 20 when 10 will do. the whole plugin format and cheap plugins that are cpu light make people want to make "good sound" by processing, instead of by using good and well recorded sources in the first place. there's an awfully big difference in the sound of a real studio with the best hardware to the average sequencer's mix and processing engines and that's fine, but people who buy and use a lot of this stuff don't know the difference, or even how to use the actual tools...

as always, the user is the most important factor, and the best will have no problem doing fine work with even the basic stuff that comes with any of the current sequencers, but better tools makes the best better, too. the ignorant sound crappy on everything, but sometimes crappy is the art, so...

[jksuperstar]

Regarding too many mixers between sequencer/DAW, SCOPE, and haware...I moved to using Spacef's mod mixer. So I'm working with a setup now that uses my sequencer "mixer" not to mix, but as channels, which feed into stems and routers inside scope. So the DAWs channels become ~part~ of my whole mixer.

[dawman]

That's exactly what I have been doing, however I have recently required 50 ASIO Destination connections and found that some S|C Mixers cannot use so many direct outs.
The STM1632 and Dynamic mixer max out at 47 connections, total, including Sourece & Destinations.
STM2448/4896 allow endless routings into and from the DAW.

SpaceF Modular Mixer fares much better than the 16/32 STM's, but I want connections like the STM2448/4896 provides.
I am in x64 W7 Premium w/ latest SC 2708.

Whatever tricks the STM 2448 has need to be shared with Wolf, SpaceF, DAS and others who have made nice mixers for us.
I have alerted Holger, so I believe we can get this addressed.
Everything seems fine for 32bit XBox, and Scope cards.

I want my Modular Mixers working like SpaceF videos show. Tons of routings and switchers, groupers and sidechainers, then the wonderful Master Bus 7............Artwork at it's finest.
Until then I can use the STM2448 for the large realtime stuff I am doing.

I also recently started using the Project Prest List for snapshots.
Since the SeqMIDISource& Destination modules have no CC controls or ability to re route, I have added j9k's MIDI ROuter and S|C MIDI FIlters and simply send a MIDI Progam change message to re configure DAW's for a combinitaion of recording, playback, or both on the fly using the snapshot capabilities.
Screw that stopping and walking over to the DAW nonsense. Kills all ideas and workflow.

[siriusbliss]

Similar to JK's approach here - using 4896 mostly at the moment, while the Modular mixers are used for live comp-tracking and performance (but I've barely scratched the surface of what's possible with all the mod-mixer routing).

The DAW is basically an intelligent tape-deck inside Scope.

All automation and MIDI handling and VSTi hosting is obviously done in the DAW, while all the Scope synths, effects, etc. are used 'outside' the host.

Mixes are stemmed out in real-time through Scope and recorded directly back into Samplitude and/or I can freeze MIDI tracks in Samplitude and stem them out through Scope.

Greg

[jksuperstar]

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?