PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Direct outs means directly after input (or at least after the gain). That´s what all consoles do that I know.
But with the 2448 I get a post fader signal.

There is a PRE/POST switch in the 2448 that permit changing this behavior

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: marcuspocus on 2004-10-12 06:41 ]</font>

A pre post button for the direct outs? We´re not talking of pre/post fader, aux, or VU-meter, no? Having that button aktivated I can have a signal on the direct outs exactly as it comes into the 2448?
Where would that button be?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rogurt on 2004-10-12 06:56 ]</font>

Yeah, I'm curious about this too. I don't see any reference in the manual about it. It appears to me that the direct outs are hard wired after the pan control. If you want full signal at one of the D-O's, you need to pan the signal either hard left or right. I see no reference anywhere about pre/post fader configuration.

not only after Pan but after Volume Fader too which makes it a total nosense for me. I route Directouts to tape and I dont want the signal to be changed in any way...

hello,
Whats the point of a prefade direct out ?
If you want a prefade direct out then route it to your audio seqencer just before it gets into 2448. You can even add a smaller mixer or that i you want any mor possibilities.
It i nice that the direct out is pst fader so you can add your processing just before recording...
But in any case Scope is so damn flexible that you can do whatever pleases you.
Regards,
Dimitris

First of all I don´t want my project to be full of diferent mixers. Second it´s also a question of a clearly arranged project window. Direct outs can be hidden.

Yes You can have a workaround (or some hundred). But I don´t get the point why I should spend time in finding other ways when there´s the "direct outs" on the mixer I use. Hasn´t anybody ever wondered about the sheer amount of "workarounds" needed to get what the functions in the software promised to do? The thoroughness with which SFP was programmed sometimes reminds me of MS Windows...

Of course, you're right. That's how I do it. Simply route the signals directly to my ASIO destination module.

The only disadvantage (if you wanna call it that) is the routing nightmare which I like to refer to as a "spaghetti mess" that ensues. It would make cable routing so much neater if I could simply tap the signal from the D-O's to the ASIO module with out worrying about pan or fader positions - just an exact clone of the signal.

It's not that important. There's always a workaround

How come no one is working on 3rd party mixer options? We get all these wonderful devices, synths, whatnot, but no competition in the mixer department hint hint.

None of the standard mixers in SFP are really "best" in my book. There are plenty of enhancements I'd like to see hint hint

ps: Rogurt - I think you and I are thinking alike which is dangerous around here



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: krizrox on 2004-10-12 10:19 ]</font>

hmm - I think I´m just the kind of guy who wants to work with whatever tool I got myself to make music. And far too often I find myself searching the project why this and that wouldn´t work like the manual promised. And I dont want to spend time in searching the web for 3rd party (as workarounds) either.

Although I agree that there are lots of little bugs in SFP, I have to agree with Dimitris on this one -- there is absolutely no need to connect directouts to anything at pre-fader level. This idea may look nice, but it's a waste of DSP cycles and memory making all those extra connections.

I use the directouts all the time and my only complaint about them is that they are always stereo. IIRC, the output on each L/R side is -6 db from the post-fader mono level. It would be nice to have the direct output for each mono channel to be mono, and the direct for each stereo channel stereo.

Oh and you shouldn't expect to use SFP exactly like outboard gear. It is modelled on outboard gear, to be sure. But it is infinitely more flexible -- and no more or less buggy, for that matter. Just trying to match -10 / +4 gear is an absolute nightmare in my studio. SFP saves me one giant swamp full of bugs right there!

Cheers and happy bug-swatting ,

Johann

and since there is no actual circuitry, the difference between pre and post fader should be non existant. also, my soundcraft 1600's direct outs are post fader. that is how REAL(non-mackie vlz, bullshit) mixers work.

On 2004-10-12 15:29, garyb wrote:
the difference between pre and post fader should be non existant.

Unless, of course, you have inserts, change the fader level, the pre level, the pan, ...

that is a direct out(with ALL that)! my 1600 has a tt sidecar patch bay and although it was made in the '80s it has(built in) room for automation. the original list price(in 1985 or so) was almost $30,000. real boards have direct outs that are post fader.

Fair enough, I just meant that there *is* a difference between pre and post fader!

hear ya...
when i made that post i was refering to a non effected/affected signal(no eq, no comp, no inserts)....not too important(comment-wise), i guess....

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-10-12 16:42 ]</font>

On 2004-10-12 15:29, garyb wrote:
and since there is no actual circuitry, the difference between pre and post fader should be non existant. also, my soundcraft 1600's direct outs are post fader. that is how REAL(non-mackie vlz, bullshit) mixers work.

Same here on a RAMSA DA7. Direct outs are POST fader. I think you'll find this is the norm.

blazesboylan: what are U (and all the others) using the direct outs for? I´d preferably route them directly to the record machine´s tracks. And therefore I wouldn´t want to have them post fader as the signal wouldn´t get on tape with maximum level then.

I´d like to have a per channel "insert" for recording purposes. E.g. a guitar player plays his part whilst monitoring his play (let´s say on chan1). This chan1 signal directly goes to tape (with full level). When rewinding and playing the tape the recorded signal should also come in chan1. I dont want to use 2 Channels or VST monitoring...
I´ve sorted it out already and built myself a 2 on 1 premixing device in 8-8 modular device for going into 2448. The ADAT inputs get split and also directly to ASIO/Tape. But that way routing window really gets packed with cables...
Maybe you can suggest better was to do it?

On 2004-10-13 04:51, Rogurt wrote:
therefore I wouldn´t want to have them post fader as the signal wouldn´t get on tape with maximum level then.

why wouldn't it? the 0db setting on the fader(about 3/4 up) is no gain, no cut.

the way you describe is exactly how i'd do it. i'd hook those direct outs to the "tape" ins. "direct out" always indicates the entire channel strip.

O.k. if I record with faders at 0db you´re right. But what if I´ve done a first rough mix (with the guitar already recorded) and I remark that the guitar has to be punched in once more? I would need to level the fader to 0db -> record -> relevel the fader to the mix. With one single punch in of one guitar that might be ok but imagine rerecording a brass section...
I leave the faders as they are and have the possibility to rerecord on the same channel.

save the recording settings and rough mix settings as presets maybe? (at least on very complicated micings.....)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-10-13 05:32 ]</font>