Analogue console + DAW automation

[Spiritworks]

I would like to see it MTC or SMPT controlled, so I can use it with my Radar24 hard disk recorder as well as a DAW. Use a fader pack from JL Cooper, Mackie, etc.

[Pelle G]

Originally Posted by Spiritworks

I would like to see it MTC or SMPT controlled, so I can use it with my Radar24 hard disk recorder as well as a DAW. Use a fader pack from JL Cooper, Mackie, etc.

But. Something need to record your automation data, right?

[Spiritworks]

Originally Posted by Pelle G

But. Something need to record your automation data, right?

Maybe one track on the recorder, like the old days using one track on a multi-track tape machine?

[Pelle G]

Originally Posted by Spiritworks

Maybe one track on the recorder, like the old days using one track on a multi-track tape machine?

I don't think you understand how it works. MCI had a system where the data ended up on the multitrack. It was slow and pretty useless.

But, you say MTC / SMPTE? So if you've got SMPTE on one track. The rides(done with a HUI I suppose?) need to be STORED and timecode stamped somewhere. Right? How? Where?

[Spiritworks]

Well, you're right, I don't understand how it works. Nor do I know anything about building such a system - whether or not such a thing is even possible.
But I know what I think would be a nice feature to have with my setup/workflow. For me, a stand-alone device ( laptop with a purpose-written program ?) that would interact with a hard disk recorder and a controller such as an HUI and would allow fader and mute automation, without the need for a DAW, would be quite welcome. Mackie had one didn't they? Though I imagine a better sounding and more modern one could be built.

[Mike O]

Originally Posted by Spiritworks

Well, you're right, I don't understand how it works. Nor do I know anything about building such a system - whether or not such a thing is even possible.
But I know what I think would be a nice feature to have with my setup/workflow. For me, a stand-alone device ( laptop with a purpose-written program ?) that would interact with a hard disk recorder and a controller such as an HUI and would allow fader and mute automation, without the need for a DAW, would be quite welcome. Mackie had one didn't they? Though I imagine a better sounding and more modern one could be built.

If you are willing to have a laptop or other computer there really no reason not to use a DAW to store automation information a la Tonelux. No reason to pay for the development of a stand alone program when most DAWs have what is needed and are either already owned by many or are inexpensive to purchase. Building a stand alone program would likely make the automation package unnecessarily expensive.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Spiritworks

Well, you're right, I don't understand how it works. Nor do I know anything about building such a system - whether or not such a thing is even possible.
But I know what I think would be a nice feature to have with my setup/workflow. For me, a stand-alone device ( laptop with a purpose-written program ?) that would interact with a hard disk recorder and a controller such as an HUI and would allow fader and mute automation, without the need for a DAW, would be quite welcome. Mackie had one didn't they? Though I imagine a better sounding and more modern one could be built.

Every automation system requires a computer to work - whether that's a dedicated system like flying faders or the SSL, or utilising the automation of a DAW, there's a computer somewhere. And you can't just write the data to a channel of tape - the tape channel is purely for sync.

[Spiritworks]

Originally Posted by Mike O

If you are willing to have a laptop or other computer there really no reason not to use a DAW to store automation information a la Tonelux. No reason to pay for the development of a stand alone program when most DAWs have what is needed and are either already owned by many or are inexpensive to purchase. Building a stand alone program would likely make the automation package unnecessarily expensive.

My wish list would be an automation package wherein I could stay working with my Radar, or any other hard-disk recorder/tape machine, without having to transfer projects into a DAW simply for the automation. I do understand that the economics of that scenario, at this point in time, make it unlikely. The Radar has Midi ports on it and it would be cool to be able to simply hook up a controller, though I realize that the software within Radar would have to be modified extensively - if it could be done at all.

[Pelle G]

Originally Posted by Spiritworks

My wish list would be an automation package wherein I could stay working with my Radar, or any other hard-disk recorder/tape machine, without having to transfer projects into a DAW simply for the automation. I do understand that the economics of that scenario, at this point in time, make it unlikely. The Radar has Midi ports on it and it would be cool to be able to simply hook up a controller, though I realize that the software within Radar would have to be modified extensively - if it could be done at all.

I don't see why folks are so afraid of computers. There's a bunch of micro computers in your Radar. Your microwave oven has one. Your tv a bunch. Your phone.

Ok. There's not a lot of options out there. There's Flying Faders and soon my system... and, cant come to think of any other.
My system has a hidden Intel board. To not scare computer people off.

[crosscutred]

Originally Posted by Spiritworks

Mackie had one didn't they? Though I imagine a better sounding and more modern one could be built.

Does the Mackie sound bad?

I'm quite interested in getting my hands on one, the software being so out of date might be an issue but people seem to have managed the integration of it reasonably successfully.

I have quite simple requirements as far as automation goes, the Tonelux system looks great but the price tag is too high for me at the moment.

[juniorhifikit]

Originally Posted by crosscutred

Does the Mackie sound bad?

I'm quite interested in getting my hands on one, the software being so out of date might be an issue but people seem to have managed the integration of it reasonably successfully.

I have quite simple requirements as far as automation goes, the Tonelux system looks great but the price tag is too high for me at the moment.

The Mackie system was very cool, especially for it's time. But it was ahead of it's time, and no one was into it - there was no market for it. It's software was also pretty badly implemented, and the sonics of the hardware were rather compromised by "cheaping-out" on the things that matter most (clean power & bias) Pelle knows what I'm talking about here...

When I designed my box, I was inspired by the Mackie thing, bought one, tore it apart and compared it to the circuitry from an SSL. Then I designed mine to be cleaner, more accurate, and easier to use than either of them.

[crosscutred]

Yes, I had a look at your box after I posted, it's just what I'm looking for.

I guess I'll have to do some saving.....

The only question would be about running it with tape.

Am I right in thinking that it would work to time stripe the tape and then get the DAW to read that and run the automation from there?

Do you have more info about the connections available?

[Spiritworks]

I'm not afraid of computers, or DAWs. But I enjoy recording on my Radar - the workflow, etc. It's possible to easily do a lot of editing on it. So, it seems to me, that if I could remain in Radar and mix otb why go through another several steps of transferring to a DAW, creating projects/files/etc/etc, just to get automation? Maybe I don't need unlimited plugins and VST this & thats in order to enjoy the creative recording process. BTW, I do have Samplitude 11Pro & Cubase 6.5 on a very nice computer built for me by ADK.
I would love a Mackie-type system ( moving fader & mute automation via VCAs ) with which I could use my choice of motorised fader controller and which could be run independantly on a modern Windows &/or Mac computer. A system like that could be used with any console or summing mixer of your choice, and with any hard disk/tape recorder, as well as your choice of DAW. What's not to like?

[thenoodle]

I mentioned my "For sale" Mackie Ultramix about a million posts back but I don't think anyone noticed.

You patch in the vcas anywhere you want. Effective and reliable system that sounds great.

As to the ancient MCI system, that was invented by the Sound Workshop guys and the computer code was adapted to store on a track of the 24 track machine (but not just slapped on there like audio). Any update passes for the automation were stored on a second tape track. It was FULL of errors. Plus, you would lose 3 audio tracks to smpte, automation, and updates. A loss of the use of 3 tracks was a MAJOR deal to me back then.

With my Mackie system and its 34 channels of vcas (did I mention its for sale here at GS?????), you smpte the recording machine (Tape, radar, etc) to any old low power computer running the Mackie software, and mixes, offline tweaks, updates .... are all stored on that computer's hard drive. Rock solid!!!

Long throw faders included on the fader pak. Mutes can be written, unlimited subgrouping. Even a nifty little feature called automute. Easy to see/use updating on screen of the host computer. None of the cryptic little red/green/amber leds that consoles use Cost me a bazillion dollars when it was new.

Add fader automation to anything simply by the way you patch in the vcas. Even outboard gear i/o to a non-automated console... while also automating faders. No limit to what you can do to automate things.

[Schattenmann]

Originally Posted by Pelle G

I don't see why folks are so afraid of computers. There's a bunch of micro computers in your Radar. Your microwave oven has one. Your tv a bunch. Your phone.

Ok. There's not a lot of options out there. There's Flying Faders and soon my system... and, cant come to think of any other.
My system has a hidden Intel board. To not scare computer people off.

I'm not personally scared of computers (right now, the only thing that scares me is the fuc*ing migraine that's torturing me for a week).

Still, I'm not comfortable with any computer embedded inside a console.
For what I know from reading GS and personal experience, as a console ages, its embedded computer system is likely to become the weak point.

Besides, if you work in a studio with several different brands of consoles, having them all fitted with, say, Flying Faders, probably eases the transition from one console to another.

Of course, I'm only talking about automation here, Recall is a fairly different issue.

Hope I make sense. Feel like my head is trapped inside a Saw-like torture device

[juniorhifikit]

Originally Posted by ajbianco

how cum you did not include panning as well as volume control?

I had originally planned to, but unfortunately it comes down to economics. Twice as much circuitry = twice the price. The retail price is already $2500

[Pelle G]

Originally Posted by juniorhifikit

I had originally planned to, but unfortunately it comes down to economics. Twice as much circuitry = twice the price. The retail price is already $2500

Junior! Why not make a pan option in the software, should be easy. Routing will need to go out on a stereo pair of course and you'll lose a channel. But for the panning lovers out there...

[LeMauce]

Originally Posted by Pelle G

Junior! Why not make a pan option in the software, should be easy. Routing will need to go out on a stereo pair of course and you'll lose a channel. But for the panning lovers out there...

Thats not a strange idea, but then again you can then just automate your pan in your daw stereo channel. It's not that a "REAL" pan would really change the sound I think. Volume in the other hand...
The idea of "riding" your real faders with the automation is that the "real analog" volume change is after the "analog processing" like compression and eq that are happing after the D/A conversion. Instead of before.... Junior talked about it to me irl in Paris, before that I didn't get really at 100% the idea. But, after that I totally got it when I was re-mix'en a song on a ssl4K and just ride the volumes by hand instead using the daw volume automation before hitting the desk and processing. Eureka moment with a flashback to Junior his sum.mation.

When the sum.mation is coming to france. I'm def. get one. It's THE thing what I'm waiting for. Quick recall and automation of a DAW with analog feel. And that all intergrated perfect in protools + c24!

/slap meself in the face/ I just realized the major reading and thinking error I just made about the pan and automation.

[juniorhifikit]

Originally Posted by Pelle G

Junior! Why not make a pan option in the software, should be easy. Routing will need to go out on a stereo pair of course and you'll lose a channel. But for the panning lovers out there...

Every automated function requires a DAC for CV, and a VCA - so twice as many components = twice the price Software is easy, hardware is expensive. Feature-creep can turn my simple device into a Euphonix!

but then again you can then just automate your pan in your daw stereo channel.

That's the concept.

[HHaynes]

I'm working with the composer who bought my SmartAV Tango+extension bay. He uses some high-end I/O and routes part of it through a Dangerous Audio two-bus. I had not mixed 'outside the box' in ages and have been dubious about the idea. Once I got a chance to hear what that two-bus does for the sound, I'm a believer.

Part of the analog I/O on the Apogee Symphony64 is dedicated to routing in stereo pairs to each of the eight inputs of the two-bus. So we've set up eight Direct Outs in Nuendo to gather in various group and individual audio tracks.

The beauty of this setup is in using the Nuendo Control Room to monitor *either* the 'digital' stereo output bus (as each Direct Out channel send is also routed to the stereo bus) - or - switch to monitoring the return from the two-bus on a set of sound card inputs (essentially listening to the full loop through the summing bus). The 'down side' - if there is one - is in order to render each Group Channel *individually* you have to solo a Direct Output through the bus and re-record back to a new audio channel from the two-bus return.

So in essence you lose all of the faster-than-realtime rendering that you have when all-in-the-box. But what you get back is a PHENOMENAL improvement in sound quality. It's *well* worth the trade-off. This is not placebo effect talking - I didn't pay for this gear and was skeptical from the beginning. Now I'm trying to find budget to add a Dangerous Audio unit to my own studio.



Now the focus is on setting up a project template that will be relatively bullet-proof. All of the editing, remote command, and soft routing inside the box using Nuendo's complex audio engine with 'hooks' galore under the hood. The integration with the Tango makes all of it second-nature - the advantages of software with the audio integrity of analog. Fun stuff.

[Pelle G]

Originally Posted by juniorhifikit

Every automated function requires a DAC for CV, and a VCA - so twice as many components = twice the price Software is easy, hardware is expensive. Feature-creep can turn my simple device into a Euphonix!



That's the concept.

Yeah. That was actually my point. Solve it inthe code.
If you want a pan "knob" in the plug in window. Or a centered rubber band.
You can convert that into two DAC values in the software.

[juniorhifikit]

Originally Posted by Pelle G

Yeah. That was actually my point. Solve it inthe code.
If you want a pan "knob" in the plug in window. Or a centered rubber band.
You can convert that into two DAC values in the software.

Hey Pelle - I think we're having a miscommunication around the same subject... The knob, rubber band, software part is easy. But as you said, "two DAC values..." panning would require 2 DAC's and 2 VCA's per channel - one for volume and one for pan; or both running in parallel. My design has 1 DAC and 1 VCA per channel. Twice the circuitry = twice the price. Not to mention, the routing on the PCB would require a 4 layer board, which costs twice as much...

Unless you have a way to do two processes with one DAC/VCA...

[Pelle G]

Originally Posted by juniorhifikit

Hey Pelle - I think we're having a miscommunication around the same subject... The knob, rubber band, software part is easy. But as you said, "two DAC values..." panning would require 2 DAC's and 2 VCA's per channel - one for volume and one for pan; or both running in parallel. My design has 1 DAC and 1 VCA per channel. Twice the circuitry = twice the price. Not to mention, the routing on the PCB would require a 4 layer board, which costs twice as much...

Unless you have a way to do two processes with one DAC/VCA...

No, an output pannable requires two DAC/VCA. I'm with you there.
What I was suggesting was to make a mono/stereo version of the plugin. Just to get a user friendly pan option...

- If the mono/mono is inserted there's no pan knob visible. Track goes out mono.

- if the mono/stereo (or a stereo/stereo) is inserted there's a pan knob visible. The track is already going out thru a stereo output and the pan rubber band can translate to the 2 DACs.

As been stated before, of course two mono tracks with each own volume will have the same effect. Maybe not as neat to deal with.

Get it?

[crosscutred]

Originally Posted by Pelle G

No, an output pannable requires two DAC/VCA. I'm with you there.
What I was suggesting was to make a mono/stereo version of the plugin. Just to get a user friendly pan option...

- If the mono/mono is inserted there's no pan knob visible. Track goes out mono.

- if the mono/stereo (or a stereo/stereo) is inserted there's a pan knob visible. The track is already going out thru a stereo output and the pan rubber band can translate to the 2 DACs.

As been stated before, of course two mono tracks with each own volume will have the same effect. Maybe not as neat to deal with.

Get it?

Wouldn't sending a stereo track to two outputs and using the pan automation of the daw do the same thing?

[Pelle G]

Originally Posted by crosscutred

Wouldn't sending a stereo track to two outputs and using the pan automation of the daw do the same thing?

Well. Yes ...and no. It will pan the source digitally before it goes out.

But, good that you brought it up. Because I now realize the problem of having a mono source with some inserts and then split to the pan VCAs.

Ignore me. I return to the shadows...

[tony666]

Originally Posted by juniorhifikit

Every automated function requires a DAC for CV, .

Most synths used S&H for generating cv's back in th 80's. One DAC , a couple of 4051's and S&H circuits. You can still find ic's doing the same thing ...

[Pelle G]

Originally Posted by tony666

Most synths used S&H for generating cv's back in th 80's. One DAC , a couple of 4051's and S&H circuits. You can still find ic's doing the same thing ...

True. Still a lot of xtra circuitry. Probably more advance filters (due to S&H) + an xtra VCA. 4051's are not so reliable when switching in hi freq. Might be ok for synth cv but for 12bit ... neeaaahh..

[crosscutred]

Originally Posted by Pelle G

Well. Yes ...and no. It will pan the source digitally before it goes out.

But, good that you brought it up. Because I now realize the problem of having a mono source with some inserts and then split to the pan VCAs.

Ignore me. I return to the shadows...

I see what you're getting at, process a mono signal OTB then split it to 2 vca faders, that would work. That would be facilitated by a software pan function joining two vca faders to provide a linked level and pan function, even though the only actual control over the vca would be level
No need for a self facepalm.

[juniorhifikit]

Originally Posted by ajbianco

How do u expand to 32 channels? Is it just a matter of buying 2 units? 8 stereo channels is not enough for me.

Yes, the units can be cascaded. For convenience, there's a stereo version of the plugin for stereo DAW channels that gangs two faders to the same automation control.

In an effort to keep this thread on topic, and not turn it into a thread about my product, shoot me a PM or hit me up through the website: info@greinerengineering.com

[HHaynes]

Originally Posted by tony666

Most synths used S&H for generating cv's back in th 80's. One DAC , a couple of 4051's and S&H circuits. You can still find ic's doing the same thing ...

The Memorymoog was like that - a large Mux/Demux board with an array of S&H circuits 'talking to' each analog end point. I did the Lintronics retrofits for those beasts when working for Moog. Part of the mod was getting the 'tuning' right by adjusting some capacitors - essentially to make certain controls more responsive without 'zipper noise' as the S&H sent an update. Not trivial.

In case you haven't noticed, the conversation has somewhat come full circle as to *why* an 8-bus might cost so much these days. Stereo channels means two VCAs (or two discrete component audio paths - I don't want to box anyone in) regardless of hiw you cut it, and proper part selection ($$$) and careful circuit design ($$$$) can make all of the difference between placebo effect versus something both measurable *and* pleasing to the ear.

I'm not saying an analog board *should* or shouldn't cost a certain amount - just that there's often enough *good* and valid reasons why the price point is so high. Remember - solder jockeys gotta eat, too.