In the Box - Software vs. Soundcard Mixer

Lorddiagram · 7th April 2004

I am looking at the RME line and the Lynx line. Both have a nicely "specced" mixer app for the sound card.

Anyone have any experience/comments on routing tracks out to the soundcards mixer app vs. using the software apps mixer?

example: using RME's mixer to sum vs. using ProTools.

lD

Lorddiagram · 8th April 2004

Nobody - I thought this could be an interesting thing. The RME and Lynx mixers look and spec great it seems there could be imprvemtns by routing direct outs in to the Sound card's mixer app?

Teacher · 9th April 2004

in the lynx mixer you can only route 4 stereo channels...while the rme you can route all of them(i think i don't have rme i have a lynx2) I've never done a real A/B between S/w mixing and the lynx mixer, but i would imagine if there was a difference it would be VERY subtle therefore negligible

jbuntz · 9th April 2004

It's still going to be digital summing. Good digital summing costs lots of $$$.

ttauri · 9th April 2004

I'm spreading things out through the MH 2882 mixer when I'm in Tracktion, but that's because, in my experience, Tracktion's mixbus compares unfavorably to the higher profile DAWs.

Peece,
T. Tauri

Innominandum · 9th April 2004

The mixer applications that come with sound cards are generally for monitoring purposes and not for mixing down projects. As mentioned earlier, it'd still be digital mixing anyway.

alfonso · 10th April 2004

I do it always, in stm2448 mixer of my Scope platform by Creamware. It's way better than Cubase summing, that I find unusable in comparison.
But stm2448 is not just a monitoring mixer, It's quite a beast, and Scope platform is an environment for a complete production.
I record tracks and playback them individually throug CW Asio32float modules, and I'm very satisfied of the results.
I'm doing all the processing and sound generation in the Scope environment, I stopped even touching Cubase faders and all the Vst thing. Every track has a dedicated asio out.
Then I add synths and samples directly in Scope and go with a 32 float mix in real time.
After that, I load a dedicated Scope project for mastering and get the finalized 32 float file, that I just dither down with UV22hr in Cubase for the 16 bit mixdown. That's the only processing I have in cubase.

I don't know with other seq's, but compared to Cubase summing I notice a big difference.

7th April 2004	#1
Lorddiagram Gear maniac Joined: Mar 2004 Location: Devil's Gulch, Boulder Creek Posts: 291 Thread Starter	In the Box - Software vs. Soundcard Mixer I am looking at the RME line and the Lynx line. Both have a nicely "specced" mixer app for the sound card. Anyone have any experience/comments on routing tracks out to the soundcards mixer app vs. using the software apps mixer? example: using RME's mixer to sum vs. using ProTools. lD

8th April 2004	#2
Lorddiagram Gear maniac Joined: Mar 2004 Location: Devil's Gulch, Boulder Creek Posts: 291 Thread Starter	bueller? Nobody - I thought this could be an interesting thing. The RME and Lynx mixers look and spec great it seems there could be imprvemtns by routing direct outs in to the Sound card's mixer app?

9th April 2004	#3
Teacher Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2002 Location: NY Posts: 1,913	in the lynx mixer you can only route 4 stereo channels...while the rme you can route all of them(i think i don't have rme i have a lynx2) I've never done a real A/B between S/w mixing and the lynx mixer, but i would imagine if there was a difference it would be VERY subtle therefore negligible __________________ "I hate it when they tell us how far we came to be, as if our people's history started with slavery...." Immortal Technique www.sicbeats.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Summing through Soundcraft vs In the box - worth a try?	swaff	So much gear, so little time!	43	24th August 2009 06:47 PM
Solo flute in the studio - stereo vs mono, close vs distant?	jnorman	Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording	5	9th May 2009 09:44 PM
Recording/Mixing in the box - gear suggestions?	roderick	So much gear, so little time!	2	10th February 2009 12:57 AM
POLL: CAN YOU TELL?? DID I USE SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE SAMPLES	CareerTech1	So much gear, so little time!	15	27th November 2006 11:52 AM
In the box, or out with cheap mixers? Mic Pres.	Hexfix93	High end	0	19th May 2005 04:09 PM

9th April 2004	#4
jbuntz Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,716	It's still going to be digital summing. Good digital summing costs lots of $$$.

9th April 2004	#5
ttauri Lives for gear Joined: Aug 2003 Location: Knife, Fork, Bottle, Cork Posts: 761	I'm spreading things out through the MH 2882 mixer when I'm in Tracktion, but that's because, in my experience, Tracktion's mixbus compares unfavorably to the higher profile DAWs. Peece, T. Tauri

9th April 2004	#6
Innominandum Gear Head Joined: Jan 2004 Location: Edmonton AB Canada Posts: 43	The mixer applications that come with sound cards are generally for monitoring purposes and not for mixing down projects. As mentioned earlier, it'd still be digital mixing anyway.

10th April 2004	#7
alfonso Gear maniac Joined: Dec 2002 Location: italy,by the sea Posts: 183	I do it always, in stm2448 mixer of my Scope platform by Creamware. It's way better than Cubase summing, that I find unusable in comparison. But stm2448 is not just a monitoring mixer, It's quite a beast, and Scope platform is an environment for a complete production. I record tracks and playback them individually throug CW Asio32float modules, and I'm very satisfied of the results. I'm doing all the processing and sound generation in the Scope environment, I stopped even touching Cubase faders and all the Vst thing. Every track has a dedicated asio out. Then I add synths and samples directly in Scope and go with a 32 float mix in real time. After that, I load a dedicated Scope project for mastering and get the finalized 32 float file, that I just dither down with UV22hr in Cubase for the 16 bit mixdown. That's the only processing I have in cubase. I don't know with other seq's, but compared to Cubase summing I notice a big difference.