while Mixing digitally, do you process any track w/analog gear?

[jindrich]

that is,
if you mix inside alsihad/logic/inNuendo, or with a digital board like a Sony R100 (wich may have tracks coming from those daws btw), do you keep things entirely in the digital domain?

dont you process any track with a REAL la2a or gml eq or whatever?

That would obviously require adding an additonal D/A+A/D process, which is my main concern, whether the (artifacts introduced with) conversion will neglect the benefit of having sweet analog gear in the path.

thanx

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by jindrich
that is,
if you mix inside alsihad/logic/inNuendo, or with a digital board like a Sony R100 (wich may have tracks coming from those daws btw), do you keep things entirely in the digital domain?

dont you process any track with a REAL la2a or gml eq or whatever?

That would obviously require adding an additonal D/A+A/D process, which is my main concern, whether the (artifacts introduced with) conversion will neglect the benefit of having sweet analog gear in the path.

thanx

dont you process any track with a REAL la2a or gml eq or whatever?


All the time, especially the important stuff:Drums,bass and vocals.

The conversion is no big deal, hey we've been using digital reverbs and effects for years and there are digital conversions going in that(and we are talking about since the early 80's).

This goes for samplers too.

Its all in the quality of conversion. Use the best D/A and A/D's you can afford and you will be ok.

[Mike Tholen]

with such great conversion being offered it is not so much an issue as it was just a year or two ago.
But what I have a hard time dealing with is Latency of said track or tracks.
a HUGE PITA.dfegad

[NathanEldred]

I mix with the computer but I use it just like a traditional multitrack tape machine D/A out to an analog console. I don't have to deal with latency (from conversion anyway, plugs are a different story, but Nuendo's delay compensation works well) because it's not actually being brought back into the computer. So I combine plugins with outboard approximately 20% plugs/80% outboard. I'll digitally subgroup things like guitars, drums, bass mic/DI and run them through a stereo or mono feed into the outboard analog processing of my choice. I also get to monitor off the console analog instead of through a 2 bus D/A which is nice. I mix to an Ampex ATR 1/4" @ 15ips which really widens and glues the sound together. I would rather record digitally and mix to an analog stereo deck, than record analog and mix to digital.

[jindrich]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
I mix with the computer but I use it just like a traditional multitrack tape machine D/A out to an analog console. I don't have to deal with latency (from conversion anyway, plugs are a different story, but Nuendo's delay compensation works well) because it's not actually being brought back into the computer. So I combine plugins with outboard approximately 20% plugs/80% outboard. I'll digitally subgroup things like guitars, drums, bass mic/DI and run them through a stereo or mono feed into the outboard analog processing of my choice. I also get to monitor off the console analog instead of through a 2 bus D/A which is nice. I mix to an Ampex ATR 1/4" @ 15ips which really widens and glues the sound together. I would rather record digitally and mix to an analog stereo deck, than record analog and mix to digital.

and so Nathan, your mute/ fader automation is... where?
Do you have moving analog faders (and ANOTHER computer to move them and mess around with smpte), or you automate inside daw, and THEN process it with analog gear?

...which is another thing i don't get right:
analog compression/eq AFTER digital gain riding??? .

And in those cases when the HiQ analog board/sumer doesn't have mute automation, what happens in a stated moment when the faders (of the analog board) are all open but only one has signal because the daw automation has muted the rest of them? Noizzze?

[XHipHop]

Originally posted by jindrich


...which is another thing i don't get right:
analog compression/eq AFTER digital gain riding??? .

You could always do this, i suppose...

D/A out to a compressor or EQ then A/D back in to an aux which you automate the volume of and then D/A back out to a mixer. You will have to know the delays created by your converters and compensate for them but this is a valid workaround, i think.

[Mike Tholen]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
I mix with the computer but I use it just like a traditional multitrack tape machine D/A out to an analog console. I don't have to deal with latency (from conversion anyway, plugs are a different story, but Nuendo's delay compensation works well) because it's not actually being brought back into the computer. So I combine plugins with outboard approximately 20% plugs/80% outboard. I'll digitally subgroup things like guitars, drums, bass mic/DI and run them through a stereo or mono feed into the outboard analog processing of my choice. I also get to monitor off the console analog instead of through a 2 bus D/A which is nice. I mix to an Ampex ATR 1/4" @ 15ips which really widens and glues the sound together. I would rather record digitally and mix to an analog stereo deck, than record analog and mix to digital.

so your NOT mixing in the computer.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by XHipHop
You could always do this, i suppose...

D/A out to a compressor or EQ then A/D back in to an aux which you automate the volume of and then D/A back out to a mixer. You will have to know the delays created by your converters and compensate for them but this is a valid workaround, i think.

I think its better to just record it back into PT or Nuendo(for recall purposes) instead of bringing back to an aux, than if you still want to do some kind of analog summing or automation outboard than it will be easier.

[oortnyc]

I agree. Process it with analog gear and then record it back in. That way you can Time slip the track to the original to compensate for the latency. Also you could use the same piece of analog gear on more than one track. It's time consuming but it works.

[NathanEldred]

Originally posted by Mike Tholen
so your NOT mixing in the computer

Semantics Mike. Yes I am partially mixing in the computer......for some reason, when I turn the computer off, nothing seems to work any longer [insert sarcasm here].



Some processing is done in the computer, automation, funky effects, etc. And I'm partially mixing on an analog console. With the way I'm working, they rely on each other to work. In reference to the way the automation works into the compression, I just ride it into the compression and deal with it. If it's really necessary to have a big jump in volume, I can always put it on a seperate track. It's not a perfect system and there are a few minor workarounds (which are only apparent to me not to the client), but it's a much lesser evil IMNSHO than mixing all in the box (at least the sonics prove that to my ears). And I'm not about to add VCA auto to the console, and can't justify motor mix for $75/hr (got bigger fish to fry). As far as mutes not being on the board, I'm not sure what kind of console you've used, but when the digital output from the computer is muted and the fader on the physical console is up, the noise isn't detectable.

[Mike Tholen]

there's no need to justify your system here.
I was just commenting on the original poster's question refering specifcally to inserting or treating digital tracks in the analog domain all the while still mixing in the box.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
And I'm not about to add VCA auto to the console, and can't justify motor mix for $75/hr (got bigger fish to fry). As far as mutes not being on the board, I'm not sure what kind of console you've used, but when the digital output from the computer is muted and the fader on the physical console is up, the noise isn't detectable.

I'll say once again that VCA's aren't all evil. I have VCA automation on my desk and it hasn't hurt the sound of my records IMHO and my clients HO. Actually I just tracked a project with multiple mic'd guitars and all channels went through the VCA's on the way to tape and again on the mix. Everyone still thinks the guitars sound great.

Carry on.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by oortnyc
I agree. Process it with analog gear and then record it back in. That way you can Time slip the track to the original to compensate for the latency. Also you could use the same piece of analog gear on more than one track. It's time consuming but it works.

Well you can easily work around this, by copying the track, shifting that back the latent amount and making that track the main send to your outboard. That way when its coming back it will be in time and you can also monitor the changes this way.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
Semantics Mike. Yes I am partially mixing in the computer......for some reason, when I turn the computer off, nothing seems to work any longer [insert sarcasm here].



Some processing is done in the computer, automation, funky effects, etc. And I'm partially mixing on an analog console. With the way I'm working, they rely on each other to work. In reference to the way the automation works into the compression, I just ride it into the compression and deal with it. If it's really necessary to have a big jump in volume, I can always put it on a seperate track. It's not a perfect system and there are a few minor workarounds (which are only apparent to me not to the client), but it's a much lesser evil IMNSHO than mixing all in the box (at least the sonics prove that to my ears). And I'm not about to add VCA auto to the console, and can't justify motor mix for $75/hr (got bigger fish to fry). As far as mutes not being on the board, I'm not sure what kind of console you've used, but when the digital output from the computer is muted and the fader on the physical console is up, the noise isn't detectable.

So Nathan,

Its safe to gather that you aren't mixing very complicated songs like a pop/rnb track with 48 tracks of vocals, 48 tracks of music, and all of the effect returns and comp/EQ mults?

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by Jay Kahrs
I'll say once again that VCA's aren't all evil.

I absolutely agree. the newer generations of THAT VCA's are pretty damn transparent.

[NathanEldred]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
So Nathan,

Its safe to gather that you aren't mixing very complicated songs like a pop/rnb track with 48 tracks of vocals, 48 tracks of music, and all of the effect returns and comp/EQ mults?

96 tracks? Sounds like mundane hell to me. Nope, I'm hovering around 1/3 of that for actual "real" tracks. I'm having a hard time grasping why anyone would need 96 tracks though, how the hell then did they make music before ProTools...or maybe that's why things suck now, because the song writing is often very weak and the production is the crutch? Maybe that's a bit of a pessimistic statement, and perhaps you could view that as naive, personally I see it as a philosophical difference. I can understand up to 48 tracks, but even then if the arrangement and song is solid, that many tracks is definitely icing on the cake. If it can't be stripped down and played with on an acoustic guitar or piano and a few voices, it's not a song IMNSHO. Johnny Cash, Led Zeppelin, John Coltrane, Social Distortion, Elvis, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, The Beatles....did any of these guys need tons of tracks? They didn't, and this stuff will stand the test of time...no one will remember Madonna's new song or Brandy or Brittney in 30 years. I remember Jay getting slammed for feeling this same way a few months ago.

Dave M, are 128 tracks common now in Nashville? That's a lot of mics in the tracking room for all the session players to be mic'ed up at one time. I'd love to see a bluegrass band use more than 20 tracks.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by NathanEldred
96 tracks? Nope, I'm hovering around 1/3 of that for actual "real" tracks. I'm having a hard time grasping why anyone would need 96 tracks though, how the hell then did they make music before ProTools...or maybe that's why things suck now, because the song writing is often very weak and the production is the crutch? Maybe that's a bit of a pessimistic statement, and perhaps you could view that as naive, personally I see it as a philosophical difference. I can understand up to 48 tracks, but even then if the arrangement and song is solid, that many tracks is definitely icing on the cake. If it can't be stripped down and played with on an acoustic guitar or piano and a few voices, it's not a song IMNSHO. I remember Jay getting slammed for feeling this same way a few months ago.

Dave M, are 128 tracks common now in Nashville? That's a lot of mics in the tracking room for all the session players to be mic'ed up at one time. I'd love to see a bluegrass band use more than 20 tracks.

Most of the modern pop/rnb stuff is a combination of synths and live tracks and tons of drums and percussion.

You need everything on its own track when mixing(it gives you better control).

The harmonies are layered 4 parts deep(not to mention the different adlib takes).

This is one of the reasons that the modern 120 input SSL will never go away. Also it can handle 240 inputs(at your final mixdown) hitting the summing buss without it collapsing.

I am sure some of the modern "pop country"stuff is similar.

[dave-G]

It would be a riot to see someone try to mic a bluegrass group with 100 mics..

I think the 100-ish track count thing is born out of contemporary pop and R&B production methods... Backing vocals in the days of yore, were a group around a mic, while today, it's more often the same singer doing each part and its double on a separate track for each pass to build a large chord .. This alone can easily add up to HUGE track counts, especially if there are "sets" of BGVs with different treatments for chorus, prechorus, bridge, etc... PLUS, many producers in this genre are originally keyboard players (not that there's anything wrong with that ) and most often track EVERYTHING in stereo, since that's how it comes out of their instrument(s). ... Stereo kick sample, stereo bass... stereo everything even if it's really just dual mono... oodles of fx returns... it gets blinding in "mundane hell" (nice term, Nathan).

Before PT, well ... let's see.... there was the good ol' slave-reel, lots of submixing, and the antiquated practice of decision making.. . Boy do we have it better now, or what!?



Scrolling down a mix-window in such a ProTools session can make me motion-sick.

-dave

[pounce]

absolutely going to outboard gear. my hardware verbs and such totally beat out the plug ins. no doubt. things also get a pass the the avalon 747. most of the rock stuff is do is 20 - 50 tracks, so more than that is not the norm for me (if track count is an issue)

[mac black]

I use logic-O2r and then a modified phonix valve as a mix comp down to dat and back to logic for some post...

[faeflora]

I'm a musician and all of my stuff is composed and recorded in Logic. I use outboard sythesizers and extremely rarely, virtual instruments. I do use the EXS24 sampler heavily though.

When I track synths, I use all the outboard I can. EQ, Comp, and DI. Once it's in the workstation, I usually end up EQing a lot when I mix. DAW eqs used to be pretty crappy, including Waves, but Logic has this new EQ called Track EQ which actually isn't that ugly. I mean, it doesn't **** up the sound with digital nastiness or phasing that badly. So I use digital EQ on a lot of tracks. How does it compare to GML or Manley? Er, it can't do anything a Massivo can do, except for LPF or HPF, and it's not as clean and sweet as GML, but it's plenty decent for high passing, low passing (occasionally), and a few low value parametric dips. Digital compression does suck though, except for L1 which I use pretty frequently.

On lead tracks I do send stuff out DA, through outboard, then back in AD and rerecord. The latency thing does kind of suck, but I've gotten pretty darn quick at adjusting wave start points.

I don't think there's anything wrong with working like this. I get the sounds I want and the ADDA really doesn't comprimise anything. If I was converting using ADAT converters, oh yes it would uglify things really quickly, but I'm not using shite for conversion!

My track counts are usually around 70-124. That's mono and mono pairs(stereo). If you don't understand what I mean, 124 tracks=62 stereo tracks.

Why do I need so much? BECAUSE I LIKE TO "PRODUCE" my music HEAVILY. I THINK IT SOUNDS GOOD. Was I able to do this before DAW? No. I use lots of chorusing, on instruments, and vocals. I use different treatments on percussion throughout a song. I'll usually have more than one kick track. And snare track. Could my stuff be played with a 3 piece band and sound good? Yes. But I LIKE what I can do in the DAW with zillions of tracks.

It also makes mixing easier. I probably could condense down to 30 stereo tracks, but it would be an automation pain in the ass. All my audio is bounced down, so I could circumnavigate automation for plugs, but I'd have to do panning and volume changes nonstop and it would really suck. I have the tracks available so if I can put a sound on it's own track, so I only have to do a few fader moves per song, I will.fuuck

So once again, I go in and out of DAW constantly. With good conversion you'll be JUST FINE. Using "Sweet Analog Gear" just sounds better than plugs.

BTW, how the poo did this thread swerve into a track count religious seminar? Sorry for contributing to the diversion.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by faeflora
I'm a musician and all of my stuff is composed and recorded in Logic. I use outboard sythesizers and extremely rarely, virtual instruments. I do use the EXS24 sampler heavily though.

When I track synths, I use all the outboard I can. EQ, Comp, and DI. Once it's in the workstation, I usually end up EQing a lot when I mix. DAW eqs used to be pretty crappy, including Waves, but Logic has this new EQ called Track EQ which actually isn't that ugly. I mean, it doesn't **** up the sound with digital nastiness or phasing that badly. So I use digital EQ on a lot of tracks. How does it compare to GML or Manley? Er, it can't do anything a Massivo can do, except for LPF or HPF, and it's not as clean and sweet as GML, but it's plenty decent for high passing, low passing (occasionally), and a few low value parametric dips. Digital compression does suck though, except for L1 which I use pretty frequently.

On lead tracks I do send stuff out DA, through outboard, then back in AD and rerecord. The latency thing does kind of suck, but I've gotten pretty darn quick at adjusting wave start points.

I don't think there's anything wrong with working like this. I get the sounds I want and the ADDA really doesn't comprimise anything. If I was converting using ADAT converters, oh yes it would uglify things really quickly, but I'm not using shite for conversion!

My track counts are usually around 70-124. That's mono and mono pairs(stereo). If you don't understand what I mean, 124 tracks=62 stereo tracks.

Why do I need so much? BECAUSE I LIKE TO "PRODUCE" my music HEAVILY. I THINK IT SOUNDS GOOD. Was I able to do this before DAW? No. I use lots of chorusing, on instruments, and vocals. I use different treatments on percussion throughout a song. I'll usually have more than one kick track. And snare track. Could my stuff be played with a 3 piece band and sound good? Yes. But I LIKE what I can do in the DAW with zillions of tracks.

It also makes mixing easier. I probably could condense down to 30 stereo tracks, but it would be an automation pain in the ass. All my audio is bounced down, so I could circumnavigate automation for plugs, but I'd have to do panning and volume changes nonstop and it would really suck. I have the tracks available so if I can put a sound on it's own track, so I only have to do a few fader moves per song, I will.fuuck

So once again, I go in and out of DAW constantly. With good conversion you'll be JUST FINE. Using "Sweet Analog Gear" just sounds better than plugs.

BTW, how the poo did this thread swerve into a track count religious seminar? Sorry for contributing to the diversion.

I do something similar, produce in Logic, but I track and mix in PT.

Without sample acurate editing(being able to shift the tracks by 1 sample) there is no way you could do the D/A-A/D conversion tricks. There will be too many phase shifts(especially when you are layering subs).

The songs end up being 128 tracks and up easily(I track everything comp,EQ, and effects).

I only use a little bit of plugs on the mixes(maybe 5-6).

I think the thread went there because of the console automation thing.

[dave-G]

Faeflora, in case it was my post you're alluding to... I didn't mean to preach anything. A bulk of the work I do fits a similar description to yours, with high track counts, huge vocal stacks, composite kick and snare samples, etc, etc.. Despite my predilection to recording acoustic events, making decisions and building sounds on the way in to the DAW, I do like "production" too. I intended my post more as a light critique of overproduction madness, and a self-deprecation based on the fact that I and my clients often work this way -- not as a "religious seminar"... Sorry it bugged you.

As to the original topic, even when mixing "in the box" with PTHD, I have a patchbay and racks of outboard that come into regular use (some of which is pornographed in the megga gear pics thread). I agree wholeheartedly that the extra time-adjuster math or shuffle-edit to line things back up and the artifacts of DA/AD conversions are far outweighed by the benefits of using good "plug-outs" like UREI 1176s, Distressors, Lang EQs, reverbs, re-amped guitar amps and fx pedals, etc. The corrective efforts to make it all work do become second nature, and it's well worth it.

However, I'm curious about the ways that other people approach this... I often wish there was a simple "print track" command that would print a representation of the pre-fader signal, including analog inserts. This would certainly save some time. Now, I use adjacent record-enabled tracks as returns until I get the sound tweaked, then later in the mix process, I print it all and disable the source tracks. Auto delay compensation in PT would also be appreciated, but there's a dead and beaten horse if ever there was one.

To me, one great advantage of spreading DAW tracks across a large format console is the relative ease of insertion (), parallel dynamics processing, etc. But even without the console, I can't stop myself from feeling a "need" to patch a good analog compressor across certain things, or use a nice reverb, whether the DAW makes it convenient to do so or not.

-dave

[littledog]

I have an old "hot rodded" Eventide 3500 series harmonizer. It was crammed with all the various 3500/3000 series options into one box (Broadcast, Sampling, etc.)

There's some stuff in there that I probably could duplicate with plug-ins, but it's a lot easier just to use the Harmonizer. My main concern is not so much conversion issues, but full recallability a week or a month or a year or so later. So whenever i use it, at some point I print it to an extra track so that I won't have to worry about recreating exact settings and gain structure later.

But I will admit that if there are two similar gear alternatives and one has digital I/O, I'd probably go for the digital one to save a conversion or two. Obviously that wouldn't stop me from scooping up an LA2A, Pultec, etc. if I tripped over one on the street.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by dave-G



However, I'm curious about the ways that other people approach this... I often wish there was a simple "print track" command that would print a representation of the pre-fader signal, including analog inserts. This would certainly save some time. Now, I use adjacent record-enabled tracks as returns until I get the sound tweaked, then later in the mix process, I print it all and disable the source tracks. Auto delay compensation in PT would also be appreciated, but there's a dead and beaten horse if ever there was one.


-dave

I often wish there was a simple "print track" command that would print a representation of the pre-fader signal, including analog inserts.


Dave maybe you can elaborate on this statement a little.

When I am mixing I rarely use the inserts(even when mixing on an SSL). I prefer to have the different combinations of dynamics on different channels. Than I just choose(with mute automation and fader rides).

In PT I just copy the tracks that I want some kind of processing, shift it over by the number of samples and send the out to whatever(dynamics or time based effects). That way you can monitor the return(put in rec mode) and it will be in time. Than i just print it and its done.

Digi says the auto delay compensation will be a feature in the next update...so I guess we can still hope.

[Jules]

I use 16 analog out from my DAW.

That gives me chances to insert outboard, with no latency issues.

[dave-G]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
I often wish there was a simple "print track" command that would print a representation of the pre-fader signal, including analog inserts.

Dave maybe you can elaborate on this statement a little.

see below...

When I am mixing I rarely use the inserts(even when mixing on an SSL). I prefer to have the different combinations of dynamics on different channels. Than I just choose(with mute automation and fader rides).

Are you saying you avoid inserts on some sonic principle? What's wrong with inserts? Certainly it's common, and easy to patch the outboard in between the tape outs and console line ins, or post-mult before the line-in, but there are still plenty of times where a switch-bypassable insert is preferable to me.

In PT I just copy the tracks that I want some kind of processing, shift it over by the number of samples and send the out to whatever(dynamics or time based effects). That way you can monitor the return(put in rec mode) and it will be in time. Than i just print it and its done.

Well, if I follow you, that's sounds like the way I do it too, but sometimes that's not all there is to it .. Duplicate the track (as opposed to making a new track, so any automation and sends get copied over, too), clear the audio and inserts on the duplicate and set its input to either the hardware input that returns the signal, or turn off automation on the original track, set it to unity gain and use a bus to get to the target track, if I used a pre-fader insert to get the source to the outboard. Then I set a nudge amount to the correct number of samples for the DA-AD round-trip latency of whatever interface I'm using, nudge the original track that much, record-enable the clear track and continue working in "input only mode" till I’m ready to print. Then I record a pass, de-activate and hide the original track and voila… Much harder to describe than to do (it's really pretty painless).

If I'm starting a mix from scratch, I'll just leave the original track at unity and send it out to the outboard, returning to a record-enabled track... Supremely easier, but not always an option in complex sessions where previous production means plugin-inserts and existing automation/gain-staging of certain things are already happening. ..

My hypothetical "print track" command would be a mild convenience, perhaps kinda like a distant cousin of "bounce-to-disk" with a couple of macros... something simply to do some automated form of the multi-step process I described above; use pre-fader inserts as you like, pull-down the "print track" command from the file menu and take a few minutes while it prints to check for new topics on Gearslutz. ... When it's done, you've got a track in the place of the old one with no inserts, a single, consolidated region, any existing sends and fader/mute automation in-place, and the source track de-activated and hidden...

I think it would be a nice convenience. Then again, maybe I'm just being lazy.

Digi says the auto delay compensation will be a feature in the next update...so I guess we can still hope.

Amen. With bells on, hallelujah! etc...

-dave

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by dave-G
see below...



Are you saying you avoid inserts on some sonic principle? What's wrong with inserts? Certainly it's common, and easy to patch the outboard in between the tape outs and console line ins, or post-mult before the line-in, but there are still plenty of times where a switch-bypassable insert is preferable to me.



Well, if I follow you, that's sounds like the way I do it too, but sometimes that's not all there is to it .. Duplicate the track (as opposed to making a new track, so any automation and sends get copied over, too), clear the audio and inserts on the duplicate and set its input to either the hardware input that returns the signal, or turn off automation on the original track, set it to unity gain and use a bus to get to the target track, if I used a pre-fader insert to get the source to the outboard. Then I set a nudge amount to the correct number of samples for the DA-AD round-trip latency of whatever interface I'm using, nudge the original track that much, record-enable the clear track and continue working in "input only mode" till I’m ready to print. Then I record a pass, de-activate and hide the original track and voila… Much harder to describe than to do (it's really pretty painless).

If I'm starting a mix from scratch, I'll just leave the original track at unity and send it out to the outboard, returning to a record-enabled track... Supremely easier, but not always an option in complex sessions where previous production means plugin-inserts and existing automation/gain-staging of certain things are already happening. ..

My hypothetical "print track" command would be a mild convenience, perhaps kinda like a distant cousin of "bounce-to-disk" with a couple of macros... something simply to do some automated form of the multi-step process I described above; use pre-fader inserts as you like, pull-down the "print track" command from the file menu and take a few minutes while it prints to check for new topics on Gearslutz. ... When it's done, you've got a track in the place of the old one with no inserts, a single, consolidated region, any existing sends and fader/mute automation in-place, and the source track de-activated and hidden...

I think it would be a nice convenience. Then again, maybe I'm just being lazy.



Amen. With bells on, hallelujah! etc...

-dave

An Analog insert in PT induces latency.

The reason I don't do inserts, even on consoles anymore is the wiring. Sometimes they are balanced sometimes they are not.

I prefer to do the mute and fader choices thing. It can be time consuming and take up tons of tracks, but it gives you more choices when mixing.

Yeah I know, the shifting thing gets tiring after awhile.grudge

At times when the clients attend the mixing sessions, I have to go through the whole explanantion of why do we copy and shift tracks. In the beginning its a slow process, but its the only way you can montor the outboard in real time.

I do a lot of mults and splits and that they are all in time is mandatory.

Your idea is not a bad one(if you could include after the fader also) I would much prefer that PT would calculate the latency automatically for analog stuff or plug ins.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Jules
I use 16 analog out from my DAW.

That gives me chances to insert outboard, with no latency issues.

What if you are doing a mix with more than 16 outs?

[Jules]

The 16 outs comprise mono or stereo "stems" from the DAW mixer.

a) some indevidual signals I wish to tweak
b) Groups (assigned in PT) of stuff that can also be tweaked, (but only as a group, say all Bvox etc)