Agreed, a computer based daw, with maybe a control
surface if you need to maintain the physicality of a
conventional mixing board seems to be an effective way
to go. The digital mixing boards seem to add some
extra, and very possibly unneeded learning curves.
The debate as to which computer based daw, on what
platform is far more involved.
And of course since I need to make things more
complicated, I'm going to point out that some of the
very best electronic music in my opinion has been made
on reel to reels and ADATs, etc. In other words, I
don't know how much alot of these details matter,
really.
--- Peter Grenader <peter@...> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
surface if you need to maintain the physicality of a
conventional mixing board seems to be an effective way
to go. The digital mixing boards seem to add some
extra, and very possibly unneeded learning curves.
The debate as to which computer based daw, on what
platform is far more involved.
And of course since I need to make things more
complicated, I'm going to point out that some of the
very best electronic music in my opinion has been made
on reel to reels and ADATs, etc. In other words, I
don't know how much alot of these details matter,
really.
--- Peter Grenader <peter@...> wrote:
> darkstr1746@... wrote:<mailto:SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> This question could generate some long winded
> answers i'm sure ,so just keep
> responses as non technical as possible.
> Who here has made the switch from straight up analog
> desk to a digital
> desk?. . like the Sony or Yamaha O2R. What were
> your first impressions
> about the learning curve and the difference in sonic
> quality? I say "first"
> impressions because i'm sure attitudes changed
> during the learning curve
> process.
>
> They're trade-offs with every technology. While
> tape may have a certain
> warmth, the stock is impossible to find, a
> mutlitrack machine and automated
> desk is still quite cost prohibitive and editing
> capabilities are not close
> to being in the same league as modern digital
> offerings.
>
> As an example, go here:
>
> http://www.buzzclick-music.com/picture_motu.jpg
>
> This is a 26 channel submix of something that
> started off as 96 channels.
> Each channel has loads of automation (levels,
> panning, even automation of
> effects like reverb, etc.), as well as independent
> limiters on several of
> the channels. I couldn't conceive of the cash
> outlay required to do this
> with tape and a mixing desk, nor could I afford to
> rent the space needed to
> house all of it. And the beauty of it is,
> everything can be changed. I can
> drag sound events to wherever I need them, I can
> duplicate them and paste in
> in other sections, I can bring in samples from other
> sessions. It makes
> writing music fun!
>
> Submixes were all digital, no D to A's involved and
> if you design the
> session right, you can keep it all in the digital
> domain until the final
> transfer to CD. This keep things very very quiet.
>
>
> How hard was it to learn how to record and mix
> useing sub menues and
> multiple layers? What about choices of I/O cards?
>
> It's like anything else, takes a bit of time. I'm
> sure Outlook was
> confusing at first for all of us. But in time,
> instead kicking the shit out
> of us, we turned that around. Most of the digital
> audio s/w packages
> emulate the look, feel and terminology of the modern
> recording studio - so
> it's not like you're dealing with a completely
> foreign environment. It's
> quickly adapted. SIx months tops and you're there.
>
> Who uses ADATS? or is that too old school?
>
> Skip the middle man! Try out the free demo of
> Protools. Play around with
> it and see if it's for you.
>
> As far as sound cards, I've been happy with my
> digi001, but that's
> relatively old technolgy at this point. There are
> some great new firewire
> boxes out there like the MOTU 828 which can handle
> 10 channels of 96k.
> They're cheap and reliable.
>
> <<One last thing. The issue of master clock. What
> are the solutions to the
> master clock problem? or is there a problem at all
> anymore. Specificaly, i
> have more effects boxes than channel returns on a
> digital desk, so inputs
> will have to be by digital I/O. this requires that
> some device be the
> master. . . correct? I have a friend that uses a
> stand alone box that
> supplies the whole studio with master clock. Is this
> the way to go?>>
>
> In my experience it's not a problem. There are many
> affordable choices out
> there.
>
> Keep your answers simple as possible. I'm an idiot.
> kind regards
> john duval
>
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "SergeModular
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SergeModular>
> " on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>__________________________________________________
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com