home studio setup help please

[stratotone]

I'm thinking about getting a little more serious with my recording setup - for ease of use and I just enjoy recording my stuff, my band and others. Here's what I currently have - a Korg D3200 32 track digital recorder. Been running everything 'direct' but vocals to it (I use a V-drum kit triggering slate samples live). Then I go back and touch stuff up one at a time, ending up with vocals. Then I send it via USB 2.0 to my PC, where I clean it up/mix it with (don't laugh) adobe audition. Here's a sample of something I did with the setup above:

What I'd like to do is just record direct to a PC. I know you can get several different rackmount gizmos with 8 or so inputs, that you can then hook up to your PC via USB or Firewire... but what really has me intrigued are the ones with the mixers built in like the following...anyone have any experience with these or other ideas?

At the low end, the Alesis Multimix http://www.alesis.com/multimix16usb20
Middle of what I want to spend - Mackie Onyx 1620i http://www.mackie.com/products/onyx1620i/
And towards the high end, the Mackie Onyx 1640i http://www.mackie.com/products/onyx1640i/

Also, I want to be able to use the mixer during mixdown on the PC after recording all the parts - it looks like the 1640i is the only one that will do this, but I could be wrong.

Again, any ideas would be greatly appreciated. I don't mind dropping a few bucks on guitars and amps, I don't want to end up with an edsel here on the recording stuff. The Korg has been a great workhorse, I just want to eliminate a few steps and get things a bit more organized/easy to use.

Pete

 

[squealie]

Is the mixer gonna do double duty somewhere else? Do you need analog mixing for some reason?

If not, I'd suggest looking at some of the interface/control surface combo devices, like the M-Audio ProjectMix or Alesis MasterControl. Or even the Digi 003 if you don't mind being locked to PTLE.

Best I can tell, the Mackie doesn't act as a control surface. A real drag when dealing with a DAW, IMO. You'll end up with a conversion each time you pass tracks through the mixer too. But that me be what you want. The mackie pre's are supposedly respectable.

 

[Audioholic]

I am a mouse jockey, I much much prefer tracking to a DAW and mixing there. I can get so much precise automation that I need, even drawing in points on the fly, no need to go over and try to ride with virtual faders or control faders, I really think that is the best way. The only advantage to me for using an external mixer would be for analog summing, but you are going to drop some coin to get into high quality analog chain.

With a daw, I can see my waveforms so well, and do any editing / processing that I need to do. Even automate minute aspects of plug ins if needed. And this is all easily saved and recalled with my session.

There is a real advantage to keeping it all in a DAW imo, I don't really care for external recorders, at least when it comes to mixing and editing.

So my suggestion is to spend your money on a Good interface for a DAW program, whichever you choose to use, logic, pro tools, etc etc. It may be a slight learning curve at first, but in the end the advantages far outway that, if you are wanting to get serious about tracking and mixing. I personally don't see the need for controlers or control surfaces, when all you will want to do is already staring right at you on your computer screen and just needs a click of the mouse. Its faster for me. I guess if you really want to touch and move faders, then thats your preference, but then you will either need to get a separate controller, or a combined I/O and controller.

The only need I use a controller for is for midi info on synths.

 

[squealie]

The only advantage to me for using an external mixer would be for analog summing, but you are going to drop some coin to get into high quality analog chain.

Agreed. I don't see the need for external analog mixing/summing unless you have a analog box that is CRUCIAL to your sound.

I personally don't see the need for controlers or control surfaces, when all you will want to do is already staring right at you on your computer screen and just needs a click of the mouse. Its faster for me. I guess if you really want to touch and move faders, then thats your preference, but then you will either need to get a separate controller, or a combined I/O and controller.

The only need I use a controller for is for midi info on synths.

I mixed ITB with a mouse for years. Its cheap, accurate and fast enough, when you get used to it.
Now that I have a controller, tightly integrated with the DAW, I'll never go back. The list of workflow advantages is to long to even type. But you certainly don't 'have' to use one.

I'm using this

 

[stratotone]

Is the mixer gonna do double duty somewhere else? Do you need analog mixing for some reason?

If not, I'd suggest looking at some of the interface/control surface combo devices, like the M-Audio ProjectMix or Alesis MasterControl. Or even the Digi 003 if you don't mind being locked to PTLE.

Best I can tell, the Mackie doesn't act as a control surface. A real drag when dealing with a DAW, IMO. You'll end up with a conversion each time you pass tracks through the mixer too. But that me be what you want. The mackie pre's are supposedly respectable.

Cool, thanks. The Mackie 1640i does act as a control surface from what I've read, but the others don't. That ProjectMix looks pretty cool, but the Mackie does 16 tracks at a time. Jeez, and I thought choosing between VHT and Bogner was a hard choice

Pete

 

[stratotone]

I am a mouse jockey, I much much prefer tracking to a DAW and mixing there. I can get so much precise automation that I need, even drawing in points on the fly, no need to go over and try to ride with virtual faders or control faders, I really think that is the best way. The only advantage to me for using an external mixer would be for analog summing, but you are going to drop some coin to get into high quality analog chain.

With a daw, I can see my waveforms so well, and do any editing / processing that I need to do. Even automate minute aspects of plug ins if needed. And this is all easily saved and recalled with my session.

There is a real advantage to keeping it all in a DAW imo, I don't really care for external recorders, at least when it comes to mixing and editing.

So my suggestion is to spend your money on a Good interface for a DAW program, whichever you choose to use, logic, pro tools, etc etc. It may be a slight learning curve at first, but in the end the advantages far outway that, if you are wanting to get serious about tracking and mixing. I personally don't see the need for controlers or control surfaces, when all you will want to do is already staring right at you on your computer screen and just needs a click of the mouse. Its faster for me. I guess if you really want to touch and move faders, then thats your preference, but then you will either need to get a separate controller, or a combined I/O and controller.

The only need I use a controller for is for midi info on synths.

I can see advantages both ways... on the Adobe Audition stuff each track has the ability to draw in volume, pan, or fx levels.... I use the volume a lot. (I like to pull down instruments when there are vox going on, or boost them for some part then back down a little, etc... at least with the stuff I've recorded, hitting a level and leaving it there for the whole recording seems boring.)

Hmmm... What would you recommend for around $1 to 2k? I want 16 tracks at least and I know I'm not getting great stuff, but the best preamps I can get in that price range.

Pete

 

[squealie]

Hmmm... What would you recommend for around $1 to 2k? I want 16 tracks at least and I know I'm not getting great stuff, but the best preamps I can get in that price range.

Pete

Are you actually tracking 16 live inputs at once?

 

[stratotone]

Hmmm... What would you recommend for around $1 to 2k? I want 16 tracks at least and I know I'm not getting great stuff, but the best preamps I can get in that price range.

Pete

Are you actually tracking 16 live inputs at once?

I could see it happening like this:

1) kick
2) snare
3) Overhead L
4) Overhead R
5) high tom
6) mid tom
7) low tom
8) high hat
vocals (one lead and three harmonies)
9-12)
13) bass guitar
14) guitar
15) keys
16) keys

What I like doing is recording everything live, make sure the drum track was good and then replace everything else if necessary. I could cut it down to this and then overdub the rest:

1) snare
2) kick
3) OH left
4) OH right
5) lead vocal (overdub fixes and harmonies later)
6) bass guitar
7) guitar
8) keys

And to muddy it up worse, right now what I'm doing:

1-4 vocals (lead, three bkground)
5 guitar
6 bass
7-9 keys
10-11 Vdrums running slate software in stereo

Everything is 'direct' but the vocals, so I get no bleed and it's pretty clean.

I guess I don't *need* 16 tracks at once, but I think it's enough that I wouldn't be painting myself into a corner, if that makes sense. I'd rather buy more than I need now and grow into it or never use all of it then be stuck with say 8 and always bumping against the limits. I did that with a Korg D1600 and it drove me to buy a D3200. Would have been better off getting the D3200 to begin with.

Pete

 

[squealie]

Understood.

If you're tracking acoustic drums, well, you know....lots of inputs. Not to prattle on about my scenario...but...I'm doing v-drums/slate, like you are now. Which basically means I record a stereo pair of the roland brain for a 'guide track/something to listen to', and a MIDI track which is what I ultimately use to trigger slate. Any keys stuff is recorded the same way.

I looked at the 1640i, and didn't see on the feature list where it did any control data, or have motorized faders to chase any automation you do in DAW. Maybe I missed it. But if you really plan on running 16 inputs, it seems like a reasonable choice.

 

[stratotone]

Understood.

If you're tracking acoustic drums, well, you know....lots of inputs. Not to prattle on about my scenario...but...I'm doing v-drums/slate, like you are now. Which basically means I record a stereo pair of the roland brain for a 'guide track/something to listen to', and a MIDI track which is what I ultimately use to trigger slate. Any keys stuff is recorded the same way.

I looked at the 1640i, and didn't see on the feature list where it did any control data, or have motorized faders to chase any automation you do in DAW. Maybe I missed it. But if you really plan on running 16 inputs, it seems like a reasonable choice.

Stupid question - how are you recording midi? That sounds like a great idea, because then I can just audition/swap out drum kits within the mix. I was just using slate 'live' and recording the audio. Using the vdrum outs for a guide and then having the midi to play with makes a LOT more sense than what I'm doing.

Pete

 

[Greazygeo]

I went with a Tascam DM3200. Picked up the firewire card and run it into a Macbook Pro running Logic. The DM3200 is a control surface for Logic and would be a killer live board if needed. Quite a learning curve. It was the least expensive method I found for getting 16 inputs at once. Sounds really nice.

After using Mackie mixers, I hope to never go back to one....hate their preamps, eq etc.....A+H has a Zed series mixer that would be very cool. THe Presonus digital mixer looks good too. Apogee and Motu have cool stuff.

For cheap Zoom has the R16 recorder/ interface. I've not used it, but it looks like it does alot.

 

[squealie]

Stupid question - how are you recording midi? That sounds like a great idea, because then I can just audition/swap out drum kits within the mix. I was just using slate 'live' and recording the audio. Using the vdrum outs for a guide and then having the midi to play with makes a LOT more sense than what I'm doing.

Pete

Well, you need MIDI capable software. I don't know if Audition is, I've never seen it. PT, Sonar, Logic, DP, Reason and almost every other DAW I can think of is MIDI capable. Then you just need a MIDI interface to go into. All of the interface/surfaces I mentioned provide this.

Yeah, the ability to change kits, and edit the actual 'hits', at any point in the process all the way to mixdown, of drum tracks is a godsend. Provided you're happy with the sound of the Sampler (slate) which I totally am.

If your like most folks, including myself...that just want 'basic tracks' to start with...ie a rhythm gtr, bass, drums..and then you overdub vox, gtr, etc. one by one... 8 inputs will not paint you into a corner. Unless it's your goal to do acoustic drums.

 

[Meathead]

A friend of mine made a pro release CD a few years ago and he has an expensive studio setup using Pro tools and really nice preamps....he recorded the drums with all these multiple nice mic pres and mics and it sounded great.
At mixdown they triggered all the drums (snare, kick, toms) anyway and it sounded much better in the end, made all the nice pre's for not.
I think you need two nice mic preamps for vocals, keys, guitar, bass...but wouldn't stress too hard that you need 8-12 of them.
For drums I'd run the cymbals (overheads) through the nice preamps and the rest through working man's preamps (M-Audio or whatever) will do.

 

[Audioholic]

If you have a V drum setup, then triggering a program like Superior or SS samples is a great idea. All you need is a program that will record midi, and a program that will trigger the drums you want (mapped out correctly). pretty simple. I think recording a good drum sound is probally the hardest, as it really relies on the room, good sounding drums and the right mics. The room plays a big part, I usually like to at least augment some of the hits with samples if I can. But cymbals and all I leave to the real kit. But layering another snare sample really can help make it sound great

not sure what i/o out there has 16 inputs and mic pre's. you may have to get a 8 mic pre interface, then add another 8 channel Adat preamp like from presonus or something. That is how I do it. I only really need that many inputs when tracking drums. But getting an interface that has adat in, makes your setup scalable to add another 8 pre's later if you want.

I suggest getting into a better program, such as logic, pro tools, or performer.

 

[stratotone]

If you have a V drum setup, then triggering a program like Superior or SS samples is a great idea. All you need is a program that will record midi, and a program that will trigger the drums you want (mapped out correctly). pretty simple. I think recording a good drum sound is probally the hardest, as it really relies on the room, good sounding drums and the right mics. The room plays a big part, I usually like to at least augment some of the hits with samples if I can. But cymbals and all I leave to the real kit. But layering another snare sample really can help make it sound great

not sure what i/o out there has 16 inputs and mic pre's. you may have to get a 8 mic pre interface, then add another 8 channel Adat preamp like from presonus or something. That is how I do it. I only really need that many inputs when tracking drums. But getting an interface that has adat in, makes your setup scalable to add another 8 pre's later if you want.

I suggest getting into a better program, such as logic, pro tools, or performer.

The onyx 1640i has 16 mic pres:

But the 1620i, that is about 1/2 the price, has 8 and then four stereo line inputs. Can't use the 1620 as a control surface though, but you about have me talked out of that. More than likely I'll get a 1620i, or at least that's where my head is at today.

I just want to have the ability to record a real drum kit just in case. I'd probably try the Andy Johns 4 mic method first though.

Pete

 

[Audioholic]

it may have 16 inputs but u have to make sure it will route all 16 independantly at the same time digitally like you are wanting. It looks like it does have the capability to route each channel via analog with separate connectors. It may be able to do all 16 via digital with the firewire, but you have to make sure whatever program will recognize it as an interface. I seem to remember reading that mixer having some difficulties interfacing with a few programs, but look into it. It may be what you want.

 

[squealie]

make sure it will route all 16 independantly at the same time digitally like you are wanting. It looks like it does have the capability to route each channel via analog with separate connectors. It may be able to do all 16 via digital with the firewire, but you have to make sure whatever program will recognize it as an interface. I seem to remember reading that mixer having some difficulties interfacing with a few programs, but look into it. It may be what you want.

the specs definately say 16x16 via firewire. And the routing abilities through the FW seemed impressive (channel, aux, buss, master). And it 'should' appear as an audio interface in the OS, which 'should' be where the DAW picks up the drivers.

Once again, I didn't see anything about it doing control. Then again, I looked at the Yamaha O1V, and it didn't mention it for that either. And I've used those, and they def send/chase control data and have motorized faders.

edit: oops, I thought you were still talking about the 1640i

 

[Audioholic]

make sure it will route all 16 independantly at the same time digitally like you are wanting. It looks like it does have the capability to route each channel via analog with separate connectors. It may be able to do all 16 via digital with the firewire, but you have to make sure whatever program will recognize it as an interface. I seem to remember reading that mixer having some difficulties interfacing with a few programs, but look into it. It may be what you want.

the specs definately say 16x16 via firewire. And the routing abilities through the FW seemed impressive (channel, aux, buss, master). And it 'should' appear as an audio interface in the OS, which 'should' be where the DAW picks up the drivers.

Once again, I didn't see anything about it doing control. Then again, I looked at the Yamaha O1V, and it didn't mention it for that either. And I've used those, and they def send/chase control data and have motorized faders.

edit: oops, I thought you were still talking about the 1640i

yes I think I was still reffering to the big dog. Thats cool that it will route them all digitally. Seems like a good value. The mackie onyx stuff is decent.

 

[Roland]

I use the older 1640 and love it! Very clean sounding pres. Do it!

 

[Bob Savage]

What I like doing is recording everything live, make sure the drum track was good and then replace everything else if necessary. I could cut it down to this and then overdub the rest:

Do you have complete separation of the instruments? If you don't the bleed into the drum and vocal mics and to a lesser extent the bass/guitar mics is going to probably preclude you from replacing much without messing up your mix.