How many of you would like the sends to be moved into the Pro-Cannel?

That's not something that would be appropriate for an FX bin sort of thing.  In the Inspector View - Yes.  But that would be more or less like more sends visible in the Console View.

....would be nice if you could store your mix in the DAW (in this case capture) & it would play back all your fader movement & effects automation through the mixer......  

This is happening now and has been for a while. I have had this communication between a Yamaha digital mixer and Studio One software. Through midi, the mixer will transmit all its moves and these can be easily recorded and editing in a DAW program. Playback of this data will move the mixer faders around and take control of your digital mixer.

When the software and digital mixer however are tightly integrated such as in the Presonus case (and perhaps in Yamaha/Steinberg) then it can go further. Such as the DSP horsepower in the mixer appears as plugins within the software. It is like having a giant UAD card on tap. Very cool. Not using your computer CPU but the mixer's instead. These mixers feature massive (emulated but very very well emulated) analog channels too which can all be routed within your DAW. 

Digital mixers also allow for zero latency monitoring during recording with effects being heard/recorded etc something a DAW cannot do alone.  They are cost effective too. Look at the price of the new Presonus 32 channel digital mixer and compare that to a a control surface, an expensive interface and 32 Mic Pres and a stack of great sounding plugins!

Also the controls on the surface of the mixer can easily talk the software as well.

Another thing I am finding, it is better to not mix everything within a DAW either. I get a better sound when I reduce a mix down to 4 or 8 stereo busses and send them to a digital mixer and combine them there instead. I don't know why it is but it definitely sounds better than doing it all inside your DAW. It shouldn't you know because yes it is all digital but for some unexplainable reason it sounds better being summed in the mixer. Being able to manually ride busses is cool too.

What Yammy mixer do you use Jeff? The newest ones have incredible integration with Cubendo apparently.

I bought a Euphonix MC Control when they fiorst came out for DAW control but now I am totally ITB. Near enough is good enough for me personally. I have the Portico plugins and they are far beyond anything on a Yamaha mixer.

Hi there Backwoods. I am using the 01V currently and I am not unhappy. But the one to get is the 01V96i. It has more inputs, 4 effects processors instead of two, you can install extra plugins which include notables designed by Rupert also. His compressor and EQ. The analog channels are meant to be incredible. It has transport controls too. Lots of other stuff.

You don't have to run it with Steinberg DAW's either although there will be a better level of integration. Studio One makes it very easy to map any incoming controller data to any software parameter so it is easy to set-up with any digital mixer.
Also my reference above to how I like to sum buses in a digital mixer mainly refers to vocals too. One of those buses is always totally untreated so you can send anything to it knowing it will go straight through to your stereo buss without any alteration to your sound. But I guess what I am hearing and liking is the nice EQ and also dynamics processors that the digital mixer offers on all it's inputs and outputs. They can really make a difference when adjusted well. Sometimes the dynamics processors in the digital mixer behave and sound different to the plug-ins in your DAW.

For Studio One types it is the Presonus mixer that is the obvious choice as per here:

http://www.presonus.com/products/StudioLive-3242AI  Only $4000 for a lot of mixer!

What Roland should do is a new digital recording mixer that integrates with X2 very well. And be designed in such a way that it can integrate with future software updates much easier than the V700 did. Lots of those lovely pres that were in the VS700R. Lots of control, studio monitors, headphone mixes you name it all in the mixer. And throw in 4 or 8 serious effects processors for some extra punch. X2 should be able to access all the DSP from within the DAW itself if you want to use it that way. Lots of channels digitally to and from the mixer and the DAW. eg 32 each way or 16 each way at least.

Jeff Evans

....would be nice if you could store your mix in the DAW (in this case capture) & it would play back all your fader movement & effects automation through the mixer......  

Playback of this data will move the mixer faders around and take control of your digital mixer.

When the software and digital mixer however are tightly integrated such as in the Presonus case (and perhaps in Yamaha/Steinberg) then it can go further. Such as the DSP horsepower in the mixer appears as plugins within the software. It is like having a giant UAD card on tap. Very cool. Not using your computer CPU but the mixer's instead. These mixers feature massive (emulated but very very well emulated) analog channels too which can all be routed within your DAW. 

.

I knew most digital mixer's faders can be recorded & played back via midi, but as you know there's a lot more to a mix than fader movement. I'll have to look into the presonus & yamaha mixers. I haven't seen any presonus mixer with motorized faders, which I kind of like, but it's been a while since I looked. Definitely haven't seen vst-like effects control, which would be a big step in the right direction. 


Most audio interfaces are small format digital mixers & I do like what Presonus is doing there. they've got decent compression/gating on every channel, eh... eqs, & a reverb/delay that should be good enough for monitor mixing. It's all hardware based, dedicated dsp so you get near zero latency performance like you would on an 01V, you just don't have the display, the knobs, or the faders & buttons. 


I'd imagine all hardware manufacturers are doing the same thing. Years back, my Delta 1010 had a very rudimentary mixer. But I've got experience with the presonus.

There are some aspects to the Presonus mixer I don't like too. One is its size. For me it might just be too big. I may not need 32 Mic Pres that often either. I agree the moving faders on the Yamaha are great. They tell you a lot quickly especially if you are checking through your aux sends etc..Also when you flip all the faders to view the next group of channels. You need to see instantly where they are at.

The Presonus communicates on a deeper level with Studio One though which is impressive. But you can also get something like a UAD card and I think that is always a good idea and couple that with digital mixer connectivity. The Yamaha works very well in that situation too and can do almost as much as the Presonus mixer can. 

It is smaller and yet still powerful and handle many inputs both analog and digital. The new Behringer X32 mixer is also another possibility. It can be set up well to talk to Studio One and Sonar I believe. The V700 is a bit uncertain at this point. A new recording / studio digital mixer concept from Roland could be good but I am not sure they are going to jump in with another piece of hardware either.

I have found that not making your computer work too hard is the way to go. I have my computer set-up running at about 50% of its capacity. I use the digital mixer concept because it handles a lot of stuff your computer would normally. Couple that up with something like the Kurzweil PC3K as a serious sound generator and you are not needing any VST's anywhere near as much either. With all that running in conjunction with a very stable program like Studio One, it is total bliss you end up with at the end of the day. All the time is focussed on creativity and music creating. No technical faults ever!  

Sorry for going OT back to the OP now just for fun. Sequoia is a high level fairly complex program dedicated to post production audio for TV and film and it is used in mastering audio situations I believe. As per usual anything that seems to have anything to do with TV or film work gets charged out as an arm and a leg. There could be some good things going on under the hood in terms of maintaining pristine audio quality. Nuendo is probably the closest thing to this as can Pro Tools be too. Magix Samplitude Pro X is a much more fair comparison to Sonar but it too is pretty expensive.

I have preferred a digital mixer for me for a very long time. I have used analog mixers and found them wanting. However no small digital mixer can match a DAW such as Sonar in the ability to mix. A large desk is not the same as a small digital mixer. One can do all sorts of things with a desk that can never be done in any of the digital mixers on the market. The one that had the best chance was Makie's DB8 and it is no longer being made. Further I wold call it a medium size mixer.

What I do have is a digital mixer with a CS to give me the control I want over a mix plus the quality that only a digital mixer can give. Though, some sound cards have virtual mixers that rival the routing and control that a digital mixers offers. They can't be as hands on as a hardware mixer. 

Still the notion that mixing in the DAW is somehow not as good as mixing on a mixer is downright baffling.

The quality and the convenience that is inherent in mixing within a DAW is far superior to any affordable small foot print mixer.   


 

Just to add my 2 cents worth, I've used Sonar since v2 and use SPlat for tracking, mixing and mainly for producing due to the tools it includes. However, Sequoia is a different beast. It's more stable, faster, has an object-based workflow, amazing plugins and mastering to go. Even the options available in the preferences section makes SPlat seem awfully empty.  I have a lot of experience in all the major DAWs and Sequoia is in a different league. That doesn't diminish SPlat in any way but just as plain old Pro Tools is a good workhorse for recording and Sonar, Ableton or Cubase for producing, it does show that Sequoia, Sadie, Pyramix and Nuendo also have their place. Sure they're expensive, but I can tell you that my first mastering session in Sequoia made me realise i could sell a lot of my gear and use it alone ITB. I'm expanding my business soon and I will be running SPlat and Sequoia side-by-side.
 
G

I should be more across the different varieties of DAWs, I just had a look at the specifics of Sequoia and on the mix page it says it only supports 32bitfp...if this is the case, the product is not worth the cost. 64bitfp fixes the digital hardware issue. Now I can hear the difference between 32bitfp, and 64bitfp...I would never go back. I even bounce down all my files for video and soundcloud as 64bitfp...it is the only way to guarantee the sound quality doesn't degrade when converting to lossless formats.
 
Thanks to the op, for this topic. I use Vegas Video which was brought by Magix - so knowing they also have some interesting DAWs is worth know...particularly if Gibson's problems become Cakewalk's problems.
 
Ben 

garyhb
Just to add my 2 cents worth, 

It took 4 years to muster up 2 cents worth? 
 

BenMMusTech
Thanks to the op, for this topic. I use Vegas Video which was brought by Magix - so knowing they also have some interesting DAWs is worth know...

 
I use Vegas Video too but am less than thrilled that Magix took it on. It has in the past seemingly been the place that good software goes to die of neglect:(