Is Using a DAW Always This Complicated?

[MikeRivers]

Subtitle: Why do they always emphasize mixing and rarely address tracking?

 

I'm not really a DAW user, just an occasional dabbler. I have a Mackie 1200F in here to play with and probably its most important feature (lumping a lot of features into one) is that it can serve as a console in tracking mode. It has a built-in DSP mixer that mixes all of its inputs (12 mic/line, 16 ADAT optical, and an IEC-958 pair) with a pair of returns from the DAW, and send that mix out to the control room and four separate headphone outputs. That's the good part (except that each headphone mix needs its own pair of returns from the comptuer - you can't make one "basic tracks" mix and send it to allwhen I start a new project four headphone mixes).

 

I've been spending an inordinate amount of time figuring out how to make all of this work, and what's the key is that you really have to know how to build things in your DAW, things that you may not be doing regularly (if ever). What I was trying to do was emulate the functions of a real console by putting stereo auxiliary sends on the DAW tracks and using those as the "returns" to the1200F's mixer. This was more difficult than I expected it to be, and I'm still not all the way there.

 

I don't have a lot of options for programs (since I don't want to use one enough to commit to buying it right now). I have a few year old version of Sequoia and Tracktion that comes with the Mackie Firewire devices. Since Tracktion is the most up-to-date, I've been putting my time into that one rather than trying to dope out the voluminous but not very useful Sequoia manual. They both make "aux sends" pretty much the same way. You add a track whose input is the aux send "bus" and then assign the output of the track where you want it (in this case, the output pair that goes back to the 1200F DSP mixer).

 

It's clumsy but it works, sort of. The limitation in Tracktion is that when putting several aux sends on a track (the equivalent of several aux sends on a console channel strip). While it's not intuitive from the Tracktion layout, they don't affect the main (in this case, control room) output of the track (that's good) but they have only volume sliders, not pan. So all the headphone outputs have everything centered. If I put a volume/pan control after the aux send, it affects the main output as well. And it goes on and on. I'm fumbling through this, but this "mixer" that I've built with things tacked on to the ends of the tracks on this project won't be there when I start the next project.

 

I don't want a tutorial (here) on how to work Tracktion. What I want is a DAW that works in the other direction. I want to first build a mixer (which I can save and recall) and then tell the mixer where it gets its inputs and sends its outputs. I don't want to start with the tracks. I want that to be invisible (or at least not get in the way) until I want to edit a track.

 

Do any DAWs work that way? Would you want one that does?

[spikemullings]

God knows, you will get many people infinitely more qualified to answer this than me, but given that I'm here . . . have you looked at Reaper and its routing capabilities?

[chipmcdonald]

Reaper. Maybe 3 different ways of doing it....

 

Plus, you can setup templates for this one instance, and then also have switchable screens for your mixer views....

[MikeRivers]

Reaper. Maybe 3 different ways of doing it....

I tried Reaper when people first started talking about it. I thought it had some potential but it wasn't stable on my computers. Crashed a lot. And I crashed a lot trying to figure things out. While I like the idea of freeware or shareware (I can't remember what Reaper is, but I know I didn't pay for it) I think that this sort of program is just too complicated to be free. If not for the programming, for the documentation.

 

I doubt that I'd ever use it for a real session, and as a reviewer, I just couldn't, in clear conscience, say that the only program I tested a unit with was a non-commercial program that's constantly under development. I know the Linux/Gnuware folks will take me to task for that.

 

But feel free to attempt to describe the process of creating four independent stereo auxiliary sends on all tracks (or all mixer channels if that's the way you look at Reaper). A straightforward user interface should be easy to explain. This is a test.

[spikemullings]

Alright, first of all I'm an idiot, and second I've used Reaper for about 2 weeks but here goes. Chip can come back and tell us the extent of my ignorance later.

 

Select all tracks you want to send

Click on routing button

Choose a new track to send them to

Route that track to the output pair you want

Go back over each of the tracks you sent and dial in level and pan for that send

Do that three more times - each send has its own level and pan settings and each receiving track can be routed to its own (or more than one) hardware output pair

Save that as a project template if you like or just as a track template to use in any project

 

Is that what you mean?

 

[cringing in anticipation that, in reality, I have not understood the question at all and am hopelesly out of my depth]

[Jeff da Weasel]

I doubt that I'd ever use it for a real session

 

I understand your qualms as a reviewer, but I know at least two people who are using Reaper to not only do real sessions but to use those sessions for release on real records.

 

I use Pro Tools, so I can't tell you how to do anything. I think it would violate my EULA if I did.

[Gus Lozada]

... there is this program from a new company named Digidesign... Professional Toys ... pro something... they say it works...

[MikeRivers]

 

Is that what you mean

Yes, that's what I mean. The procedure is essentially the same in Tracktion, and I think that's too much fooling around. What I'd prefer is to create an Aux Send object where all I'd have to specify is the output destination, and be able to stick that on any track where I want to send audio to that destination. Traction does allow you to copy and past Aux Sends but you still need to first establish the track that represents the bus. I don't think you should have to do that, nor should you have to know (because it's right there in front of you) that the track even exists.

 

Grumble, grumble.

[Gus Lozada]

in a more serious note...

 

I can do all you ask with LIVE. Its primary view is the mixer and you can create AUX SENDS and send each AUX channel to an independent output so you can have as many headphone mixes as available physical outputs.

 

You can create a default template.

[MikeRivers]

 

I understand your qualms as a reviewer, but I know at least two people who are using Reaper to not only do real sessions but to use those sessions for release on real records.

Hey, I know of people who use Ardour and release real records. But most clients expect ProTools. They may not know or care that you use Reaper in your studio until they ask for the disk so they can take it home to work on it or take it to a better equipped studio to mix. It's kinda lame to have to explain that you'll have to take some time to consolidate the edited tracks and that you can give them WAV files that they can import into a new session.

 

If Reaper was really that much easier than the other programs I have, I'd certainly use it for my own testing purposes, but from the description I got, it's essentially the same as Tracktion. I think that what I really want is a DAW that nobody's made yet. Kind of like the Firefly phone - for people who know what they're doing, they just don't know the new ways of doing it because the old ways make so much sense. I didn't have to build my console in 1970 and I don't want to have to start building my console for each project in software objects in 2007.

[MikeRivers]

in a more serious note... I can do all you ask with LIVE. Its primary view is the mixer and you can create AUX SENDS and send each AUX channel to an independent output so you can have as many headphone mixes as available physical outputs. You can create a default template.

I was afraid someone was going to mention Live. Every time I've seen it demonstrated, it's been so unintuitive that I never bothered to ask how to do straightforward stuff. Maybe some show I can grab Craig and ask him to show me how to use it for straightforward tracking and mixing. He'll understand.

[Gus Lozada]

... something like this, maybe?

[Gus Lozada]

Live is "unintuitive" if you do not know nothing about a DAW.

Yes, it has so many features that does not exist in any other DAW that of course, makes it an "unintuitive" program for working with loops and many other esoteric functions.

 

But for regular mixing, it is quite simple.

[Gus Lozada]

I created 10 AUX SENDS

 

- Original track is sent directly to output 1 & 2 with different "send" levels to A, B and C

- Aux Send's A output goes to hardware output 1

- Aux Send's B output goes to hardware output 2

- Aux Send's C output goes to MASTER bus

[Frantag]

Sonar allows you to set up track templates with all of your ins and outs assigned. Load up a template and switch to console view and you should be there.

[offramp]

It's clumsy but it works, sort of. The limitation in Tracktion is that when putting several aux sends on a track (the equivalent of several aux sends on a console channel strip). While it's not intuitive from the Tracktion layout, they don't affect the main (in this case, control room) output of the track (that's good) but they have only volume sliders, not pan. So all the headphone outputs have everything centered. If I put a volume/pan control after the aux send, it affects the main output as well. And it goes on and on. I'm fumbling through this, but this "mixer" that I've built with things tacked on to the ends of the tracks on this project won't be there when I start the next project.

 

The second sentence is incomplete. You lost me on that one.

 

I want to first build a mixer (which I can save and recall) and then tell the mixer where it gets its inputs and sends its outputs. I don't want to start with the tracks. I want that to be invisible (or at least not get in the way) until I want to edit a track.

 

Sounds like Digital Performer would be a good candidate.

[MikeRivers]

I created 10 AUX SENDS

Where are the pans for those sends? Is that possible? (I guess these are Reaper screen shots)

[MikeRivers]

The second sentence is incomplete. You lost me on that one.

Sorry, I guess I edited that too many times. I don't remember what that was about either, probably the lack of pans on the aux sends. Since the 1200F headphone "returns" are stereo, it makes sense to feed them from a stereo bus (track). But without the ability to pan between the channels of that stereo track, the headphone feeds are essentially in mono (same thing on each channel).

 

Sounds like Digital Performer would be a good candidate.

Not for me. No Macs here.

 

I posted this not because I'm looking for the right program to buy for my own use (I'm not planning to actually use it) but rather to express my frustration at having to do it "their" way, which doesn't correspond very closely to the physical hardware. Once you get it all set up and saved so that it can be recalled easily, that problem goes away. But I just don't like having to build my own console.

 

I guess it wouldn't be too difficult for a DAW vendor to supply, say, a model of a popular or typical 8-bus input and output section arranged as a console, with the ability to copy and paste if you wanted more input channels or output busses. But they probably figure that everybody who works with the program knows how to do that, or can learn. But I dislike taking a lot of effort to learn how to do something that I don't need to do on a regular basis - I tend to forget it and have to re-learn. And I don't want to have to do this on a regular basis.

 

This is about philosophy, not an immediate solution or gratification. And what I want may not be what you want.

[the stranger]

 

Where are the pans for those sends? Is that possible? (I guess these are Reaper screen shots)

 

 

 

I think those are Live shots.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

What I want is a DAW that works in the other direction. I want to first build a mixer (which I can save and recall) and then tell the mixer where it gets its inputs and sends its outputs. I don't want to start with the tracks. I want that to be invisible (or at least not get in the way) until I want to edit a track. Do any DAWs work that way? Would you want one that does?

 

 

Can't you do this with most DAWs, or am I just missing something here? I can do all that with my ancient Pro Tools 5.1, and that's hardly "cutting edge", seeing as over 6 years old now.

 

I can save my setup as a template and use it for tracking. I can save my inputs/outputs as its own file so I can, if I so choose, apply that to any session. I can keep my tracks invisible until I choose otherwise, and even save that as a template if I want.

 

I keep several different templates. Some for tracking rock bands, some for making Akai transfers, some for editing the Tibet Connection radio show...

 

I don't think Pro Tools (at least 5.1) comes with its own templates that you can tweak, as you are mentioning. Maybe that might be a good idea. But then again, it takes about 5 seconds to create an 8-track "console" if you already have your default I/O.

[MikeRivers]

 

Can't you do this with most DAWs, or am I just missing something here? I can do all that with my ancient Pro Tools 5.1, and that's hardly "cutting edge", seeing as over 6 years old now.

Maybe so. I've never used ProTools, and besides, for the project at hand - testing a Mackie 1200F, I couldn't use ProTools anyway.

 

Since several people recommended Reaper, I thought I'd be a good sport and try it, particularly since one of the program's reviews said:

 

"[REAPER's routing] is an incredibly versatile system, which can be largely ignored by the novice, yet enthusiastically explored by the more experienced. It will certainly appeal to those familiar with traditional patchbays, who have been used to being able to plug any studio output into any input."

 

I guess I must be dense, but I just couldn't figure out how to do what I'm trying to do. I think I've found the right menus, but the terminology just isn't clear. I may be missing an important step or a definition, but I gave it about half an hour and couldn't fumble through it. The PDF documentation didn't help. This is the problem that I have with every DAW I've tried. I just can't seem to get to second base - I can make most of them record and play back. There must be some basic concept that they all use, that everyone is supposed to know, that I don't know.

 

I can figure out a mixer if I have a block diagram, but where's the block diagram of a DAW?

[franknputer]

 

I think those are Live shots.

 

Yup, Live. The pan control is right above the big yellow square with the letter in it - which also corresponds to the name of the send in question.

 

I agree with you that most DAWs make Aux busses too frickin' hard. It's a standard console feature, it ought to be simpler to create it than having to make a track & then do weird things to it. (I think Live, actually, has the simplest way of doing it.) I would like to see simply an "add AUX" feature that sets up a simple send/return with a plugin slot, with an option to let you choose if you want to return it to 1 or more channels.

[MikeRivers]

Yup, Live. The pan control is right above the big yellow square with the letter in it - which also corresponds to the name of the send in question.

 

AAAARRRRRRGH!!!! I just spent half an hour in Reaper trying to make those controls show up on the mixer. As far as I can tell, the only place where you can adjust the send level and panning is from a window that you open from the track.

 

I finally got sends working (just like Tracktion, you first have to set up a track, assign the track's output to where you want the send to go (in my case, to the headphone output stream) and then add a send to the audio track, assigned to the "headphone bus" track.

I agree with you that most DAWs make Aux busses too frickin' hard. It's a standard console feature, it ought to be simpler to create it than having to make a track & then do weird things to it.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. At least I'm not alone in thinking that this should be simpler, or at least more automatic. Computers are supposed to be good at automating things, and there's a lot here that could be automated and hidden from the user. But I understand that any time you ask a programmer to "hide" something, you're asked "Are you sure you really don't want to be able to change it?" That would be OK with me, as long as it was right. I've lived with consoles for 40 years and I've never felt the compulsion to rewire it so that the Aux Send 1 pot controls the signal to the Aux Send 4 jack.

(I think Live, actually, has the simplest way of doing it.) I would like to see simply an "add AUX" feature that sets up a simple send/return with a plugin slot, with an option to let you choose if you want to return it to 1 or more channels.

One of the things that they need to figure out is that not all sends have a dedicated return. Some (like headphone mixes) have none. And while the architecture might require a "track" to be a send, the user interface should know that I don't need to see that track so it should put it up there along with my recorded audio. But (and here's the kicker) I have to see the track because that's where the button is that I have to click in order to assign the output for the send. Why can't I just click on the Send knob on the mixer and have it bring up a "routing properties" window? Haven't the people who design these things ever worked with a real mixing console?

[spikemullings]

Mmm, are you sure you are not just needing a "Thought to Physical Praxis Converter Module"?

 

Oh ignore me, I'm just messing with you.

[franknputer]

Re: the return - in a DAW I can see why you would need it, even for headphones. Eventually you have to send it somewhere outside the box...out to the headphones. Still, a quick assignment should be all that's required. Change the destination from "L&R" (your main mix out) to, say "Interface out 7/8" (hardware output of your audio interface, which then goes to your phones/matrix/etc).

 

That doesn't mean it needs to be hard to use, though - and I still think a basic, default Aux setup should be part of a DAW.

 

BTW - in Reaper, you have the "send" controls on each channel that you assign one to, and this corresponds to a "receive" on the destination channel (the Aux, in this case). So you can use the I/O panel on the Aux channel to set your receives all in one place.