Is Using a DAW Always This Complicated?

[MikeRivers]

Frank, you have me back in my "dense" mode. I didn't understand a bit of what you wrote here. I've seen all I need to see from Reaper, however. It does what I want to do, it just looks ugly doing it. And I can't seem to get the tracks' I/O windows to stay on screen and dock until I need them, so there's always something in the way if I want to adjust the level of a channel in a headphone mix. I was dreaming of a pair of knobs (corresponding to the aux send volume and pan sliders) to appear on the mixer when I enabled a send.

[pipelineaudio]

Mike you might have an easier time with reaper just using the routing matrix

 

(Alt-R)

 

You might instead have a more enjoyable time using the recieve window instead of the send

 

This video might help a bit:

 

http://www.cockos.com/wiki/index.php/Tutorial_5_-_Multichannel_Routing

 

Reaper changes often though so that video wont look exactly like what it is now, but the concepts should still be the same.

[alphajerk]

i dont think you are evolved enough to use a DAW... your grumbling is stuff that is so simple and kids play if you know how to use software.

 

you dont have the right mindset as DAWs are NOTHING like analog consoles. where consoles are LIMITED in AUXs so the return is always there, a DAW can have [virtually] unlimited AUXs. its making it once, and then templating it.

 

like in nuendo, in the CR section you have 4 headphone outputs there plus a main and main phone. then in the mixer window you select them in the AUX's and then copy/paste all tracks you want to each one. then having a control surface you pull up that AUX layer and turn the knobs for the right "mix"... that might sound complicated but to someone who does it easily, its just as fast as a console. its only a few clicks of the mouse. then you have full control of more me boxes, main outs, and phones.

[Cry Logic]

In SONAR you can create as many buses as your PC can handle.

A bus can be used for anything....grouping,FX Send etc etc

The buses can be routed to any output, virtual or physical.

Each bus has controls for Input Gain, Output Volume,

Input Pan & Output Pan.

Buses can be sent/grouped to other buses.

 

Track sends for each bus have Level & Pan controls,

phase switch and Stereo/Mono switch.

 

If a template doesn't already exist for what you want to do,

Like Alphajerk says above...you have to build what you want

then template it.

 

The possibilities are limited only by your hardware and imagination.

[MikeRivers]

 

i dont think you are evolved enough to use a DAW... your grumbling is stuff that is so simple and kids play if you know how to use software.

A friend of mine has an experession that I love: "So simple that only a child can do it." It might indeed be kid's play if you know how to use software, but how do you learn that? There's no logical path to follow like there is with hardware.

you dont have the right mindset as DAWs are NOTHING like analog consoles. where consoles are LIMITED in AUXs so the return is always there, a DAW can have [virtually] unlimited AUXs. its making it once, and then templating it.

But why CAN'T they be like analog consoles? And why don't they come pre-built with standard features? If you want to add 20 more sends then it's nice to be able to do it with the software. But if you want to get to work, why aren't there some already built in ready to go? Synths come with presets, why can't DAW "consoles?"

 

We all have to start somewhere. If you use it all the time, I suppose you get used to it. But for an occasional user like me, every time I start up a program, I have to re-learn its basic concepts.

[MikeRivers]

 

In SONAR you can create as many buses as your PC can handle. A bus can be used for anything....grouping,FX Send etc etc The buses can be routed to any output, virtual or physical. Each bus has controls for Input Gain, Output Volume, Input Pan & Output Pan. Buses can be sent/grouped to other buses.

This is not at all uncommon. But the problem is that you HAVE to do it before you can use them. OK, so I got through that. Now I can't find the knobs (because on Reaper's mixer, there aren't any). The last version of Cakewalk Pro Audio that I had, Version 8 I think, had a nice mixer representation that corresponded to how you had tracks set up. But you still had to build your own mixer, at least once.

 

Here's a question for you. If I wrote specifications for a console - number of inputs, number of outputs, number of sends, and so on, could someone "build" it for me and whenever I opened the program, it would be there ready to go?

 

I'm willing to live with limitation - I can't make my analog console have 25 inputs whenever 24 isn't enough. But there are some practical, operational problems. My console is 4 feet wide and 2-1/2 feet deep. All the controls are in reach and I don't have to anything but reach for one when I need it. My computer monitor is 13 inches wide. I don't have great vision. Either the on-screen console would be unusably small or I'd have to scroll around to get to a control. Or I'd have to not have all the controls visible all the time. Sorry, but I can't live like that.

 

When I can afford a monitor the size of my console, maybe I'll be ready for the answer for the next question: Does having more widgets displayed and more routings established take up significant computer resources that go to waste when they're not being used?

 

 

If a template doesn't already exist for what you want to do, Like Alphajerk says above...you have to build what you want then template it.

How much will that cost for someone else to do it and where will I find such a person?

The possibilities are limited only by your hardware and imagination.

I don't have a problem with limitations, but it's really difficult to predict the hardware limitations when the only way you find them is to run out of them. There are no guarantees with computers.

[MikeRivers]

Mike you might have an easier time with reaper just using the routing matrix

That's where I went first thinking "Ah, something I can relate to." But I couldn't understand what was what.

You might instead have a more enjoyable time using the recieve window instead of the send

Use a Receive window to adjust a Send? That makes as much sense as using the Start button on Windows to stop the computer.

Reaper changes often though so that video wont look exactly like what it is now, but the concepts should still be the same.

My console hasn't changed in 20 years. It always looks the same.

[Cry Logic]

I sense a negative attitude in you towards DAW technology.

May I politely suggest you ditch that attitude if you want

to work with computers....?

If you don't, you will (IMHO) only cause yourself grief.

Computers are different to hardware consoles etc etc .

Just accept it and move forward.

 

All you need to to do in SONAR is make a template with the

tracks, sends & buses you need and then save that as the

default template. Then it will load every time you run SONAR.

 

I dare say it's similar for Reaper or whatever other program

you choose to use.

[Cry Logic]

 

This is not at all uncommon. But the problem is that you HAVE to do it before you can use them.

 

You had to set up the hardware you use now at one stage as well.

How is that any different?

 

Does having more widgets displayed and more routings established take up significant computer resources that go to waste when they're not being used?

No.

But if you want to get to work, why aren't there some already built in ready to go? Synths come with presets, why can't DAW "consoles?"

They do. At least SONAR does.

I just did a search and found 51 "preset" template files in SONAR's "Sample Content folder.

[pipelineaudio]

 

Use a Receive window to adjust a Send? That makes as much sense as using the Start button on Windows to stop the computer.

 

 

Honestly, thats what we thought too, until we tried it. I don't think you are giving that option a fair shake, I almost didnt either

[Anderton]

 

But why CAN'T they be like analog consoles? And why don't they come pre-built with standard features? If you want to add 20 more sends then it's nice to be able to do it with the software. But if you want to get to work, why aren't there some already built in ready to go? Synths come with presets, why can't DAW "consoles?"

 

 

The thing is that aux buses take up CPU power. So, you might think it's really important to have 20 aux sends, but someone else might think it's important to have 2 aux sends and be able to run several instances of Massive.

 

I'll go along with Fretwizz that Sonar has a very useful aux bus implementation. Basically, you can create as many aux buses as you want. When you create a send for a track, it can go to any of the existing buses. You can create as many sends as you want for a track, and in console view, it's really easy to see how many sends you're using.

 

And yes, you can save templates with particular "starting points." The one thing you can't do (that Lee Flier has complained about) is save the mixer as a single, discrete object; it's part of a file. But if you want a particular mixer configuration to load every time you start a song, it's no problem...and you can always modify that mixer.

 

Basically, when you create a mixer in a program like Sonar (or Live), you're dealing with virtualized patch cords. Once you realize that software mixers are conceptually more like modular synths than mixers, it should all fall into place.

[MikeRivers]

You had to set up the hardware you use now at one stage as well. How is that any different?

Everything was right in front of me. I didn't have to go to this screen or that screen, all I had to do was look at the logically labeled jacks and knobs.

[MikeRivers]

 

The thing is that aux buses take up CPU power. So, you might think it's really important to have 20 aux sends, but someone else might think it's important to have 2 aux sends and be able to run several instances of Massive.

That answered one of my other questions. But it indicates a real flaw in the concept of using a computer to do things like this. You have to make tradeoffs and you don't always know what those tradeoffs are until you find that something doesn't work. If I know that my mixer has only four aux sends, I'll figure out how to work with it. But it's comforting to know that I don't have to go in with a soldering iron and disconnect one if I want to patch an outboard equalizer into a channel.

 

Clearly some programs make setting up a mixer configuration easier (for those of us who think in terms of signal flow and not tracks and widgets) than others. These days, the user interface and its associated paradigms is pretty much the main thing that separates one program from another (excluding popularity and market penetration and all that brings to the table).

Basically, when you create a mixer in a program like Sonar (or Live), you're dealing with virtualized patch cords. Once you realize that software mixers are conceptually more like modular synths than mixers, it should all fall into place.

It's more than just virtualized patch cords. It's also virtualized busses and controls, and in some cases, you're restricted to where you can place those controls (sighal-flow-wise) and what patches you can make. You can get around it (obviously - I eventually bumbled my way through it) but it could be much easier and more logical.

 

For example, inputs to a track for recording are easy. Every track in every DAW I've every seen has a straightforward way of selecting which hardware "stream" coming from the interface feeds that track. Similarly, the output of every track can be directly assigned to a physical output. If you want all of your tracks be mixed to the "Main L/R output" (where you connect your monitors), you choose that as the output for the track. It's really a bus since you have several tracks summed to the same output stream. So it creates that bus automatically. I don't have to do it. Or maybe it's already there whether you use it or not, on the assumption that most people will use it.

 

So why, when I put an Aux Send on a track, do I have to also add a track that serves as the bus for that Aux Send, assign the input of that track to the Aux Send controls (which at that point is really a virtual bus), and then assign the output of that track to the physical hardware output?

 

What I want to be able to do is this:

 

From some menu, create an Auxiliary Send. I can name it if I choose ("Phones 1"), define it as stereo or mono, and specify its physical output. All of that makes sense to me.

 

Then whenever I want to send a track Phones 1, I drop in my Aux Send and a volume control (and pan if it's stereo) appears on my mixer's channel strip.

 

It would be convenient if there was a "Install this on every track" option as part of the setup menu for the Aux Send so that whenever I add a track, it would automaticlaly have a Phones 1 send on it.

 

Would everyone be happier if I called this a "Cue" rather than an "Aux Send?" There's no need for a return here. If rather than to headphones, I wanted to send a mix of several tracks to an outboard reverb unit, then I'd obviously need a return. I may or may not want to record that return signal. If I wanted to record it, then I'd just set up a new track with its input taken from the hardware input where I connected the reverb output. If I didn't want to record a "reverb" track but just put it into the mix, I should be able to route the return input to the same Main bus as all the other tracks.

 

To me, that's logical. Sure, I'm not thinking like software, I'm thinking about hardware, but to me it's so much simpler and logical, and I don't have to remember too many thingsIgottado if I don't use the program often enough so that it becomes second nature.

 

I don't mind using a computer to do the work that tubes, transistors, and ICs used to do, but I don't think I should have to change the way I think just because it's a computer.

[Cry Logic]

So why, when I put an Aux Send on a track, do I have to also add a track that serves as the bus for that Aux Send, assign the input of that track to the Aux Send controls (which at that point is really a virtual bus), and then assign the output of that track to the physical hardware output?

err.... because that's how it works?

I don't mind using a computer to do the work that tubes, transistors, and ICs used to do, but I don't think I should have to change the way I think just because it's a computer.

Resistance is futile...you must change and assimilate into the new paradigm!

We are BORG!!!

:love:

[UstadKhanAli]

 

So why, when I put an Aux Send on a track, do I have to also add a track that serves as the bus for that Aux Send, assign the input of that track to the Aux Send controls (which at that point is really a virtual bus), and then assign the output of that track to the physical hardware output?

 

 

I don't know why because I don't design these things.

 

But why don't you create a template that has this in place - AND has your AUX send/receives named as such - and then simply call it up whenever you need to start a new session? Create something you need, save it as a template, and you only have to do that once ever.

 

 

It would be convenient if there was a "Install this on every track" option as part of the setup menu for the Aux Send so that whenever I add a track, it would automaticlaly have a Phones 1 send on it.

 

 

Either create a track that is this way and then copy it numerous times within a session, or save your "console" as a template and use it for subsequent sessions.

[blue2blue]

 

 

 

 

I don't know about you, but the consoles I grew up on (and the main one I use now) have a little item we used to call returns...

 

 

Mike... on one hand, I can understand some of the frustration you feel... on the other, I really do think you've not just got a mental block about this but that you're nurturing it.

 

 

I can tell you that the first time I got on a big, modern board in the 80s that things were pretty confusing... there was a heck of a learning curve. And each new board at the different studios I worked in was a little -- and sometimes a lot -- different.

 

Admittedly, with computer-based production there's a lot to know and keep track of.

 

Yet when I go to GearSlutz or poke around here I'm amazed at some of the utter dunderheads who are not only doing it -- but somehow conning people into paying them for their services.

[MikeRivers]

 

But why don't you create a template that has this in place - AND has your AUX send/receives named as such - and then simply call it up whenever you need to start a new session? Create something you need, save it as a template, and you only have to do that once ever.

I beg ignorance. No point in saving something if I don't know for sure if it's what I want, and that will take some time to figure out. Craig confirmed my suspicion that setting up these things takes resources, so there's a disadvantage of having a universal setup which (just like a console) will almost always have some things unused.

 

I don't even know if I have a program here that's capable of that. I think that Reaper allows saving a template, but it doesn't have a convenient (my concept) way of adjusting the aux sends. And since this isn't something to which I want to make a long term commitment, I don't want to buy what someone recommends only to find that there's something I don't like about it.

[UstadKhanAli]

I beg ignorance. No point in saving something if I don't know for sure if it's what I want, and that will take some time to figure out. Craig confirmed my suspicion that setting up these things takes resources, so there's a disadvantage of having a universal setup which (just like a console) will almost always have some things unused.

 

Aux sends do take up resources. But far less than most plug-ins. Experiment. Set up something you think you want, and see if it works. See if the computer can hang with your aux sends. I'll bet it can.

 

I'll sometimes tweak my templates to get it to something that I really want. And besides, you can always tweak your session, modifying your template anyway.

 

I don't even know if I have a program here that's capable of that. I think that Reaper allows saving a template, but it doesn't have a convenient (my concept) way of adjusting the aux sends. And since this isn't something to which I want to make a long term commitment, I don't want to buy what someone recommends only to find that there's something I don't like about it.

 

All DAWs that I know of can save templates. You just create a "console" that you want and then name it something useful, like "Mike Rivers Template 1" or whatever.

 

Do some studying, figure out what you think you might like, and then download the demo. You certainly have enough resources, writing for Recording Magazine, working for Mackie, and interacting with people in the pro audio industry, that you can get some insightful advice. Check it 2-3 in demo form, and see if it does what you want it to do. Or go analog and be done with it!!!

[MikeRivers]

 

I don't know about you, but the consoles I grew up on (and the main one I use now) have a little item we used to call returns...

Oops. Did I write that? Of course I know what a Return is.

.. on one hand, I can understand some of the frustration you feel... on the other, I really do think you've not just got a mental block about this but that you're nurturing it.

That's partly true. I could just bully my way through this, and if I had a good reason to actually work with a DAW that's what I'd do. But this isn't something I'm going to do often enough to spend too much time learning. I just want to DO in order to see how a particular device works. That's where I started, and that's probably where it will end. Still, I see no reason not to question what seems to me to be somewhat difficult to grasp (though I think I've got that) and something that's implemented in a clumsy way.

I can tell you that the first time I got on a big, modern board in the 80s that things were pretty confusing... there was a heck of a learning curve. And each new board at the different studios I worked in was a little -- and sometimes a lot -- different.

Well, see, I never had a bit of trouble finding my way around a console. Everything is right there all the time. Sometimes the vocabulary is a little different. MCI consoles have the "2 Mix," for instance. But it's pretty obvious. I know that when I turn up an Aux Send, that it will come out HERE and I don't need to do anything else.

 

However, I do see people who don't have any idea what to do with an auxiliary send on an analog mixer, they connect their monitor speakers to the main outputs when they have perfectly good control room outputs and then wonder why the solos don't work. Or they plug headphones into the headphone jack and want to know why the mix in the speaker changes when they change the mix in the headphones.

 

There's no better teaching tool than an analog mixer when it comes to fundamentals of signal flow yet someone who starts out with a DAW misses out on all of that, and the documentation (both of analog and digital equipment) is rarely very tutorial. My software walks you through setting up an auxiliary send and return but it's in terms of setting up an effect bus and they never relate it back to traditional console sends and returns with their corresponding outputs and inputs.

[MikeRivers]

Do some studying, figure out what you think you might like, and then download the demo. You certainly have enough resources, writing for Recording Magazine, working for Mackie, and interacting with people in the pro audio industry, that you can get some insightful advice.

That's what I thought I could get here, but all I get is a ration of {censored} about how I HAVE to adapt and that I'm just not applying myself.

Or go analog and be done with it!!!

This is what I will continue to go back to, so I really don't have a good reason to spend a lot of time experimenting with things when all I learn is what I don't like.

 

My goal here (the draining of the swamp) was to see how close an audio interface with a fairly comprehensive mixer built in could get me to working with a traditional console. What I've learned so far is that while the mixer in the 1200F is helpful for some things, the stumbling block is that you STILL have to use the DAW facilities. And now, instead of having one user interface (the DAW), I have two. What I was dreaming of was to be able to look at two screens, one with the 1200F mixer for inputs and the other with the DAW mixer for the "tape returns," kind of like a split console. I think this is possible with the right DAW and the right DAW operator. However, at the moment I don't have either.

 

I'm going to try to hook up with a local Nuendo whiz next week and that should let me get a good look at what I want to see without having to learn how to build it first. Now I see why we have a new job in studio engineering - the ProTools Operator.

[pipelineaudio]

I would reccomend spending some time on IRC chat, with a daw open in front of you, and lots of people on the IRC that run the DAW you are looking at. You are running into "paradigm deficiencies" for one thing, and noone can blame you for that.

[Anderton]

 

What I want to be able to do is this: From some menu, create an Auxiliary Send. I can name it if I choose ("Phones 1"), define it as stereo or mono, and specify its physical output. All of that makes sense to me. Then whenever I want to send a track Phones 1, I drop in my Aux Send and a volume control (and pan if it's stereo) appears on my mixer's channel strip.

 

 

You've pretty much described Sonar's busing scheme. The only additional complication is you need to make sure there's a bus to which you can send the aux or cue signal. But that would be the case with hardware, too.

[Anderton]

 

Craig confirmed my suspicion that setting up these things takes resources, so there's a disadvantage of having a universal setup which (just like a console) will almost always have some things unused.

 

 

You can just delete anything that's not use, usually it's just a "select - hit DEL key" kinda deal.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

What I was dreaming of was to be able to look at two screens, one with the 1200F mixer for inputs and the other with the DAW mixer for the "tape returns," kind of like a split console. I think this is possible with the right DAW and the right DAW operator. However, at the moment I don't have either.

 

 

That might be possible. I'm not sure, but it sounds quite feasible, and now that you've said this, one of these Pro Tools operators might jump in and say, "Oh, yeah, first you do ______, then ________..." or say, "Hey, Apple Logic is really good for doing that." or whatever.

 

I don't have a split monitor at the moment, although I've thought about it. If I did, I would probably have the Mixer Window in one and the Editing Window in the other since those are the two windows I find myself toggling back and forth between the most by far. My Mixer Window seems to cover the inputs and "tape returns" (er, the music flying off the hard drive! See? For now, I still need to have spinning things to play my multi-track!).

[UstadKhanAli]

 

There's no better teaching tool than an analog mixer when it comes to fundamentals of signal flow yet someone who starts out with a DAW misses out on all of that, and the documentation (both of analog and digital equipment) is rarely very tutorial. My software walks you through setting up an auxiliary send and return but it's in terms of setting up an effect bus and they never relate it back to traditional console sends and returns with their corresponding outputs and inputs.

 

 

The third party books do a far better job of relating things to you. The documentation that comes with the DAW, from my experience, seems to be miserable, just simply telling you what each function does and how to activate or deactivate it. I have several Pro Tools books ("Pro Tools Power", etc.), and it really helps me out a lot.

 

I remember a long time ago we had this conversation in which you were basically saying that you would start being happy with a DAW when the monitor screen was as large as a console. One of the great things of a console, as you've already pointed out, is that everything is laid out already, right in front of you, and you can just simply reach up and grab something. If you just look at the rows of a console, you can already figure out half the stuff just by sitting there.