Do You Use Hardware Controllers or Analog Mixers for Mixing? If Not, Why Not?

[roomjello]

 

Originally Posted by nat whilk II

The above totally points up the dilemma - there is a point at which high quality analog mixing combined with high quality converters can yield a particularly satisfying product, especially for those who prefer a more vintage/analog sound. The dilemma being exactly which analog mixer, exactly which converters, at which price points?

I admit that I want to mix on an analog mixer, but I'm not such a fool that I think a $500 mixer with a $300 interface is going to really do anything special. And of course a $100K analog board with $5K converters will almost certainly do the trick.

So I want to go analog at the quality point that makes a difference for as cheap as possible. On the strength of Lee Flier's raves about the A&H Zed16R, I have hopes for that bit of gear. This particular mixer is both the mixer AND the interface, which solves one problem. And the faders can be used as MIDI controllers, too. So you can mix and match your technique between analog and digital.

I still hear a lot of silky goodness in the analog domain that is very rare in the digital domain....but I agree it's now down to a taste preference rather than an absolute good vs bad thing.

nat whilk ii

 

For 15k i just scored a 48 channel system, Reliable board, full automation and a set of good converters DA/AD.

If you are in the market PM me and i'll tell you my findings while i was researching.

[144dB]

Hi Craig,

For playing virtual synths, I use an inexpensive knob controller for "playing the panel", but I haven't taken the step of getting a mixing control surface.

My obstacle for buying something is the level of integration I would expect. I want a device that I can drop on my lap and control all aspects of the mix, including access to plug-ins, etc. All of the processing I do is in the box and from plug-ins, so having a controller that can access the standard EQ and Dynamics sections of Cubase does nothing for me. And given the level of change in DAW applications (for example the new mixer in Cubase 7 vs. Cubase 6), having a hard-wired layout presents a challenge. At the same time, a completely touch-based controller (such as the iPad solution) would arguably fall short in a few ways.

I took an hour to mock-up my dream controller, and you can see it below.

The area above the faders, buttons, and knobs is a touch screen (or a set of touch screens). It has 16 motorized faders, two dedicated master faders, a control room fader, 16 pan pots (ideally the continuous kind with LED crowns), dedicated mute and solo buttons, and one assignable knob per channel. The area to the far right could have a numeric keypad, transport buttons, a jog/scrub wheel, or some general purpose encoders. It would also need bank/channel select buttons, and a semi-affordable price (target = $1,500).

The touch screens would allow the user to call up plug-ins on the fly and make adjustments, as well as see the meter bridge. And since most of the controller is not tied-down to hardware, the interface could grow and change as DAW applications change or enter the market.

Obviously there are a lot of technical challenges with this idea. The controller would presumably have to receive a video signal from the DAW application, and at the same time provide feedback to the host. I don't know what kind of protocol could handle that bandwidth, short of Thunderbolt. But I'll leave those decisions to any ambitious company who can actually execute this idea.

I don't like controllers that try to fulfill multiple roles. I don't need an audio interface. I need a semi-pro/professional control surface. And I really want something that can fit on a lap (e.g. 14" x 24").

Great topic Craig...