Hybrid setup discussion (signal flow)

[OHADOHAD]

Ok, so I'm trying to figure out the best way to make hardware and ableton work for me (signal flow wise).
At the moment I have Motu 828mk3 sound card 8 inputs 10 outputs (analog), Mackie 1604 mixer and 3 hardware fx (d1500 delay, quadraverb and ensoniq dp/2) and 3 synths (mbase11, kawai k1 and yamaha tx81z).
Inputs in my sound card: are the synths go directly to ableton for processing and 4 subs from the mackie mixer.... plus I'm using maschine and other samples and stuff in ableton (but of course that's not occupying inputs).
Outputs from my sound card to the mixer: 1. mbase, 2-6. Maschine sounds (usually hats,Porc..), 7-8. Samples/Vst synths 9. TX81Z, 10.Kawai K1 (stereo in ableton but duo to lack of outputs I'm summing to one channel on the mixer).
Hardware fx are sends on the mackie and return to channels 11-16 and than routed to sub 3-4 that goes to ableton.
All the other sounds (synths and drums) goes back to ableton using subs 1-2 on the mackie.
Man, it sounds complicated...
Soooo.. after this exhausting review.. are you working in an hybrid setup similar to that? If so, how did you set it up?
I have to admit, i don't feel completely comfortable with it... I record arrangements live and thats kinda ok (using a controller mapped to filters in ableton), but processing wise, its kinda annoying.. lets say process all the drums together..
I thought maybe divide the outs from ableton in a frequency method... group for low, mid and high and only than send it to the mackie for summing... what do you think?

[innovine]

I struggled with this a lot recently. Currently taking a break from computer, but I know exactly where you're coming from.

Do you have a patchbay? It's an eye opener when you get one and you're probably in need of it. How many ins and outs have you in total? I have way more gear than mixer channels so ths is a key point in my signal flow.

How many of the mixer channels have inserts? Have you tried using a channel in ableton as a channel insert? Ie whatever enters your ixer on chan 1, takes a pass throughableton and back eut to chan 1. his lets you use plugins on the physical channel, as well as open routing options. You can alse use the computer as a multitraok recorder in this setup, by toggling between monitoring and track playback for your insert chan in ableton.

I ran a lot like this for awhile. I set chan 1 on th physical mixer to always be th kick, chan 2 to the snare, and so on. Then, I patched the appropriate gear from the patchbay to chan 1, depending on where the kick for the track came from. This leaves you always knowing what every knob on th hardware mixer affects, which I think is real important. I have a shitty behringer mixer collecting all the fx returns and stereo bus and master from th daw, summing them into one chan on the main mixer. This is for stuff I want to hear, but not really mix or add fx to.

I use prefade listen on the mixer to route atrack to my mpc for resampling, you could just as easily send like this to your daw for recording..

[Mslwte]

Yeah a patch bay will definitely help. Tbh what ou are doing sounds fine to me but I wouldn't worry to much about having everything hooked up and playing all at once. I use a bit of hardware as well but what I do is use the patchbay and hook up a couple of bits that I want to use on a project. I've spent hours and hours trying to get everything hooked up and synced and then I'll either get a new piece of kit or need to unplug something because I don't have enough inputs etc and then it starts to fall apart lol.

Don't waste to much time messing about and make some tunes

[Mslwte]

I don't have a hardware mixer (atm) I just go into a 2408 mk3. But I did have a mixer I would record all the audio in that you want (not all at the same time) and process everything in ableton leaving the hardware turned off. Basically that's what I do now. You don't have to worry about syncing and doing everything at once.

[Mslwte]

Simplify

And make tunes

[innovine]

A patchbay will help, but it'll likely drive you bonkers in the short term, it's a nightmare to figure out how you want your normalled path to look ... once its set up a bit it'll let you try out new signal lows pretty easily. Situate it right next to your mixer if possible so you can jump straight from the bay to th mixer with a patch cord. Makes things super handy

[OHADOHAD]

Im not really thinking about syncing at the moment (I messed with a lot in the last couple of weeks and solved it for now..).
Im trying to think how a patch bay will make my life easier... i mean i always use all my hardware fx, they are all my go to delay/reverb and crazy fx.
Also the hardware synths.. the tx81z is for sequences/basslines and the K1 for pads and strings.
I think what I'm trying to achieve is a coherent sound as much as possible when I'm recording the arrangement.. but maybe I'm just trying to eat the all cake in one go..
I think recording into ableton and coming out is kinda limited because i only have 8 inputs and 10 outputs at the moment..
maybe instead of a patchbay it would make more sense to get some more ins and outs?

[Wiu]

Am I the only one that understands what a patchbay can do, but totally doesn't understand how to actually wire the cunt up? I was gonna get an ART one a while back but the manual just made no sense to my small brain at all!

As for hardware, since I had to start using a 2 input audio interface (Windows 8 doesn't like my old Tascam Mixer with multi channel recording via usb), lately I've just been spending some time making patterns with drum machines and synths etc and then just jamming tracks live with the resulting patterns and just recording the stereo output from my mixer. Sure I guess I could record each track individually and spend time processing them separately, but every time I've tried it, the results just seem to lose something.

[Wiu]

Ok, so I'm trying to figure out the best way to make hardware and ableton work for me (signal flow wise).
At the moment I have Motu 828mk3 sound card 8 inputs 10 outputs (analog), Mackie 1604 mixer and 3 hardware fx (d1500 delay, quadraverb and ensoniq dp/2) and 3 synths (mbase11, kawai k1 and yamaha tx81z).

I've been after a Kawai K1 II for sooooo long. I was watching a mint condition one on ebay a while back but just had no money to bid on it. I'd love a Kawai K4 too.

[OHADOHAD]

Classic undervalued
That was my first buy when i started moving out of the box... At first bought it as a general midi keyboard because i was not happy with crappy midi keyboards (not that I'm a good keyboard player or playing lot of melodies/chords)..
Good luck bidding, I got it for 90 euro here in Berlin, from a second hand/electronic pawn shop.
If you need banks and stuff pm me, I've got some cool sounds

[innovine]

I've a k4, love it

[OHADOHAD]

Ok, so i got Behringer ADA8000 after i was reading lots of good reviews on it, 8 more in's and outs connected to my motu.. that should solve my general idea i think...
listening to ableton summing thru the tape in on my mixer (just like you would do with a tape) and I'm using the main out of the mixer like another bus.. so it gives me 6 busses instead of 4..
All hardware fx going to the main stereo bus (i don't need them individually to ableton, only as fx sends) and than to ableton for extra processing.
which gives me 4 more busses for drums and synths.
all busses go into ableton, of course channel for each bus and all channels of busses from ableton are routed to 'Tape Out'...
So what I'm listening to on the monitors, is the final processed sounds.
If i want i can solo each instrument, Bus or master from ableton...
Win win... all the freedom i was looking for

[Mslwte]

Can you draw me a diagram!! Haha

[OHADOHAD]

Haha.. yeah that is the next step.. i will do it tomorrow and upload it

[Hades]

Ok, so i got Behringer ADA8000 after i was reading lots of good reviews on it, 8 more in's and outs connected to my motu.. that should solve my general idea i think...
listening to ableton summing thru the tape in on my mixer (just like you would do with a tape) and I'm using the main out of the mixer like another bus.. so it gives me 6 busses instead of 4..
All hardware fx going to the main stereo bus (i don't need them individually to ableton, only as fx sends) and than to ableton for extra processing.
which gives me 4 more busses for drums and synths.
all busses go into ableton, of course channel for each bus and all channels of busses from ableton are routed to 'Tape Out'...
So what I'm listening to on the monitors, is the final processed sounds.
If i want i can solo each instrument, Bus or master from ableton...
Win win... all the freedom i was looking for

why do you need so many ins and outs ?
simple but golden rule for home-studio owners who make music (mainly) by themselves is that your soundcard only needs as many ins and outs as the amount of tracks you'll be recording at the same time.
(one of the most important things I learned years ago from reading tweakheadz)

I most definitely have a rather extensive hybrid setup :
for the moment I got 13 HW synths (counting from the top of my head, not at home now), and still make 50% or more of my tracks with SW.
Plus I use 3 HW FX units (well 4 if you count the dual engine on my H8000) and my Sherman.
It took me a long while to find a setup that was both ergonomically and practical, but now my setup and way of working hasn't changed in the last 3 years, and I don't have to worry if I buy another piece of gear or not in the future.
I'll always have room to hook it up.

What made it all easy as hell was getting a big mixer and getting patchbays.
It took some time to figure it all out, and I sure paid a massive amount for all the cables, but now it's extremely practical and fast to work with.

I bought a 32ch Midas, but looking back now I could probably have done with a 24ch version.
(back then I thought I was gonna use the separate outs from my Jomox more, but in the end I hardly did/do)
I don't use the FW "hybrid" part, so I just use it purely as an analog mixer.
But all my HW is routed to my patchbays and all the ins and outs of my soundcard are routed to the patchbays as well.
I have 3 of them, and the 3rd one is only filled up for 20%
And just like you I routed the returns from my HW FX back to channels instead of using the returns of the mixer, it gives more flexibility and extra EQ.

Getting patchbays is the cheapest and easiest way to make your life easier if you are getting more and more HW.
You don't really need a huge mixer, and you can probably do with a soundcard with 6 ins and outs (I'm doing fine with 8 now, I barely ever use them all).
All you need is the patchbays and recording the seperate parts of your track.
I mean, do you really record all those synths at the same time ?
Nope.
So if you have them hooked up to patchbays you can hook them up in seconds when you are recording them.

but of course, each has hiw own way of working, but getting patchbays is never a bad investment.

[Hades]

Also, you should really consider getting rid of the behringer.

If you like using HW because you like the sound of your synths, you should always remember your audio recordings will only be as good as the weakest link in your setup (whether this be soundcard, cables, patchbay,...).

I used to have a small soundcraft FX16 mixer. I got it dirt cheap, and it served me fine for many years.
But when I upgraded to the Midas I couldn't believe how much better all my gear all of a sudden sounded.

Somehow it's ironic that I'm saying this cause Behringer actually bought the Midas company about a year ago, but it's very clear they're only using their expertise and Midas quality hasn't all of a sudden went all the way (way waaaayyyyy) down to Behringer crap stuff (no offence).

If it's for some cheap-ass guitar pedal or some small MIDI controller, I might consider behringer, but for a serious tool to run my audio through before recording, no fucking way.

[Hades]

Also, if I may bore you some more.
I think if you really are recording that much at the same time,
I think you're not able to hear the separate parts of your track enough in detail.
just a thought.

This is just a personal hunch from me, but I think most people with a lot of HW record most of their parts separately.
I saw a Mathew Jonson video recently where he went through his new studio and that seemed to be almost exactly my way of working (except I don't think he uses a lot of SW FX).

Anyway, like I said, everyone has hiw own way of working.

but mslwte is damn right if he says one needs to simplify and just make tracks.
and patchbays in my opinion help a lot with the simplification process.

I need to make myself a bloody synth rack so I can put some of my unused HW synths in a practical vertical position untill I take them out on some rainy day.

[Hades]

I've a k4, love it

you should look for a K5000.
has all those PCM options and the most deep additive synth engine that was ever made with a HW synth.
It sounds absolutely unique, I'd never get rid of mine.

[OHADOHAD]

Thanks for a super reply
The way i work is kind of a live band of one person (if it makes sense)
I record an arrangement live.. therefore everything is playing at the same time.
I got the behringer not for the in's.. (hardware synths going to motu preamps which of course better), I got the behringer for more outs.
My drums are coming from maschine and i wanted as many channels i can get.. because with only my motu, i have 8 outs (analog of course) and i have a mackie 1604 mixer with of course 16 channels.
I dont have enough hardware gear, therefore no need for patchbay yet... everything is connected and flexible still..
Once i will get more hardware synths it will make sense to get a patchbay, I totally agree.
The thing is, i really hate arrangements and recording live an arrangement is kinda made it more fun for me to deal with it.
I was a sound engineer/recording engineer for a year or so and this method of recording a full 'band' kinda got stuck with me..
anyway i will upload a diagram or something to make it clearer.

[Hades]

Thanks for a super reply

no prob.
you'll soon enough notice I am not a man of few words.

I got the behringer not for the in's.. (hardware synths going to motu preamps which of course better), I got the behringer for more outs.

well if the behringer doesn't interfer with your input recordings (and also not when something is sent out and then back in for recordings, then I guess you can do fine for the time being (if you don't mind their sound quality for listening purposes)

The way i work is kind of a live band of one person (if it makes sense)
I record an arrangement live.. therefore everything is playing at the same time.
...

The thing is, i really hate arrangements and recording live an arrangement is kinda made it more fun for me to deal with it.
I was a sound engineer/recording engineer for a year or so and this method of recording a full 'band' kinda got stuck with me..
anyway i will upload a diagram or something to make it clearer.

haha, I know what you mean.
it has taken me years before I actually started finishing tracks, and even if I'm slowly moving forward (I finished 3 tracks in the last 1,5 months, before that I probably finished 3 tracks in the last 1,5 years), I still hate making arrangments.
My Live folder is stuffed with unfinished tracks.
And to be honest, I don't reallyl mind as long as I'm learning new stuff and having fun.

I can understand your sort of "jamming" way of approaching this.
I sometimes do the same.
Now that I think of it, I really kind of do the same by using my APC-40 to record one big take in arrangment view and then I go back to the take to correct stuff and bring in small variations here and there to keep it more interesting.

But I'm not quite sure the pure "jamming" kind of style gets appreciated by many nowadays.
It sounds messy and "outdated" very soon nowadays. (though I certainly can't stand over-produced shiny techno either, au contraire !!)
Ain't nothing wrong with a good jam/improvisation in a live situation, but I do think most don't like listening to that on SC, or vinyl and stuff.
For example : if you listen to a lot of early 90's techno, you can clearly hear there wasn't even 30% of the little changes going on that you hear nowadays on pretty much every channel.
Drums were tons more boring. Some would say more direct, sure, but if you compare it to nowadays, it's really a lot more simple.
I love 90's techno, but some of it I find boring very soon precisely because they had so little means to keep it interesting and keep their sounds varying over the course of their tunes.
The 2nd half of the 90's are far better for that, when technology and the skills of the producers had improved massively.
I mean, take someone like Derrick May. The guy is considered a semi-God in techno country, but seriously, if you listen back to 98% of his tracks nowadays you fall asleep after 3 minutes.
(and how easy is it to NOT make anything new since then and just do DJ gigs, if the guy hadn't been there from the start I seriously doubt he'd actually be someone in techno-country nowadays)
Anyway, just to state a very simple example of someone who's tracks didn't stand the test of time at all and who make a good example of the kind of boring outdated techno I'm talking about.

Also, if you do the jamming approach, how do you work on stuff like EQ ?
Do you record everything separately, so you can still adjust EQ later on ?
Cause surely you can't be adjusting EQ on all channels at the same time while still turning all kinds of knobs ?