Faders for automation in DAW

[BluMunk]

I've got a project where I want to be able to do some mixing of 4 tracks simultaneously. What tools do people use to do this sort of thing? Studiologic SL Mixface looks like it's exactly the right thing (and is about at the top of the amount of money I want to spend).

 

The Behringer x-touch mini can maybe do the same thing, but with knobs instead of faders (and less than 1/2 the price).

 

Or, maybe something like the Novation Launchkey 49 has faders that I can use to send CC to a DAW?

 

What else is out there? What do people love? I'm looking for cheap and simple.

[KuruPrionz]

Do you ever automate the tracks in the DAW?

 

That's what I do, I already have it, don't have to hook it up or find space for it and I can do so much more than I could with the outboard mixer. Automation will allow you to change the volume, panning and settings on your plugins all at once. If you run some parallel tracks with different effects on them you can automate those too.

 

I did a remix for a competition on Metapop, more to build skills than anything. I ended up with 66 tracks, most of them automated.

 

Easy to set up and easy to change or delete. Fun!!!!

 

A deep rabbit hole though...

[BluMunk]

I don't know if I follow. Let me clarify what I'm trying to do. I've got 4 vocal tracks. What I want is to be able to play the song, and adjust all 4 volumes independently on-the-fly, and record those volumes into the DAW.

 

I have a 17 song project, so I'm looking for anything that'll help me save even a little time per song. Pausing playback and grabbing the mouse to draw automation, then playing back to make sure it sounds right, rinse and repeat, feels like a sub-optimal way to do it. "Live" mixing of the tracks seems like it'd save a ton of time.

[KuruPrionz]

I don't know if I follow. Let me clarify what I'm trying to do. I've got 4 vocal tracks. What I want is to be able to play the song, and adjust all 4 volumes independently on-the-fly, and record those volumes into the DAW.

 

I have a 17 song project, so I'm looking for anything that'll help me save even a little time per song. Pausing playback and grabbing the mouse to draw automation, then playing back to make sure it sounds right, rinse and repeat, feels like a sub-optimal way to do it. "Live" mixing of the tracks seems like it'd save a ton of time.

 

 

OK, context is important. You want to mix live going in.

Automation is too slow for that. There are quite a few options. I have a single channel Presonus Faderport but they do make multi-channel devices. There are many others, I am not familiar.

 

Personally, I would record all the vocals at optimum volume going in and mix later. Using automation tracks as I described won't work at all for what you describe.

 

I do have a Yamaha MG12/4 fx mixer, the first 4 channels have inserts. Easy to take the send on those and plug them into your interface so you can mix and record seperate channels. Or you could mix them in stereo or even mono to 2 or 1 track if that's how you want to do this. Those outputs are available as well.

 

There are lots of small mixers that can do this, that's one way of going about it.

As I mention above, Presonus and others do make DAW controllers that will do what you want to do.

It sounds like you are doing a live recording? I've run an open mic night using an iPad to remotely control a Midas digital mixer, that was fun.

If you want a hardwired solution it's not the answer either. The DAW controllers I've seen all use USB.

 

I don't know much about those, sorry.

 

More than one way to skin a cat (and more than one cat needs skinning!).

[BluMunk]

Man, you're right, context and clarity is important. Let me clarify again (and sorry for leaving pieces out, and thanks for your responses so far!). I will already have the tracks recorded. They come from 4 different vocalists from each of their own home set-ups (this is a quarantine project), that they recorded to some guides/clicks that I set up. I can obviously set some ballpark appropriate levels on the tracks to start, but achieving balance across the whole thing is going to require a lot more finesse. So I want to adjust and save volumes during playback of already-recorded material.

[KuruPrionz]

Man, you're right, context and clarity is important. Let me clarify again (and sorry for leaving pieces out, and thanks for your responses so far!). I will already have the tracks recorded. They come from 4 different vocalists from each of their own home set-ups (this is a quarantine project), that they recorded to some guides/clicks that I set up. I can obviously set some ballpark appropriate levels on the tracks to start, but achieving balance across the whole thing is going to require a lot more finesse. So I want to adjust and save volumes during playback of already-recorded material.

 

 

Gotcha!

Lots of ways to accomplish that. More questions, sorry. They may help in simplifying the project though.

 

Is there a predominant lead singer or do they all sing lead?

Are all the tracks good quality and at sufficient levels?

 

I get that they are all going to sound different. Different voices, different microphones, rooms, interfaces etc.

[Mike Rivers]

I will already have the tracks recorded. They come from 4 different vocalists from each of their own home set-ups (this is a quarantine project), that they recorded to some guides/clicks that I set up.

 

In what form do you have the recordings? If the individual singers recorded their tracks listening to a guide track, did they send you a file? Or a cassette? Otherwise, what is it that you're planning to mix from? It sounds like what you'll be doing is actually mixing in your DAW, and would like to use a hardware control surface (like the Studiologic SL Mixface) to control the volume of the tracks hands-on in real time. I applaud what you're working toward. I work almost exclusively with live music and don't have the patience to fiddle with virtual faders on a DAW. My solution is old-fashioned - I send analog tracks from a hard disk recorder to an analog mixer, and mix just like I've done for the last 50 years. I'll record the mix to stereo once I'm happy with it, and call the project done. I've been tempted to get a hardware control surface and bring myself into the 20th Century, but have resisted it so far.

 

In the event that you're way ahead of what I'm assuming, and you have an audio interface for your computer that has at least four analog outputs, you could buy an analog mixer like one of the smaller Mackie or Yamaha models, mix analog, and send record your mix on a new track.

 

IMORTANT!!!! Don't agonize about losing sound quality by going back and forth between analog and digital hardware. Only your closest friends will know how you did it.

 

Understand that the control surface puts out MIDI data, and while each fader can control the volume of its track, you can also write automation to the track so that when you play it back, while the actual audio file doesn't change, it will play back at the volume you're set (and ridden) while mixing. You can leave it in the DAW like that, or you can "print" that mix to a new stereo track and continue to work with that. By letting the DAW automation do the work, it's easy to make adjustments to the mix as the project evolves (if it's that kind of a project) by re-writing the automation, without having to do the whole mix over.

 

Another issue is synchronization. Since all the singers listened to the same reference tracks, if they're decent singers, they should be pretty close, but since they aren't hearing each other when they sing, it may be necessary to chop the tracks up into pieces to get them singing close enough together so that it sounds like a real group. But that's a project for another day.

 

The smoothness of the faders is usually the first thing someone looking to buy a mixing console considers. I don't know how good the Studiologic feels as a mixer - it's mighty cheap, and, honestly, from the web site, looks kind of cheap, too. But it might be better than it looks. The PreSonus Faderport 8, which feels very good under the hands, is about double the price of the Studiologic, and if you're going to be doing a lot of this work, it might be worth trying to work it into your budget. The Behringer X-Touch Compact isn't much more than the Studiologic and has decent-feeling faders.

 

The coronavirus isn't helping your friendly local music store any, so it's not likely you'll be able to get your hands on one to try out for feel before it comes to your porch off a truck. But the big retailers like Sweetwater and Full Compass systems have a friendly return policy if you get it and it doesn't feel like something you can work with comfortably.

 

And, just in case I'm way off base here, feel free to clarify again.

[BluMunk]

Is there a predominant lead singer or do they all sing lead?

Are all the tracks good quality and at sufficient levels?

 

I get that they are all going to sound different. Different voices, different microphones, rooms, interfaces etc.

 

They're all "lead" . . . sometimes it's more like one lead and three back-ups, but it varies song by song (it's a musical theater project . . . very vocals-forward).

 

We'll see how the quality is when I get the tracks (they're not in my hands yet). I did a similar project earlier this year with many more voices, but just one song. For that one (and this), the instructions were "use your phone to record yourself. If you have a fancier set-up, great, but if not, the phone is fine." It worked well for our purposes. The goal is not CD quality audio. We're going to be streaming this show this winter (there's a film component as well), and as long as people are recording in silent and mostly-dead rooms, I'm not that worried about high fidelity.

 

It sounds like what you'll be doing is actually mixing in your DAW, and would like to use a hardware control surface (like the Studiologic SL Mixface) to control the volume of the tracks hands-on in real time. I applaud what you're working toward. I work almost exclusively with live music and don't have the patience to fiddle with virtual faders on a DAW. My solution is old-fashioned - I send analog tracks from a hard disk recorder to an analog mixer, and mix just like I've done for the last 50 years. I'll record the mix to stereo once I'm happy with it, and call the project done. I've been tempted to get a hardware control surface and bring myself into the 20th Century, but have resisted it so far.

 

In the event that you're way ahead of what I'm assuming, and you have an audio interface for your computer that has at least four analog outputs, you could buy an analog mixer like one of the smaller Mackie or Yamaha models, mix analog, and send record your mix on a new track.

 

Yep, exactly that. I actually hadn't thought about sending out to a mixer and back into the computer . . . that appeals to the "do things the 'analog'/direct/legacy way" part of my brain. But, on the other hand, the ability to tweak a section without having to re-commit every time seems like such a huge benefit of using the in-DAW automation.

 

IMORTANT!!!! Don't agonize about losing sound quality by going back and forth between analog and digital hardware. Only your closest friends will know how you did it.

Heh. In this world, I am totally of the philosophy that "close is good enough", and I know that our audience will be really happy with whatever I end up with. There will be some who might nit-pick over the flaws, and if that's how they want to engage with it, then more power to them I don't mix professionally, and I'm doing this as a volunteer. I'm committed 100%, but only have so much time to develop skills and get the project done on time (I'm also playing keys, music directing . . . many things on my plate for this!)

 

Understand that the control surface puts out MIDI data, and while each fader can control the volume of its track, you can also write automation to the track so that when you play it back, while the actual audio file doesn't change, it will play back at the volume you're set (and ridden) while mixing. You can leave it in the DAW like that, or you can "print" that mix to a new stereo track and continue to work with that. By letting the DAW automation do the work, it's easy to make adjustments to the mix as the project evolves (if it's that kind of a project) by re-writing the automation, without having to do the whole mix over.

 

What would the use or benefits be of "printing" the track to a new track with the automation baked in?

 

Another issue is synchronization. Since all the singers listened to the same reference tracks, if they're decent singers, they should be pretty close, but since they aren't hearing each other when they sing, it may be necessary to chop the tracks up into pieces to get them singing close enough together so that it sounds like a real group. But that's a project for another day.

 

This is where I am expecting I really will have to spend a ton of time. For the song I linked to above that's where the bulk of the work was. But, with a large ensemble, it sounds fine (and expected) for there to be a little slop. For only 4 voices, I think it's going to need to be a little more precise. We'll see. Also, as vocal tracks trickle in from the singers, I plan on dropping them onto the guide/click track and then making that available for the other singers. So, the first person to get their track in will serve as a foundation for the next, etc etc. Maybe. We'll see if that is useful, or ends up causing more timing problems than it solves.

 

The smoothness of the faders is usually the first thing someone looking to buy a mixing console considers. I don't know how good the Studiologic feels as a mixer - it's mighty cheap, and, honestly, from the web site, looks kind of cheap, too. But it might be better than it looks. The PreSonus Faderport 8, which feels very good under the hands, is about double the price of the Studiologic, and if you're going to be doing a lot of this work, it might be worth trying to work it into your budget. The Behringer X-Touch Compact isn't much more than the Studiologic and has decent-feeling faders.

 

The coronavirus isn't helping your friendly local music store any, so it's not likely you'll be able to get your hands on one to try out for feel before it comes to your porch off a truck. But the big retailers like Sweetwater and Full Compass systems have a friendly return policy if you get it and it doesn't feel like something you can work with comfortably.

 

And, just in case I'm way off base here, feel free to clarify again.

 

I realized last night that I actually have a set of faders (or knobs if I prefer) that can send cc on my Casio keyboard. I may try to get those working for this and see if they're adequate before I spend money on anything.

[Mike Rivers]

. . . . the instructions were "use your phone to record yourself. If you have a fancier set-up, great, but if not, the phone is fine." It worked well for our purposes.

 

How did they hear the guide track? Use a multi-track phone app like Garage Band? Do they know how to create a monitor mix of the guide and their live voice that they're recording on a new track, but just record the new track without the guide track?

 

It sounds like what you'll be doing is actually mixing in your DAW, and would like to use a hardware control surface (like the Studiologic SL Mixface) to control the volume of the tracks hands-on in real time.

 

I work almost exclusively with live music and don't have the patience to fiddle with virtual faders on a DAW. My solution is old-fashioned - I send analog tracks from a hard disk recorder to an analog mixer, and mix just like I've done for the last 50 years.

 

Yep, exactly that. I actually hadn't thought about sending out to a mixer and back into the computer . . . that appeals to the "do things the 'analog'/direct/legacy way" part of my brain. But, on the other hand, the ability to tweak a section without having to re-commit every time seems like such a huge benefit of using the in-DAW automation.

 

This is exactly why analog mixers are going out of style and mixing "in the box" is so popular. Plus software versions of signal processing hardware like equalizers and compressors are so good now, and much less expensive than the real thing. For a while "analog summing" was a hot item - not analog mixing, that was all done in the computer, but each track with its tweaks, level and pan was fed to a unity gain analog mixer. For a while that added some distortion that was the "missing link" with a software mixer, that was too pure - or had too much of the wrong kind of distortion. But now they have software plug-ins that emulate the sound of the analog audio channel.

 

 

 

What would the use or benefits be of "printing" the track to a new track with the automation baked in?

 

Convenience - you don't have to fire up the DAW whenever you want to listen to the recording. And if you want to make copies to distribute, it's easier to make a copy of the stereo "printed" file than to "print" the DAW mix every time you want a copy.

 

Another issue is synchronization.

 

This is where I am expecting I really will have to spend a ton of time. For the song I linked to above that's where the bulk of the work was. But, with a large ensemble, it sounds fine (and expected) for there to be a little slop. For only 4 voices, I think it's going to need to be a little more precise.

 

That can get really tedious. As I said a few paragraphs back, make sure your singers understand how to set up a monitor mix. Alternatively, I can envision someone listening to the guide track through headphones on a borrowed phone and recording their vocal track on their own phone (or vice versa - whichever on makes the best sounding recording).

 

I realized last night that I actually have a set of faders (or knobs if I prefer) that can send cc on my Casio keyboard. I may try to get those working for this and see if they're adequate before I spend money on anything.

 

It never hurts to try. Even if it isn't what you'll ultimately feel comfortable using, you will have learned some of the workings of your DAW.