Faders: Real or Virtual?

[Guest]

After seeing the posts about computer DAWs versus stand-alone recorders, plus comments about control surfaces, I have to ask: How many folks still use control surfaces or mixers with real faders, compared to virtual faders or drawing in volume and pan settings?

 

When I first bought SAWPlus (multi-track software) I quickly learned to set volumes on the screen, and I never looked back. A friend of mine recently switched from three ADATs and an O2R to recording in his PC. He had a tough time at first, but now he'd never consider using real faders.

 

Personally I don't care for virtual faders that you have to try to move with a mouse. Rather, I like SAW's method of setting levels right in the multi-track view. One advantage is not cluttering the screen with yet another (mixer) window. Further, this is much easier and faster than having to practice and then perform fader moves in real time.

 

But what is everyone else doing?

 

--Ethan Winer

[arthurcanaveralskies.com]

I prefer drawing in automation

curves and setting levels with the "rubber band" over

using faders, real or virtual.

Yes, clients love to see the faders on a mixer move on their

own during playback, but to me, that's gimmicky. To me,

the real power of automation is being able to duck or mute

a really fast transient in a way that's faster than any fader (or fader operator) could ever approximate. Plus I love being able

to see the waveforms; the visual reinforcement helps me

be that much more precise. No, it's not a crutch; it's an extra

tool.

 

Whenever DAWs are criticized in these forums, someone

inevitably screams that they don't want to "mix with a mouse"

or rely on a HUI imitation of "real" automation. And I often

agree, especially when my neck starts hurting from staring

at the screen too often. But I don't agree that "real" faders

are inherently better than rubber bands; the latter are simply too

powerful and precise.

[Guest]

>Arthur,

 

>I prefer drawing in automation curves and setting levels with the "rubber band" over using faders, real or virtual...<

 

Great post! Those are my exact feelings too.

 

--Ethan Winer

[arthurcanaveralskies.com]

Great minds think alike, especially when they have the same

last name.

 

Arthur Winer

[Dylan]

I still like setting my record levels from an external preamp or mixer. I don't like most software mixers generally because they usually take up too much space on the computer screen and are more of hassle to deal with in general. The Windows mixer is a real nightmare, but the audio card that I use for recording doesn't use it so I don't have to deal with it.

 

I personally like how Vegas has its volume/pan/fx adjustments right from the track view, which I assume is similar to how SAW works. The less time I have to spend hopping around from window to window the better. However, if I had money to buy a good control surface I would. I have had tendonitis for the last 4 years, and the less that I have to type or use a mouse the better.

 

-Dylan

[Sergievsky]

I'm about ready to throw away my new Mac mouse and keyboard, since they're the main reason my hand cramps. Does anyone use the pen and pad combo for music? I'll probably get a trackball, but I would like to hear some alternatives.

 

I really don't wanna spend three grand on HUI, but I'm thinking about it. But I figured getting a second big monitor and a good input device can tie me over until I win the lotto, since quite a few people are fine with mixing on screen. I also have a couple of faders on my RolandA80 master keyboard if I need to move anything up and down.

 

So keep those "I love working on the screen" comments coming, maybe it'll influence me as much as those nice-looking control-fader ads I see on the magazines.

[Guest]

Ethan & Arthur: You've both summed-up my opinion. I think once I stopped trying to use a wrench as a hammer (i.e., using virtual faders for digital mixing), things started getting easier. I'm finally beginning to spend more time making music and less time fiddling with the DAW. The patience has paid off, and I've really only scratched the surface. But I still have gripes with every piece of multi-track SW I've worked with thus far. I think I'll save that for a seperate topic.

 

Dylan: I believe we've spoken before, if so, good to see ya out in the "trenches" http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif. When planning my move to a DAW based system, I originally thought my analog mixer would wind up as a paper-weight. It probably gets more use now than ever. All those guzzintas and guzzouttas need to be routed, and level setting is vital since I'm recording direct to HD. The role of my real mixer has shifted a bit, but it's still an important hub. I had trouble believing I could adjust to serious "mixing" without a mixer, though. Now that I've changed how I think and work a little, I'm ready to recant. But I'm sure the price of a decent surface is probably more than worth it for the ergonomics, in your case.

[Anderton]

How about virtual AND real? Truth is, I don't want to give up either. When mixing is part of the performance, then faders are the only way to go. But when it comes to "tweak mixing" and fixes, then the rubber band method is my favorite. I don't like virtual faders as much as the rubber band option, unless I can move them with an external controller - but at that point, the virtual fader is just providing feedback for what I'm doing manually anyway.

 

However, I still think there's something to be said for mixing being a "polyphonic" process. So far, the only way I know to do that is with hardware faders. Using a mouse is inherently monophonic. As levels depend so much on what other levels are doing, being able to manipulate a batch at once is handy, particularly when setting up snapshots.

[arthurcanaveralskies.com]

It's true that I'm more likely to do things one at a time

now that rubber bands are my preferred way to automate.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing, even if Craig calls it

"monophonic."

 

Actually, it's quite easy to affect many channels at once

in a DAW. The problem is, it's not easy to affect them

DIFFERENTLY at one time. If you need to do that, then you

can't beat real faders.

 

It is definitely true then, that I've changed the way I mix.

I do one thing at a time, and the process contains less

performance-oriented aspects than it used to. Personally,

I like to work this way (I got tired of doing ten things at

once, only to *&^%$* up one of them and have to start over).

But Craig has a point, especially if the performance aspect

of mixing is important to you.

 

Arthur

[Guest]

Dylan,

 

> I don't like most software mixers generally because they usually take up too much space on the computer screen and are more of hassle to deal with in general.<

 

That brings up yet another related question: How many folks here are using two monitors? I agree that a single monitor gets crowded pretty quickly. Even with my 21-inch set to 1200x1024 I soon decided to use my wife's old 15-incher as a second monitor. I will NEVER go back to one screen. Having two monitors solves all of the "crowded display" problems.

 

> I personally like how Vegas has its volume/pan/fx adjustments right from the track view, which I assume is similar to how SAW works.<

 

Yes, exactly. Where a lot of programs like Cakewalk use a separate window for the mixer, SAW puts the volume, pan, and effects controls inline on the track.

 

--Ethan Winer

[Guest]

Craig,

 

> When mixing is part of the performance, then faders are the only way to go.<

 

Yeah, I guess for the kind of live stuff you do, physical faders are mandatory. My big objection to most (read: reasonably priced) control surfaces is that the faders are not motorized. Nulling lights like Paris uses are too inconvenient for me.

 

--Ethan Winer

[Quin]

To answer a couple of questions:-

An alternate device to a mouse is the Logitech Trackman Marble - the hand stays in one place - and the thumb moves the marble - which in turn moves the cursor. It takes a little getting used to - but is very precise, without the dangers of RSI, as the thumb movements are so small.

 

I have used an Appian Jeronimo Dual Monitor card for almost 4 years now - and once you've worked this way, there is no going back. I can have a mixer on one screen and other windows open on the other. Images can be stretched across both screens or be dragged from one screen to another. My next system will have 3+ screens.....I'm just waiting for decent large FLAT panels to drop in price. The current CRT screens leave to much of a sonic footprint in the studio for my liking - never mind the heat output.

 

[This message has been edited by Quin (edited 07-19-2000).]