Routing question: calling all studio wizards/witches

[shredd]

Calling all studio wizards/witches - I'm looking at you smart-ysh guyz (@-mjk- , @Mark Richards, @Arjan P, @Phil Tipping , etc etc)...

I have a question to pose that my extensive research isn't giving me any solid answers for.
I'm exploring a routing scenario that would accomplish a tracking objective I have - and I'm basing solely on the premise that "any routing solution is good, if it works"!
I realize, of course, that if I was smart enough to get my shoes on the right feet, that this kind of thing could be accomplished via the appropriate patch-bay configuration. But - as is well documented - I'm sort of "not there yet"...

Here's whut I wanna do:

• Running a source (say an acoustic/elec git'r) into a mixer input. No FX or processing - dry/raw signal, which would go out to a DP-32 input for recording "dry" (or PERHAPS mixer's internal FX applied to it);
• Output the dry signal from that channel (pre-EQ/fader/FX, everything - think insert, rather than AUX-Send) and into an external FX unit for processing;
• Then the output from the FX unit back into another mixer channel (rather than an AUX-Return), to be sent to a separate input on the DP-32 to record on a separate track.

In this scenario, I envision playing a take that is recorded on one DP track in dry/unprocessed form (unless I added the mixer's interal FX to that signal), and another DP track records the FX'd signal without pickup up any mixer-internal FX added to the "raw" signal.

I tried it using the AUX-2SEND on the mixer, and it works great...BUT: the AUX-Send is providing the external FX unit with a signal that carries the MIXER's internal FX.

What I envision is using the "raw" channel's INSERT to take a raw, unaffected signal out to the external FX, then back into another channel.

That's the "setup"/scenario. HERE IS MY QUESTION:
If I plug a TR 1/4" cable into the INSERT of the channel to pick up the send of the 'dry' guitar (on the tip of the TR), is the mixer gonna care that not only is there nothing "coming back" (which would've been on the "sleeve" of a normal insert cable)...but that the mixer's "return" contact in the insert jack is gonna "see" the "sleeve" of the TR, instead of the "ring" of an insert cable's TRS plug???
The last thing I wanna do is fry my mixers' channel - or even just the INSERT circuit - by doing this...

 

[Arjan P]

@shredd This depends on your mixer AFAIK. But first: an insert cable will be TRS, where the tip is Send, the ring is Return, and the sleeve is Common - at least that's the only way I know.

Then, in my DM-3200, something called 'half-inserting' is possible. That means that the TRS cable inserted into the Insert connection of a channel will NOT break the signal going to the internal channel electronics - if it is inserted only halfway. I don't think you'll be able to fry anything if your mixer doesn't support 'half-inserting' - and with half-inserting you don't need to use a TRS cable (otherwise DO!). Inserting fully will indeed break the connection to the mixer channel, which is exactly what you want with inserts..

 

[-mjk-]

@shredd, either way, the mixer "doesn't care" (lol) but as @Arjan P says (in his perfectly worded reply to you) that the signal might be interrupted and not actually come out of the back end of the channel. On consoles, "Insert" really means a loop. One can try the 1/2 insert and see what happens.

But you can already made separate FX tracks on the DP machines as long as you have no aversion to using the Sends (that is what they are for):

https://www.tascamforums.com/threads/dp-24-32-sd-production-tips.5747/

Scroll down until you see:

CREATING SEPARATE EFFECTS TRACKS

Thanks largely to @Mark Richards for his technical tutorials in that section.

Just remember that creating that FX track does not have to be done in real time! You can record the dry track first and then monkey with the FX until you get what you want later. You can also make multiple FX tracks using the same FX unit on different settings for each new track. That can be done with a DP machine, the FX unit and 2 cables, right now.

 

[Mark Richards]

Shredd, it's the end of my day, so I may be a bit fuzzy-headed, but unless you need the external mixer for some specific reason, why not:
Source (e.g.,E-Gtr) -->DP-32 Input H ---Assign to DP-32 Trk 1 to record.
DP-32 Input H Send2 --->external signal processor line input.
External signal processor line output--->DP-32 Line Input B --- Assign to Trk 2 to record.
Dry signal is recorded on DP-32 Trk 1; wet signal is on DP-32 Trk 2.

I've used a harmonizer in real time to record a dry vocal on one track and harmony on a second track in one pass with the routing I've described.

Edit
Looks like mj & I have cross-posted. I assumed you had a need for some reason to track both at once.

If not, then, what mj said. If you want to use a mixer's FX, then treat the mixer as though it were just an external signal processor for the DP-32.

 

[shredd]

First off - thnx to all youse guyz for allowing your brains to be picked…I’m all too aware that if I could get my BB-brain wrapped around the patch-bay approach, it would provide solutions to a lot of these little things.

In this case, MarkR/MJ are right: I’m looking for a way to route/record the same input to different paths in a single take - largely because my musical skills are not particularly adequate to making acceptable-quality multi-take double-trackings of parts, whether vocal or instrumental (if you don't believe me, listen to my posted recordings...).
I HAVE done the copy-recorded-track-and-clone/process/blend or bounce approach…it works, but hasn’t become a go-to method.

In hindsight, the tapping-off-mixer-insert solution doesn’t seem to be a good option.
Actually: the best solution seems to be the @Mark Richards' approach…my current “solution” to this was to do precisely what he outlined, BUT on the mixer, rather than the DP.
There’s NO reason to NOT do it on the DP, just as he suggested - other than I have a mixer that not only has very decent mic pre’s, but is also the hub of my studio-organization system. It’s almost force of habit…maybe time to revisit that approach...it's just that there's too many sources for the DP to accommodate, and I'm too stewpyd to figure out the patch-bay approach.

AND his approach in the stickie is also 100% effective.

Thanks again doods. I’ll stop asking dumazz stuff like this when I can use the patch-bay capabilities to come up with solution. I think I can acheive that, since I’m learning to get my shoes on the right feet…

 

[-mjk-]

@shredd, by all means use the mixer and it's superior mic pres and stuff. However,

In this case, MarkR/MJ are right: I’m looking for a way to route/record the same input to different paths in a single take - largely because my musical skills are not particularly adequate to making acceptable-quality multi-take double-trackings of parts

This has nothing to do with adding the FX in real time though. I actually advocate for adding FX later so you can concentrate on one thing at a time. Do whatever it takes to get the best sounding performance (multiple-takes, comping, etc.) and then you can add whatever FX you need, later. You may find that it's better to add those FX as-needed during the mixing session as unless one is very experienced it's likely that once the tracks are up in the mix they will sound different that they did in your tracking session.

Many DP users plan for a leaving a couple of tracks open for recording FX tracks during the mixdown. You may want to adopt this mindset also.

There is nothing wrong with using your external console to maximize the your equipment utilization, including using that mixer as sort of a patchby in of itself.

Thanks again doods. I’ll stop asking dumazz stuff like this when I can use the patch-bay capabilities to come up with solution. I think I can acheive that, since I’m learning to get my shoes on the right feet…

As one of the mods, I need to point out that there is no rule on the Tascam forums that requires one to self-deprecate with each post concerning a topic with which the OP is not a verifiable expert. Asking questions demonstrates humility. You're good @shredd.

 

[Arjan P]

I actually advocate for adding FX later so you can concentrate on one thing at a time.

I totally agree with this, but there is another thing you might consider: add FX while you record - for your own monitoring - but don't record them.

It can help to hear certain effects to get the best performance (which singer records vocals completely dry?) but you keep total control later if you don't actually record the effect at that time. With guitar, it could be chorus, delay or such that gets you in the right place to get the track down - and then later you can add these again to the dry track, but now with fine-tuning for the mix.

 

[shredd]

@shreddMany DP users plan for a leaving a couple of tracks open for recording FX tracks during the mixdown

Actually, I do do that...which is a good approach. I often assign inputs to record where I can leave the next track or two or whatever for that purpose...or use a track-list sheet to organize when I can't.
And - as @Arjan P so sagely pointed out; it's often better to add FX after/later...in order to get a nice, clean, 'dry' take. I also see the value in applying but not recording the FX, in order to get the 'dry' take you want.
Thank heavens for you smartt guyz!!

@shredd
There is nothing wrong with using your external console to maximize the your equipment utilization, including using that mixer as sort of a patchby in of itself.

Funny you'd say that: during my now many-weeks focus on evaluating the patchbay issue, I've occasionally had that thought myself: my mixer has pretty considerable mixing/routing capabilities, providing at least some of what a p/bay would. A real p/bay would surely put it up to the next level; but honestly: I can do quite a bit with what I have (and not spend hundreds of US$ trying to figure it out!).

@shreddAs one of the mods, I need to point out that there is no rule on the Tascam forums that requires one to self-deprecate with each post concerning a topic with which the OP is not a verifiable expert. Asking questions demonstrates humility

THANKS for that!
Well, as a mod, you're entitled - and right - to make that point. It's quite plain to all who read here that beyond my hard-to-control weisenheimer streak, I have a tendency toward self-deprecation, which was instilled manymany moons ago and is (thankfully) largely confined to my musician-world.
In the case of the patchbay thread, it actually has more to do with masking my embarrassment over being too poor/cheap to spend what would likely run to hundreds of $ to simply experiment, when I honestly can resolve a lot of those issues by either utilizing my existing equipment's capabilities, or simply resigning myself to occasionally doing the pulling/plugging cables thing.

And it just becomes sort of habitual. Years ago, I lived in an area that was just filthy with musical talent; and (unsurprisingly) there was a lot of really disagreeable types (of all ability levels) who introduced a lot of bad vibes to the musician-community by sheer weight of their egos, their attitudes, their judgements & criticisms of everything. It really fouled the water. So I sort of subscribe to that old adage (applicable to musicians, athletes, really about anyone): "no matter how great you are - or think you are - there's always someone better!".
So I've always preferred humility to posturing - I just overdo it a bit, I guess...