Using Cubase mixing OTB in DM-4800

[Gregdx7]

I have still been mixing ITB because its familiar but I would really like to look into mixing OTB once I can figure the workflow.
When you are mixing OTB using a DAW like Cubase, how do you deal with the 32 track limit using the FW card? I imagine that you use 2 tracks for each FX return from Cubase which futher reduces your track count. Using FX in the DM helps but we all have our VST effects that we know and love. I suppose that you mix all your drums, BGVs, strings, etc to 2 track stereo stems for the DM to deal with. Am I on track with my thinking on this and does this work well in real life?

 

[Arjan P]

I'd say you describe the right approach when coming up to the track limit of the IFFW interface. I mix OTB with Cubase, but haven't run into the limit yet, but I must add that I also use external effects and DM built-in effects. Hardly any Cubase FX, and then mostly inserts and EQ, which doesn't effect channel count ofcourse.

 

[Gregdx7]

Arjan, Thanks for the reply, I am looking forward to using this approach. So, instead of using the audio export in Cubase, you just play the song live using your automation and record it back into Wavelab (or Cubase). I guess it takes a little longer than audio export but no big deal.
Would you mind sending me your DM-4800 setup file so I could see how you set your mixer up?
Thanks,
gregdx7

 

[captdan]

Just a comment:

32 tracks is quite a bit, really. With some careful planning, you can still utilize more tracks in the DAW, but not all of them need to be summed to a stereo pair.

You can have, for example 4-8 drum tracks, 8 stereo string tracks summed to 4; and two rhythm gtr tracks - 'stereoized' - to 4 by using the DM's buss assignment - 8 vocal tracks can be routed to the DM; and a brass section bounced to two stereo channels. And there's stil 8 or 10 faders left over - for keys, efx, percussion. etc etc.

32 is really a lot - even if your DAW is running 40+ tracks. The bigger question is: does the arrangement REALLY need that many? Sometimes less - IS more.

CaptDan

 

[Gregdx7]

Thanks for the comment Captn, I do occasional work on audio dramas that involve classical soundtrack pieces along side of a lot of sound efx tracks and individual spoken word tracks that need individual treatments. With all that going on, sometimes the track count can get pretty high as some of these go an hour or so, but I can sum some of these down, its just a matter of workflow, but thanks for the info because it is all very helpful. As you infer, most of the songs I record don't need that many tracks at the end of the day.

 

[Arjan P]

So, instead of using the audio export in Cubase, you just play the song live using your automation and record it back into Wavelab (or Cubase). I guess it takes a little longer than audio export but no big deal.

Yep, I never use audio export for mixdown, and I want to listen while mixing anyway (and move faders / FX controls if necessary), and watch levels coming into Wavelab. No loss, since I wasn't used to 'mixing' as a single step in software..

Would you mind sending me your DM-4800 setup file so I could see how you set your mixer up?

I have a DM-3200, so I don't think the files would be compatible. But also, I don't use a single template for mixdown. Most of my projects are quite small - trackwise - so I keep the same mix scene for recording and mixdown. Basically, IFFW channels 1-30 are reserved for Cubase, and 31-32 for Wavelab. For bigger band recordings with drums, I do use separate scenes for recording and mixdown.

 

[Gregdx7]

Thanks again Arjan, that is helpful. You're probably right that your setup file won't work on the DM4800.

Thanks anyway.
Gregdx7

 

[Arnold Janssen]

Hi,

Is it a better way to mix OTB to use less cpu from you're computer?

Ciao,
Arnold.

 

[jamsire]

The more I hear about the FW card 32 track "limit", the more I have to wonder - again:

What single interface - on its own, with no other peripherals connected to it, has more DAW audio channels? Nothing.

ITB is NEW, OTB is the standard, because there was no box. I only mix OTB because I refuse to let computer math govern my ears on mixdown. If you render your audio back to Cubase, of course you lose 2 more audio tracks. I mixdown EVERYTHING with board automation going to an external 2-track digital mastering deck. It is the best way to do things without sacrifice. My computer is merely a digital tape recorder. I have plugins, but quite honestly - I have better outboard gear. Not a lot, just what I need.

I am sure that if I uploaded a track - which I won't, that no one could tell if I was using the EQ in the DM or an insert, or the board reverb vs. a hardware reverb vs. a plugin reverb. Why? Because you're supposed to be focused on the song. When it comes to virtual instruments, I have a Korg Kronos - that's >>it<<! The board handles all of it nicely.

Grouping audio in the DAW is not the same as "bouncing Tracks" on tape where you could sometimes lose audio quality. Sometimes, I think people confuse the two. Idk, maybe I make boring music that doesn't require more than 32 tracks of audio.

 

[Arjan P]

Is it a better way to mix OTB to use less cpu from you're computer?

That's hard to say, since 'mixing' ITB is essentially an offline process, usually not real time. And with projects that use a lot of virtual instruments and complex plugins, those are the ones that would need most of the CPU power - also when mixing OTB.

 

[Drumstruck]

Hi,

Is it a better way to mix OTB to use less cpu from you're computer?

Ciao,
Arnold.

The less plugs you use the less CPU you use, so OTB can benefit you there.

My process is very similar to Mr jamsire's - all outboard "FX", rarely use the DM FX, no plugs and mixed using DM automation down to a DV-RA1000HD - sometimes direct to CD / sometimes to the DV hard disk (if I want to copy that file back into PT or Wavelab).
I record virtual instruments as audio tracks - using Kontakt or Play as a standalone app (not plugs) and going from computer into the DM for further sound enhancement and thence back into the computer running PT or Reaper. All this runs fine on a MBP.

 

[Arnold Janssen]

I think it's just what you prefer how to work. In or outside the box.
Or am I wrong?

Ciao,
Arnold.

 

[Drumstruck]

definitely - for me OTB is the preferred method - anything to avoid computers.

 

[Arnold Janssen]

OK...thanks!

 

[jamsire]

The less plugs you use the less CPU you use, so OTB can benefit you there.

My process is very similar to Mr jamsire's - all outboard "FX", rarely use the DM FX, no plugs and mixed using DM automation down to a DV-RA1000HD - sometimes direct to CD / sometimes to the DV hard disk (if I want to copy that file back into PT or Wavelab).
I record virtual instruments as audio tracks - using Kontakt or Play as a standalone app (not plugs) and going from computer into the DM for further sound enhancement and thence back into the computer running PT or Reaper. All this runs fine on a MBP.

Indeed! I like your method of turning VST's into audio tracks. I remember when I saw a Cubase VST32 tutorial and they did that technique in the video and I was confused by it. I have several VST instruments that I barely use, but I certainly turn my Korg Kronos tracks into audio - as the very last recording I do in the song.

FWIW, I do use the DM's FX when recording vocals. It's already setup for that in the project screenshot. The TC Reverbs work for me when doing direct monitoring through the board. But after that - all outboard.

Groove on.

 

[captdan]

Sometimes, I think people confuse the two.

I get the same impression - that to some folks, a digital interface routing signal from a DAW to the DM and back again somehow degrades the audio. And yet, many users deliberately mix down to an analog device using 1949 RCA Phono Plug technology and think nothing of it.

How is it a digital path, which essentially conveys the identical data stream as the original recording somehow goes sideways, but converting a digital signal to analog through a bargain basement port 'warms it up?' (Maybe it does, but hear me out......)

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: if you plug a DAW into a DM 3200 or 4800 console using a DIGITAL interface (ADAT, Firewire, TDIF, etc), and NO channel efx are added, everything's at Unity Gain (00) with no signal level attenuations or boosts, what GOES IN COMES OUT EXACTLY THE SAME WAY! Simply put - in this scenario, the ITB is absolutely a CLONE of the OTB version.Same; exact. No warming, no cooling; no '0's changed to 1's; no change whatsoever.

Now, all that said, the minute an EQ or compressor is added to a DM module, the signal changes. If an outboard device is inserted into a channel - the SIGNAL CHANGES. If a fader is dipped 5db and the audio is not routed back to the DAW with the DM bypassed, the SIGNAL CHANGES. That means the ITB and OTB signals are, then, NOT the same.

It matters bupkus to me how engineers prefer to work. If they routinely juggle 197 tracks, day in and day out, then - maybe - ITB is better for them. But I truly believe it would be beneficial to newcomers if some of these OTB vs: ITB urban legends, myths, half truths, and ASSumptions were put to rest.

Thanks for letting me rant.

CaptDan

 

[AudioWave]

When you are mixing OTB using a DAW like Cubase, how do you deal with the 32 track limit using the FW card?

It's a big pain in the ass and is an obstacle to work flow and slows down productivity, but like many things in audio production, you have to live and adapt to the limitations that you have available to work with You do things like mix Tracks to a Buss or make Stems that you assign to those limited 32-channels. You can also submix and assign more than one track to the same channel in Cubase/Nuendo.

For me on a Mac, I always end up using all 32 ASIO channels from Nuendo to the DM, and then from DM to analog and digital outboard back to the DM sending the DM 2-CH mix back to Nuendo and/or into a Wavelab (on the same computer at the same time) and sometimes also to a separate computer as a safety backup. I also sometimes go into a CD recorder for those times I need, or a client wants a playable CD even if it is just a rough reference mix to save a step of burring a CD.

I will use some Nuendo level & plug automation as well as DM level automation.

 

[cmaffia]

I still am not convinced the quality of OTB is better than ITB. I tried for one of my projects last year. I did an ITB and OTB mix of the same song and I couldn't hear a difference. Maybe its because of the way I capture my stereo mix and/or hardware I use? I never render my audio mixdowns in Cubase. I always capture the stereo mix to either Wavelab (on the same computer) ,and more recently, straight to my Tascam DA-3000. The obstacles and slowed downed workflow described above doesn't seem worth it but of course that's just me. . I'd be interested in some of the OTB die-hards revisiting the ITB approach and see if they truly hear a difference. Where exactly are you hearing the difference? The only big advantage with OTB that I see is if you don't have a powerful workstation and you want to offload as much effect processing to the DM as possible. But with Quad Cores approaching 4GHz now being the norm, that is no longer an issue.

 

[AudioWave]

What single interface - on its own, with no other peripherals connected to it, has more DAW audio channels? Nothing.

Not sure what the point of that comment is? That I should be satisfied with the DM IFFW ASIO limitation because other companies that make prosumer digital mixers have the same kind of limitations?

Again, it is not about the number of Tracks it is about the amount of ASIO channels that is available to process those audio Tracks. I want, need and desire more ASIO channels than I have as audio Tracks to mix with.

As it is now RME and SSL offer 128 CH via MADI interfaces and drivers that support one ASIO (driver) channel to every MADI channel to any digital audio device that has 128-CH MADI capability as commonly used in Broadcast & Live Sound digital mixers that are very costly and have the kind of features that I don't really need nor want to pay for with the kind of audio production that I do.

The logic is simple and the expectation is reasonable for any professional level multi-channel audio device such as a digital mixer regardless of how many users that may or may not need, understand or use it. One ASIO (driver) channel for every mixer channel. A 64-Ch digital mixer should have 64-ch ASIO channels to work with.

 

[AudioWave]

With the recent amount of new great sounding plugs these days there isn't the big difference to using them and using common outboard that there used to be. What that means for me is that I can use UAD 1176 and LA2A plugs in projects and not HAVE to power up my analog versions in most cases. Yet there are still times when the analog units will have and offer something more desirable. This may or may not be heard or obvious to any open else but it is to me and it is as much about my satisfaction as in the sound as it is to my client or the general public it gets released to.

The real thing about OTB is more about which gear and how you are using that gear compared to plugs and mixing ITB. For outboard gear it's all about the mojo it brings or adds more than the function of the gear.

For instance I find getting a Bass instrument that may have been recorded with a crappy sounding Bass, recorded poorly or recorded so-so that really needs some hefty sculpting, girth, dynamic taming and more quite a challenge ITB using just plugs. I can do it, and I can always get it where I want it and where it needs to be, but the amount of time to do it, the hassle of getting the sweet spot and proper level of the gain staging between the plugs and the amount of plugs it takes me to get there can be very extensive and mentally draining. Even if the Bass part was recorded fairly well, If I route that same Bass part that may or may not have a few plugs on it to outboard that has some great mojo like to an API 550B Eq to a Chandler Germ Compressor and then to a Germ Eq, it gets done easier, quicker and with more fun and enjoyment with a far greater sounding result in the end.

Ya, it took over $4k of outboard gear to do it, and it may not have been necessary to anyone else but me, but that crappy Bass turd got polished up real good and the end result is very noticeable even within a busy mix. Enough so that I have gotten a few new clients based on hearing the Bass on that mix.

When I first start a mix, I do a rough ITB mix with no plugs either in PT11 or Nuendo to get a feel for it as I plan and decide how I will be assigning tracks, Buss's and Stems to that 32-ASIO limitation I have. As soon as I start to route tracks to ASIO outputs and have them come into the DM, it just opens up the sound on every track and it starts to come alive. Pretty much night and day to my ears. This for me is the major reason why I HAVE TO MIX OTB if I have a choice and the budget allows it. And since I have a butt load of killer mojo outboard hardware as well, it currently is well worth the hassle and limitations that I have to work with.

And yet I still dream of the day of not having those hassles and limitations.