Using Cubase mixing OTB in DM-4800

[jamsire]

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.

I have a superior computer, I have the power. I also have the patience and never feel like I'm being slowed down. I simply have outboard that sounds the way I want them to sound, they always work, never need $$updates, and I can still even on mixdown live OTB, tweak a little something.

You can hear the difference - plain and simple.

 

[cmaffia]

If you are just routing ASIO channels to the DM, I respectfully disagree its not "night and day". Yes quality outboard gear to process your tracks will be better than most plugins and I agree in that scenario there would be a sonic improvement. However, other than a few external preamps I don't have any outboard gear for the mixdown process so the ITB approach works best for me. I know you have some really good outboard gear and synths Jamsire so yeah, I see your point for what you own.

 

[jamsire]

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?

The POINT is that there are no digital mixers out there - on their own, without external peripherals that have what you are looking for. It's not like the DM is the only mixer that does 32 ASIO channels - all the ones in this price range do.

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.

I understand exactly what you meant - I even addressed it in an earlier post.

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.

My response then is buy an SSL - you STILL NEED external audio interfeace peripherals to make happen what you want.

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.

The logic I go by is this - more product research before you purchase something will help you purchase the right product once without buyers remorse or second guess. I wish the DM had a port for a computer monitor. I knew it didn't, bought it anyway.

Still based on what you wrote, wish, want, and would prefer to have at your disposal - you still wouldn't have a mixer, and if you did - it wouldn't be a DM.xxx. No digital mixer between $2k-$10k gives you more than 32 ASIO channels from the minute you un-pack it without spending more money to add more audio interfaces and other peripherals to it.

 

[jamsire]

If you are just routing ASIO channels to the DM, I respectfully disagree its not "night and day". Yes quality outboard gear to process your tracks will be better than most plugins and I agree in that scenario there would be a sonic improvement. However, other than a few external preamps I don't have or use any outboard gear so the ITB approach for me works best.

That's just it - I'm NEVER just routing raw tracks into the DM. When I use the EQ's and compressors on the console, that already is a difference. Those effects are not being processed "in the computer."

The other thing is - I never see anything I have or do in the studio as a "limitation", except maybe hard drive age and sleep. Everything I see, touch, and use is in place to yet be fully utilized and that is awesome.

 

[AudioWave]

I am a bit surprised by those that want to justify the limitations of the DM as something that doesn't need to be improved on because it has similar limitations when compared to other similar products since it was designed to have the flexibility for improvement. Perhaps my perspective is unique as I am a user/customer as well a digital audio product developer that has insight on the kind of things that could be done.

I knew exactly what I was buying and the full limitations of that product. If I had wanted the SSL or something else I would have gotten it. If I recorded and mixed full time, buying something else would have been justified and I would have done so. There was hope but with little expectation that the DM mixer would live up to it's full potential with on-going development of the option slots. That turned out to be a disappointment. I always knew about the 32-ASIO IFFW limitation and that I could get around that issue by using an external interface which I sometimes do.

Still doesn't mean that the DM should't be able to be developed into a superior product and rise above the competition and live up to it's full potential. No need to worry about me, I'll get by and soon will only be using it just as a mixer as I knew I always would.

 

[Drumstruck]

I find the DM4800 a bit paradoxical - it is so feature rich and yet offers so much more potential. We had a thread a while back listing what we'd like in the DM's successor - I seem to remember a video port and more I/O to the DAW came up repeatedly.

I did a rough calculation on what would be needed to replace / improve on the DM4800 (for my setup) and the cost was frightening....... I wouldn't get change from 50K and would have a heap of "cobbled together" devices rather than the elegant, integrated solution the DM provides us.

Regarding ITB vs OTB - that has been debated extensively and the ITB solution improves year on year..... but when I do a mix and use (e.g.) the PT EQs the sound just isn't quite what is in my mind (perhaps due to my limitations)..... when I repeat the mix using the DM's EQs it is a bit closer but still not there...... when I use some selected outboard there it is! It might be something to do with twiddling physical knobs but I can find that extra bit when using that outboard gear. Then again, it could be the glowing valves and plasma ball...... ;-)

 

[jamsire]

Then again, it could be the glowing valves and plasma ball...... ;-)

But of course!

 

[captdan]

I still am not convinced the quality of OTB is better than ITB.

Hey Charlie, this isn't about quality, really. It's about workflow. As I said earlier, a DAW signal digitally routed into the DM 'naked,' - ie: with no DM eq, efx, dynamics, verb, or fader level change - is absolutely, completely, and for all intents and purposes the SAME thing. If you insert a software plug into Cubase and route that channel into the DM 'naked,' it's exactly the same thing as if you'd just stayed in the box, with the DM merely as a monitoring device.

The OTB advantage - at least from my point of view - is about harnessing 'dual' power. For me that means:

1. Being able to insert a plug into a Ptools channel to shape/sculpt, simultaneously utilizing a DM eq for 'surgical' work. There hasn't been a single project I've done where I haven't relied on this technique. The DM parametrics are superb tools, particularly for hi/lo pass filters. Easy to dial in.

2. Parallel compression - similar to #1.

3. Multiple flavor 'verbs - ie - combining the DM/TC Electronics efx with other plugins in Ptoolz

4. Latency free monitoring

5. Reducing the need to switch away from the Ptools Edit screen to the Mix Screen, which I find distracting, and relative to working with the DM's OTB features, a barrier to mix creativity.

6. DM automated mixing - FAR better than Ptools automation - while providing the capability to use both if desired.

7. CPU load reduction; this matters plenty when stacking hefty VSTs in 96kz.

8. Having access to the DM's routing, recall, and libraries - using hardware buttons not mouseclicks.

So, I won't be revisiting the ITB option anytime soon. It just doesn't make any sense in my world.

And the ubiquitous caveat: YMMV.

CaptDan

 

[jamsire]

Yay CaptDan!

Same thing applies to Cubase for me.