Console Automation Systems

[-mjk-]

Noteworthy is the fact that, when I said I was under the impression that the DM console series has an automation system:

@skier said "I believe it does."
@Peter Batah said: "I was under the impression that it did as well."

Gentlemen, considering my deep respect for both of you, and my sincere wish to not offend either of you, but - do you honestly not know? Shall I take it that you are you not using the console automation system? If not, I am fascinated to know why. When I was researching consoles for possible inclusion in my studio, the DM series was a contender because of the automation system. I was adamant about not using an audio console as a controller, and also not mixing with a mouse (because I'm old school and have mixed with virtually every major console you can name).

 

[Peter Batah]

@-mjk- I for one, am not at the "Automation" stage yet. Soon though

 

[Arjan P]

Yes the DM mixers certainly have their own automation. I just never use it since I find it easier to use DAW automation: creating sloping lines for volume or most anything else. I do mix on the DM, so faders and pan are set and I sometimes use DM's EQ - and ofcourse the (outboard) effects.

 

[skier]

I don't know @Peter Batah, for all that "deep respect for both of us", and his "sincere wish to not offend", it really feels like MJ just threw us under the bus like nothing more than an unwanted and discarded cash register receipt. To which I must respond, HA!!! (There, that said, I feel much better. )

More seriously, my preferences are similar to Arjan's: when I use automation, I use it in the DAW, again, so that it all can be saved in the project. If I did actually mix and use automation in the console, I would have to save that in addition to saving my project. I'd also have to keep the files together. And if I did bring my project to another studio to re-mix or some such, I'd have to bring the DAW and DM files, hope the studio had a DM for a console or one that could read the format saved on my DM, etc., etc., etc.

While I came from the manual console world, keeping track of and saving fader levels, panning, levels, and more, was such a real pain, that I love being able to save the entire project in my DAW at the click of a mouse. And it's just as easy to reload the entire project with all those saved settings. I do prefer to use real controls than use a mouse for level and other control changes, and the DM Remote layer allows me to do that without have to keep console files of anything. So for me, that's why I do all that "in the box".

And to be honest, I can no longer hear much of a difference between sound mixed in most typical consoles and that performed in the box. Whether that's because I've gotten older (and my hearing is not what it was, or the loud playing did me in), or my suspicion that the quality of software audio processing is so much better these days. And I don't feel it matters because, if we're going to do anything in the box, which almost everyone does these days except for the few who still go right to tape, then we've already accepted that the sound of today's DAW is good enough for our music.

Separately, I will admit that sending audio through a a really good console or other similar quality electronic equipment may add some audio characteristics that we've all come to like with past music. But I feel I can do that by running it through such a console, through some other great "coloring" piece of hardware, or even through a good plug-in modeled on a great console pre or great external hardware.

 

[Peter Batah]

@skier Sounds to me like both you and @Arjan P will not have much difficulty transitioning to working entirely ITB if / when our beloved DM's decide that they have had enough.

Even when that happens, I am certain that you can replace the DM's tactile feel (faders , encoders, etc.) with a decent / compatible control surface.

And, I see how saving settings in both DM and DAW is risky business and would not be practical in certain scenarios.

 

[-mjk-]

And all this time I thought you guys were mixing with those consoles..... So, you are using them as a recording interface, and as a DAW controller for mixing, and also to add FX that are present in the DM?

I don't keep track of anything. AutoMate saves 100% of all console settings and whatever automation I've written, to a file. The workflow is ridiculously easy (which is one reason I like it so much).

And yes Jerry, the "sound" of a DAW isn't really the issue. DAWs shouldn't have a sound at all anyway. And for those who have never done a mix on a big console and only know how to mix in a DAW obviously can get great mixes ITB. Btw, that was a great reaction, lol!

However (and this is a big one) much of the so-called advice about mixing on YouTube is specific to mixing in a DAW and doesn't have much to do with actual mixing a record. You'll see things like "bus everything" etc.. No one does that on a console because the console itself is a huge bus and the whole thing colors the sound. So it's a different approach in some respects.

 

[-mjk-]

@Peter Batah AutoMate is an automation system for the M/X32 console line, using OSC protocol. I use the X32AutoMate version: X32,M32 & WING Resources – Automation – Management – Professional Resources, Management and Automation Tools for X/M32 and WING digital mixing consoles (x32ram.com)

AutoMate has recently been updated for the new WING console, and also the X-Live card for the WING.

In the past 2 weeks, Patrick added 2 new features that I haven't documented on the website yet. It's constantly being updated though as we're always coming up with new feature ideas.

 

[Peter Batah]

@-mjk- Ahh yes! The Behringer X32. Actually, I did see one in action a couple of years ago. The fellow that I purchased my first DM-3200 fro replaced the DM with the X32. Small footprint which works very well for people working in smaller spaces.

 

[-mjk-]

Yes, it's about 1/2 the size of my Ghost, with the same number of channels and double the mix buses.

 

[skier]

@skier Sounds to me like both you and @Arjan P will not have much difficulty transitioning to working entirely ITB if / when our beloved DM's decide that they have had enough.

I work mostly in the box already. I have an Ensoniq DP-4 from 25 or 30 years ago that has four channels of effects, and I've always liked those effects. While I haven't gotten rid of it, I just haven't used it because the plug-ins are so easy to use, to save, to recall, and I can use multiple instances of each plug-in as needed. So, I'm really not using any outboard anymore.

Even when that happens, I am certain that you can replace the DM's tactile feel (faders , encoders, etc.) with a decent / compatible control surface.

That's true, though I will definitely miss the route-ability and protocol conversion systems of the DM when that time comes. I have several patch panels that I no longer use just because the DM has been my routing system for the last 7 years or so since I've owned it - it's just too easy to use without the hassles of patching.

And, I see how saving settings in both DM and DAW is risky business and would not be practical in certain scenarios.

I don't feel that saving our settings in any of the major DAWs is risky; the DM, yes, but I truly believe the major DAWs will be around for a long time to come.

 

[skier]

And all this time I thought you guys were mixing with those consoles..... So, you are using them as a recording interface, and as a DAW controller for mixing, and also to add FX that are present in the DM?

Mostly; I do love the TC Electronic reverbs of the DM - I think they're fantastic. And I used to use them a lot. But since I got the Spectrasonics convolution reverb, I haven't used the TE at all. I feel the convolution is as good or better and I can save all its settings with the project. Mind you, once we step outside of the effects of our DAW, then we also need those effects to move and reconstitute a mix and I do keep that in mind.

And yes Jerry, the "sound" of a DAW isn't really the issue. DAWs shouldn't have a sound at all anyway. And for those who have never done a mix on a big console and only know how to mix in a DAW obviously can get great mixes ITB. Btw, that was a great reaction, lol!

I totally agree; and I'm glad you enjoyed my response!

However (and this is a big one) much of the so-called advice about mixing on YouTube is specific to mixing in a DAW and doesn't have much to do with actual mixing a record. You'll see things like "bus everything" etc.. No one does that on a console because the console itself is a huge bus and the whole thing colors the sound. So it's a different approach in some respects.

I agree again. Though that said, because I haven't worked in a real studio, I must admit that I don't know what those engineers do; and what is done today is likely somewhat different than what was done 20 or more years ago. However, with how little I've actually done with my own music, that may not matter much and I try to avoid advocating that others do what I do other than to relate what I do for their own evaluation and consideration as to whether that fits their needs, workflow, etc. There are things in the electronics world of which I do feel quite expert, but unfortunately, being a professional audio engineer is not one of them.

 

[Peter Batah]

I work mostly in the box already. I have an Ensoniq DP-4 from 25 or 30 years ago that has four channels of effects, and I've always liked those effects. While I haven't gotten rid of it, I just haven't used it because the plug-ins are so easy to use, to save, to recall, and I can use multiple instances of each plug-in as needed. So, I'm really not using any outboard anymore.


That's true, though I will definitely miss the route-ability and protocol conversion systems of the DM when that time comes. I have several patch panels that I no longer use just because the DM has been my routing system for the last 7 years or so since I've owned it - it's just too easy to use without the hassles of patching.


I don't feel that saving our settings in any of the major DAWs is risky; the DM, yes, but I truly believe the major DAWs will be around for a long time to come.

I should have worded it differently. I meant that having settings saved in two places as opposed to just the one (DAW) could have negatives ramifications.

 

[-mjk-]

Nevertheless Jerry, I'm looking forward to hearing what you and Peter produce from your studios.

 

[-mjk-]

I do love the TC Electronic reverbs of the DM

This is actually ironic, since Behringer owns TC Electronic, but those FX are not available on the X32, lol. I wouldn't mind having one of their hardware units though.

 

[-mjk-]

What I like about my production workflow is that, the DAW remains steady-state. It is a mono multitrack recorder/reproducer and also allows recording of the mixdown track in stereo and in sync with the project source tracks. It's like having an unlimited mono multitrack with a synchronized unlimited stereo multitrack.

I make 2 types of mixes: Production and Mixdown. When I'm cutting tracks, naturally how I monitor the other tracks in playback is quite different than when final mixing the song for release. So, I keep 2 types ongoing, while the main tracks in the DAW remain steady-state. So I'll have files like Prod 1, Prod 2, and Mix 1, Mix 2, etc..

As I add tracks, I change to the latest mixdown file, add them to the previous mix and save it as a new mix. So, by the time I am done adding all the tracks, I've also been working on the final Mixdown for a considerable time. This is very much like the old school workflow with inline consoles, where by the end of the day the song is nearly mixed as the engineer adds new tracks to the mix as they are cut. The advantage of my system is that it's totally recallable and I can switch between Production and Mixes instantaneously and I can work this way over as much time as I require. Since I'm not using plugins for my mixing there is nothing to change in the DAW when switching between production and mixing. I just add tracks, edit them if necessary (very occasionally) and just keep saving the project.

In the old days we would begin in the morning and by midnight, have a mix in the can because of using inline consoles. A song a day was very common during those days. I don't work that hard these days though, but my workflow is quite similar. I'm always building up the final mix as I go along. But with AutoMate I can work on several projects in the same day.

If I had more time I would making YouTube videos on the topic.

 

[Peter Batah]

@-mjk- Is Automate part of the DAW that you are using. I believe that you had mentioned Reaper as your DAW. I was hoping to read up on it but came across nothing via google.

 

[skier]

I should have worded it differently. I meant that having settings saved in two places as opposed to just the one (DAW) could have negatives ramifications.

Ahh! thanks for clarifying. And something additional that I should have included is that, with the AAF and OMF file types, we can move songs from one major DAW to another. So, we're not truly at risk of becoming stranded if our DAW were to go away. I can't say the same for the DM's or any other console's files.

 

[skier]

Nevertheless Jerry, I'm looking forward to hearing what you and Peter produce from your studios.

YEAH! Keep that thought. Because I don't sing, and in fact, actually prefer instrumental music, it's what I create. As a result, I generally get comments like: "I like the music, but there's no singing; where's the singing?" I guess most people do want singing, where, all my life, I've always tuned in to the guitar lead, or the keyboard lead, or the mandolin lead, etc. For that reason, I've come to feel that the market for my music is somewhat limited and that I should not give up my day job.

 

[skier]

What I like about my production workflow is that, the DAW remains steady-state. It is a mono multitrack recorder/reproducer and also allows recording of the mixdown track in stereo and in sync with the project source tracks. It's like having an unlimited mono multitrack with a synchronized unlimited stereo multitrack.

I make 2 types of mixes: Production and Mixdown. When I'm cutting tracks, naturally how I monitor the other tracks in playback is quite different than when final mixing the song for release. So, I keep 2 types ongoing, while the main tracks in the DAW remain steady-state. So I'll have files like Prod 1, Prod 2, and Mix 1, Mix 2, etc..

As I add tracks, I change to the latest mixdown file, add them to the previous mix and save it as a new mix. So, by the time I am done adding all the tracks, I've also been working on the final Mixdown for a considerable time. This is very much like the old school workflow with inline consoles, where by the end of the day the song is nearly mixed as the engineer adds new tracks to the mix as they are cut. The advantage of my system is that it's totally recallable and I can switch between Production and Mixes instantaneously and I can work this way over as much time as I require. Since I'm not using plugins for my mixing there is nothing to change in the DAW when switching between production and mixing. I just add tracks, edit them if necessary (very occasionally) and just keep saving the project.

In the old days we would begin in the morning and by midnight, have a mix in the can because of using inline consoles. A song a day was very common during those days. I don't work that hard these days though, but my workflow is quite similar. I'm always building up the final mix as I go along. But with AutoMate I can work on several projects in the same day.

If I had more time I would making YouTube videos on the topic.

My approach is somewhat of a hybrid also; I vary it depending on what I'm mixing and where I am in the process. However, I always start with my track template of the instruments that I use in almost every song. Each instrument is always the same number and the same color. The variations are in the higher numbered tracks. So, my first tracks start with drums (kick, snare top, snare bottom - 180 deg, hat, rider tom, etc. then bass, rhythm and on. This way, I always know where everything is. Additional instruments (other percussion, such as additional cymbals, claves, congas, etc., string section, other lead instruments, e.g. banjo, violin…) are added beyond the standard template tracks.

I have several stereo busses: some are reverb or delay returns, others are stems of percussion, guitars, etc. I strap Ozone for feeling of mastering (a mild compression for glue, some limiting, etc.) onto the stereo bus, but try to not listen to that bus until the end of each session. I prefer to hear the output of my work with no mastering as I mix. At the end of a session, I listen to the song with this simplistic mastering to see where I am with the sound and how it hits me. My plan has always been to have my songs professionally mastered for release by someone else who’s very good and brings his/her ears and experience to the song. But since I’ve not publicly released my music, that hasn’t really happened yet except with what I’ve shared with family and friends (with the exception of one song that got some air play on a NY radio station about 6 years ago).

Unless I ever feel that there truly is a market for my music, I will not make the investment to have my songs mastered. While I played professionally for years in my teens and 20s, and made some serious money, I do not want to do that again nor ever to go on tour – I don’t like that life. So, it’s very likely that this will remain primarily a creative outlet for me. That said, I really love to get together with a group of good blues musicians and jam — the only thing I like even better is skiing steeps.

 

[Peter Batah]

@skier.

with the exception of one song that got some air play on a NY radio station about 6 years ago

Do tell...