outputs to DAW

[jarnold63]

hello all ,

question is this , I know the direct outs from the DM go to the DAW via firewire, with no coloration IE. EQ, dynamics. my question is , I thought I read somewhere that you could also route with board EQ, and dynamics when tracking ?? So I could use light compression on the way in. ????? thanks all good day to ya.

 

[TascMan]

Yes you can, but not until after the input signal is digitized. It would have to go through a module first and be compressed there.

...I know the direct outs from the DM go to the DAW via firewire, with no coloration IE. EQ, dynamics.

This is incorrect, unless you are talking about the use of Input Bypass. The DIRECT function is POST channel module.

If you are talking about the M/L inputs, the signal is first routed, through it's analog form, into the DM's preamp, including gain. Then it routs through the INSERT effect loop. Once the signal comes back in from the effect loop (INSERT) return, the signal is immediately digitized and available for routing. You Can't compress the signal prior to being digitized unless you are using an outboard compressor.
But, you CAN send the input signal into a module and apply effects, volume/pan/EQ/Dynamics, DM Effects, etc., and then send that out to your FW or other destination if you like.

 

[jarnold63]

Hey tascman, how ya been ??? yeah If I misquoted I apologize, still learning. I think I am using input bypass, just got in front of my machine. if I am I would like to set it up to go through modules to be able to print the Tascams EQ and Dynamics when tracking. or at least have the option , any input appreciated. ill start looking it up .

 

[TascMan]

I've been stuck between vacationing with the family and trying to figure out what to do when my company goes out of business at the end of October..sux!..That's how I've been.....anyway,
I know exactly what you want to do. Using the Direct function would work for you here. I am not in front of my mixer right now, but, basically, go to your routing page, select the Output Slot tab, and assign the direct out from each module to a FW channel, into your DAW. Now, any change you make on the module (volume/pan/EQ/Dynamics/Effects) is getting recorded.
This is not really common practice, because you typically don't want to apply effects this way, as they are being printed in your DAW. This considered destructive editing, and leaves you NO room for experimenting or changes as the signal is being recorded. Nonetheless, it can be useful for subtle initial effects, shaping the sound before it gets recorded. Try it out.

 

[jarnold63]

sorry , I remember you mentioning that ... Ill give it a shot , I like putting light compression on drums when tracking, then when mixing I dont have to hit it as hard, just trying to experiment . good luck . hope everything works out .. Thanks

 

[captdan]

I like putting light compression on drums when tracking,

If you're not applying compression before the ADC, using an outboard compressor inserted into whatever pre amp you're using, the initial signal hitting the DM's converters will in NO WAY BE AFFECTED. So, if a snare is clipping, or simply inconsistent in level - and you add DM compression - all you're doing is boosting the level while reducing dynamic range -AFTER THE FACT.

If this is what you're attempting, then there's simply NO reason to print a compressor to a DAW track. You'd be accomplishing the exact, specific, identical SAME thing if you use the Input Bypass (non destructive routing), applying your channel compression NON DESTRUCTIVELY while monitoring. This gives you infinite wiggle room, allowing you to alter, change, tweak - or if you choose to - ABANDON compression altogether without ever having to worry about RETRACKING the performance because it's wooly, fluffy, farty, weird, unnatural, or generally f***ed up.

Are there exceptions to this? Of course. But I would suggest to you that - unless every last track in a is completed and up in the mix - you will NEVER have an EXACT idea how the song is going to sound before it's mastered. So, then, why tie your hands with indelibly printed efx? They cannot be undone once they're combined in the wave file. It's like a cake; ever try reducing it back to its original ingredients? Obviously, this same caveat goes for outboard, pre-ADC compression; make sure you need it and it's doing what you want. If you find out 6 weeks later your gtr was a little too squashed, you know what you'll be doing next. And it won't be final mixing your tune either.

CaptDan

 

[TascMan]

Dan does a nice job of ultra emphasizing what I was talking about in my last paragraph. The main point being that if you are compressing your drums before they go to your DAW to try and control the signal levels coming into the DM, your efforts will be moot. The A to D conversion happens before the signal gets to your DM compressor so any spikes/overages will be converted to noise.
Now, I'm all for experimenting with audio, but, again, whatever effects you apply, prior to your DAW, that is what you will have to live with as your recorded track. That being said, I believe Dan, and most others who were recording in the 80's, where applying some slight compression on their drum/vocal signals prior to hitting tape mainly for initial sound shaping, to be further edited later. I don't personally practice this, being in the digital domain, for all the reasons Dan has listed above, but, if done correctly, with correct signal management, I don't believe that it's the end of the world as far as your recording is concerned. It just leaves you with no outs if you decide to change it later.

 

[captdan]

Exactly, Mr Tascman, sir.

In a perfect world, every performance would be executed with the performer 'self-attenuating' their performance. Practiced, experienced studio players actually do 'play to the mic,' making initial gain staging easier for the engineer.

But we all know the world ISN'T perfect; sometimes it's necessary to strap a 'an extra pair of hands' onto the channel to tame errant transients which otherwise would make mixing more difficult. That's where outboard efx come in. Sometimes, a gtr player has a particular signature tone that can be achieved no other way but to apply an efx chain before the fact to ensure the tonal vision makes it all the way to the final record.

Knowing when - and when not to - choose these options is the unceasing dilemma of audio production. So, in that way, there are no rules. But engineers really need to know specifically how their choices might affect the bigger picture. This awareness makes for better audio, and perhaps, less time trying to fix the unfixable. That old axiom about polishing....ahem.....'stuff' - comes to mind.

CaptDan

 

[Drumstruck]

It's the old "wet" vs "dry" argument - both techniques have their pros and cons.

 

[jarnold63]

Hey guys , I appreciate all the feedback, Im a little old school in that adding a touch of Compression ( A TOUCH ) while tracking was helpful for less than experienced drummers etc. I understand all the pros and cons of this type of situation, I also understand that compression can suck the life out of a sound in the hands of someone inexperienced, regardless, I would prefer to have the option if I see fit to add both of those things EQ and Compression from the DM being as they both perform quite well. all I am asking is how to route to obtain this ability, as of now I am going input bypass directly to my DAW. I just want to know how to route it through the module first, then to the DAW. if this is possible. which I think it is. thank you in advance. : )

 

[TascMan]

I believe we answered your question already, Yes? To route through the module first, compress and send that signal out to your DAW, you will have to use the DIRECT function. Input Bypass will Bypass your module, so no compression will be heard.

 

[jarnold63]

Gotcha , direct function , thanks

 

[PhilippeH]

I play guitar and drums and would argue that compression in particular does impact the way I play, in fact it impacts my tone, so it should definitely be recorded that way. However, I have never seen a guitar player apply compression or other EFX at the mixer level, as it is always part of the guitar rack and fundamental tone. While drummers (and any mixing engineer and music lover) prefer the tone of carefully compressed and other EFX on the drums, I do not believe it alters the performance of a drummer the way compression impacts a guitarist, unless using flange. But regardless, you can always provide all this at tracking, print dry, thenredo it in Protools later and better.
So I do not see the value of sending wet (where wet comes from the DMxxxx) signal into ProTools as it cannot be undone. I also find that the EFX in ProTools are way superior to the. DM4800, so really no reason other than while tracking, but print dry via Input Bypass.

 

[captdan]

I have never seen a guitar player apply compression or other EFX at the mixer level

Nice to meet you.

I play mostly contemporary jazz, using a traditional archtop with somewhat nontraditional backing tracks. But I almost never print compression, though it's most always on the Channel Monitor, non destructively combined.

I agree that compression can certainly affect a performance and there's no sacrifice using it non destructively during tracking. But in my many years of DIY recordings, I've yet to point to any time when I didn't modify, change, or swap out completely the original dynamics settings. That's because - until the completed arrangement is up for the mix - there's no ACCURATE way of knowing how the all the elements will sit together. And I hate to tie my hands until I've signed off on the final mix.

I like having both Ptools and DM channel efx available; the former for tonal shaping, the later for surgery. I think a lot of folks shy away from the DM's 'native' EQ because they're trying to extract 'character,' rather than cut/trim excess 'character' coming from their plug ins. That's where the DM EQ is extremely valuable, and one of many reasons for mixing OTB,

 

[Drumstruck]

....... While drummers (and any mixing engineer and music lover) prefer the tone of carefully compressed and other EFX on the drums, I do not believe it alters the performance of a drummer the way compression impacts a guitarist, unless using flange. But regardless, you can always provide all this at tracking, print dry, thenredo it in Protools later and better.
So I do not see the value of sending wet (where wet comes from the DMxxxx) signal into ProTools as it cannot be undone. I also find that the EFX in ProTools are way superior to the. DM4800, so really no reason other than while tracking, but print dry via Input Bypass.

I have to respectfully disagree on a number of points Philippe, it's not that cut and dried imo.
After 35+ years of drumming and audio engineering I can confirm that I don't prefer the tone of compressed / FX'd drums (except for pop music and / or on lower grade kits) and I do find it alters my performance (as it loosens me up by hiding the flaws that I hear but perhaps others don't), nor do I find that PT FX are superior to the DM ones - to the extent that I don't use the PT FX (or the Reaper FX) at all (incl their EQ and compressors) - just don't like the flat sound they provide. To add to that, I prefer my outboard to the DM FX also.

Recording wet is dependent upon the vision of the musician/engineer - for me, recording wet is more often than not the preferred option because I know what sound I am after at the time of performance and don't need to fiddle it later. However, with that said, I do acknowledge the benefit of recording dry in case one changes their mind and wants to modify the sound.

There are merits in both methodologies - it can depend on how clearly the sound is realised in the mind of the performer / engineer before recording commences.

 

[jarnold63]

Wow, hey guys, Iam really diggin this thread !!! lots of points of view, respectfully presented, since I got my initial routing question answered, I am grateful to all who helped. and enjoy hearing not the rights or wrongs of workflow, but the different approaches to tracking and recording !!!! all very good stuff !!!

 

[Gravity Jim]

Not to take this too far afield, but I play guitar, too, and virtually always play and track with compression, but of a very specific type... I use a parallel compressor, a Barber TonePress, with a very transparent sound. So I'm not squashing the signal, not getting that "poppy" country thing...
I keep it set so that it just changes the relationship between the guitar and amp for the better. If I want real audible compression I do it in the channel.

 

[captdan]

Actually it's not far afield at all. I think it's important to distinguish where in the signal chain compressors are used.

If it's part of the gtr efx chain, in my mind, that's the same domain held by the instrument or amp's tone knobs - a major component of the performance character. If a comp/limiter is inserted into a pre amp, that's another ball of wax - taming transients and maintaining signal level to the ADC. But compression added anywhere else from the ADC point falls into another category dominated by aesthetics and mix considerations.

At least that's how I've always viewed it. YMMV.

CaptDan