Recording through mixer vs. direct into PortaStudio?

[shredd]

Hi kidz...got a topic for debate I'd like to open up; I know this is probably something that MANY before me have pondered and experimented with, so I'd like to hear from all.

• Without going into a longwinded studio description: I've always recorded on a Tascam PortaStudio (15 years on 3 successive 2488's, and now a DP-32).
• Additionally, my studio setups have ALWAYS featured a mixing board to manage sources/inputs, and I run the main-outs (and sometimes sub-outs) to inputs of the PortaStudio for recording. Again, without belaboring it, this has both advantages and compromises.
• I use the mixer's inserts for a fine DBX noise-gate/compressor (the 266XL), mostly used for vocal and instrument condensers; I also use the mixer's channel sends to secondary channels for multi-tracking (for example, when recording git'r part or vox - one channel staying relatively "dry", other one for FX (reverb/s, delay/s, yada)

The pros/cons are pretty simple - running into the board allows me to organize sources; set/match input levels; lots of routing options; and of course use the mixer's FX (mine has a fabulous Klark-Teknik FX section)...whereas running directly into the PortaStudio would limit you to IT'S FX's...which are clearly inferior to the Klark-Teknik...
BUT - using a mixer just adds to the complexity/confusion, especially as it comes to routing. I've ruined takes because of this.
Most of my "aims" could realistically be achieved EITHER way, other than missing out on my mixer's terrific FX section...

So - to keep it short - here's the question:
Would you prefer to record in the manner I've described - OR would you choose to run your sources/instruments/inputs DIRECTLY into the PortaStudio's inputs? Flexibility vs. Simplicity? Other pros/cons I'm not thinking of?

I'm looking forward to hearing your approach, philosophy, setups, opinions/advice. Lay it on me!

 

[mixerizer]

when i got my PortaStudio 246 back in the 80s (1984 i think), i ran all the insts and mics thru it for years, until i ran out of channels with one of my early bands.

we got a ramsa monitor board that i also used as our recording board, and its four subgroup outs and main outs went into the six channels of the Portastudio. The two channels w the mains had a direct insert in place, to keep them from printing to any tracks or introducing noticeable crosstalk, but going out to the speakers. if i needed to manage the mains w the faders i ran them thru one of the two stereo pairs.

both approaches can work well i think, the latter can be fraught if u dont keep the routing current to the task, but if u keep the portastudio as your multitrack and start printing 2 track to tape, cassette, or digital, it can be really solid.

good luck and have fun w it!

 

[-mjk-]

I do what the job requires, without considering anything else except the outcome I desire, even if its "wrong" or unorthodox according to some.

If you have a nice mixer around and it helps you get the sound you need, absolutely go for it. Simple needs might not require that though.

One of the first things I did with my DP-32 was to put the inputs on a patch bay. That opened a lot of I/O capability.

 

[shredd]

If you have a nice mixer around and it helps you get the sound you need, absolutely go for it. Simple needs might not require that though.

One of the first things I did with my DP-32 was to put the inputs on a patch bay. That opened a lot of I/O capability.

Despite complicating things a bit, the mixer really does create flexibility. If I were simply recording a single mic, or a git'r, all the time, it'd be overkill. But I'm accustomed to it and I deal with the complications to get the benefits it gives.

Gotta say - the patch-bay thing is genius - in fact, as I imagined it in my setup...it seemed to be a good "in-between" solution: I'd lose the benefits of the mixer (the terrific FX section, for example), but would still have all that flexibility in routing (compared to having my instruments/sources plugged directly to DP's inputs, and having to shuffle them all the time).
Definitely worth pondering!!!

 

[-mjk-]

You can of course, "normal" the patch bay to the mixer. So unless you plugged a cable into a port in the bay it would be wired to the mixer by default. That allows you to put something else into the DP and also allows sending the mixer somewhere else.

 

[shredd]

You can of course, "normal" the patch bay to the mixer. So unless you plugged a cable into a port in the bay it would be wired to the mixer by default. That allows you to put something else into the DP and also allows sending the mixer somewhere else.

Errrr...I think I'm gettin' my stewpyd on...I'm not following. Can you elaborate on how this is set up/what's happening??

 

[Max Relic]

A patchbay channel configured as "normalled" creates a semi-permanent connection between its back input and output sockets, plugging a jack in one of the front sockets brakes the continuity and gives acces to either input and output of the device(s) connected to the back-side. I suggest reading these informative SOS articles that could be of some inspiration:
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/all-about-patchbays
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/patchbays-modern-studio
https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/patchbays

 

[shredd]

I suggest reading these informative SOS articles that could be of some inspiration

THANK YOU Max! I'm not familiar w/patch-bay usage, and didn't know "normal'ed". And I'll def'y be checking out the S/O/S writings. Great resource.

 

[shredd]

Good Golly Green Giant.

Keeping in mind that I'm strictly an amateur/enthusiast/whatever...even though I've got a pretty well-equipped, serviceable. & capable studio setup...
I'm pretty sure I've never felt quite as stewpyd as I do now that I've waded into the patchbay research, staring with the SOS articles noted above.

It's an area that is incredibly dense with design and material choices - so much so that after an hour or so I'd gone glassy-eyed.
So unless I can get Alan Parsons over to my house to help me figure it out...I think it's not gonna happen.

That's despite the fact that I'm CLEARLY at point where even a modest arrangement would ease things - AND clear up the choices I'm mulling in the OP.

I just think that I'm a good ways away from the level of knowledge/awareness/design skill that it would take to do this to my little rig.

 

[shredd]

WHOOF.

OK...after several hours of reading/research - nay, STUDY - I'm starting to get the idea.
Yet I'd STILL categorize myself as a drooling moron...to me, this is REALLY complex stuff.

For example, the "normalling" concept - in it's various forms - is starting to sink in.
And, I'm finding that quite a few commercially-available p/bays actually offer the ability to SELECT what type (if any) of "normalling" you want.

But I'm STILL struggling over the connections - for example, most of the ones I looked at have 1//4" TRS connections ONLY...the only ones I've seen that offer XLR connections (something I though I'd like, since I use a variety of mic's for instruments) are super-high-end ones with DB25 connectivity, for studio arrangements much more complex than mine.

SO - it seems the only thing a p/bay would offer me is TRS options - that my mixer already gives me (selecting certain channels of the mixer, going out of either one/both mains, or a sub output) mapped to certain inputs of the DP.
It's also apparent that (though many p/bays are highly configurable) that it's very important to plan/draw out your intended connections etc...and I reallyreally don't have that kind of vision/knowledge, nor even exactly what my needs/intentions are. So how would I plan it???

Going back to my OP...what I was wondering about is whether a mixer was necessary/desirable, or not.

I think what it comes down to is:
If you use just a few sources/inputs: sure, plug 'em right into the DP's 8 inputs, and just arm whatever you're playing.
But if you have more than a few (I do - counting all mic's, KB's, drum machine/s, DI's, etc, I have a least a dozen)...then a mixer that routes for you makes sense. Plus, of course, I get inserts & send/return options, and the terrific Kark-Teknik FX section...

SO - after all this - I think I'm set up the way I need to be.

But I'm STILL very interested in who does patch bays, and why. The SOS articles made it sound like you can do without them up to a certain point - at which point, they'll make your life a LOT easier. I suspect this is you guys who have realllllly nicely done home-studios with tons o'gear, especially outboard stuff.

So put your $0.02 in here!
Thanks -

 

[Phil Tipping]

Agreed, they have many pros & cons so might not be worth the cost/effort in some cases. If you're not changing configurations often, there's no point adding extra connections (i.e. possible problem areas) in the signal paths, or the cost of the patch panel(s) and the doubling up of cables.
But if you do need to re-route things frequently, they are invaluable, offering all the advantages shown in those articles. You can certainly get basic XLR patch bays; I don't use them as I only have a few 'goto' mics and preamps, but I do use 1/4" bays for everything else.
You're right in that a mixer solves many routing problems, but the ones I've seen have a relatively small number of stereo inputs/returns so a patchbay can help here if you have a lot of stereo outboard gear. Using pairs of mono tracks for stereo is ok for emergencies, but it's a lot easier turning a single knob when adjusting EQ etc. and there's no risk of the signal wandering across the stereo field.

 

[Arjan P]

OK, so I don't have a Portastudio, but have a DM-3200 mixer with FireWire connection to my DAW. With that mixer, I use 3 patch bays. Why?

Almost everything in my studio is out of reach, or hard to reach. The back of the mixer for starters. So...

1. My mic connections (16x) are hard wired to various studio locations where connection boxes are. The DM is so versatile that I can route any mic input to any channel, so no need to patch there (and no danger of phantom power misuse - very easy with a patch bay).

2. Then, every input channel has an insert, to which I hard connected an unbalanced Fostex patch bay (the insert is TRS, but has therefor unbalanced sends and returns). Hardwired to this patch bay are my HW compressors in a normalled fashioned. So compressor A is always connected to channel 1 - if I need it on a different channel, I use the patch bay to rearrange.

3. Every channel also has a line input (switchable with the mic input on top of the mixer) and these are all 16 connected through a patch bay to my (rack) synths and other equipment like CD-player etc. So my Nord Electro 3 for instance normally comes in on channels 3-4, but can be patched otherwise, like when the mic inputs 3-4 are needed. This patch bay is balanced (TRS).

4. The rest of this patch bay, and a second same one is/are used for every remaining analog input and output: aux send and return, studio out, etc. Also my external effectors are all routed to them (or to home made connection panels in the rack) and then my headphone amp, which makes routing of headphones to a certain location also very easy.

So, to summarize, it really makes my life so much easier: everything is under reach with these patch bays and I don't have to crawl under my mixer or half behind/inside my 19 inch racks to change a connection. I wouldn't know what to do without patch bays!

 

[shredd]

So, to summarize, it really makes my life so much easier: everything is under reach with these patch bays and I don't have to crawl under my mixer or half behind/inside my 19 inch racks to change a connection. I wouldn't know what to do without patch bays!

Thanks for the rundown Arjan!
I've seen photos/vids of your studio you've posted...and it's COMPLETELY understandable why your setup would require p/bays, and make things easier AND more flexible. I think your scenario is a perfect example of what I was pointing out: that the more professional/sophisticated/heavily equipped your studio is, the more p/bays make sense, or even become necessary.

My studio is smaller/less complex than yours by a factor of 10, at least...so everything is 'hard wired' where it needs to be. The mixer's and the DP's routing choices take care of a lot of these problems.

The things I'd gain from p/bay capability would be limited (at this point) - the ability to insert my DBX noisegate/compressor into any channel I want (this would be a 1/4" bay); and the ability to substitute mic's to inputs dedicated to mic use (like where my DBX266XL is inserted!)...so, for example, I could have my X-Y SDC's for guitar plugged in, but be able to plug in a different pair I have - or another mic - without going at the mixer to do it.

BUT...as mentioned, my studio - while small and cramped - isn't as hard to access components as yours...so I'm sort of making do.

But...referencing my OP - I'm just curious about what they do, if I need/want one, and exploring what I'd want to accomplish/enable with one, so I could choose appropriately.
I think where it is right now is that my ROI and change to my workflow would be minimal...but I could see it becoming more necessary if my studio were to expand, or I started doing more in-person collaboration (at this point, it's really just me in there).

Thanks again for your input!

PS - my best friends' mom is from your neighborhood; living in US since the 70's. Still speaks Dutch better than she speaks English!

 

[Arjan P]

@shredd Don't get me wrong, I certainly have spent more years recording without patch bays than with them (although the two eras are getting close in duration now..). Before this setup I used the Akai DPS-16, a very similar machine to the portastudios - and had no need for patch bays either.. But I did use an extra mixer on the side for extra inputs during recording.

 

[-mjk-]

I have a Soundcraft Ghost. I never needed the mic pres on my DP-32 because I preferred to use the Ghost mic pres + EQ. So, putting all of the inputs on the patchbay made sense to me because I had access to external mic pres. @shredd if your mixer has decent mic pres then you can use those and keep the DP Line inputs connected to the patchbay. I had my outboard gear also normalled to several inputs on the DP but of course those could be overridden with a patch cable. The patch bay I used is the Behringer Ultra Max Pro PX2000. It has a diagram on the top of it that graphically depicts the 4 modes: Parallel, Half-Normalled, Normalled and Open.

 

[shredd]

Behringer Ultra Max Pro PX2000. It has a diagram on the top of it that graphically depicts the 4 modes: Parallel, Half-Normalled, Normalled and Open

Pretty kewl yewnit. I sense that even before I really develop a specific use/need for patchbay capability, that this model might be the one I get to start experimenting, configuring, seeing what I can do with one in my system...

 

[-mjk-]

That one has a lot of ports. You'll need TRS cables to use it of course.

 

[mixerizer]

i dont have analog patch bays in my studio these days - i use a networked AVB setup and the patching and routing is done in the digital realm either on the board, in the network or on one of my converters (Andiamo AES or ADI-648). If you make significant use of analog cabling and want to be able to do your routing, multing, normalling etc., a patch bay is a must.

before we had the digital routing of the DM mixers and newer systems like AVB and Dante, they were indispensable imho. for many studios they still are.

as far as TRS, XLR etc, let the gear be ur guide - with few exceptions i use all trs (balanced) or xlr (balanced) cabling for my analog runs so for my needs, a patch bay would have to be tt (switchcraft) or trs (balanced) to keep the fidelity and low ground noise level i have labored to achieve

Good luck!

 

[shredd]

Wellll...I have news - and the irony is SO THICK I feel like I'm bathing in molasses.

My "new" (as of April '22) mixer has "$hy+ the bed" - after 6 months of working flawlessly, it has experienced some sort of horrific meltdown.
Part of it seems to be the internal power-supply (it runs HOT, and also the display is flickering) - and part of it is that the sub-outs buss/circuitry appears to have flamed - it's outputting a horrific blaring clicking/static sound.

SO - it's getting sent back to S'water for warranty repair - which I'm very grateful for - but it cost me SIXTY BUX to send it back.

The irony is that after pondering this "recording through mixer inputs to the DP, vs. putting the inputs DIRECTLY to the DP" thing for WEEKS - and all the discussion here...well...it looks like the decision has been made FOR ME (for the next month or two, anyway!).

I will be "mixer-less" until it's either repaired or replaced...
SO - if I'm gonna record, I'mma gonna haveta set up my routing all over again - sources into DP inputs, outboard processors put into send/returns or inserts, yadyada.
Only to have to UNDO it all and re-do my original setup when I get my mixer back.

I must be paying for past-life sins...or maybe it's my breath???

 

[shredd]

It never gets dull.

Just spent a good part of this afternoon running my acoustic directly into the DP's "H" input (acts as a git'r input, switchable); setting up the input to use the internal git'r FX (not bad, really); and hooking up my external digi multi-fx processor on the Send1 to go come back into another input (then mixing the 2 inputs together).
This took me over an hour and a half.

When you're a musician...being stewpyd is SUCH a bother...