remote layer

[jarnold63]

Hello all,,


I am getting more comfortable on my 4800, So Iam branching out, I run Sonar X2, besides the remote layer working faders and panning, what are the other benefits to using this feature vs using the Tascam automation if there are any. and if anyone is using it in what capacity ?? just brainstorming other options on workflow thanks

 

[Gravity Jim]

I don't see any benefits, myself... I love the DM's automation and use it for 95% of automation tasks. You might consider mixing OTB.

 

[jamsire]

I don't see any benefits, myself... I love the DM's automation and use it for 95% of automation tasks. You might consider mixing OTB.

Indeed! If you are bringing your DAW's (Sonar's) audio track back into the first two layers of the DM, then using the board's automation is perfect. Remember, you can automate the DM's EQ, Dynamics, and Built-In Effects and save the automation. Add the User Defined Layer and now you can automate Sonar's parameter via the USB midi port #4 with the 24 faders and the 24 Pan Pots on the board. See my video tutorial on this subject. Using these two options opens the board up and makes it much bigger than people give it credit for.

If you want to me walk you through it - PM me your phone number if you are in the states. If you aren't in the states - then we can SKYPE to get you up and running and get you MAKING MUSIC!!

 

[Arjan P]

I find DAW automation very useful for precise things that are hard to accomplish by hand - a perfect sinusoidal fade out over a certain time, for instance. Ofcourse, this is not using the remote layer..

Concerning DM automation; I must say I tried it very early on when I just had the board, and it didn't do what I wanted, so I went to remote layer DAW automation and never looked at it again. Maybe it's time to revisit..

 

[jamsire]

Please do Arjan - but combine it with the UDL. I guarantee it will off additional benefits - not replace the ones you already enjoy.

 

[captdan]

Personal opinion: If you mix OTB, it's counterproductive to rely solely on DAW automation. I can only speak to early versions of C_base (SX-3) and current iterations of ProTools, but their mix automation is essentially clunky and annoying compared to the DM's. The advantage, though, is having both available for specific things.

Why 'clunky and annoying?' Simple: if signal is summed to the DM and mixed down from there - either back to DAW or another target device - any fader changes in the DAW will most likely screw up compression, efx, and gain staging carefully set on the DM's OTB side.

Think about it: you perform a fader adjustment ITB while monitoring the signal OTB. Whoops! Why did that bass track suddenly sound 'fluffy?' Because you didn't bring the DAW's fader back to its absolute original setting; now it's clipping the output to your mixer!!! And - DOUBLE WOOPS! Seems you forgot to reset track 27's Automation button back to 'Latch!.' Sorry 'bout that! Your xylophone track's fader just slammed down, and because you didn't have your Remote Layer screen up, you didn't notice. Now - you've gotta go back and overwrite the messed up maneuver.

So - in my narrow view - if you're an ITB kinda guy - better you auto/mix ITB as well. But if you're using the DM its fullest potential - OTB - you're shooting yourself in the foot not automixing on the DM. However, there's no law that says you can't use both tools; I prefer to create cymbal crescendos using the DAW's faders, leaving the DM's faders for fine tuning. This is one case where two wrenches beat a pair of pliers and a tweezer.

My opinion; you may disagree to your heart's content. That's what makes the world go round.

CaptDan

 

[Arjan P]

Ofcourse, not using DM automation doesn't mean one can't ride faders for mixing..

 

[AudioWave]

I use both methods and a now 3rd method as well. DAW automation for minor tweaks, swells, mutes & plug control, DM automation for level & Pan & buss outs to outboard and back in.

But often times now I skip the DM specific built in automation and record realtime DM automation moves in the DAW via MIDI and then on playback both ITB automation and DM recorded automation plays back and everything stays within a single DAW project file/folder. No need to manage DM automation files or deal with some of the quirky-ness of the DM automation that can often occur. This also helps to not absolutely having to rely on your CF card and/or reader when it becomes flakey like mine has become.

 

[Arjan P]

I skip the DM specific built in automation and record realtime DM automation moves in the DAW via MIDI.

Mmh, that's an interesting option! Sort of a hybrid Around The Box mixing..

 

[Drumstruck]

I was hoping that there would be some hidden gem for using the remote layer.....

fwiw I use the DM automation (and manuallly) for mixing - with the DM being the last device in the chain each channel can be muted as it exits the mix to create a cleaner end mix (even if that "clean-ness" is just in my mind).

 

[captdan]

each channel can be muted as it exits the mix

Or just nuke it with a mouseclick.

CaptDan

 

[captdan]

Of course, not using DM automation doesn't mean one can't ride faders for mixing..

If it's a simple mix with no special manuevers or requirements, a manual real time board mix can work too.

There are some old codger 'enjunumeers' who refuse to use automation in final mixes; they complain that it sucks the life out. I suppose that can be true if every channel is a victim of its operator's OCS. But some mixes are more layered and demanding, with simultaneous moves that need multiple passes (or 3 pair of hands.) Some of those old dudes never mixed records with more than two fiddles, two gtrs, a drumkit with 4 mikes, a cowboy singer and two ladies in boots. So they can afford to talk old school

CaptDan

 

[jarnold63]

Thanks all ,, plenty of good advice from everyone. much appreciated

 

[Arnold Janssen]

ITB - OTB......I've also tried to mix OTB, but I prefer mixing ITB.
The remote layer has all the things I need for mixing.

I realy don't see the benefit of mixing OTB.



CIAO.

 

[Gravity Jim]

Mostly, for me, anyway, OTB mixing means:

1. Better visual reference (it's just a lot easier for me to see what's up)
2. Lower CPU load on the computer
3. Easier access to EQ (don't need to reach for a plug in, just a knob)
4. Easy to mix hardware sources with software (I frequently run hardware synths via MIDI at mix down, and I use my Lexicon reverbs before I'll use any software 'verb)
5. It sounds good! (I like the DM's summing sound.)

And, as Dan points out, if you're just mixing a radio spot or somethingwith minimal moves, no automation required... Just grab a fader and go in real time.

In fact, I own a DM3200 because it was time to step up to higher resolutions than my war-torn Yamaha 02R could handle... And after spending a good long time figuring out how to integrate hardware with software in an ITB/control surface scenario, I finally decided I still wanted/needed a digital console, and the DM had the mind-blowing price/performance ratio.

 

[captdan]

I like the DM's summing sound.)

So do I. After having experienced what lesser devices can do to a stereo mix, I continue to be thrilled with what I hear coming out of the DM's D/As.

CaptDan

 

[Drumstruck]

+1 to everything Jim says

and automation
and better tactile ergonomic experience
and I don't have to chase that stupid mouse all over the table (well, trackball really)
and better metering (if you have the DM meter)
and better access to other outboard
and multitouch mixing
and more ;-)

 

[jamsire]

This is an excellent thread. I just learned a few things.

 

[Arnold Janssen]

I did try again mixing OTB, and must say that the sound of the tascam is great. Also working with my meter bridge is An +.

Ciao.

 

[jamsire]

I did try again mixing OTB, and must say that the sound of the tascam is great. Also working with my meter bridge is An +.

Ciao.

Excellent to hear. Welcome to the Mixing OTB Society.