Recording without a Console?

[Jim Williams]

Jim, thanks, that's a big help. I just wanted to upgrade my converters, I don't have space for a console. I'm a little concerned that if I go to just buy a cheap console (two words which seem like they shouldn't fit together) then it's going to be a whole new can of worms and I'll go from having both converters I can't understand AND a console I can't understand that I also couldn't afford and don't have room for. It's looking like getting these converters might have been a mistake and I should sell them to try to use the money for other upgrades.

2 cents from the old salt:

I can only speak for myself and the hundreds I've helped with this. DAW mixing/tracking is a major PITA, period. You are already in the middle of that mess. What is done here and many other places is the DAW is used as a recorder. Doesn't matter much whether it's a HDR or a Pro Tools rig. The DAW is used only as a recorder and the rest is done like it's always been done on all those older favorite records you love. Editing? "Play it AGAIN, Sam".

You use a console and hard-wired outboard. If you haven't done that before you owe yourself that experience. The workflow, ease of use and lack of technical bullshit makes a session flow like water. Oh, BTW, the sound? So much better I can't tell you. Not staring at a monitor does good things too, you turn off that visual cortext and start LISTENING.

It's not hard to do and the learning curve is less than one software program, (how many have you already learned?). It does require an investment in hardware. Fortunately for you that is also very low cost now days if you shop wisely. $3k gets you a HDR, a console and some outboard to mix with. If you already have the DAW it's less. I paid $750 for my 32 input Soundcraft Delta console, cheap reverbs and compressors are available for about a hundred bucks each. The console is just a bit over 3 feet wide, about the space you need to fit a toilet.

Then again, you can keep beating that DAW horse to death, all along wondering why those guys with the analog gear have better sounding releases.

[llmonty]

I am fully in the camp of whatever works Jesse, so I think what you are doing totally makes sense. I get the peculiarity of the Lynx mixer.

Also, with firewire and the lynx perhaps you can't get the latency down to do what I am doing.

And to Jim - I had my board set up to use just the DAW as a recorder. But after a while of doing it this way, I was running into issues because of the limitations of my board (not inline), so lots of work arounds when flipping from tracking to overdubbing to mixing. I have enough AD/DA and board channels now that I have a section reserved for mixing/playback, a section for tracking (in addition to outboards that go right to the converters), and DA that goes right to the headphone amps. YMMV.

[jgimbel]

llmonty, it's been the same situation with the two interfaces I've been using up until now as well as other interfaces I've used that had other forms of connection. Latency is a pretty normal issue, and I'm happy to step around it by monitoring direct like I've always done, I'm very focused on getting things right right at the mic anyway.

Jim, if I needed convincing about the benefits of the sound of analog gear or workflow, this probably wouldn't be the best forum for me to have been a member of for years/made over 1500 posts on! I hardly find that working with a DAW consists of beating a dead horse/regularly wondering why people with analog gear make better sounding records than I do. For one, I do as much out of the box as possible, simply because I like the sound better - I use my ears to make recordings as much as I can. A lot of folks in the area have come to me specifically because of my ability to get sounds that have an analog feel to them, when the projects require them. I do treat the DAW like a tape machine for my own projects and people who like to work the way I do, avoiding crazy editing and just getting things right at the performance. Two, I think recording engineers should ALWAYS be working on improving their recordings to sound more like they want, that's not an argument of analog vs. digital.

The only points I specifically made against ME getting a console RIGHT NOW is that I do not have the space, nor the money. When I have the space, I will more than likely save up the money. Getting a console specifically for the purpose of having my converters up and running feels silly because it's adding other complications that don't seem necessary. But none of what I'm posting here has anything to do with whether or not you or I like the sound of analog better than the sound of working digitally. Personally, I prefer analog sounds, so you're preaching to the choir, I just happen to have bought a nice set of converters to capture said analog sounds that you and I both seem to prefer.

[calaverasgrandes]

I made the switch to console-less recording about 3 years ago.
At the time I was really trying to get the cleanest possible signal and the shortest signal path. it did open up the sound a bit to disintermediate the mixer form the signal path. And my MOTU 8282MKII has front panel knobs for main out as well as rudimentary access to the DSP mixer built in.
After recording this way for a while I find I miss the mixer.

I've tried a couple control surfaces to get out of mousing all the time, but none have really been satisfactory. I'm either going to get a Mackie or Euphonix CS, or else just grab the next Soundcraft/Ramsa/A&H that comes up on CL.
Especially as I acquire more synths I really feel like I want a mixer again.
There is also that I spend an awful lot of time at my studio with a guitar or bass strapped on. I find getting around a on a mixer easier than a computer when I am carrying an axe.