# Hybrid Studio gear setup..



## TIM_STEVE_97 (Dec 21, 2016)

Hey guys,
I'm putting up a plan for a hybrid studio setup.. need help with gear setup/signal path...
So the idea is to use analog hardware processors such as EQs,compressor, effects etc instead of software plugins... I know it isn't practical to use hardware processors on every 100+ tracks in a project simultaneously.. But it is practical for processing groups like strings/brass/percussion etc..

So what would I need?: I'm assuming the signal path would be
Audio interface (how many inputs?) ->
AN AD/DA convertor (how many inputs?) ->
Processing Gear, EQs compressors etc.. (connected separately in patch bays? or?..)
-> back to AD/DA, audio interface? -> DAW
Where would the mic pre amps and instrument line inputs fit in? 

So an example: 
I'm mixing a string section group inside my daw, send the group output to the hardware signal chain.. I choose the processors I want in that group instant.. using a patch-bay?,
audio then goes back into some input to daw.. 

This is just a plan now.. budget and resources are not issue.. 
although I wouldn't need lot of inputs to record a full band..

Am I missing anything?
Thanks!


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Dec 21, 2016)

An important decision you need to make is whether you want each processor available separately or as a single sort of master chain. If it's the former you'll probably want DA/AD for each unit (or else you'll inevitably want processor X for buss Y but not have any DA/AD channels left). If it's the latter then you only need a single DA/AD for it and you could either use a patchbay or connect them in series. Depending on how many processors you normally would use and the quality of the bypass I'd probably go in series to avoid going through a patchbay and all of the resulting long cable runs. If you're going to be using it on the master buss I'd suggest also investing in some decent quality cables. There are websites showing the difference that running your mix through a Vovox cable compared to something like Mogami can make. 

I'd suggest looking into mastering studio and setups where they have a similar sort of hybrid setup with a couple of hardware processors.


----------



## TIM_STEVE_97 (Dec 22, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> An important decision you need to make is whether you want each processor available separately or as a single sort of master chain. If it's the former you'll probably want DA/AD for each unit (or else you'll inevitably want processor X for buss Y but not have any DA/AD channels left). If it's the latter then you only need a single DA/AD for it and you could either use a patchbay or connect them in series. Depending on how many processors you normally would use and the quality of the bypass I'd probably go in series to avoid going through a patchbay and all of the resulting long cable runs. If you're going to be using it on the master buss I'd suggest also investing in some decent quality cables. There are websites showing the difference that running your mix through a Vovox cable compared to something like Mogami can make.
> 
> I'd suggest looking into mastering studio and setups where they have a similar sort of hybrid setup with a couple of hardware processors.


Thanks!


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 22, 2016)

The idea is very cool. I was thinking the same but you will have to get a channel strip and once you start looking into the price vs quality and all the info you get steared back to software.  
you could also have the stems printed and then run that through a summing box or processor so you keep the mix stage separate. there are different ways to acxheive similar things. 
I personally rather not deal with so much tech when composing. if something doesnt go 100% right i loose !


----------



## TIM_STEVE_97 (Dec 22, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> The idea is very cool. I was thinking the same but you will have to get a channel strip and once you start looking into the price vs quality and all the info you get steared back to software.
> you could also have the stems printed and then run that through a summing box or processor so you keep the mix stage separate. there are different ways to acxheive similar things.
> I personally rather not deal with so much tech when composing. if something doesnt go 100% right i loose !


You're right..I prefer working with tools that i know well for a continuous experience...
But this is for a project plan.. may happen in the future


----------



## stonzthro (Dec 22, 2016)

It is very common in studios to have an audio interface with lots of ins and outs, and send the outs to the hardware and then back in to the interface. This allows you to insert them on individual tracks or on the master. Your audio interface IS your DA/AD, and most are pretty usable these days, even the ones that are less expensive. I don't think you would need separate DA/AD any more - used to be the case, but convertors have really stepped up in the last 5-10 years.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 22, 2016)

I haven't used it but for example Logic pro has the I/O channel which you can add as a plugin and route the audio in and out on the aux stem itself. so it can do pre and post processing with plugins.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 22, 2016)

I use an XITE-1 audio/ MIDI interface just so I can do exactly what you describe.
This gives me external DSP mixing and effects, native and hardware.
It's pricey but I have 34 mic pres ADAT, AES/EBU, MIDI and Analog TRS.

I have racks of hardware effects and synths, DSP Mixers for every occasion and the Native FX and synths/samplers can be arranged according to the gig or recording project needed.

Never agree much with the all this or all that approach.
I use what sounds the best for wherever I perform or record.

You can go pretty far with a quality compressor and hardware is competitive with software these days.

Recently had to build a drum sub mixer using 8 mics and a kick drum trigger.
The guy had great sounding 22 ply Maple Ludwig drums.
But the high toms had bad ringing that mic placement couldn't fix.
Grabbed an old Symetrix Quad Expander gate slapped it in the rack and they sounded so much more powerful than using DSP or Native Expander/gates.

On electronic triggered drums nothing works better than an SPL Transcient Designer DSP Plug.

Hybrid allows mobility too.


----------



## stonzthro (Dec 22, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> I haven't used it but for example Logic pro has the I/O channel which you can add as a plugin and route the audio in and out on the aux stem itself. so it can do pre and post processing with plugins.


I use it all the time - the delay ping is essential if you give it a whirl!


----------



## TIM_STEVE_97 (Dec 23, 2016)

chimuelo said:


> I use an XITE-1 audio/ MIDI interface just so I can do exactly what you describe.
> This gives me external DSP mixing and effects, native and hardware.
> It's pricey but I have 34 mic pres ADAT, AES/EBU, MIDI and Analog TRS.
> 
> ...



Awesome!..
I personally prefer the analog sound.. And tweaking knob is much more fun than using a mouse.. But yea you get what you pay for with analog hardware.. 
Thanks!


----------



## Minko (Dec 23, 2016)

Hi Tim and friends.

Some thoughts. Hope these help you make your decision. If you want to know more, send a PM and we could see about maybe skyping or something. I’m here to help.

I use a Motu AVB 1248 with some analog hardware and some digital hardware connected. (always in the same place). For me this is awesome quality. When I started I could not afford hardware compressors and dreamed about hardware bus compressors etc. I also have hardware synths/samplers. The synths are connectable by a patch bay. I use a midi editor to store my presets of the synths if I use them. The hardware processors I note the settings. It is really nice to work with hardware and get your own unique sound. It can work inspiring and it is just plain fun.

BUT what ends up happening is for projects and composing I only use the reverb as IO and my mixbus chain. These end up staying in the same settings. Nothing more. Why? Because it is a pain to need to switch between cues and projects. Especially if you do a mix gig during the same period. I also end up printing some of my processing just to be quick. In Protools there can be a phase delay that needs to be set according to samplerate. My motu is faster than the audio engine and I need to compensate with negative values. If you work through your endbus chain you could introduce more latency. Keep that in mind. Also remember that you have to bounce real time. And that can be irritating for many small changes the director wants. 

If you decide to go for a nice end bus chain. You could look into the something like a 
Masterbay from SPL
https://spl.info/en/products/processing/masterbay-s/overview.html
or Liason from Dangerous Music
http://dangerousmusic.com/product/liaison/


----------



## Studio E (Dec 23, 2016)

I am planning on slowly moving in this direction, but mainly because I also record bands and it makes more sense to me from that angle. I have an Orion 32 so I have a good amount of i/o. I also have 16 channels of good analogue pre-amps, like API, Vintech, etc. I think I will start with a stereo pair of EQs, compressor, etc, for individual track or stem processing or for 2-buss processing. I think a patchbay will make a lot of sense at that point so I can quickly switch from 2-buss to track processing duties. Eventually, if I like what the hardware brings, I think I'd like a summing amp with inserts and let the EQs and compressors live out there. Food for thought.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 23, 2016)

stonzthro said:


> I use it all the time - the delay ping is essential if you give it a whirl!



oh yes, forgot about the delay it creates.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 23, 2016)

there is also the option to do the RC/hans zimmer setup where the DAW and its slaves audio go out to a pro tools rig. 
and a further step to having ANOTHER pro tools rig with a whole bunch of UAD or hardware plugin emulators. 

so basically the strings (etc) will go out to a pro tools setup via MADI or ADAT and in that PT session it will have a bus with Manely vari mu, EQ, short reverb, etc feeding a 5.1 buss and then that goes out to a more simpler pro tools setup that its just a printing stem setup. 

the cost of MADI is quite something but seems like motu AVB and maybe some future options will make it so that you can just route audio via ethernet via computers. this way you get hardware emulation , which nowadays its impressive how close it gets. so maybe not exacrtly like hardware but 70% there with plugin emulators and 100% of flexiility.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Dec 23, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> The idea is very cool. I was thinking the same but you will have to get a channel strip and once you start looking into the price vs quality and all the info you get steared back to software.
> you could also have the stems printed and then run that through a summing box or processor so you keep the mix stage separate. there are different ways to acxheive similar things.
> I personally rather not deal with so much tech when composing. if something doesnt go 100% right i loose !



According to Bob Katz, the summing in those summing boxes isn't really any different than in DAWs. All that you really get is the effect of passing the mix through that box so if you run just a stereo mix rather than summing through it it sounds the same. Saves from needing all of the D/A channels and you can then consider getting other color boxes like an API 2500 instead.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 24, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> According to Bob Katz, the summing in those summing boxes isn't really any different than in DAWs. All that you really get is the effect of passing the mix through that box so if you run just a stereo mix rather than summing through it it sounds the same. Saves from needing all of the D/A channels and you can then consider getting other color boxes like an API 2500 instead.



whatch out, those type of comments will get you cyber killed at gearslutz hahaha 

I do agree though. i havent heard much difference the chances ive listen to summing boxes.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 24, 2016)

Here is the thing: analog gear, by definition, is relatively imprecise compared to digital. No matter how careful you are in the design and manufacture, some variation will exist. For those of us who are....ahem.... of a certain age, variation=humanity.

i don't use a summing box because I am not willing to go to the extra bother and expense, but if I was willing and could justify the expense, which with the budgets I get nowadays I cannot, I would buy A-Designs Mix Factory. I heard it live A >B'd with in the box and I definitely heard differences that I found aesthetically appealing.

http://www.adesignsaudio.com/mix%20factory.htm


----------



## Prockamanisc (Dec 24, 2016)

I built a hybrid studio over the last 3 years, and while I absolutely love it, I don't need hardly any of it. It's more to appease my aesthetic demons to convince myself that I'm putting out something that's the best that I can do. 

That said, every single gig that I've had since building it has been bounced out without any external hardware whatsoever. It's just impractical because of the time constraints. To go through any analog hardware, Cubase makes you bounce it out in real time (obviously) and record it back in. Doing that for each stem means you're spending 10-20x longer just bouncing, and only for a 3% improvement in the sound. At the end of a gig, when you're fried and you want to go home, the last thing you're going to care about is a 3% improvement in sound. 

That said, I also do my own music for my own purposes. Art-rock kind of stuff. When I've got the time to play around and experiment, I think it really does open up the sound, and is totally worth it.

That all said, I _really_ like my Vari Mu, I think it glues everything together, softens everything together. My summing unit is a Radial Workhorse, which also supports 8 slots of 500 series units. That's awesome. This video shows not only that summing mixers make a difference, but how drastically different each mixer sounds (). Could I live without one? Sure. Do I like having one and do I use it? Of course. My Sub37 was mostly a waste, I'm much more comfortable with the Arturia plugins, so I still just use them. That said, real buttons and knobs are fun!


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 13, 2017)

btw- not sure if its this thread or similar but chimuelo mentioned the radial space heater which is 8 channel but has stereo distortion on each. http://www.radialeng.com/spaceheater.php

i feel that would be the reason to add summing stage. to add harmonics. I think some other summing mixers have some sort of harminic enhance but radial goes all the way up to trash metal territory! but for mixes just a tad will enhance a lot!


----------



## tigersun (Jun 16, 2017)

I have 4 of my interface outputs sent to my patchbay, then my hardware all connected to the patch bay. Not 100% necessary for my humble collection of hardware but I like it for changing up my signal flow, particularly for putting my compressors in series and switching up the order. Sometimes I want to put an EQ between my comps when I do that. Just gives you a lot of flexibility and ease of switching things up.

Rendering can be a pain sometimes, well, tedious is probably a better word. For all of my hardware I have one or more plugins set up to more or less give me the same effect/sound of the hardware. Then I send stuff out to the hardware to render it. Helps to get an idea of what putting a piece on multiple tracks will do. 

Any hardware I pick up I do my best to compare them with plugins. Honestly, a lot of plug ins now tend to compare very favorably and I've gone through quite a few units picking them up used (so I don't lose my shirt) and selling them if I feel I can get away with using plug ins. For example I loved my API 550b's but Waves had their API collection on sale for like $100 so I picked that up since I was curious. I ended up selling my hardware 550b's, partly to make room in my 500 series rack and partly because the plug in performed more than great IMO. I also sold a hardware tape emulation unit, although it took 3 plugins to get there.... Obviously there is some personal cost/benefit analysis required here. I don't make money on any of music so... yeah..


----------

