# How you handle a big mix-session with the mouse?



## musicpete (Aug 5, 2009)

I would like to add: Very, very painfully and cumbersome-ly. Mixing a couple of cues some years ago destroyed my left wrist and since then mouse-mixing is like walking barefoot on broken glass...

Here's what I tried:

1) A Behringer BCF2000: Crappy drivers, crappy manufatured, low compatibility, no software updates or support from Behringer, barely got it working, wasted lots of time on it.

2) Kensington Expert mouse: Basicall a huge trackball. Nearly 100% useless for precise editing but very relieving on the wrists during daily work. I love it!

3) Frontier Design Alphatrack: This is on my list of future purchases. They seem to deliver decent support (judging from their forums), have x64 drivers, seems to work with Cubase 5. Earlier I investigated the Presonus faderport but it lacks x64 drivers and seeing how they spit in their customers face in their forums made me decide for the Alphatrack. I'll never again support a company that steinbergs its customers like that.


----------



## david robinson (Aug 5, 2009)

hi again,
yep,
some sort of control surface would help, but unless there is a dedicated fader/channel strip for each DAW track/bus, it might not be the answer either.
there's a point where all this stops being cool to do at home or in a project studio, and should really be done on the truly pro level.
David R.


----------



## misterbee (Aug 5, 2009)

FWIW I tried the Alphatrack and found it to be utterly useless. Sure, it did what it said on the box, but it really does nothing more than a mouse because you can still only handle one track at a time so the movements are similar to that of a mouse! I also found myself flitting between the mouse and the Alphatrack too much and this wasted any time I was trying to save by using the Alphatrack.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 5, 2009)

I know that there are some great mix-controllers on the market, but I think they are all too expensive. A joke! 

I would be happy if a company would built a controller with 24 or more motor-faders, panning knobs, and not more, and sell it at a good price.! 

I hope Yamaha will do it for us Cubase users.


----------



## ComposerDude (Aug 5, 2009)

Looking at this from the perspective of new-product design: With volume/etc. automation in DAWs, what specifically do you guys find yourself needing in terms of physical controllers for your particular big mix-session? How many channels, what kind of parameters do you need to control, what things do you want 'instant mechanical access' for?


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 5, 2009)

For me, the most important is to have much volume (motor) faders/channels and pan pots there. Would be cool in the same size as the big master keyboards.


----------



## david robinson (Aug 5, 2009)

hi again,
yes, i like to see a strip for every virtual channel/bus/aux/master in the DAW.
they are available, just expensive is all.
i generally oversee the mix/post, and have an associate do the hands on while i'll ear-ball stuff.
takes less time like this, with less fatigue.
btw, i have NO trouble using a mouse, even Apple mice.
but it is slow, and with clients who trust my judgement, i'll do stuff when they've gone, and sometimes don't bill them for it.
depends.
David R.


----------



## jeffc (Aug 5, 2009)

The new Euphonix controllers are great. Much better than the old Mackie Control. It's really hard to work with no faders once you get used to it. for mixing definitely. But also I always ride string volumes when writing - play with the right hand and ride with the left, it seems so organic, that it's really hard for me to do anything without it. Drawing volume on with a mouse after the fact seems so 'technical' instead of musical. 

I've got 2 MC Mix's and find that 16 faders is a pretty good place to be, banking from channel 1 to the end is pretty quick once you get used to it. 

J


----------



## ComposerDude (Aug 5, 2009)

The US electronic supplier Digi-Key lists some Panasonic 100mm motorized potentiometers for around US$25 apiece in moderate quantities. That's the raw hardware cost just for the slider assembly, not including PCB, control electronics, case, etc. So 8 of those faders is $200 and 40 would be $1000. Prices are probably cheaper in China and in mass quantities, but this gives you a sense of why these multi-fader boxes tend to be pricey.

Also bear in mind that for a product at suggested retail of $1000, the retailer is probably paying the wholesaler about $600, and the wholesaler is paying the manufacturer about $400 -- and out of that, the manufacturer must cover hardware and build costs, factory facilities, employee salaries, and advertising. So the actual hardware cost, including the case (which can get remarkably expensive if many metalworking steps are involved) has to come in around 10-15-20% of suggested retail.

This is why many products opt for price-efficient tactile snap switches and deep LCD menu designs (or a bunch of LEDs) to keep the physical component count and cost down, so the product can be sold for a price that people are willing to pay.

Products used widely (like today's computers) tend to bring prices down as commodities. Motorized linear faders don't seem to have that wide an appeal, hence higher prices.


----------



## synthetic (Aug 5, 2009)

I would jump on the Euphonix fader controller if the faders had a MIDI controller mode. It would be nice to switch to MIDI faders for the selected channel (CC 11, 12, 111, etc.) and then back. 

I have a console/fader controller sitting in my office that I rarely touch, except for vocal rides. Because it's a whole three feet away, just out of reach.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 5, 2009)

The big companies get that all for much much less money, or perhaps they build it self.

Don`t get me wrong. I want to pay for what I get, but not those utopian prices. 

What do you think will a synth cost if you would buy all things what you need to build this synth at Digi-Key?


----------



## ComposerDude (Aug 5, 2009)

germancomponist, I was only answering your question "must it be so expensive": yes, it tends to be "relatively" expensive when one requires high-quality precise long-lasting electromechanical parts that don't have such a huge market as to become commoditized like PCs. That's all. As time is short here, will leave your synth question "as an exercise for the reader".


----------



## david robinson (Aug 5, 2009)

i believe it it was the hardware control surface that brought Emagic to it's knees.
David R.


----------



## MaraschinoMusic (Aug 5, 2009)

I wouldn't...!!! 
I'm amazed at how people manage to do ITB mixes at all. 

I'll sub-mix in Logic, but there is nothing better than a large console (even a medium sized console) with automation in my humble opinion. I love to make those faders dance... :D


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 5, 2009)

synthetic @ Wed Aug 05 said:


> I would jump on the Euphonix fader controller if the faders had a MIDI controller mode. It would be nice to switch to MIDI faders for the selected channel (CC 11, 12, 111, etc.) and then back.
> 
> .



that be awsome.
that was the same thing the guys at RC said about the new euphonix. so form what i understand, HZ has a stake on that company (or big influence) so maybe that feature will be added.. in the distant future. 

right now i have a mc mix and a u-control. 

as for big mixes, color coded tracks helps me to go faster.


----------



## david robinson (Aug 6, 2009)

if you are mixing ITB, i've found it's much easier if every travk had been pre-checked for mininum - maximun dynamic range.
i shoot for 14db range on most things, using comps, eq, whatever to "trim" this.
this allow a predictable range within each section of the arrangement, and stops over-compressing on the 2 bus at mixdown.
in fact i don't really hve to use comp/lims on the 2 bus at all, except for an effect.
David R.


----------



## synthetic (Aug 6, 2009)

As a manufacturer with access to marketing data on the subject, let me tell you a secret: no one buys fader controllers! From a manufacturer's point of view, they don't sell. Some of Digidesign's have done OK, and the Euphonix isn't a complete disaster, but nothing I would call big numbers. Compare the number of 002s with the number of 002 Racks out there. People don't want to spend the extra $1k+ for a fader controller when they can buy a mic, sample library, etc. instead. It's seen as "nice to have" but it isn't something that makes the final mix sound better, at least not directly.


----------



## synthetic (Aug 6, 2009)

Hans has a JL Cooper 4-fader controller that sends MIDI information on his desk. He also had the Mackie rotary encoder controller. He probably wants to replace both with the Euphonix.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 6, 2009)

oh my bad. 

HZ is on the euphonix board as well as cubases

http://aes.harmony-central.com/113AES/article/Euphonix/Steinberg-Deal.html (http://aes.harmony-central.com/113AES/a ... -Deal.html)


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 6, 2009)

synthetic @ Thu Aug 06 said:


> ..It's seen as "nice to have" but it isn't something that makes the final mix sound better, at least not directly.



And what about a much better workflow? o-[][]-o


----------



## musicpete (Sep 7, 2009)

misterbee @ 5.8.2009 said:


> FWIW I tried the Alphatrack and found it to be utterly useless. Sure, it did what it said on the box, but it really does nothing more than a mouse because you can still only handle one track at a time so the movements are similar to that of a mouse! I also found myself flitting between the mouse and the Alphatrack too much and this wasted any time I was trying to save by using the Alphatrack.


Thanks for that replay! Now you really made me unsure about the whole thing since I already suspected the one fader to be limiting... Unfortunately all multi-fader solutions are completely out of my reach (except for the Behringer one, but I learned that lesson the hard way...).



Musictronics @ 6.8.2009 said:


> I wouldn't...!!!
> I'm amazed at how people manage to do ITB mixes at all.
> 
> I'll sub-mix in Logic, but there is nothing better than a large console (even a medium sized console) with automation in my humble opinion. I love to make those faders dance... :D


I completely agree. Those few precious hours when my BCF2000 actually barely worked were awe some. Mixing was so much easier and natural!



synthetic @ 6.8.2009 said:


> As a manufacturer with access to marketing data on the subject, let me tell you a secret: no one buys fader controllers! From a manufacturer's point of view, they don't sell. Some of Digidesign's have done OK, and the Euphonix isn't a complete disaster, but nothing I would call big numbers. Compare the number of 002s with the number of 002 Racks out there. People don't want to spend the extra $1k+ for a fader controller when they can buy a mic, sample library, etc. instead. It's seen as "nice to have" but it isn't something that makes the final mix sound better, at least not directly.


Sounds like a vicious circle to me.... Nowadays most manufacturers realized that the real money is in the hobbyist market. But how do you want to create a hardware control surface that isn't made of crap components, yet cover your expenses. Too bad, my carpal tunnels would love such a thing...

My dream controller is a mashup of the Euphonix and Mackie ones, with USB+MIDI connectors, rock-solid x64 drivers (I am talking the RME kind of rock solid!) with updates, developers who listen to user input and a price tag of 250€. Haha, we all can dream.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 7, 2009)

I agree with the above quote. It is too bad.
But for electronic music I have no problems with the cheap Behringer Faders, and also use the BCR. I got both controllers for 325 USD B Stock, and then had Device Panels made for them in Scope. that way a custom solution is easier to tolerate.
I am very suprised at how well they work, but I still prefer acoustic and orchestral type music be done on my ancient MCI/Otari combo.
Using a mouse is just not an option for me.


----------

