Advice: DAW or bust?

[ethanay]

I am new to the DAW but have done quite a bit of research and have some basic analog mixing and recording experience. I figured I'd come to the source with my questions.

I have tried several times to "get in the box" over the past 10 years or so. Most DAWs have frustrated me. They seem like metaphors or abstractions of the original signal chains that they replaced. Don't get me wrong -- incredibly powerful and flexible and convenient when they're well-tuned and the user is familiar with them. I am not. At least not yet.

I'm on Linux (Pop!_OS) I'm strongly considering Mixbus32c, because it seems the most like an actual hardware console and would be the least abstract option for me to learn and something that I could grow with as my skill and experience increases.

I'm building a tiny house and my studio will be in a fairly tiny space in the tiny house. I need to have an idea of the footprint so I can design the workspace around it. I am mostly focusing on eliminating early ceiling reflections and corner bass traps.

My current gear:

• Laptop: Intel i5 8265U, 16gb RAM, 2TB HDD, 15" screen (Pop!_OS 20.04)
  
• Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 (2nd gen)
  
• Avantone CK-7 LDC (and I'm going to add an Avantone CK-1 SDC based on reviews, value and positive experience with the CK-7)
  
• Tapco Mix.60
  
• Tascam DP-006 (6 track 16-bit 44.1khz, 2 unbal in, stereo mini out)
  
• Tascam DR-40
  

I really like having physical things to tweak. For example, as a guitarist, I much prefer a pedalboard to a multifx processor. WSIWYG. I feel the same about mixers. I may never gel with a touch screen. It feels fake and I can't suspend my disbelief. The RuControl looks amazing for helping to overcome this problem in MixBus.

QUESTIONS:

1. Would you recommend I just "dive in" to MixBus32c or take a different route on my journey of learning to DAW? I think I'm ready to just commit to something and learn it deeply. But sometimes that's not the best approach.
   
2. Is there a master list of what control surfaces are *Fully Supported* by Mixbus32c (Linux)? I mean full support, Harrison stamp of approval, "we can recommend this as a hardware extension of our software." I didn't see any specifics in the manual (yes I try to RTFM). That said, the RuControl set looks AMAZING (https://rucoproaudio.com/).
   
3. I like to keep my tools focused. I really don't want to accumulate dozens of plugins I rarely or never use. (no offense to those who do) How do you guys find the bundled plugins? I don't care about the UX appearance, just their capacity as tools.
   
4. Is there a way to adjust pitch? Sometimes I like to detune doubles a hair.
   
5. Is there a good mid/side matrix?
   
6. How does Mixbus32c work with a 15" screen? Is it cramped? I have good eyesight so small fonts aren't necessarily an issue. I can also eventually hook up the laptop to a second external monitor.
   
7. Does Mixbus work well with multimonitor setups, so I could use the laptop display as a secondary/aux display? Or is it more of a single-display sort of thing?
   

I also read on this forum about people talking about "mixing in hardware" while running Mixbus. What does this mean, and how do the connections and signal flow go between the mixing hardware and the DAW? Does this mean lots of A/D and D/A conversion? Or is there a way to hook a digital mixer up to a DAW and use the digital mixer to control the DAW or mix without D/A A/D conversion? Or does the (digital or analog) hardware mixer somewhat render the DAW redundant? When I see all the issues people face with DAWs and computers in forums, it makes me look long and hard at things like the Tascam DP-24 (maybe with upgraded pres) or Model 16 or the Zoom L20.

I'd really like to nail this down so I can get back to focusing on the music! I want the gear to disappear into the background again. I appreciate any/all input as long as it's not mean.

Thank you!

ethan

[waltermente]

Hello! Relatively new user tip: I think the best thing you could do is download the demo version of Mix Bus 32C that is fully functional and take your doubts out in first person, because what for me can be great or maybe a solution for you be it a headache or vice versa. You will notice in the first 5 minutes that you already know how to use it. Something that helped me a lot before I even installed it was to review the manual; it is easy to read, short and detailed. It helped me to enter the daw with a more solid base. I hope it helps. Perhaps someone with more experience in Harrison can answer you in more detail. I believe that there is nothing like experiencing it yourself. Successes! Walter

[sunrat]

On a 15" screen you may be better using standard Mixbus, rather than 32C which is best with at least 1200px vertical height.
DAWs are very complicated software even for someone with hardware mixing experience. Be patient, read the manual, and you will be rewarded.

[CurtZHP]

While the 2i2 is a decent interface for the money, you may consider bumping up to something a little larger with at least another pair of inputs. This would at least give you the option of incorporating outboard gear if you prefer.

I feel your pain. I cut my teeth on big analog boards and preferred working that way for a long time. Then I made the jump to a digital console. Last year, after a few years of using that console as nothing more than a monitor controller, I sold it. Got myself an Audient iD22, Mixbus, and never looked back! Yes, there have been moments where I wanted to do something that would have been a breeze in the old analog realm, and it took me a little more thinking to figure out how to do it with this rig, but the more I do it, the less thinking about it I have to do.

For me, Harrison's Youtube channel was a Godsend. Even though most of the videos are a few years old and refer to older versions of Mixbus, the information is still useful and pertinent. (Think of it like driving a car. Ford, Chevy, or Chrysler, regardless of year, make, or model, the gas pedal and steering wheel are always in the same place!)

[JamieLang]

Ok--I could go down point by point, but as a background: I ALWAYS prefer an embedded solution when we're comparing NEAR apples to apples. But, let me offer a filter for reading problems on a forum. Depending on your experience level it may or may not resonate, but:

No one is having trouble doing anything that the Tascam can do. With one exception--and I'll get to that.

People having trouble are having trouble with virtual instruments....virtual amp sims....and running the system so bare metal so as to make those bearable. Some more advanced users might be having issues with summing amplifiers and hardware inserts--things that the Tascam doesn't do at all. Some are having issues with this modern "smart tool" type of automatic engineering plug in that "listens" to all your tracks via an elaborate sidechain network. Some are having trouble with quantizing and tuning audio and other kinds of super HYPER modern "content editing"....nothing there is something that Tascam can do at ALL.

So, the one thing? Cue FX like reverb and delay. I've posted here how you do that with ANY software DAW, but it's VERY not straightforward to do it properly. To do it the straight forward way? Monitoring in software, you're again into the land of configuration trouble--and with a Windows Laptop and USB? Good luck. It CAN be done...on any machine with a hardware mixer interface (which is everything except a Presonus Quantum or anything with the Avid/Digidesign label). I should probably lobby to get that to be a sticky. I'm tired of typing it. But, it can be done. 1024 buffer? NO PROBLEM. Slow extra buffered USB interface? NO PROBLEM.

I know that without a certain knowledge level about these systems you can't skim a forum and quickly understand how many "problems" come from doing things that the Tascam do at all, so I think you're going to have to trust me.

If I were you...starting over for a songwriter type set up? I'd get an SPL Crimson (or Creon if you don't need the SPDIF). All day. It's got nice sounding preamps and DI...double headphones with independent level...and MOST importantly, analog cue and monitor control. It's a GENIUS level unit for a home studio. yes--it's expensive. It's gotten considerably MORE expensive with only MINOR hardware revisions. Having what you plug your headphones, studio monitors, AND mics into be analog makes one part of the learning curve go away. The hardware mixer is LITERLALY under your fingers.

Take your list and ask that about the Tascam. Mid/side matrix? How's the Tascam Pitch shifting algo? Small 4 line LCD....vs 15" and mouse/keyboard?....how well does the Tascam work on multiple monitors? Since it doesn't ALLOW third party plug ins, you would be using the Tascam EQ and compressor and reverb 100% of the time. Shall we compare the 32cEQ and dynamics with Tascam's? I'm just saying--you need to apples to apples. Otherwise, you're deluding yourself in one direction or another. If Mixbus can't do stuff on that list well, you're choosing the Tascam that does NONE of it? Makes little sense. You know?

[ethanay]

Hi all,

Thank you all for the wonderful and thoughtful responses! I took the leap and downloaded MIxbus v6 (not 32c, not sure I really need the 32c EQ strip, actually) to play around with. It is really daunting, but I will RTFM and study the videos as recommended.

I am thinking about using the laptop w/an outboard 24" or 27" screen in a dual 24" + 15" internal screen setup, should that work OK to give me some more room to avoid hiding/unhiding things?

I am taking a long hard look at my workflow. To me it isn't about "features." It is all about workflow. I find that "extra features and capabilities" can often impede workflow quite drastically. In fact I settled on Mixbus (e.g., over Reaper) because it seems to have a much more straightforward workflow.

Sure, we can compare apples to oranges, as long as we incorporate context, and that context is workflow. I am not so concerned with doing EVERYTHING on dedicated hardware, only in minimizing the potential screen time, complication and distraction of the computer wherever possible.

In particular, I am concerned about the capture process. For that, right now, I use my DP-006 (MTR) or DR-40 (stereo, 3 or 4 channel capture of live performances). The DR-40 can capture at my ideal, 24-bit 48khz. But the DP-006 is limited to 16-bit 44.1khz. That is my biggest criticism of it. On solo acoustic recordings, I can hear the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit. However, after watching these two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShmvwTTHDJs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nxsmQZkFnI I feel much less concerned about importing 16-bit 44.1khz for multi-track mixing / mastering. Does that make anyone cringe or raise any alarms? I am operating from the conclusion that if and when I compose well, arrange well, perform well, record well (mic placement! gain staging!), the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit MTR source material will be negligible. I will still record/import 24-bit 48khz for solo/live performances from the DR-40, as those "single shot" recordings I think make bit-depth at least much more apparent. At least to my ears, the low decibel detail gives those recordings much more "depth."

Sure, I could get marginally higher-quality captures probably through the DAW. But the benefit of these devices I think is their limitations which translate to focus, especially when concepts are still coming together. I would argue that the dedicated hardware DOES do things that the DAW can't do.

My main issues with the DP-006 are that it can't do 24-bit depth, and if I want to use external mics with it, I have to add external mic pres/mixer. But that would also allow me to add, e.g., ambience, to a cue mix. It is about as bulky as a laptop with an interface, altogether.

I am still refining my workflow: https://photos.app.goo.gl/wrTKq1N9CJo3tBnm9. I can envision myself doing post-demo final recording directly into Mixbus for a finished, definitive-version of a composition, assuming I can master the use of Mixbus. Even for my solo instrumental compositions. But that is pretty far down the line in the composition and arranging process. Essentially, I think every song will have at least two versions: the demo version I capture with dedicated hardware off the computer, and then a final version that I capture through Mixbus directly, after more detailed arranging work. I'd essentially use the demo process to help develop the arrangement, song structure, and track sheets and charts.

I am not sure I need more I/O than the Focusrite Scarlett offers. I can't imagine myself needing more than 2/2 I/O for the foreseeable future. If I am going "ITB" then I am pretty much staying "ITB." If I ever use outboard gear, I figure I can just hook it up via an additional mixer? Or upgrade my interface at that point if I need more complex signal routing.

I am also considering something like the Izotope Spire Studio: which does record in 24-bit 48khz but this is new technology and I try to avoid new tech like the plague. IME, "new" = "unreliable" "experimental" "implicit public beta testing"

[soundmark]

I resonate with your workflow being placed as a priority over every other issue. I find other features distracting to that fundamental issue, which effects every interaction, every impulsive creative decision we make on any platform.

Following.

PS I wouldnt mess with any interface that forced me into 16 bit capture in the year 2020.

[ethanay]

I resonate with your workflow being placed as a priority over every other issue. I find other features distracting to that fundamental issue, which effects every interaction, every impulsive creative decision we make on any platform.

Following.

PS I wouldnt mess with any interface that forced me into 16 bit capture in the year 2020.

Thank you. I would be curious to learn more about your approach to a tight workflow in the digital age.

[bayswater]

"They seem like metaphors or abstractions of the original signal chains that they replaced". I thought that was a curious comment. Of course they are. They're designed to do the same thing. And Mixbus more than most others. Some, like Live, start to move away from that metaphor, but not by much. They all have a time line, tracks, channel strips, busses etc.

If you want a workflow like a multitrack recorder, Mixbus is as good as any, and in some ways better because it emulates that so well. But just about any DAW can work like that if you just stick to it's basic functions. Connect almost any simple Mackie Control emulator to almost any DAW and you've got a multitrack tape recorder without tape with all the usual buttons.

Another thing is; you're using Linux. If you stick with that, your options are limited. Mixbus, Ardour, then the list of practical options for someone who wants to concentrate on the music, and not become an IT expert, gets very short.

And as already pointed out above, what you want to do, and the workflow you want to follow is important. I suppose you could do loop based productions on Mixbus, but I don't think you'd want to. Same for movie soundtracks with multiple queues and variations and 120 track orchestral templates.

On latency, if you are a guitar player and have experience standing a few feet away from your amp, then latency is not really an issue. With reasonable modern equiment, the latency you experience is similar to what you get with a guitar and an amp 6 to 10 feet away.

And learning any DAW is not a trivial pursuit. They all have long learning curves unless you just want to use them as simple multitrack recorders. Then a day or two will be all you need. Have a look at Groove3 tutorials. They have at least one on how to get the basics up and running with just about any DAW. They just did one on Mixbus 6

[ethanay]

"They seem like metaphors or abstractions of the original signal chains that they replaced". I thought that was a curious comment. Of course they are. They're designed to do the same thing. And Mixbus more than most others. Some, like Live, start to move away from that metaphor, but not by much. They all have a time line, tracks, channel strips, busses etc.

If you want a workflow like a multitrack recorder, Mixbus is as good as any, and in some ways better because it emulates that so well. But just about any DAW can work like that if you just stick to it's basic functions. Connect almost any simple Mackie Control emulator to almost any DAW and you've got a multitrack tape recorder without tape with all the usual buttons.

This is sort of what I am planning on doing, except with mixing / mastering thrown in as well (so, learning the full DAW). Planning on getting a RuCo.

Another thing is; you're using Linux. If you stick with that, your options are limited. Mixbus, Ardour, then the list of practical options for someone who wants to concentrate on the music, and not become an IT expert, gets very short.

This isn't a bad thing as long as the (limited) options are good options. And they are. Really good options. Likewise, lots of options isn't necessarily a good thing, even when there are MANY GOOD options. It is often distracting.

GNU/Linux is really the only modern OS I can stand to work with for anything more than a few minutes. <snipped my own rants about Windows/MS and Mac OS/Apple> Although I do think MS is honestly trying to get its sh*t together after decades of dysfunction, whereas as far as I can tell, Mac OS/Apple are in a state of identity crisis and decline and they have betrayed the core users (multimedia producers) who were the reason for their lack of bankruptcy and subsequent success in the early 2000s.

On latency, if you are a guitar player and have experience standing a few feet away from your amp, then latency is not really an issue. With reasonable modern equiment, the latency you experience is similar to what you get with a guitar and an amp 6 to 10 feet away.

Yes, except for tracking vocals, where bone conduction and comb filtering can make 6-10ms of latency sound and feel very awkward. But I suppose that is what direct HW monitoring is for.

And learning any DAW is not a trivial pursuit. They all have long learning curves unless you just want to use them as simple multitrack recorders. Then a day or two will be all you need. Have a look at Groove3 tutorials. They have at least one on how to get the basics up and running with just about any DAW. They just did one on Mixbus 6

I have committed to learning Mixbus. That will be my DAW. I hope to develop a deep understanding of how it works and how I can use it to create and/or enhance quality recordings of quality performances of quality arrangements of quality compositions