Hardware/VST Synth Workflow?

[adamgrossmanLG]

So I recently decided to upgrade my studio with a few hardware synths. Having never really recorded with hardware I am having difficulty when it comes to committing to audio. With VST's I may have say a bass sound that sounds great, but then after adding other elements I really, hey maybe the bassline needs to have a different attack or something, so I am able to go right into the VST and alter it.


With analog hardware gear, once I dial in a setting and hit record, I am committed (unless I never touch the synth and don't change any parameters). This is especially rough with modular gear. Never gonna get the same sound twice.



Another stupid thing I did was, I played some of these parts by hand... no MIDI track saved. I guess I should always record MIDI, then out to the synth and back in.... is that the typical work flow?



Any help in regards to workflow with hardware (and virtual) synths would be very helpful!


Thank You!

[sin night]

I guess I should always record MIDI, then out to the synth and back in.... is that the typical work flow?

This is what I do... or I record midi and audio at the same time... anyway it's always a good idea to record midi (or save patterns on gear... you get the idea) whenever it's possible.

I try to keep the parts as midi as long as possible (with everthing playing through a mixer) as long as possible... no vst effects at this stage, though...

Commitmentr is part of the process of going itb... at first you may make mistakes, then you learn to avoid them and to make bolder decisions on the go... at least this is my experience...

[Mushy Mushy]

You have a few options.

1. Buy more synths so you can leave them programmed as desired;
2. Buy hardware FX so you can process OTB;
3. Commit early (favourite option);
4. Edit as audio files and/or use a software sampler.

[Jace-BeOS]

I have a few pieces of hardware that I've been trying to make more use of (i could happily stay inside Logic and a handful of plugins, but i own these things, so i should use them)... I've set up Logic's Environment to use several external instruments and saved it as a template. Since Logic has an audio routing plugin for the purpose of dealing with external instruments, the track is, by default, a MIDI track, which i then route the audio output to a bus, and then route that bus to an audio track to record the external audio. I record the MIDI of everything, alongside the audio tracks, if i can help it, just in case i want to re-play those parts with a different synth or preset (or replace the hardware with software).

Ultimately, i have to commit to the audio I've recorded and live with it and move on. I really don't care to be required to start up a bunch of other hardware when I'm running through my incomplete projects, so I'd rather have the audio recorded and some notes on how to reproduce it if needed. If the recorded audio is really bad for some reason, i can just re-record it from the MIDI track's sequencing data. To make this all easier, i use Logic's per-track text notes feature to make sure i indicate which hardware, which bank, which preset/patch, (and which customizations i made to a patch if i didn't save the changes) were used to produce that audio track. It's not instant recall, but it makes setup easier and alleviates my reliance on memory. I don't have modular hardware, so i have no need to deal with that.

[vurt]

commiting to audio forces you to learn your equipment deeper, plus you can learn to play the parts which if you ever want to gig, can look more flashy than tweaking a few filters, unless you wear some sort of amusing head gear too...

[AnX]

commiting to audio forces you to learn your equipment deeper, plus you can learn to play the parts which if you ever want to gig, can look more flashy than tweaking a few filters, unless you wear some sort of amusing head gear too...

I saw Laibach live in the 90's. The support duo were dressed as Roman Centurians. Always an option....

[Scrubbing Monkeys]

Committing to your tracks maybe the most musically productive thing you can do.

[chk071]

Committing to your tracks maybe the most musically productive thing you can do.

TBH, it always rather felt very limiting to me.

[Scrubbing Monkeys]

Committing to your tracks maybe the most musically productive thing you can do.

TBH, it always rather felt very limiting to me.

Sure, I guess it can be. But you can also adjust, second guess and manipulate a thing untill it dies from exposure.

Now that being said, I dont think i could make it with out being able to fix my playing via midi. so ..

As metioned above record the midi ( in my case ...fix it ) then run it back through the hardware.

[sharke]

You can always make notes about the patch you've dialed in so that you can dial it in again later if you need to re-record it. If it's a synth with nothing but knobs and sliders (i.e. no data wheels and menus and all that crap) then you can even take a photo of the controls for later recreation.

[deastman]

In the days before accessible computer disk recording, the only real option was to sequence everything live. I had to have enough synths to play every part of the song at once. I had three mixers, for a total of 72 channels. I had enough MIDI interfaces to potentially drive 256 channels of MIDI data.

These days, I’m happy with a pair of long audio cables and a long MIDI cable. I just patch into a synth, record a part to MIDI, clean it up, record the part to audio, and then move on.

[chk071]

You can always make notes about the patch you've dialed in so that you can dial it in again later if you need to re-record it. If it's a synth with nothing but knobs and sliders (i.e. no data wheels and menus and all that crap) then you can even take a photo of the controls for later recreation.

Hence: Limiting. And cumbersome.

Even though i must say that i'd only buy a synth with patch memory anyway.

[T-CM11]

Hence: Limiting. And cumbersome.

The same can be said about programming plugins with a mouse or a midi controller (vs. a dedicated knob/slider per function hardware synth).

[T-CM11]

In the days before accessible computer disk recording, the only real option was to sequence everything live. I had to have enough synths to play every part of the song at once. I had three mixers, for a total of 72 channels. I had enough MIDI interfaces to potentially drive 256 channels of MIDI data.

Nope, it was not the "only real option", just your personal preference. Hardware step sequencers and overdubbing have been an option for a looong time.

[deastman]

In the days before accessible computer disk recording, the only real option was to sequence everything live. I had to have enough synths to play every part of the song at once. I had three mixers, for a total of 72 channels. I had enough MIDI interfaces to potentially drive 256 channels of MIDI data.

Nope, it was not the "only real option", just your personal preference. Hardware step sequencers and overdubbing have been an option for a looong time.

I used both an MMT-8 and an MC500mkII for live performance for a long time. I was trained as an audio engineer on Otari 24 track, recorded some stuff to Tascam 8 track, various 4 track cassettes, ADAT, and still own a POS E-mu Darwin. So thank you for the condescending attitude, but I think you’ll find that, by and large, most people were running their synths live under MIDI control in the 80s.