Hardwares effects

[Trancer]

I would like to equip myself with hardware for effects.

A certain consistency with my approach of using only my computer for composing and mixing.

Do you have any ideas of material at a reasonable price to equip me with hardware?


Compressor / Eq etc..

I already have a Bigsky and TimeLine.

Regarding the distortion, I was thinking of the Analog Heat Mk 2.

Do you have any ideas and advice for equipping me with hardware?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

[vurt]

preferences for mono or stereo?

[Trancer]

Thank you for your answer.

Stereo processing.

[DMG68]

Check FMR Audio for compressors, RNC or RNLA.

[Trancer]

Thank you for your reply.

I looked at the products and it looks pretty good and very good user reviews.

on the other hand, recommended for basses, voices, guitars.

I don't have any of that as hardware.

This kind of products will also be good for synths and bars?

[cryophonik]

How many hardware units are you planning to buy and how are you going to use them? I assume from your posts that you have several hardware synths. Are you planning to to share each hardware effect with all of your synths by swapping inputs, or with a patch bay? Or, are you planning to buy dedicated hardware effects for each synth?

Personally, I’ve found that hardware effects for a multiple synth setup is too much of PITA and not worth the time, space, or money. I bought a UAD Apollo and a bunch of their plugins instead. It works like a standalone mixer and I can add whatever effects I want to any one of my 14 hardware synths as inserts or sends, and I can choose to record them to my DAW with or without printing the effects. I’ll never go back to racks of hardware effects.

[eidetic]

Personally, I’ve found that hardware effects for a multiple synth setup is too much of PITA and not worth the time, space, or money.

I'm in a similar situation to Trancer and remind myself of this same reality.

I have a handful of core hardware that I like jamming with. I either run the equipment through my iPad and use Overloud TH-U for effects or my PC with Ableton for effects. For months I have been craving some hardware effects but when I walk through what I'd need, the amount (of equipment and money) quickly goes out of control.

Definitely define your goal. Is it to be independent of a DAW or software? Or are you wanting effects that don't have comparable software counterparts?

Fully understand that one effect is one effect. If you get a delay pedal, you can either use that for one insert or for one type of delay on a send/return. Think about how many delay types you want. Then repeat the exercise for reverb, compressors, chorus, etc.

Then add up all the cables and channels. If you plan on using 3-4 send/returns, do you have a mixer that will support that number? If you want each synth to have its own delay and reverb insert, make sure you're OK with buying two delays and two reverbs (four total).

[Trancer]

Thank you for your answer.

At the moment I have seven synths and an Analog Rhythm MK2.

I would like to use the effects on each synth and/or with each synth separately.

I had looked for an apollo, but I had been dissuaded from taking uad with a pc, because apparently not very stable.

The price too.

To have the ease of being able to run a good number of plugins, a hexacore apollo and a hexacore satellite also, plus the price of plugins at Uad not cheap either.

So if I really want a complete uad system, I can prepare a sum of at least 6000 euros.

So quite a budget for an enthusiast.

Apparently uad, more suitable for mac, more stable.

If I had had a mac, I would have invested from the start in uad even if 6000 euros.

But my choice of material would have been quite different at that time.

Here I have two Claretts, a Clarett + 4 pre and a Clarett + 8 pre and I don't have enough space, because I also have a Traktor S4 Mk3 and two Strymons.

I intend to use only one type of reverb, delay, hardware saturation.

Only use a daw as a multi-track and for mixing.

A mixer, yes, but the connection should not be simple, then connect the audio interface, synchronization.

Also, isn't there a difference in sound gain and audio quality between the mixer and the audio interface?

Lots of questions, but new to me, I'm coming from vst everything, so moving on to hardware lots of questions.

[DMG68]

Thank you for your reply.

I looked at the products and it looks pretty good and very good user reviews.

on the other hand, recommended for basses, voices, guitars.

I don't have any of that as hardware.

This kind of products will also be good for synths and bars?

Yes, they are good for anything really. Good price and quality for hardware stereo compressors.

[cryophonik]

Have you considered just taking advantage of some of the synths you already own (e.g., RYTM, Virus) and using their audio inputs as effects processors for your other synths?

[whyterabbyt]

Fully understand that one effect is one effect. If you get a delay pedal, you can either use that for one insert or for one type of delay on a send/return.

This isnt strictly true. There are some devices out there which offer multiple effects in serial and in parallel, including independent parallel processing on multiple (ie more than 2) IO signal paths.

[kritikon]

I think there's an awful lot you need to weigh up both pros and cons. Not sure I'd want to go back to hw FX, though I still have a few...TBH rarely use them any more.

First big question is how you're going to record. If your DAW is the multitrack/mixing as you said, then it still leaves - are you going to record the synths direct into the interface or via the mixer? Using a mixer with multiple synths makes a lot of sense - you can run everything via midi and mix it live. You could actually make everything by hw and just record the final track directly out of the mixer but I think your stated aim of using the DAW as multitrack recorder makes the most sense - recording each synth in individually. So is a mixer really necessary for that? Yeah, useful and personally I like mixing stuff live via midi etc but it's more of a scratchpad for playing, whereas I record each synth directly into the DAW when happy with it, and mostly use a patchbay to manage the synths. Midi patchbay also. If you're aiming to play all 7 synths at the same time and do hw mixing, then you need a 16-channel mixer if they're mostly stereo synths. So, expense...

If you're going to do the full hw mix and record the master into the DAW, then hw FX make sense. If you're going to record each synth directly into interface and mix inside the DAW, then not so much sense. Maybe one hw FX unit to let you get FX on the synths for playing. Multiple FX units don't make sense to me. Not unless you go for really good ones. There are so many very good sw FX, even the stock DAW ones, some stunning reverbs nowadays that cheapo FX units will struggle to match. Even delays - sw mostly beats it. Compressors - down to personal taste - I like good old VCA compression, but not by cheap units. Decent ones aren't cheap. Distortion/overdrive - yeah I get that, I haven't heard too many digital distortions that I like. Saturation - meh, I suspect you're being misled by internet and new generation digital myths. Anyone who has done lots of hw in the past will tell yo one of the main aims in hw recording is initially clarity, not distortion and additive noise. Back in the day I would have been laughed at if I'd suggested I wanted to dirty up my hard-won clean analogue recordings with extra noise.

I'm not saying that some hw FX aren't great - if you stump up for a decent Eventide, yeah. I can see the want for something like a PCM80/81 which still beats a lot of sw FX hands down. BUT bog standard multiFX are often pretty dire compared to the better sw FX nowadays. You mentioned Strymon - not sure you'd want to record that when you see how many and how cheap some of the sw Eventide FX are - Black Hole springs to mind, and then that Valhalla Supermassive gives it a good run for its money too. Look, I still have 4 maybe 5 of my old hw FX units - all bettered by SW now, and easier to use. One of them's a Lexicon and it's just not worth using. Maybe if I had a PCM80 I'd reconsider.

1. Hw synths - check.
2. Mixer - check, (depending on how you record)
3. Patchbay - consider checking depending on how you answered 2.
4. Hw FX - chasing your own tail with no gains unless you spend large.(IMO). Really, I'm a hw fan, I hate using softsynths mostly. I far preferred hw mixing to DAW mixing and might even go back that route soon. But hw FX makes no sense to me outside of one unit for live noodling on your synths, unless it's a specific hw FX that is difficult to get in the sw world (like distortion).

[eidetic]

This isnt strictly true. There are some devices out there which offer multiple effects in serial and in parallel, including independent parallel processing on multiple (ie more than 2) IO signal paths.

Of course you are technically correct, but I didn't want to introduce the concept of multi-effects or multi-engine effect units into the discussion early on because it felt like OP still needs to do a good bit of initial research on their own. Maybe that's a misguided opinion, though.

Regardless of if someone uses a BigSky, a Zoom multistomp, or an MPX-1, it's a physical device with limitations, as opposed to a software-based effect that can be duplicated an infinite amount of time over. I think this is still really important to keep in mind when thinking about hardware effects.

[justin3am]

I agree with a lot that's been said here. hardware effects can be a lot harder to integrate into a hybrid setup than a bunch of synths. I've talked to so many people who wanted to use an outboard compressor, EQ or whatever but eventually gave up because it just wasn't very convenient because they weren't well setup to patch those effects into their existing setup.
Patchbays become much more important and noise and grounding issues can quickly become unacceptable, particularly when running more than one effect in serial or when connecting unbalanced equipment to balanced I/Os. Most issues you might encounter are solvable but it depends on how much you want to spend or whether you are inclined to DIY when you need a custom solution.

Anyway, it's doable if you are committed to a specific way of working but I think choosing which effects to use is the least important concern. It's much more important to plan out how are you going to use the effects. Are you going to run outboard instruments directly into the effects before hitting your audio interface? Do you want to be able to patch recorded tracks back out to hardware effects and then back into your DAW? Do you want to be able to process a 2-mix and then bring that back into your DAW? Do you need to send MIDI to the effect for sync/automation?

I like using hardware effects quite a lot but it took a lot of work to make it feel like a natural part of my workflow.

In any case, without knowing your budget, I think an Analog Heat is a good way to get started. Overbridge will give you a lot of flexibility in terms of routing and total recall. There are other hardware effects which have a plug-in for software integration, like the AMS-Neve 8803 EQ, Bettermaker stuff and Wes Audio. Lots of cool rack and desktop units out there if you don't care about the software integration stuff.

[Trancer]

Thank you very much for your feedback and reviews.

I have read your opinions and two choices are offered to me.

Either analog or digital.

Here selection of products.

What do you think ?

Other choices?

Hallen and Heath zed 420 or Mackie 4 VLZ 2404.

Presonus studiolive 32 SC.

I will try to be specific in what I really want.

I would like to use a mixer to connect my synths and my Strymon and most certainly an Analog Heat mk2.

Being able to play without connecting to my computer.

But being able to use the setup with Ableton Live / Studio One Pro 5 / Cubase 12 Pro for composing and multitrack recording.

On the other hand, if I take the Presonus version, I will have to sell my Clarett + 4 pre and Clarett + 8 pre.

Now, a question arises, the quality, the gain, the output power, will it not be of better quality with my two Claretts that I currently have?

On the other hand, I have great fears about the parasitic noise of an analog system and even with the usb.

What do you think ?

The analog solution that will pass through my Clarett, the sound will not be altered, worse?
Concerning the midi and the sequencing, I was thinking of adding a Kenton midi 5 thru module and as a sequencer either a Squarp Pyramid or the Squarp Hapax.

But the Hapax, only 16 parts.