Hardware-Software Hybrid Users Poll

[ghettosynth]

I have dedicated inputs for bass, the Minibrute/Strega pair, two stereo send/return loops for pedals, and 10 ins and 8 outs in my Euro rig -- no need for a patch bay or hardware mixer. (I do use pass-thru patch panels to conveniently patch from Euro to Witchbrute.

Just because we're talking about how we work, I should say that I don't "need" my mixer as an alternative to an interface. I have a, largely unused, 828 and the Expert Sleepers ADAT input output modules for it that I could use it in place of the mixer. I also have more than a few other mixers.

I use an Allen and Heath CQ-18T. The point of that mixer is that it is small, rack mountable, has the jacks on the front and is, in essence, the mixing part of a DAW, complete with dynamics and EQ processing pulled into a small box with a touch screen and a sub 1ms latency from any input to any output. It's not, for me, a performance mixer. I never adjust the EQ live, or ride the non-existent faders. It's not for that. It's for plugging in final voices and then using EQ and dynamics to shape them before they go into the final mix. It has send effects, but I don't use them that much. They are there if I need to use the mixer for more traditional duties, e.g., recording vocals and guitar.

In addition, it has auto gain set which works very well in this application. If I plug something in that's too hot it adjusts the gain carefully and automatically. It records any of the signals that I want to record to an SD card. It also has presets so that I can recall studio setups to avoid setting up all of that kind of thing every time. So, it's more than a mixer really, it's an extremely low latency mixer with built in channel effects and a multi-track recorder all built into one very durable box. It also happens to be a USB interface, but I don't really use it for that.

I use a DJ mixer as a final performance mixer. That's where I have level and filter controls, as well as send effects. Moreover, I can feed the DJ Mixer output back into the CQ18T and record the DJ performance output as well. Since the latency is so low, there really aren't any cueing issues that one might experience with a DAW based approach trying to queue devices on both sides of any latency barrier. While this isn't common, it does happen. I can correct this if I want later in the DAW, but the point here is that I absolutely could tell while listening if I was using a DAW for this setup.

[machinesworking]

\The immediacy of a hardware one control per function interface is great for performance.

To a certain contingency, this is very true, but there are people who are performance oriented that don't touch a knob on a synth during a performance. If it can't be done with a keyboard and an expression pedal, I'm not interested. It's just not how I think. My hands are for articulating notes, and in general, I need both. The exceptions to my rule are a Expressive E Touche and the Morphee pad on my PolyBrute, and those really don't see that much action in comparison to my Rise 49.

In your case it sounds like you're talking about playing keys live, one of the limitations of that is where are the drums coming from? are they backing tracks? is someone else playing them? The setup I'm working on so far doesn't even incorporate any poly synths, pre sequenced parts or even sounds that are patched in. There's plenty of room for failure relying on quick setting up of rhythms etc. but of course that's part of the entertainment of it for me. So far I'm enjoying it, and once I get it broken down even further I'll start playing live with it.

I've written and still write plenty of songs the traditional way, with the insane amount of software I have and the vintage hardware poly synths, but that requires clips and planning to "perform" it live, and mostly it's pre-rendered audio on backing tracks or clips with me playing a poly synth part live I had previously programmed in, or guitar. This also largely holds true when attempting to emulate the hardware setup I'm working on, You need to assign all kinds of parameters to generic MIDI controllers to get the amount of radical change that the Landscape Noon or Metal Fetishist gets with relative ease, you strip the fun out of it.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned one control per hardware device, nothing is pre programmed or even planned, but it has to be immediate or it's not going to be anything but work. I'll likely still play out with a laptop, and clips in either DP or Live, but I'm also really interested in a more immendiate approach that involves a more evolving performance that isn't structured at all.

[zerocrossing]

\The immediacy of a hardware one control per function interface is great for performance.

To a certain contingency, this is very true, but there are people who are performance oriented that don't touch a knob on a synth during a performance. If it can't be done with a keyboard and an expression pedal, I'm not interested. It's just not how I think. My hands are for articulating notes, and in general, I need both. The exceptions to my rule are a Expressive E Touche and the Morphee pad on my PolyBrute, and those really don't see that much action in comparison to my Rise 49.

In your case it sounds like you're talking about playing keys live, one of the limitations of that is where are the drums coming from? are they backing tracks? is someone else playing them? The setup I'm working on so far doesn't even incorporate any poly synths, pre sequenced parts or even sounds that are patched in. There's plenty of room for failure relying on quick setting up of rhythms etc. but of course that's part of the entertainment of it for me. So far I'm enjoying it, and once I get it broken down even further I'll start playing live with it.

I've written and still write plenty of songs the traditional way, with the insane amount of software I have and the vintage hardware poly synths, but that requires clips and planning to "perform" it live, and mostly it's pre-rendered audio on backing tracks or clips with me playing a poly synth part live I had previously programmed in, or guitar. This also largely holds true when attempting to emulate the hardware setup I'm working on, You need to assign all kinds of parameters to generic MIDI controllers to get the amount of radical change that the Landscape Noon or Metal Fetishist gets with relative ease, you strip the fun out of it.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned one control per hardware device, nothing is pre programmed or even planned, but it has to be immediate or it's not going to be anything but work. I'll likely still play out with a laptop, and clips in either DP or Live, but I'm also really interested in a more immendiate approach that involves a more evolving performance that isn't structured at all.

I've got a whole schtick. When I'm doing something with percussion, I'll start with Maschine or my RYTM and step sequence out a simple rhythm to use as a metronome. Then I'll add bass guitar or synth, but not as MIDI, as audio into an audio looper. I used to use hardware, but swapped it out for software in the mid 00s. I've got 4 different ones I like to use, depending on what I'm trying to do. Then, I'll duplicate my simple rhythm and add to it in real time record mode, and then duplicate my audio loop and add to it as well. Rinse, repeat, sometimes stopping to lay down melody lines over parts. In this way, I'll build up a sort of song structure, but sometimes, I'll leave the loop recording, but cut the feedback to 80% and keep adding as old passes fade, gradually changing.

Anyway, almost all of it is audio, very little sequenced, and almost never do I have something pre-sequenced, though I used to have some tracks where I'd have a piece start off with a synth pad with some rhythmic elements in it that I could use to add guitar over. I haven't done it for a long time, but I used to use Live clips a lot to automate effects that would process the loops, and I'd sort of randomly draw automation lanes, not really knowing how it would affect what I put into the loop, and I'd just have to deal with it. That was fun.

[machinesworking]

I've got a whole schtick. When I'm doing something with percussion, I'll start with Maschine or my RYTM and step sequence out a simple rhythm to use as a metronome. Then I'll add bass guitar or synth, but not as MIDI, as audio into an audio looper. I used to use hardware, but swapped it out for software in the mid 00s. I've got 4 different ones I like to use, depending on what I'm trying to do. Then, I'll duplicate my simple rhythm and add to it in real time record mode, and then duplicate my audio loop and add to it as well. Rinse, repeat, sometimes stopping to lay down melody lines over parts. In this way, I'll build up a sort of song structure, but sometimes, I'll leave the loop recording, but cut the feedback to 80% and keep adding as old passes fade, gradually changing.

Anyway, almost all of it is audio, very little sequenced, and almost never do I have something pre-sequenced, though I used to have some tracks where I'd have a piece start off with a synth pad with some rhythmic elements in it that I could use to add guitar over. I haven't done it for a long time, but I used to use Live clips a lot to automate effects that would process the loops, and I'd sort of randomly draw automation lanes, not really knowing how it would affect what I put into the loop, and I'd just have to deal with it. That was fun.

Sure, but again it's pre processed "chaos", I'm saying that hardware devices without patch banks, that don't even save sounds along with something like the Beaststep pro without any preconceived sequences, that's a real advantage in hardware. You're not starting without presets or sounds that you know you'll use with software, or you're looking through browsers of folders to add them in. The limitations can be an advantage with hardware, especially stuff that is as chaotic to attempt to "save" a sound in like the Noon.

All of that sucks for all the same reasons it's great when it comes to writing music in your head already, but if you come at it with a free slate, and have to use the thing as it stands etc. then you have to improvise or die. Anyway to me it's a real advantage of certain hardware devices, and yeah at some point it doesn't matter, you would sound like you on my setup, and I would sound like me on yours, but it does force you to work outside your usual boundaries if nothing at all is preconceived.

[zerocrossing]

I've got a whole schtick. When I'm doing something with percussion, I'll start with Maschine or my RYTM and step sequence out a simple rhythm to use as a metronome. Then I'll add bass guitar or synth, but not as MIDI, as audio into an audio looper. I used to use hardware, but swapped it out for software in the mid 00s. I've got 4 different ones I like to use, depending on what I'm trying to do. Then, I'll duplicate my simple rhythm and add to it in real time record mode, and then duplicate my audio loop and add to it as well. Rinse, repeat, sometimes stopping to lay down melody lines over parts. In this way, I'll build up a sort of song structure, but sometimes, I'll leave the loop recording, but cut the feedback to 80% and keep adding as old passes fade, gradually changing.

Anyway, almost all of it is audio, very little sequenced, and almost never do I have something pre-sequenced, though I used to have some tracks where I'd have a piece start off with a synth pad with some rhythmic elements in it that I could use to add guitar over. I haven't done it for a long time, but I used to use Live clips a lot to automate effects that would process the loops, and I'd sort of randomly draw automation lanes, not really knowing how it would affect what I put into the loop, and I'd just have to deal with it. That was fun.

Sure, but again it's pre processed "chaos", I'm saying that hardware devices without patch banks, that don't even save sounds along with something like the Beaststep pro without any preconceived sequences, that's a real advantage in hardware. You're not starting without presets or sounds that you know you'll use with software, or you're looking through browsers of folders to add them in. The limitations can be an advantage with hardware, especially stuff that is as chaotic to attempt to "save" a sound in like the Noon.

All of that sucks for all the same reasons it's great when it comes to writing music in your head already, but if you come at it with a free slate, and have to use the thing as it stands etc. then you have to improvise or die. Anyway to me it's a real advantage of certain hardware devices, and yeah at some point it doesn't matter, you would sound like you on my setup, and I would sound like me on yours, but it does force you to work outside your usual boundaries if nothing at all is preconceived.

Well, I'm improvising notes and structure, full on, but not to the point where I'm starting out with an initialized sound. That's probably the big difference between our approaches. I don't like the tweak-play paradigm, and I never have. My hands are always on a guitar or a keyboard. Knobs are only for small adjustments in an emergency. I see the appeal, but it's not for me. Even when I was full hardware, I made sure that each "piece" had a set of presets that were compatible, meaning levels were all balanced and sounds complemented each other. Starting from an init patch, in front of an audience... that's a bridge too far for me, but my music is probably a lot different than yours.

[AdvancedFollower]

For years I've been attempting to bring the immediacy of DAWless performance to a DAW centered environment. I've had varying levels of success. I want the experiencing of manifesting sound and music on the fly but I also want the ability to deeply edit the performance after the fact. This gets really tricky when you are playing with outboard synths and outboard processing.
One thing I learned early in my exploration is that if something isn't ready to use when inspiration strikes, it may as well not exist. It seems straight forward to connect gear so it's ready to us on the fly but what if you are stricken with the idea to reroute something... if you have inputs/outputs connected directly to interfaces, rerouting may take you out of the flow state. So a patch bay starts to make sense. Do you have more than one synth which is played from a keyboard? Using a master keyboard can make it easier to play multiple instruments from one position, but it adds complexity, now you're thinking about MIDI patch bays and splitting out performance data from system real-time data.
Each step in this direction leads to 4 more steps appearing which iterate the path in new directions. How do you solve the problem of recording dry and processed sounds at the same time? How to reamp though an effect chain that is being automated? There is more than one solution, each one requires a different approach to the gear you are using and they all have draw backs. Balance between ease of use and flexibility is difficult to maintain, with the more stuff that comes into play.

I don't quite get this. I've got 9 synthesizers, and guitars. Each one is plugged into an audio interface, and with an ADAT interface, I can get them all in at the same time, with two inputs to spare. Almost all the MIDI is USB, which goes right into the computer. For the stragglers, I have a USB-MIDI interface. All are connected at the same time. In Bitwig, as I'm sure can be done with many DAWs, I use the Hardware device to set the audio and MIDI inputs, and then it's just like a plugin. I drag the HW device onto an empty track, arm it for monitoring, select the correct preset, and start playing. There's no routing that needs to happen. On most of my synths, there is a software editor that I embed into the Hardware device, so I can just open it up and it's like any other plugin.

The only thing I don't do is monkey with outboard effects, other than some preamp or compressor emulations that happen inside the Apollo software. I haven't really found any hardware effects that I truly don't feel can't be done as well in software, and although I have a few distortion pedals for the guitar, I don't use them when I'm thinking that I may revisit something for a production pass. I'm actually thinking about making a Tonex capture bank of them and selling them or storing them away. So no reamping necessary. It's one of the reasons I moved away from hardware guitar amps and even hardware amp modelers.

All of this is handled by a single NI Kontrol S61 mk3 keyboard, and that doesn't require any MIDI patch bay. I just select it from a list of MIDI controllers, and if I don't want to do that, it listens to all of them as a default. I usually do select it, though, as if I don't, my FCB1010 can sometimes cause issues by controlling things I don't want controlled.

This is very similar to how my hardware setup works too. However keep in mind that this is a setup that you have to consciously design from the ground up to work as seamlessly as possible within a DAW-based environment. My synths were deliberately chosen for their ability to recall patches (via Sysex or regular Bank Select/Program Change messages) and accept MIDI CC's (often using a VST-editor where available). I've limited the number of synths in order to give each one a dedicated audio input. I even kept down the number stereo synths to conserve audio inputs.

This meant avoiding hardware drum machines (too many audio inputs if you want to track each drum sound individually), analog/modular synths without patch memory and hardware FX units (because that's a whole extra layer of stuff that can't easily be recalled when you switch DAW projects), so it's not something that would work with any random collection of hardware.

[zerocrossing]

This is very similar to how my hardware setup works too. However keep in mind that this is a setup that you have to consciously design from the ground up to work as seamlessly as possible within a DAW-based environment.

Very true, but that wasn’t a singular event. It evolved into that over the course of decades. I started out, like many, with a pure hardware-tape studio. No choice, really. That morphed into hardware-workstation, and the tape became ADAT and soon after, hard disk. From there, the workstation was discarded. The sequencer and audio recording duties taken over by the DAW, but instruments and effects, still hardware. Software slowly started to work its way in over years, and that’s where I landed. A hybrid studio, but with the refinement of the hardware being chosen for both its ability to merge with the DAW system and complement the software in its sonic characteristics.

I love it all. I only take offense to people who make absurd claims about stuff.

[THE INTRANCER]

I began my actual music creation track ventures with sound trackers and a qwerty keyboard, an Amiga 1200 which I still have working under my desk, although with no midi interface now. That was 30 years ago. So I was in the box and then out the box entirely when not connecting a Yamaha PSR 330 keyboard to the Amiga to record into Octamed, a hybrid setup.

Other than an Akai LPD8 drum pad controller thing, all my keyboards have had inbuilt sounds etc.

My new hardware synth which I'm sure some of you know about, is now integrated into my main DAW, but not entirely. If Abelton or Logic were my main DAWs then that would be seamless as the synthesizer has a display for them.

With three to four external synthesizers now lined up. I can happily compose and play without any computer as well.

Using a touch screen on a keyboard with DAW like aspects means you don't feel like you have abandoned a computer based mindset, but it is more hands on and freeing. Some days I just want to close my eyes and play without my screens on.

[Uncle E]

My new hardware synth which I'm sure some of you know about, is now integrated into my main DAW, but not entirely.

Are you referring to the Fantom 06?

[zerocrossing]

I'm having trouble parsing this:

Using a touch screen on a keyboard...

and this:

Some days I just want to close my eyes and play without my screens on.

Is it that you only like small screens?

[THE INTRANCER]

My new hardware synth which I'm sure some of you know about, is now integrated into my main DAW, but not entirely.

Are you referring to the Fantom 06?

Yeah, do you have one?

[THE INTRANCER]

I'm having trouble parsing this:

Using a touch screen on a keyboard...

and this:

Some days I just want to close my eyes and play without my screens on.

Is it that you only like small screens?

It's more of a way to meditate and relax.

[Uncle E]

Yeah, do you have one?

Had a Fantom G8 and an Integra-7. Loved them. Was just curious because I didn’t know they had deep DAW integration.

[THE INTRANCER]

Yeah, do you have one?

Had a Fantom G8 and an Integra-7. Loved them. Was just curious because I didn’t know they had deep DAW integration.

Nice.

I only have Abelton Lite 12 which is the latest version, but Abelton has never been my choice of DAW to use and using a lite version doesn't appeal to me. Not a Mac user either, it's mainly Studio One Pro 7.. for my little music tracks these days. I've yet to really get into fusing the Fantom 06 (FO6) into any meaningful track as I learn to compose with the new clip workflow in S1. Interestingly, this is the method in recording tracks with the F06, but from top down instead. The FO6 takes some getting use to, it's synth editing is deep.

[zerocrossing]

I'm having trouble parsing this:

Using a touch screen on a keyboard...

and this:

Some days I just want to close my eyes and play without my screens on.

Is it that you only like small screens?

It's more of a way to meditate and relax.

I'm just giving you sh!t.