Hardware-Software Hybrid Users Poll

[zerocrossing]

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.

[seafire]

For the stragglers, I have a USB-MIDI interface.

Which is?

[justin3am]

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.

If what you are doing works for you, that's great! Perhaps, I should put "for me" or "IMO" in every sentence so as not to give people the impression that I'm speaking for them?

I mean, it sounds like you have things set up the way you want to use them. That was kinda the thesis of my post. People who are building a hybrid setup, coming from working ITB, may not know what they need or even what goal to head for. I'm just sharing my experiences and where they lead me. Perhaps my experiences aren't that helpful. I went through a lot of trial and error and ultimately I think going through that process, making mistakes and reevaluating, was valuable. I wouldn't want to deny anyone a similar experience, even if it can be very frustrating.

It's not for me to extol the benefits of "my" methods. It's more my way of encouraging people to find their own way and having enthusiasm for the process. I'm sure the specifics of my methods are boring and nonsense to a lot of people.

[zerocrossing]

For the stragglers, I have a USB-MIDI interface.

Which is?

Necktar MIDIFLEX 4. I used to have a MOTU Micro Express, but it just stopped working correctly at some point. Not sure if it is a hardware issue or driver thing, so I gave up on it.

[zerocrossing]

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.

If what you are doing works for you, that's great! Perhaps, I should put "for me" or "IMO" in every sentence so as not to give people the impression that I'm speaking for them?

I mean, it sounds like you have things set up the way you want to use them. That was kinda the thesis of my post. People who are building a hybrid setup, coming from working ITB, may not know what they need or even what goal to head for. I'm just sharing my experiences and where they lead me. Perhaps my experiences aren't that helpful. I went through a lot of trial and error and ultimately I think going through that process, making mistakes and reevaluating, was valuable. I wouldn't want to deny anyone a similar experience, even if it can be very frustrating.

It's not for me to extol the benefits of "my" methods. It's more my way of encouraging people to find their own way and having enthusiasm for the process. I'm sure the specifics of my methods are boring and nonsense to a lot of people.

I wrote it that way, because it seemed like your post was alluding that the things that I'm doing couldn't be done. Like...

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.

If you're in a DAW, I'm not sure why you'd think those things would be necessary, or even useful. Using a single master keyboard removes complexity, as all MIDI is coming from a single point and the DAW is then directing it to what plugins or hardware it needs to go to.

Anyway, it just seemed like an odd post that suggested that doing a performance using a DAW would somehow be more complicated, and as someone who'd done it both ways, the DAW is significantly less complex and more flexible. It does take a bit of initial setup, but once that's done, routing anything is as simple as a click on a preset from a list.

Maybe it's the DAW you use. I briefly started migrating to Cubase, because I thought it would be better for the type of things my main client was after, and it did seem sort of awkward for a lot of things. I was gearing up for a full migration during the DLC phase of game development, but the publisher didn't renew our contract. That's a whole different story, though.

[justin3am]

I can really only speak for myself and that is always how I approach these conversations.
you said:

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 a situation in which the DAW's routing functions aren't always enough for me. As one might imagine, I use a lot of MIDI devices and I frequently need input from more than one device to be passed to an instrument/effect but perhaps not from all input devices. I also need to filter specific messages (I don't want program change messages transmitted between my Elektron boxes to make it through to other devices, but I do want note messages and CCs). Distributing MIDI clock is a whole can of worms of it's own, depending on the setup. I don't want MIDI clock being transmitted through ports which also carry channel data (notes, CCs, PCs), lest messages start piling up and affecting timing.

Some of this is because I'm using outboard MIDI sequencers and processors.

For me, it's really important to be able route MIDI without a DAW. This allows me to process MIDI with something like my Blockas MIDI Hub, play instruments when the computer isn't running or audition sounds, without messing with the MIDI setup in the DAW. It's a difficult balance to keep this kind of setup flexible enough but also easy enough to switch things around, that a guest in my studio can do it.

Some of the stuff I do is bonkers and way overkill but perhaps understanding why I do things the way I do will help someone else make a choice, even it's not the choice I made.

Who needs all this stuff? Probably no one... but I get a lot of questions about the way I work (so much so I started doing a live stream, ) and I'm always happy to talk shop.

Oh and thanks for choosing the MIDIFlex 4!

[machinesworking]

I was discussing this earlier, in one of these threads. That's my primary motivation for a "DAWless" setup. It's not that I like work DAWless all the time, it's that the DAW does change how improvisational composition works. For me though, there is a tradeoff between the value of such a setup, the flexibility of such a setup, and the size. I like the slightly smaller size, of modern devices, especially the 3U synths.

Yeah everything in my setup as of now fits on a table style stand, the only large things are the Wretch and the Push 3, which I may trade off for an Art octo-8 Pre, since I'm basically using it as a mixer and I'm using it anyway via ADAT, but not sure if I will. I get enough noise going between the four devices and guitar that I'm not really thinking I need the power of the Push. Limitations can be strengths when improvising.

[zerocrossing]

I can really only speak for myself and that is always how I approach these conversations.
you said:

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 a situation in which the DAW's routing functions aren't always enough for me. As one might imagine, I use a lot of MIDI devices and I frequently need input from more than one device to be passed to an instrument/effect but perhaps not from all input devices. I also need to filter specific messages (I don't want program change messages transmitted between my Elektron boxes to make it through to other devices, but I do want note messages and CCs). Distributing MIDI clock is a whole can of worms of it's own, depending on the setup. I don't want MIDI clock being transmitted through ports which also carry channel data (notes, CCs, PCs), lest messages start piling up and affecting timing.

Some of this is because I'm using outboard MIDI sequencers and processors.

For me, it's really important to be able route MIDI without a DAW. This allows me to process MIDI with something like my Blockas MIDI Hub, play instruments when the computer isn't running or audition sounds, without messing with the MIDI setup in the DAW. It's a difficult balance to keep this kind of setup flexible enough but also easy enough to switch things around, that a guest in my studio can do it.

Some of the stuff I do is bonkers and way overkill but perhaps understanding why I do things the way I do will help someone else make a choice, even it's not the choice I made.

Who needs all this stuff? Probably no one... but I get a lot of questions about the way I work (so much so I started doing a live stream, ) and I'm always happy to talk shop.

OIC, though I wonder if something like this would work for you.

https://x42-plugins.com/x42/x42-midifilter

Oh and thanks for choosing the MIDIFlex 4!

No problem. Do you work for Nectar?

[justin3am]

OIC, though I wonder if something like this would work for you.

https://x42-plugins.com/x42/x42-midifilter

I still use the Insert-Piz-Here MIDI effects on a Windows system. Definitely super useful tools in a host that can use VST2 MIDI effects.
Between Bitwig's MIDI processors, the Blockas MIDI Hub and the filters in the iConnectivity interfaces, I'm covered for a lot of different MIDI effects and filters. I've created routing presets for my MIDI interfaces, a few of which route all the keyboards and input devices past the computer, such that I can just choose what I'm controlling based on the channel the device transmits. The presets can be loaded from the front panel of the interface (just like my old MOTU MTP), so it's easy to reconfigure the whole studio with a few button presses.

In the DAW I also have templates and presets that I've made for specific tasks. Like you I have saved External Device presets for each of my outboard synths and for all of my outboard effects, so using one is just like adding a plug-in. In Bitwig, the Hardware Instrument device can also be a container for MIDI effects, one of which will transmit a program change message so that I can save hardware patches as presets in Bitwig. Think you can do the same with a Container in Live right? Super handy! Add a few CC generating devices and you can do some basic sound design with hardware synths, in the DAW.

It's really nice to be able to do that but it's also nice to be able to bypass the computer all together when it's occupied for one reason or another, or switch to a different computer which has access to all the same MIDI and audio I/O. Ugh... I'll keep going like this forever if someone doesn't stop me.

Oh and thanks for choosing the MIDIFlex 4!

No problem. Do you work for Nectar?

Yes, Nektar. A few of us splintered off from M-Audio back in 2010.

[justin3am]

Yeah everything in my setup as of now fits on a table style stand, the only large things are the Wretch and the Push 3, which I may trade off for an Art octo-8 Pre, since I'm basically using it as a mixer and I'm using it anyway via ADAT, but not sure if I will. I get enough noise going between the four devices and guitar that I'm not really thinking I need the power of the Push. Limitations can be strengths when improvising.

That sounds like an incredible setup! I haven't seen a Wretch Machine in a long time. Certainly a noisy SOB!

I've always been hesitant about imposing limitations... I find the concept more palatable when framed as 'finding focus'. Purely semantics though. Ultimately I think the idea is finding a sweet spot for exploration, where you don't risk losing the flow. Familiarity probably plays a big part in that, right? The ability to move on intuition and muscle memory. That's certainly easier with a smaller palette.

[seafire]

For the stragglers, I have a USB-MIDI interface.

Which is?

Necktar MIDIFLEX 4.

Interesting. I was looking at the CME interface recently, similar price

[zerocrossing]

For the stragglers, I have a USB-MIDI interface.

Which is?

Necktar MIDIFLEX 4.

Interesting. I was looking at the CME interface recently, similar price

My needs are pretty modest, so I didn't really need much. Most everything I have has a USB interface, but the Studio Electronics ATC-X and Ambika are ol'school.

[ghettosynth]

Some of the stuff I do is bonkers and way overkill but perhaps understanding why I do things the way I do will help someone else make a choice, even it's not the choice I made.

Who needs all this stuff? Probably no one... but I get a lot of questions about the way I work (so much so I started doing a live stream, ) and I'm always happy to talk shop.

Right? I feel you on this. I don't long for the old days with too many cables, but my current setup is still too complex to treat it like zerocrossing does. I have more than nine eurorack modules with midi, let alone standalone synths. The thing is, for me, I don't want it all to be one complex thing that I control from a command center, it's a morphing spread of different instruments that shift and evolve based on my current project. I have tried way too many different midi controller setups for a "master" approach, it only takes one annoying DAW based limitation to make it simply not work for some part of any given preferred workflow. Every device that you add to manage your routing just adds more complexity to the management of routing and cabling.

Nobody uses my stuff, so I don't have that limitation, and it isn't work, so I don't have that limitation either.

My current project involves 303s and friends. So, for some tracks, the B.303 will come out, for other tracks I'll bust out the FR-777. I don't want them permanently wired up so I can use them on demand, it would just complicate the workflow because it would have to be fixed on a rack or table somewhere. I will take the FR off of it's shelf, plug it in, and it becomes the center of a small corner of my modular for one track. For another track, I'll swap it out with the 303. For that time, that corner with the 303ish synth and some modules is an instrument. It becomes the source of a few tracks on the multitrack. Maybe my SH101 with it's gated porta will make it onto a track, playing it live is a very different experience from the 303 or the FR. Maybe the B.Crave will stand in for a 303 with some help from the modular. I don't even want to think about the necessary patch bays and/or interfaces that I would need to route all of this into my computer full time. That's not how I work with hardware. I don't even have it all plugged into my mixer full time. it's all routed based on the project that I'm working on. The jacks are on the front of the mixer, that was one of the reasons that I chose the mixer that I use.

When I'm done with a project. I unplug everything on the modular wall and clear out the table in front leaving only the keystep pro. It's a canvas and palette in hardware in a manageable space so that I can reach everything that I'm playing.

Also, don't get me started on midi clock and the associated transport control over midi issues. A part of what I don't like doing is debugging that kind of stuff just to defend a maximally flexible, but always plugged in environment.

[foosnark]

This is making me realize how my particular setup and musical interests conspires to make things easy.

I have a relatively modest amount of hardware. Anything that's not guitarish can just stay on stands/racks, plugged in. 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.)

I don't have any MIDI outputs from my DAW, just Linnstrument, MIDI Expression Quattro (with 3 pedals) and 16n Faderbank going in. Hardware gets sequenced by hardware sequencers, if at all. Sometimes I send CV from Bitwig, but rarely pitch CV. (*)

I don't sweat synchronization between sequencers all that much. Sometimes I clock hardware with CV from a software source or vice versa. Sometimes I just let stuff run free and independent and embrace the chaos. Other times, I'll use hardware sound sources but virtual envelopes and VCAs in software.

I don't use mics, except rarely (maybe sampling something with a portable recorder or even a phone).



(*) I do actually have a Univer Inter for MPE to CV conversion, but I don't find myself using it anymore and it's getting unracked. I have a preorder in on Mimetic Digitwolis, which can use MIDI notes to restrict its scale and CC to reprogram sequence steps, and can quantize pitch CVs coming from Bitwig, so I might play with that some.

[justin3am]

The thing is, for me, I don't want it all to be one complex thing that I control from a command center, it's a morphing spread of different instruments that shift and evolve based on my current project. I have tried way too many different midi controller setups for a "master" approach, it only takes one annoying DAW based limitation to make it simply not work for some part of any given preferred workflow. Every device that you add to manage your routing just adds more complexity to the management of routing and cabling.

I totally agree! Years ago I found myself trying to build the ideal "master control" but it doesn't exist. I can get close for one specific studio task like mixing, but that setup breaks apart when it comes to tracking with mics (I realized that that point, why split consoles were invented!). So in my control room there is a main "cockpit" but a lot of the stuff which can be done from that station can be done from the other stations. Like I keep a controller that can handle transport functions and basic monitoring control, from where the keyboard stands are and another in the live room. I can also turn any keyboard around the studio into the master keyboard.

Nobody uses my stuff, so I don't have that limitation, and it isn't work, so I don't have that limitation either.

I worked at a studio where the control rooms were shared among a few engineers and there were really strict rules about how certain things were done. Most of the rules didn't make any sense to me until I had to have other people working in my Studio. Then again, I tend to break my own rules on a constant basis. (lol)

My current project involves 303s and friends. So, for some tracks, the B.303 will come out, for other tracks I'll bust out the FR-777. I don't want them permanently wired up so I can use them on demand, it would just complicate the workflow because it would have to be fixed on a rack or table somewhere. I will take the FR off of it's shelf, plug it in, and it becomes the center of a small corner of my modular for one track. For another track, I'll swap it out with the 303. For that time, that corner with the 303ish synth and some modules is an instrument. It becomes the source of a few tracks on the multitrack. Maybe my SH101 with it's gated porta will make it onto a track, playing it live is a very different experience from the 303 or the FR. Maybe the B.Crave will stand in for a 303 with some help from the modular. I don't even want to think about the necessary patch bays and/or interfaces that I would need to route all of this into my computer full time. That's not how I work with hardware. I don't even have it all plugged into my mixer full time. it's all routed based on the project that I'm working on. The jacks are on the front of the mixer, that was one of the reasons that I chose the mixer that I use.

That's still how I approach live performance and those improvised videos I post occasionaly. If I decide to use something for a live set, which is also a staple in the studio, I might get a second one, so that one can stay patched and the other can be used more freely. I have two Octatracks for that reason (I'm not suggesting anyone should do this). But even then I try to keep my live setup relatively compact, so I sample a lot of synths parts into the Octatrack. That way I can keep the gear which leaves the studio down to a single pedal board or two.

When I'm done with a project. I unplug everything on the modular wall and clear out the table in front leaving only the keystep pro. It's a canvas and palette in hardware in a manageable space so that I can reach everything that I'm playing.

I can totally relate. The act of unpatching is so refreshing!

Also, don't get me started on midi clock and the associated transport control over midi issues. A part of what I don't like doing is debugging that kind of stuff just to defend a maximally flexible, but always plugged in environment.

I did all this and I don't regret it but I don't think I'd do it the same way again. It's so rare that I need the whole freaking studio to follow the same clock and I always end up nudging things around after recording. Still when I was working with the hard disk recorders, solid reliable clock sync was critical to getting that project off the ground at all.