RE: Eliminate Big Mixer

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 6:13 pm

I've tried the technique posted several times in the Tips and Tricks forum but can't get it to work within Cubase. I can never have more than one input pair active at a time, despite making 16 ASIO destinations in Pulsar and then activating 16 inputs in Cubase. Any clues as to what I'm doing wrong. I don't know where to look for the original post on "Pulsar List Serve" ?
Thanks

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:37 pm

options>multirecord. check active, merge or split depending on what you are doing with MIDI . . . RTFM

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:44 pm

reread that tip/trick. i have clarified some points for ya (and otherz) . . .

l8a

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Fri Jun 08, 2001 12:35 pm

worked it out 10 mins after my post... sorry to waste your time...All I had to do was hold down a modifier key to select the other ASIO ins from each channel...simple. (Mac here..one mouse button)...

FYI, Algorythm, I have RTFM several times and you will probably notice not too many tech questions from me here..
Thanks again

_________________

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: blgrace on 2001-06-08 13:38 ]</font>

PabloFasan · Post by **PabloFasan** » Sun Jun 10, 2001 6:15 pm

Hi:

Are well known the differences I have with CreamWare, but I don't understand to you Guys:

The Big Mixer has a better design than the mixers of all sequencers or audio recorders I know.

I has a zero learning curve for people that know how to use a studio professional "in line" mixer.

It has better EQs and more flexible routing and also it has better plugins (SonicTimeworks).

It could have as a fine detail sourround pan, more input channels or more accurate vumeters.

But what benefit do you found in this non standard mixers that all the sequencers have??.

The real disadvantage I found is the lack of a MIDI multichannel implementation and an uncomplete implementation of the MIDI protocol.

But I don't know any mixer in all the sequencers that we all use that have this better realized.

In any case I think that's more logic to replace the sequencers mixers instead of to do it with the Big Mixer.

Mo · Post by Mo » Mon Jun 11, 2001 5:35 am

right, especially because i didn´t buy pulsar to do the mixing native... with latency and all the bad native things...

all i do native is reverb and sequencing.

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Mon Jun 11, 2001 1:13 pm

mo and pablo - it depends on what you do and how you prefer to work - there is no strict objective logic to the decision. mixer choice is referential to how you work.

i use pulsar almost exclusively for synthesis and sampling. i would rather have another synth or more voices than load up the dsp hungry BM. also, i do not have any third party pulsar FX, such as the sonictimeworks stuff, but do have nice VST FX.

also, i think music style is important - if i were recording 'rock bands', or other 'real musicians' and vocalists, I would use the dsp mixers. i do mostly sequencing, and prefer to keep my synths in for as long as possible.

reread the post for more reasons. and as i said, there are benefits and limitations to both approaches. . .

if you like to use the BM, that is yer game, (but i do not touch the thing). i use some of the more trimmed mixers when i do it dsp.

Air_PoLLo · Post by **Air_PoLLo** » Mon Jun 11, 2001 2:25 pm

get two monitors.

my setup with 12 DSP's doesn't choke with the big mixer. Get a SRB, it's really worth it!

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Mon Jun 11, 2001 5:32 pm

i have two monitors, and my 32 channel VST mixer fits perfectly. BTW, i can view ALL of the channels of my mixer at the same time!

A large blue mixer i know of lacks that capability. I have 7 sharcs, and yes, a SRB would be nice (although the XTC is cheaper, yet is the same thing, which i still do not understand). I dream about a scope SRB, and might get one when the cost drops a notch (which will inevitably happen). if only they were dropping pulsars like they are Oasys right now! I am still not sure that I would use the BM though, I like the streamlinedness of having only one mixer. Does anyone know how to avoid having to mix in their sequencer AND in the BM? That would be a prerequisite for me to even consider switching. . .

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Tue Jun 12, 2001 3:10 pm

An example of a sad set-up ...one of many possibilities

I also have 2 monitors.. but my second monitor is crap and only supports 640x480 and the Pulsar environment laughs at it if I try to drag anything to it.... not even sure if dual monitor feature is supported in the Mac version of the software (?)...and obviously can't test this.... so working with one mixer is my dream... I also don't own SonicTimeworks effects (dream). I use freeware VST effects and the Xmas special effects that came with Pulsar.
I only use my setup to sequence and don't do any live band recording. I have a LOVERLY kiddies toy Yamaha porta studio to input my bass riffs with... it comes complete with a smashing range of PCM rythm classics.... you know the Bossanova?
Anyway....you see my point, not everyone has a fully featured studio in their home or the money to just go out and buy everything they want.....but I still manage to churn out some thumping tunes.
Peace, love and and send your cash donations to....

Air_PoLLo · Post by **Air_PoLLo** » Wed Jun 13, 2001 4:18 pm

Yea, the mac software for pulsar supports 2 monitors...