Mixing in Scope

[Neil B]

Id like to open this as a discussion so that users can share their different techniques and opinions on how they create a final mix of a track.

As a point of reference see this thread for chillfactor1-02.mp3 in the Music forum
http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=29833
Im using Scope with a Pulsar 2 card and havent upgraded to v5 yet.
I also used Cubase 4.52

Too often (too lazy), I mix in Cubase but I wanted to do some research & mix in Scope using Scope effects etc.
I set up my Asio dest & source to 18 stereo tracks & through a scope mixer, where effects were added.
A lot of the effects were simply low & hi pass filters & EQ.
Everything was then recorded back to Cubase & then burnt to CD.

I also did a version using Cubase mixers & effects only.

Scope questions I came up with:

1. Is it better to leave all original Cubase audio mixers at roughly the same level and vary them in the Scope mixers?
2. Is it better to get a premix with varied fader positions in Cubase and keep the Scope mixer faders at roughly the same level (bearing in mindgain compensation after the effects are added)?
3. Is it a matter of mix and match with the faders?
4. Using this version of Scope there is a lo pass & hi pass filter, but I couldn't find a bandpass - is there a bandpass in V5?

I tried quite a few things such as recording each asio/audio track back into Cubase individually so I had a dry version of each track in Cubase plus additional Scope tracks that needed effects
I then exported the final takes to a stereo track.
I also tried recording a final stereo track on the fly through Scope
Which techniques do you use oe prefer?

The idea for this thread isnt comments on the track itself - you can do that in the music forum if you wish but simply to see how you immortal scopers vary your techniques such that we can all learn a bit of something or at least I can

[garyb]

you know, the funny thing is, to me mixing in Scope is just like mixing PERIOD. that's the main reason that i use Scope. what happens in the sequencer, is hardly mixing. the tools are limited and the workflow is wrong. the art of the mix has NOT changed in the last 40 years. the tools have to some extent, but hardware ALWAYS works the same. no one with any real budget mixes all in the box, unless it's throwaway material like voiceovers and commercials.

what i'm saying is, the techniques that an engineer uses are always the same. i hear to many people say stupid things like "i'm a musician, not an engineer", yet they still want to run a studio. people still need to learn the basics of audio, recording and mixing in HARDWARE, to truly appreciate what software can and can't do.

there are no shortcuts, and only a fool expects the machine to figure out one's artistic endeavors for him.

the reason for the routing window is to integrate the room and it's tools(the Scope environment) with the mutitrack recorder(the sequencer) and any other outboard. if the routing window doesn't make sense, then one needs to learn how to use a mixer and all the things that connect to it in the real world. there is NO difference in the Scope environment's behavior.

...end of rant/party-pooping...

[Neil B]

Gary - I haven't managed to get the questions up yet!! Every time I submit it keeps crashing!

[Fluxpod]

Gary - I haven't managed to get the questions up yet!! Every time I submit it keeps crashing!

Dont use extra marks.Just text.The forum is acting up lately.

[Neil B]

Ta - but I have run out of time for tonight

[Neil B]

Gary - rant accepted even though you have yet to see the questions.
I agree with you but that is not the tack I hope to take when I can get the damn thing finished

Nice to hear from you ranting or not

[dante]

Neil, to answer your question regards levels, I tend to lower all the faders in the Cubase mixer to about the same half way mark. This leaves a good headroom in the STM mixer, and the fader levels in the STM2448 then represent the relative levels of the channels making up the mix.

Since I can view the entire width of an STM2448 on my first monitor (in a dual monitor setup) then its the STM which needs to show those relative levels, allowing ease of control over the mix via mouse or BCR2000. The STM2448 is always on that primary screen with no other popups intervening (which is what happens in Cubase). This is why I keep the Cubase faders all the same, so that its the STM2448 graphic thats the true representation of the relative levels making up the entire mix.

The whole mix is then sent to Scope mastering plugs, then back into Cubase for final mixdown ( per last paragraph of http://www.hitfoundry.com/issue_01/cubase.htm )

I tend to think in line with GaryB's analogy where Cubase represents a multitrack recorder - which doesnt have differing output levels - this is like the Tascam 38 (1/2 inch 8 track reel to reel recorder) I used to have where you just attached the 8 stereo outs into the mixer and it was only the mixer that could control the levels.

I dont stick entirely to that analogy, as I apply some compression / EQ in Cubase. But if I had more DSP, I would replace all that with a higher quality channel strips (SL9000, C350) on all 24 x STM2448 tracks....

[garyb]

Gary - rant accepted even though you have yet to see the questions.
I agree with you but that is not the tack I hope to take when I can get the damn thing finished

Nice to hear from you ranting or not

bless!
ok, i'll calm down and wait.

[Neil B]

finally managed to submit it so feel free to dive in.
Gary - hope you're in a better mood

[Neil B]

Dante - thanks
Will study your reply later this evening
I scan read it but need a bit of time to settle down and study - life is seriously chaotic at the moment.
It looks like the sort of answers I was hoping for.

[nova express]

I use samplitude . i don't lower the fader in samplitude but samplitude send 32 bit data to the asio driver . so I think there is no particular reason to lower the fader . There is already plenty of headroom in 32bit .
I don't know how cubase work with the gain chain ?. so i let the fader to zero
Generaly speaking it's a good idea to preserve the more headroom you can .So at first preserve your headroom while recording ( this point is very important ) . after that I don't bother too much because it's nearly impossible to clip before the master ( at least in samplitude ) . but you can if you want to !
after that if needed i put the tracks to a unity gain in stm with the gain pot ( not the fader ) .
in samplitude I send cc to the right channel for the flying fader thing ! (fader and pan pot . 128 cc so 64 fader and 64 pot) . The automation is the weak point imho . scope need a compatible standard protocol . You can manage to do what you want . but as each project is different you always has to rethink the thing . ( which is not bad after all ... to think ! )

[Neil B]

Gary - appreciate your sentiments. You werent having a rant at all. I found your comments helpful. I still feel as if I have been chastised but in a nice way

Dante - just the sort of thing I was hoping for - it really IS those little points that help. The analogy of Cubase all having the same levels and Scope being the mixer - great way to perceive it in my head.

Nova Express - thanks to you too for your input. Yes, Cubase has a gain pot as well as faders and that was what I was trying to express. So I feel as if I did something right even if the track isnt the quality mix you guys work hard to achieve.

Keep it going
Thankx

[lagoausente]

Im considering selling my Scope Pro. A lot of synths I dont use, no sampler I should use. Latency should be a reason, but my actual laptop do the job now regarding latency.
Really any advantage in "sound" mixing in Scope? I agree that Scope is a complete studio enviroment, and a lot of posibilities of routing, mixing.., but at the same time I feel a not needed duplicated things.., and I think thats the reason why many other users claim so much for XTC. Maybe for engeneer is ok, but a musician needs things simple, to be more time on music itself the on sofware settings. Is really any advantage of the dsp mixer themselves?

[siriusbliss]

I use samplitude . i don't lower the fader in samplitude but samplitude send 32 bit data to the asio driver . so I think there is no particular reason to lower the fader . There is already plenty of headroom in 32bit .
I don't know how cubase work with the gain chain ?. so i let the fader to zero
Generaly speaking it's a good idea to preserve the more headroom you can .So at first preserve your headroom while recording ( this point is very important ) . after that I don't bother too much because it's nearly impossible to clip before the master ( at least in samplitude ) . but you can if you want to !
after that if needed i put the tracks to a unity gain in stm with the gain pot ( not the fader ) .
in samplitude I send cc to the right channel for the flying fader thing ! (fader and pan pot . 128 cc so 64 fader and 64 pot) . The automation is the weak point imho . scope need a compatible standard protocol . You can manage to do what you want . but as each project is different you always has to rethink the thing . ( which is not bad after all ... to think ! )

Similar approach here (also primarily Samplitude).

I'll say again, that the advantage of Scope is that you're essentially mixing 'outside' the host, so most all phase weirdness and/or possible summing issues you'd otherwise risk working in ONLY the host - all goes away when mixing in Scope.

Yes, Scope needs some REAL automation, but in the meantime automation can be recorded in the host.

Greg

[garyb]

first of all, if a musician owns a studio to produce music, he BETTER be an engineer, or he's wasting money and time.

second, YES, Scope sounds better(but if you don't agree, then you don't need it).

it's the difference between McDonald's and a home cooked meal from fresh, organic ingredients. McDonald's is WAY easier, but less nutritious and flavorful, although after one is stupified, Mickey D's can be plenty satisfying and is more than sufficient in a pinch.

[Andy_F]

Personally i send everything from Cubase into the Scope STM24.
Some mix elements will be grouped and some solo. I'll still use some vst based fx on sends, just routed along with the source channel.

The Cubase parts are then joined by hardware synths (Roland JD990, JP-8080, Access Virus, Alpha Juno etc) and whatever Scope synths im running.

In the past i have grouped again using the STM busses but usually dont need to.

For me this is the best for workflow and give me access to both vst and scope devices. Soundquality wise Scope seems superior for modulation or pitch/time fx, reverb, resonant filters and synths.
Summing in the mixer sounds great but its really hard to say for sure if things sound better just by using the mixer.. they sure do when im using SpaceF Fat Inserts though!

[garyb]

that's what i'm talking about.
you can't seperate mixing and engineering.

[lagoausente]

that's what i'm talking about.
you can't seperate mixing and engineering.

But you can separate jamming and playing from mixing and engeneering.

[garyb]

that's what i'm talking about.
you can't seperate mixing and engineering.

But you can separate jamming and playing from mixing and engeneering.

yes, that's why if you don't want to engineer, there are people with studios who want to. guys who just want to "jam" and "play" shouldn't waste money on gear.
unless they really want to, i guess....

[Fluxpod]

Even with a 2 pc setup i feel its not taking much time to setup. I use the main pc for cubase and maxmsp.I send 5 stereo stems to the second rig with 2x scope pro and while making-working i always monitor the stereo sum from the second pc in cubase on the first pc.I mix all the cubase synths-samplers and so on down to 5 stereo outs and that gets mixed with the synths in scope.
It sounds complex but actually after setting io templates in cubase and using rme s totalmix for the routing its super simple and doesnt take more then 5 mins to setup.And not using scope asio in the second pc makes the roundtrip a moot point.When everything is done i just record the stereo sum output of scope in cubase and done.
I do this because i am using a few plugs native that arent replaceable in mixing drums and efx.There is nothing in scope like them so i just mix and match.And most dsp power goes already to synths so 5 stereo stems can get all plugs they need in scope + the Stereo sum gets the spectral balance-optimaster or vinco.That setup works for my home needs.