Multitrack recording with mixer and Ableton

[AlienableTone]

I'm still a little new to this, so not really sure if what I have in mind is actually feasible. Would love to get people's thoughts on this.

I currently have a very standard MIDI setup: Focusrite 2i2, Ableton Live 9, Push 2 and and Akai Advance 49. I'm doing all my production using software, VSTs, etc... and I don't like it. Kills my creative process, I find I'm spending more time tweaking various settings instead of doing music.

So, I'm thinking about ditching VSTs and going all hardware - at least as much as possible. I'm getting a few synths, FX boxes, etc... and now I'm stuck on the final and probably most important piece of the setup: the mixer.

Or not? Do I need a mixer? I don't know, you tell me... Here's what I'd like to do. On the short term, I will probably be 100% focused on studio production, no live gigs, etc. But, having said that, I feel like my workflow would be similar to one doing live performances: I want to be able to jam, play around with my gear, and record on the fly to then edit and do final tweaks in Ableton. But because I want to use my laptop as little as possible, I'd like to also be able to do all the EQing, FX, mixing, etc. on hardware and record all individual channels with processed sound (post EQ, FX, faders, etc) from a mixer to Ableton. And that's my question: is that even possible??

I've read reviews on dozens of mixers, multitrack recorders, etc. And the more I read, the more confused I am... I can't get my head around what I should buy... A new interface with more I/Os? A MTR? A mixer with USB connections?

I really like what the Roland MX-1 can do, but we can't record individual channels post FX so it's useless to me. I've looked at the Presonus Studiolive 16.0.2, but I can't find a firm 100% confirmation that it'll do what I want.

Is anyone in a similar situation or using a similar setup? I don't want to ditch Ableton, I just want to use for final edits and mastering.

Thanks!
AT

[Stromkraft]

I really like what the Roland MX-1 can do, but we can't record individual channels post FX so it's useless to me. I've looked at the Presonus Studiolive 16.0.2, but I can't find a firm 100% confirmation that it'll do what I want.

Well, the reason you can't record that is because effects are sent to the master. If you must be able to record individual effects chains you'd need a different effect per track. If you at all contemplate hardware effects in a hardware mixer, this is a central aspect of mixing that you need to understand fully. In a software mixer, like Live's, you can just add another device as these are only limited by processor power. In hardware that's a new hardware box per track where you want it, unless you put one device of that sort on an Aux and send multiple tracks to it. That might be obvious but the implications may not always be, which why I mention this.

My main point is that thinking that effects should print per track, means either recording one track at a time or accepting that you need to record the effects channel separately. I don't remember now if you can do that with the MX-1 specifically in one of the modes, but this is a recurring problem to resolve.

So, I'm thinking about ditching VSTs and going all hardware - at least as much as possible. I'm getting a few synths, FX boxes, etc... and now I'm stuck on the final and probably most important piece of the setup: the mixer.

Or not? Do I need a mixer? I don't know, you tell me... Here's what I'd like to do. On the short term, I will probably be 100% focused on studio production, no live gigs, etc.

Some avenues of research that I see are

• a hardware mixer with a built-in audio interface with channels matching up to outputs without any automation, like for example some Mackies. Probably somewhat affordable.
• a hardware mixer with a built-in audio interface with channels matching up to outputs with automation as well motorization that connects to Live so that automation can be recorded and carried out in the mixer itself. Think expensive!
• An audio interface with enough in channels to cater for how all your planned hardware outputs should be recorded, possibly later paired with one or multiple small mixers that can prepare submixes of multiple instrument groups to be sent to one pair of channels. This naturally belongs to:
• A mixer controller that controls the internal mixer in Live. You probably want one with many knobs and as many "tracks" as you can afford so you could control most tracks and effects directly in Live from it, but that could be expensive so likely you want to pair this with something like:
• The original Push or the Push 2 or some other kind of MIDI controller that is tied well to Live and allows for controlling aspects the mixer controller does not do favorably.

So the main focus points I see here are how much hardware audio path you actually need as well as how much hands-on control over everything you need. This is actually a very deep subject. My personal preference is to use Live as the studio and control it and all audio effects from a controller. One of my main partners have been in active in moving us from a Mackie Onyx to the MX-1 and adding hardware boxes that wastefully is added directly to the path before the mixer or tied into the mixer or a pre-mixer. I don't think audio recording possibilities have even been contemplated, so the gear is primarily thought of as being used in live performance. I guess he trusts me setting up recording it all.

[Richie Witch]

I have your setup and your workflow.

I have a half dozen hardware synths, some compressors, EQ, analog FX, hardware reverb, etc. I can run my entire system with the computer off and jam, play around with my gear, and if I want to make a quick recording, record to tape. Even my MIDI controllers are plugged into a MIDI hub, so no computer support is required.

My mixer can output up to 20 tracks into Live, so when I'm in the mood to record, I can stream several instruments at once, have Live send MIDI tracks to the instruments and record the audio coming back, play in my own parts, or record sounds, hand percussion, and acoustic instruments with mics.

So yes, such things exist--you can do exactly what you're describing. There are a handful of mixers that will work this way. Most will not, so shop carefully. There have been a couple of threads lately that have discussed brands and models.

[Richie Witch]

I really like what the Roland MX-1 can do, but we can't record individual channels post FX so it's useless to me. I've looked at the Presonus Studiolive 16.0.2, but I can't find a firm 100% confirmation that it'll do what I want.

Well, the reason you can't record that is because effects are sent to the master. If you must be able to records individual effects chains you'd need a different effect per track. If you at all contemplate hardware effects in a hardware mixer, this is a central aspect of mixing that you need to understand fully. In a software mixer, like Live's, you can just add another device as these are only limited by processor power. In hardware that's a new hardware box per track where you want it, unless you put one device of that sort on an Aux and send multiple tracks to it. That might be obvious but the implications may not always be, which why I mention this.

My main point is that thinking that effects should print per track, means either recording one track at a time or accepting that you need to record the effects channel separately. I don't remember now if you can do that with the MX-1 specifically in one of the modes, but this is a recurring problem to resolve.

Stromkraft is right on the mark with this. This is how it works in my setup:

On my mixer, there are inserts on the first eight tracks, so I can record FX directly with the track. I have an eight-channel compressor/noise gate connected to the inserts.

All my hardware synths are routed to a submixer with two stereo bus outputs. These outputs are connected to a patchbay before continuing on to the main mixer, so I can insert FX along these signal paths as well.

For sends/returns (reverb, filtering, distortion), my mixer allows me to reroute the return track, separate from the master outs, to channel 13/14, and record that directly into live. I can also reroute the master to channels 15/16 and record the master with FX included.

So realistically, I can multi-track any two synths, a drum machine, my groove box, and a handful of microphones all at the same time. That works for me.

[AlienableTone]

Thank you so much guys! I wasn't expecting so many details, really appreciate it!

To be honest, I have a lot to learn before all of this makes sense (I just - I think - finally understood what inserts are and how they work... now, onto Aux sends & returns )

But I think it makes some sense. At least I know I can sort of do what I want. Maybe I just need to accept the fact that going computer-less is a long and expensive process! For now my main objective is to make sure I have the right I/Os to get my sound to Live, with my pretty little knobs and faders - one happy family!

I was actually looking at the Mackie Onyx series, I'll probably settle for the 1220i as it's more than enough channels for now. I like that you can record individual channels and decide if the channels are sent pre or post EQ/insert, I guess pre-fader will work for now. On my list was also a Behringer Xenyx x1204 USB, but I know quality is usually on the low and I couldn't see additional inserts besides the usual Aux sends/returns. The Mackie is more expensive, but also has more channel strips so I'm more and more convinced now.

@Richie Witch - one last question if I may. Just curious, do you find yourself doing most of your mixing & EQing on hardware or do you still have to use Live in some cases? Looks like you have more of a live performance setup, very similar to what I'd like to achieve, but curious as to how you're dealing with that when (or if) you're working on producing tracks vs. jamming...

[Richie Witch]

@Richie Witch - one last question if I may. Just curious, do you find yourself doing most of your mixing & EQing on hardware or do you still have to use Live in some cases? Looks like you have more of a live performance setup, very similar to what I'd like to achieve, but curious as to how you're dealing with that when (or if) you're working on producing tracks vs. jamming...

Despite appearances, my setup is strictly production, not performance. I essentially do all the recording in Live, with the outboard effects I have, then all the mixdown, EQ, additional bus FX, etc happens in Live. My studio is more of a soundlab. I create weird sounds and sequences, jam at the keyboard looking for inspirational riffs and melodies, and record them into Live.

From there, I might use some of the recordings as they are, chop out the best pieces, or I might slice/chap/mangle them into something else, use the recorded MIDI track to layer soft synths on top of hardware instruments, add glitch effects or specialty compression or weird delay via plugins. I think of my hardware as a way to generate raw material, build my own sample sets and loops, and then move into Live as the workshop to assemble a song.

That being said, sometimes I like to have the drum machine banging out a sequence while I'm jamming on my bass mono synth because it helps inspire me musically. I might have several machines running off of sequencers (hardware or from Live) just to get me further in the mood. I will usually record both the audio and the MIDI from every machine that's running, just in case something amazing happens, so a lot of those mixer inputs are being used during any given session.

The tape deck was added because of the Eurorack. You can't save patches in Eurorack. What happens there is fleeting, so having a tape deck ready at the push of a button to capture a minute or two of sonic bliss/chaos has paid dividends later when I can't recreate that sound.

[Stromkraft]

My studio is more of a soundlab. I create weird sounds and sequences, jam at the keyboard looking for inspirational riffs and melodies, and record them into Live.

Sounds sweet. I recognize the approach as that's close to my main partner's. Personally, I'm pretty much using software as if it was hardware, which makes it easier for me to bring in hardware at any point. At the moment I don't see myself mixing outside of the box though, except for when audio goes into Live. At least not when in the studio.

[smutek]

I'll probably settle for the 1220i as it's more than enough channels for now. I like that you can record individual channels and decide if the channels are sent pre or post EQ/insert, I guess pre-fader will work for now.

The Mackie is just 1 USB channel right? Have you checked out the Soundcraft Signature 12 MTK? It's $449 but it's also a 14 in 12 out USB interface.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Sig12MT

There's also the PreSonus StudioLive AR12, $499, which claims that it "Sends all main tracks to Studio One Artist 3 DAW software (included) ". I'm guessing that means it functions similarly to the Soundcraft.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SLAR12

I've been searching for the right setup for a while now as well. I guess it was about 6 months ago I moved my setup to all hardware for reasosn similar to those mentioned in the OP.

I'd always been overwhelmed by the amount of choices present in software, then I got my Volca's and the immediacy and lack of presets was really inspiring for me. I decided to move everything out of the box, and it was great for a while - then I got a Push, which also had a huge impact on me. Now I'm struggling with how to reintegrate my hardware with my software, to what extent I should do so, or if I should do so at all.

[AlienableTone]

Yeah I did look at those two, but I'm going for the Mackie as it has more inserts available. And yes, the Onyx series can send all channels to any DAW via FireWire. I got a pretty sweet deal for a used one, picking it up tomorrow!!!

I had Push 2 for a while and sold it to fund my move to hardware. Look at what Richie Witch said, that's pretty much exactly what I'm going with. The only use I'll have for my computer will be mixing and mastering. Maybe a little processing here and there while I slowly build a nice little collection of pedals and effects/processing modules. Arranging too I guess, I'm still thinking about how that part of my workflow is going to look like. Push was a little too "deep" for me, too many submenus, etc. I'm thinking a simple APC40 MK2 may be exactly what I want to do quick arrangements and control my effect racks in Live, once I'm done wih the sound creation and recording.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I can't really part ways with my computer. To your point, it's the software aspect that I don't like. That and those f***ing mouse and keyboard. I learned playing music by ear and only have very basic notions of music theory, etc. So looking at a screen with dozens of settings is just not inspiring to me right now because I just don't understand it yet. What I'm hoping for in the mid to long term is that by using hardware, it'll help me learn more quickly.