using mixing desks with laptops?

Rinko · Post by **Rinko** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:33 pm

hullo

i was wondering if anyone knew why a number of laptop artists use hardware mixing desks as part of their setup when performing. for example florian hecker, russell haswell, fennesz, merzbow etc. the first two certainly only seem to use a single laptop so it struck me as unusual that they would go for a seperate piece of hardware rather than use software to control panning, eq, levels etc.

i have read autechre say that they found hardware more suitable for certain tasks such as eqing but could find no more about the subject.

i understand that artists may well have different reasons for doin similar things but it seemed to be a theme is all and it got me intrigued...

has anyone more enlightened than me got any thoughts???

beats me · Post by **beats me** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:43 pm

Simple answer: With a mouse you can only control one parameter at a time and you kind of look like a ditz staring at the monitor the whole time.

D K · Post by **D K** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:53 pm

summing has a lot to do with it as well.
personally i've had a much easier time achieving dynamic results, routing and summing signals through an analog desk than a digital mix buss... although the 64 bit buss in l7 makes a difference. if you mix dub style, it's tough getting enough control as you need a full work surface without having to scroll or switch parameters...i've used pairs of bcr's, i think pitch black uses a pair of doepfer drehbanks for example,
but there's alot of work to get it all happening...a nice mixer will still have more control at a glance.

Rinko · Post by **Rinko** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:57 pm

d k - the dynamics thing i could understand, although i thought perhaps for the more extreme electronics stuff that routing your signals through another piece of kit might detract from the quality of signal/entire experience (in theory perhaps more than 'reality' but you get my drift)

beats me- i understand the control thing too but it just seemed funny that no-one seems to use midi control interfaces- i know some people prefer the instant and physical response you get with hardware but thought perhaps if that was such an issue, they wouldn't be a laptop kinda person anyway...

cheers for your thoughts!

any more?

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:06 pm

Well, try doing 32nd-note cuts on a fader using midi... Latency will murder you.

Now try it on something like an xone or similarly beatiful mixer...

then you'll know.

beats me · Post by **beats me** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:11 pm

Oops, I think I missed the point of your original post. So yeah, possibly some people use hardware mixers because it's less mapping and worrying about controllers working properly. One less thing to stress about.

I'm not sure about sound quality because as far as live goes, the louder the sound the less those tiny details matter. There's a lot of chatter about minimalizing the sound for your live set because most venue sound systems won't pickup those details and in some cases can make your set sound like crap...for example stereo output going to mono and phasing.

Rinko · Post by **Rinko** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:37 pm

hmm. the minimising sound thing sounds interesting- the artists i mentioned seem so into sound design i wasn't sure how they'd approach live performance in that respect...would it be seen as compromising the original material or optimising for performance...

machinate - i think you've misunderstood me. i wasn't thinking dj mixers. more this sort of thing:

http://www.pixelache.ac/2005/files/arti ... er4big.jpg

http://podcollective.com/users/casey/merzbow03.jpg

but you are right - if i was to cut again i don't think i'd mess with midi...was a big fan of the eclectic breaks pro x-fade

laird · Post by **laird** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:49 pm

I bet most people who bring a mixer with them Live use it to mix stuff.

Like, say, Live + a drum machine, or effects, or a microphone...

Tim Hecker is feeding in more than just Live into that mixer.

Merzbow is most likely feeding the mixer back into itself, but he's also got at least two laptops in that picture.

I'd be suprised to find a musician who uses a mixer to EQ their material live. That's wgenerally done by the house mixer.

D K · Post by **D K** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:31 pm

Rinko wrote:d k - the dynamics thing i could understand, although i thought perhaps for the more extreme electronics stuff that routing your signals through another piece of kit might detract from the quality of signal/entire experience (in theory perhaps more than 'reality' but you get my drift)

well, i feel it adds more. i like analog gain stage, when handled properly..
just a preference. once again, when summing and routing, it can give you more dynamic capability, in more of a real world sense...not mixing up to zero and limiting to prevent clipping and squashing the sound, but mixing around zero with peaks above....
of course, you can always mix to a lower level on a digital buss, say -6,
but you may run into scenarios where you might have 9db peaks. analog mixers will take it in a musical way, digital won't.
ideally, you get the best resolution(sound quality) in digital by getting as close to zero db as is possible. on a digital buss, these sources summed will cause overload.
take the signals out of the box at their highest possible resolution, and sum them in analog, and theoretically you should achieve better resolution for each separate part. there are the converters, console quality etc. to consider of course, but in the end it's a bit more fool proof, and can be pushed harder.
machinate had a good point about midi reaction/timing with controllers, and there's midi resolution as well...

beats me · Post by **beats me** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:59 pm

After looking at those pictures maybe we are all overthinking this. It could just be a matter of wanting some control over thier sound and levels. It can be a scary thing just sending a couple cables to a direct box completely under the control of the venue mix guy that most likely has only worked with rock bands.

Rinko · Post by **Rinko** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:47 am

hehehe true - mebbe you're right. it just seemed odd that people chose hardware desks instead of routing their kit through an external soundcard/audio interface on their laptop and using a midi interface to control it. i'd assumed it was one obvious solution but no-one i've seen seems to employ it. havin said that i'm not a renowned sound design type of guy and have never been screwed by a rubbish sound man either so...

thanks for your thoughts!

rbmonosylabik · Post by **rbmonosylabik** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:04 pm

I had the chance to give Fennesz's setup a quick upclose look. Didn't catch lots of details, but he seems to use Max/MSP, then sends it all out to the mixer where he does level control and some processing (he had a guitar fx pedal on top of the mixer). Bet it's way easier and gives him more control than building a mixer in Max/MSP and mapping it to a MIDI controller.

Crappy pic, but maybe helpful:

pepezabala · Post by **pepezabala** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:58 pm

We have two laptops and a little mixer on stage. As we do a lot of improvisation stuff with invited artists we need to plug in anything from even more computers and drummachines to guitars, microphones, percussion, etc.
All signals go from the mixer into the PA, but can also be routed back into the laptops for recording/looping or effects etc.

Rinko · Post by **Rinko** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:11 pm

oh magic. cheers guys.

that fennesz info is interestin - i caught him in york last year doin a laptop only thing, he does use max/msp (he said in one interview a while ago he performs with a patch his friend made) but i didn't pay attention to much else.

i guess some of the more advanced midi controllers are as much dough as a hardware desk anyway...

oblique strategies · Post by **oblique strategies** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:10 pm

Another reason is for having direct control over your backup sound generating device (such as an iPod, CD player, etc.), in case your computer crashes.