Видео

Hi Katie, It should be on an aux input track, well spotted. looking back I've no idea why but by video 9 it has migrated across to the correct channel. The compressor and eq should be on the submix channel so that the processing is recorded onto the mix channel (audio channel).

@@ivanjackman Really helpful great thankyou.

The short answer is "from wherever you want". Almost all of the sections can be engaged or disengaged and routed in various ways. For example, if you are recording a kick drum you could go pre-dynamics-eq-small fader-tape and use the large fader to monitor levels in the control room without affecting the level that's going into the tape/DAW. You could also disengage any of the sections Same thing with outboard gear, combining the routing matrix and the patchbay you can "interrupt" the signal at any point in the path and send it to and back from multiple points. Let's say you are recording a mono room mic and you want to use an outboard preamp like a 1073, then the SSL eq and then to an outboard compressor (think your typical room mic nuked with a Distressor or an 1176), you can do it all via the patchbay. This amount of flexibility is why the SSL became an industry standard for mixing.

I can’t say for sure as I’ve no experience using the two together. But it seems Qlab has support for AVB which the 24Ao uses, so it sounds most likely!

@@ivanjackman Hi, thanks for the reply. I will give it a go in the near future.

Strange, when you hit the tb button it should route the signal to the foldback section, when you press Slate, it should route to the groups

You may need to contact Audient! Just recently channel 13 started making noise on our console, I sent a video of the problem to Audient and they diagnosed the problem as a faulty opamp, they are sending out replacement parts this week. They have been very helpful with any problems the desk has had over last few years.

@@ivanjackmanThank you. It's great that they are so supportive. I hope i can do a replacement myself. My biggest fear is to have it being send back to the uk

Hi Nick, in this setup the direct outputs of the mic/line channels, go to the 24ai which has 24 analog inputs. the 24ao has 24 analog outputs which connect to the 24 tape return inputs on the desk (line inputs of the monitor section of the desk). to listen to audio you are recording eg from a mic, you would route the channnel in question to the mix (stereo master fader) and in the master section you would choose to monitor the mix and so the audio would go to the monitor outputs, which will be patched to your speakers ( these could be active or passive which would need a power amp). to listen to audio (in stereo) from the computer you would route the audio out to 2 of the 24 outputs on the soundcard, these will appear on the tape return channels (output 1= tape return channel 1) and you would press the mix button on this channel to get the signal to the master section and then on to the monitors. Soloing a channel would also route the signal to your speakers. the point being the speakers are connected to the monitor outputs of the desk. The 24ai has no outputs and the 24ao has no inputs, so without a mixing desk to connect to, these are probably not suitable soundcards.

@@ivanjackman This is great, thanks so much. I have the units. My old analogue desk doesn't have 24 take return inputs. I was thinking about buying an Allen & Heath Zed 428. This has 24 channel "inserts" and a stereo "matrix out". Assuming that's essentially the same thing? It doesn't have monitor outs, though, just master outs.

@@ivanjackman Basically the Allen & Heath Zed 428 doesn't have monitor outs, just master outs and it doesn't have 24 channel send and returns, just channel outs, so could I use the "insert" inputs on the desk and run the master stereo outs to the speakers and rely on the usb to listen/mix in Protools? Sorry for singling you out as the font of all knowledge but there's scant information online.

@@nickmitchellmaiato6717 Hi Nick, if you haven’t already purchased the zed I would say don’t. It not having monitor outputs is a real negative, as it means the solos will only go to the headphones output and if your mixing on the desk not having the solo functionality seems like it would become an issue. Have you considered the SSL big six desk, it’s slightly more expensive but has a 16 channel soundcard built in. Much higher sound quality and easier to use over all. For same price as the zed plus the two Motu featured in my vid you could afford two of the ssl desks which can be setup to work as one desk, that would give you 32 in and out, eq compressors ssl mix buss etc.

@@ivanjackman I already have the MOTUs. Hmm. Will look at other desks, thanks.

Thank you for the kind words!

That’s why it’s 20 grand instead of 80, other than a faulty meter bridge that audient replaced under warranty with their own tech, it’s holding up great! These are used by a lot of colleges, and so they seem to stand up well to students learning on them!

It shows an overload, some consoles didn’t have the meter bridge so it’s an important warning feature

@@ivanjackman thank you

He's Ukrainian.

www.cambridge-mt.com/ms/mtk/ this is where I got the multitrack from, hopefully it hasn't been removed!

Hi Holla Sounds, I wasn't aware of reasons mixer, it has been a long time since I used it, early 2000's I would think. I looked it up, The aux sends, Eq and Comp/gate looked to have very similar functions and controls as you find on an SSL, I think it is modelling a 9000 series console. Will it sound like a real SSL, probably not, will it sound similar, probably. Digital Eq's and compressors these days sound very close to their analog originals. Even the old waves SSL channel sounded really close to a real SSL channel EQ. The sound of the console has a lot to do with the transformers the sound runs through, not only in the processing sections but in the line drivers, buss routing sections and the summing. SSL have youtube videos where you can compare the sound of a DAW summing audio compared to their summing boxes which will be even more transparent than a console. It all adds up to a big sound. I would think Reasons mixer is far more than an image, I'm sure they have modeled the different aspects of the console and the sound is close. In my experience of mixing using waves nls which models console summing with channel emulation plugins, directly compared to mixing on the real console, it's about 60% accurate. I do think that a good mix comes from the choices you make over the equipment you use, and so if you like the idea of having a similar layout and function as someone using an SSL console you will probably be lead to making similar decisions in your mix. Daws sound just as good as consoles, I do a lot of listening tests with my students, and regularly they prefer the sound of a DAW, Most people under 25 will think a daw mix sounds better when compared directly!

@@ivanjackman Excellent responce very interesting, Yes there are all sorts of variables in Analog gear aven two identical units will not sound the same. ReasonStudios makes some of the best sounding software sythersizors and effects I have heard and I highly doubt they would say they modelled there mixer off of the SSL 9000 but actually didn't. I suspect ReasonStudios had access to a real SSL 9000 to study it and emulate its sound to the best of there ability. I think the RUclipsr is automatically defensive on the suggestion that a software mixer in a £500 DAW is just as capable as his £50.000 mixer he bought or the £150.000 SSL 900. He says He has actually compared the two side by side however I think He would have a invested interest to downplay the capabilities of Reasons mixer.

@@HOLLASOUNDS Well your £500 DAW is just as capable as the real SSL console. The youtuber in question ( I don't know which it is) could easily have tested them side by side, they won't sound the same. And the benefits the real desk gives to the sound in their mind is well worth the cost, so I would think the comments they are making are probably totally true in their point of view. Like I said, some people will prefer the sound of a standard DAW (not even a console modelling one) to a real desk. I mostly mix in pro tools, I think it sounds good and I get good results, the recall is the biggest benefit, but I am in the lucky position of having a Neve console in the studio I work in, and some bands request I mix on it, and when I do, there is something different about it to a DAW, it's quicker, it sounds like a record much faster, and even when you do things that in a DAW would sound terrible, it still sounds like a record, like for example, when mixing in a daw, if your balance is off it sounds like a demo, on a console it still sounds professional. The DAW takes longer to get the mix to the finish point, but it's a lot cheaper to use and you have recall. The console is faster and generally sounds more finished, but the band have to be ok with signing off on decisions as you go, because recall is a nightmare. They are different, both are valid. If you can, book some time on an SSL console and make your mind up after that, you may fall in love with the console, or walk away happy to use Reason, it's defo a personal taste more than a fact that one is better than the other, or even just as good!

Hi Nick, Thanks for the feedback. I think it's more like a third of the video is listing freqs off, the reason for this is that they are not readable on the plugin, knowing the eq points available on an eq is important to some and so i felt it deserved to be mentioned, but point taken. Regarding the Q, I understand your logic, but this is not what happens normally with digital plugin eq's run through Q clone. The q width stays the same on the majority that I have tested. So it is a point worth mentioning. Also you can see that the Q gets narrower moving from 720hz down to 460hz which is the complete opposite to the point you made.

@@ivanjackman . . . Thanks for reading them off . . . ! . . . My Magnifying Glass gets me in the Ballpark . . . ! . . . Mais But . . . I still find myself Guessing . . . ! . . . !?@y@?! . . . ! . . . 🙂 (-;