Quantcast
Do you use console or Pro Tools automation? - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Do you use console or Pro Tools automation?
Old 17th February 2009
  #31
Gear Maniac
 
fuddfar's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
95% console
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux ➑️
Currently, we have placed as many systems with the new Neve console as our own.
wow...

i thought Roundbadge had a 1604 w/Shadowmix but i probaby got that wrong. thank you for your reply.
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
My console has automation, but I end up using PT automation almost exclusively. It's been a long time since I used the console auto....
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
studjo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
didn't I allready answer this one???

anyway: for all musical stuff it's the console exclusively for removing noises/crackles it's PT

Jo
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Taken as a whole, I use both pretty equally, though some songs are more heavily weighted to one or the other. The SSL G+ is preferable for the creative, broad strokes, and performance oriented stuff, especially if you want to grab several faders at once. Then I use Pro Tools for some utilitarian stuff, and the really precise stuff

I often use a lot of PT auto on the vocals, since that's what often needs the most rides, and in PT you can be so precise. However, I usually do a console pass first to vibe on the vox. Then I get picky in PT if necessary.

I also will use PT for boring utility stuff, like if everything is great, but I just want to trim it up a couple dB during the bridge or something. It's so easy just to select the time, F6, and trim it. If it's a feel based thing while listening, like a swell, or crescendo based on feel, or to ride the guitars a little louder for the chorus etc., the console comes in handy. At any particular moment, one or the other may seem the better tool for the job, and that's what gets used.

I'm into hybrid approaches elsewhere as well. I don't think most projects need to be all analog or all digital by default, though some are certainly appropriate that way. But in general, I'm happy to track basics for a rock project to 2", transfer to pro tools to do all the overdubs, and use a combination at mix of new and old, digital and analog outboard, and some plug-ins if they are useful.

I don't really use compression plugs, or guitar amp simulators however. I lean toward the real world, all other things being equal. But many plugs do things you couldn't do in outboard, at least not as easily; so if they help or sound good for something, I'll pull 'em out. In the end, it's more out of the box than in, but the in the box elements are vital pieces of the puzzle too. This same philosophy I think informs my automation choices. I'm open to whatever gets the job done and sounds good.
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Gear Maniac
 
TTatman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Both, but mostly SSL G+ for art. PT for surgery.


Catamount Recording
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #37
JDN
Lives for gear
 
JDN's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge ➑️
I find itb rides useful for getting certain elements[esp vox,and uneven bass players] to hit certain outboard things more evenly..combined w/ console rides can allow for less compression=more natural open sounding volume changes yet w/ the vibe of the comp left intact
also: sometimes itb fx[alti,etc] that may not get any ob treatment on non automated fx returns get itb rides
right f***in on! people never seem to acknowledge this...for some reason console automation is frequently looked at as "better" and one of the main arguments, which i dissagre with is it's "bad" to do automation before outboard or console compression. I take the exact opposite view. I totally agree, I love doing rides before hitting console or outboard compressors...it really is a very useful tool to compensate for poor tracking or too much dynamics. I'll usually have a compressor or various compression and EQ plugs and do automation in the box before sending it out of the box to the console for final eq, compression, console automation tweaking....often times frankly i find i don't need the outboard so much.
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Gear Guru
I used to use Uptown, but found the mixes to become lifeless, too perfect and lacking spunk. I did enjoy "shooting" pens up into NS-10 woofers though.

I no longer use automation, unless you include extra hands, tape and grease pens.

Can you imagine the Hendrix records with automation? Not a pleasant thought.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Protools automation w/ D-Command thumbsup
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
jindrich's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
well, if you think about it, engineers have been riding levels to tape when tracking for ages, so doing some ITB level moves at mix time before hitting the console can be seen as a similar thing (cause hardly anyone rides anymore).

The only BUT is that by doing such a thing, the ITB digital engine must do some interpolation inbetween instead of it simply outputting *0dB levels* (=whatever came in) to the console.
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
mdjice's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDN ➑️
right f***in on! people never seem to acknowledge this...for some reason console automation is frequently looked at as "better" and one of the main arguments, which i dissagre with is it's "bad" to do automation before outboard or console compression. I take the exact opposite view. I totally agree, I love doing rides before hitting console or outboard compressors...it really is a very useful tool to compensate for poor tracking or too much dynamics. I'll usually have a compressor or various compression and EQ plugs and do automation in the box before sending it out of the box to the console for final eq, compression, console automation tweaking....often times frankly i find i don't need the outboard so much.
totally agree, it makes no sens to send a signal with cray peaks to a compressor. I I set my compressor to tame a little bit the HUGE peaks when a singer isdoing some Scream vocals , when he or she gets lower, the compressor with the same settings will then be completely useless.
Automate BEFORE, make your vocals, bass ect... more even THEN feed it to a compressor and get the best ( color etc..) out of your outboard
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
colinmiller's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
But the point of automation isn't simply to make the vocal one level throughout the song, it's the build dynamics as well. The compressor beforehand present a problem doing that. An assumption is being made that the compressor is there to nothing but change the level. It's more often used to change the tone and you may often want it to compress differently in different parts.
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
mdjice's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by colinmiller ➑️
But the point of automation isn't simply to make the vocal one level throughout the song, it's the build dynamics as well. The compressor beforehand present a problem doing that. An assumption is being made that the compressor is there to nothing but change the level. It's more often used to change the tone and you may often want it to compress differently in different parts.
you are right but in my style of music everything is extremely compressed anyways so not much room left for dynamics.
When I want dynamics I either don't use a compressor at all or i get the color I want by using the right comp (conservativly) during tracking
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
mmcfarlane's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux ➑️
... It’s sonically superior to a standard DAW control surface in that as the actual audio is sent at FULL RESOLUTION OUTPUT via a pre-fader send or Pre fader insert track, you’re always benefiting from optimal digital resolution (as opposed to lowering the actual audio within the DAW as you fade, which lowers the output to the interface and thus the digital resolution)...
Paul, help me out here. I think your claim is only valid for fixed-point systems like ProTools. If you are using Nuendo or Cubase at 32 bit floating point then the precision (resolution) is unaffected by ITB fader moves. Sure, the voltage coming out the DA is lower if you attenuate ITB, but I believe the digital precision in floating point is unaffected by gain changes. Gain changes can be thought of as (primarily) changes in the 2^x exponent, the precision is kept in the mantissa.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you meant by "which lowers the output to the interface and thus the digital resolution"
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTatman ➑️
Both, but mostly SSL G+ for art. PT for surgery.


Catamount Recording
What he said.
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Rogers ➑️
Our automation systems need replacing, but before we do it we're interested to know how many here are still using console automation as opposed to Pro Tools automation, and if you are using console automation which system do you prefer?

Thanks,

- DR
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge ➑️
I use both.
Martinsound is doing FF's 2
also Tonelux Shadowmix which is way cheaper than FF's and very cool.
runs off PT midi tracks
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethrillfactor ➑️
32 channels is the limitation based on the HUI protocol.


Flying Faders II now integrates with ProTools well.

My vote is for both ProTools & moving faders.
We have released Flying Faders II. It's running great at a number of facilities including NRG in CA, Ardent in Memphis, Gigantic in NYC, and Metropolis in London. We recently installed a Flying Faders system in a Tonelux console!

DAW integration, including HUI protocol for Pro Tools, is under development, but it isn't in the current version.

Great question, Doug.
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Here for the gear
 
ssl4000's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
PT ITB with Icon D-command. Sometimes ssl4000G for summing.thumbsup
Old 18th February 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by colinmiller ➑️
When I am mixing ITB I make it a rule not to use the console automation. But that's just me.

I don't like relying on PT automation when using a console because of it affecting the outboard compression and things like that. I always end up with a combination.

Would it help to contact P&G and see what their take is?
One thing you can do is to use your DAWs inserts which are selectable as pre or post fader (select pre), and set them up as hardware inserts. Then you don't have the problem of compressors reacting to volume rides etc. Works just like a console insert. You can still use your consoles inserts wherever you want post fader processing, but I find that it is easier for my way of working to have the PT I/O up on a patchbay and treat those DAW I/O's just as I would a consoles patchbay. I then use the console in whatever way I want without worrying about the post fader problem. Of course this does incorporate an extra DA/AD conversion, and also requires you to have more channels of converter I/O (ADC doesn't hurt either), but with the quality of today's converters it is well worth it to have that kind of flexibility and simplicity, not to mention total automation recall at the click of a mouse.
Old 2nd April 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToneLux ➑️
We support only the following consoles:

Neve (old and new)
Tonelux
Daking
Trident
Wunder
Helios
and some older ones.
No support for API?
Old 2nd April 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Paul Wolff Designs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Originally Posted by ToneLux View Post
We support only the following consoles:

Neve (old and new)
Tonelux
Daking
Trident
Wunder
Helios
and some older ones.


No support for API?


NO
Old 2nd April 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
audiogeek's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by theother ➑️
Console automation, otherwise you change the threshold on the analog compressors (channels inserts or channel compressors).

The good and old SSL G+ computer/automation is hard to beat. AWS/Duality is similar but I would miss the ASC keyboard and all the buttons with the computer commands right in front of me.

I would never use just PT automation with a console.
Am I missing something? It would seem that if you want to automate in PT but use dynamics from your board, couldn't you send the raw audio through the board first to hit the dynamics, back into a PT aux for automation (then of course back into the board for monitoring). If you're talking about a nice board, the noise introduced from going A/D/A/D/A might be negligible...Kind of convoluted, but not any more so than the alternatives... but again, that's just me.

I have heard, however, that PT panning is less than accurate, so that's an area where pan automation might actually be better on a board anyways.
Old 2nd April 2009
  #52
Lives for gear
 
phillysoulman's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Pro Tools
Old 2nd April 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiogeek ➑️
Am I missing something? It would seem that if you want to automate in PT but use dynamics from your board, couldn't you send the raw audio through the board first to hit the dynamics, back into a PT aux for automation (then of course back into the board for monitoring). If you're talking about a nice board, the noise introduced from going A/D/A/D/A might be negligible...Kind of convoluted, but not any more so than the alternatives... but again, that's just me.

I have heard, however, that PT panning is less than accurate, so that's an area where pan automation might actually be better on a board anyways.
Pan automation is not common on mixing boards - Perhaps it's possible on the K-series, and obviously on digitally controlled analogue boards, but most systems are level/pan only.

Of course, you COULD do it using 2 faders - but that's not exactly going to be very accurate either! Could you substantiate your comment on PT panning (which to my knowledge and ears is fine) or is it of the "my mate told me" school of information?

The method you describe is quite common for ITB mixers - it's called using hardware inserts, and there's provision for it in PT, Logic and other DAWs. Unfortunately it means than an ITB mixer needs more channels of IO, and an OTB mixer requires more channels of IO than he had before (eg if you're mixing on a 48 channel SSL, you need an additional pair of IO for each hardware compressor you want to insert - it can soon mount up). If you're mixing OTB it's far easier to either learn the console automation or do the precise rides pre compression ITB, then do the post compression rides manually.

So you're not missing anything exactly, other than the experience that tells you what you describe is a bit of a faff.
Old 2nd April 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
colinmiller's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empire Prod ➑️
One thing you can do is to use your DAWs inserts which are selectable as pre or post fader (select pre), and set them up as hardware inserts. Then you don't have the problem of compressors reacting to volume rides etc. Works just like a console insert. You can still use your consoles inserts wherever you want post fader processing, but I find that it is easier for my way of working to have the PT I/O up on a patchbay and treat those DAW I/O's just as I would a consoles patchbay. I then use the console in whatever way I want without worrying about the post fader problem. Of course this does incorporate an extra DA/AD conversion, and also requires you to have more channels of converter I/O (ADC doesn't hurt either), but with the quality of today's converters it is well worth it to have that kind of flexibility and simplicity, not to mention total automation recall at the click of a mouse.
That's great for outboard gear, but not consoles. For ITB, that's exactly what I do.
Old 2nd April 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Moderator
 
Trev@Circle's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge ➑️
I use both.
Martinsound is doing FF's 2
also Tonelux Shadowmix which is way cheaper than FF's and very cool.
runs off PT midi tracks
V interested in what you are using in the 1608?
Cheers
Trev
Old 3rd April 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
Auto ITB vs OTB

We recently moved BACK to automation OTB.
Ever since the results are - better.
I think one of the problems with autom. ITB is, that you dont really close your eyes to what you're actually doing.
Just to much visual (mis-) information.
Of course there's also the compression issue - but I think it's the lesser evil.
Dont look, listen...
Old 3rd April 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
jrod9900's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Controller Vs Automation

Personally, I feel the automation in ProTools is a very beneficial tools. While it may be a little frustrating to use at times, it is very flexible and easy to use once you get used to it.

I find that small tweaks are much easier in automation that the controller.

Just my 2cents.

JROCK
Old 3rd April 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
we use as much from the desk, anything not available to automate on desk, then
in protools.

best, try yourself....

ps: although protools automation is all ITB digital data etc,
but every pass still gives you different results. so dont get in to the wrong idea of prtools automation is fully perfect, and so much more accurate then analogue automation.
Old 3rd April 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dBMusic ➑️
We recently moved BACK to automation OTB.
Ever since the results are - better.
I think one of the problems with autom. ITB is, that you dont really close your eyes to what you're actually doing.
Just to much visual (mis-) information.
Of course there's also the compression issue - but I think it's the lesser evil.
Dont look, listen...
totally agree
Old 3rd April 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by dBMusic ➑️
We recently moved BACK to automation OTB.
Ever since the results are - better.
I think one of the problems with autom. ITB is, that you dont really close your eyes to what you're actually doing.
Just to much visual (mis-) information.
Of course there's also the compression issue - but I think it's the lesser evil.
Dont look, listen...
70% of your brain's activity is used on the visual cortex. Looking instead of listening is cutting off the brain from the sound.

I learned from Stevie Wonder, you don't need eyes to listen, they just get in the way. Shut off the monitor, close your eyes and you just might hear something.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 74246
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1533150
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 181695
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump