#724

Thanks for tour detailed explanation. As I’m recording with Live I can then route all my channels to one stereo ES9 Out going into the Norns then back into one pair of In of the ES9 and record the final effect then ? But then I can’t record each channel separate (multi track)?

#725

Route all your tracks into the es9’s imputs and leave 2 open. In live create an aux send in the aux send put an external device set it up to output on es9 outputs on the 1-8 not master send and take said outputs into Norns(have Norns 100% wet) and have Norns go back into es9 in the 1-14 and in live have it be its own input track then you can multitrack each track and have a track that’s just the over all effect.

1 Like
#726

The idea with an ‘aux send’ as I described it is that you ALSO record your multi-tracked channels, and you have an effect with the ‘mix’ set all the way wet as its own channel. This means that your dry signal is the original multi-track audio, while your effect sits on its own separate track.

Think of it like a bus in your DAW, but you’re doing it with hardware instead (or rather, the bus in your DAW is a software implementation of a classic hardware bus). You want to ‘send’ your audio tracks to a bus, and then mix that bus’s return audio in with the original multi-track.

Hopefully this diagram helps to explain what I mean.

Norns Effect2
Norns Effect21016×580 143 KB

(I don’t know whether the white or black jacks on the ES-9 are the Ins; so forgive me if I have it backwards)

4 Likes
#727

Hello lines community. first time posting after many months reading and browsing these forums. I have a question for the hive mind here.

I currently use an iConnectivity iConnectAUDIO2+ interface to pass audio and midi back and forth between my laptop and iPad. It’s by far the cleanest and most compact way I’ve found so far to integrate my laptop VSTs and my iPad without any extra cables, power adapters, or using multiple interfaces…which is key because the iPad is the brain of my setup these days; I run sessions with AUM for sequencing, MIDI control, sampling, mixing, and effects. Having one bus-powered box with flexible signal routing is a godsend in a minimal studio (and a post-pandemic touring world, I’m sure). Multiple ins/outs and an internal matrix mixer help me incorporate hardware effects when needed.

It works fine most days, but there have been some hiccups after a macOS Big Sur upgrade and I’m told they’re “working on it” for full compatibility. I’m not concerned in the short term, but it did get me thinking about whether or not any other interfaces on the market these days could offer a similar workflow if I ever needed to switch or replace it.

Is there any interface out there that can connect more than 1 computer device and pass through audio & MIDI to both simultaneously? Or a clever way of doing this some other way with a minimum amount of gear? Thanks in advance for any thoughts and suggestions.

here’s what I’m using and referring to: https://www.iconnectivity.com/products/audio/iconnectaudio2plus

#728

Thanks so much @jeanes for the really clear explanation, it is working perfectly and opening up so much possibilities. This forum and community are the best!

#729

Thanks a lot @robotboot. I will also try the external device set up and see what is the difference with @jeanes one :+1:

#730

Thanks a lot @darylc - this sounds reasonable and I’ll stick with splitting up mixer and interface. And yes, I will know when I start off. I have found a used RME UC in town, and I’ll pick it up today : ))

Thanks for detailed support - much appreciated!

Only thing that I didn’t understand was your choice of words:

Why is 8x8 the same as 16x16 ?? :upside_down_face:

Many thanks to @jasonw22 , @eesn and @kbra and @slowsounds too!

4 Likes
#731

I made a dumb mistake and purchased a Scarlett Octopre thinking that it would allow me to get extra ins and outs when hooked up to my Motu Ultralite mk4 via adat. It does give me extra ins, but apparently if I had wanted to use the outputs I would have needed to buy the Dynamic model as opposed to the one I purchased.

My question is is there any single unit solution anyone can recommend that can get me ~16 inputs (8 stereo pairs) and 18 outputs (9 stereo pairs)?

Am I better off running 2 sound cards as an aggregate device?

Am I stupid for not just using an external mixer, and if so, what would that entail?

My setup is:

3 stereo pedals
1 mono pedal
Norns
Digitakt
Digitone
Ipad running via separate audio interface
Op-1/op-z which don’t really need to be plugged in usually.

All running into Ableton. Ideally I would like to be able to send and receive audio to and from anything without having to unplug stuff.

1 Like
#732

@Xylr: Merging Tech Hapi is 16 in via Db25, 16 out via DB25 plus an AES/EBU Dsub (4in/out if you have hardware that does this spec like the Drawmer monitor controller), plus SPDIF/ADAT, plus separate headphone routing (multed to 1/4” and 1/8” jacks, if you’re ok with 2ch of unbalanced with a splitter). And you can stack multiple units together via the Ravenna ethernet protocol.

It’s fussy to set up and isn’t cheap. But it is fantastic.

1 Like
#733

So many possible ways to skin the cat. For what it’s worth, I’m using a Presonus 4848, which has no mic preamps, but gobs of ins and outs. It’s cheap-ish and “just works”, with lots of flexibility for the future. Various ways to hang mic preamps off it, such as with an analog mixer.

Regarding aggregate devices: YMMV. I’m currently running an aggregate device and I find it seems to work fine with Logic (no surprise) but Bitwig is proving flaky with it. If you can avoid running an aggregate device, you’re eliminating a potential source of complication.

3 Likes
#734

First - to be clear - any workflow that works for you is great. And perhaps you have thought this through in deep and you need that much I/O… but I’d thought I share my thoughts since your post seemed to ask…

Wow, this ended up longer than I expected!
tl;dr: Be wary of the allure of having it all connected: It is expensive, and isn’t of much benefit most of the time.

Your setup isn’t all that big. Many people here have much larger ones - and yet most get by without all that many channels of audio in/out. A channel of digital interface for every audio connection from every device is a lot of audio interface… and expensive to boot.

You should think about what you’ll be doing:

If you are building up pieces “in the box” - then it seems unlikely that you’d be recording from every one of those devices at the same time. You may set up drums through one pedal, record that. Then work on something tonal with the Digitone on another track, etc… You’re not likely to ever be using more than 2in / 2out at a time if you re-plug your pedals and effects as needed. For working this kind of way, huge amounts of I/O is an expensive convenience for not just physically replugging as you need. (And it isn’t clear to me that it is any faster to work with once you need to reconfigure your DAW to route as you would with plugging!) if plugging really bothers you, consider a patch bay - easy plugging, normalized connections, and a fraction of the cost of audio I/O.

If you are playing the ensemble live… then I think a mixer might much better serve you. You could eaisly buy a mixer big enough for everything… but that would be overkill… since playing live you are likely to have a way of routing for the piece - and that’s that. A mixer with a few sends and channels will be hands on, immediate, offer EQ and basically get out of your way. Playing live is different than recording a track, and there generally isn’t the push to get “micro” control over every bit of the audio.

Now - you might be desirous of having it all: Play the whole thing at once, never have to reach around for a cable, route it all via your DAW’s controls, and pass every individual part through the DAW for in-the-box effects, and recording multi-track so that later you can remix it. Going this path will require $$ for I/O, $$ for cabling, $$ for beefy computer, and a fair bit of time setting and mastering this rig. Is it really what you need? It doesn’t look to me like you’re aiming for a professional multi-track studio setup where you have everything ready to bang out the next track for the customer where you see these kinds of setups and the expense makes sense.

I do get the allure: I spent most of the last few years recording my live performances with rigs like: Digitakt, Micromonsta, Pulsar-23, RaspberryPi for effects, multiple controllers, etc…all just in stereo, post effects. Editing this for release makes you want individual tracks… but you learn to get by. Since I’m not lugging stuff out to shows in Covid-times, I’ve switched over to a MOTU Ultralight AVB - this is middle of the road: 6 in, 8 out, and mixer and effects in the unit itself. My live set can be divided into two or three stereo parts - and I record those separately on one computer while I’m playing, and have the mix from the MOTU go to the monitors and the streaming computer. Computer also records the full mix, and the Ultralight’s reverb separately. Sure, I still re-plug equipment for each set up as needed… but the I/O was only $650 - it’s one box, and it just works.

11 Likes
#735

Thank you for putting down these thoughts. Gear friends I reached out to had similar reactions, and I think that’s probably the reasonable position. My desire to connect everything simultaneously boils down to 2 problems that I’m trying to solve.

I don’t usually have a lot of time to make music these days, so planning my signal chain and plugging and unplugging accordingly is time that I would rather spend making stuff. This was a big factor in why I got out of Euro. Being able to route stuff in the daw saves minutes that wind up being precious. Ultimately it’s a convenience thing, but feels like this setup would be a dramatic workflow improvement and yield greater productivity.

The other thing is that the way I usually work is to create samples and then quickly process things, generally without a lot of forethought, in a bunch of different ways, and then load them onto the sampler to start constructing arrangements, and then recording that back into the DAW. Being able to start in one place and quickly get from here to there to there seems like it would suit my process. This is basically what I already do, but because of the hassle of routing everything, I generally wind up sticking to fx in the box to save time. This basically works, but I do wind up using the same tricks over and over again, so being able to quickly integrate everything else seems like it would give me more colors to work with.

I definitely don’t have an unlimited budget to solve the problem, and as I sat dejectedly in front of the mistaken Octopre, it did occur to me that with some smarter routing and maybe leaving things plugged into inputs and just re-plugging outputs as needed (with cables dangling from each device, ready to plug), that maybe I would be willing to live with this mess… but it’s not what I was hoping to be working with.

1 Like
#736

Do you really need 16 outputs? If you are recording to Live it does seem like you would be able to route enough outs to the inputs you need just by selecting thoughtfully in Live.

Alternately, (or maybe additionally!) you might consider investing in a cheap patchbay. ~ $100 bucks and you can route to your heart’s delight. I got one this year and it really changed things for me and allowed me to feel like I could really use anything I had without interrupting the flow.

2 Likes
#737

In a somewhat similar time efficiency scenario but with more hardware I’ve found it very useful to have a patchbay that has most things connected. That feeds into the (only) four inputs of my RME Babyface Pro. The patch bay makes it super easy to change signal routings on a whim, to expand my setup easily, and to play with decentralized subsets of my gear. Having one pair of I/O for FX send stuff is easy this way too, on a per need basis. And as said above already, patch bay real estate is a fraction of the cost of audio I/O. YMMV of course.

I’ll have to second @rstn above. Getting two patchbays really changed my workflow of recording and routing signals for the better.

3 Likes
#738

I have the channel count of I/O you’re describing, and while it’s great for me I would echo what others are saying: strongly consider a patchbay (I have 3x 96pt TT patchbays feeding my system).

Given the number of instruments/sources you’re working with I think a good 8 channel or even 4 channel interface would be great if combined with a 48pt patchbay.

You can configure your patchbay to be normalled such that the things you use most often are routed by default without any patching required but you can then flexibly—with a two or four patches—switch from “record & process” mode to “slam to the MPC & record the arrangement” mode. A well thought out patchbay can save you a ton of money and hassle in this way.

And/or you can get a mixer with strong routing capabilities (Mackie 802 or SSL SiX for example) and hardwire (or patchbay) to your interface.

If you’re price constrained (the Hapi box with PSU is $2500 before adding in the cost of the actual AD/DA converters) getting a patchbay and setting it up will get you where you need to go. Before my current system I had 1/4” DBX patchbays and UA/Presonus/Focusrite converters for a decade and it taught me a lot about how to configure and route stuff until I could afford the converters I wanted.

The Octopre is nice preamps! You’ll be able to enjoy using them for awhile. Fix your routing with a patchbay. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#739

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies and help. I think that a patchbay does seem like the right solution to this problem. I hadn’t considered it because I don’t have any experience with them and Live’s external audio effect makes this really simple… up to a point which I think no longer fully works for me with the gear I have. So thanks for likely saving me from an expensive and unnecessary purchase!

2 Likes
#740

Not that I use it, but since two main items in your collection are Digitakt and Digitone, why not connect them to the DAW via Overbridge? That frees up 4 inputs, and by most accounts, I hear that Overbridge works great now.

#741

I’m about to move over to Norway from the UK for maybe up to six months, and there are limitations on what I can bring with me, so am going to conduct an experiment in minimalism and making do.
I’ve decided not to take either my mixer or my sound card, although I will have my laptop with Reaper and my laptop’s inbuilt soundcard. The only gear I’m taking is my Bugbrand two frame, which has some mixing capability within it plus several balanced outs (handy should I get the opportunity to play out), and my Sony M10. The plan is to record stereo tracks only via the line in on the M10.
Can then transfer stuff to the laptop for processing etc but both ideally and out of necessity, it’s going to be an exercise in trying to focus on capturing the moments of creation and exploration, and less about what I’m using and how well it’s working. I’m sure I’ll miss being able to record multiple tracks and monitoring through proper speakers initially but I’m also starting to feel a sense of relief and excited anticipation for this approach.

Calling it Operation Deal With It.

Not really a stellar contribution to the ‘mixers and audio interface’ thread, except felt it chimed a bit with some of what mzero touched on in his post above.

4 Likes
#742

If you go this route, you could also run another stereo input through the digitone/takt. I often used my digitone as an interface and sent norns in through that. I had it set up as an aggregate device with an 18i8 and had no problems… overbridge worked like a charm for me. I don’t have a digitakt but I can’t imagine it works any differently. That might save you another 4 inputs and has the added benefit of multitracking stuff from your digis if that is something you’re interested in

2 Likes
#743

I think that’s wise.

I don’t really know my way around Ableton that well, but in Logic I have built templates based on the kind of work I’m doing: tracking, m/s or location recording, mixing, and mastering. Each of them is set up with channels and aux sends pre-configured to go to the right place on my patchbay for the given task I’m doing. They all have complete access/functionality of my studio but the parts that might not get used are not as in-your-face.

I encourage everyone to have DAW templates that reflect their creative practice and current studio setup (and make adjustments/tweaks as both of those things change and develop). I wish I’d discovered the power of templates years earlier than I did. Task-specific templates + patchbay really opens up the power of gear and assists in fluid creative work.

There’s a patchbay topic here at lines where people geek out over them. Don’t go it alone. :slight_smile:

2 Likes