Mixer questions from a newby

[Ross A'hern]

Hi everyone,

For a number of reasons, I am seriously contemplating changing DAWs - and platforms, as it happens - to Pyramix. I have been spending a lot of time trying to absorb information from the manual, and while a lot of what I read impresses me, I have a couple of questions regarding the Mixer which I'm hoping someone can help me with.
1. Is there any way of inserting an external device, such as a hardware compressor or EQ etc, across a mixer strip? The only suggestion I found in the manual, was to use and aux buss as a send, returning on a new strip; an approach more suited to an external effects unit.
2. Is there a way to apply a pair of identical strip tools across a pair of strips, without having to link each parameter control separately, one by one? Normally I would set up a stereo strip to do this (and apply a single strip tools to it), but when you do this in the Pyramix mixer, it seems panning control for the 2 channels changes to a balance control. If the stereo strip is being used for drum overheads, for example, there doesn't seem to be any way of panning them to, say, 9 & 3 oc'lock, other than by somehow using the MS encoder to process the XY signals, and then use an MS strip to control width - not very direct. Hence the twin mono strip approach.
3. When setting up a stereo aux buss, say for headphones, is the only way to adjust panning from the strip, other than using the 'pan in-place' switch, achieved by typing in values?!
As background on what I am trying to achieve, I would like to be able to use this mixer as I would a hardware equivalent in a live session, so control needs to be direct and the display needs to remain economical on screen real estate.

Many thanks in advance, Ross

[Ross A'hern]

Ah well, it seems I am barking up a tree that no-one else is interested in. In case I'm wrong:

1. I gather the only way of inserting an external device across a strip without using a bus, is to send it out through a direct output, and bring it back in via another strip.

2. I have deduced that the best way to insert a plug-in over a stereo pair AND retain total control over panning of both channels (width etc) to the mix, is to use a surround bus instead of a stereo one, but to use only the left and right channels of it (by turning off all the other speakers in the surround panning display and using only the left and right bus outputs). This actually gives me more control than I sought, as not only can the left and right channels be controlled separately, but can also be linked about the Y axis for precise width control about the centre.

3. I haven't come up with an easy way (for me) of typing level entries in an Aux send matrix that relate to the real world. Thank God we don't have to type values for all the other pots and faders on the surface!

Ross

[Roland Clarke]

Hi Ross,

Possibly the reason that people haven't replied is that your enquiry is quite involved and potentially difficult to go into detail about with someone who isn't familiar with the software.

The potential problem I can see with your scenario is that it require plugs that are compatible with a surround buss (this for obvious reason is limited), add in the factor that it is using a lot of horsepower to do it this way.

In general terms I would say that the mixer is inherently a weakness of Pyramix at the moment. There are others in this forum that would disagree with me, but this is my oprinion. Pyramix's own plugs are extremely powerful and on the whole very well designed. Bussing reverbs at the moment is a problem, but I have been told these sort of issues are being looked at.

IMHO Pyramix's strengths are its editing capabilities, multitrack recording, ability to handle different file formats and syncing capabilities. It has extremely high quality sound and indeed is comparable to anything else available in the DAW market, (many consider it to be the best).

If you are serious about purchasing a system you need to talk to a dealer and get a hands on dem. I don't consider Pyramix to be expensive, however it is a substantial investment in time (to learn the system) as well as money. I bought it and have no regrets, in summary I would have no problem in recommending it for the serious professional.


Regards




Roland

[Ross A'hern]

Hi Roland,

Thanks very much for the reply. It's very useful to get this sort of feedback.

To give you a quick summary of where I am coming from, I developed and ran Sony Music's recording studio in Sydney over the last 25 years, so at the end had ProTools HD, Neve VR for recording, and Sony DMX-R100 for mixing sometimes. Then I became a casualty of corporate musical chairs.

I now have to fill in the gaps (DAW and console) in my system. Because I record primarily jazz and improvised music, the system has to be high quality (why bother otherwise), portable (so I can take it wherever I want to work), but also as complete as possible so that ideally I don't need a hardware console. Pyramix seems the logical choice (paired with a Studer D21m for front end connected via MADI) to satisfy the first 2 conditions, and I am trying to figure out whether 'mixing in the box' is a viable possibility. I feel it is well on the way (I have access to a system to learn on and evaluate) but maybe, as you say, we are not quite there on the mixer front yet.

I take it your comments regarding reverb bussing have to do with the need to manually enter the internal bus for delay compensation?

I realised the surround bus idea was DSP wasteful, but thought there may be situations where it might be useful - at least it works.

Feeding live inputs with no tracks attached to achieve processing pre record, then feeding them to a second set of strips via a matrix (multi mono bus) with record tracks attached is also clumsy, not to mention screen hungry (as it doesn't seem you can collapse sets of strips together), but again might be the only way if minor digital processing (EQ of a close mic etc) is needed pre-recorder. Again, it is the only DAW I have seen that can do this,

The learning curve is steep, as you say, but I get the impression the rewards will be worth it.

Thanks again, Ross

[Roland Clarke]

For what you are mentioning above, the multi-mono route probably is the best option for most things. For the sort of music you are planning to record, dare I say it, manipulation is going to be the exception rather than the rule.

Pyramix has brilliant flexibility, in so much that you can configure it particularly for the way you are working, ie record, then you can set it up totally differently for editing etc.

As you mention the Madi route makes for a particularly elegant solution. you say you are thinking about the Studer D21, a great device (I use these at the ROH with their Vista . Can I suggest if you haven't yet purchased it may well be worth your while to have a word with Crispin at Crookwood. I have comissioned him to build me a remote controlled Mic amp system that will AD convert to MADI for transmission back to the Pyramix (or console depending on how I configure for different sessions). The Crookwood paint pot mic pre's, which his multichannel system is based on had a huge reputation for esoteric quality (look at the spec's and you will see what I mean) and a 24 channel system will cost around £10,000 (a lot less than the Studer I would have thought). Certainly worth a look.

For what you are trying to do, I would have thought Pyramix or Pro-Tools were your best choices, get yourself a dem its really the only way.

Good luck!

Roland.

[Ross A'hern]

Thanks again for your thoughts regarding Pyramix capabilities and preamp choices, Roland. All much appreciated!

I have had a system for a week and, as you probably gathered, started with the mixer, to see if Pyramix really is a 'virtual studio' Still a long way to go, though.

Cheers for now, Ross