live mode vs SAC

[Scott P]

It's going to be a while yet, but I'm looking to do more rough mixes of live multitrack recordings in SAW.

Right now, I'll do a simple live acoustic recording 8-12 tracks with SAWStudio in live mode while tracking. What I would like to do is ditch my analog mixer when I am doing 24 track mixes and do them ITB.

If I only need one stereo mix like what I do in live mode (as opposed to the multiples that can be done with SAC), is there any advantage to using SAC linked to Studio?

Thanks,
Scott

[Carlos Mills]

Hi Scott,
One clear advantage is automation on the fly (Scenes), for all parameters... also, the internal buffers between SAC and SAW are handled automatically, so the recording runs smoothly, allowing lower buffer settings for the real time operation in SAC... and SAC allows you to solo individual channels without disturbing the stereo mix (not sure this is possible only with SAW)...

It's going to be a while yet, but I'm looking to do more rough mixes of live multitrack recordings in SAW.

Right now, I'll do a simple live acoustic recording 8-12 tracks with SAWStudio in live mode while tracking. What I would like to do is ditch my analog mixer when I am doing 24 track mixes and do them ITB.

If I only need one stereo mix like what I do in live mode (as opposed to the multiples that can be done with SAC), is there any advantage to using SAC linked to Studio?

Thanks,
Scott

[RBIngraham]

There are a ton of advantages in work flow.

But I think the engine is also different as well. I seem to remember Bob saying something about the SAC engine being more streamlined for low latency performance than the the Live Mode in SAW. But my memory may well be faulty here...

[Craig Allen]

For simple headphone mixes, I always preferred just using SAW and live mode over SAC and SAW. It's just easier - one less program to deal with. I seem to remember that overdubs were harder due to the routing. Though I do love SAC and use it every weekend for live mixing.

[arock]

There are a ton of advantages in work flow.

But I think the engine is also different as well. I seem to remember Bob saying something about the SAC engine being more streamlined for low latency performance than the the Live Mode in SAW. But my memory may well be faulty here...

Recent anecdote related to this. I was tracking drums in SAW while playing back a single stereo track on my Lenovo X61/RME Fireface 800. This machine I've also used for SAC, and had the buffer size set to 64 in the RME control panel. Every once in a while, this would cause playback in SAW to skip - very annoying while doing an SRP recording. Increasing the buffer size made this problem go away. For SAC, however, I could mix 16 channels and run FOH and 5 monitor mixes while recording all channels via SACLink to SAW with no glitches/dropped buffers at 2x64.

[Angie]

Recent anecdote related to this. I was tracking drums in SAW while playing back a single stereo track on my Lenovo X61/RME Fireface 800. This machine I've also used for SAC, and had the buffer size set to 64 in the RME control panel. Every once in a while, this would cause playback in SAW to skip - very annoying while doing an SRP recording. Increasing the buffer size made this problem go away. For SAC, however, I could mix 16 channels and run FOH and 5 monitor mixes while recording all channels via SACLink to SAW with no glitches/dropped buffers at 2x64.

This is why I prefer to monitor thru SAC in the studio. It does take more planning and prep time for overdub sessions, but once the session starts, everything runs fairly smoothly.

[mixer100]

angie,
Can you give me a quick rundown on how you set this up and how you use it?
Ken

[Ian Alexander]

I'm sure SAC has way more features and ease of use, but check to see if a mixer application came with your soundcard. I use the Lynx mixer applet for every session. I can set up sessions ahead of time, tweak them during sessions, and save them for future use.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I find the mixing capabilities of a sound card can be useful for simple overdub sessions, but if I was cutting rhythm tracks, a whole band playing together, I'd probably go for SAC.

That said, although I do have SAC, and use it for the occasional PA/recording gig, I haven't done a studio session that way.

[Scott P]

This will be for a lot of different things, not the least of which is big band jazz - 20+ mics on stage and doing a live to stereo mix. So, I need the eq, compression, etc. That would be the whole point. I use RME and the mixer is is great, but it doesn't do anything but mix.

I suppose the verdict is in, I'll need to get SAC, which is fine. I don't mind investing. For the price, it's fine - and I already have SawStudio.

Now, I just need to decide on an interface. I'm using the BCF2000, but it's limited and the faders jumping are pretty loud. I'd like to find something a bit more "elegant".

Can Something like Motormix be linked with the BCF8000 without a lot of trouble? I might start with something like that an upgrade later.

Thanks all!
Scott