Close

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Maple Ridge, BC Canada
    Posts
    2,153

    Default SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    Hello,

    To keep Richard's "OT: A post of appreciation" less cluttered...I though it might be appropriate to address this issues in a separate posting?

    As far as I understand it, SAC and SAW are meant to "work together". This being said, Bob's "SAWStudio Live Sessions" videos are pretty amazing - and all performed on SAW alone!

    I always use both SAC and SAW together, but am primarily using SAW for backing tracks. I use the Control Track to control scene changes in SAC.

    I have just begun recording in SAW - and still have just a bit of learning curve as I am new to recording in general. So, I guess I have really been "board-less" since the day I started using RML software. And I must say, I do not miss it at all!

    Q1: What hardware interfaces are you using?
    R1: I am using an RME HDP 9652 with two Presonus DigiMax FS's. I use 1x64.

    Q2: How does what you're using handle round trip latency for things like monitoring effects, etc.?
    R2: Not the best to answer this one...but I have never had any issues with latency thus far.
    Note: As an interesting "test" though, I did insert 32 instances of Overloud's TH3 before my system locked-up. I can actually run 20 instances without issues.

    As a "point of interest" - though I will be definitely obtaining the 64-bit versions of SAC and SAW, I really wonder if anyone will be able to hear any difference. Other than being able to use 64-bit plug-ins - I am very curious to see what other benefits 64-bit will provide. I use the 32-bit plug-in of TH3, but have tested the 64-bit standalone and other than the 64-bit version loading a bit quicker - I have not been able to hear any difference "sonically" - if this is the correct term to use here.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    1,016

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_es335 View Post
    Hello,

    To keep Richard's "OT: A post of appreciation" less cluttered...I though it might be appropriate to address this issues in a separate posting?

    As far as I understand it, SAC and SAW are meant to "work together". This being said, Bob's "SAWStudio Live Sessions" videos are pretty amazing - and all performed on SAW alone!

    I always use both SAC and SAW together, but am primarily using SAW for backing tracks. I use the Control Track to control scene changes in SAC.

    I have just begun recording in SAW - and still have just a bit of learning curve as I am new to recording in general. So, I guess I have really been "board-less" since the day I started using RML software. And I must say, I do not miss it at all!

    Q1: What hardware interfaces are you using?
    R1: I am using an RME HDP 9652 with two Presonus DigiMax FS's. I use 1x64.

    Q2: How does what you're using handle round trip latency for things like monitoring effects, etc.?
    R2: Not the best to answer this one...but I have never had any issues with latency thus far.
    Note: As an interesting "test" though, I did insert 32 instances of Overloud's TH3 before my system locked-up. I can actually run 20 instances without issues.

    As a "point of interest" - though I will be definitely obtaining the 64-bit versions of SAC and SAW, I really wonder if anyone will be able to hear any difference. Other than being able to use 64-bit plug-ins - I am very curious to see what other benefits 64-bit will provide. I use the 32-bit plug-in of TH3, but have tested the 64-bit standalone and other than the 64-bit version loading a bit quicker - I have not been able to hear any difference "sonically" - if this is the correct term to use here.
    Sonically the 64-bit version shouldn't sound any different. The 64-bit version will allow native use of 64-bit plugins, gives access to much more system memory and may provide some CPU load/performance advantages over the 32-bit version when working with win7/win10.
    ---------------------------------------
    Philip G.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,050

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    I use SAC and SAW for recording. They well great together IMHO.

    Q1: What hardware interfaces are you using?
    R1: I am using an RME Digiface with one Presonus DigiMax and 2 x ADA8200. I use 1x32.

    Q2: How does what you're using handle round trip latency for things like monitoring effects, etc.?
    R2: I have no problems when recording as I hardly use any plugins. For mixing, I just use SAW and have to increase the buffer settings in RME to accommodate the increased CPU demand eg 1 x 512.

    I have been using windows 64 bit o/s for years now and the major difference I have noticed is the way windows manages itself that is, its admin tasks. As cgrafz said, it allows more system memory. When I first switched to windows 64, I noticed that simple tasks like transferring files between hard disks/SSDs etc is handled faster.
    Bruce Callaway
    Broken Knee Studio

  4. #4

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    How do you guys generally handle something like reverb for a vocalist's headphone feed? That's one situation where latency can be an issue.
    What about recording live with EQ and compression and/or effects in place?

  5. #5

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    Quote Originally Posted by CurtZHP View Post
    How do you guys generally handle something like reverb for a vocalist's headphone feed? That's one situation where latency can be an issue.
    What about recording live with EQ and compression and/or effects in place?
    I have never really had issues recording myself and/or guitar and bass with whatever latency my own gear has and that's at 2x64. I've always been told that processing such as reverb in a headphone feed reduce the concern over latency. As for recording with eq, compression, etc., you will get whatever extra latency is introduced into the chain. There's not much you can do about that. If it's too much latency, then you'd do without, or find a way to monitor before all the processing. MR_es335 might have some relevant personal experience to tell you about, since he often uses processing on his live guitar through SAC.
    SAW/SAC - finally retired a P4/2gHz after ten great years! Burnin' rubber in 2015 with an Intel Core2 Duo e4700/2.6GHz and the trusty RME Digiface/PCI pack.

    2013 Iowa City JazzFest sets recorded/mixed in SAW with SAC as a front-end mixer for live streaming radio!
    Dr Lonnie Smith Trio w/Jonathan Kreisberg on guitar
    Pharoah Sanders Quartet
    Fred Hersch Trio

    These are post mix sets to single camera video (by Rich Rauch).

  6. #6

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    Quote Originally Posted by CurtZHP View Post
    What about recording live with EQ and compression and/or effects in place?
    Back when I learned the craft with analog tape, I learned to apply EQ and/or compression "to tape" while tracking because back then we were fighting the noise and distortion of the recording medium. With 24 bit digital recording, there is absolutely no need to apply any processing during the tracking process. The recording medium itself is so transparent that you don't have to fight it to keep your sound. Also, if you apply EQ or compression on input and afterwards realize it was not the sound you wanted, you're kind of screwed. If you record "flat", you keep your options open for mix time.
    Cary B. Cornett
    aka "Puzzler"
    www.chinesepuzzlerecording.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    364

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    Quote Originally Posted by CurtZHP View Post
    How do you guys generally handle something like reverb for a vocalist's headphone feed? That's one situation where latency can be an issue.
    What about recording live with EQ and compression and/or effects in place?
    We've got a old hardware (lexicon) unit as part of the headphone feed mixer in the recording area so the person being recorded can adjust the amount of reverb in the headphone mix they get.
    works very well and no extra latency.
    RobertV

    www.shinustudios.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Alberta Canada
    Posts
    47

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cary B. Cornett View Post
    Back when I learned the craft with analog tape, I learned to apply EQ and/or compression "to tape" while tracking because back then we were fighting the noise and distortion of the recording medium....
    Cary....I'm a old analogue guy myself, having also started with tape. Even though digital is very low noise, and I agree, most processing can be done post recording, but some pre-processing can still be used(it's not only about noise). Even though the methods of recording may have changed, the fundamental principles of audio have not. Like Richard(on the forum) I like an analogue strip(mixer) going into the sound card(interface) for pre-processing the signal when needed...I don't mean to go hog wild with pre-processing and it is often easier to undo than to add... a few points:

    The amplitude of sounds falls off very, very fast. We hear in a some what logarithmic fashion, so our sensitivity increases as the amplitude of the sound diminishes, but a microphone response dose not!(regardless of what kind or how expensive).

    THE MICROPHONE - Microphones do not hear sound like we do. A microphone response to sound is more or less linear in amplitude and frequency at a given SPL. As the sound diminishes(fundamental and harmonics) the overall response can change quite a bit, so it was customary to use a little EQ and perhaps some compression, to give the microphone some help, and to make the recorded sound be as close(capturing all aspects of the instrument) to the original acoustic sound as possible, as well as giving you a good signal to noise ratio.

    When recording acoustic guitar(using a condenser mic) I use about 4db boost of shelving EQ at 10K, doing this helps capture the harmonic content better(which the number of samples decrease as the frequency of the harmonics increase) in digital recording, so the recorded result sounds much closer to what I hear in the studio. If I don't do this the results sound a bit dull and flat, partly because of the microphone response and also in good part because of the nature of digital recording itself(but that's another post). Why don't I do this in post-processing?...because 'you can't alter or change something on tape(digital) that isn't really there'..this is the number one rule of analogue recording or of any recording. Pre-processing right at the source(infinite resolution), using analogue EQ, gives you(more controllable)and much better results. You learn by experience, how much, how little, or none at all.

    I always use a compressor when recording vocals because amateur singers insist on swallowing the mic, have no dynamic control, no breath control, poor diction(mumbles), I need it to keep the recording at a decent level, and then I might add more! compression during the mix!.

    I could give many more examples why analogue pre-processing sometimes gives better results, than only post-processing alone, it's not only noise that's a factor, and I find mixing can go a lot easier.

    The nature of sound...the microphone...how we hear...sound reproduction...etc..etc, has been studied for at least the past 100 years...this is Basic Audio 101....it's as complex as a ......chinese puzzel


    "Today's production equipment is IT-based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson, Resolution Magazine
    Laughing Crow Studios
    Alberta Canada

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,050

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    Quote Originally Posted by CurtZHP View Post
    How do you guys generally handle something like reverb for a vocalist's headphone feed? That's one situation where latency can be an issue.
    What about recording live with EQ and compression and/or effects in place?
    I have a mixer setup in SAC for vocals where I use Saw Studio reverb or the new Gverb native plugins. I can also add SAW delay if needed. I haven't had any problems to date using this setup. I use outboard compression for vocals but no EQ.
    Bruce Callaway
    Broken Knee Studio

  10. #10

    Default Re: SAC as the studio's front end - Pros and Cons!

    "Today's production equipment is IT-based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson, Resolution Magazine

    I believe the cool kids would call that a "MIC DROP!"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •