How To Outboard Effects

[John Ludlow]

Gang, I am venturing into the world of 500 Series. I've purchased a 10 slot Neve lunchbox, and Neve 511, 543, and 551 (preamp, compressor, EQ) channel strip modules, and also a 542 (tape emulator) module. Assembling them was easy enough. Now I need to incorporate them within my SAC/SAW studio system. I currently use SAC as a front end to SAW and I haven't done effects send and return since VSTs first became available (which was before SAC or SAW Studio). Also, I've slept since then and I'm old now. So I desperately need help.

My sketchy idea is that I'll record a track as usual (SAC->SAW). And then play the recording back (SAW->SAC) with an outboard connection in the SAC channel I'm using for that SAW track to my lunchbox channel strip. And then out of the last module in the lunchbox signal chain back in to a new channel in SAC, and monitor that. This way, I can loop a section in SAW while I modify the settings on my analog channel strip until I'm satisfied, all the while listening to the result in SAC along with all the other tracks in the composition. And then when I am satisfied, actually do the re-record in SAW by using the lunchbox return SAC channel as the input to my new SAW recorded track. On the surface, it seems like I wouldn't need to use Aux channels at all (which would be ideal because they have always totally intimidated me...). But, I also presume that I have overlooked something obvious.

I am very interested in the advice of people who have actually done something like this in a SAC/SAW setup with outboard hardware. Do I have the right idea in the first place or am I totally off? What would you do differently? In your explanation, please keep in mind that I'm old and mentally feeble now and need detail. How do I avoid being out of synch with the original track - or do I need to subsequently manually slide it? Also, please advise regarding anything I stupidly haven't considered. And thanks!

[Microstudio]

On page 174 of the manual, you will find info on routing out to external processors.

[John Ludlow]

On page 174 of the manual, you will find info on routing out to external processors.

Thanks for that, Micro, but I've probably read that section that begins on page 174 at least 40 times over the years. I still can't make heads or tails of it.

Surely someone has done something like what I'm trying to do?

[Bob L]

Its pretty simple really... use an aux send and return combination... go to one of the aux returns and on the master aux Out asignment pick one of your device outputs... then patch cables to your external effect unit... then patch the out cables back into a specific device input and use the Return Input Source to select that input device... now your aux send will rout thru the external device and back in... you will incur some extra latency... but that will not be a problem for reverb units... it may cause a slight phasing or flanging on other direct processors like eq or compressors.

Bob L

[John Ludlow]

Its pretty simple really... use an aux send and return combination... go to one of the aux returns and on the master aux Out asignment pick one of your device outputs... then patch cables to your external effect unit... then patch the out cables back into a specific device input and use the Return Input Source to select that input device... now your aux send will rout thru the external device and back in... you will incur some extra latency... but that will not be a problem for reverb units... it may cause a slight phasing or flanging on other direct processors like eq or compressors.

Bob L

Thanks, Bob. But, what I'm trying to do is route the result to a different channel altogether. Can I use a variation on this to route to a new channel being recorded instead?

And even better, can I do that from within SAC so that I can listen there until it's just what I want and then route it back into SAW again for recording?

[Bob L]

In SAC, you can route from any out to any in... but you will suffer extra latency... the aux send / return in SAWStudio compensates for the latency.

Bob L

[mr_es335]

John,

If as Bob stated, "... but you will suffer extra latency..." ... even though, as he states, "...the aux send / return in SAWStudio compensates for the latency..." ...is the use of external hardware really worth it?

Are there not usable plug-ins that would permit you to obtain the same end results?

Just curious...

[John Ludlow]

John,

If as Bob stated, "... but you will suffer extra latency..." ... even though, as he states, "...the aux send / return in SAWStudio compensates for the latency..." ...is the use of external hardware really worth it?

Are there not usable plug-ins that would permit you to obtain the same end results?

Just curious...

It's a worthy question, Del. I won't know for sure how I'll answer until I've tried it. I can slide the latency after recording so it lines up, although maybe AUX will work for me somehow instead. But whether it will be worth the effort and the lettuce - only time will tell.

I remember that after digital consoles replaced the classic Neve and API consoles in major studios, a lot of people thought the new CDs lacked a certain life, or warmth, that was on records (including me). I've read that studio engineers, not knowing how to get the sound they wanted out of the new equipment, started buying the disassembled channel strip modules from the consoles that had been torn out and replaced, mounting them in a container, adding a power supply, and bringing them in to gigs with them to run their recordings through to make them sound 'right'. Over the decades since, audio engineers have come up with tricks to get some of that back without resorting to going through analog on the way. In truth, the analog version is less 'accurate'. But, it's said to be inaccurate in a way that pleases the human ear. I've also read one engineer say that you can accomplish the same result with straight digital - it just takes longer.

I can tell you that even I can tell the difference between analog and digital guitar effects when the digital one is trying to emulate a classic analog one. And I've heard comparisons of digital compressors and the classic analog originals they are attempting to copy - and they're clearly not the same. But, at the same time, I would argue that they don't have to be the same to produce a good result, albeit different.

It's the same with microphones, don't you think? All the words and notes are still there whether you sing through a Neumann U87 or a Shure SM58. But, artists from Sinatra to Dylan to Sheeran have paid a lot of money to record with the particular distortion the U87 adds.

The people who believe that the modification the right analog gear makes improves the sound are paying millions of dollar per year to obtain equipment that will provide it. The 500 Series gear market, which is a direct descendant of those 'lunchboxes' the engineers brought with them to record with, is bigger every year and there are all sorts of companies who are involved in it now. People are weird and sometimes they'll convince themselves of things that just aren't true - perhaps most especially when they are expensive. But, sometimes the truth is just the truth - and it is just as they believe. When I started putting this new version of my studio together last year, I got some excellent, transparent, digital preamps (RME and Grace Audio). But, I also left room for some analog pres as well - and in the meantime I've expanded that to include analog EQ and compression.

Considering that the difference is closer to something you feel than hear, I don't know whether there is a definitive answer to the question. That is - all of this is just what individual sets of ears find pleasing. But, I'm going to find out what I think at least. I'm trying these Neves out. I'm expecting silkiness and a certain tendency to pull voices above the mix without just making them louder. But, if I like them, I'm going to try some API modules too - for punch for guitars, bass, and voices - maybe drums. And maybe a BAE 1073 for the same reason. Maybe something from SSL and/or Pultec. Mix-n-match. My new lunchbox has room.

Or... if not - then I won't and it will have been an expensive failure (and not my first one either...). I'll just have to see.

---------------------------

Bob - thank you for your response. I think that's exactly what I needed. I'll try it both ways.

[UpTilDawn]

...In truth, the analog version is less 'accurate'. But, it's said to be inaccurate in a way that pleases the human ear. I've also read one engineer say that you can accomplish the same result with straight digital - it just takes longer...

At the risk of raising the old, tired debates......

I'd have to say that if Bob is NOT the one engineer who said that, he sure is a great example of one who's proven it with SAW and SAC.

I also totally can relate to the appeal of bringing in that great analog gear that made the sounds we have all loved and even grown up with (if not outright worked with in our early days).

[Carl G.]

At the risk of raising the old, tired debates......

I'd have to say that if Bob is NOT the one engineer who said that, he sure is a great example of one who's proven it with SAW and SAC.

I also totally can relate to the appeal of bringing in that great analog gear that made the sounds we have all loved and even grown up with (if not outright worked with in our early days).

Nothing like the sound of a 'real' U47! (even though they may have varied a tad throughout the day)