Cue mixing--how are you doing it?

Cubase
#1

What is your primary cue mixer?

  • Cubase software mixer
  • Asio2 Direct Monitoring option in Cubase
  • Direct control of Soundcard hardware mixer
  • External digital mixer
  • Analog mixer

0 voters

I’m curious how fellow Cubase users monitor their input signals…

Myself…analog mixer here. For quick tracks, I may use the Soundcard mixer directly. I don’t use direct monitoring for a couple reasons–I can’t monitor wet like I can turning it off (even using the external mixers with plug verb)…and because it varies. I know it theoretically shouldn’t, but I’ve found as a project and delay compensation gets bigger, it gets latent–obviously no where near software monitoring, but it’s inconsistent.

Tip for monitoring wet with a plug while using a hardware mixer (Soundcard or external)…

Turn OFF direct monitoring.
Set up the reverb/delay send on the channel whose track youre recording to as prefader.
Enable input monitoring on the channel.
Set the fader to null (all the way down)

Obviously, there are issues with punch ins…but, I kinda think punch ins can be left in the analog past. Endless takes and simple comp/editing takes care of the need completely non destructively. But, still–needed to mention that.

#2

Don’t everyone reond at once…

#3

Oh, I see now…people are just voting and that doesn’t bump…sorry.

So far half that voted are using the software mixer. What kind of buffers are you running to do that?

#4

Small fluffy ones :laughing:

(64)

#5

Isn’t direct monitoring the default option?

I’m just wondering how many selecting software are actually using direct monitoring without knowing it. Seems odd that know one would be using the default operating method…

#6

No.

#7

Are you maybe under estimating the intelligence of the user!

#8

I’m certainly not underestimating the experience level, based on posts here and elsewhere.

I would in no way attempt to comment or assume on intelligence…which is a completely unrelated stat. :slight_smile:

It not the default? Hmm. Fair enough, that actually would explain the amount using software. No wonder everyone is always bitching about performance. I can’t stomach direct monitoring…let alone software at 32samples. And it takes a super rig to run significant amounts of anything at 32samples.

I was looking at building a new system…and the benchmarks show no significant difference in the SBE chips with 4 vs 6 cores at 32 or 64 samples…which means, it’s butting up against some other bottleneck in the system. Which is why NOW we see DSP on interfaces being the norm. That would’ve been even more helpful a decade back. But, now, as the non music computer market stops needing faster…not subsidizing…if you can buy a rack of UA Apollos…you can plug them into anything with a drive, you know? Hell…RME is already enabling recording hooking the drive directly in…I digress.

I will appreciate the irony of my holding out for new hardware until I just couldn’t anymore…and after this system, we’ll be back to dedicated hardware…albeit with a control GUI. like TDM 15 years ago!