Any advantages to using a MOTU interface with DP8?

[bayswater]

I don't get the argument about direct monitoring, cue is etc. Does the mixer in the AVB units and the effect, and the browser software mixer not more or less duplicate what you get now? If you can't do some form of direct monitoring, how would you use it for live shows?

[Shooshie]

Guess I should have been paying closer attention to the whole AVB thing. So basically CueMix is deadend technology now, then?

Babz

It looks to me like they've just redone it. They no longer call it "CueMix," but it has a Monitor Mix/Solo Bus section (scroll down) where you can create a number of aux mixes, just as you can with CueMix, only it appears that they've done things a little more "right" this time. Of course, I can't say that until I try one, but it sure is looking like this is what I always wanted CueMix to be. CueMix was a virtual mixing board, but just wasn't all that impressive at first. It's gotten better, but this AVB stuff qualifies as a "virtual mixing board." I can't help but wonder if there are some impressive connections in the works for DP, when used with the MOTU AVB boxes.

So, to answer your question, it does appear that CueMix is dead-end technology, but only when you stop using it. Your next box from MOTU will be a better one. Wayyy better.

I wanted to wait for the next big thing before I bought another interface, but my 12 year old 896 died last year, and I had no choice but to get an 896mk3. So, maybe I've got another 12 years of CueMix. Meanwhile, my 1296 (PCI-424) and 2408 are still going strong, and they also have CueMix. I think the 2408 is now 15 years old, and the 1296 is 13. Yeah, I guess it's time.

Shooshie

[Babz]

Guess I should have been paying closer attention to the whole AVB thing. So basically CueMix is deadend technology now, then?

Babz

It looks to me like they've just redone it. They no longer call it "CueMix," but it has a Monitor Mix/Solo Bus section (scroll down) where you can create a number of aux mixes, just as you can with CueMix, only it appears that they've done things a little more "right" this time.

Shooshie

"Seamlessly mix live audio signals form the 1248's physical inputs with computer disk tracks …"

I like the sound of that, but don't see any visual showing how it actually works. Need to see a video of a typical overdub where you are monitoring computer tracks and overdubbing a live audio track.

I have always used only MOTU interfaces, and like the integration w/ DP and the fact that you only have to rely on one company for driver and software updates. The MOTU stuff has served me year and year with zero problems.

But the one thing I have always wished for is a simple way to set up overdub mixes. Cuemix has (had) no fader for computer tracks, so you are jumping back and forth between DP and Cuemix trying to get a balance. Even better would be a physical knob to blend between live and track. The MOTU interfaces have always lacked this, and for all the 500+-signals power of the AVB interfaces, it seems like they still don't.

When I'm overdubbing I want to concentrate on being a player, and it is critical to get the monitor levels blended and set up as quickly and easily as possible. I would imagine far more users today need this than the ability to mix stadium snakes.

I was a late adopter to make the jump from PCI to Firewire. I redid my studio not that long ago with then-state-of-the-art Firewire-based 828mk3 and UAD hardware. About a month later Apollo and Thunderbolt hit! So I'm in the unenviable position of just finally getting rid of years of PCI and just embracing Firewire as it is becoming fully obsolete. So it seems I am, alas, committed to FW for the foreseeable future.

My next interface will probably be either Apollo or one of these AVB interfaces. But my workflow is almost exclusively about building up tracks with virtual instruments, and then overdubbing vocals or guitar. Which ever one does this with as little brain drain as possible, will be my choice. I would imagine most people work this way nowadays. My main need is just mixing two signals: the computer tracks, and a live overdub parts. I've never seen a video of how you overdub w/ Apollo either. I would love to see a video comparing AVB and Apollo on this. This is like the way everybody works today, but you never see anything about it.

Best,
Babz

[Shooshie]

+1000 What SHE said, MOTU! What she said!

CueMix has been great for what it is, but when doing something complicated like trying to make a screen video which monitors a microphone, the computer sounds, and DP, it feels like I'm resolving Quantum Theory with Relativity. You can see how easy it ought to be, but it just doesn't fit!

I recently had a breakthrough. Of course there is a huge difference between the mixes you monitor, but I've learned that CueMix sees an entirely different story if DP outputs on 896 1&2 vs. 896mk3 Main Out. They are both the same outputs, physically, yet the computer sees them differently. One allows you to put DP in with the computer sounds and a mic feed from your video app, while the other one does not. I'll have to explore it more to figure out why, and no, I don't remember which is which. All I can say is that it's bizarre, and it should work easier. I have to switch my phones between those two "identical" ports to monitor recording and playing back. It gets old, switching to CueMix every time I want to do something.

It's like the 896mk3 is trying very hard NOT to be Apple's Audio/MIDI Setup. It does not want to be the central routing station for all audio, and yet maybe it should be, at least when acting alone, without other interfaces that need resolving and combining with it.

I don't know what model MOTU was trying to emulate by making the computer audio so difficult to use within CueMix, but it's just not a good idea. They could in one stroke eliminate the need for Soundflower, Jack Tools, and all other open-source port hacks. Maybe it doesn't have to be CueMix. Or, if they won't alter CueMix, maybe they could make their own port hacker, a matrix grid like Bundles, and it would work outside of CueMix or DP to make it easy to route audio so that we can put it on a fader in CueMix, but make it so that it easily integrates with all the rest.

I'm tired of having to stop what I'm doing, take a half hour (or a day) to figure out how to get audio where I want it to be, and to go through the frustration of CueMix. It should be as obvious as a Mackey or other mixing board, but with advanced capabilities!

I should have said that years ago, and probably did. The irony is that I've finally kind of figured out a way through it, though it requires constant reconfiguration for different tasks. I now am able to get audio where it need be, but I'm still not sure WHY.

Shoosh

[Babz]

Hi Shooshie:

It could be different on your device, but this is how it is on my 828mk3 (and it took me a while to figure it out)...

In MOTU Audio Setup you can assign Analog 1-2 or Main 1-2 to the Main Out Assign, and it's easy to think they are the same thing. It is called "Main 1-2" in CueMix and DP. But Apple Core Audio sees Main Out 1-2 as "Analog 9-10". This was massively confusing for me when, for instance, I wanted to use a VI in stand alone mode. Most apps want to grab Analog 1-2 as the default, and took me forever to figure out why I wasn't getting sound, until I stumbled upon "Analog 9-10". You don't see it as "Analog 9-10" in Cuemix, only in other apps.

This state of affairs also created an issue one time when MOTU released a new driver and it caused bundles to be offset by one. (1-2 was showing up as 3-4; 5-6 as 7-8, etc.) So even THEY were once bit by this!

They are actually separate channels and can be configured as such, but you have to pay close attention in CueMix and MOTU Audio Setup. I think the original intent was to give you maximum routing flexibility, but it ended up just adding one extra source of confusion for an already complex system.

If I had it to do over again, I would have just used Analog 1-2 as my Main Out Assign and life would have been easier. But now it's built into my template and old projects, so I've just learned to live with it, keeping in mind it is actually Analog Out 9-10.

Best,
Babz

[Babz]

My main issue about CueMix is that things would be so much easier if there were a fader in CueMix called "Computer". What happens is if I set input for a mic so that it's not clipping, it is way too soft relative to the DP tracks playing back. Then I have to go back into DP and drag down the Master Fader or use Aux tracks, and remember to restore the Master Fader later. And if I have two singers overdubbing at once, it gets even more complex. It would be so much more straightfoward if there were a fader in CueMix for DP's main output.

Best,
Babz

[Shooshie]

Babz,

First of all, thank you. Thank you. THANK YOU!
Second, scuse me a minute while I go put my head out the window.

ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

There. That ought to do it.
At least you saved me possibly hours, days, or years tracking that down. I'm not sure I'd ever have found it, but it doesn't surprise me that you're the one who is telling me about it.

That's incredible. That explains a lot of things, now that I think about it. I've got to change some things. So... if I select Analog 9&10, I may not have to be constantly changing my settings, providing that my DP template is using Main Out, right? Dudette, next time I'm in NY, I'm treating, ok?

Shoosh

PS: why doesn't this resolve the conflict? Why am I now inclined to tie up the designer of CueMix and force him to listen to Rick Astley records? Rickroll...

[Shooshie]

My main issue about CueMix is that things would be so much easier if there were a fader in CueMix called "Computer". What happens is if I set input for a mic so that it's not clipping, it is way too soft relative to the DP tracks playing back. Then I have to go back into DP and drag down the Master Fader or use Aux tracks, and remember to restore the Master Fader later. And if I have two singers overdubbing at once, it gets even more complex. It would be so much more straightfoward if there were a fader in CueMix for DP's main output.

Best,
Babz

This is exactly what I want, and what I've asked for at least once. (No response) I think it's time to mount a campaign. Oh... wait... CueMix is dead. Right. Well, maybe for this new AVB stuff. Geez, it could have been so simple. Why didn't they do that?

Always a pleasure,
Shoosh

[Babz]

[bayswater]

In MOTU Audio Setup you can assign Analog 1-2 or Main 1-2 next from the Main Out Assign, and it's easy to think they are the same thing. It is called "Main 1-2" in CueMix and DP. But Apple Core Audio sees Main Out 1-2 as "Analog 9-10". This was massively confusing for me when, for instance, I wanted to use a VI in stand alone mode. Most apps want to grab Analog 1-2 as the default, and took me forever to figure out why I wasn't getting sound, until I stumbled upon "Analog 9-10". You don't see it as "Analog 9-10" in Cuemix, only in other apps.

This caused great confusion for me for quite a while. DP seemed to be the only app that could "see" the internal labels on the 828-3 and understand that the Main Outs are called Main Out. Most apps assumed the first physical pair is the one you want, and saw the Main Outs as the 9-10 pair as you said. Some like DSP-Quattro made different assumptions altogether, and grouped the outputs into sets (you had to choose the first pair in the third set).

But all of this seems to have cleared up with Yosemite. All apps and standalone VIs now seem to pick Main Outs as their default.

[Babz]

Excellent! I've been wary of Yosemite, fearing problems. but here's something that would actually be an improvement. Any other reason not to take the plunge? I use DP 8, UAD, NI, and Arturia mostly.

Babz

[bayswater]

No problems with DP 8, Kontakt, or the Arturia synths that come with the Keylab, but I have no experience with UAD (since 10.5). One reservation I have is that Yosemite is noticeably smoother and more stable on my iMac than my MBP. So it's hard to if know what I've seen translates to all Macs.

[EMRR]

I don't get the argument about direct monitoring, cue is etc. Does the mixer in the AVB units and the effect, and the browser software mixer not more or less duplicate what you get now? If you can't do some form of direct monitoring, how would you use it for live shows?

If you use an analog mixer, 'direct hardware playthrough' would auto switch input to output while recording, and computer to output for playback. The AVB units don't do this. You would have to manually reassign every channel one at a time to make that happen. Thus, you must use the separate AVB app mixer for live monitoring. For live use, you would leave input routed to output and/or use the AVB mixer.

Restated, you must use the AVB mixer, previously you could choose not to use it at all. You could ignore the AVB mixer if you set buffers all the way down, but if you run any processing at all the buffers must rise.

If you don't use an analog mixer, this probably makes no sense at all and you will be happy as a clam with AVB mixer versus Cuemix.

[bayswater]

Thanks Doug. I get it now.