|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 5, 2024 16:47:56 GMT -6
For you luna users - how many internal Aux busses does Luna have? Just curious. During tracking, as in for low latency sends? Two stereo or four mono, which I've always felt like it was a little less than I'd like. Four stereo (8 mono) would be better. This just comes down to UA running up against the limits of what the on board FPGA is capable of. I suspect the next generation Apollo, whenever it is released, will come with a larger FPGA to eliminate this bottle neck. At least I hope so. I've been complaining about this to UA for a few years now. For a long time now, I've felt that, if the Apollos had an Achilles heel, the FPGA would be it. As for a mixing non-DSP scenario? It's effectively unlimited, as you might suspect. Not that this should be a surprise. You'd be using the your cpu at that point, and you'd only be limited by the power of your computer. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 5, 2024 16:54:58 GMT -6
I hope your wrong too!  But I know what you mean about UA's behavior. Drew will tell you that all is well, but I do have to wonder sometimes... Luna was a highly expensive thing to get off the ground, I'm sure. From what we've been told, the conception of Luna is like 10 years old at this point, so it wasn't a rash decision. I guess all of those pedals, for which the R&D was basically already done, will help to pay off the expense of Luna. Those pedals are selling like hot cakes, from what I hear, and those pedals have got to have a pretty high profit margin, all things considered. The UAFX pedals are pretty popular around here, I bet you're seeing them too Quint. I don't know how many pedals is a lot but I feel like they're selling a lot of them. Certainly more than other $300 pedals, that's for sure. It's a really smart strategy. The coding is already done (a long time ago) and each box is the same so they have economy of scale on the manufacturing. Slap a nice paint job on there (you can never fault UA for nice design, they've got that down) and you gotta figure these are a decent margin product. They're buggy AF but great when they work. Yeah, they're around. I haven't used any myself yet, but I had considered picking up one or two. Hadn't heard about any bugginess, other than the Bluetooth app thing. Is that what you're referring to? If I picked up one of these pedals, it'd likely be purely for knob turning anyway, so I don't know if I'd care about the Bluetooth app one way or another. Bluetooth is a shit protocol to begin with, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there were issues. I can't ever get my god damn phone to connect to my truck. It's often a struggle. |
|
|
|
Post by tasteliketape on Mar 5, 2024 16:57:12 GMT -6
 Did a hardware latency check on my system today . Pro Tools studio - lynx Aurora N32 thunderbolt- Mac Studio. @ 48 / 256 = 1 sample delay |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Mar 5, 2024 17:01:28 GMT -6
Did a hardware latency check on my system today . Pro Tools studio - lynx Aurora N32 thunderbolt- Mac Studio. @ 48 / 256 = 1 sample delay That doesn't seem right and I've had an Aurora (n). What exactly were you measuring? We usually go by RTL. |
|
|
|
Post by tasteliketape on Mar 5, 2024 17:08:22 GMT -6
Did a hardware latency check on my system today . Pro Tools studio - lynx Aurora N32 thunderbolt- Mac Studio. @ 48 / 256 = 1 sample delay That doesn't seem right and I've had an Aurora (n). What exactly were you measuring? We usually go by RTL. I’ll add a screenshot to above , because I thought the same thing .maybe I’m doing it wrong . Recorded a click to track 1 . Then set track 1 output to La3a Track 2 input set to La3a and record click from track 1 |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 5, 2024 17:15:16 GMT -6
So - the Lynx Aurora with the Digi connector...that connects to an HDX card? And then you pay for PT Ultimate and the HW Inserts should work? Or is it just Avid products?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Mar 5, 2024 17:20:50 GMT -6
So - the Lynx Aurora with the Digi connector...that connects to an HDX card? And then you pay for PT Ultimate and the HW Inserts should work? Or is it just Avid products? There's quite a few that tricks Pro Tools into believing it's a HDX product (matched latency readout).
Apogee Symphony (HDX expansion card) Lynx Aurora Focusrite Red
Now I've always been interested in option 3, plenty of I/O, decent spec's, cheaper than the rest and you can get one new so you don't have to worry about warranty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Mar 5, 2024 17:27:24 GMT -6
yeah totally fair, i've never even looked at it or used it. But until it's more fully featured it's not really a viable comparison in my opinion. If it gets there, then you bet. But right now, its like a toy compared to Protools as it is in its infancy still. Hopefully it grows well. There's definitely some things it's missing, hardware inserts being the biggest one, IMO. That said, part of that appealed to me is that I tend to use a DAW like a tape machine. I'm not doing a ton of crazy editing, so I don't need some of those features, and I actually like the clean, unbloated nature of Luna. So, in some respects, some of these things are actually weirdly a positive for me. I used Reaper for a while and, man, that DAW is the opposite end of the spectrum. You can do ANYTHING in that DAW, and there are 10 ways to do it. It was kind of just overwhelming. I was PT based quite a few years back, but I got tired of the Avid thing, and never looked back. That said, I generally didn't have an issue with the feature set in PT. It served my needs just fine. The features that I did use in PT are more or less the same features that I'm using in Luna. Just curious. What significant features do you feel are missing from Luna, that are included in PT? You said you hadn't ever looked at Luna, so you may be surprised to find out that Luna has some features that you just assumed it didn't have. I certainly wouldn't call Luna a toy at this point. Year one? Yeah, it was fairly basic, but they have added a lot of features since it was released four years ago. Once they add hardware inserts, it'll honestly be a fully fledged DAW, at least for my purposes, and, I suspect, for a lot of other people's purposes as well. For me some big ones: Automation feature set. This is hard to get into unless you really know how the advanced automation features work in Protools. But it's just so fast and powerful. I haven't seen other's implement it in the same way as effectively. I live on that stuff and it really makes doing automation fast. Helpful in music but absolutely life saving in post work. I know Nuendo has some of this too but not about to switch to that. Data import. SUPER underrated feature of protools that I don't think any other DAW does and thats the data import function. I can import session data from one session into another and pick exactly what I want. This is really powerful in so many ways. I don't think any other DAW does this? But also not super sure. I know the Stienburg and Merging stuff doesn't. and I guess just to pick on Luna, but yeah the hardware insert and automatic delay compensation. Just works. Eucon. This is also big for me. I use an S6 at work and an S1 at home with the free AvidControl app. Super powerful and helpful. Obvious Eucon works on other software but the integration into Protools is obviously much deeper. Very powerful Massive busing. I use sub bussing a LOT. In some session I have a built in matrix to have a stereo mix and a 5.1 mix and now also an atmos mix going in the same session. Takes a lot of internal aux sends and bussing. All of those = faster more efficient working. Priceless. Then theres the "industry standard" point which i know makes most people roll their eyes. But it's still true. Big shops are still dependent on it which makes pretty much all 3rd party developers also make their stuff work with Protools. things like Kraken, Soundly, RX, ect. Whatever. They will always make it work in Protools. It'll be really great when ARA support takes off in a deeper way for Protools, something other DAWs do MUCH better. It's not perfect I know. And really if all your doing is mixing some music tunes. The differences between DAWs blur heavily IMO. You could mix a song very well in garage band if you wanted. But I do enough post work to know the other side of Protools and features most music mixers never even know of. And there is a reason why post houses are mostly using it still. HDX wise, if you want hardware to always just work. Have to do lots of headphone mixes and stuff or whatever and don't have a console. HDX baby! |
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Mar 5, 2024 17:29:24 GMT -6
View AttachmentDid a hardware latency check on my system today . Pro Tools studio - lynx Aurora N32 thunderbolt- Mac Studio. @ 48 / 256 = 1 sample delay That's been delay compensated after it was recorded I believe. So it was 1 sample off actually. If you put headphones on and talked into a mic and listened to yourself you'd hear the latency and it woudl probably be small but for some is enough to be super annoying. I'm not sure how you would measure that actually..Have to think on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 5, 2024 17:30:15 GMT -6
So - the Lynx Aurora with the Digi connector...that connects to an HDX card? And then you pay for PT Ultimate and the HW Inserts should work? Or is it just Avid products? There's quite a few that tricks Pro Tools into believing it's a HDX product (matched latency readout).
Apogee Symphony (HDX expansion card) Lynx Aurora Focusrite Red
Now I've always been interested in option 3, plenty of I/O, decent spec's, cheaper than the rest and you can get one new so you don't have to worry about warranty.
Antelope too, or at least they used to have HDX Digi connection options. But it's Antelope... I wouldn't go near them. Too many support issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Mar 5, 2024 17:35:01 GMT -6
Antelope too, or at least they used to have HDX Digi connection options. But it's Antelope... I wouldn't go near them. Too many support issues. Yeah, I've heard a few interesting story's. With no experience of Antelope plus what I've heard I tend to steer away from mentioning them, Apogee's software can be interesting at times too but the original Symphony (MK1) that I had a long time ago mostly worked without any issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 5, 2024 17:38:13 GMT -6
There's definitely some things it's missing, hardware inserts being the biggest one, IMO. That said, part of that appealed to me is that I tend to use a DAW like a tape machine. I'm not doing a ton of crazy editing, so I don't need some of those features, and I actually like the clean, unbloated nature of Luna. So, in some respects, some of these things are actually weirdly a positive for me. I used Reaper for a while and, man, that DAW is the opposite end of the spectrum. You can do ANYTHING in that DAW, and there are 10 ways to do it. It was kind of just overwhelming. I was PT based quite a few years back, but I got tired of the Avid thing, and never looked back. That said, I generally didn't have an issue with the feature set in PT. It served my needs just fine. The features that I did use in PT are more or less the same features that I'm using in Luna. Just curious. What significant features do you feel are missing from Luna, that are included in PT? You said you hadn't ever looked at Luna, so you may be surprised to find out that Luna has some features that you just assumed it didn't have. I certainly wouldn't call Luna a toy at this point. Year one? Yeah, it was fairly basic, but they have added a lot of features since it was released four years ago. Once they add hardware inserts, it'll honestly be a fully fledged DAW, at least for my purposes, and, I suspect, for a lot of other people's purposes as well. For me some big ones: Automation feature set. This is hard to get into unless you really know how the advanced automation features work in Protools. But it's just so fast and powerful. I haven't seen other's implement it in the same way as effectively. I live on that stuff and it really makes doing automation fast. Helpful in music but absolutely life saving in post work. I know Nuendo has some of this too but not about to switch to that. Data import. SUPER underrated feature of protools that I don't think any other DAW does and thats the data import function. I can import session data from one session into another and pick exactly what I want. This is really powerful in so many ways. I don't think any other DAW does this? But also not super sure. I know the Stienburg and Merging stuff doesn't. and I guess just to pick on Luna, but yeah the hardware insert and automatic delay compensation. Just works. Eucon. This is also big for me. I use an S6 at work and an S1 at home with the free AvidControl app. Super powerful and helpful. Obvious Eucon works on other software but the integration into Protools is obviously much deeper. Very powerful Massive busing. I use sub bussing a LOT. In some session I have a built in matrix to have a stereo mix and a 5.1 mix and now also an atmos mix going in the same session. Takes a lot of internal aux sends and bussing. All of those = faster more efficient working. Priceless. Then theres the "industry standard" point which i know makes most people roll their eyes. But it's still true. Big shops are still dependent on it which makes pretty much all 3rd party developers also make their stuff work with Protools. things like Kraken, Soundly, RX, ect. Whatever. They will always make it work in Protools. It'll be really great when ARA support takes off in a deeper way for Protools, something other DAWs do MUCH better. It's not perfect I know. And really if all your doing is mixing some music tunes. The differences between DAWs blur heavily IMO. You could mix a song very well in garage band if you wanted. But I do enough post work to know the other side of Protools and features most music mixers never even know of. And there is a reason why post houses are mostly using it still. HDX wise, if you want hardware to always just work. Have to do lots of headphone mixes and stuff or whatever and don't have a console. HDX baby! Those are all fair points. As for the session import data thing, Luna does that now too, though I wouldn't claim to be able to offer any sort of comprehensive comparison between how Luna and PT each handle that. Not sure how the automation compares. And Eucon is Eucon, so if you need that, yeah PT is the only option there. Internal bussing and auxes, HDX has Luna beat by a mile there, IF we're talking about DSP based auxes. If we're not, then it shouldn't matter, at least in theory. It'd just come down to your computer CPU, though maybe I'm not sure what you're doing with your bussing. You said you do post? If so, then that's maybe a different story then. I don't think UA has any intention of even trying to compete or break into post. They seem squarely focused on music creation in artist/band contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 5, 2024 17:41:24 GMT -6
For you luna users - how many internal Aux busses does Luna have? Just curious. During tracking, as in for low latency sends? Two stereo or four mono, which I've always felt like it was a little less than I'd like. Four stereo (8 mono) would be better. This just comes down to UA running up against the limits of what the on board FPGA is capable of. I suspect the next generation Apollo, whenever it is released, will come with a larger FPGA to eliminate this bottle neck. At least I hope so. I've been complaining about this to UA for a few years now. For a long time now, I've felt that, if the Apollos had an Achilles heel, the FPGA would be it. As for a mixing non-DSP scenario? It's effectively unlimited, as you might suspect. Not that this should be a surprise. You'd be using the your cpu at that point, and you'd only be limited by the power of your computer. So is it CPU speed limited - not software limited?? Can I do 750 busses? And I know you're going to say WTF do you need 700 + busses for. But there is a method to my madness..... |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 5, 2024 17:56:31 GMT -6
During tracking, as in for low latency sends? Two stereo or four mono, which I've always felt like it was a little less than I'd like. Four stereo (8 mono) would be better. This just comes down to UA running up against the limits of what the on board FPGA is capable of. I suspect the next generation Apollo, whenever it is released, will come with a larger FPGA to eliminate this bottle neck. At least I hope so. I've been complaining about this to UA for a few years now. For a long time now, I've felt that, if the Apollos had an Achilles heel, the FPGA would be it. As for a mixing non-DSP scenario? It's effectively unlimited, as you might suspect. Not that this should be a surprise. You'd be using the your cpu at that point, and you'd only be limited by the power of your computer. So is it CPU speed limited - not software limited?? Can I do 750 busses? And I know you're going to say WTF do you need 700 + busses for. But there is a method to my madness..... It depends on what you're doing. Luna uses a hybrid engine, just like Carbon. So, it drops individual channels into and back out of the Apollo DSP when you arm and un-arm those channels for recording, respectively. Everything on that record-armed channel gets placed on the DSP (audio and any plugins). Otherwise, everything else is running on your CPU, and Luna takes care of making sure it's all lined up during recording and also during playback. So the stuff that needs to be on DSP, for the lowest possible latency, automatically gets placed on the DSP when you arm a track, whether that be one or two channels for overdubs, or a whole bunch of channels if you were live tracking a band or something. The number of tracks being hosted by the DSP would be limited by the amount of available DSP on the Apollo(s) and the number of tracks hosted by your computer would be limited by the CPU. So, if you're talking about 750 busses hosted in DSP, no, Luna can't do that. But I don't know of any reason that Luna couldn't natively support 750 busses. That is a crazy number of busses though, so I don't know who, if anybody, has tried to see if there is a limit to how many busses you can use in Luna. Theoretically, I assume it shouldn't be a problem, but, in practice, I can't say for sure. Sounds like a question for UA customer support. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 5, 2024 18:00:08 GMT -6
So is it CPU speed limited - not software limited?? Can I do 750 busses? And I know you're going to say WTF do you need 700 + busses for. But there is a method to my madness..... It depends on what you're doing. Luna uses a hybrid engine, just like Carbon. So, it drops individual channels into and back out of the Apollo DSP when you arm and un-arm those channels for recording, respectively. Everything on that record-armed channel gets placed on the DSP (audio and any plugins). Otherwise, everything else is running on your CPU, and Luna takes care of making sure it's all lined up during recording and also during playback. So the stuff that needs to be on DSP, for the lowest possible latency, automatically gets placed on the DSP when you arm a track, whether that be one or two channels for overdubs, or a whole bunch of channels if you were live tracking a band or something. The number of tracks being hosted by the DSP would be limited by the amount of available DSP on the Apollo(s) and the number of tracks hosted by your computer would be limited by the CPU. Without actually using and pushing it, it's difficult to quite wrap my mind around it's potential limitations. For HDX, I can still push it to the limit, and I NEED hundreds of internal busses. If interested as to why : realgearonline.com/post/357209/threadPS - for interest, I'm essentially doing what I describe on that thread on a 2010 upgraded to the fastest 2012 Mac Pro. LOL. HDX can carry the weight. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 5, 2024 18:08:07 GMT -6
It depends on what you're doing. Luna uses a hybrid engine, just like Carbon. So, it drops individual channels into and back out of the Apollo DSP when you arm and un-arm those channels for recording, respectively. Everything on that record-armed channel gets placed on the DSP (audio and any plugins). Otherwise, everything else is running on your CPU, and Luna takes care of making sure it's all lined up during recording and also during playback. So the stuff that needs to be on DSP, for the lowest possible latency, automatically gets placed on the DSP when you arm a track, whether that be one or two channels for overdubs, or a whole bunch of channels if you were live tracking a band or something. The number of tracks being hosted by the DSP would be limited by the amount of available DSP on the Apollo(s) and the number of tracks hosted by your computer would be limited by the CPU. Without actually using and pushing it, it's difficult to quite wrap my mind around it's potential limitations. For HDX, I can still push it to the limit, and I NEED hundreds of internal busses. If interested as to why : realgearonline.com/post/357209/threadI know that Luna allows an unlimited number of tracks, and Luna treats busses similar to tracks, so I suppose that it could also have unlimited busses?. You just create new busses, and then they're all in a row in your channel/mixer view. Plus, you can do buss spills, to only see those channels going to a specific buss. Like I said, that might have to be a customer service question about the busses. I've never seen anyone propose such a large number of busses in Luna. Not saying Luna can't do it. I just honestly don't know. 700 busses is obviously a pretty niche number. |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Mar 5, 2024 18:27:11 GMT -6
So - the Lynx Aurora with the Digi connector...that connects to an HDX card? And then you pay for PT Ultimate and the HW Inserts should work? Or is it just Avid products? Lynx works because they have precisely the same latency as the Avid boxes. Pretty clever. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Mar 5, 2024 18:35:20 GMT -6
There's quite a few that tricks Pro Tools into believing it's a HDX product (matched latency readout).
Apogee Symphony (HDX expansion card) Lynx Aurora Focusrite Red
Now I've always been interested in option 3, plenty of I/O, decent spec's, cheaper than the rest and you can get one new so you don't have to worry about warranty.
Antelope too, or at least they used to have HDX Digi connection options. But it's Antelope... I wouldn't go near them. Too many support issues. Ditto to this!!! I tried extensively two different times to get a Galaxy 64 to do proper delay compensation. After months of back and forth, Antelope finally admitted to me it doesn't work: "Due to the hardware design and the specifics of the protocol, we are unable to provide a full sample accuracy. Our HDX implementation does support sample accuracy of +/- 1 sample of each channel set (D-SUB 8 channels) This delay is so called start up timing delay, caused by the FPGA. This is the time that the FPGA needs to handle the signal." So, I can't recommend Lynx enough. I've used them side by side with Avid interfaces for years and Pro Tools treats them just like they are Avid I/Os. Also, great customer support the few times I've had a question! |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 5, 2024 18:49:22 GMT -6
Anyone know why I wouldn’t be getting any latency from using a Hw insert in PT? I haven’t compensated anything, but there’s no latency going out to one piece of HW then recorded back in…no clue why.
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Mar 5, 2024 18:55:09 GMT -6
Anyone know why I wouldn’t be getting any latency from using a Hw insert in PT? I haven’t compensated anything, but there’s no latency going out to one piece of HW then recorded back in…no clue why. Try it in input mode? |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 5, 2024 20:01:40 GMT -6
Anyone know why I wouldn’t be getting any latency from using a Hw insert in PT? I haven’t compensated anything, but there’s no latency going out to one piece of HW then recorded back in…no clue why. Try it in input mode? I did mute the input on UAD Console…but I’m confused because I’m hearing the hardware effected signal in-time when I play it with the session. I know it is because I can move the knobs on the comp and it changes the sound. I guess if it was in input, I’d be hearing the delayed sound. I just can’t for the life of me figure out why it’s being compensated? |
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Mar 5, 2024 20:20:44 GMT -6
I did mute the input on UAD Console…but I’m confused because I’m hearing the hardware effected signal in-time when I play it with the session. I know it is because I can move the knobs on the comp and it changes the sound. I guess if it was in input, I’d be hearing the delayed sound. I just can’t for the life of me figure out why it’s being compensated? It shouldn't be, only Avid HW calculates RTL on the fly and there's always latency caused by the converter. Even in Logic you'd have to do an I/O ping (if you have it give it a go, that will tell you), the only other thing I could suggest is using the RTL Ping tool oblique-audio.com/rtl-utility.php and that will also give you an accurate reading. One simple other thing you can try is a send on the audio track to a bus then use the I/O insert on that, even if it's a few samples out it will cause phase. Latency on an audio track itself is a tricky one, you might end up with an instrument 5ms out of time with everything else but in the density of a mix not always notice. It's like there's something up but you're not quite sure..
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 5, 2024 21:12:58 GMT -6
I did mute the input on UAD Console…but I’m confused because I’m hearing the hardware effected signal in-time when I play it with the session. I know it is because I can move the knobs on the comp and it changes the sound. I guess if it was in input, I’d be hearing the delayed sound. I just can’t for the life of me figure out why it’s being compensated? It shouldn't be, only Avid HW calculates RTL on the fly and there's always latency caused by the converter. Even in Logic you'd have to do an I/O ping (if you have it give it a go, that will tell you), the only other thing I could suggest is using the RTL Ping tool oblique-audio.com/rtl-utility.php and that will also give you an accurate reading. One simple other thing you can try is a send on the audio track to a bus then use the I/O insert on that, even if it's a few samples out it will cause phase. Latency on an audio track itself is a tricky one, you might end up with an instrument 5ms out of time with everything else but in the density of a mix not always notice. It's like there's something up but you're not quite sure.. I should clarify. I hear the latency. It’s a lot. But what I’m trying to figure out is why when I mute the input on the Apollo console (where the return is coming back in) I hear the processed track in time. I’d assume the processed track (from the outboard comp) would be coming back through my Apollo console… I’m sure I’ve got some routing wrong somewhere…this is the kind of stuff that makes me not have fun. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Mar 6, 2024 3:38:59 GMT -6
I think Carbon and HDX are truly great tools.
Tracking bands.
For those of us working at home - max two tracks at a time, why would I want to track through plug-ins when I can track through real hardware and real amps etc
I can’t see any advantage to Cubase and an analog mixer for true zero latency tracking monitoring.
A heck of a lot cheaper than HDX and actually way easier to use!
Are people tracking through amp sims?
I thought Carbon didn’t work at low latency with amp sims because they’re not Avid DSP compatible.
What plug-ins are needed during tracking?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadowk on Mar 6, 2024 4:20:09 GMT -6
I can’t see any advantage to Cubase and an analog mixer for true zero latency tracking monitoring. "For those of us working at home - max two tracks at a time, why would I want to track through plug-ins when I can track through real hardware and real amps etc" Not everyone can afford bags of HW and HDX or Carbon extends beyond just tracking, we also do things like mixing as well.
"I can’t see any advantage to Cubase and an analog mixer for true zero latency tracking monitoring."
As I explained on the other thread, it's nowhere near zero latency (nothing is as converters aren't magic) especially when you add plugins into the mix. The only way you'll ever reach HDX's level of tracking & consistent internal bus routing latency (for automation etc.) is to get a low latency TB interface like an MOTU (it has an output buffer of like 0.9ms at 96Khz / low samples) and essentially use nothing but an analog console for every duty. You'll get away with some zero latency plugins but most effects would have to be HW, that costs quite a crap load more than HDX or Carbon even if it can be a superior solution. Or, you can, like me do both..
"Are people tracking through amp sims?"
Nope, I've got some boutique amps (Engl Retro, Diezel) but a decent 1 watt which is great for tracking costs like $300? I don't see the need.
"What plug-ins are needed during tracking?"
Usually verbs and compression for Cue Mixes, we all should have a decent cue mix and good verbs at least tend to be on the heavier side of processing. That being said it only really becomes an issue native when you've got 20+ channels all setup with plugins then you need to drop in an overdub. That's when the analog console design I mentioned or HDX system shines..
|
|
