Controlling Your DAW Remotely - Cost effective and efficient way to mix in a box

June 19, 2016 by Fu Yongwei in audio

Mixing in the box is a very common practice by many individuals nowadays due the many merits it can provide. The more common influencing factors are the overall cost of owning a system to produce music and the convenience of a fully functioning system in terms of portability. Many Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) have the capabilities and essential tools (e.g. plug-ins) included in their package for the users to go crazy with their music projects without much limitation. In today's day and age, it is almost impossible to avoid working solely in the box, as this practice is ubiquitous in the industry.

Generally speaking, mixing in the box is mostly the operations of a computer mouse (e.g. to navigate and adjust parameters) and some trigger of hotkeys/shortcuts on the keyboard (e.g. add tracks or switching editing tools) in its simplest form. This setup alone is sufficient for users to power through any projects without much trouble. However, many users would favour some form of control interface to help improve their user experiences and efficiency.

Mixing is a form of creative arts where many individuals would prefer some form of tactile feedback when they are working on their project. This is something that a setup with a mouse and keyboard would not be able to accomplish. Personally for most of my studio work, I primarily mix in the box, as I often have to travel on-site for recording. Having a dedicated control surface such as the Avid Artist Mix or Presonus Fader Port would be a bonus, which not many will be willing to invest when they are starting out due to the extra cost (e.g. Artist Mix retails around $1700 SGD).

Something that might interest you would be a DAW remote app that allows you to navigate and control your workstation through an electronic touch device. In my case, I am using Neyrincks V Control Pro and Avid Pro Tools Control for remote accessibility through an iPad. The Avid Pro Tools (PT) Control was only introduced in late 2015 and will only work with Avid Pro Tools. On the other hand, the V Control Pro has support for a wealth of DAWs, from Logic to Cubase to Reaper. It even has control support for video editing software such as Final Cut (up to version 7) and Premiere Pro. The main cost difference between these two applications will be that PT Control is free while V Control Pro would cost around $149 SGD.

Left: Neyrincks V Control Pro graphical user interface
Right: Avid Pro Tools Control graphical user interface

Both applications would require the devices to be on the same network and drivers (V-Control Pro for V Control and EuControl for Pro Tools Control) to be installed on the respective computer to allow communications between the app and DAW. Additional settings would have to be made in the DAW software for the remote surface to be configured with the workstation itself (with relative ease; both instruction guides are simple to follow).

The applications have a different school of thoughts when it comes to inserts parameters control. I personally prefer the V Control interface as the app will display a live view of the insert (plug-ins) I am adjusting while the PT control only displays the parameters values and sliders. As compared to a physical interface, a touch screen interface does not provide any tactile feedback for me to navigate the app without looking at it. Hence, I often find myself changing the values of my inserts on the V Control as it provides the necessary visual support for me to adjust my plug-in without the need to glance at my computer screen occasionally.

Left: Pro Tools Control Insert Parameter Adjustment (Waves REQ 6)
Right: V Control Insert Parameter Adjustment (Waves C4)

A remote control surface application, such as the PT control or V Control Pro, has some viable benefits for users to integrate it into their existing system without much cost incurred (given that most of us own a smartphone or tablet). In my own experiences when I am mixing in the box, I often utilise the fader control for automation and level balancing purposes. A mixture of operating with a mouse/keyboard and a remote surface app has proved to be versatile and efficient. Users should experiment the with both interfaces and pick what works best for different scenarios to improve efficiency and overall user experience.

YWFU

*If you are interested in a more in-depth review of the specific remote app (either PT control or V Control Pro) do let me know and I would be happy to share my experiences with you.

Pepperdecks DJOCLATE Pocket Size Mixing Console - Simple Device, Many Possibilities

June 16, 2016 by Fu Yongwei in audio, tech

I was introduced to a rather interesting audio product recently — passive pocket-size 2 stereo channels mixing console. This product is being marketed to the partygoers or budding DJ enthusiasts who wish to have the capability to cross-mix two stereo audio sources into one stereo output (e.g. L-R configuration sound system).

At first glance, the design of the device is intuitive, as there was not much variety of control options other than the level controls (volume faders) and bass kill switch (high pass filter). That being said, the controls are adequate as it simple enough for a consumer to mix between two audio sources easily without additional fuss. Furthermore, the device does not require any external power source such as a battery or wall plug. This passive characteristic allows the user to carry the unit anywhere and mixes audio anytime.

Pepperdecks DJOCLATE, passive pocket size mixing console (2 stereo channels)

3.5mm (headphone) connectors are used for interfacing the device with both its input and output sources. This allows the unit to be versatile enough to work with any audio device such as a Smartphone or a portable media player (e.g. iPod) that has a 3.5mm output. Do take note that with the onboard 3.5mm output, the DJOCLATE is sending an unbalanced signal to your audio system, thus, it is not advisable to have a long cable distance (more than 5m) between both devices.

Although the product is primarily being promoted to mostly partygoers and DJs, I have used the DJOCLATE in other applications that might be a little more creative. I was mixing audio for a conference a few weeks ago where there were multiple video cues for audio to be play through the system. In some circumstances, a small footprint mixer (e.g. Soundcraft Signature 10) can be deployed for the video operator to control the audio parameters precisely (e.g. fade time and audio level). In this scenario, the DJOCLATE is able to execute the cross-mixing task perfectly, as it allows video operators to have control of the audio while not taking up too much console real estate space and incurring a high cost on equipment.

Included in the package: Pepperdeck DJOCLATE, soft carry pouch and 3.5mm cable x 2

Similar to any other products, the DJOCLATE does have its own limitations. As compared to a full-fledged mixing console, the DJOCLATE does not have a head amp (gain) control, hence, it does not allow users to monitor and normalise signal levels transmitted to the main audio console. Nevertheless, that can be rectified by checking the PFL (Pre Fader Level) signal on the main console.

In addition, if the playback location is far away from the main audio console, an isolating transformer (e.g. D'San LSP-2) can always be used to convert unbalanced to balanced signal to help cope with the cable distance. If an improvement can be made into the DJOCLATE, I would favour a set of ground-lift switches that can be triggered when common electronic noises are (e.g. hum or buzz) induced in the circuit.

Pepperdecks DJOLCATE is a unique product that provides a cross-mixing solution for users to have some essential controls on their audio sources. The small footprint and passive design of the product have allowed consumers to integrate this product anywhere (e.g. home theatre for seamlessly switching between sources) at a low cost (~70 SGD).

YWFU

New update: If you are interested in purchasing a Pepperdecks DJOCLATE, you can purchase it through this link (Singapore user only).

The differences between SSD - Price, Performance and Lifespan

June 12, 2016 by Fu Yongwei in tech

Since my last post about solid state drive (SSD) back in March 2016 (Upgradable Hardware), I have been receiving a lot of questions about why is there a performance and price difference between the different model of SSD? Is one brand legitimately better than the other? Or can we even have a one to one comparison on two different SSD from different manufacturers?

Comparing SSD on a one to one basis tends to be a little bit unfair towards any form of evaluations as different SSD may be designed to perform at a specific application or scenarios. For instance, the Samsung 850 pro is designed to ensure a longer service life than its counterpart, Samsung 850 evo, the 850 pro even comes with a 10 years warranty for the device. The type of flash memory used plays a huge role in affecting the performance, storage capacity, longevity, and price of the SSD.

Excluding any propriety technologies used by different manufacturers, there are two types of flash storage cells being used to construct an SSD, namely, Single Level Cell (SLC) and Multi Level Cell (MLC). Each flash designs has their own merits and may be better suited for specific applications, while its limitation may be overcome if you understand them properly.

Every cell has a certain lifespan for its charge/discharge cycle, which will happen when data is being read/write from the flash memory. Meaning, the more instances a cell is required to read/write in its operation, the more "wear and tear" the cell will experience, as a result to a shorter lifespan.

SLC is the least commons for a consumer or even a tech enthusiast to own them, as they are expensive to own and maintain. Originally, SLC cells are mainly used in enterprise level SSD as it has the longest serviceable lifespan and most reliable performance in read/write data accuracy. As SLC cells use a single bit per cell design to construct an SSD, it improves read/write accuracy and hardware longevity. However, this technology is expensive to build and is limited to smaller storage capacities as compared to other types of SSD of similar form factor.

When it comes to MLC, it is often referred to as a 2-bit level cell. With this architectural design, MLC improves data density as compared to SLC SSD. In fact, most high-end enthusiast SSD (e.g. Samsung 850 Pro) or enterprise level SSD (Kingston SSD E100) have utilised MLC design for its improve storage capacity, hardware cost, and relative reliable data accuracy.

Kingston SSD E100, enterprise level SSD. Credits to Kingston

There is actually another subset type of MLC that is frequently used in many flash drive or SSD at a lower price point, Triple Level Cell (TLC). This cell design is the cheapest to manufacture as it packs 3 bits into cells for storage and has the highest data density as compared to the two mentioned above. However, the flash memory cell lifespan is being exchanged for an increment in storage capacities where the cells are required to read/write more as they store more data per cell (3-bit level cell).

Regardless of whether the SSD is SLC, MLC or TLC, any SSD will definitely have an advantage in performance as compared to a Hard Disk Drive (HDD). By understanding the different limitations, such as TLC type SSD packs higher data storage capacities while it does last as long as MLC type SSD and might require a bit more of tender loving care attention from you (you get it? :D). In my own usage, I am currently using a TLC type SSD as a portable storage device (Transcend USB 3.0) and I am totally fine with it. Since it's a portable device, I am not intending to store any critical data into the unit while preserving the high data throughput of an SSD.

My portable Transcend SSD. Great value for fast large file transfer.

I hope that this post will give you a better understanding of the different type of SSD in the market and. Do not be appalled and think that TLC type SSD are terrible. Yes, TLC SSD might have a lower lifespan and read/write cycle but it will easily last over 4 years (more than conventional HDD). That alone will easily justify the additional cost to invest in an SSD over an HDD.

YWFU