Switching to Hardware after 15 years of software

The Lounge General Discussion
#1

Hi all,

Quite amazed at how big and interesting this Elektronauts community is.

Well as the title reads I am finally taking the leap of faith and getting my first hardware after 15 years running vsts in cubase.

Im tired of doing everything with my mouse and looking at my computer screens for 8+ hours every day…inspiration slowly fading away.

So after a good run on the web I decided to go with Elektron and ordered the Rytm MkII.

Excited and scared at the same time how this will all turn out. Quite sure i will get the hang of it as i have been releasing music and touring for a very long time now…but still im shitting myself deep down and I don’t know how my workflow will be.

I thinking of connecting the Rytm to my soundcard and record everything in Cubase as loops. Then arrange, mix, eq after all in Cubase.

Do you think this workflow is ideal or should i look at other options?

Thank you

#2

Whichever method works. However, recording things in as loops bypasses the performance macros on the Rytm which can be a really cool element.

No need to figuratively(I hope) shit yourself. It’ll be a lot of fun, There’s something really magical about interacting with the music directly.

3 Likes
#3

Enjoy. Its the best and most enjoyable musical move i ever made.
Just experiment. Try that and then alternatively try making a / some pattern(s) on the rytm n record an ad-libbed composition from that into cubase. Making the structure up on the spot. The latter is the way I prefer to work now, having come from years of computer et mouse stagnation. t’is very liberating.
Experiment and enjoy, you’ll figure out what way works best for you :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#4

Words out of context - great.

Regarding topic:

Would also not record loops. Eqinf and stuff on stems later is ok, but you can and should use scenes and perf makros on the rytm. Just arrange on the rytm. It works.

8 Likes
#5

Brilliant :smiley:

1 Like
#6

Do you mean recording stems as audio into cubase? Thats similar to recording loops right?

#7

So what would suggest? still record as audio into cubase…but in longer takes?

#8

yeah, but you do perform the hole thing and do not only record a few bars.
the performance macros are the mighty hammer on the rytm. you loose that when only taking in the short loops.

1 Like
#9

There are pros and cons to everything.

You could run individual tracks as audio- but you’ll miss out on the master FX(which could be linked to .

You could record a stereo track and fully utilize the Rytm but miss out on multi-tracking.

The best integration of the Rytm and your DAW would be OB because you can record FX sends(though, I think you can do this with hardware out too).

I think you’ll want to utilize the Rytm workflow more to get the most satisfaction out of it. And the performance macros are REALLY GOOD. (The best offering of macros of any Elektron)

1 Like
#10

It starts with the rytm…then you add the octatrack…the a4/keys…maybe some effect pedals…a mixer…a shit ton of midi/audio cables…a new desk…and then some…good luck!

4 Likes
#11

I just recently went through a similar situation. I had been making found sound IDM for 20yrs when a lightning storm took out all of my samples, songs, and laptop. (Yes, I should have had a separate, unplugged backup). After a few years of doing the vst/reaktor thing I found that I needed a change to get that spark again.

Being an electronics guy, I was excited to take the leap into hardware and got a Microbrute. I love the Microbrute but having dealt with a DAW for so long, I was completely out of my element and needed a fully functioning sequencer. Though I have no experience in any other groovebox/drum machine/sequencer, I feel like the Elektron products are not only very easy to turn on and start using out of the box but they are also very complicated if you want to learn.

I went with the Digitakt and don’t even want to look at a computer anymore. Though I know I will eventually use a DAW for mastering again, I have been going DAWless for almost a year now and love this whole experience… except for the fact that I have no money since my eurorack fascination.

I wish you luck on your journey and this forum always has answers if you’re in a bind.

3 Likes
#12

If you do just this, you may miss the best, really.

All electron boxes are supposed to be real instruments for life performing artists. The main difference to other groove-box like gear was the combination of excellent sound engines and a very deep sequencer. We get the best out of them, if we try to use them as this in the first place. If we only use them as a hardware-plug-in, we will miss much of the fun and creative ways to use it.

I would suggest, after getting experienced to use the basic features of the AR, start jamming and improvising over your creative ideas. Use the p-locks creatively. There are so many features you would not use or even try in a DAW.

At the end there is nothing wrong to record the results as stems.

3 Likes
#13

Put the computer away, completely.
It’ll try to haunt you, taunt you, sweet talk you.
Ignore that.
Once it stops trying to get your attention, you’ll really get into the groove and open up the new/old ways.
After you completely abandon the computer and make a bunch of tracks, then maybe evaluate the computers strengths.

5 Likes
#14

Thanks guys for all your replies.

I have been seeing that the Rytm runs samples at 48Khz. So my question is…when i record to Cubase should i open a 48Khz project because i have always worked at 44.1Khz?

p.s - my Rytm should arrive Tuesday :slight_smile:

#15

just switch to 48k, the filesize costs are neglible :diddly:

#16

I do recommend staying at 44,1 as this is used when you put it on a disc. There will be a notable decrease in quality if the 48kHz are resamped to 44,1kHz.

But record on 24 bits, as this gives you way more headroom and higher dynamic possibilities when mixing.

1 Like
#17

I thought software like r8brain and SOX had made 48 > 44.1 SRC totally safe though?

#18

I’m a little out of the scene, but when I did my audio engeneering degree (15 ago) unneeded or better unnecessary SRC was an absolute nogo.

Ofc the algos have improved over time, but still there are only approximations, not exact values to take over though there is loss of information.

Damn, my english vocabulary has surely decreased over time :wink:

#19

Will have a look at these

#20

Modern SRC works by upsampling as much as is necessary to then get to the target samplerate by a simple division, thereby eliminating truncation errors. It can be theoretically very transparent AFAIK