My future outboard journey...

No you can patch hardware in live as inserts. However that can be complicated or simple, all depends on what DAW you are using.

It is usually smart to print some of it though as you might never have that hardware again or other reasons as simple as you don't have enough I/O to support all your hardware.

Cubase will do it and has a way for you to do Delay compensation which is important if you're running hardware like a "plugin" live on the track the whole time.

You can totally run something through a piece of hardware and then use whatever you want after it ITB like eq or whatever you want.

I have no idea if FL studio will do it, I've never used it.

Long as you can route it and bring it in you can do whatever you want. I run hardware as inserts with Plugins all the time on the same tracks in Protools HDX. For mastering I usually do an analog signal chain and print it back into Wavelab, then use digital tools to tweak before renders.

There are a ton of ways to do this and it'll all depend on what hardware, I/O, and DAW you have. And how you want to use it all.

I do it all kinds of ways.

- I almost always am printing thru Hardware as I track it in
- After initial tracking, I ofter "reamp" thru various pieces during the production process
- During Mix I ALWAYS have hardware on various tracks / busses and 2 Mix
- During Mastering I'm always using hardware as well.

- As of late I'm trying to adopt a new system that will allow for 100% total recall of all outboard, or the ability to change the analog gear up. It's complicated, and for me requires PTHDX, but I'm pretty excited about this new work flow.

I've got 120 I/o of conversion and more than that in outboard gear. It's the lifeblood of "my sound" and - IMO - much superior to an all digit or all analog setup.

Hey thanks!

The ideal would be to have racks of outboard and have one of everything for all your needs. Even then, I would print everything at the end of a mix to avoid the trouble of recalls. In my experience, recalls are simple things (e.g., raise the volume of the hi hat) that don't require re-printing everything.

Because I only have a few pieces, right now I'm painstakingly printing every track through hardware eq / compressors as I mix. What is surprising to me is that this is faster than using plugins everywhere. I get to my desired sound faster. It also helps with decision-making. Once you have printed the drums processing, it's done, and you can move on to other things, instead of messing with it all the time.

If several tracks call for the same processing, I have a Reaper script that prints them through outboard automatically.

If you want to address individual pieces your best bet is an interface with many I/O ports, and you don't need a patchbay if you do it that way (many drivers let you patch stuff digitally).

If you're using your equipment like a big channel strip, and you're processing stuff in series all the time, then an interface with few I/O ports might be a cheaper idea, and then add a patchbay so you can change the order of modules.

I got recommended API for my thick deep baritone voice. Could anyone comment on that? Thx.

Preamp I suppose. I'm a noob, sorry

You need to have a chat with Michael Bauer!

I've personally only worked with NT2A, which is a great super cheap mic, but we've done major TV channels with it. And also C414 which was borrowed from my friend. I could get a 87 from that same friend, he's got like 20 of them

I normally don't use outboard effects, so typically haven't printed effects, and normally don't do external analog processing from the DAW (via sends and returns). But, I've played with it a bit lately, so maybe I can give you food for thought.

Historically, I've mic my vocals and do all processing ITB. The rest is line-level gear (synths, organ, etc.), processing ITB. More recently, I wanted to play with classic analog processing, bought the Klark Teknik trio of 76-KT, EQP-KT, and 2A-KT. The 76 and EQP showed up first, it was a no-brainer to run mic -> pre -> EQP-KT -> 76-KT and print. Or just skip the EQP, since I wasn't using EQ. A year later, the 2A arrived and was a more pronounced effect, it became unclear whether I would want to print that and lose the raw vocal. Or run the 76 and 2A together. Or use the devices as processing via sends and returns.

It's just me here, so it was much easier to experiment by recording my raw vocal, then experiment with playback using sends. Not much later, I changed my interface situation from a digital mixer to rack processing, consisting of one Ferrofish Pulse 16MX (16 in, 16 out, MADI option), and a MOTU 64 (MADI interface with mixing and routing). The Pulse 16 had way more outputs than I need (I'd run out of input if I hooked everything up but I can buy another if needed). The excessive outputs made it easy to simply hook each external mono devices to its own i/o channels on the Pulse, and handle the routing in the box (either in the DAW, or MOTU's mixer software. I have a hardware patch bay, but I found the digital routing to be easy enough.

Some would argue that it's all wrong to, say, go from the vocal track to a DAC output, through the 76-KT, into an ADC input, immediately bus that to a second DAC output, through the 2A-KT, and back input another ADC input. Twice the conversions needed compared with outputting to the 76 connected to the 2A. But it takes a surprising number of conversions on modern converters to hear a difference. You can find examples on the web where people have done 60 generations on moderately priced interfaces, you think it would be easy to tell the first from the last, but...

I don't know if I'll end up working that way, and I'll continue do most effects ITB, but it wouldn't be a bad way to go.

The more finished your recorded tracks are, the better your recordings and mixes will be!

Don't be afraid of it. Experiment over and over and take notes of what works for you! I print NOTHING that doesn't have some outboard processing. No regrets at all.