James wrote:

What DAW Software can I use for the Yamaha Motif ES8

You can use any DAW software that you care to use. A lot will depend on the computer you have. The Motif ES8 will not care which DAW you use, the software will run on your computer. Pick the computer and your software according to what it is you would like do.

We recommend Steinberg software (Cubase) for Music Production.

www.steinberg.net

You can find the appropriate driver for your computer's operating system at the official Yamaha download site.

http://download.yamaha.com

The driver is responsible for translating messages from your Motif ES so that your computer can deal with signal coming from the ES. For example, if you want to record MIDI data to the computer, you would find, download (read the instructions) and install the USB-MIDI Driver appropriate for your computer's needs.

If your intent is to record audio to the computer, you will need to additionally get an AUDIO INTERFACE. The job of the audio interface is to get audio into and back out of your computer for recording purposes. It will have inputs for the external devices (like the Motif ES) to connect to, it will have a connection to your computer (typically USB)... and it will also have outputs for your speaker system. Different audio interfaces will require a driver as well.

Since you do not mention what type of DAW Software you are interested in we can only mention the two main options (MIDI - all you need is a USB cable and the USB_MIDI Driver; AUDIO - you will need an audio interface and the appropriate Driver for that device).

I am new to DAW editing and recording as well. I am running an ES through Cubase 8 Elements (trial version). If I am still editing Pattern / Song parts back and forth in and out of Cubase, am I better off sending MIDI or audio signals? I usually pick up (add) one VST instrument to my mix from Cubase. I understand that once I am ready to mixdown and burn a CD I will first need to send audio to Cubase, but until that point, should I work with MIDI for all Motif driven parts, or does it matter? I heard that MIDI removes risk of latency otherwise added during a conversion thru my audio interface. Is that the only consideration? I heard also that workflow is possible when using MIDI data between Motif and Cubase, but not sure if that only applies to later (newer) versions of Motif like XS. Can you set me straight?

THANKS

Tom

MIDI gives you options of changing your mind. That would be first and foremost. When you record audio directly from your synth to your DAW, your options to "change your mind" are limited. While your musical performance is MIDI data, you can change not only the Voice you've selected to play the musical part, but you can more easily correct timing or unfortunate notes (there are no wrong notes, just unfortunate notes) 🙂

This gives you a layer of UNDO that is priceless. When you finally *commit* the data to audio, you should be completely happy with your performance, and your sound overall.

Your statement about latency is moot, you can work (and should setup to work) so that you are never downwind of computer latency. This is possible if you decide on a workflow to make this a reality. When latency becomes an issue is when you try to ask your computer to both process and record your real time performance. Say you have a VST plug-in effect and you want to use it while you record audio... Sorry, but the computer will take time to process the signal before you can hear it... While latency is general very small (a few milliseconds) it can become an issue when it approaches 20ms... By the time it gets to 30ms you cannot comfortably play.

Most plug-in effects are best used 'after the fact' not in real time. You can avoid being downwind of that processing time by using your ES' on board processing during recording audio, and use your computer based effects during mix down.

If you are recording with computer based VSTi (soft synths) the nature and amount of latency will vary according to the application and what CPU muscle it requires from your computer. That should not be a significant issue when working with your ES hardware, as you can always opt to Monitor what you are playing on the ES "direct" (the direct signal does not traverse the computer, and therefore is not subject to latency) one of the advantages of hardware. DAW's like Cubase have advanced delay compensation and time stamp every bit of audio they receive so your audio is positioned exactly where it should be to playback properly.

Now while there is a very, very strong case for recording MIDI, you can opt to use your computer like a sophisticated "tape recorder"... If you don't plan on editing your performance, and you don't need to change your mind about the selected sounds, etc., then recording audio is another available workflow.

And this is what is really spectacular about today's technology... There are many ways to setup and work. There is no "best way" - it is very much a personal choice.

I recommend you explore each so that you can draw your own opinion on the workflows.
Hope that helps... If you need specific help with setting up let us know.

Thank you Bad Mister. Very Helpful. I guess I was confused to originally think that latency actually affects the timing of what is recorded vs simply affects monitoring during record. Just monitor upwind and no problems......I am finding it best to do as much editing as possible on the Motif and then record the final parts over to DAW, add my VST (rhythm guitar) then mix down. I did have trouble with with my first audio interface, Couldn't find the right setting to remove pops. No matter what I did to change the buffer, it still popped.....Solution - change the audio interface- plug for Yamaha coming....Bought the Steinberg UR22 - problem solved- runs perfect with Cubase AI right out of the box. I will probably come back to you later with questions about sending / editing MIDI data back and forth between Motif and Cubase, but at this point, I think I will continue to do most of my editing on board the Motif.

Ok now I have started moving audio tracks from Motif into Cubase....Plan A - Should I bus each part (voice) as individual stereo tracks, or a combination of mono and stereo depending on the voice on each track? If so can you suggest what voices to bus as stereo vs mono? or Plan B - mix everything on Motif and then simply bus it over as a single stereo track.

thomas wrote:

Ok now I have started moving audio tracks from Motif into Cubase....Plan A - Should I bus each part (voice) as individual stereo tracks, or a combination of mono and stereo depending on the voice on each track? If so can you suggest what voices to bus as stereo vs mono? or Plan B - mix everything on Motif and then simply bus it over as a single stereo track.

These are "production" decisions, and how you proceed will have a profound affect on your final result.

Plan A - depending on the version of Cubase you are running (you're running Cubase 8 Elements) and the type of audio interface you are using, recording items as audio is an important part of the process. Obviously recording things to individual audio tracks gives you options to process and effect the individual parts as you desire. If you record something to its own audio track and do nothing to it (that is, you don't process it separately in Cubase, then truly what do gain by isolating it to its own track?) Obviously, this will depend on the composition and what will make it work better.

Certain of your individual Motif MIDI track Parts are stereo... For example, the acoustic pianos in the synth are sampled in stereo, so are many of the orchestral strings, the B3 organs are sampled in mono, but the Rotary Speaker INSERT EFFECT is clearly stereo! You need to make a production decision about each musical part. You gain nothing by recording the bass in stereo, in fact some parts are gloriously mono and will exist in your mix fine as mono. But going through the process of recording everything to individual audio tracks DOES NOT guarantee you will get a better mix/final result... It simply means you have the potential to have more control, more options. What you do with them is the key.

Taking a separate output on your bass, for example, and then doing nothing special with it in the DAW does not get you anything, but if you have some awesome VST plugin effect that is going to make the bass line of the song an instant hit, or gives the composition a great personality, then you have a good reason to isolate it on its own audio track. But simply to record it as audio separately and do nothing but adjust its level... Well, you could do that already. You will have broken a perfectly good mix, and will wind up struggling to reassemble it.

Plan B - a New York City street person once said to me while riding the subway: "never stand when you can sit... And never sit when you can lay down" meaning here, you should definitely take the easy route... (If only to set your own marker). Do your best mix as straight stereo to Cubase as a stereo mix. That sets the bar at a certain level. Now put that stereo mix aside... Then go through your PLAN A where you isolate those items you want to process separately, record the stereo musical parts to stereo Audio tracks, and the mono parts to mono audio tracks... Go through the process trying to improve upon your work.

Finally mixdown this session... And compare your results. Only you will be able to judge which comes out better in light of the work it took to get there. Remember just because the "potential" is there to improve the results does not mean you will wind up with better results. At any rate, you will be a more experienced music producer when you finish. And it will put in perspective (for you) how difficult it is to break something apart and then reassemble it. Some times you will be able to make major improvements, other times you will be struggling to recapture some of the magic of the simpler method.

When I used to teach audio engineering I would challenge the class with the following recording conundrum... We used to use live musicians as our recording project, and the very first session was always a string quartet. I'd introduce the players to the class, they were local philharmonic players who did this quartet thing on the side... They had been playing together for ten years... Two violins, viola, cello... I'd ask the class how many microphones should we use.

Most would answer: four
The thoughtful future engineers would answer: two
And while there is no right or wrong answer, the point of the question was to make them think... If you place four microphones (one per player) as an engineer you are 'saying' in effect, I'm taking the responsibility to balance these four musicians and can do it better than they can balance themselves!.
While recording them in stereo, really might better capture the essence of this ensemble... So maybe don't use a "pop" recording method on a group with ten years experience balancing their own mix!

Either way could result in a great recording, and at the end of the day, most listeners will be totally (and I mean TOTALLY) oblivious to how any of this was recorded ... But that's what the behind the scenes production decisions are all about. You will know, you will care, it's your art.

Sorry if it's like one of those Jedi lessons... where there is no right or wrong, you have to experience it for yourself, and if you do both methods and compare your work, you will get better at knowing what you are able to improve, and what was okay as it was! My favorite advice is: the is no shortcut to experience.

Good luck. And whatever you decide to do, think it through, have a reason. Don't be afraid to experiment and by all means have fun!

Hope that helps.

Thanks very much. I think I am really sold on what I hear through my ES monitors (before DAW) and really have no plans (or belief) that I can improve it in Cubase. So - I think I will start with Plan B and do all editing on the ES. Just use Cubase to maybe pick up an extra VST instrument and mix down....