Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need multichannel recording hardware suggestions & Questio..

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 6:33:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hey, I was thinking of buying an Aardvark Q10 but it seems to be discontinued
so the only other comparable card i've found is the Presonus Firepod. Basically
i want something thats going to be easy to record a drumset or
drums/guitar/bass without having to buy a big mixer, interface card, a million
cables, etc.. any suggestions? I'd like at least 8 XLR inputs and don't want to
spend a fortune.

Does anyone have experience with the firepod? Pros/cons? From what I can tell
there are gain knobs for each channel on the firepod rack so thats good that I
don't need to go over to my computer everytime I want to tweak something. I
would like to mic my drums and be able to use the firepod as a sort of software
mixer, in other words, I hook up all my mics, adjust all the gains, eq each
channel until I'm happy, and then listen to my eq'd drums through isolation
headphones mixed in with music AS i'm playing, with no latency (extremely
important). So that I would hear the eq'd drums in the headphones. Also, is
there some kind of option in the firepod that would let me save different eq
settings so that if i eq things differently for recording than say for just
playing along to a cd i could just load up the different saved settings
depending on what i want to do, instead of having to redo everything everytime
i switch tasks?

Is this possible? Thanks
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 1:45:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <B6jJd.1528$Yg6.443241@news20.bellglobal.com> mb@gmail.com writes:

> Hey, I was thinking of buying an Aardvark Q10 but it seems to be discontinued

It's quite possible that the whole company has been discontinued. They
weren't at the NAMM show (nor the AES show, as I recall), and their
web page seems to have disappeared, as has any appearance of tech
support.

> so the only other comparable card i've found is the Presonus Firepod.

They're really quite different, but if what you see is eight mic
preamps on a box that plugs into your computer, then I guess they're
equivalent.

> i want something thats going to be easy to record a drumset or
> drums/guitar/bass without having to buy a big mixer, interface card, a million
> cables, etc.. any suggestions? I'd like at least 8 XLR inputs and
> don't want to spend a fortune.

You mean you don't want to spend $200,000, or you don't want to spend
$500? To tell you the hard truth, recording isn't as simple as you
would like to think it is, and no matter what you have, you STILL need
millions of cables.

> Does anyone have experience with the firepod? Pros/cons? From what I can tell
> there are gain knobs for each channel on the firepod rack so thats good that I
> don't need to go over to my computer everytime I want to tweak something.

The only thing you can tweak is the input gain of the mic preamp. But
since the record level metering is on your computer screen, and large
meters readable across the room over a drum set are pretty rare.

> would like to mic my drums and be able to use the firepod as a sort of software
> mixer, in other words, I hook up all my mics, adjust all the gains, eq each
> channel until I'm happy, and then listen to my eq'd drums through isolation
> headphones mixed in with music AS i'm playing, with no latency (extremely
> important).

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm getting the sense that you aren't really all that interested in
recording, but mostly just want to listen to yourself playing drums
to an existing recording. Why not just get a mixer?

You might look into the new Mackie Onyx series. The 1620 has 8 mix
inputs with two being able to double as direct boxes for direct
recording of an electric guitar or bass. It has an optional Firewire
expansion card which sends the mic preamp outputs (before EQ) and the
stereo output to the computer for recording, and returns a stereo mix
of tracks recoreded on the computer back to the mixer so you can
monitor what you've recorded. What you monitor while you're recording
will be the direct analog path through the mixer, so there will be no
latency.

You can also adjust EQ of the sources that go into that mix, but be
aware that the EQ isn't applied to the signal that's sent to the
computer. There's a good reason for this - you may not want to use the
same EQ that you liked live once other tracks are recorded and you're
trying to put them together in a final mix.

Something like this will give you a lot of flexibility and you'll have
some room to grow. A Firepod is just a basic input device with a
fixed-gain mix of the inputs added to the stereo playback from the
computer. With the Mackie, you get more inputs, and more flexibility
in mixing what you're monitoring. Using a real mixer will help you to
better understand how signals flow through a recording chain.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 8:39:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> i want something thats going to be easy to record a drumset or
>> drums/guitar/bass without having to buy a big mixer, interface card, a
million
>> cables, etc.. any suggestions? I'd like at least 8 XLR inputs and
>> don't want to spend a fortune.
>You mean you don't want to spend $200,000, or you don't want to spend
>$500? To tell you the hard truth, recording isn't as simple as you
>would like to think it is, and no matter what you have, you STILL need
>millions of cables.

well the firepod costs as much as a mackie mixer with 8 preamps, and
with the firepod i don't need to buy a pricey interface card, don't
need to buy all the extra cable to connect each channel from the
mixer to the card, etc.. and i'm assuming that the quality of the
recording might be better with the firepod since path from the mic
to the hard drive is shorter and less cluttered?

>> would like to mic my drums and be able to use the firepod as a sort of
software
>> mixer, in other words, I hook up all my mics, adjust all the gains, eq each
>> channel until I'm happy, and then listen to my eq'd drums through isolation
>> headphones mixed in with music AS i'm playing, with no latency (extremely
>> important).
>Ain't gonna happen.
>I'm getting the sense that you aren't really all that interested in
>recording, but mostly just want to listen to yourself playing drums
>to an existing recording. Why not just get a mixer?

well thats part of it but i would like to record as well. when just playing
back to a recording all i really need is the ability to control the volume
of each channel, eqing would be a bonus but its not necessary. and when
recording i would want to do my eqing after the tracks are recorded..
so from what i can tell the firepod would allow all of this..?

>You might look into the new Mackie Onyx series.

sounds cool but it costs twice as much as the firepod when the firepod does
the job i need? i can play along to a cd with my firepod and still maintain
gain control on each channel with zero latency, and i can record multiple
tracks with my firepod fairly simply.. i appreciate your suggestion and i
looked into it but maybe you could explain this to me.. based on what my
needs are, or from what you can tell, what does the onyx offer that would
justify spending twice as much money on it?
Related resources
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 9:10:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: mb@gmail.com (Matthew Blake)
>Date: 1/24/05 10:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <B6jJd.1528$Yg6.443241@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>Hey, I was thinking of buying an Aardvark Q10 but it seems to be discontinued
>
>so the only other comparable card i've found is the Presonus Firepod.
>Basically
>i want something thats going to be easy to record a drumset or
>drums/guitar/bass without having to buy a big mixer, interface card, a
>million
>cables, etc.. any suggestions? I'd like at least 8 XLR inputs and don't want
>to
>spend a fortune.
>
>Does anyone have experience with the firepod? Pros/cons? From what I can tell
>
>there are gain knobs for each channel on the firepod rack so thats good that
>I
>don't need to go over to my computer everytime I want to tweak something. I
>would like to mic my drums and be able to use the firepod as a sort of
>software
>mixer, in other words, I hook up all my mics, adjust all the gains, eq each
>channel until I'm happy, and then listen to my eq'd drums through isolation
>headphones mixed in with music AS i'm playing, with no latency (extremely
>important). So that I would hear the eq'd drums in the headphones. Also, is
>there some kind of option in the firepod that would let me save different eq
>settings so that if i eq things differently for recording than say for just
>playing along to a cd i could just load up the different saved settings
>depending on what i want to do, instead of having to redo everything
>everytime
>i switch tasks?

If its professional gear it's going to be complex and have a million cables and
will be complicated.
Read thru this FAQ

http://www.phys.tue.nl/people/etimmerman/recordingfaq/R...
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 10:20:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <lvvJd.2535$Yg6.607366@news20.bellglobal.com> mb@gmail.com writes:

> well the firepod costs as much as a mackie mixer with 8 preamps, and
> with the firepod i don't need to buy a pricey interface card, don't
> need to buy all the extra cable to connect each channel from the
> mixer to the card, etc.. and i'm assuming that the quality of the
> recording might be better with the firepod since path from the mic
> to the hard drive is shorter and less cluttered?

Hey, I'm not going to argue with you, I was just offering a suggestion
that makes more sense to me, looking ahead further than your first
project.

The recording might (or might not) be better with the firepod, but not
because of the shorter and less cluttered path. They both have to
perform all of the same functions - mic preamp, A/D converter, and
Firewire interface. The Mackie Onyx with the Firewire option looks the
same to your computer (except that there are more channels available)
and to your cable bundle as the Firepod. It costs more initially, but
it offers more flexibility. You may not think you need it now, but if
you need it later, it will end up costing you more in the long run.

> well thats part of it but i would like to record as well. when just playing
> back to a recording all i really need is the ability to control the volume
> of each channel, eqing would be a bonus but its not necessary. and when
> recording i would want to do my eqing after the tracks are recorded..
> so from what i can tell the firepod would allow all of this..?

As far as I can tell, yes. But the thing is that the Firepod will
record at the level that you're hearing in the monitor. This means
that if you play back all the tracks at the same level, you'll get
back what you were hearing when you recorded. But this may not be what
you really want when you're mixing without playing the drums live, and
after you've added some other parts. You may find that you need to
boost something by more than a comfortable amount. It'll work, sure,
but it's not optimum. You could do better by recording at the optimum
level and monitoring a mix that you like when you're tracking, then
mix it differently when you're really mixing.

> sounds cool but it costs twice as much as the firepod when the firepod does
> the job i need?

Your choice. Pay me now or pay me later. The Firepod will do the job
you think you want to do. The Onyx solution will do more, which may
not mean anything to you today, but you may discover after using the
Firepod for a while that it's not doing what you really want.

> .. based on what my
> needs are, or from what you can tell, what does the onyx offer that would
> justify spending twice as much money on it?

A certain amount of future-proofing. For instance, it has a convenient
place to connect speakers to monitor when you're mixing. You may plan
on doing your mixing on headphones now, but eventually you'll learn
what's wrong with that, spend about as much on decent control room
monitors as you spent on the mixer (if we're talking Mackie here) and
you'll have a place to plug them in. You won't then say "Where on this
Firepod can I connect the speakers?" Or you'll get someone in to play
bass and want a direct input. Or you'll want to use the pretty useful
and musical EQ on the mixer to EQ your final mix, or a track or two.
Or you'll want to compare your mix with a CD to see if you're getting
close to the same sound - and the mixer provides an easy way to do
that. Or you can even use it as a mixer - what a concept! Stuff like
that. Right now you're just thinking about putting tracks on to the
computer, but that's not the end of the game.

Your money, though, so spend it as you see fit.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 11:12:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Matthew Blake" <mb@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:B6jJd.1528$Yg6.443241@news20.bellglobal.com
> Hey, I was thinking of buying an Aardvark Q10 but it seems to be
> discontinued

Actually, the company seems to be discontinued.

>so the only other comparable card i've found is the
> Presonus Firepod. Basically i want something thats going to be easy
> to record a drumset or drums/guitar/bass without having to buy a big
> mixer, interface card, a million cables, etc.. any suggestions? I'd
> like at least 8 XLR inputs and don't want to spend a fortune.

Here's an altearnative approach:

http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-TER-EWS88D--bran...

http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-BEH%20ADA8000.ht...


> I would like to mic my drums and be able to
> use the firepod as a sort of software mixer, in other words, I hook
> up all my mics, adjust all the gains, eq each channel until I'm
> happy, and then listen to my eq'd drums through isolation headphones
> mixed in with music AS i'm playing, with no latency (extremely
> important).

Why not eq after you record? That's the approach that most DAW software
supports best. Track clean, then eq and EFX during the mix.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 2:45:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Matthew Blake wrote:

> Does anyone have experience with the firepod? Pros/cons? From what I can tell
> there are gain knobs for each channel on the firepod rack so thats good that I
> don't need to go over to my computer everytime I want to tweak something.

I have the opposite problem in that I want computer control
over the trims so that I can keep them matched (ganged if
possible) for Ambisonic recording. Knobs are useless for
the application. What, other than the Metric Halo, do you
know that eschews knobs?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 4:29:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>As far as I can tell, yes. But the thing is that the Firepod will
>record at the level that you're hearing in the monitor. This means
>that if you play back all the tracks at the same level, you'll get
>back what you were hearing when you recorded. But this may not be what
>you really want when you're mixing without playing the drums live, and
>after you've added some other parts. You may find that you need to
>boost something by more than a comfortable amount. It'll work, sure,
>but it's not optimum. You could do better by recording at the optimum
>level and monitoring a mix that you like when you're tracking, then
>mix it differently when you're really mixing.

yeah that makes sense, i've never recorded multiple channels simultaneously
before so i don't know if its going to be an issue for me or not.. i just
assumed it wouldn't be a big deal.

>Your choice. Pay me now or pay me later. The Firepod will do the job
>you think you want to do. The Onyx solution will do more, which may
>not mean anything to you today, but you may discover after using the
>Firepod for a while that it's not doing what you really want.

or i may spend $500 more on the onyx and discover that the firepod would
have done eveything i wanted. if i buy a firepod off ebay and decide to
upgrade to an onyx i can always just sell the firepod..

>A certain amount of future-proofing. For instance, it has a convenient
>place to connect speakers to monitor when you're mixing. You may plan
>on doing your mixing on headphones now, but eventually you'll learn
>what's wrong with that, spend about as much on decent control room
>monitors as you spent on the mixer (if we're talking Mackie here) and
>you'll have a place to plug them in. You won't then say "Where on this
>Firepod can I connect the speakers?"

http://www.presonus.com/images/firePod_bk_big.jpg
there seem to be plenty of outputs on the firepod

>Or you'll get someone in to play bass and want a direct input.

there's a spdif input, does that count?

>Or you'll want to use the pretty useful and musical EQ on the mixer to
>EQ your final mix, or a track or two.

really? how would i do that? you mean i could record my tracks and then
use the mixer to eq them instead of using a mouse, etc..? did i misunderstand?

>that. Right now you're just thinking about putting tracks on to the
>computer, but that's not the end of the game.

pretty much, i just want a solid multitrack recording device that will
also allow me to play my mic'ed drums along to music and allow me to
adjust individual channel volumes.. im just a hobbiest

thanks for your advice
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 4:29:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1oCJd.3070$Yg6.737106@news20.bellglobal.com> mb@gmail.com writes:

> or i may spend $500 more on the onyx and discover that the firepod would
> have done eveything i wanted. if i buy a firepod off ebay and decide to
> upgrade to an onyx i can always just sell the firepod..

If that's the way you want to do it, fine. If you start out buying
used at a good price, you won't lose much.

> http://www.presonus.com/images/firePod_bk_big.jpg
> there seem to be plenty of outputs on the firepod

Well, I hope you've been studying it out. That picture shows
"line outputs" but the manual seems to describe them as line
inputs. If you're really expecting outputs other than the two
preamp outputs labeled "preamp output" you'd better check
with someone who has one and understands just what you're
planning to do. When the manual and the panel photograph
don't agree, something's fishy. It could be that they just never
updated the photo on the web site.

> >Or you'll get someone in to play bass and want a direct input.
> there's a spdif input, does that count?

Not even close. Unless it's a digital bass.

> >Or you'll want to use the pretty useful and musical EQ on the mixer to
> >EQ your final mix, or a track or two.
>
> really? how would i do that? you mean i could record my tracks and then
> use the mixer to eq them instead of using a mouse, etc..? did i misunderstand?

You could mix in your DAW, send the 2-track mix from the computer to a
pair of channels in the Onyx mixer, adjust the EQ there, then send it
back to the DAW to re-record your tweaked mix. But you can't really do
that with every track individually since equalization when you're
mixing tends to be an interactive process. You change EQ on a track
and then you might want to change something else.

> pretty much, i just want a solid multitrack recording device that will
> also allow me to play my mic'ed drums along to music and allow me to
> adjust individual channel volumes.. im just a hobbiest

Go ahead with your plans then. I'm sure you'll do fine. There is no doubt
that you can connect up to 8 microphones to a Firepod, put them near your
drums and record them. What happens next?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 9:16:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> or i may spend $500 more on the onyx and discover that the firepod would
>> have done eveything i wanted. if i buy a firepod off ebay and decide to
>> upgrade to an onyx i can always just sell the firepod..
>If that's the way you want to do it, fine. If you start out buying
>used at a good price, you won't lose much.

thats generally what i try to do with everything :) 

>> http://www.presonus.com/images/firePod_bk_big.jpg
>> there seem to be plenty of outputs on the firepod
>Well, I hope you've been studying it out. That picture shows
>"line outputs" but the manual seems to describe them as line
>inputs. If you're really expecting outputs other than the two
>preamp outputs labeled "preamp output" you'd better check
>with someone who has one and understands just what you're
>planning to do. When the manual and the panel photograph
>don't agree, something's fishy. It could be that they just never
>updated the photo on the web site.

well according the the presonus website the best place to plug in
monitors would be the main outs.

>> >Or you'll get someone in to play bass and want a direct input.
>> there's a spdif input, does that count?
>Not even close. Unless it's a digital bass.

or they play through a digital processor.. i don't know what a direct
input is.. what about the two instrument inputs?

"INSTRUMENT INPUTS (only Channels 1 and 2): The ¼” TS connector on channels 1
and 2 are for use with an instrument (guitar, bass, etc). When an instrument is
plugged into the instrument input, the microphone preamplifier is bypassed and
the FirePod becomes an active instrument preamplifier."


>You could mix in your DAW, send the 2-track mix from the computer to a
>pair of channels in the Onyx mixer, adjust the EQ there, then send it
>back to the DAW to re-record your tweaked mix. But you can't really do
>that with every track individually since equalization when you're
>mixing tends to be an interactive process. You change EQ on a track
>and then you might want to change something else.

so i guess thats a no

>Go ahead with your plans then. I'm sure you'll do fine. There is no doubt
>that you can connect up to 8 microphones to a Firepod, put them near your
>drums and record them. What happens next?

i press record? :) 
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 12:59:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:ct7hrm027ff@enews2.newsguy.com
> Matthew Blake wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have experience with the firepod? Pros/cons? From what I
>> can tell there are gain knobs for each channel on the firepod rack
>> so thats good that I don't need to go over to my computer everytime
>> I want to tweak something.
>
> I have the opposite problem in that I want computer control
> over the trims so that I can keep them matched (ganged if
> possible) for Ambisonic recording. Knobs are useless for
> the application. What, other than the Metric Halo, do you
> know that eschews knobs?

If I was going to try to control the settings of trims, I'd probably come up
with some way to set levels starting with an acoustical source.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 3:12:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <bBGJd.3211$Yg6.846198@news20.bellglobal.com> mb@gmail.com writes:

> >If you start out buying
> >used at a good price, you won't lose much.
>
> thats generally what i try to do with everything :) 

That's good if you know what you're buying, but when you buy used, you
usually can't return the item if it turns out not to be what you want,
then YOU become a seller, wasting more time. If I'm unsure about
something, I buy it new from my dealer (assuming it's still current,
as is the Firepod) I can try it out, see if it meets my needs and
performance requirements, and if it doesn't, I can return it with no
hassle and no commitment. And unless the Firepod is a real dog that
nobody wants (not likely) you aren't going to save a whole lot of
money buying used.

> well according the the presonus website the best place to plug in
> monitors would be the main outs.

It may be the best place the Firepod has to offer, but is that really
the right place to connect them for your application? Do you
understand what comes out those outputs and how you can control them?
Remember, Presonus sells another unit, the Central Station, which is
designed to add many of the functions that a mixer provides to a
computer interface such as the Firepod. To me, that says they left
some functions off the Firepod that enough people find important so
that they made an add-on product to go along with it.

> . . i don't know what a direct
> input is.. what about the two instrument inputs?
>
> "INSTRUMENT INPUTS (only Channels 1 and 2): The ¼” TS connector on channels 1
> and 2 are for use with an instrument (guitar, bass, etc). When an instrument is
> plugged into the instrument input, the microphone preamplifier is bypassed and
> the FirePod becomes an active instrument preamplifier."

Those inputs have a different impedance than the mic or line inputs to
match the high source impedance of an instrument pickup. Most electric
guitars sound pretty wimpy when used without an amplifier or some sort
of processor, but bass is often acceptable. Some people like to record
the unprocessed guitar signal and then apply various virtual stomp
boxes and/or amplifier simulators as software plug-ins when mixing.
The standard way of interfacing an instrument pickup with equipment
not usually designed for this is to use a "direct box" or DI (for
Direct Injection) between the instrument and a mic input. Those
instrument inputs take the place of the direct box, allowing the
instrument to be plugged directly into the interface or the mixer. I
don't know if you were quoting from the Firepod or Onyx manual, but
the Onyx mixers have the same feature - channels 1 and 2 can be
switched between mic and instrument input.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 8:31:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> well according the the presonus website the best place to plug in
>> monitors would be the main outs.
>
>It may be the best place the Firepod has to offer, but is that really
>the right place to connect them for your application? Do you
>understand what comes out those outputs and how you can control them?

well you said with the onyx there's an easy place to plug in your monitors,
im just saying there's also an easy place with the firepod.. i can't
answer your other questions because i don't know what you're talking about :) 


>> . . i don't know what a direct
>> input is.. what about the two instrument inputs?
>>
>> "INSTRUMENT INPUTS (only Channels 1 and 2): The ¼” TS connector on channels
1
>> and 2 are for use with an instrument (guitar, bass, etc). When an instrument
is
>> plugged into the instrument input, the microphone preamplifier is bypassed
and
>> the FirePod becomes an active instrument preamplifier."
>
>Those inputs have a different impedance than the mic or line inputs to
>match the high source impedance of an instrument pickup. Most electric
>guitars sound pretty wimpy when used without an amplifier or some sort
>of processor, but bass is often acceptable. Some people like to record
>the unprocessed guitar signal and then apply various virtual stomp
>boxes and/or amplifier simulators as software plug-ins when mixing.
>The standard way of interfacing an instrument pickup with equipment
>not usually designed for this is to use a "direct box" or DI (for
>Direct Injection) between the instrument and a mic input. Those
>instrument inputs take the place of the direct box, allowing the
>instrument to be plugged directly into the interface or the mixer. I
>don't know if you were quoting from the Firepod or Onyx manual, but
>the Onyx mixers have the same feature - channels 1 and 2 can be
>switched between mic and instrument input.

that was from the firepod website..

so, looks like the firepod offers more than you thought :) 
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:39:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <XtQJd.3418$Yg6.910520@news20.bellglobal.com> mb@gmail.com writes:

> well you said with the onyx there's an easy place to plug in your monitors,
> im just saying there's also an easy place with the firepod.. i can't
> answer your other questions because i don't know what you're talking about :) 

Eventually you will.

> so, looks like the firepod offers more than you thought :) 

Actually, I pretty much expected instrument inputs on the Firepod.
It's not all that uncommon on recording input devices today. I just
wasn't sure what you were quoting since Mackie says just about the
same thing for their instrument inputs.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 6:34:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> If I was going to try to control the settings of trims, I'd probably come up
> with some way to set levels starting with an acoustical source.

I want to be able to ride the gain of four channels with one
control and have them track within .1 dB.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:56:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:ctbtqn01tj2@enews1.newsguy.com

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> If I was going to try to control the settings of trims, I'd probably
>> come up with some way to set levels starting with an acoustical
>> source.
>
> I want to be able to ride the gain of four channels with one
> control and have them track within .1 dB.

IME, 0.1 dB tolerances and acoustical settings don't compute. Therefore,
they are meaningless when it comes to acoustical measurements or recordings.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 11:33:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
> news:ctbtqn01tj2@enews1.newsguy.com
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>>>If I was going to try to control the settings of trims, I'd probably
>>>come up with some way to set levels starting with an acoustical
>>>source.
>>
>>I want to be able to ride the gain of four channels with one
>>control and have them track within .1 dB.
>
>
> IME, 0.1 dB tolerances and acoustical settings don't compute. Therefore,
> they are meaningless when it comes to acoustical measurements or recordings.

Don't get what you mean here, Arny. The tight tracking is
so that the A-format to B-format encoding is consistent.
Otherwise the velocity vector can wander around.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
!