Need advice on large studio setup
Last response: in Home Audio
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
A friend of mine who owns a studio wanted my support for upgrading his
studio. I'm not very familiar with large studio setups but i have a
good knowledge in small home recording studios.
His studio is currently built around a 24 channel analog board with
ADAT recorders. He wants to keep the board and probably buy a harddisk
based recording system with a computer (replacing the ADAT recorders).
I have looked around and searched the web for information and read lots
of newsgroups to find a good solution.
The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
I have a few questions:
What do you think about this setup?
Do you see any problems with it?
Is it a common setup or do i need to think in new ways?
What kind of recording software is the most suitable (sonar, logic,
cubase etc)?
All advices and comments on this are really appreciated!
Kristoffer
A friend of mine who owns a studio wanted my support for upgrading his
studio. I'm not very familiar with large studio setups but i have a
good knowledge in small home recording studios.
His studio is currently built around a 24 channel analog board with
ADAT recorders. He wants to keep the board and probably buy a harddisk
based recording system with a computer (replacing the ADAT recorders).
I have looked around and searched the web for information and read lots
of newsgroups to find a good solution.
The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
I have a few questions:
What do you think about this setup?
Do you see any problems with it?
Is it a common setup or do i need to think in new ways?
What kind of recording software is the most suitable (sonar, logic,
cubase etc)?
All advices and comments on this are really appreciated!
Kristoffer
More about : advice large studio setup
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Thank you for the reply Scott.
Actually, the owner told me to check out the RADAR system. I just read
a review about it and I understood it's a standalone unit that you
attach a vga monitor to. And then you'll have a 24 channel "virtual"
tape recorder. Ok, thats great. But there is a little problem I think.
With a computer and a 24 channel in/out interface, I can use far more
than 24 tracks in my projects (it's possible to route several tracks in
the recording software to one of the 24 outputs, right?). Thats
probably not the case with RADAR. But i guess that's not really strange
since RADAR only is a tape recorder after all. :-) I think we need
digital editing and mixing abilities in this studio as well and i guess
RADAR won't be useful for this.
I think the one who will use this studio most often, is me. So, what
kind of software do I need? I have worked a lot with Cubase SX in my
home studio but I'm not sure this will work well in this environment. I
like the workflow and GUI of Cubase but I haven't really tried any
other software. To me, i always thought of Cubase like home recording
software, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I have to follow your advice and
do some more research in the software area.
I came up with a new question. Lets say I use the MOTU 24 I/O. Is it
possible, with a high-end PC, record 24 tracks simultaneously in 24/96?
Thanks for telling me about the ADAT Lightpipe interface. Didn't know
that.
Thank you for the reply Scott.
Actually, the owner told me to check out the RADAR system. I just read
a review about it and I understood it's a standalone unit that you
attach a vga monitor to. And then you'll have a 24 channel "virtual"
tape recorder. Ok, thats great. But there is a little problem I think.
With a computer and a 24 channel in/out interface, I can use far more
than 24 tracks in my projects (it's possible to route several tracks in
the recording software to one of the 24 outputs, right?). Thats
probably not the case with RADAR. But i guess that's not really strange
since RADAR only is a tape recorder after all. :-) I think we need
digital editing and mixing abilities in this studio as well and i guess
RADAR won't be useful for this.
I think the one who will use this studio most often, is me. So, what
kind of software do I need? I have worked a lot with Cubase SX in my
home studio but I'm not sure this will work well in this environment. I
like the workflow and GUI of Cubase but I haven't really tried any
other software. To me, i always thought of Cubase like home recording
software, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I have to follow your advice and
do some more research in the software area.
I came up with a new question. Lets say I use the MOTU 24 I/O. Is it
possible, with a high-end PC, record 24 tracks simultaneously in 24/96?
Thanks for telling me about the ADAT Lightpipe interface. Didn't know
that.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
<krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
>this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
>mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
>record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
>i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
>board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
>board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
>
>I have a few questions:
>
>What do you think about this setup?
1. You haven't thought enough about software. Basically, he needs to find
software that he likes. One he has software that he likes, he can find
an interface and a computer for it.
Personally I would suggest looking at RADAR if he has the budget for it
and is used to working with tape machines. I suspect if he is still
running ADATS that he does not, though.
2. Whatever interface you get, make sure it has a lightpipe interface so
that he can transfer old ADAT recordings to the new system without any
problems.
>Do you see any problems with it?
>
>Is it a common setup or do i need to think in new ways?
It's pretty common. You're basically using a DAW to replace an analogue
tape machine and keeping the workflow otherwise the same. I think that is
fine.
>What kind of recording software is the most suitable (sonar, logic,
>cubase etc)?
THAT is the hard question that you need to ask, and the guy working on
the system is the only one that can answer it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
<krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
>this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
>mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
>record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
>i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
>board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
>board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
>
>I have a few questions:
>
>What do you think about this setup?
1. You haven't thought enough about software. Basically, he needs to find
software that he likes. One he has software that he likes, he can find
an interface and a computer for it.
Personally I would suggest looking at RADAR if he has the budget for it
and is used to working with tape machines. I suspect if he is still
running ADATS that he does not, though.
2. Whatever interface you get, make sure it has a lightpipe interface so
that he can transfer old ADAT recordings to the new system without any
problems.
>Do you see any problems with it?
>
>Is it a common setup or do i need to think in new ways?
It's pretty common. You're basically using a DAW to replace an analogue
tape machine and keeping the workflow otherwise the same. I think that is
fine.
>What kind of recording software is the most suitable (sonar, logic,
>cubase etc)?
THAT is the hard question that you need to ask, and the guy working on
the system is the only one that can answer it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
krulleboll@hotmail.com <krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, the owner told me to check out the RADAR system. I just read
>a review about it and I understood it's a standalone unit that you
>attach a vga monitor to. And then you'll have a 24 channel "virtual"
>tape recorder. Ok, thats great. But there is a little problem I think.
>With a computer and a 24 channel in/out interface, I can use far more
>than 24 tracks in my projects (it's possible to route several tracks in
>the recording software to one of the 24 outputs, right?). Thats
>probably not the case with RADAR. But i guess that's not really strange
>since RADAR only is a tape recorder after all. :-) I think we need
>digital editing and mixing abilities in this studio as well and i guess
>RADAR won't be useful for this.
The RADAR gives you very powerful digital editing abilities, and it works
reliably without breaking. And the converters sound good.
You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that anyway?
You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
With a computer and a 24 channel interface, using any more than 24 channels
is a pain in the neck. Yes, you can create submixes on the computer and
feed them to the console sends, but it's really unpleasant and you don't
want to do it if you can ever avoid it.
>I think the one who will use this studio most often, is me. So, what
>kind of software do I need? I have worked a lot with Cubase SX in my
>home studio but I'm not sure this will work well in this environment. I
>like the workflow and GUI of Cubase but I haven't really tried any
>other software. To me, i always thought of Cubase like home recording
>software, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I have to follow your advice and
>do some more research in the software area.
Go out and try a dozen different software packages. Maybe you will like
something a lot more than Cubase. Maybe you won't.
>I came up with a new question. Lets say I use the MOTU 24 I/O. Is it
>possible, with a high-end PC, record 24 tracks simultaneously in 24/96?
Yes, but that is a BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT here. This is an ability
that you can get with any tape deck. Not having it would be taking a
huge step backwards. The converters on the MOTU... well, they probably
aren't in the RADAR league so if you care about sound quality you should
budget a little bit more for converters.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
krulleboll@hotmail.com <krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, the owner told me to check out the RADAR system. I just read
>a review about it and I understood it's a standalone unit that you
>attach a vga monitor to. And then you'll have a 24 channel "virtual"
>tape recorder. Ok, thats great. But there is a little problem I think.
>With a computer and a 24 channel in/out interface, I can use far more
>than 24 tracks in my projects (it's possible to route several tracks in
>the recording software to one of the 24 outputs, right?). Thats
>probably not the case with RADAR. But i guess that's not really strange
>since RADAR only is a tape recorder after all. :-) I think we need
>digital editing and mixing abilities in this studio as well and i guess
>RADAR won't be useful for this.
The RADAR gives you very powerful digital editing abilities, and it works
reliably without breaking. And the converters sound good.
You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that anyway?
You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
With a computer and a 24 channel interface, using any more than 24 channels
is a pain in the neck. Yes, you can create submixes on the computer and
feed them to the console sends, but it's really unpleasant and you don't
want to do it if you can ever avoid it.
>I think the one who will use this studio most often, is me. So, what
>kind of software do I need? I have worked a lot with Cubase SX in my
>home studio but I'm not sure this will work well in this environment. I
>like the workflow and GUI of Cubase but I haven't really tried any
>other software. To me, i always thought of Cubase like home recording
>software, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I have to follow your advice and
>do some more research in the software area.
Go out and try a dozen different software packages. Maybe you will like
something a lot more than Cubase. Maybe you won't.
>I came up with a new question. Lets say I use the MOTU 24 I/O. Is it
>possible, with a high-end PC, record 24 tracks simultaneously in 24/96?
Yes, but that is a BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT here. This is an ability
that you can get with any tape deck. Not having it would be taking a
huge step backwards. The converters on the MOTU... well, they probably
aren't in the RADAR league so if you care about sound quality you should
budget a little bit more for converters.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related ressources
- Newbie - Need advice to utilize new GPU in Dell Studio Slim - Forum
- Studio lighting - need advice please! - Forum
- Studio Lighting - advice needed please - Forum
- Large home networking setup advice , please help! - Forum
- New build studio computer - Forum
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
i use the 24I/O on a G5 and have completely bypassed the board for mix.
i only use it to monitor.
the converters sound great, it's only 1400-ish, and DP shakes hands
with it like an old friend. if you're gonna use a PC, you'll have to
jump through a few ASIO hoops, but still a good option.
before you buy anything, check into the RME stuff. all my PC buddies
RAVE about this company, the ease of operation and the sound quality.
i dumped ADATS, DA88s, a RADAR and a 16 track 2" tape machine, and now
i just do everything on the computer. you don't have to transfer
anything to edit, you can submix acoustic/electric guitars or BGVs to 2
holes while composing, and your whole battle station is in ONE SPOT.
cheap, too! comping vocals is the easiest thing in the world when it's
all right on one page in front of you.....
hope this helps,
gary0
i use the 24I/O on a G5 and have completely bypassed the board for mix.
i only use it to monitor.
the converters sound great, it's only 1400-ish, and DP shakes hands
with it like an old friend. if you're gonna use a PC, you'll have to
jump through a few ASIO hoops, but still a good option.
before you buy anything, check into the RME stuff. all my PC buddies
RAVE about this company, the ease of operation and the sound quality.
i dumped ADATS, DA88s, a RADAR and a 16 track 2" tape machine, and now
i just do everything on the computer. you don't have to transfer
anything to edit, you can submix acoustic/electric guitars or BGVs to 2
holes while composing, and your whole battle station is in ONE SPOT.
cheap, too! comping vocals is the easiest thing in the world when it's
all right on one page in front of you.....
hope this helps,
gary0
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
> anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm and
not everybody can benefit from it.
One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more likely
to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in real
time.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
> anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm and
not everybody can benefit from it.
One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more likely
to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in real
time.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that anyway?
> You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
<j>
In the old days we recorded music; now we just record notes.
</j>
--
ha
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that anyway?
> You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
<j>
In the old days we recorded music; now we just record notes.
</j>
--
ha
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
<krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
> this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
> mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
> record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
> i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
> board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
> board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
Before committing to MOTU, do look at the RME stuff, which will work
with lots of different DAW apps. They have many options and it's good
kit.
--
ha
<krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
> this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
> mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
> record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
> i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
> board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
> board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
Before committing to MOTU, do look at the RME stuff, which will work
with lots of different DAW apps. They have many options and it's good
kit.
--
ha
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gvmbls.wmyxq21tl4bvkN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>
> In the old days we recorded music; now we just record notes.
>
Well, SOME of us still record music - at least some of the time. It might be
bad music, but it's music nonetheless...
--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gvmbls.wmyxq21tl4bvkN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>
> In the old days we recorded music; now we just record notes.
>
Well, SOME of us still record music - at least some of the time. It might be
bad music, but it's music nonetheless...
--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
>> anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
>
>A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
>
>Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
>functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
>probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
>the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm and
>not everybody can benefit from it.
>
>One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
>console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
>complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more likely
>to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in real
>time.
One way that analog mixing completely blows away mixing inside the
computer is the sound. There is an audible difference between using
the summing of tracks on computer software to mix, as opposed to
taking the same tracks out to a real console.
Then there is the whole plug-ins vs analog FX debate.
Al
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
>> anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
>
>A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
>
>Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
>functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
>probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
>the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm and
>not everybody can benefit from it.
>
>One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
>console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
>complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more likely
>to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in real
>time.
One way that analog mixing completely blows away mixing inside the
computer is the sound. There is an audible difference between using
the summing of tracks on computer software to mix, as opposed to
taking the same tracks out to a real console.
Then there is the whole plug-ins vs analog FX debate.
Al
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:06:19 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:
><krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
>> this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
>> mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
>> record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
>> i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
>> board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
>> board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
>
>Before committing to MOTU, do look at the RME stuff, which will work
>with lots of different DAW apps. They have many options and it's good
>kit.
RME is great stuff. Not the best sounding converters you can get, but
pretty darn good, and their drivers have been bullet proof for me.
Al
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:06:19 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:
><krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
>> this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
>> mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
>> record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
>> i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
>> board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
>> board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
>
>Before committing to MOTU, do look at the RME stuff, which will work
>with lots of different DAW apps. They have many options and it's good
>kit.
RME is great stuff. Not the best sounding converters you can get, but
pretty darn good, and their drivers have been bullet proof for me.
Al
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ZsSdnYKuEuLXAfPfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
> > anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
>
> A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
>
> Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
> functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
> probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
> the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm and
> not everybody can benefit from it.
Mixing on a computer also automatically gives you drastically reduced
ergonomical functionality compared to that of any real analog console and a
lot of digital ones. Some people can live with that, others feel that it's
too high a price for recallability and automation.
It also sounds different from mixing on an analog console. Again, some
people like it, some don't.
So much about the better new life.
> One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more likely
> to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in real
> time.
If I just spent a day or two on a particular mix, whether it takes a minute
or three to print it doesn't make much difference to me. In fact, I prefer
to listen to it while it's being printed in real time.
Predrag
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ZsSdnYKuEuLXAfPfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
> > anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
>
> A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
>
> Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
> functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
> probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
> the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm and
> not everybody can benefit from it.
Mixing on a computer also automatically gives you drastically reduced
ergonomical functionality compared to that of any real analog console and a
lot of digital ones. Some people can live with that, others feel that it's
too high a price for recallability and automation.
It also sounds different from mixing on an analog console. Again, some
people like it, some don't.
So much about the better new life.
> One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more likely
> to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in real
> time.
If I just spent a day or two on a particular mix, whether it takes a minute
or three to print it doesn't make much difference to me. In fact, I prefer
to listen to it while it's being printed in real time.
Predrag
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
playon wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
<arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
>>> anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
>>
>> A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
>>
>> Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
>> functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
>> probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
>> the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm
and
>> not everybody can benefit from it.
>> One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
>> console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
>> complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more
likely
>> to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in
real
>> time.
> One way that analog mixing completely blows away mixing inside the
> computer is the sound. There is an audible difference between using
> the summing of tracks on computer software to mix, as opposed to
> taking the same tracks out to a real console.
Troll, troll, troll.
> Then there is the whole plug-ins vs analog FX debate.
Troll, troll, troll.
Ned Ludd is calling you, Al.
playon wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
<arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
>>> anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
>>
>> A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
>>
>> Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
>> functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
>> probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
>> the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm
and
>> not everybody can benefit from it.
>> One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
>> console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
>> complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more
likely
>> to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in
real
>> time.
> One way that analog mixing completely blows away mixing inside the
> computer is the sound. There is an audible difference between using
> the summing of tracks on computer software to mix, as opposed to
> taking the same tracks out to a real console.
Troll, troll, troll.
> Then there is the whole plug-ins vs analog FX debate.
Troll, troll, troll.
Ned Ludd is calling you, Al.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Thank you all for the great input. I have learned loads of new stuff
in this subject.
Here are my latest thoughts on this:
The RADAR system seems easy and nice. The problems i have with RADAR,
are that I want to use plug-in effects in the recording software, make
sub-mixes on the computer (for projects with more than 24 tracks) and
also, i want to be able to use MIDI (and virtual instruments).
I need 24 channels of i/o. I checked out the RME stuff and it seemed
quite nice. I didn't know much about all the digital formats (ADAT,
AES/EBU, s/pdif, TDIF etc) so i had to do some serious research on
this. Maybe i got this wrong, but the RME stuff seems to use ADAT (or
MADI) between the converters and the pci card. Do you really think i
should go for ADAT these days? I read somewhere that it "only"
supports 24 bits in 48khz (96khz with 4 channels in one of the RME
converters). I think i want a 24/96 system but i really don't know
why. ;-) Everyone i talk to says "oh, you must go for 24/96".
I got the feeling that MOTU converters doesn't sound that well. But i
have to think about this a bit more i guess. The MOTU 24 I/0 device
should fit this studio perfectly. It's 24/96, 24 channels i/o, cheap
and the MOTU system seems to be easy to expand (if needed in the
future). So, if i go for some good converters (RME) with ADAT output,
i get 24/48khz. What do i choose? 24/96 with not so good sounding
converters, or 24/48 with good converters? I also think a 24 channel
RME system will cost three or four times more than a 24 channel MOTU
system. The most important thing i have to think more about is
ofcourse if the quality of the converters will affect the final result
of the recording. After all, i'm not sure how good sounding the other
gear in the studio is.
Thank you all for the great input. I have learned loads of new stuff
in this subject.
Here are my latest thoughts on this:
The RADAR system seems easy and nice. The problems i have with RADAR,
are that I want to use plug-in effects in the recording software, make
sub-mixes on the computer (for projects with more than 24 tracks) and
also, i want to be able to use MIDI (and virtual instruments).
I need 24 channels of i/o. I checked out the RME stuff and it seemed
quite nice. I didn't know much about all the digital formats (ADAT,
AES/EBU, s/pdif, TDIF etc) so i had to do some serious research on
this. Maybe i got this wrong, but the RME stuff seems to use ADAT (or
MADI) between the converters and the pci card. Do you really think i
should go for ADAT these days? I read somewhere that it "only"
supports 24 bits in 48khz (96khz with 4 channels in one of the RME
converters). I think i want a 24/96 system but i really don't know
why. ;-) Everyone i talk to says "oh, you must go for 24/96".
I got the feeling that MOTU converters doesn't sound that well. But i
have to think about this a bit more i guess. The MOTU 24 I/0 device
should fit this studio perfectly. It's 24/96, 24 channels i/o, cheap
and the MOTU system seems to be easy to expand (if needed in the
future). So, if i go for some good converters (RME) with ADAT output,
i get 24/48khz. What do i choose? 24/96 with not so good sounding
converters, or 24/48 with good converters? I also think a 24 channel
RME system will cost three or four times more than a 24 channel MOTU
system. The most important thing i have to think more about is
ofcourse if the quality of the converters will affect the final result
of the recording. After all, i'm not sure how good sounding the other
gear in the studio is.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
oleyar@gmail.com wrote in message news:<1114540650.062170.96100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> i use the 24I/O on a G5 and have completely bypassed the board for mix.
> i only use it to monitor.
>
> the converters sound great, it's only 1400-ish, and DP shakes hands
> with it like an old friend. if you're gonna use a PC, you'll have to
> jump through a few ASIO hoops, but still a good option.
>
> before you buy anything, check into the RME stuff. all my PC buddies
> RAVE about this company, the ease of operation and the sound quality.
>
> i dumped ADATS, DA88s, a RADAR and a 16 track 2" tape machine, and now
> i just do everything on the computer. you don't have to transfer
> anything to edit, you can submix acoustic/electric guitars or BGVs to 2
> holes while composing, and your whole battle station is in ONE SPOT.
> cheap, too! comping vocals is the easiest thing in the world when it's
> all right on one page in front of you.....
>
> hope this helps,
>
> gary0
Thanks for the tip! I checked out the RME stuff. I found it quite hard
to understand what kind of RME-devices i should need for a 24 channel
i/o system.
I'm used to have everything in one spot in my home studio too. The
owner had a few criterions though. He wanted to have the ability to
use the current 24 channel analogue board for mixing. My plan is to
find a nice setup that will allow me to do analogue mixing on the
board, but without worsening the ability to use the computer for some
extra effects and sub-mixing.
oleyar@gmail.com wrote in message news:<1114540650.062170.96100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> i use the 24I/O on a G5 and have completely bypassed the board for mix.
> i only use it to monitor.
>
> the converters sound great, it's only 1400-ish, and DP shakes hands
> with it like an old friend. if you're gonna use a PC, you'll have to
> jump through a few ASIO hoops, but still a good option.
>
> before you buy anything, check into the RME stuff. all my PC buddies
> RAVE about this company, the ease of operation and the sound quality.
>
> i dumped ADATS, DA88s, a RADAR and a 16 track 2" tape machine, and now
> i just do everything on the computer. you don't have to transfer
> anything to edit, you can submix acoustic/electric guitars or BGVs to 2
> holes while composing, and your whole battle station is in ONE SPOT.
> cheap, too! comping vocals is the easiest thing in the world when it's
> all right on one page in front of you.....
>
> hope this helps,
>
> gary0
Thanks for the tip! I checked out the RME stuff. I found it quite hard
to understand what kind of RME-devices i should need for a 24 channel
i/o system.
I'm used to have everything in one spot in my home studio too. The
owner had a few criterions though. He wanted to have the ability to
use the current 24 channel analogue board for mixing. My plan is to
find a nice setup that will allow me to do analogue mixing on the
board, but without worsening the ability to use the computer for some
extra effects and sub-mixing.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
In article <1114527987.637198.136660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> krulleboll@hotmail.com writes:
> Actually, the owner told me to check out the RADAR system. I just read
> a review about it and I understood it's a standalone unit that you
> attach a vga monitor to. And then you'll have a 24 channel "virtual"
> tape recorder. Ok, thats great. But there is a little problem I think.
> With a computer and a 24 channel in/out interface, I can use far more
> than 24 tracks in my projects
Well, one of the first things you need to specify about your studio
building project is how many tracks you want to be able to record,
process, and mix. You can of course use multiple RADAR recorders for
more tracks but you'll need a mixing console with enough inputs to
accommodate them. You can also apply the technique of track bouncing.
You know, lots of really great sounding recordings were made with
24 real tracks or fewer.
> (it's possible to route several tracks in
> the recording software to one of the 24 outputs, right?). Thats
> probably not the case with RADAR.
That's called "submixing" in the DAW, and no, the RADAR doesn't do
that. One output per track. TASCAM just announced a new 48 track hard
disk recorder if you want more tracks. It has a built-in mixer so you
can do sub-mixing on it just like a computer.
> I think we need
> digital editing and mixing abilities in this studio as well and i guess
> RADAR won't be useful for this.
It will do editing very well, and I thought you had a console for
mixing, but maybe I'm thinking about someone else.
> I think the one who will use this studio most often, is me. So, what
> kind of software do I need?
The field is wide open. Get what you like to use. Don't forget that
you have to do the system integration when you go thise route. You
don't have just one phone number to call if things don't work right.
> i always thought of Cubase like home recording
> software, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I have to follow your advice and
> do some more research in the software area.
You sure do. Stienberg doesn't think of it as home recording software,
but for people who want "the pro stuff" they provide Nuendo.
> I came up with a new question. Lets say I use the MOTU 24 I/O. Is it
> possible, with a high-end PC, record 24 tracks simultaneously in 24/96?
Possible, as long as you get a 96 kHz interface. But not guaranteed
right out of the box.
--
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
In article <1114527987.637198.136660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> krulleboll@hotmail.com writes:
> Actually, the owner told me to check out the RADAR system. I just read
> a review about it and I understood it's a standalone unit that you
> attach a vga monitor to. And then you'll have a 24 channel "virtual"
> tape recorder. Ok, thats great. But there is a little problem I think.
> With a computer and a 24 channel in/out interface, I can use far more
> than 24 tracks in my projects
Well, one of the first things you need to specify about your studio
building project is how many tracks you want to be able to record,
process, and mix. You can of course use multiple RADAR recorders for
more tracks but you'll need a mixing console with enough inputs to
accommodate them. You can also apply the technique of track bouncing.
You know, lots of really great sounding recordings were made with
24 real tracks or fewer.
> (it's possible to route several tracks in
> the recording software to one of the 24 outputs, right?). Thats
> probably not the case with RADAR.
That's called "submixing" in the DAW, and no, the RADAR doesn't do
that. One output per track. TASCAM just announced a new 48 track hard
disk recorder if you want more tracks. It has a built-in mixer so you
can do sub-mixing on it just like a computer.
> I think we need
> digital editing and mixing abilities in this studio as well and i guess
> RADAR won't be useful for this.
It will do editing very well, and I thought you had a console for
mixing, but maybe I'm thinking about someone else.
> I think the one who will use this studio most often, is me. So, what
> kind of software do I need?
The field is wide open. Get what you like to use. Don't forget that
you have to do the system integration when you go thise route. You
don't have just one phone number to call if things don't work right.
> i always thought of Cubase like home recording
> software, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I have to follow your advice and
> do some more research in the software area.
You sure do. Stienberg doesn't think of it as home recording software,
but for people who want "the pro stuff" they provide Nuendo.
> I came up with a new question. Lets say I use the MOTU 24 I/O. Is it
> possible, with a high-end PC, record 24 tracks simultaneously in 24/96?
Possible, as long as you get a 96 kHz interface. But not guaranteed
right out of the box.
--
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
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
In article <f3ba611b.0504270720.4639689@posting.google.com>,
>why. ;-) Everyone i talk to says "oh, you must go for 24/96".
>
>I got the feeling that MOTU converters doesn't sound that well. But i
>have to think about this a bit more i guess. The MOTU 24 I/0 device
>should fit this studio perfectly. It's 24/96, 24 channels i/o, cheap
>and the MOTU system seems to be easy to expand (if needed in the
>future). So, if i go for some good converters (RME) with ADAT output,
>i get 24/48khz. What do i choose? 24/96 with not so good sounding
>converters, or 24/48 with good converters?
Well, if you are recording for CD issue, using anything higher than
44.1 isn't going to help you anyway.
>I also think a 24 channel
>RME system will cost three or four times more than a 24 channel MOTU
>system. The most important thing i have to think more about is
>ofcourse if the quality of the converters will affect the final result
>of the recording. After all, i'm not sure how good sounding the other
>gear in the studio is.
Money spent on converters and on monitors is never money wasted. But
you know, you can spend ten times what the MOTU costs and still not be
buying really expensive converters. There is a huge range in sound
quality in what is out there, and there is a big gap between the RME
and the Prism/higher end Lavry/Grimm grade gear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
In article <f3ba611b.0504270720.4639689@posting.google.com>,
>why. ;-) Everyone i talk to says "oh, you must go for 24/96".
>
>I got the feeling that MOTU converters doesn't sound that well. But i
>have to think about this a bit more i guess. The MOTU 24 I/0 device
>should fit this studio perfectly. It's 24/96, 24 channels i/o, cheap
>and the MOTU system seems to be easy to expand (if needed in the
>future). So, if i go for some good converters (RME) with ADAT output,
>i get 24/48khz. What do i choose? 24/96 with not so good sounding
>converters, or 24/48 with good converters?
Well, if you are recording for CD issue, using anything higher than
44.1 isn't going to help you anyway.
>I also think a 24 channel
>RME system will cost three or four times more than a 24 channel MOTU
>system. The most important thing i have to think more about is
>ofcourse if the quality of the converters will affect the final result
>of the recording. After all, i'm not sure how good sounding the other
>gear in the studio is.
Money spent on converters and on monitors is never money wasted. But
you know, you can spend ten times what the MOTU costs and still not be
buying really expensive converters. There is a huge range in sound
quality in what is out there, and there is a big gap between the RME
and the Prism/higher end Lavry/Grimm grade gear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Hi Jeff. I can't really justify my statement about Cubase. It was only
a feeling.I have never seen it beeing used in a professional
environment. But that's just me. Most often, i hear about people using
Protools software and also some people using Logic. I have only heard
and read about Cubase in a home recording context.
I'm very used to Cubase and i like it. It has some flaws compared to
other software but SX 3 seems to be really nice (haven't tried it yet).
Hi Jeff. I can't really justify my statement about Cubase. It was only
a feeling.I have never seen it beeing used in a professional
environment. But that's just me. Most often, i hear about people using
Protools software and also some people using Logic. I have only heard
and read about Cubase in a home recording context.
I'm very used to Cubase and i like it. It has some flaws compared to
other software but SX 3 seems to be really nice (haven't tried it yet).
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
On 26 Apr 2005 08:06:27 -0700, "krulleboll@hotmail.com" <krulleboll@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Just curious about something, here, and was wondering if you might
expound a bit:
[...]
> ...To me, i always thought of Cubase like home recording
>software,
Why is that? It's not that I'm a Cubase user (Nuendo, for a little over
four years), I'm really just curious, since the implication is something
along the lines of "not fit for professional consumption". Is it the user
interface? The (imposed) work flow? Or... something else?
Jeff
http://www.jefftturner.com
On 26 Apr 2005 08:06:27 -0700, "krulleboll@hotmail.com" <krulleboll@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Just curious about something, here, and was wondering if you might
expound a bit:
[...]
> ...To me, i always thought of Cubase like home recording
>software,
Why is that? It's not that I'm a Cubase user (Nuendo, for a little over
four years), I'm really just curious, since the implication is something
along the lines of "not fit for professional consumption". Is it the user
interface? The (imposed) work flow? Or... something else?
Jeff
http://www.jefftturner.com
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
I have a MOTU 2408 with 24 tracks AND an RME in another computer that's able
to use the same converters. The RME seems a little less of a problem, but
the MOTU has been rock solid after some serious adjustments on the
motherboard and such. If I had to make a suggestion, I'd look at one of the
RME ADAT boards and use some nice converters. RME simply crushes most of
the other multi-I/O boards in support and ASIO low latency issues.
But to be honest, I still use both. The MOTU is in a 1600+ AMD machine and
runs 24 tracks with no problems, but I'd have to say that it's an older
PCI324 and consequently isn't a real candidate for an upgrade. The RME is
in an AMD 64 3200+ and even being an older 9652, it's still a candidate for
upgraded converters if I ever feel a real requirement comes up. MOTU
had/has problems with VIA chipsets (may not be the case today on the PCI424
card) but the RME seems to have no problems with any chipset as far as I
know.
Mathias Carsten at RME may be able to give you some direction over on the
RME newsgroup (news.x-networks.de/rme-audio.forum).
Of course, you may want to give us your thoughts about the application you
want to use. The MOTU is cross-platform while the RME isn't. And while the
MOTU will work with some applications on a Mac, it doesn't do Pro Tools,
unless I'm mistaken.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
<krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114520983.998174.72120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A friend of mine who owns a studio wanted my support for upgrading his
> studio. I'm not very familiar with large studio setups but i have a
> good knowledge in small home recording studios.
>
> His studio is currently built around a 24 channel analog board with
> ADAT recorders. He wants to keep the board and probably buy a harddisk
> based recording system with a computer (replacing the ADAT recorders).
> I have looked around and searched the web for information and read lots
> of newsgroups to find a good solution.
>
> The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
> this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
> mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
> record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
> i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
> board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
> board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
>
> I have a few questions:
>
> What do you think about this setup?
>
> Do you see any problems with it?
>
> Is it a common setup or do i need to think in new ways?
>
> What kind of recording software is the most suitable (sonar, logic,
> cubase etc)?
>
>
> All advices and comments on this are really appreciated!
>
>
> Kristoffer
>
I have a MOTU 2408 with 24 tracks AND an RME in another computer that's able
to use the same converters. The RME seems a little less of a problem, but
the MOTU has been rock solid after some serious adjustments on the
motherboard and such. If I had to make a suggestion, I'd look at one of the
RME ADAT boards and use some nice converters. RME simply crushes most of
the other multi-I/O boards in support and ASIO low latency issues.
But to be honest, I still use both. The MOTU is in a 1600+ AMD machine and
runs 24 tracks with no problems, but I'd have to say that it's an older
PCI324 and consequently isn't a real candidate for an upgrade. The RME is
in an AMD 64 3200+ and even being an older 9652, it's still a candidate for
upgraded converters if I ever feel a real requirement comes up. MOTU
had/has problems with VIA chipsets (may not be the case today on the PCI424
card) but the RME seems to have no problems with any chipset as far as I
know.
Mathias Carsten at RME may be able to give you some direction over on the
RME newsgroup (news.x-networks.de/rme-audio.forum).
Of course, you may want to give us your thoughts about the application you
want to use. The MOTU is cross-platform while the RME isn't. And while the
MOTU will work with some applications on a Mac, it doesn't do Pro Tools,
unless I'm mistaken.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
<krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114520983.998174.72120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A friend of mine who owns a studio wanted my support for upgrading his
> studio. I'm not very familiar with large studio setups but i have a
> good knowledge in small home recording studios.
>
> His studio is currently built around a 24 channel analog board with
> ADAT recorders. He wants to keep the board and probably buy a harddisk
> based recording system with a computer (replacing the ADAT recorders).
> I have looked around and searched the web for information and read lots
> of newsgroups to find a good solution.
>
> The most suitable audio interface i found was the MOTU 24 I/0. I think
> this should fit his current board perfectly. The setup i have in my
> mind, is routing the 24 board inputs to the audio interface (MOTU?),
> record the audio on a computer using sequencer software. For playback,
> i route the interface output (24 channels) back to each channel on the
> board. With this setup, i should be able to record audio using the
> board, and do the mixing both on the computer and the board.
>
> I have a few questions:
>
> What do you think about this setup?
>
> Do you see any problems with it?
>
> Is it a common setup or do i need to think in new ways?
>
> What kind of recording software is the most suitable (sonar, logic,
> cubase etc)?
>
>
> All advices and comments on this are really appreciated!
>
>
> Kristoffer
>
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
I have a Soundtracs 24*8 in the studio, both for tracking and sometimes for
mixing. I record to Samplitude 7.23a on the AMD64 system and 6.04 on the
AMD 1600+ system, both using the same 24 converters.
But this isn't your problem nor necessarily your answer. You need to go
back and figure out what he expects to do before you can offer a solution.
With a RADAR he works just like he's already use to. But with a computer,
he has options of numerous tracks over and above the 24 that he can do
simultaneously with the RADAR. Of course, it's possible to transfer the 24
tracks from a RADAR and keep going, but that's time consuming under the
contraints of clients in the studio.
And it's not necessarily a situation where 24 outputs are going to be enough
in the above given environment, so the option there, which is less
expensive, is to track to a computer and mix within the computer. This
function, however, has it's costs in learning curve and software expense.
You can't simply push a "play" button for greater than 24 tracks and use the
console. He'd undoubtedly have to do some submixes, etc., or simply go for
the learning curve on how to mix >24 tracks on the computer. Some software
doesn't sound as good when multiple tracks are mixed inside the box, but I
think largely that problem has gone by the wayside. I know that Samplitude
has one of the best mix engines I know of for sound quality, unless I were
to move up to SADiE or Pyramix. I know a lot of engineers using Pro Tools
still prefer it to be used as an editing station and a tape recorder type
system while using automated consoles for the actual mix. Even Digidesign's
ICON product line gives a nod to this problem somewhat, but the Euphonix
System 5 controller is even better.
This is a decidedly long and arduous task to figure out since it's not you
doing the work. You really need to sit down with the man during a full
day's work and find out how he accomplishes his job before you can come up
with any solutions at all. He may never wish to use a mouse to mix, so that
means an automated console, yet he has a limited console because he, like
me, has an analog 24 input console.
You catch the drift, I assume.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Kristoffer J?nsson" <krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3ba611b.0504270731.5b83136e@posting.google.com...
> oleyar@gmail.com wrote in message
news:<1114540650.062170.96100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> > i use the 24I/O on a G5 and have completely bypassed the board for mix.
> > i only use it to monitor.
> >
> > the converters sound great, it's only 1400-ish, and DP shakes hands
> > with it like an old friend. if you're gonna use a PC, you'll have to
> > jump through a few ASIO hoops, but still a good option.
> >
> > before you buy anything, check into the RME stuff. all my PC buddies
> > RAVE about this company, the ease of operation and the sound quality.
> >
> > i dumped ADATS, DA88s, a RADAR and a 16 track 2" tape machine, and now
> > i just do everything on the computer. you don't have to transfer
> > anything to edit, you can submix acoustic/electric guitars or BGVs to 2
> > holes while composing, and your whole battle station is in ONE SPOT.
> > cheap, too! comping vocals is the easiest thing in the world when it's
> > all right on one page in front of you.....
> >
> > hope this helps,
> >
> > gary0
>
> Thanks for the tip! I checked out the RME stuff. I found it quite hard
> to understand what kind of RME-devices i should need for a 24 channel
> i/o system.
>
> I'm used to have everything in one spot in my home studio too. The
> owner had a few criterions though. He wanted to have the ability to
> use the current 24 channel analogue board for mixing. My plan is to
> find a nice setup that will allow me to do analogue mixing on the
> board, but without worsening the ability to use the computer for some
> extra effects and sub-mixing.
I have a Soundtracs 24*8 in the studio, both for tracking and sometimes for
mixing. I record to Samplitude 7.23a on the AMD64 system and 6.04 on the
AMD 1600+ system, both using the same 24 converters.
But this isn't your problem nor necessarily your answer. You need to go
back and figure out what he expects to do before you can offer a solution.
With a RADAR he works just like he's already use to. But with a computer,
he has options of numerous tracks over and above the 24 that he can do
simultaneously with the RADAR. Of course, it's possible to transfer the 24
tracks from a RADAR and keep going, but that's time consuming under the
contraints of clients in the studio.
And it's not necessarily a situation where 24 outputs are going to be enough
in the above given environment, so the option there, which is less
expensive, is to track to a computer and mix within the computer. This
function, however, has it's costs in learning curve and software expense.
You can't simply push a "play" button for greater than 24 tracks and use the
console. He'd undoubtedly have to do some submixes, etc., or simply go for
the learning curve on how to mix >24 tracks on the computer. Some software
doesn't sound as good when multiple tracks are mixed inside the box, but I
think largely that problem has gone by the wayside. I know that Samplitude
has one of the best mix engines I know of for sound quality, unless I were
to move up to SADiE or Pyramix. I know a lot of engineers using Pro Tools
still prefer it to be used as an editing station and a tape recorder type
system while using automated consoles for the actual mix. Even Digidesign's
ICON product line gives a nod to this problem somewhat, but the Euphonix
System 5 controller is even better.
This is a decidedly long and arduous task to figure out since it's not you
doing the work. You really need to sit down with the man during a full
day's work and find out how he accomplishes his job before you can come up
with any solutions at all. He may never wish to use a mouse to mix, so that
means an automated console, yet he has a limited console because he, like
me, has an analog 24 input console.
You catch the drift, I assume.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Kristoffer J?nsson" <krulleboll@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f3ba611b.0504270731.5b83136e@posting.google.com...
> oleyar@gmail.com wrote in message
news:<1114540650.062170.96100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> > i use the 24I/O on a G5 and have completely bypassed the board for mix.
> > i only use it to monitor.
> >
> > the converters sound great, it's only 1400-ish, and DP shakes hands
> > with it like an old friend. if you're gonna use a PC, you'll have to
> > jump through a few ASIO hoops, but still a good option.
> >
> > before you buy anything, check into the RME stuff. all my PC buddies
> > RAVE about this company, the ease of operation and the sound quality.
> >
> > i dumped ADATS, DA88s, a RADAR and a 16 track 2" tape machine, and now
> > i just do everything on the computer. you don't have to transfer
> > anything to edit, you can submix acoustic/electric guitars or BGVs to 2
> > holes while composing, and your whole battle station is in ONE SPOT.
> > cheap, too! comping vocals is the easiest thing in the world when it's
> > all right on one page in front of you.....
> >
> > hope this helps,
> >
> > gary0
>
> Thanks for the tip! I checked out the RME stuff. I found it quite hard
> to understand what kind of RME-devices i should need for a 24 channel
> i/o system.
>
> I'm used to have everything in one spot in my home studio too. The
> owner had a few criterions though. He wanted to have the ability to
> use the current 24 channel analogue board for mixing. My plan is to
> find a nice setup that will allow me to do analogue mixing on the
> board, but without worsening the ability to use the computer for some
> extra effects and sub-mixing.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
> One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> complete a mix in a small fraction of real time.
Ha Ha. I laugh at you Arny! <g> Actually I don't, but the idea of a
computer mix actually taking less time means to me that you don't have some
musician in the room with you while you mix. Like Glenn says, if I do it
$150 per hour, if you do it $100 per hour, if you help me $300 per hour.
Just the thought of someone doing a mix without all the "what ifs" means
experience and from the OP's statement, I doubt that software mixing is
going to come easy and it's going to take a lot of learning curve and
experience before he can say "that's it, the mix is done". Even I fall prey
to the dreaded "oh, I can go back and adjust this a little bit" on things I
mixed years ago. It NEVER proves to be a wise use of time. But if you
place the onus of a new paradigm on a person that has never mixed in the box
before, you open up that pandora's box of mixing possibilities, and lord,
let's not even get into the VSTi stuff because then it's studio hell.
Unless the person can actually charge for the time, it's a no go, and for
someone that's been working with ADATs and a console, it's going to be hard
to get their clients to understand that all those little ideas floating
around actually have dollar signs attached to them. So now this guy not
only has a new paradigm to be concerned with in the way he works, but his
studio is offering far more flexibility and possibilities, but his clients
are going to be thinking $25 per hour and we'll be done in 8 hours of
recording. Are they going to be able to come up with greater than their
budgeted recording session if they suddenly have the option to try this or
add that? Probably not, but because they are valued clients, I'd think the
general attitude would be to give them the benefit, and that means dollars
lost.
Now maybe it's just me that thinks this way, but even when I originally upgr
aded the studio to the ability to do a number of things I couldn't do with
analog tape, I've basically told everyone, no, we don't go back and do 15
vocal tracks unless you realize that it's going to cost you 3 minutes worth
of $45 per hour time every time you lay down a new track, and then hours of
time to composite it all together for you.
Thus, if you don't do it right, or you suddenly have an entirely different
set of clients, you may end up pricing yourself out of their recording
budget. Even the best of the best I've worked with know that they have a
budget and they either get it right the first time or it costs extra money.
The others have no concept that mixing is going to cost them the same studio
rate per hour and it has limited me in some of the jobs I've taken on. What
does it cost to make an album? $2000 without the CD production on a good
day with everybody spot on. What do a lot of musicians want? Well, the $25
per hour for 8 hours should cover it, but then we haven't even gotten into
the mixing, etc., all of which the cost of the plugins, even better mics,
etc., has to have some part in the price.
In today's market, as long as one knows how to work with what they've got,
if they aren't a major facility I'd suggest they stick with what they know
because their clientele isn't going to be able to meet the rise in cost.
And if it can, this particular question would never be asked. In other
words, to step up from the clients that frequent an ADAT studio, one has to
go to an entirely different set of clients and that brings in a ton of other
problems, not the least of which will suddenly become the acoustics in the
room used for recording, electrical, HVAC, mics, etc.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ZsSdnYKuEuLXAfPfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
> > anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
>
> A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
>
> Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
> functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
> probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
> the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm and
> not everybody can benefit from it.
>
This is more likely
> to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in real
> time.
>
>
> One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> complete a mix in a small fraction of real time.
Ha Ha. I laugh at you Arny! <g> Actually I don't, but the idea of a
computer mix actually taking less time means to me that you don't have some
musician in the room with you while you mix. Like Glenn says, if I do it
$150 per hour, if you do it $100 per hour, if you help me $300 per hour.
Just the thought of someone doing a mix without all the "what ifs" means
experience and from the OP's statement, I doubt that software mixing is
going to come easy and it's going to take a lot of learning curve and
experience before he can say "that's it, the mix is done". Even I fall prey
to the dreaded "oh, I can go back and adjust this a little bit" on things I
mixed years ago. It NEVER proves to be a wise use of time. But if you
place the onus of a new paradigm on a person that has never mixed in the box
before, you open up that pandora's box of mixing possibilities, and lord,
let's not even get into the VSTi stuff because then it's studio hell.
Unless the person can actually charge for the time, it's a no go, and for
someone that's been working with ADATs and a console, it's going to be hard
to get their clients to understand that all those little ideas floating
around actually have dollar signs attached to them. So now this guy not
only has a new paradigm to be concerned with in the way he works, but his
studio is offering far more flexibility and possibilities, but his clients
are going to be thinking $25 per hour and we'll be done in 8 hours of
recording. Are they going to be able to come up with greater than their
budgeted recording session if they suddenly have the option to try this or
add that? Probably not, but because they are valued clients, I'd think the
general attitude would be to give them the benefit, and that means dollars
lost.
Now maybe it's just me that thinks this way, but even when I originally upgr
aded the studio to the ability to do a number of things I couldn't do with
analog tape, I've basically told everyone, no, we don't go back and do 15
vocal tracks unless you realize that it's going to cost you 3 minutes worth
of $45 per hour time every time you lay down a new track, and then hours of
time to composite it all together for you.
Thus, if you don't do it right, or you suddenly have an entirely different
set of clients, you may end up pricing yourself out of their recording
budget. Even the best of the best I've worked with know that they have a
budget and they either get it right the first time or it costs extra money.
The others have no concept that mixing is going to cost them the same studio
rate per hour and it has limited me in some of the jobs I've taken on. What
does it cost to make an album? $2000 without the CD production on a good
day with everybody spot on. What do a lot of musicians want? Well, the $25
per hour for 8 hours should cover it, but then we haven't even gotten into
the mixing, etc., all of which the cost of the plugins, even better mics,
etc., has to have some part in the price.
In today's market, as long as one knows how to work with what they've got,
if they aren't a major facility I'd suggest they stick with what they know
because their clientele isn't going to be able to meet the rise in cost.
And if it can, this particular question would never be asked. In other
words, to step up from the clients that frequent an ADAT studio, one has to
go to an entirely different set of clients and that brings in a ton of other
problems, not the least of which will suddenly become the acoustics in the
room used for recording, electrical, HVAC, mics, etc.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ZsSdnYKuEuLXAfPfRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
> > anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
>
> A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
>
> Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
> functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
> probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
> the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm and
> not everybody can benefit from it.
>
This is more likely
> to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in real
> time.
>
>
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Why call playon a troll? He's bringing up valid points. You can't suggest
that because he doesn't agree with you that he's just a troll, Arny. I
don't necessarily agree with you (see my last post) and I'm certainly not a
troll, assuming I stay off of political topics.
However, I don't necessarily agree with playon either about the mixing in
the box sounding worse. It depends on the product and I think most of the
software manufacturers have listened to this debate for about 5 years now
and come up with some significant advancements in mixing engines. I know I
am completely happy with mixing inside of Samplitude, although in weaker
moments I sometimes want to spend another $1k for Sequoia.
But even then, there is the idea of FX being either outboard or inboard.
Some of this has been answered again by software manufacturers. Even today
in the new Mix I saw a product that will sample your external EQ and
internalize it, giving you the signature (supposedly) of your EQ whilst
allowing you to use it as a plugin. Great advancement if it's true, and if
it's not true right now, I'm sure they will get it right within a couple of
years. But until then, most hardware simply sounds better. DSP works
better outside of the box, but the UAD-1 seems to have made some serious
inroads on that, along with the Pulsar/Scope stuff. EMU's new products are
stepping up to the plate, but then again, it's been years after their
debacle on the audio input cards they built, and today's market is more in
tune with what EMU has always seemingly wanted to do. I cannot speak to Pro
Tools and it's abilities.
So I don't think evaluating the market of products today and placing that
against the saleability of an upgraded studio is some type of troll. It's
more a recognition that there's so much out there that no matter what you or
I may know about computer based recording, there's still far more out there,
and every time you add something, something else changes. Whether the
change is good or not depends on one's abilities and the availability of
making money with it. If you offer more bells and whistles and charge your
clients for it but their product still sounds like it didn't have those
extras, you are going to lose those clients.
To me the question isn't what can I upgrade to, but is an upgrade required
for my current roster of clients. I may not get new clients, but then
unless I get some really good paying ones, I'd rather not alienate my older
ones.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9_-dnUnYM4HK9vLfRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> playon wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >>> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
> >>> anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
> >>
> >> A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
> >>
> >> Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
> >> functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
> >> probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
> >> the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm
> and
> >> not everybody can benefit from it.
>
> >> One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> >> console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> >> complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more
> likely
> >> to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in
> real
> >> time.
>
> > One way that analog mixing completely blows away mixing inside the
> > computer is the sound. There is an audible difference between using
> > the summing of tracks on computer software to mix, as opposed to
> > taking the same tracks out to a real console.
>
> Troll, troll, troll.
>
> > Then there is the whole plug-ins vs analog FX debate.
>
> Troll, troll, troll.
>
> Ned Ludd is calling you, Al.
>
>
Why call playon a troll? He's bringing up valid points. You can't suggest
that because he doesn't agree with you that he's just a troll, Arny. I
don't necessarily agree with you (see my last post) and I'm certainly not a
troll, assuming I stay off of political topics.
However, I don't necessarily agree with playon either about the mixing in
the box sounding worse. It depends on the product and I think most of the
software manufacturers have listened to this debate for about 5 years now
and come up with some significant advancements in mixing engines. I know I
am completely happy with mixing inside of Samplitude, although in weaker
moments I sometimes want to spend another $1k for Sequoia.
But even then, there is the idea of FX being either outboard or inboard.
Some of this has been answered again by software manufacturers. Even today
in the new Mix I saw a product that will sample your external EQ and
internalize it, giving you the signature (supposedly) of your EQ whilst
allowing you to use it as a plugin. Great advancement if it's true, and if
it's not true right now, I'm sure they will get it right within a couple of
years. But until then, most hardware simply sounds better. DSP works
better outside of the box, but the UAD-1 seems to have made some serious
inroads on that, along with the Pulsar/Scope stuff. EMU's new products are
stepping up to the plate, but then again, it's been years after their
debacle on the audio input cards they built, and today's market is more in
tune with what EMU has always seemingly wanted to do. I cannot speak to Pro
Tools and it's abilities.
So I don't think evaluating the market of products today and placing that
against the saleability of an upgraded studio is some type of troll. It's
more a recognition that there's so much out there that no matter what you or
I may know about computer based recording, there's still far more out there,
and every time you add something, something else changes. Whether the
change is good or not depends on one's abilities and the availability of
making money with it. If you offer more bells and whistles and charge your
clients for it but their product still sounds like it didn't have those
extras, you are going to lose those clients.
To me the question isn't what can I upgrade to, but is an upgrade required
for my current roster of clients. I may not get new clients, but then
unless I get some really good paying ones, I'd rather not alienate my older
ones.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9_-dnUnYM4HK9vLfRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> playon wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >>> You don't get digital mixing abilities, but why do you want that
> >>> anyway? You don't have them now. What would that buy you?
> >>
> >> A new life. What well might be a far better new life.
> >>
> >> Mixing on a computer with good software automatically gives you the
> >> functionality of a mixing console that is automated in ways that
> >> probably transcend any real analog console, and a lot if not all of
> >> the digital ones. But, nonlinear editing is a different paradigm
> and
> >> not everybody can benefit from it.
>
> >> One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> >> console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> >> complete a mix in a small fraction of real time. This is more
> likely
> >> to be manifest, the longer the musical work being mixed runs in
> real
> >> time.
>
> > One way that analog mixing completely blows away mixing inside the
> > computer is the sound. There is an audible difference between using
> > the summing of tracks on computer software to mix, as opposed to
> > taking the same tracks out to a real console.
>
> Troll, troll, troll.
>
> > Then there is the whole plug-ins vs analog FX debate.
>
> Troll, troll, troll.
>
> Ned Ludd is calling you, Al.
>
>
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Why call playon a troll? He's bringing up valid points. You can't suggest
> that because he doesn't agree with you that he's just a troll, Arny.
Arny exhibits more troll like behavior of any of the regular posters to
this group. And apparently on other groups as well, based on some of the
responses from some of those group's posters.
Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Why call playon a troll? He's bringing up valid points. You can't suggest
> that because he doesn't agree with you that he's just a troll, Arny.
Arny exhibits more troll like behavior of any of the regular posters to
this group. And apparently on other groups as well, based on some of the
responses from some of those group's posters.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> > console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> > complete a mix in a small fraction of real time.
> Ha Ha. I laugh at you Arny! <g> Actually I don't, but the idea of a
> computer mix actually taking less time means to me that you don't have some
> musician in the room with you while you mix. Like Glenn says, if I do it
> $150 per hour, if you do it $100 per hour, if you help me $300 per hour.
Arny's suggestion works nicely as long as you don't listen to the mix.
Maybe he has reason enough not to want to hear his mixes.
--
ha
Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> > console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> > complete a mix in a small fraction of real time.
> Ha Ha. I laugh at you Arny! <g> Actually I don't, but the idea of a
> computer mix actually taking less time means to me that you don't have some
> musician in the room with you while you mix. Like Glenn says, if I do it
> $150 per hour, if you do it $100 per hour, if you help me $300 per hour.
Arny's suggestion works nicely as long as you don't listen to the mix.
Maybe he has reason enough not to want to hear his mixes.
--
ha
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
I'm sorry, but I've been here for something like 8 or 9 years now and Arny
is no troll. He knows his stuff, although his stuff sometimes doesn't
necessarily apply, just I often answer the question I thought the original
poster should have asked rather than the one he answered. And I do this
often.
But, as I said, playon brought up valid points, and that means he's not a
troll in this particular case, as far as I can see. Although I will admit
that while I have a particular history with the political threads on this
group, Arny has ended up somehow bringing some baggage along with him from
other newsgroups, and that has been somewhat bothersome, but only in the
terms of having Arny have to continually try to defend himself from outside
attack and losing time being able to actually supply some decent information
to this newsgroup's readers.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3df9qqF6rl7clU1@individual.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > Why call playon a troll? He's bringing up valid points. You can't
suggest
> > that because he doesn't agree with you that he's just a troll, Arny.
>
> Arny exhibits more troll like behavior of any of the regular posters to
> this group. And apparently on other groups as well, based on some of the
> responses from some of those group's posters.
I'm sorry, but I've been here for something like 8 or 9 years now and Arny
is no troll. He knows his stuff, although his stuff sometimes doesn't
necessarily apply, just I often answer the question I thought the original
poster should have asked rather than the one he answered. And I do this
often.
But, as I said, playon brought up valid points, and that means he's not a
troll in this particular case, as far as I can see. Although I will admit
that while I have a particular history with the political threads on this
group, Arny has ended up somehow bringing some baggage along with him from
other newsgroups, and that has been somewhat bothersome, but only in the
terms of having Arny have to continually try to defend himself from outside
attack and losing time being able to actually supply some decent information
to this newsgroup's readers.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Joe Sensor" <crabcakes@emagic.net> wrote in message
news:3df9qqF6rl7clU1@individual.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
> > Why call playon a troll? He's bringing up valid points. You can't
suggest
> > that because he doesn't agree with you that he's just a troll, Arny.
>
> Arny exhibits more troll like behavior of any of the regular posters to
> this group. And apparently on other groups as well, based on some of the
> responses from some of those group's posters.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
Choices are choices. I've had the concept of mixing a group the way I like
for years. I believe vocals should be listenable and intelligible. I start
from there. Other people make other choices and would come to a totally
different mix if we both had the same source material.
We did this on Mixerman's forum. We had five songs of which we had access
to the tracks, and we were to mix the songs as we saw them. I don't believe
anyone came up with what were the real mixes. But there were some damned
good mixes.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gvs1hm.197t4p11mcoi80N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > > One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> > > console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> > > complete a mix in a small fraction of real time.
>
> > Ha Ha. I laugh at you Arny! <g> Actually I don't, but the idea of a
> > computer mix actually taking less time means to me that you don't have
some
> > musician in the room with you while you mix. Like Glenn says, if I do
it
> > $150 per hour, if you do it $100 per hour, if you help me $300 per hour.
>
> Arny's suggestion works nicely as long as you don't listen to the mix.
> Maybe he has reason enough not to want to hear his mixes.
>
> --
> ha
Choices are choices. I've had the concept of mixing a group the way I like
for years. I believe vocals should be listenable and intelligible. I start
from there. Other people make other choices and would come to a totally
different mix if we both had the same source material.
We did this on Mixerman's forum. We had five songs of which we had access
to the tracks, and we were to mix the songs as we saw them. I don't believe
anyone came up with what were the real mixes. But there were some damned
good mixes.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gvs1hm.197t4p11mcoi80N%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>
> > > One way that software mixing completely blows any analog or digital
> > > console completely out of the water is the ability to possibly
> > > complete a mix in a small fraction of real time.
>
> > Ha Ha. I laugh at you Arny! <g> Actually I don't, but the idea of a
> > computer mix actually taking less time means to me that you don't have
some
> > musician in the room with you while you mix. Like Glenn says, if I do
it
> > $150 per hour, if you do it $100 per hour, if you help me $300 per hour.
>
> Arny's suggestion works nicely as long as you don't listen to the mix.
> Maybe he has reason enough not to want to hear his mixes.
>
> --
> ha
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
I thik the first question that needs to be asked is why does this
particular studio exist? When I read large studio, I assumed that it
was a place trying to compete with Avatar and the Hit Factory etc.
If you're a commercial studio you need to know the buzzwords that will
attract clients. Today that's mainly "ProTools H" but RADAR and analog
concole will attract some people also.
IF it's a personal or private produciton studio where one person is
making all the music some type of DAW with softsynth, MIDI and loop
editing capability is probably important.
Which matters the most for this studio, sound quality or working
process? IF it's sound quality, you've got to research converters which
may bring you bakc to RADAR again. If it's working process, say lots of
jingles with several recalls a day for mix revisions you need to be in
a DAW all the way through.
I thik the first question that needs to be asked is why does this
particular studio exist? When I read large studio, I assumed that it
was a place trying to compete with Avatar and the Hit Factory etc.
If you're a commercial studio you need to know the buzzwords that will
attract clients. Today that's mainly "ProTools H" but RADAR and analog
concole will attract some people also.
IF it's a personal or private produciton studio where one person is
making all the music some type of DAW with softsynth, MIDI and loop
editing capability is probably important.
Which matters the most for this studio, sound quality or working
process? IF it's sound quality, you've got to research converters which
may bring you bakc to RADAR again. If it's working process, say lots of
jingles with several recalls a day for mix revisions you need to be in
a DAW all the way through.
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)
The studio does not exist for commercial reasons. When i said "large
setup", i wanted to make sure that it's not a home studio i need advice
for.
I have done quite a lot of research on converters and i think i'll go
for RME converters and soundcard. Everyone around here seems to really
like the RME stuff.
The studio does not exist for commercial reasons. When i said "large
setup", i wanted to make sure that it's not a home studio i need advice
for.
I have done quite a lot of research on converters and i think i'll go
for RME converters and soundcard. Everyone around here seems to really
like the RME stuff.
Related ressources:
- Forumstudio monitors for listening to music?
- ForumNew Build - Home Studio (i5 750, i7 860, or i7 930)
- ForumMIDI Studio Setup Advice : Computer Keyboard and Digital Pi..
- ForumUpdate for Music Studio setup
- ForumBest setup for startup animation studio ??
- ForumHome Studio Set Up
- ForumStarting my own studio Gear suggestions wanted!!
- ForumHome studio questions - please help!
- ForumA Recording studio inside a 3-phase industrial facility...
- ForumPinnacle Studio 9 with MovieBoxDV
- ForumNeed Advice on xps studio 9000 clone! First time builder.
- ForumSuggestions for a studio +home theater setup
- ForumSP2500's or Another Subwoofer?
- More resources
Read discussions in other Home Audio categories
!
