I'm doing a drum session today at my buddy's studio. He has a Tascam DM24
and a 2424 HD recorder. We will be using all outboard mic pres, and could go
direct into the 2424 (vs routing them through the mixer and then to the 2424
via tdif), if it has better converters, or if there were any other real
advantage to it. I suppose there could be an upside to avoiding the
attenuation in the line ins at the board. It would be slightly more
convenient to go through the board though.

Anyone know?

Bill L

In article writes:

We will be using all outboard mic pres, and could go
direct into the 2424 (vs routing them through the mixer and then to the 2424
via tdif), if it has better converters

No you couldn't. If you connect the output of the preamp to the mixer,
then connect the mixer's TDIF output to the recorder's input, you're
using the mixer's A/D converters.

If the MX2424 has the optional analog I/O board and you really care,
I'd suggest that you try making a test recording with the preamps
connected directly to the MX's analog inputs and compare that with
connecting the preamps to the console and connecting the console to
the recorder with TDIF. Be sure that you listen using the same
converters, probably the console's.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1077978145k@trad...

In article
writes:

We will be using all outboard mic pres, and could go
direct into the 2424 (vs routing them through the mixer and then to the
2424
via tdif), if it has better converters

No you couldn't. If you connect the output of the preamp to the mixer,
then connect the mixer's TDIF output to the recorder's input, you're
using the mixer's A/D converters.

Mike, I'm not stupid - please re-read my post. I know that going into the
mixer first would give me the mixer's A/Ds. That's why I asked the qustion.
I was hoping someone who actually knew the answer to the question could
supply an informed response.

Bill L


If the MX2424 has the optional analog I/O board and you really care,
I'd suggest that you try making a test recording with the preamps
connected directly to the MX's analog inputs and compare that with
connecting the preamps to the console and connecting the console to
the recorder with TDIF. Be sure that you listen using the same
converters, probably the console's.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

The Analog I/O in the MX2424 has much better converters than the DM24.
Besides which, entering the recorder directly you'll record flat (which is
good), you'll gain analog I/O channels (which if recording live and doing
FOH simultaneously (something I do all the time) is good), and if you're
going to have an external preamp there is likely something about it that you
wanted it for so why not use it?

For what it is worth, now that i've added a Millenia Media HV-3D to my
equipment, this will be my default setup:

8 "Gold" channels consisting of mics preamped by the HV-3D on stage -
snake - analog input on MX2424 - TDIF - DM24 Mixer - Sound reinforcement
(if required).
16 "Not quite so Gold" channels consisting of mics - snake - DM24
preamps - DM24 direct analog out via inserts - analog input on MX2424 -
TDIF - DM24 Mixer - Sound reinforcement (if required).

Total capablity: 24 analog channels recorded flat without worry, 24 digital
returns mixed anyway required for FOH; 8 nearly perfect & 16 pretty darn
good!


"Bill Lorentzen" wrote in message
...
I'm doing a drum session today at my buddy's studio. He has a Tascam DM24
and a 2424 HD recorder. We will be using all outboard mic pres, and could
go
direct into the 2424 (vs routing them through the mixer and then to the
2424
via tdif), if it has better converters, or if there were any other real
advantage to it. I suppose there could be an upside to avoiding the
attenuation in the line ins at the board. It would be slightly more
convenient to go through the board though.

Anyone know?

Bill L

In article writes:

In article
writes:

We will be using all outboard mic pres, and could go
direct into the 2424 (vs routing them through the mixer and then to the
2424
via tdif), if it has better converters

Mike, I'm not stupid - please re-read my post.

OK, there it is. Sorry, I missed the little "vs" buried among all of
those big words. So I assume the recorder does have the analog board.
So have you tried it already?




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Thanks David. That's what I wanted to know.

Bill L

"David Zajac" wrote in message
...
The Analog I/O in the MX2424 has much better converters than the DM24.
Besides which, entering the recorder directly you'll record flat (which is
good), you'll gain analog I/O channels (which if recording live and doing
FOH simultaneously (something I do all the time) is good), and if you're
going to have an external preamp there is likely something about it that
you
wanted it for so why not use it?

For what it is worth, now that i've added a Millenia Media HV-3D to my
equipment, this will be my default setup:

8 "Gold" channels consisting of mics preamped by the HV-3D on stage -
snake - analog input on MX2424 - TDIF - DM24 Mixer - Sound
reinforcement
(if required).
16 "Not quite so Gold" channels consisting of mics - snake - DM24
preamps - DM24 direct analog out via inserts - analog input on MX2424 -
TDIF - DM24 Mixer - Sound reinforcement (if required).

Total capablity: 24 analog channels recorded flat without worry, 24
digital
returns mixed anyway required for FOH; 8 nearly perfect & 16 pretty darn
good!


"Bill Lorentzen" wrote in message
...
I'm doing a drum session today at my buddy's studio. He has a Tascam
DM24
and a 2424 HD recorder. We will be using all outboard mic pres, and
could
go
direct into the 2424 (vs routing them through the mixer and then to the
2424
via tdif), if it has better converters, or if there were any other real
advantage to it. I suppose there could be an upside to avoiding the
attenuation in the line ins at the board. It would be slightly more
convenient to go through the board though.

Anyone know?

Bill L

In article writes:

Thanks David. That's what I wanted to know.

And of course you trust him implicitly. That was my thought, too (that
the converters and analog circuitry on the analog I/O board for the MX
were better than that in the DM24) but these days you can't be too
sure. I'd put money on the analog path being better in the TimeLine
board, but the converters in the console are two years newer in design
and might just be better. But then there's the other stuff like board
layout, stray signal paths, clocking, etc. The only way to tell for
sure is to compare the two, which you can do. Best not to be biased.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Ok, first empirically: to my ears using an external preamp into directly
into the MX2424 sounds much more open. Of course (duh), the external preamp
happens in this case to be a Millennia Media HV-3d! This openness ( /
airiness / intangible wonderful something ) is lost if I use either the
console's preamps alone, or go through the console's preamps set to no gain
and use the Millennia Media to provide the preamp gain externally (one of
the first things I tried).

Second, although I picked up both my DM24 & MX2424 used so didn't worry much
about the OEM prices, the analog board in the MX2424 ain't cheap! Wouldn't
surprise me if it cost new what I paid for the DM buy itself (not that money
is a perfect predictor of value).

Third, don't know if TimeLine was involved with the DM but do know TimeLine
was heavily involved in the MX2424. Only reason I mention this is your post
wasn't clear as to which device you were referring to.



"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1078073430k@trad...

In article
writes:

Thanks David. That's what I wanted to know.

And of course you trust him implicitly. That was my thought, too (that
the converters and analog circuitry on the analog I/O board for the MX
were better than that in the DM24) but these days you can't be too
sure. I'd put money on the analog path being better in the TimeLine
board, but the converters in the console are two years newer in design
and might just be better. But then there's the other stuff like board
layout, stray signal paths, clocking, etc. The only way to tell for
sure is to compare the two, which you can do. Best not to be biased.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Third, don't know if TimeLine was involved with the DM but do know TimeLine
was heavily involved in the MX2424.

Oh, right - board vs. "board." Yes, TimeLine designed the MX2424 and
the analog I/O card for it. They were history before the DM24 came
out, but some of the TimeLine engineers went to work for the TASCAM US
R&D group (which, I believe, is also now history).

I think you did a reasonable comparison and I'm not surprised at your
conclusion.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"David Zajac" wrote in message
...
The Analog I/O in the MX2424 has much better converters than the DM24.
Besides which, entering the recorder directly you'll record flat (which is
good), you'll gain analog I/O channels (which if recording live and doing
FOH simultaneously (something I do all the time) is good), and if you're
going to have an external preamp there is likely something about it that
you
wanted it for so why not use it?



I'll give a completely opposite opinion. I think the converters in the
MX-2424 f-in' ruin music. The DM24 is good, but the clock needs a bit of
help from a good external source (as a lot of cheap digital boards do).

I have gotten so many things to mix off of a 2424 that take a ton of work to
make them sound even remotely decent. Everything that comes off of that
recorder sound flacid as the converters have horrible transient response and
a generally "smeary" sound (too many electrolytic caps in the signal
chain?). The 2424 is a great recorder for what it can do technically (like
timecode sync), but the sound of conversion is not a strength of it.

In comparison, I find that the DM24 is a much clearer sounding set of
conversion. As I said, the clock isn't wonderful and an Aardsync II helps
it quite a bit. The mic pre's also have a bit of a bite (upper mic/high-end
lack of transparency) to the sound that you aren't going to get with a set
of Millennias, etc... The line inputs reflect a bit of that, but it is a
cleaner sound than the mic pres.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"Benjamin Maas" wrote in message news:T3N0c.92653$Xp.419438@attbi_s54...
"David Zajac" wrote in message
...
The Analog I/O in the MX2424 has much better converters than the DM24.
Besides which, entering the recorder directly you'll record flat (which is
good), you'll gain analog I/O channels (which if recording live and doing
FOH simultaneously (something I do all the time) is good), and if you're
going to have an external preamp there is likely something about it that
you
wanted it for so why not use it?



I'll give a completely opposite opinion. I think the converters in the
MX-2424 f-in' ruin music. The DM24 is good, but the clock needs a bit of
help from a good external source (as a lot of cheap digital boards do).

I have gotten so many things to mix off of a 2424 that take a ton of work to
make them sound even remotely decent. Everything that comes off of that
recorder sound flacid as the converters have horrible transient response and
a generally "smeary" sound (too many electrolytic caps in the signal
chain?). The 2424 is a great recorder for what it can do technically (like
timecode sync), but the sound of conversion is not a strength of it.

In comparison, I find that the DM24 is a much clearer sounding set of
conversion. As I said, the clock isn't wonderful and an Aardsync II helps
it quite a bit. The mic pre's also have a bit of a bite (upper mic/high-end
lack of transparency) to the sound that you aren't going to get with a set
of Millennias, etc... The line inputs reflect a bit of that, but it is a
cleaner sound than the mic pres.

--Ben

I have to agree with Ben about the MX2424. It's not the caps, nor the
converters, it's the way data is handled internally. I modified one
using very good analog parts and first rate caps, sounded like c**p.
Next I tried my custom A/D's and D/A's through it and it still
wouldn't record or playback properly. Helped make the decision to go
with the Alesis HD24XR, that machine will record properly.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Jim Williams wrote:

Helped make the decision to go
with the Alesis HD24XR, that machine will record properly.

What's your early-on opinion of its operational bulletproofness?

--
ha

operational bulletproofness?

Sounds like a honor or title or something.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Hmmm... you guys must have some extraordinarily discriminating ears!
Obviously way out of my league.



"Jim Williams" wrote in message
om...
"Benjamin Maas" wrote in message
news:T3N0c.92653$Xp.419438@attbi_s54...
"David Zajac" wrote in message
...
The Analog I/O in the MX2424 has much better converters than the DM24.
Besides which, entering the recorder directly you'll record flat
(which is
good), you'll gain analog I/O channels (which if recording live and
doing
FOH simultaneously (something I do all the time) is good), and if
you're
going to have an external preamp there is likely something about it
that
you
wanted it for so why not use it?



I'll give a completely opposite opinion. I think the converters in the
MX-2424 f-in' ruin music. The DM24 is good, but the clock needs a bit
of
help from a good external source (as a lot of cheap digital boards do).

I have gotten so many things to mix off of a 2424 that take a ton of
work to
make them sound even remotely decent. Everything that comes off of that
recorder sound flacid as the converters have horrible transient response
and
a generally "smeary" sound (too many electrolytic caps in the signal
chain?). The 2424 is a great recorder for what it can do technically
(like
timecode sync), but the sound of conversion is not a strength of it.

In comparison, I find that the DM24 is a much clearer sounding set of
conversion. As I said, the clock isn't wonderful and an Aardsync II
helps
it quite a bit. The mic pre's also have a bit of a bite (upper
mic/high-end
lack of transparency) to the sound that you aren't going to get with a
set
of Millennias, etc... The line inputs reflect a bit of that, but it is
a
cleaner sound than the mic pres.

--Ben

I have to agree with Ben about the MX2424. It's not the caps, nor the
converters, it's the way data is handled internally. I modified one
using very good analog parts and first rate caps, sounded like c**p.
Next I tried my custom A/D's and D/A's through it and it still
wouldn't record or playback properly. Helped make the decision to go
with the Alesis HD24XR, that machine will record properly.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

(hank alrich) wrote in message . ..
Jim Williams wrote:

Helped make the decision to go
with the Alesis HD24XR, that machine will record properly.

What's your early-on opinion of its operational bulletproofness?

Well, I haven't shot at it with my Browning BDM 9 mm yet, but it has
worked flawlessly up to now...

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

(Jim Williams) wrote:


I have to agree with Ben about the MX2424. It's not the caps, nor the
converters, it's the way data is handled internally. I modified one
using very good analog parts and first rate caps, sounded like c**p.
Next I tried my custom A/D's and D/A's through it and it still
wouldn't record or playback properly. Helped make the decision to go
with the Alesis HD24XR, that machine will record properly.


Are you talking about the functionality of the unit, or are you saying
that somehow it's not just 111's and 000's? In the past with certain
OS' were very quirky, 2.11 has been extremely stable. If you are
saying that it's somehow not bit accurate, you must have had a broken
unit. I have used the MX2424 for 3 years, backing up between the
computer and the 2424 and digital information is *****exact*****. I'm
not talking about conversion, I'm talking about straight AES
transfers. If it wasn't, I think someone would have noticed by now.

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

In article writes:

If you are
saying that it's somehow not bit accurate, you must have had a broken
unit. I have used the MX2424 for 3 years, backing up between the
computer and the 2424 and digital information is *****exact*****. I'm
not talking about conversion

The discussion was about conversion - how a recording with the analog
I/O board sounds with an analog signal going in, in this case, as
compared to the same signal going into the TASCAM DM24 console, then
to the recorder via the TDIF inputs.

So far we have two votes for "it doesn't sound that good." A bit
disappointing considering the cost of the analog I/O option board and
all the part on it (as well as all the work that must have gone into
the design), but as we all know, not everything sounds as good as it
looks or costs.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

(Nathan Eldred) wrote in message . com...
(Jim Williams) wrote:


I have to agree with Ben about the MX2424. It's not the caps, nor the
converters, it's the way data is handled internally. I modified one
using very good analog parts and first rate caps, sounded like c**p.
Next I tried my custom A/D's and D/A's through it and it still
wouldn't record or playback properly. Helped make the decision to go
with the Alesis HD24XR, that machine will record properly.


Are you talking about the functionality of the unit, or are you saying
that somehow it's not just 111's and 000's? In the past with certain
OS' were very quirky, 2.11 has been extremely stable. If you are
saying that it's somehow not bit accurate, you must have had a broken
unit. I have used the MX2424 for 3 years, backing up between the
computer and the 2424 and digital information is *****exact*****. I'm
not talking about conversion, I'm talking about straight AES
transfers. If it wasn't, I think someone would have noticed by now.

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

If a bit map was done I would believe all the 0's and 1's would line
up. This is common where measured data and subjective sonics just
don't add up. Try a listening test between them and report back. I
did.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1078400835k@trad...


The discussion was about conversion - how a recording with the analog
I/O board sounds with an analog signal going in, in this case, as
compared to the same signal going into the TASCAM DM24 console, then
to the recorder via the TDIF inputs.

So far we have two votes for "it doesn't sound that good." A bit
disappointing considering the cost of the analog I/O option board and
all the part on it (as well as all the work that must have gone into
the design), but as we all know, not everything sounds as good as it
looks or costs.




I've found that like a lot of digital gear (more than I'd like to believe),
the clock in the MX2424 is pretty suspect. Not only are the analog
converters lacking, but even when going in digital, an external clock really
helps it (whether the clock on a set of high-end converters like Lavry's or
an Aardsync doesn't really matter- it just needs better clocking).

I think the data integrity is certainly fine on that recorder and the
timecode sync is excellent. My complaint is just that conversion on that
recorder is less than perfect. For $1800, you'd expect an analog card to
sound a bit better, but then again, that is not such a high price for 24
channels of conversion. Any after-market converter will cost more for that
many channels.

--Ben


--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

In article 3PK1c.42911$PR3.841871@attbi_s03 writes:

My complaint is just that conversion on that
recorder is less than perfect. For $1800, you'd expect an analog card to
sound a bit better, but then again, that is not such a high price for 24
channels of conversion.

That's about double what it costs for the analog I/O cards on the
Mackie HDR24/96 (they're free on the MDR24/96, which is one of the
things that's keeping the price of used MDRs up). While I've never
compared the two, I've compared the Mackie to analog tape in one place
and the TASCAM to analog tape in another place and remember thinking
that the Mackie sounded just about like the tape and the TASCAM didn't
sound quite like the tape. I didn't try to analyze what was different.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

(Jim Williams) wrote in message . com...
(Nathan Eldred) wrote in message . com...
(Jim Williams) wrote:


I have to agree with Ben about the MX2424. It's not the caps, nor the
converters, it's the way data is handled internally. I modified one
using very good analog parts and first rate caps, sounded like c**p.
Next I tried my custom A/D's and D/A's through it and it still
wouldn't record or playback properly. Helped make the decision to go
with the Alesis HD24XR, that machine will record properly.


Are you talking about the functionality of the unit, or are you saying
that somehow it's not just 111's and 000's? In the past with certain
OS' were very quirky, 2.11 has been extremely stable. If you are
saying that it's somehow not bit accurate, you must have had a broken
unit. I have used the MX2424 for 3 years, backing up between the
computer and the 2424 and digital information is *****exact*****. I'm
not talking about conversion, I'm talking about straight AES
transfers. If it wasn't, I think someone would have noticed by now.

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

If a bit map was done I would believe all the 0's and 1's would line
up. This is common where measured data and subjective sonics just
don't add up. Try a listening test between them and report back. I
did.


We must be talking about two different things. I have done a
comparison between digital transfers, countless times. They sound
exactly the same. If you are talking about A/D conversion, that's a
completely different ball of wax (even Mike Rivers seems to think
that's what we are talking about here, but when you say "Next I tried
my custom A/D's and D/A's through it and it still wouldn't record or
playback properly" it leads me to believe to you are talking about
digital only. If we ARE talking about ADC's then I agree they aren't
the best, nor the worse (I think their DAC's are better than their
ADC's).

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

In article writes:

We must be talking about two different things. I have done a
comparison between digital transfers, countless times. They sound
exactly the same.

You ARE talking about two different things. Jim's talking about the
sound of the A/D converter. It might sound the same every time he
transfers it to something else, but he (and Ben) says that it never
sounds really good. That's a sign of inaccurate A/D conversion, not
inaccurate data transfer.

If we ARE talking about ADC's then I agree they aren't
the best

Yup, and apparentely not even as good as today's commodity-like
products. Although it's a larger package and it only goes in one
direction, using three of the 8-channel RME converters with TDIF outut
will get you a better MX-2424 than buying one with the TASCAM analog
I/O board for roughly the same price.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

(Mike Rivers) wrote :


You ARE talking about two different things. Jim's talking about the
sound of the A/D converter.


Mike, please go back and read what he originally wrote. He said that
he added his custom (and I'm assuming extremely 'hi-fi') A/D/A and
even then it sounded bad. If it still sounded like crud with his
ADC's, then that only leaves one thing left.

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com

In article writes:

Mike, please go back and read what he originally wrote. He said that
he added his custom (and I'm assuming extremely 'hi-fi') A/D/A and
even then it sounded bad. If it still sounded like crud with his
ADC's, then that only leaves one thing left.

OK, internal clocking. That's still different from data accuracy. It's
about timing relationships.

No point in arguing about it though. If Ben doesn't like it (I think
he said it sounded better with outboard converters but I don't have
the thread in front of me) and Jim couldn't make it sound any better,
there are two people who would rather not use it. They may or may not
influence the decision of others.

I don't think that either of them was questioning whether what came
out the AES/EBU ports was or was not identical to what was on the
disk. They were commenting about the sound of the audio playback.
Isn't that what really counts if you're using the recorder for
recording and playback?





--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

No point in arguing about it though. If Ben doesn't like it (I think
he said it sounded better with outboard converters but I don't have
the thread in front of me) and Jim couldn't make it sound any better,
there are two people who would rather not use it. They may or may not
influence the decision of others.


That is what I said... With outboard converters, it is a fine transport.
You want to give it a better clock, but it records and plays back just fine.
The internal converters and the clock are it's weak points.

I still use the machine on some gigs because I've been quite happy with
timecode sync options on it. That and it is easy to export the files and
the project to just about any DAW out there through the use of its OpenTL
EDL. It is a very small and easy way to record 48 tracks wide in the field-
(48 tracks in 8 rack spaces isn't too bad)

--Ben


--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies