I am currently in the process of buying a digital rocroding system for our
church. I am planning on getting a Yamaha 01V96 for mixing, it will have to
double as the live sound board as well. I will be recording from 8 mics. I
am considering getting a RME DIGI9636 Hammerhall Light soundcard, which has
only digtal inputs. This is fine for recording live from the 01V which has
optical out, but I also wish to convert some old reel-to-reel and cassette
recordings to CD. Can I easily route these through the 01V into the sound
card when I am not using the mics, or is it an elaborate process? For
playback from the computer, can I just plug my headphones into the 01V?
This will be my first digital desk, an upgrade from a Mackie 1404, so I am
really not sure how it all works.

If there is a different sound card that would be better, or you have any
other advise, please let me know - I really don't want to learn the hard
way!

regards
Ron Wiebe

In article "Ron Wiebe" ron at thebibliophile dot com writes:

I am currently in the process of buying a digital rocroding system for our
church. I am planning on getting a Yamaha 01V96 for mixing, it will have to
double as the live sound board as well.

OK, which is it, a recording board or a live sound board? "Double as"
is a little ambiguous. Given that it's a church, my suspicion is that
it will be a live sound board which much of the time will be used for
simultaneous recording. Or is this for a non-traditional application
in the church?

The reason I ask is that if it's primarily a live board I'd strongly
recommend going with an analog mixer. A digital board has one real
advantage in a place like a church where there are several different
functions in the same venue, and that's the ability to store and call
up presets. But for someone unfamiliar with the console, it can be
very difficult. You really should give this a lot of thought rather
than getting something digital because it's not that evil, noisy
analog.

am considering getting a RME DIGI9636 Hammerhall Light soundcard, which has
only digtal inputs.

Any outputs?

This is fine for recording live from the 01V which has
optical out, but I also wish to convert some old reel-to-reel and cassette
recordings to CD. Can I easily route these through the 01V into the sound
card when I am not using the mics, or is it an elaborate process?

The routing is very flexible on the console and this is certainly
possible, but you have to know how to do it. I would consider it an
elaborate process the first time, but once you know how, it shouldn't
be that hard. You could save it as a preset.

For
playback from the computer, can I just plug my headphones into the 01V?

Assuming you have a signal going into the mixer from the computer,
yes.

This will be my first digital desk, an upgrade from a Mackie 1404, so I am
really not sure how it all works.

It's ****in' scary. I don't know if the 01V96 is any more intuitive
than the original 01V, but I have had way too much head scratching the
times when I've had to do something on an 01V.

If you're not dead set against analog and have a Firewire interface on
the computer you'll be using for recording, you might consider one of
the new Mackie Onyx mixers. I think the optional Firewire card is
finally shipping, and it sends direct outputs (from the preamps) to
the computer, as well as takes a stereo monitor return from the
computer and sends it to a "2 track monitor" input on the console.
It's pretty well thought out, the company and the layout are familiar
to you, and they tell me it sounds better than the VLZ Pro. The real
benefit is that anyone who has a clue as to how the mixer works can
get sound out of it in a pinch. I can't say that about the 01V.



--
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 "Ron Wiebe" ron at thebibliophile dot com writes:

I am currently in the process of buying a digital rocroding system for our
church. I am planning on getting a Yamaha 01V96 for mixing, it will have to
double as the live sound board as well.

OK, which is it, a recording board or a live sound board? "Double as"
is a little ambiguous. Given that it's a church, my suspicion is that
it will be a live sound board which much of the time will be used for
simultaneous recording. Or is this for a non-traditional application
in the church?

The reason I ask is that if it's primarily a live board I'd strongly
recommend going with an analog mixer. A digital board has one real
advantage in a place like a church where there are several different
functions in the same venue, and that's the ability to store and call
up presets. But for someone unfamiliar with the console, it can be
very difficult. You really should give this a lot of thought rather
than getting something digital because it's not that evil, noisy
analog.

am considering getting a RME DIGI9636 Hammerhall Light soundcard, which has
only digtal inputs.

Any outputs?

This is fine for recording live from the 01V which has
optical out, but I also wish to convert some old reel-to-reel and cassette
recordings to CD. Can I easily route these through the 01V into the sound
card when I am not using the mics, or is it an elaborate process?

The routing is very flexible on the console and this is certainly
possible, but you have to know how to do it. I would consider it an
elaborate process the first time, but once you know how, it shouldn't
be that hard. You could save it as a preset.

For
playback from the computer, can I just plug my headphones into the 01V?

Assuming you have a signal going into the mixer from the computer,
yes.

This will be my first digital desk, an upgrade from a Mackie 1404, so I am
really not sure how it all works.

It's ****in' scary. I don't know if the 01V96 is any more intuitive
than the original 01V, but I have had way too much head scratching the
times when I've had to do something on an 01V.

If you're not dead set against analog and have a Firewire interface on
the computer you'll be using for recording, you might consider one of
the new Mackie Onyx mixers. I think the optional Firewire card is
finally shipping, and it sends direct outputs (from the preamps) to
the computer, as well as takes a stereo monitor return from the
computer and sends it to a "2 track monitor" input on the console.
It's pretty well thought out, the company and the layout are familiar
to you, and they tell me it sounds better than the VLZ Pro. The real
benefit is that anyone who has a clue as to how the mixer works can
get sound out of it in a pinch. I can't say that about the 01V.



--
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:znr1100807384k@trad

In article "Ron Wiebe" ron at
thebibliophile dot com writes:

note, Ron Posted a similar article on alt.audio.pro.live-sound a few days
earlier

I am currently in the process of buying a digital rocroding system
for our church. I am planning on getting a Yamaha 01V96 for mixing,
it will have to double as the live sound board as well.

OK, which is it, a recording board or a live sound board?

I share your concerns, Mike. I now do the same thing for my church. Live
mixing takes so much of my attention that even punching in the cassette
machine for the sermon isn't as reliable as I'd like it to be.

If I'm serious about getting a quality recording, I remix the individual
tracks from a digital recording where one mic equals one track. In essence I
redo the whole job from scratch. The good news is that with a fast computer
and a fair amount of practice, this can be accomplished in something like
real time, but its a different real time than the actual service. As always,
the amount of time that can be spent polishing a mix can be indefinate.

IME live sound mixing is a way different game than mixing for recording.
Similar tools, but a different game. Yes, you can kinda throw together a
static mix for a recording of a live event that's often not too grim. But
for best results...

"Double as" is a little ambiguous. Given that it's a church, my suspicion
is that
it will be a live sound board which much of the time will be used for
simultaneous recording. Or is this for a non-traditional application
in the church?

Other details Ron posted suggested yes, this is going to be traditional
church work. Also it sounds like a very traditional form of worship which
favors simplicity.

The reason I ask is that if it's primarily a live board I'd strongly
recommend going with an analog mixer. A digital board has one real
advantage in a place like a church where there are several different
functions in the same venue, and that's the ability to store and call
up presets.

That's why I lust after a 02R96 for my church. We have what amount to be 5
or 6 rotating applications. At least one other person makes semi-regular use
of the board for one or two of those applications.

But for someone unfamiliar with the console, it can be
very difficult.

My experience with an 02r96 in another venue is that for basic functions, it
can be treated like a mid-sized analog board. However getting to the
advanced functions, and fully exploiting a completely configured-out board
requires tangling with the digital aspects of the board.

You really should give this a lot of thought rather
than getting something digital because it's not that evil, noisy analog.

In live sound applications, analog really doesn't seem to be that bad.

am considering getting a RME DIGI9636 Hammerhall Light soundcard,
which has only digital inputs.

Any outputs?

This is fine for recording live from the 01V which has
optical out, but I also wish to convert some old reel-to-reel and
cassette recordings to CD. Can I easily route these through the 01V
into the sound card when I am not using the mics, or is it an
elaborate process?


The routing is very flexible on the console and this is certainly
possible, but you have to know how to do it. I would consider it an
elaborate process the first time, but once you know how, it shouldn't
be that hard. You could save it as a preset.

Agreed. Recording through a mixing board is needless to say, a very viable
approach. Arguably, recording-through is one of the three major reasons
mixing boards exist! ;-)

For playback from the computer, can I just plug my headphones into the
01V?

Assuming you have a signal going into the mixer from the computer, yes.

This will be my first digital desk, an upgrade from a Mackie 1404,
so I am really not sure how it all works.

It's ****in' scary. I don't know if the 01V96 is any more intuitive
than the original 01V, but I have had way too much head scratching the
times when I've had to do something on an 01V.

In the alt.audio.pro.live-sound discussion, I expressed some concerns about
the 01V96 on the grounds that its complement of analog inputs and outputs
seems to be pretty stripped-back.

If you're not dead set against analog and have a Firewire interface on
the computer you'll be using for recording, you might consider one of
the new Mackie Onyx mixers.

The Mackies fell off my short list because they don't seem to have a lot of
aux outs. 4, right? I'm currently using 6 of the 8 on my SR32, and can see
a nearly-immediate need for the other two.

I think the optional Firewire card is
finally shipping, and it sends direct outputs (from the preamps) to
the computer, as well as takes a stereo monitor return from the
computer and sends it to a "2 track monitor" input on the console.

Admittedly there's a whole lot more PCs with Firewire ports than ADAT ports.
But computer audio interfaces for the ADAT ports on the Yammie digital
mixers do exist and don't cost an arm and a leg.

It's pretty well thought out, the company and the layout are familiar
to you, and they tell me it sounds better than the VLZ Pro. The real
benefit is that anyone who has a clue as to how the mixer works can
get sound out of it in a pinch. I can't say that about the 01V.

I've never had my hands on an 01V, but it seems more like the shell in which
you build the mixer of your dreams, not the mixer of your dreams.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1100807384k@trad

In article "Ron Wiebe" ron at
thebibliophile dot com writes:

note, Ron Posted a similar article on alt.audio.pro.live-sound a few days
earlier

I am currently in the process of buying a digital rocroding system
for our church. I am planning on getting a Yamaha 01V96 for mixing,
it will have to double as the live sound board as well.

OK, which is it, a recording board or a live sound board?

I share your concerns, Mike. I now do the same thing for my church. Live
mixing takes so much of my attention that even punching in the cassette
machine for the sermon isn't as reliable as I'd like it to be.

If I'm serious about getting a quality recording, I remix the individual
tracks from a digital recording where one mic equals one track. In essence I
redo the whole job from scratch. The good news is that with a fast computer
and a fair amount of practice, this can be accomplished in something like
real time, but its a different real time than the actual service. As always,
the amount of time that can be spent polishing a mix can be indefinate.

IME live sound mixing is a way different game than mixing for recording.
Similar tools, but a different game. Yes, you can kinda throw together a
static mix for a recording of a live event that's often not too grim. But
for best results...

"Double as" is a little ambiguous. Given that it's a church, my suspicion
is that
it will be a live sound board which much of the time will be used for
simultaneous recording. Or is this for a non-traditional application
in the church?

Other details Ron posted suggested yes, this is going to be traditional
church work. Also it sounds like a very traditional form of worship which
favors simplicity.

The reason I ask is that if it's primarily a live board I'd strongly
recommend going with an analog mixer. A digital board has one real
advantage in a place like a church where there are several different
functions in the same venue, and that's the ability to store and call
up presets.

That's why I lust after a 02R96 for my church. We have what amount to be 5
or 6 rotating applications. At least one other person makes semi-regular use
of the board for one or two of those applications.

But for someone unfamiliar with the console, it can be
very difficult.

My experience with an 02r96 in another venue is that for basic functions, it
can be treated like a mid-sized analog board. However getting to the
advanced functions, and fully exploiting a completely configured-out board
requires tangling with the digital aspects of the board.

You really should give this a lot of thought rather
than getting something digital because it's not that evil, noisy analog.

In live sound applications, analog really doesn't seem to be that bad.

am considering getting a RME DIGI9636 Hammerhall Light soundcard,
which has only digital inputs.

Any outputs?

This is fine for recording live from the 01V which has
optical out, but I also wish to convert some old reel-to-reel and
cassette recordings to CD. Can I easily route these through the 01V
into the sound card when I am not using the mics, or is it an
elaborate process?


The routing is very flexible on the console and this is certainly
possible, but you have to know how to do it. I would consider it an
elaborate process the first time, but once you know how, it shouldn't
be that hard. You could save it as a preset.

Agreed. Recording through a mixing board is needless to say, a very viable
approach. Arguably, recording-through is one of the three major reasons
mixing boards exist! ;-)

For playback from the computer, can I just plug my headphones into the
01V?

Assuming you have a signal going into the mixer from the computer, yes.

This will be my first digital desk, an upgrade from a Mackie 1404,
so I am really not sure how it all works.

It's ****in' scary. I don't know if the 01V96 is any more intuitive
than the original 01V, but I have had way too much head scratching the
times when I've had to do something on an 01V.

In the alt.audio.pro.live-sound discussion, I expressed some concerns about
the 01V96 on the grounds that its complement of analog inputs and outputs
seems to be pretty stripped-back.

If you're not dead set against analog and have a Firewire interface on
the computer you'll be using for recording, you might consider one of
the new Mackie Onyx mixers.

The Mackies fell off my short list because they don't seem to have a lot of
aux outs. 4, right? I'm currently using 6 of the 8 on my SR32, and can see
a nearly-immediate need for the other two.

I think the optional Firewire card is
finally shipping, and it sends direct outputs (from the preamps) to
the computer, as well as takes a stereo monitor return from the
computer and sends it to a "2 track monitor" input on the console.

Admittedly there's a whole lot more PCs with Firewire ports than ADAT ports.
But computer audio interfaces for the ADAT ports on the Yammie digital
mixers do exist and don't cost an arm and a leg.

It's pretty well thought out, the company and the layout are familiar
to you, and they tell me it sounds better than the VLZ Pro. The real
benefit is that anyone who has a clue as to how the mixer works can
get sound out of it in a pinch. I can't say that about the 01V.

I've never had my hands on an 01V, but it seems more like the shell in which
you build the mixer of your dreams, not the mixer of your dreams.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


Agreed. Recording through a mixing board is needless to say, a very
viable approach. Arguably, recording-through is one of the three
major reasons mixing boards exist! ;-)

I should add that while I have a couple of boards available for mixing
recordings, mixing recordings on a board is something I only do under
duress.

Primary reason is the fact that when I mix on the PC I have in essence an
automated board. I can't afford to have an REAL automated board at my
disposal.

Secondary reason is that mixing on a REAL board has to be done in real time,
while mixing on a DAW can range from lots faster than real time for actual
track mixing, to near-instantaneous.

If you mix a worship service on a DAW, you can do a lot of it by sight. This
saves tons of time.

Until the first time I audition a test recording, I may have never listened
to the entire service during mixdown. Maybe just 10-20% of it. That's how
you get the whole job done in the equivalent of real time.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


Agreed. Recording through a mixing board is needless to say, a very
viable approach. Arguably, recording-through is one of the three
major reasons mixing boards exist! ;-)

I should add that while I have a couple of boards available for mixing
recordings, mixing recordings on a board is something I only do under
duress.

Primary reason is the fact that when I mix on the PC I have in essence an
automated board. I can't afford to have an REAL automated board at my
disposal.

Secondary reason is that mixing on a REAL board has to be done in real time,
while mixing on a DAW can range from lots faster than real time for actual
track mixing, to near-instantaneous.

If you mix a worship service on a DAW, you can do a lot of it by sight. This
saves tons of time.

Until the first time I audition a test recording, I may have never listened
to the entire service during mixdown. Maybe just 10-20% of it. That's how
you get the whole job done in the equivalent of real time.

In article writes:

OK, which is it, a recording board or a live sound board?

I share your concerns, Mike. I now do the same thing for my church. Live
mixing takes so much of my attention that even punching in the cassette
machine for the sermon isn't as reliable as I'd like it to be.

I've been there (though not at church, but at festivals) where in the
heat of getting the console set up while the band is still deciding
where the players will stand) I've forgotten to press the Record
button until half a minute into the first song - probaby just as well
since it usually takes that long to get something resembling a musical
mix when you don't have any idea what it's going to sound like. My
policy has been "tape is cheap (at least DAT tape was cheap) so just
let it run during the setup."

If I'm serious about getting a quality recording, I remix the individual
tracks from a digital recording where one mic equals one track. In essence I
redo the whole job from scratch.

That's reasonable, too. The question is just how serious do you want
(or need) to be? Often people take these routine jobs too seriously to
have fun at it. But that's between you, your congregation, and your
conscience.

All of the folk festivals I do are "documentary" recordings, all
straight to 2-track from the live console. Sometimes it's just the
same mono mix that feeds the speakers - which works just fine for all
acoustic acts. Sometimes if the mixer allows, we'll bus the channels
so that the pan pots can spread the recorded mix out in stereo which
helps sort things out when you're listening and not watching. And
sometimes, particularly when there are amplifiers on stage, I'll feed
the tape (always in mono in this instance) from a pre-fade, post-EQ
auxilary send so I can up things in the recording that are essentially
off in the house mix because the amps are too loud on stage.

IME live sound mixing is a way different game than mixing for recording.
Similar tools, but a different game. Yes, you can kinda throw together a
static mix for a recording of a live event that's often not too grim. But
for best results...

Yup. If I'm being paid to record a concert, I let someone else do the
live sound. I can make the decision (sometimes dictated by budget) as
to wheter to mix on the fly or record multitrack - and even then I'll
do a stereo mix just so I can hear what I'm recording.

Other details Ron posted suggested yes, this is going to be traditional
church work. Also it sounds like a very traditional form of worship which
favors simplicity.

In which case, a straightforward console is probalby the best bet.

In live sound applications, analog really doesn't seem to be that bad.

I know that, and you know that, and so do all the companies who still
make live sound analog consoles, but today's generation wants to go
digital as early in the chain as possible and stay digital until the
bitter end. For sure you can get more featues for less money with a
digital console than with an analog console. This often equates to
more features than you will ever use, for about the same amount of
money as you'd spend on an analog console where you'd use everything,
because it's easy and intuitive.

The Mackies fell off my short list because they don't seem to have a lot of
aux outs. 4, right? I'm currently using 6 of the 8 on my SR32, and can see
a nearly-immediate need for the other two.

The initial Onyx models were pretty close parallels to the VLZ compact
series - "compact" being the operative word. You couldn't use a
1604VLZ Pro for your gig either. At the AES show, Mackie showed an
Onyx replacement for their large format 8-bus live sound boards with 8
auxilary sends per channel. But those are a way off yet. The OP
wouldn't get 8 aux sends out of an 01V either.

I've never had my hands on an 01V, but it seems more like the shell in which
you build the mixer of your dreams, not the mixer of your dreams.

An old time music friend of mine wanted to experiemnt with 8-track
recording at home a few years back. This is a guy who knows his way
around audio and has been recording at home, in the studio, and in the
field with analog recorders for close to 50 years, so he's no dummy.
He decided on a TASCAM DA38 for his recorder, and when I suggested
that he look at the 01V as a mixer, he bought one. I spent a day with
him trying to come up with what seemed perfectly reasonable and
possible routings for different recording situations and there were a
few that just confounded me - I couldn't find any way to do it. (I
don't remember what "it" was at the time but it was something that
would be simple on even a 4-bus straightforward analog console) I
suspect that it had to do with not having enough outputs or inputs
routable to where they needed to go.

In any case, after a week of frustration, he returned the 01V, got a
Mackie 1604 VLZ Pro to replace it, and was a happy camper. Would his
recordings sound any better had they been made through the Yamaha A/D
converters rather than the TASCAM's? I doubt it. Would the Yamaha EQ
sound better than that on the Mackie? Probably, but he gets pure
sounds with good mics and good placement and about the only reason why
he uses EQ is to treat breath pops or foot taps, the knobs rarely
leave their 0 position. But if he were recording hip-hop music I'm
sure he would have been better off with the Yamaha - but then he
wouldn't have been needing to record several tracks live, then overdub
several others live.

It takes all kinds.

--
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:

OK, which is it, a recording board or a live sound board?

I share your concerns, Mike. I now do the same thing for my church. Live
mixing takes so much of my attention that even punching in the cassette
machine for the sermon isn't as reliable as I'd like it to be.

I've been there (though not at church, but at festivals) where in the
heat of getting the console set up while the band is still deciding
where the players will stand) I've forgotten to press the Record
button until half a minute into the first song - probaby just as well
since it usually takes that long to get something resembling a musical
mix when you don't have any idea what it's going to sound like. My
policy has been "tape is cheap (at least DAT tape was cheap) so just
let it run during the setup."

If I'm serious about getting a quality recording, I remix the individual
tracks from a digital recording where one mic equals one track. In essence I
redo the whole job from scratch.

That's reasonable, too. The question is just how serious do you want
(or need) to be? Often people take these routine jobs too seriously to
have fun at it. But that's between you, your congregation, and your
conscience.

All of the folk festivals I do are "documentary" recordings, all
straight to 2-track from the live console. Sometimes it's just the
same mono mix that feeds the speakers - which works just fine for all
acoustic acts. Sometimes if the mixer allows, we'll bus the channels
so that the pan pots can spread the recorded mix out in stereo which
helps sort things out when you're listening and not watching. And
sometimes, particularly when there are amplifiers on stage, I'll feed
the tape (always in mono in this instance) from a pre-fade, post-EQ
auxilary send so I can up things in the recording that are essentially
off in the house mix because the amps are too loud on stage.

IME live sound mixing is a way different game than mixing for recording.
Similar tools, but a different game. Yes, you can kinda throw together a
static mix for a recording of a live event that's often not too grim. But
for best results...

Yup. If I'm being paid to record a concert, I let someone else do the
live sound. I can make the decision (sometimes dictated by budget) as
to wheter to mix on the fly or record multitrack - and even then I'll
do a stereo mix just so I can hear what I'm recording.

Other details Ron posted suggested yes, this is going to be traditional
church work. Also it sounds like a very traditional form of worship which
favors simplicity.

In which case, a straightforward console is probalby the best bet.

In live sound applications, analog really doesn't seem to be that bad.

I know that, and you know that, and so do all the companies who still
make live sound analog consoles, but today's generation wants to go
digital as early in the chain as possible and stay digital until the
bitter end. For sure you can get more featues for less money with a
digital console than with an analog console. This often equates to
more features than you will ever use, for about the same amount of
money as you'd spend on an analog console where you'd use everything,
because it's easy and intuitive.

The Mackies fell off my short list because they don't seem to have a lot of
aux outs. 4, right? I'm currently using 6 of the 8 on my SR32, and can see
a nearly-immediate need for the other two.

The initial Onyx models were pretty close parallels to the VLZ compact
series - "compact" being the operative word. You couldn't use a
1604VLZ Pro for your gig either. At the AES show, Mackie showed an
Onyx replacement for their large format 8-bus live sound boards with 8
auxilary sends per channel. But those are a way off yet. The OP
wouldn't get 8 aux sends out of an 01V either.

I've never had my hands on an 01V, but it seems more like the shell in which
you build the mixer of your dreams, not the mixer of your dreams.

An old time music friend of mine wanted to experiemnt with 8-track
recording at home a few years back. This is a guy who knows his way
around audio and has been recording at home, in the studio, and in the
field with analog recorders for close to 50 years, so he's no dummy.
He decided on a TASCAM DA38 for his recorder, and when I suggested
that he look at the 01V as a mixer, he bought one. I spent a day with
him trying to come up with what seemed perfectly reasonable and
possible routings for different recording situations and there were a
few that just confounded me - I couldn't find any way to do it. (I
don't remember what "it" was at the time but it was something that
would be simple on even a 4-bus straightforward analog console) I
suspect that it had to do with not having enough outputs or inputs
routable to where they needed to go.

In any case, after a week of frustration, he returned the 01V, got a
Mackie 1604 VLZ Pro to replace it, and was a happy camper. Would his
recordings sound any better had they been made through the Yamaha A/D
converters rather than the TASCAM's? I doubt it. Would the Yamaha EQ
sound better than that on the Mackie? Probably, but he gets pure
sounds with good mics and good placement and about the only reason why
he uses EQ is to treat breath pops or foot taps, the knobs rarely
leave their 0 position. But if he were recording hip-hop music I'm
sure he would have been better off with the Yamaha - but then he
wouldn't have been needing to record several tracks live, then overdub
several others live.

It takes all kinds.

--
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