Complaints with the Scarlett 18i20 (so far - nothing huge).

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> I still use an ancient and venerable DAW, n-Track 3.0. Yes, I can
> upgrade it but haven't. I also use Reaper a bit. Reaper is, IMO, much
> more poorly adapted for tracking than is n-Track. It even has an
> old defect I reported to them years ago still - you cannot set the
> master channel up to where the final level is pre-master-F/X so you
> can use a final limiter to adjust the crest factor of a mix.
>
> My basis in comparison is the Terratec EWS88/D, which exhibits none
> of these problems.
>
> On both cards, I use the ASIO drivers. Yes, Focusrite support has
> been emailed...
>
> Here are the pathologies from the Scarlett.
>
> - n-Track refuses to allow any DirectX plugins unless I set the
> buffering in n-Track way up. This does not happen on the ASIO drivers
> of the EWS88/D. There appears to be some sort of resource constraint hit
> when the plugin tries to negotiate being inserted. It may also be a
> basic incompatibility with DirectX versions, although agan, the EWS88/D
> works.
>
> - You can select whether a pair of inputs on the 18i20 produce
> two mono tracks or one stereo* track. If you select some pairs as mono
> pairs and others as stereo, the driver may apparently reject an "open"
> ioctl() for input pair. This again only happens in the ancient
> version of n-Track.
>
> *meaning "two channel" of course...
>
> The real answer is likely to be "stop using all that old cruft".
> Yes, but... it works with the EWS88/D...
>
> --
> Les Cargill

There's a serious Repear forum at PRW:

http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/forums/2175787/The-REAPER-Refugee
-Camp-hosted-by-Jim-Blair#.UnaCc42Wa8M

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> I still use an ancient and venerable DAW, n-Track 3.0. Yes, I can
>> upgrade it but haven't. I also use Reaper a bit. Reaper is, IMO, much
>> more poorly adapted for tracking than is n-Track. It even has an
>> old defect I reported to them years ago still - you cannot set the
>> master channel up to where the final level is pre-master-F/X so you
>> can use a final limiter to adjust the crest factor of a mix.
>>
>> My basis in comparison is the Terratec EWS88/D, which exhibits none
>> of these problems.
>>
>> On both cards, I use the ASIO drivers. Yes, Focusrite support has
>> been emailed...
>>
>> Here are the pathologies from the Scarlett.
>>
>> - n-Track refuses to allow any DirectX plugins unless I set the
>> buffering in n-Track way up. This does not happen on the ASIO drivers
>> of the EWS88/D. There appears to be some sort of resource constraint hit
>> when the plugin tries to negotiate being inserted. It may also be a
>> basic incompatibility with DirectX versions, although agan, the EWS88/D
>> works.
>>
>> - You can select whether a pair of inputs on the 18i20 produce
>> two mono tracks or one stereo* track. If you select some pairs as mono
>> pairs and others as stereo, the driver may apparently reject an "open"
>> ioctl() for input pair. This again only happens in the ancient
>> version of n-Track.
>>
>> *meaning "two channel" of course...
>>
>> The real answer is likely to be "stop using all that old cruft".
>> Yes, but... it works with the EWS88/D...
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> There's a serious Repear forum at PRW:
>
> http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/forums/2175787/The-REAPER-Refugee
> -Camp-hosted-by-Jim-Blair#.UnaCc42Wa8M
>


Reaper is good stuff but it would require two or three additional
minutes per setup given my workflow. I still use Reaper for cue mixes
while I am tracking with n-Track. The additional "two or three minutes"
have to do with the hoops you have to jump through to get a metronome
up, plus a few other bizarre behavioral issues. It's just a lot more
fidgety and really has a lot of features I don't need. IOW, I still have
learning curve with it.

With this setup, Reaper *works*. It's the old DAW - n-Track 3.0 -
that hath issues. But the ASIO drivers for the EWS88/D *do not*
cause these problems.

I can ( and probably will ) upgrade n-Track soon, but my experience is
that you cannot have two versions of n-Track on the same machine, so
that makes it something I have to plan for, not just do. If Focusrite
would offer 32-bit version of their drivers, I could simply do
everything in a VM of XP or Win2K and be done with it. I could track in
one VM and mix in another. Indeed, I kind of do that now
with n-Track.

I seriously doubt the driver-writers at Focusrite can reproduce these
issues, unless they have this old software, which is no longer
available. Maybe they could cut a deal with FASoft; I dunno.
Technically, I cannot send this software to them.


--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/4/2013 12:31 AM, Les Cargill wrote:

> - n-Track refuses to allow any DirectX plugins unless I set the
> buffering in n-Track way up. This does not happen on the ASIO drivers
> of the EWS88/D. There appears to be some sort of resource constraint hit
> when the plugin tries to negotiate being inserted. It may also be a
> basic incompatibility with DirectX versions, although agan, the EWS88/D
> works.

I hate when that happens. There's really no way you can figure out
exactly what's going on and to fix it. But then what fun could we have
if all programs and drivers worked the same?

So why do you want to switch from the EWS88/D?

I have a Focusrite 18i8 here for a review at the moment, however without
an old version of N-Track and your DX plug-ins I can't attempt to
duplicate it. These days when I review an interface, I check it with
Reaper, Studio One and Pro Tools 10 and usually set the buffer about to
the middle of its range. I think I have the Focusrite currently set for
4 ms.

I don't really care what the latency is as long as the buffer is big
enough so that I don't have clicks in the recording. With these
interfaces (and with my own working set with an analog console) there's
no reason to send the input audio out to the computer and back for
monitoring. Latency compensation works with all of those programs so
regardless of the buffer size (and hence latency) overdubs come out
where they should.

But I fully understand the value of your own personal working style,
which may be resistant to change.

[david gourley[_4_]]

Les Cargill > said...news:l5610v$10v$1@dont-
email.me:

> hank alrich wrote:
>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>
>>> I still use an ancient and venerable DAW, n-Track 3.0. Yes, I can
>>> upgrade it but haven't. I also use Reaper a bit. Reaper is, IMO, much
>>> more poorly adapted for tracking than is n-Track. It even has an
>>> old defect I reported to them years ago still - you cannot set the
>>> master channel up to where the final level is pre-master-F/X so you
>>> can use a final limiter to adjust the crest factor of a mix.
>>>
>>> My basis in comparison is the Terratec EWS88/D, which exhibits none
>>> of these problems.
>>>
>>> On both cards, I use the ASIO drivers. Yes, Focusrite support has
>>> been emailed...
>>>
>>> Here are the pathologies from the Scarlett.
>>>
>>> - n-Track refuses to allow any DirectX plugins unless I set the
>>> buffering in n-Track way up. This does not happen on the ASIO drivers
>>> of the EWS88/D. There appears to be some sort of resource constraint
hit
>>> when the plugin tries to negotiate being inserted. It may also be a
>>> basic incompatibility with DirectX versions, although agan, the
EWS88/D
>>> works.
>>>
>>> - You can select whether a pair of inputs on the 18i20 produce
>>> two mono tracks or one stereo* track. If you select some pairs as mono
>>> pairs and others as stereo, the driver may apparently reject an "open"
>>> ioctl() for input pair. This again only happens in the ancient
>>> version of n-Track.
>>>
>>> *meaning "two channel" of course...
>>>
>>> The real answer is likely to be "stop using all that old cruft".
>>> Yes, but... it works with the EWS88/D...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Les Cargill
>>
>> There's a serious Repear forum at PRW:
>>
>> http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/forums/2175787/The-REAPER-Refugee
>> -Camp-hosted-by-Jim-Blair#.UnaCc42Wa8M
>>
>
>
> Reaper is good stuff but it would require two or three additional
> minutes per setup given my workflow. I still use Reaper for cue mixes
> while I am tracking with n-Track. The additional "two or three minutes"
> have to do with the hoops you have to jump through to get a metronome
> up, plus a few other bizarre behavioral issues. It's just a lot more
> fidgety and really has a lot of features I don't need. IOW, I still have
> learning curve with it.
>
> With this setup, Reaper *works*. It's the old DAW - n-Track 3.0 -
> that hath issues. But the ASIO drivers for the EWS88/D *do not*
> cause these problems.
>
> I can ( and probably will ) upgrade n-Track soon, but my experience is
> that you cannot have two versions of n-Track on the same machine, so
> that makes it something I have to plan for, not just do. If Focusrite
> would offer 32-bit version of their drivers, I could simply do
> everything in a VM of XP or Win2K and be done with it. I could track in
> one VM and mix in another. Indeed, I kind of do that now
> with n-Track.
>
> I seriously doubt the driver-writers at Focusrite can reproduce these
> issues, unless they have this old software, which is no longer
> available. Maybe they could cut a deal with FASoft; I dunno.
> Technically, I cannot send this software to them.
>
>
> --
> Les Cargill
>
>

I looked at the n-Track downloads section and saw they have versions 1.3.3
, 2.3, 3.3, and up, readily available. Send them a link, but they'll have
to register.

david

[Nil]

On 04 Nov 2013, Les Cargill > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> I still use an ancient and venerable DAW, n-Track 3.0. Yes, I can
> upgrade it but haven't. I also use Reaper a bit. Reaper is, IMO,
> much more poorly adapted for tracking than is n-Track. It even has
> an old defect I reported to them years ago still - you cannot set
> the master channel up to where the final level is pre-master-F/X
> so you can use a final limiter to adjust the crest factor of a
> mix.

I don't consider that a "defect". It seems to be a design decision.
There are any number of workarounds. Mine is to leave the Master Volume
at 0 and adjust the gain and output levels in the limiting plugin. You
could also set up another track with the limiter on it, feed all your
tracks into that, then send that track to the Master.

I think Reaper is quite excellent. That one niggle shouldn't be a
reason to avoid it.

[Nil]

On 03 Nov 2013, Les Cargill > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Reaper is good stuff but it would require two or three additional
> minutes per setup given my workflow.

Consider templates.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nil wrote:
> On 03 Nov 2013, Les Cargill > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> Reaper is good stuff but it would require two or three additional
>> minutes per setup given my workflow.
>
> Consider templates.
>


Agreed; I need to follow up on that.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Nil wrote:
> > On 03 Nov 2013, Les Cargill > wrote in
> > rec.audio.pro:
> >
> >> Reaper is good stuff but it would require two or three additional
> >> minutes per setup given my workflow.
> >
> > Consider templates.
> >
>
>
> Agreed; I need to follow up on that.

It's how I deal with Logic. If I had to start from scratch every time
I'd do something else. I have a small collection of templates that make
for quick iteration of my most common configurations.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/4/2013 12:31 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> - n-Track refuses to allow any DirectX plugins unless I set the
>> buffering in n-Track way up. This does not happen on the ASIO drivers
>> of the EWS88/D. There appears to be some sort of resource constraint hit
>> when the plugin tries to negotiate being inserted. It may also be a
>> basic incompatibility with DirectX versions, although agan, the EWS88/D
>> works.
>
> I hate when that happens. There's really no way you can figure out
> exactly what's going on and to fix it. But then what fun could we have
> if all programs and drivers worked the same?
>
> So why do you want to switch from the EWS88/D?
>

The only *tactical* thing is that it would free up the ADAT
I/O for expansion or for connecting to an ADAT-enabled synth.

I rather like having the synth connected optically. Breathes new
life into it.

Other than that, I might have well have not bought the Sapphire
at all - I already had an ADA8000 that would have utilized the EWS88/D.

But it should work. That's the point... It's very close.

> I have a Focusrite 18i8 here for a review at the moment, however without
> an old version of N-Track and your DX plug-ins I can't attempt to
> duplicate it. These days when I review an interface, I check it with
> Reaper, Studio One and Pro Tools 10 and usually set the buffer about to
> the middle of its range. I think I have the Focusrite currently set for
> 4 ms.
>

Other than this issue, it works at 1 msec set latency, for a full round
trip actual latency of 10msec.

10 msec turns out not to be a problem. Yes, I was surprised as
well. You get plugins in the cue mix as well. And I expect at some
point, they'll add some sort of insert capability to MixControl -
make it a VST host or something*.

Maybe not. But I still have MixControl for zero latency monitoring...

*yes, I know MixControl is just control, not mixing - the mixer is on
the DSP inside the Scarlett.... still...

> I don't really care what the latency is as long as the buffer is big
> enough so that I don't have clicks in the recording. With these
> interfaces (and with my own working set with an analog console)


I gotta say - using Reaper for a cue mix is pretty cool. It saves
the space of a console.

> there's
> no reason to send the input audio out to the computer and back for
> monitoring. Latency compensation works with all of those programs so
> regardless of the buffer size (and hence latency) overdubs come out
> where they should.
>

Yep. But I'd like to use the Sapphire for that rather than having
to find, place and cable up a console. Or buy another
VF16/VF160. I can remount the Scarlett...


> But I fully understand the value of your own personal working style,
> which may be resistant to change.

It's beyond resistant to change. But it's been polished over ten or
years of actual practice now. And it's not like the lost time is
important; it's just irritating.

I just need to continue learning Reaper. It's rather large.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nil wrote:
> On 04 Nov 2013, Les Cargill > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> I still use an ancient and venerable DAW, n-Track 3.0. Yes, I can
>> upgrade it but haven't. I also use Reaper a bit. Reaper is, IMO,
>> much more poorly adapted for tracking than is n-Track. It even has
>> an old defect I reported to them years ago still - you cannot set
>> the master channel up to where the final level is pre-master-F/X
>> so you can use a final limiter to adjust the crest factor of a
>> mix.
>
> I don't consider that a "defect". It seems to be a design decision.

I understand. Still.

> There are any number of workarounds.

Sure there are. Legions.

> Mine is to leave the Master Volume
> at 0 and adjust the gain and output levels in the limiting plugin.

Yep.

> You
> could also set up another track with the limiter on it, feed all your
> tracks into that, then send that track to the Master.
>
> I think Reaper is quite excellent. That one niggle shouldn't be a
> reason to avoid it.
>

It's not, although I use that feature of n-Track considerably - I'll
adjust the master knob to tune the crest factor when mixing.

Yes, I'll try to get a common crest factor between songs on an album
rather than Ouiji board it. Horrors :) FWIW, that usually means a
*higher* crest factor - less compressed. I target -15dB around now;
much lower than commercial releases. Some songs, it
doesn't matter.

That usually means the final limiter barely touches the mix.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

I still use an ancient and venerable DAW, n-Track 3.0. Yes, I can
upgrade it but haven't. I also use Reaper a bit. Reaper is, IMO, much
more poorly adapted for tracking than is n-Track. It even has an
old defect I reported to them years ago still - you cannot set the
master channel up to where the final level is pre-master-F/X so you
can use a final limiter to adjust the crest factor of a mix.

My basis in comparison is the Terratec EWS88/D, which exhibits none
of these problems.

On both cards, I use the ASIO drivers. Yes, Focusrite support has
been emailed...

Here are the pathologies from the Scarlett.

- n-Track refuses to allow any DirectX plugins unless I set the
buffering in n-Track way up. This does not happen on the ASIO drivers
of the EWS88/D. There appears to be some sort of resource constraint hit
when the plugin tries to negotiate being inserted. It may also be a
basic incompatibility with DirectX versions, although agan, the EWS88/D
works.

- You can select whether a pair of inputs on the 18i20 produce
two mono tracks or one stereo* track. If you select some pairs as mono
pairs and others as stereo, the driver may apparently reject an "open"
ioctl() for input pair. This again only happens in the ancient
version of n-Track.

*meaning "two channel" of course...

The real answer is likely to be "stop using all that old cruft".
Yes, but... it works with the EWS88/D...

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/3/2013 11:39 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> I gotta say - using Reaper for a cue mix is pretty cool. It saves
> the space of a console.

I won't work in a place where there's no space for a console. A real
console is so much than a virtual console if you're actually operating
it. If all you want is a signal router, then using a computer for
"mixing" is just fine.

If everybody had a console, we'd have fewer misunderstandings about how
to make the signal go where you want it to go.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould > wrote:
>Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 11/3/2013 11:39 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> I gotta say - using Reaper for a cue mix is pretty cool. It saves
>>> the space of a console.
>>
>> I won't work in a place where there's no space for a console. A real
>> console is so much than a virtual console if you're actually operating
>> it. If all you want is a signal router, then using a computer for
>> "mixing" is just fine.
>>
>> If everybody had a console, we'd have fewer misunderstandings about
>> how to make the signal go where you want it to go.
>>
>Could it be that you're presuming much about what has constituted a
>"console" over the last decade or two? ;-) These days, signal routing is
>not one of the more transparent "console" operations.

Sadly, this is true.

But, by the same token, I have worked in some places with consoles where
the patchbay wiring was confusing at best, and often just plain broken.
So the fact that you have to dig down through six menus on the console
to find out that the insert output on this channel strip has been patched
with a compressor into that buss does not make such confusion unique to the
digital world.

But what IS possible in the digital console world is a complete reset to
zero state with the touch of a few buttons. (On the other hand, I have
also had the console resetted inadvertently too, which was very very bad.)
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/3/2013 11:39 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> I gotta say - using Reaper for a cue mix is pretty cool. It saves
>> the space of a console.
>
> I won't work in a place where there's no space for a console. A real
> console is so much than a virtual console if you're actually operating
> it. If all you want is a signal router, then using a computer for
> "mixing" is just fine.
>
> If everybody had a console, we'd have fewer misunderstandings about
> how to make the signal go where you want it to go.
>
Could it be that you're presuming much about what has constituted a
"console" over the last decade or two? ;-) These days, signal routing is
not one of the more transparent "console" operations.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/3/2013 11:39 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> I gotta say - using Reaper for a cue mix is pretty cool. It saves
>> the space of a console.
>
> I won't work in a place where there's no space for a console.

I have space for a *small* one, probably with a ZED-R16 at the upper
limit of what I could place. But now I use that space for something
else. I'd love to have a nice console, but it's nicer to have
alternatives. And I'd rather either not spend that $2k ( which is a
good deal, don't get me wrong ) or spend it on instruments.

I have no interest in hanging out a shingle as a recordist for now.
Recording is part of the music process, not a thing unto itself for
me. And I can point you at a half dozen people for whom
it *is* that.


> A real
> console is so much than a virtual console if you're actually operating
> it.

I kinda don't. I don't move stuff during a mix that much. Maybe
bring up solos and such. The thing I miss most on consoles is mutes.

> If all you want is a signal router, then using a computer for
> "mixing" is just fine.
>

Right.

> If everybody had a console, we'd have fewer misunderstandings about how
> to make the signal go where you want it to go.

Probably.

--
Les Cargill

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Neil Gould > wrote:
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2013 11:39 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> I gotta say - using Reaper for a cue mix is pretty cool. It saves
>>>> the space of a console.
>>>
>>> I won't work in a place where there's no space for a console. A real
>>> console is so much than a virtual console if you're actually
>>> operating it. If all you want is a signal router, then using a
>>> computer for "mixing" is just fine.
>>>
>>> If everybody had a console, we'd have fewer misunderstandings about
>>> how to make the signal go where you want it to go.
>>>
>> Could it be that you're presuming much about what has constituted a
>> "console" over the last decade or two? ;-) These days, signal
>> routing is not one of the more transparent "console" operations.
>
> Sadly, this is true.
>
> But, by the same token, I have worked in some places with consoles
> where the patchbay wiring was confusing at best, and often just plain
> broken.
> So the fact that you have to dig down through six menus on the console
> to find out that the insert output on this channel strip has been
> patched with a compressor into that buss does not make such confusion
> unique to the digital world.
>
> But what IS possible in the digital console world is a complete reset
> to zero state with the touch of a few buttons. (On the other hand, I
> have also had the console resetted inadvertently too, which was very
> very bad.) --scott
>
Aren't those "quick keys" wonderous?!?

In general, I much prefer the digital routing to patch bays any day; no more
cleaning jacks and plugs! And the far greater routing flexibility with far
lower risk of damage is also a welcome feature. Win-win, AFAIC, but it does
make work-spaces rather unique.
--
best regards,

Neil

[polymod]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Neil Gould > wrote:
>>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/2013 11:39 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>> I gotta say - using Reaper for a cue mix is pretty cool. It saves
>>>>> the space of a console.
>>>>
>>>> I won't work in a place where there's no space for a console. A real
>>>> console is so much than a virtual console if you're actually
>>>> operating it. If all you want is a signal router, then using a
>>>> computer for "mixing" is just fine.
>>>>
>>>> If everybody had a console, we'd have fewer misunderstandings about
>>>> how to make the signal go where you want it to go.
>>>>
>>> Could it be that you're presuming much about what has constituted a
>>> "console" over the last decade or two? ;-) These days, signal
>>> routing is not one of the more transparent "console" operations.
>>
>> Sadly, this is true.
>>
>> But, by the same token, I have worked in some places with consoles
>> where the patchbay wiring was confusing at best, and often just plain
>> broken.
>> So the fact that you have to dig down through six menus on the console
>> to find out that the insert output on this channel strip has been
>> patched with a compressor into that buss does not make such confusion
>> unique to the digital world.
>>
>> But what IS possible in the digital console world is a complete reset
>> to zero state with the touch of a few buttons. (On the other hand, I
>> have also had the console resetted inadvertently too, which was very
>> very bad.) --scott
>>
> Aren't those "quick keys" wonderous?!?
>
> In general, I much prefer the digital routing to patch bays any day; no
> more
> cleaning jacks and plugs! And the far greater routing flexibility with far
> lower risk of damage is also a welcome feature. Win-win, AFAIC, but it
> does
> make work-spaces rather unique.

+1!

Poly

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/4/2013 12:09 PM, Neil Gould wrote:

> Could it be that you're presuming much about what has constituted a
> "console" over the last decade or two? ;-) These days, signal routing is
> not one of the more transparent "console" operations.

Low cost digital consoles? At least they have faders, but I get your
point.

Recently, PreSonus asked me for permission to use a few articles I had
written for them as handouts at their user's conference last year. One
was on signal flow and tracing it by learning how to read a block
diagram. It was originally an article for Recording Magazine a dozen or
so years ago and was based around a Mackie mixer. They liked the idea
then, but decided it wouldn't be a good idea to put it on their web site.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/4/2013 3:31 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
> In general, I much prefer the digital routing to patch bays any day; no more
> cleaning jacks and plugs! And the far greater routing flexibility with far
> lower risk of damage is also a welcome feature. Win-win, AFAIC, but it does
> make work-spaces rather unique.

I have to think too hard in order to do anything that involves a mouse
or menu. I've never felt a need for more flexibility, and a can of
DeOxit is always within reach of the patchbay. Patchbays do need some
thought and occasionally need to be modified to accommodate new
equipment or different ways of working, but I find that to be easier,
and more important, more permanently fixed in my brain than trying to
imagine my way through a menu or reading tiny little legends on the
computer screen.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/4/2013 1:38 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

> I have space for a *small* one, probably with a ZED-R16 at the upper
> limit of what I could place. But now I use that space for something
> else.

That's what happens when you let space go unoccupied for a few days.

> I'd love to have a nice console, but it's nicer to have
> alternatives. And I'd rather either not spend that $2k ( which is a
> good deal, don't get me wrong ) or spend it on instruments.

I still have the $7500 console that I bought in 1985. I'd like to
replace it with one that's quieter now that I don't have tape hiss, but
while I have a bunch of Mackies that sound fine, none of them are real
multitrack recording consoles unless I mate the 1640i with a computer.

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/4/2013 12:09 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Could it be that you're presuming much about what has constituted a
>> "console" over the last decade or two? ;-) These days, signal
>> routing is not one of the more transparent "console" operations.
>
> Low cost digital consoles? At least they have faders, but I get your
> point.
>
Well, "low cost" is relative. Compared to a pro-level 24-channel console of
the '70s, just about every 24+ channel console one can buy today is low
cost!

> Recently, PreSonus asked me for permission to use a few articles I had
> written for them as handouts at their user's conference last year. One
> was on signal flow and tracing it by learning how to read a block
> diagram. It was originally an article for Recording Magazine a dozen
> or so years ago and was based around a Mackie mixer. They liked the
> idea then, but decided it wouldn't be a good idea to put it on their
> web site.
>
Sounds like they opted out of being relevent?
--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/5/2013 10:22 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

> Well, "low cost" is relative. Compared to a pro-level 24-channel console of
> the '70s, just about every 24+ channel console one can buy today is low
> cost!

I was trying not to name names, but I was thinking Behringer or
PreSonus. A new Allen & Heath GS-R24 without automation or digital I/O
costs about the same number of dollars today as my Soundcraft 600 cost
in 1986. To most people today, $7,000-$8,000 isn't low cost, but $3,000
isn't unreasonable for anyone not committed to working entirely in the
box..

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 10:22 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Well, "low cost" is relative. Compared to a pro-level 24-channel
>> console of
>> the '70s, just about every 24+ channel console one can buy today is low
>> cost!
>
> I was trying not to name names, but I was thinking Behringer or
> PreSonus. A new Allen & Heath GS-R24 without automation or digital I/O
> costs about the same number of dollars today as my Soundcraft 600 cost
> in 1986. To most people today, $7,000-$8,000 isn't low cost, but $3,000
> isn't unreasonable for anyone not committed to working entirely in the
> box..
>
>


The ZED-R16 is a very good deal - it's only $2k. It's not
just a mixer, it's an audio interface, ADAT lightpipe host
and a control surface.

I dern near went that way, but I wanted to try the "DAW as cue mixer"
thing first. And, frankly, $500 is a lot easier than $2k.

The Presonus stuff is kind a off-putting.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 11/5/2013 10:22 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
> >
> >> Well, "low cost" is relative. Compared to a pro-level 24-channel
> >> console of
> >> the '70s, just about every 24+ channel console one can buy today is low
> >> cost!
> >
> > I was trying not to name names, but I was thinking Behringer or
> > PreSonus. A new Allen & Heath GS-R24 without automation or digital I/O
> > costs about the same number of dollars today as my Soundcraft 600 cost
> > in 1986. To most people today, $7,000-$8,000 isn't low cost, but $3,000
> > isn't unreasonable for anyone not committed to working entirely in the
> > box..
> >
> >
>
>
> The ZED-R16 is a very good deal - it's only $2k. It's not
> just a mixer, it's an audio interface, ADAT lightpipe host
> and a control surface.
>
> I dern near went that way, but I wanted to try the "DAW as cue mixer"
> thing first. And, frankly, $500 is a lot easier than $2k.
>
> The Presonus stuff is kind a off-putting.

Last year we used their StudioLive 24:4:2 for the music festival
embedded in the Armadillo Christmas Bazaar. My team of young mixers
(they're all quite good) wanted outboard for the stage monitors, but
otherwise, as long as we didn't ask too much fro the preamps the board
worked really well. The preamp is a bit wimpy. It's one of those fine
examples that specs are often not the whole story.

It has enough busses for us to cover FOH, four stage mixes, a distro mix
to flown speakers covering the arts and crafts fair, another mix for the
foyer to greet folks when they arrive, etc.

Ray Benson has a club now in Austin, The Rattle Inn, with a Presonus
console. Jim Finney, long time pal the preampand FOH/road mgr for
Asleep at the Wheel, says Ray's voice "blows up", especially when they
kick into "Route 66". He carries a good outboard pre for Ray.


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 11/5/2013 10:22 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, "low cost" is relative. Compared to a pro-level 24-channel
>>>> console of
>>>> the '70s, just about every 24+ channel console one can buy today is low
>>>> cost!
>>>
>>> I was trying not to name names, but I was thinking Behringer or
>>> PreSonus. A new Allen & Heath GS-R24 without automation or digital I/O
>>> costs about the same number of dollars today as my Soundcraft 600 cost
>>> in 1986. To most people today, $7,000-$8,000 isn't low cost, but $3,000
>>> isn't unreasonable for anyone not committed to working entirely in the
>>> box..
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The ZED-R16 is a very good deal - it's only $2k. It's not
>> just a mixer, it's an audio interface, ADAT lightpipe host
>> and a control surface.
>>
>> I dern near went that way, but I wanted to try the "DAW as cue mixer"
>> thing first. And, frankly, $500 is a lot easier than $2k.
>>
>> The Presonus stuff is kind a off-putting.
>
> Last year we used their StudioLive 24:4:2 for the music festival
> embedded in the Armadillo Christmas Bazaar. My team of young mixers
> (they're all quite good) wanted outboard for the stage monitors, but
> otherwise, as long as we didn't ask too much fro the preamps the board
> worked really well. The preamp is a bit wimpy. It's one of those fine
> examples that specs are often not the whole story.
>

Yeah, I just dunno about digital mixers in general.
They have maybe ten good years in 'em.

> It has enough busses for us to cover FOH, four stage mixes, a distro mix
> to flown speakers covering the arts and crafts fair, another mix for the
> foyer to greet folks when they arrive, etc.
>

This is true - it has scads of routing.

> Ray Benson has a club now in Austin, The Rattle Inn, with a Presonus
> console. Jim Finney, long time pal the preampand FOH/road mgr for
> Asleep at the Wheel, says Ray's voice "blows up", especially when they
> kick into "Route 66". He carries a good outboard pre for Ray.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 11/5/2013 10:22 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> Well, "low cost" is relative. Compared to a pro-level 24-channel
>> console of the '70s, just about every 24+ channel console one can
>> buy today is low cost!
>
> I was trying not to name names, but I was thinking Behringer or
> PreSonus.
>
Yeah, me too. I was thinking SpectraSonics, etc.

> A new Allen & Heath GS-R24 without automation or digital
> I/O costs about the same number of dollars today as my Soundcraft 600
> cost in 1986. To most people today, $7,000-$8,000 isn't low cost, but
> $3,000 isn't unreasonable for anyone not committed to working
> entirely in the box..
>
Which wouldn't buy one channel strip of the consoles I was referring to...
;-)
--
best regards,

Neil