prosumer audio interfaces

[[email protected]]

Hi there audio pros.

This is a bit of an enquiry, bit of a rant. I am your typical musician/home studio recordist so I do my recording on a PC using mid priced / low end hardware. It seems at first glance that my sort are well catered for these days with a plethora of cheap USB and firewire interfaces, but I really struggle to find one that meets my needs, and it leaves me wondering who they are designed for.

Firstly, they all seem to top out at 8 XLR mic inputs. This seems a bizarre number to me. My recording sessions fall into one of two categories: either layering/building/overdubbing in which case one would be enough; or recording my entire band in which case the horn section and vocals alone use up 6 of those 8 before I've even thought about the drums. So 8 xlrs seems right in the middle of the two ends of usefulness, too many for solo recording but just not quite enough for the band.

Then there's the monitoring. The interfaces I've seen tend to have an input level control and then some overall balance pot between live and playback sound. I find this fairly useless, as the only control over individual monitor levels also changes the level sent to the recorded track. So you get everyone mic'd up, set the levels nicely and then the bass player says 'just a little more of me in the cans please' but you can't give him what he wants without the recorded bass track suddenly getting louder.

Now I did find one piece of kit that answered all my problems and still falls into the price category I'm working in: Phonic Helixboard 24. Stop laughing at the back - I know this thing has a poor rep in this NG but it actually does give me what I need: 16 xlr inputs all sent to the computer individually over firewire. And because it is a full blown mixing desk I can adjust the input gain to get the required recording level and then set the players' individual monitors on the faders.

But this thing is firewire only, and it's getting pretty impossible now to find a laptop with firewire (or even expresscard so you can add one). I need to find some hardware that does what the helixboard 24 does but over USB. Now you can get a USB version of the helixboard and this may be what I end up buying, but I would really like to consider some alternatives. But all my googling and searching just turns up the kind of interfaces I previously described: 8 xlrs, crap monitoring, and for 'USB mixers' it is nearly always the case that only the stereo mixdown is sent over the USB, not the individual tracks.

So I'd appreciate any insights anyone may have on what is out there, and who uses these 8 input devices and is there some trick that I'm missing with respect to the monitoring? Because I find it hard to believe that there are so many devices out there following the same (imo) flawed formula.

many thanks,
TWJ.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

wrote:

> Hi there audio pros.

> This is a bit of an enquiry, bit of a rant.

OK, everybody gets a few seconds rant time sometimes, perhaps. Basically
you're ranting at the demise of firewire, do be aware that there is a long
queue to do that. Because of this I'll leave a lot uncommented. My route to
multitrack recording is a multitrack recorder. Partly because I am a luddite
and partly because I know my pc's because taming those is my daytime job.

> I am your typical
> musician/home studio recordist so I do my recording on a PC using mid
> priced / low end hardware. It seems at first glance that my sort are
> well catered for these days with a plethora of cheap USB and firewire
> interfaces, but I really struggle to find one that meets my needs,
> and it leaves me wondering who they are designed for.

> Firstly, they all seem to top out at 8 XLR mic inputs. This seems a
> bizarre number to me.

For track builders and - probably unintentionally - for real recordists
recording classical music that is all you really seem to need. It is
difficult to need more than 8 channels for that, but probably doable if you
have enough singing wimmen.

> My recording sessions fall into one of two
> categories: either layering/building/overdubbing in which case one
> would be enough; or recording my entire band in which case the horn
> section and vocals alone use up 6 of those 8 before I've even thought
> about the drums. So 8 xlrs seems right in the middle of the two ends
> of usefulness, too many for solo recording but just not quite enough
> for the band.
>
> Then there's the monitoring. The interfaces I've seen tend to have an
> input level control and then some overall balance pot between live
> and playback sound. I find this fairly useless

Yes, you either need a recorder-mixer or a real mixer.

> Now I did find one piece of kit that answered all my problems and
> still falls into the price category I'm working in: Phonic Helixboard
> 24. Stop laughing at the back - I know this thing has a poor rep in
> this NG but it actually does give me what I need: 16 xlr inputs all
> sent to the computer individually over firewire.

The new version has USB2. So now you have to more rants, I'd do the one
about why it hasn't got USB3. The cheap stuff is all kinda good anyway, what
you get with the costly stuff is kinda repairable and beyond belief good so
that it is worth repairing.

Sell the one you have and get the new version since it seems to be just what
works for you.

> TWJ

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[PStamler]

Eight-in is, as you noted, one of the standard sizes. Who are those 8-input interfaces for? Mostly people in smaller bands -- not everyone has a horn section or multiple backing vocalists. Count 4 inputs for the drumkit, one for the bass, one for keyboard and two for guitars; for most bands that would let you track most of your instruments in a single pass, then do vocals one at a time.

Along with the other recommendations from this group, you might look at products from Presonus.

Peace,
Paul

[geoff]

On 28/03/2014 7:45 a.m., wrote:

> But this thing is firewire only, and it's getting pretty impossible now to find a laptop with firewire (or even expresscard so you can add one). I need to find some hardware that does what the helixboard 24 does but over USB. Now you can get a USB version of the helixboard and this may be what I end up buying, but I would really like to consider some alternatives. But all my googling and searching just turns up the kind of interfaces I previously described: 8 xlrs, crap monitoring, and for 'USB mixers' it is nearly always the case that only the stereo mixdown is sent over the USB, not the individual tracks.

Pick up a refurb (or new) Dell M4600 / M4700 off eBay. Every port you
culd imagine (except Thunderbolt) and ExpressCard slot.

I have a Helixboard 24 in my collection. Great for recording live events
as is simply sucks off each channel pre-FX , and leaves the mixer
unaffected for the actual event mixing.


geoff

[geoff]

On 28/03/2014 8:33 a.m., PStamler wrote:
> Eight-in is, as you noted, one of the standard sizes. Who are those 8-input interfaces for? Mostly people in smaller bands -- not everyone has a horn section or multiple backing vocalists. Count 4 inputs for the drumkit, one for the bass, one for keyboard and two for guitars; for most bands that would let you track most of your instruments in a single pass, then do vocals one at a time.
>
> Along with the other recommendations from this group, you might look at products from Presonus.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
.... and MOTU do some "12s" .

Oh year the Dell previously mentioned can be relative high-spec i7 with
zigs of RAM, etc.

Possibly last of a breed that had all interfae (and a DVD sriter).

geoff

[hank alrich]

PStamler > wrote:

> Eight-in is, as you noted, one of the standard sizes. Who are those
> 8-input interfaces for? Mostly people in smaller bands -- not everyone has
> a horn section or multiple backing vocalists. Count 4 inputs for the
> drumkit, one for the bass, one for keyboard and two for guitars; for most
> bands that would let you track most of your instruments in a single pass,
> then do vocals one at a time.
>
> Along with the other recommendations from this group, you might look at
> products from Presonus.
>
> Peace, Paul

Many interfaces offer an ADAT port in addition to the analog inputs, so
that one can connect another interface or or preamp with ADAT output to
get to 16 inputs, and the Metric Halo kit will also accept an AES intput
to make for 18 inputs.

PreSonus and MOTU are affordable candidates here.

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

[Trevor]

"PStamler" > wrote in message
...
>Eight-in is, as you noted, one of the standard sizes. Who are those 8-input
>interfaces for? Mostly people in smaller bands -- not everyone has a horn
>section or multiple backing >vocalists. Count 4 inputs for the drumkit, one
>for the bass, one for keyboard and two for guitars; for most bands that
>would let you track most of your instruments in a single pass, >then do
>vocals one at a time.


Or sub mix the drumkit to one channel, or cascade two boxes to give you 16
channels. Frankly I think most of the pro 8 i/p boxes are ideal, since most
allow you to start with one, and add a second or third as necessary and
expenses allow.

Trevor.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

> wrote:

>[...]
> So I'd appreciate any insights anyone may have on what is out there, and
> who uses these 8 input devices and is there some trick that I'm missing
> with respect to the monitoring? Because I find it hard to believe that
> there are so many devices out there following the same (imo) flawed
> formula.

If you only require a lot of inputs for one particular task and don't
need the flexibility of a comprehensive mixer, you might consider
sub-grouping the inputs with a few small cheap 4 into 1 mixers.

The drum mics could then be combined on the sub-mixer and fed into one
port of the main mixer. Likewise, the vocals could be grouped in a
similar way. This makes for much easier mixing in some circumstances;
each sub-group is balanced within itself and that internal balance is
preserved when you come to balance one group against another on the main
mixer. (Beware of unexpected solos or attempts at impromptu
announcements on one of the grouped mics, an independent mic should be
kept on hand for that eventuality.)


There are several practical ways to achieve this:

If all the mics in a sub-group are identical, you can use a passive
mixer (if you really want the cheapest, you can make one yourself for
the cost of a few pots and sockets mounted in a tin box). There is an
art to using a passive mixer, because changing one input level will
slightly affect all the others; but once learned, it becomes second
nature to make the necessary compensation without having to think too
hard about it. A simple passive mixer does not work with phantom power
and there is a penalty in the signal-to-noise ratio.

You can buy a small mic mixer and feed the whole lot into the main mixer
at a mic input level. This is easier to set up in a panic, because all
the main input signal levels and interconnecting cables are the same.
There is, again, a slight S/N ratio penalty, but not as much as with the
passive mixer.

You can buy a small mixer with line level output and feed this into the
main mixer at line level. This will give the best quality, but in the
fraught circumstances of a quick set-up, it is easy to get in a muddle
over which inputs are which levels. Swap inputs to the wrong channel
and you will either be left with silence or damaged eardrums.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/27/2014 2:45 PM, wrote:

> This is a bit of an enquiry, bit of a rant. I am your typical
> musician/home studio recordist so I do my recording on a PC using mid
> priced / low end hardware. It seems at first glance that my sort are
> well catered for these days with a plethora of cheap USB and firewire
> interfaces, but I really struggle to find one that meets my needs,
> and it leaves me wondering who they are designed for.

Most of them are designed for the musician who sings and plays guitar,
records his music one part (track or, at most, two) at a time, and
perhaps uses virtual instruments.

> Firstly, they all seem to top out at 8 XLR mic inputs. This seems a
> bizarre number to me. My recording sessions fall into one of two
> categories: either layering/building/overdubbing in which case one
> would be enough; or recording my entire band in which case the horn
> section and vocals alone use up 6 of those 8 before I've even thought
> about the drums. So 8 xlrs seems right in the middle of the two ends
> of usefulness, too many for solo recording but just not quite enough
> for the band.

I agree with you here, but the manufacturers make these things for the
masses, and if you're recording the full band live with more than 8
mics, you're not the masses any more. I think that eight mic inputs has
become the second or maybe third tier norm is twofold, first because
usually 8 mics is enough for drums and maybe one or two other
instruments or mics, and second, because traditionally, tracks seem to
come in groups of two, four, and eight.

There are a number of interfaces that have eight mic inputs and also an
ADAT optical input which allows you to expand the number of channels
available to the computer by connecting an 8-channel mic preamp with an
ADAT output. Not surprisingly, most companies who make such an interface
also make an 8-channel preamp with ADAT output, but you can mix these,
say using a Focusrite preamp with a PreSonus interface for a little
different flavor.

> Then there's the monitoring. The interfaces I've seen tend to have an
> input level control and then some overall balance pot between live
> and playback sound. I find this fairly useless, as the only control
> over individual monitor levels also changes the level sent to the
> recorded track.

This is really a pretty complex topic, depending on the number of
outputs that your interface has available to send to the monitor system.
The simplest have just one, or one pair (for stereo) which may be
limited to the mix that you create in your DAW program.

A simple two-banger might have a knob that adjusts the blend between a
fixed mix of the live inputs and the mix of previously recorded tracks
coming back from the DAW program. This is actually the best way to do it
if you don't have a mixing console because the live inputs don't go
through any digital chain on their way to the monitor outputs so there's
no latency. But you need to remember to turn off input monitoring in
your DAW so you don't get the same signal coming back to the headphones
through two different paths.

Nearly all multi-channel (more than 2 or 4 inputs) interfaces have a
software application that controls an internal digital mixer for
monitoring. Often, as you observe, the only control you have is level
and pan, but that's better than nothing, and, although if you change a
mic preamp gain to avoid overloading, this will be reflected in the
monitor mix, you do have independent control over the monitor mix. If
the singer wants to hear his voice louder in his headphones than you
want to hear it in the control room, you can do that. If the drummer
doesn't want to hear the keyboard, you can do that. But this means that
you need not just a bunch of inputs, but a bunch of outputs as well for
those individual monitor mixes.

This can get really complicated fast and can be a real pain in the butt
if you're trying to move fast when tracking. .

The way around this is to use a real mixing console.

> Now I did find one piece of kit that answered all my problems and
> still falls into the price category I'm working in: Phonic Helixboard
> 24.

No comments on the Phonic, but this is indeed the right direction to go.

> But this thing is firewire only, and it's getting pretty impossible
> now to find a laptop with firewire (or even expresscard so you can
> add one).

Yup. Welcome to the black hole of advancing technology. One solution is
to leapfrog to Thunderbolt. People report that the $30
Thunderbolt-to-Firewire adapters work well. Now that most of the audio
hardware manufacturers have figured out how to write ASIO USB drivers
for Windows that work pretty well (Apple includes this in the Core Audio
system), we're starting to see mixers like your Phonic that get you 16
or more channels in and out of the computer via USB. But Dante is the
next frontier, and then there's MADI (and MADI-USB converters). Right
now isn't a good time to buy a new piece of audio hardware that you
expect to connect to a computer and use for the next five or ten years.

> I need to find some hardware that does what the helixboard
> 24 does but over USB. Now you can get a USB version of the helixboard
> and this may be what I end up buying, but I would really like to
> consider some alternatives.

The Behringer X32 series offers multichannel USB I/O, but the same
people who laugh at you for using a Phonic will laugh at you for using a
Behringer. But it's really not that bad. The PreSonus StudioLive AI
series is still sticking with Firewire but they promise Dante in the
future. My advice is to never buy what's in the future if you need it now.

My solution (all my multi-channel I/O is Firewire) is to stick with my
old computers that have Firewire cards, but that's not for everyone.

> So I'd appreciate any insights anyone may have on what is out there,
> and who uses these 8 input devices and is there some trick that I'm
> missing with respect to the monitoring? Because I find it hard to
> believe that there are so many devices out there following the same
> (imo) flawed formula.

You have to think about the whole system, and you may need to either
expand your budget or leave some of your expectations for the perfect
monitor mix for everyone every time on the table for a while. If you're
using the auxiliary outputs of your Phonic to feed headphone amplifiers,
you'll want to look for a multi-channel interface with lots of outputs,
not just lots of inputs. You can do a lot with that. You can get an
8-channel interface with 8 to 10 analog outputs (for your monitoring)
and add another 8 inputs via the ADAT interface. Since those "expanded"
inputs appear on the interface's software mixer, you can still make a
mix of all 16 inputs and send it to whatever output you want.

It's really helpful to see these things in action.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>> Now I did find one piece of kit that answered all my problems and
>> still falls into the price category I'm working in: Phonic Helixboard
>> 24.

> No comments on the Phonic, but this is indeed the right direction to
> go.

>> But this thing is firewire only, and it's getting pretty impossible
>> now to find a laptop with firewire (or even expresscard so you can
>> add one).

See:

http://www.thomann.de/thumb/bdbmagic/pics/bdb/220154/2847611_800.jpg

the current version also has USB, albeit not USB3.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
> Hi there audio pros.
>
> This is a bit of an enquiry, bit of a rant. I am your typical
> musician/home studio recordist so I do my recording on a PC using mid
> priced / low end hardware. It seems at first glance that my sort are
> well catered for these days with a plethora of cheap USB and firewire
> interfaces, but I really struggle to find one that meets my needs,
> and it leaves me wondering who they are designed for.
>

They are designed for home recordists.

> Firstly, they all seem to top out at 8 XLR mic inputs. This seems a
> bizarre number to me. My recording sessions fall into one of two
> categories: either layering/building/overdubbing in which case one
> would be enough; or recording my entire band in which case the horn
> section and vocals alone use up 6 of those 8 before I've even thought
> about the drums. So 8 xlrs seems right in the middle of the two ends
> of usefulness, too many for solo recording but just not quite enough
> for the band.
>

8 is a perfectly fine home recording number - it's what
the TASCAM units mostly topped out at. 2,4,8.

8 is a nice round number ( one bit set in binary; doesn't get much
rounder than that ) that will fit in a 1 RU rackmount device.

SO what you need is an 8 XLR thingy with Lightpiipe, and another 1 RU
Lightpipe interface ( like a Behringer ADA8000 ) to get you to 16.


> Then there's the monitoring. The interfaces I've seen tend to have an
> input level control and then some overall balance pot between live
> and playback sound.

???

> I find this fairly useless, as the only control
> over individual monitor levels also changes the level sent to the
> recorded track. So you get everyone mic'd up, set the levels nicely
> and then the bass player says 'just a little more of me in the cans
> please' but you can't give him what he wants without the recorded
> bass track suddenly getting louder.
>

Well, yeah - you need a real cue mixer. I use a 16 channel unit -
Focusrite w/ Lightpipe and use REAPER for a cue mixer.


> Now I did find one piece of kit that answered all my problems and
> still falls into the price category I'm working in: Phonic Helixboard
> 24. Stop laughing at the back - I know this thing has a poor rep in
> this NG but it actually does give me what I need: 16 xlr inputs all
> sent to the computer individually over firewire. And because it is a
> full blown mixing desk I can adjust the input gain to get the
> required recording level and then set the players' individual
> monitors on the faders.
>

Sounds good, then.
-
> But this thing is firewire only, and it's getting pretty impossible
> now to find a laptop with firewire (or even expresscard so you can
> add one). I need to find some hardware that does what the helixboard
> 24 does but over USB. Now you can get a USB version of the helixboard
> and this may be what I end up buying, but I would really like to
> consider some alternatives. But all my googling and searching just
> turns up the kind of interfaces I previously described: 8 xlrs, crap
> monitoring, and for 'USB mixers' it is nearly always the case that
> only the stereo mixdown is sent over the USB, not the individual
> tracks.
>

For 16, the Focusrite 18i20 plus a 8 channel Lightpipe box will work
great.

If you really need 24, maybe an Allen & Heath ZED-R16 would work for
you . Pound for pound, it's a great device.

> So I'd appreciate any insights anyone may have on what is out there,
> and who uses these 8 input devices and is there some trick that I'm
> missing with respect to the monitoring? Because I find it hard to
> believe that there are so many devices out there following the same
> (imo) flawed formula.
>
> many thanks, TWJ.
>


--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 29/03/2014 2:59 p.m., Les Cargill wrote:

>>
>
> 8 is a perfectly fine home recording number - it's what
> the TASCAM units mostly topped out at. 2,4,8 (and later 16, 24, 32).

1, 2, 4, then 8-track recording devices were common sizes before anybody
had even figured out how to spell 'digital'!

IKt's just a natuarl progression when upoping from 2 (or 1).

geoff

[John Albert]

The OP wrote:
[[ Now I did find one piece of kit that answered all my
problems and still falls into the price category I'm working
in: Phonic Helixboard 24. Stop laughing at the back - I know
this thing has a poor rep in this NG but it actually does
give me what I need: 16 xlr inputs all sent to the computer
individually over firewire. And because it is a full blown
mixing desk I can adjust the input gain to get the required
recording level and then set the players' individual
monitors on the faders.
But this thing is firewire only...]]

I pasted "Phonic Helixboard 24" into google, and the first
hit showed
this:http://www.phonic.com/en/helix-board-24-universal.html
..... with both firewire AND USB outputs. Might that help?
Aside: I'm wondering how many simultaneous inputs USB could
actually support?

Although it's no longer sold new, the Echo Audiofire Pre8
has 6 XLR inputs and is daisy-chainable per the manual:
"You can connect multiple AudioFires to your computer by
daisy chaining FireWire cables (connecting one AudioFire to
the next) or by connecting each AudioFire to a different
FireWire connector on your computer. AudioFire 12s,
AudioFire 8s, AudioFire 4s and AudioFire 2s can be mixed in
any order and the clock master can be anywhere in the chain.
Note that 192kHz will only be supported when only AudioFire
12s are used."

There are actually more [line] inputs available, but you
would have to use standalone mic pre(s) to feed them.

[Trevor]

"Adrian Tuddenham" > wrote in message
nvalid.invalid...
> > wrote:
>
>>[...]
>> So I'd appreciate any insights anyone may have on what is out there, and
>> who uses these 8 input devices and is there some trick that I'm missing
>> with respect to the monitoring? Because I find it hard to believe that
>> there are so many devices out there following the same (imo) flawed
>> formula.
>
> If you only require a lot of inputs for one particular task and don't
> need the flexibility of a comprehensive mixer, you might consider
> sub-grouping the inputs with a few small cheap 4 into 1 mixers.
>
> The drum mics could then be combined on the sub-mixer and fed into one
> port of the main mixer. Likewise, the vocals could be grouped in a
> similar way. This makes for much easier mixing in some circumstances;
> each sub-group is balanced within itself and that internal balance is
> preserved when you come to balance one group against another on the main
> mixer. (Beware of unexpected solos or attempts at impromptu
> announcements on one of the grouped mics, an independent mic should be
> kept on hand for that eventuality.)
>
>
> There are several practical ways to achieve this:
>
> If all the mics in a sub-group are identical, you can use a passive
> mixer (if you really want the cheapest, you can make one yourself for
> the cost of a few pots and sockets mounted in a tin box). There is an
> art to using a passive mixer, because changing one input level will
> slightly affect all the others; but once learned, it becomes second
> nature to make the necessary compensation without having to think too
> hard about it. A simple passive mixer does not work with phantom power
> and there is a penalty in the signal-to-noise ratio.
>
> You can buy a small mic mixer and feed the whole lot into the main mixer
> at a mic input level. This is easier to set up in a panic, because all
> the main input signal levels and interconnecting cables are the same.
> There is, again, a slight S/N ratio penalty, but not as much as with the
> passive mixer.
>
> You can buy a small mixer with line level output and feed this into the
> main mixer at line level. This will give the best quality, but in the
> fraught circumstances of a quick set-up, it is easy to get in a muddle
> over which inputs are which levels. Swap inputs to the wrong channel
> and you will either be left with silence or damaged eardrums.


Given that most larger mixers have a number of sub groups available for just
that purpose, without all the level matching and patching problems, the only
benefit of using cascaded smaller mixers IMO is if physical placement is an
issue. Or you already have them, and not a larger one that will do the job
properly.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/29/2014 5:49 PM, John Albert wrote:

> Although it's no longer sold new, the Echo Audiofire Pre8 has 6 XLR
> inputs and is daisy-chainable per the manual:
> "You can connect multiple AudioFires to your computer by daisy chaining
> FireWire cables

But part of the original poster's daydream was to get away from Firewire
since it's no longer trivial to get a modern computer with a Firewire
interface unless it's a particular model Mac or you use a converter with
the Thunderbolt port. And Thunderbolt on Windows computers isn't widely
available yet - I say that because if I said "not available" someone
would post a link to one (and probably only one) computer.




--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 31/03/2014 11:03 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 3/29/2014 5:49 PM, John Albert wrote:
>
>> Although it's no longer sold new, the Echo Audiofire Pre8 has 6 XLR
>> inputs and is daisy-chainable per the manual:
>> "You can connect multiple AudioFires to your computer by daisy chaining
>> FireWire cables
>
> But part of the original poster's daydream was to get away from Firewire
> since it's no longer trivial to get a modern computer with a Firewire
> interface


I think you mean 'laptop computer'. Otherwise it is a doddle.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

> On 31/03/2014 11:03 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> But part of the original poster's daydream was to get away from Firewire
>> since it's no longer trivial to get a modern computer with a Firewire
> > interface

On 3/31/2014 1:50 AM, geoff wrote:

> I think you mean 'laptop computer'. Otherwise it is a doddle.

It depends. If you're assembling your own computer, you can choose a
case and motherboard that can accommodate an expansion card, and then
get a card. There are still a couple of PCI and PCIe Firewire cards
available. But for someone who buys his desktop computers at Staples,
adding an expansion card may not be trivial or may not even be possible.

Today, it's simply not a good idea to commit to a new Firewire audio
interface if there's any intent for using it long term. Computers tend
to get replaced more often than solid, good sounding audio hardware, so
even if a computer you buy today can accommodate a Firewire interface,
the one you replace it with may not. A lot of computer hardware becomes
unavailable or unsupportable (drivers and such, and operating system
compatibility) after just a few years.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 1/04/2014 3:31 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On 31/03/2014 11:03 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> But part of the original poster's daydream was to get away from Firewire
>>> since it's no longer trivial to get a modern computer with a Firewire
>> > interface
>
> On 3/31/2014 1:50 AM, geoff wrote:
>
>> I think you mean 'laptop computer'. Otherwise it is a doddle.
>
> It depends. If you're assembling your own computer, you can choose a
> case and motherboard that can accommodate an expansion card, and then
> get a card. There are still a couple of PCI and PCIe Firewire cards
> available. But for someone who buys his desktop computers at Staples,
> adding an expansion card may not be trivial or may not even be possible.


A "couple" ?!!!!

I fthey can't fit, or have fitted a Firewire card, then such people may
have problems figuring out how to hook up their audio gear themselves too.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/31/2014 4:31 PM, geoff wrote:
> I fthey can't fit, or have fitted a Firewire card, then such people may
> have problems figuring out how to hook up their audio gear themselves too.

Don't overestimate the engineering knowledge of a musician. This is why
USB and Firewire became the way to go. I suspect that USB3 will be
pretty much bypassed for audio in favor of Ethernet since most computes
still have an Ethernet port. RME does have an interface that connects to
USB and takes advantage of the extra speed, but it's already been
demonstrated that USB2 is fast enough for most people who don't know any
better, and many who do.

But still, at this point in time, with only a couple of exceptions, USB2
interfaces seem to stop at 8 channels. A Mac can stack up as many as you
want, even mixing brands, Windows depends on how the drivers are written
- some allow multiple units of the same type to be connected to their
own USB ports to expand the channels, some can't and it's necessary to
rely on the expandability of the interface itself, like by connecting
ADAT optical ported devices digitally to the unit's internal digital
interface to the computer.

I think there are enough good reasons to recommend not continuing with
Firewire if there's a reason to change gear(s) now. That doesn't mean
that nobody should ever attempt to use Firewire any longer, it's just
that it's no longer well enough supported, either in hardware or
drivers, so that just anyone can plug an older device into a new
computer and go,

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Les Cargill > wrote:
> > Firstly, they all seem to top out at 8 XLR mic inputs. This seems a
> > bizarre number to me. My recording sessions fall into one of two
> > categories: either layering/building/overdubbing in which case one
> > would be enough; or recording my entire band in which case the horn
> > section and vocals alone use up 6 of those 8 before I've even thought
> > about the drums. So 8 xlrs seems right in the middle of the two ends
> > of usefulness, too many for solo recording but just not quite enough
> > for the band.
> >

> 8 is a perfectly fine home recording number

8 tracks was the first multi-track we had in 'my' part of the BBC. There
were four tracks around before 8, but not really enough for our sort of
use. 8 seemed wonderful at the time. ;-)

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>> Firstly, they all seem to top out at 8 XLR mic inputs. This seems a
>>> bizarre number to me. My recording sessions fall into one of two
>>> categories: either layering/building/overdubbing in which case one
>>> would be enough; or recording my entire band in which case the horn
>>> section and vocals alone use up 6 of those 8 before I've even thought
>>> about the drums. So 8 xlrs seems right in the middle of the two ends
>>> of usefulness, too many for solo recording but just not quite enough
>>> for the band.
>>>
>
>> 8 is a perfectly fine home recording number
>
> 8 tracks was the first multi-track we had in 'my' part of the BBC. There
> were four tracks around before 8, but not really enough for our sort of
> use. 8 seemed wonderful at the time. ;-)
>


I am sure.


--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Jeff Henig > wrote:

> Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
> (Snip)
> But Dante is the next frontier, and then there's MADI (and MADI-USB
> converters). Right now isn't a good time to buy a new piece of audio
> hardware that you expect to connect to a computer and use for the next five
> or ten years.
> (Snip)
> > The PreSonus StudioLive AI series is still sticking with Firewire but
> > they promise Dante in the future. My advice is to never buy what's in the
> > future if you need it now.
> >
> >
>
> I've seen some of the Focusrite RedNet stuff advertised, and I'm drooling
> over the possibilities. But I know nothing about MADI gear. In looking
> toward future purchases (probably three or four years), I'd like to be able
> to move up to that level. I look at the Ethernet stuff and see 3-4ms
> latency and my eyes open up!
>
> My question is: Is Ethernet or MADI stuff worth the cost? And do you think
> it will all be at the same price point as RedNet gear in 3-4 years? I'm
> thinking as a solo songwriter working smaller in-home productions.

Metric Halo recently released a blockbuster announcement of what they've
come up with to address the fading of FW, and it's borderline
astonishing in power and scope.

Original release was in German, at Musikmesse, March 14. Here is detail
in English. While there are enormous implications here for enormous
rigs, the implementation of USB2 holds great promise for me personally.

When Shaidri and I tour and must use a local PA, instead of the ****ty
old mixers and powered heads we sometimes find at a small venue, I want
to mix us via my MIO. While I can do that by controlling the interface
from my laptop, I am pretty sure that with this upgrade installed I will
be able to do that with the interface and an iPad connected via USB and
record us to a USB drive at the same time.

-----

To summarize:

We have announce a set of Core technologies that will form the basis of
an upgrade for existing MIO's, LIOs and ULN-8s as well as the basis for
future products. These Core technologies are comprised of the following:

1) USB2 Class Audio with MH sureClock transport.
- This provides 192 channel (96in/96out) communication at 1x
rates
- The audio clock and the USB transport clock are decoupled in
HW

2) MH Router
- This provides 1024x1024 channel router @ 192k on every unit
- The router transports audio in one sample
- All audio sources and sinks are connected via the router
- 1024 channels is large enough that it is effectively infinite

3) MH Link
- Each unit has 2 MHLink ports
- Each MHLink port provides 128 channels of audio in and out @
192k
- Audio is transported with 1 sample of latency
- This is built on the Gigabit Ethernet Physical layer
- Connections are on Cat 5
- Cables are inexpensive and ubiquitous
- Cables can run 100m between nodes
- Connections are transformer coupled, so no ground
loops
- Fully integrated with the MH Router
- Transports audio clock

4) MH Link + MH Router Enabling Technology:
- No more aggregate devices
- No more legacy I/O to bridge mix busses from box to box
- Makes all boxes look like one box to the mixer and the
computer

5) MH Router integrates all I/O in the unit
- USB
- MH Link
- ADAT
- AES/EBU
- SPDIF
- Analog
- MADI
- Not all products will have all I/O types

6) In practice, the combination of MH Link and MH Router mean that audio
can be transported from the input point on one box to the output point
on the next box
with 4 samples of latency, and each additional MHLink hop adds an
additional 2 samples of latency.

Since all boxes have two MH Link ports, you can chain boxes as you like.
Unlike FireWire and USB, the MHLink is not a bus, so each link has the
full bandwidth available to it in both directions.

Since we integrate Automatic delay compensation into the system,
effectively each box that you add to the system adds 2 samples of system
latency.

For example, if you have 8 boxes to implement a 64 channel system, the
system will add 16 samples of overall latency to ensure that all
channels are aligned regardless of which box it comes from. This amounts
to 333 microseconds of additional latency if you are operating at 48k.
At higher sample rates, the latency scales down.

The presence of the router on every box means that any input on any of
the boxes can be routed or multed to any output on any of the boxes.
This includes the USB, which could be connected to different computers
on different boxes.

7) Since the computer transport is USB Class Audio, the units can be
used with any host that supports USB Class Audio -- this includes Mac OS
X, iOS, Windows and Linux.

8) Of course, in keeping with our commitment to future-proof products,
this is an upgrade for every FireWire interface that we have ever
shipped.

There have been many questions about what we discussed and I wanted to
clear as many of them up as a can. Please find a bit of a FAQ below. In
addition, we'll be posting a tech talk that goes into some additional
detail. The talk has been recorded, and it is being edited now. We'll
post a link once it has been posted to YouTube.

Here is the list with the most asked questions:

*** Q1: I don't understand; is this an upgrade or a different box?

This is an upgrade. It applies to every unit we have ever shipped. 13
years ago, we said future proof, and we meant it.

*** Q2a: USB 2.0? not USB 3, Thunderbolt etc.?

The USB 2 is what we consider to be the baseline for the upgrade and
future products. There are a few important points as to why we choose
USB2 as the baseline:

1) Every single device you would want to use these with supports USB2
and USB2
Class audio.
2) Neither USB 3 nor Thunderbolt have class implementations for audio
- so that
means that custom drivers are required, and for the platforms that
do not
support custom drivers, that means that you simply cannot
interoperate.
3) We have been able to implement an exceptionally capable transport
layer on top
of USB2; we can do 96 channels in and out at 48k (192 channels
total) which
far exceeds the needs of most of our customers.
4) We have this all working now.

That does not mean that we will not implement USB3 or Thunderbolt. It
just means that we are not ready to *talk* about it yet.

*** Q2b: But if you use all the UBS2 bandwidth how do I add a USB drive
to the USB bus?

On the Mac (at least) each USB connector is on its own bus. So you can
use the different connectors. That being said, if you use a USB3 hub,
the USB2 and USB3 busses are actually completely separate (on the same
connector) -- so you can attach the interface on USB2 and a USB3 drive,
and the two devices will both get full bandwidth.

*** Q2c: Multiple boxes on one USB 3.0 port using a hub might come in
very handy?

You don't need to do this because of MHLink -- multiple boxes on the USB
bus gets us back to the situation with FireWire -- where each box is
independent and you need an aggregate to use them together. MHLink
aggregates in HW.

*** Q3a: Will the old FW ports remain, or will everything be swapped so
that only the new USB/MH Link interfaces remain?

Everything will be swapped. All the computers that support FireWire also
support USB2, so there is no compatibility break, and maintaining
support for FireWire would increase the end-user cost of the upgrade.

*** Q3b: Will USB2 bus-power a Mobile I/O?

No.

*** Q3c: Will USB3 bus-power a Mobile I/O?

No.

*** Q3d: Will ThunderBolt bus-power a Mobile I/O?

No.


*** Q4: When I connect multiple computers which will show the Miomixer?
All of them or is one the master?

We are still working on this, so we are going to defer answering it
until we have a more complete story to tell.

*** Q5: Can I record to two computers at the same time for redundancy?

Yes.

*** Q6: What's all this about 1 sample of latency and USB?

The USB latency is higher than one sample (obviously). USB2 uses 125
microsecond isoch periods. Latency on the USB bus is quantized in units
of isoch periods. In the sureClock implementation, we need to have 2
packets plus a couple of samples of safety offset on the input and
output side of the USB. The 2 packets correspond to 250 microseconds of
latency in each direction.

On the computer side, there is some additional transport latency due to
the way that the USB hardware works -- 2 or 3 packets worth. So that is
an additional 250-375 microseconds.

On top of that you have the audio buffer latency that is determined by
the size of the audio buffer you choose in your host -- that's going to
be the same regardless of the transport protocol.

All told the transport latency adds up to around 1 - 1.5 ms (maybe a
little bit more) at all sample rates. This is consistent with what we
were able to achieve on FireWire.

*** Q7: So very exciting - love the Ethernet connectivity - love to hear
the details on USB in/out latencies. But isn't the 1 sample stuff is
being taken way out of context?

It is a little bit, in that the USB <-> Computer latency is higher, and
is generally dominated by the buffer size you choose for the host.

But the latency is 2 samples per hop (1 sample for input to the MH
Router and 1 sample for output from the MH Router) on the box -> box
connection, which is much, much lower than anything that can be achieved
with other high-bandwidth transports and allows for the aggregation of
boxes in a way that we cannot achieve on USB, FireWire or something like
Dante.

The latency would be achievable on something like MADI, but MADI does
not have the channel counts that we can attain with MHLink, nor does it
have the bandwidth for control data, and it has much more expensive and
less generally available cabling.

*** Q8: How is MADI integrated?

The tech is done. The realization in specific products is still being
determined.

*** Q9: Is this a real ethernet connection? If yes, wouldn't it make
sense to connect the device via ethernet to your pc?

Yes it is a real ethernet connection. It is possible to connect via the
computer. That being said, MHLink generates packets at a much higher
rate than computers really want to deal with, and there are real
challenges in getting the latency down to what we wish to achieve when
using an ethernet connection that is controlled and shared with a GP OS
with a full networking stack.

In addition, while it may not be the case for PCs, in Mac and iOS,
current machines do not ship with Ethernet connectors on the hardware,
so you are back to needing an adapter. That is not the case for USB.

*** Q10: How can USB be superior to FW in aspects of CPU load and
performance?

Modern USB HW uses the same DMA engines that FireWire used. All the data
transport is done via DMA, and does not require CPU intervention. In
addition, USB audio transport is headerless, so there is no need to do
payload extraction and header pre-pending for USB (whereas it is
required for FireWire), so the actual CPU intervention is lower for USB
than for Firewire.

*** Q11a: Are the 96 channels a total channel count?

It is 96 in and 96 out at 1x (44/48) rates (so 192 total). For each
doubling of the sample rate, the total number of channels goes down by
half. So 2x rates are 48in/48out and 4x rates are 24in/24out.

*** Q11b: Is this tied to the number of boxes?

No -- the USB channel I/O is controllable independently from the number
of boxes, so, for example, if you are mixing in the MIO mixer on one
box, you would be able to do so with a much higher number of output
channels from your DAW, without having to add additional boxes (for
channel count). Depending on what you were doing, you may need more
boxes for DSP.

*** Q12: Why is that high channel count not achievable with Firewire?

There are two components for overall transport performance - the
capabilities of the computer and the capabilities of the device. The
current MIO hardware implements the FireWire protocol layer on a DSP,
and a significant amount of the overall limitations are due to CPU and
bus bandwidth limitations on that HW. In addition, on the Computer side
of things, the number of DMA contexts that is required to be supported
by a FireWire controller is fairly low (we pretty much only guaranteed
of having 4 input DMA and 4 output DMA contexts).

So those combined together limit the ability to stream the theoretical
maximum channels. In contrast, with sureClock, we have implemented the
USB transport layer in hardware (without a software component), and that
allows us to reach the actual channel bandwidth of USB. In addition, on
the Computer Side, USB controllers are required to support DMA for all
endpoints up to the bandwidth limit. So bottlenecks are removed on both
sides of the USB.

While we could implement the sureClock on top of FireWire as well, at
this stage of the game, there really is no point, because every machine
with FireWire also has USB, but many machines with USB do not have
FireWire.

*** Q13: What's the timeframe?

Some time this year. We'll firm that up when we can.

*** Q14: What's the cost?

Not yet determined, but it will be affordable.

*** Q15: Can we have exact features?

Of course not! As Gustav Graves said in "Die Another Day" -- "It's not a
secret. It's a surprise."

*** Q16: and how it's going to become available ?

For existing users, it will be an upgrade like the 2d Card was; new
masterboard and new backpanel. It will be field-installable, and we will
also offer a factory upgrade service.

For new units, it will be included as part of the unit.

*** Q17: Are there pictures?

Not at the present time. The development hardware we have is not
representative of the final product.

*** Q18: How and where is the +dsp available and how do we control it.
In class compliant mode especially.

All of the processing you have come to know and love on our hardware
will be available on the new hardware - simply with more available DSP.
For example, the Firewire transport engine consumed all of one DSP and
about 15% of the the other DSP on the 2d Hardware. sureClock uses no DSP
at all. The MH Router would consume 100% of the 2d DSP; on the new
hardware it uses no DSP at all. As far as the specific forward looking
aspects of your question -- we are still working on this aspect, and
we'll share more when we can.

*** Q10: I only have one box -- why do I care about this?

Four reasons:

1) Interoperability with whatever platform you want to use at the
moment.
2) More of what you already love about your box -- more processing,
more
channels, more plugins.
3) Easy expandability -- if you need more in the future, you can add
more
seamlessly.
4) The new processor architecture has a minimum of 1000 times the
available
memory as compared to the 2d Card. This means that the memory
limitations
that occur on 2d are simply gone.

If you have further questions, please post them and we'll do our best to
answer when we can.

Best regards,

B.J. Buchalter
Metric Halo
http://www.mhlabs.com

--
hank
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
530.249.3468


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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Trevor > wrote:

> "Adrian Tuddenham" > wrote in message
> nvalid.invalid...
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >> So I'd appreciate any insights anyone may have on what is out there, and
> >> who uses these 8 input devices and is there some trick that I'm missing
> >> with respect to the monitoring? Because I find it hard to believe that
> >> there are so many devices out there following the same (imo) flawed
> >> formula.
> >
> > If you only require a lot of inputs for one particular task and don't
> > need the flexibility of a comprehensive mixer, you might consider
> > sub-grouping the inputs with a few small cheap 4 into 1 mixers.
> >
> > The drum mics could then be combined on the sub-mixer and fed into one
> > port of the main mixer. Likewise, the vocals could be grouped in a
> > similar way. This makes for much easier mixing in some circumstances;
> > each sub-group is balanced within itself and that internal balance is
> > preserved when you come to balance one group against another on the main
> > mixer. (Beware of unexpected solos or attempts at impromptu
> > announcements on one of the grouped mics, an independent mic should be
> > kept on hand for that eventuality.)
> >
> >
> > There are several practical ways to achieve this:
> >
> > If all the mics in a sub-group are identical, you can use a passive
> > mixer (if you really want the cheapest, you can make one yourself for
> > the cost of a few pots and sockets mounted in a tin box). There is an
> > art to using a passive mixer, because changing one input level will
> > slightly affect all the others; but once learned, it becomes second
> > nature to make the necessary compensation without having to think too
> > hard about it. A simple passive mixer does not work with phantom power
> > and there is a penalty in the signal-to-noise ratio.
> >
> > You can buy a small mic mixer and feed the whole lot into the main mixer
> > at a mic input level. This is easier to set up in a panic, because all
> > the main input signal levels and interconnecting cables are the same.
> > There is, again, a slight S/N ratio penalty, but not as much as with the
> > passive mixer.
> >
> > You can buy a small mixer with line level output and feed this into the
> > main mixer at line level. This will give the best quality, but in the
> > fraught circumstances of a quick set-up, it is easy to get in a muddle
> > over which inputs are which levels. Swap inputs to the wrong channel
> > and you will either be left with silence or damaged eardrums.
>
>
> Given that most larger mixers have a number of sub groups available for just
> that purpose, without all the level matching and patching problems, the only
> benefit of using cascaded smaller mixers IMO is if physical placement is an
> issue. Or you already have them, and not a larger one that will do the job
> properly.

That was the point I was hoping I'd made. If the O/P has 8 channels and
only occasionally needs more, a couple of cheap sub-mixers with limited
facilities can be brought into play when they are needed. The rest of
the time he won't have to cart around an oversized and more expensive
mixing desk with all the bells and whistles he doesn't need.

My first passive sub-mixer was a bread-baking tin from Woolworths with
four pots stuck through holes that I punched in it with the kitchen
scissors. More than 25 years after I made it, it was still being
pressed into service on the odd occasion when I ran out of channels.
That is hard to beat in terms of value for money.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/3/2014 12:37 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:

> I've seen some of the Focusrite RedNet stuff advertised, and I'm drooling
> over the possibilities. But I know nothing about MADI gear.

The RedNet line is pretty much oriented to "installed" applications
where you can take advantage of its simple connectivity when your job is
to pass audio signals around a building (like a broadcast facility) or a
stadium. Focusrite doesn't currently have a console in the RedNet series
though that doesn't say that they won't in a few years.

MADI was, for a long time, the only way you could run a large number of
channels of audio (56 or 64) through a single cable. It was expensive
until Sony came up with a chip that did most of the dirty work, Still,
it's usually found only in larger consoles. RME makes some system level
MADI units (MADI-ADAT Optical, or MADI-USB for example) but again
nothing with 24 analog inputs and outputs. Sony had a MADI option I/O
card for their now extinct DMX-R100 digital console but where it's
starting to gain popularity is with large (56 channel or so) digital
live sound consoles.

> My question is: Is Ethernet or MADI stuff worth the cost? And do you think
> it will all be at the same price point as RedNet gear in 3-4 years? I'm
> thinking as a solo songwriter working smaller in-home productions.

As to whether it's worth cost, it depends on how much money you're
making (or will be making by the time you buy) with your productions. I
think that prices will come down, but on a songwriter's budget (unless
you're the next Paul McCartney) I think what you'll be seeing is more
multichannel USB output consoles like the Behringer, but hopefully with
a better reputation. Still, though, I don't see a particularly bright
future for real studio oriented 16-24 channel consoles on the
songwriter's budget. Most of them will go into live sound applications
which may leave you a bit short when it comes to monitoring a picky
vocalist.

It's a hard future to predict, though. I'd say buy an analog console and
as many digital I/O boxes as you need, but in a transition period, which
may span more than five years, you could see analog consoles
disappearing before you're ready to buy and you'll need to be content
with the latency of a digital console, which has nothing to do with
Ethernet or MADI.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/3/2014 12:37 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>
<snip>
> It's a hard future to predict, though. I'd say buy an analog console and
> as many digital I/O boxes as you need, but in a transition period, which
> may span more than five years, you could see analog consoles
> disappearing

I just do not see that. Maybe analog consoles go boutique, but digital
consoles are just weird. I would not want to try to do a live band with
one unless I knew - and had tested - that power failures didn't scramble
it's brain.

I would - again - at least try to use Reaper-plus-interfaces before I'd
go with a digital console.

> before you're ready to buy and you'll need to be content
> with the latency of a digital console, which has nothing to do with
> Ethernet or MADI.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On 4/3/2014 12:37 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > It's a hard future to predict, though. I'd say buy an analog console and
> > as many digital I/O boxes as you need, but in a transition period, which
> > may span more than five years, you could see analog consoles
> > disappearing
>
> I just do not see that. Maybe analog consoles go boutique, but digital
> consoles are just weird. I would not want to try to do a live band with
> one unless I knew - and had tested - that power failures didn't scramble
> it's brain.
>
> I would - again - at least try to use Reaper-plus-interfaces before I'd
> go with a digital console.

There are more and more, and more useful, digital boards coming along
regularly. There are also some fascinating points where the digital
designers got too clever for themselves and ****ed things up. Case in
point is the useless "graphic" EQ's on the StudioLive boards, where they
tried to avoid some kind of interband distortion _by moving the center
away from its designated ISO frequency_ under some conditions. So those
EQ's dont work like they are supposed to work, don;t work like you told
them to work, and hence, don't work.

The little Mackies, the 1604 and 1608, on the other hand, work _very_
well, and the people with whom I've been discussing smaller digital
consoles are happy to let those replace the basic rack gear of
compressor/limiters, time-based effects, and EQ's of all common types.

I am presently digging into reasonably priced digital boards from Mackie
and A&H, and will start on otheer brands soon, for a couple of rooms
where we need to fulfill some possibilities that cannot be approached
affordably in the analog world.

That different makes, and sometimes even different models from a given
manufacturer, offer different UI's, is one of the weirder things about
this tech at this point. If you know how to drive a well equipped analog
console you know basically how to operate most all analog boards, wthin
reason. Not so one digital board to the next. You stand to fade a whole
new idea about how to get at the controls.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/7/2014 7:30 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Maybe analog consoles go boutique, but digital
> consoles are just weird. I would not want to try to do a live band with
> one unless I knew - and had tested - that power failures didn't scramble
> it's brain.

Analog consoles have been "boutique" for several years now, it's just
that there are some that are quite inexpensive. I was just talking to
the Allen & Heath folks at the NAB show today about the ZED-R16 and
GS-R24 studio consoles. Sales are pretty slow. Since they now have USB
multichannel I/O for the QU series of digital consoles, they might use
that to update the analog recording consoles, but there's no projected
date even as to when it will be put on the calendar.

As far a power failures affecting a digital console, I did some testing
with the PreSonus StudioLive. The darn thing will keep running during a
brownout down to about 45 volts, but it quits after that. It
periodically stores the current setup in a "scene" memory that it
recalls from when it's powered up again, so unless you've very recently
made a change to something, it will come back like it was when the plug
was pulled. However, it does take what seems like a lifetime (actually
less than 15 seconds) to boot up from a shutdown, and it can send some
rude noises to the outputs in the process. They were going to change the
firmware so that all outputs were muted as soon as it came up far enuogh
to do that, and keep them muted until the boot sequence was completed.

If you have the slightest doubt about the power in a venue (or that no
clumsy patron will triip over your power cord, it's probably a good idea
to power the digital console from a small UPS. That will allow you to do
an orderly shutdown and startup.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/7/2014 7:30 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Maybe analog consoles go boutique, but digital
>> consoles are just weird. I would not want to try to do a live band with
>> one unless I knew - and had tested - that power failures didn't scramble
>> it's brain.
>
> Analog consoles have been "boutique" for several years now, it's just
> that there are some that are quite inexpensive. I was just talking to
> the Allen & Heath folks at the NAB show today about the ZED-R16 and
> GS-R24 studio consoles. Sales are pretty slow. Since they now have USB
> multichannel I/O for the QU series of digital consoles, they might use
> that to update the analog recording consoles, but there's no projected
> date even as to when it will be put on the calendar.
>
> As far a power failures affecting a digital console, I did some testing
> with the PreSonus StudioLive. The darn thing will keep running during a
> brownout down to about 45 volts, but it quits after that. It
> periodically stores the current setup in a "scene" memory that it
> recalls from when it's powered up again, so unless you've very recently
> made a change to something, it will come back like it was when the plug
> was pulled.

Unless we know certain things about how it's doing that, there's a
mililisecond out there when it's got one foot on the platform and the
other one on a train.

This is by no means impossible to test for but it's near impossible to
test for.

> However, it does take what seems like a lifetime (actually
> less than 15 seconds) to boot up from a shutdown, and it can send some
> rude noises to the outputs in the process.

Ouch. So use a UPS, I imagine.That's uglier than it should be and
maintaining a UPS is not pretty.

> They were going to change the
> firmware so that all outputs were muted as soon as it came up far enuogh
> to do that, and keep them muted until the boot sequence was completed.
>

Why wasn't that *first*? Oy. Spontaneous rude noises are Very Very Bad.

> If you have the slightest doubt about the power in a venue (or that no
> clumsy patron will triip over your power cord, it's probably a good idea
> to power the digital console from a small UPS. That will allow you to do
> an orderly shutdown and startup.
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2014 12:37 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>> It's a hard future to predict, though. I'd say buy an analog console and
>>> as many digital I/O boxes as you need, but in a transition period, which
>>> may span more than five years, you could see analog consoles
>>> disappearing
>>
>> I just do not see that. Maybe analog consoles go boutique, but digital
>> consoles are just weird. I would not want to try to do a live band with
>> one unless I knew - and had tested - that power failures didn't scramble
>> it's brain.
>>
>> I would - again - at least try to use Reaper-plus-interfaces before I'd
>> go with a digital console.
>
> There are more and more, and more useful, digital boards coming along
> regularly. There are also some fascinating points where the digital
> designers got too clever for themselves and ****ed things up. Case in
> point is the useless "graphic" EQ's on the StudioLive boards, where they
> tried to avoid some kind of interband distortion _by moving the center
> away from its designated ISO frequency_ under some conditions.

Whut??? That's weird.

> So those
> EQ's dont work like they are supposed to work, don;t work like you told
> them to work, and hence, don't work.
>

No kidding.

> The little Mackies, the 1604 and 1608, on the other hand, work _very_
> well, and the people with whom I've been discussing smaller digital
> consoles are happy to let those replace the basic rack gear of
> compressor/limiters, time-based effects, and EQ's of all common types.
>

Well, yeah. That's kind of the point.

> I am presently digging into reasonably priced digital boards from Mackie
> and A&H, and will start on otheer brands soon, for a couple of rooms
> where we need to fulfill some possibilities that cannot be approached
> affordably in the analog world.
>

I (as a performer ) ran into a digital board at a club in Ft. Worth and
ask me how I knew it was a digital board... because the ( well hidden )
tech guys used the word "reboot" audibly.

> That different makes, and sometimes even different models from a given
> manufacturer, offer different UI's, is one of the weirder things about
> this tech at this point. If you know how to drive a well equipped analog
> console you know basically how to operate most all analog boards, wthin
> reason. Not so one digital board to the next. You stand to fade a whole
> new idea about how to get at the controls.
>


Don't have an answer 'cuz there ain't one.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 4/7/2014 7:30 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Maybe analog consoles go boutique, but digital
>> consoles are just weird. I would not want to try to do a live band with
>> one unless I knew - and had tested - that power failures didn't scramble
>> it's brain.
>
> Analog consoles have been "boutique" for several years now, it's just
> that there are some that are quite inexpensive. I was just talking to
> the Allen & Heath folks at the NAB show today about the ZED-R16 and
> GS-R24 studio consoles. Sales are pretty slow. Since they now have USB
> multichannel I/O for the QU series of digital consoles, they might use
> that to update the analog recording consoles, but there's no projected
> date even as to when it will be put on the calendar.
>

also:

I can sympathize; it's partially my fault. I was very close to
buying an R16 but couldn't figure out where to put it. I used
the money I didn't spend on that console for another instrument.

If I am your customer you have a problem; my priorities are not in order.

The R16 is just a *heck* of a deal. I shoulda.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

Hi, OP here again.

First of all thanks to everyone for some really helpful replies. You won't recognise my name but I have been following this n/g for over 15 years so I am familiar with many of the regular contributors and have great respect for your opinions.

Just to round a few items off:

- The 8 input thing: Well I've been doing home recording since I was a kid and back then I used two mono reel-to-reel machines and ping-ponged back and forth. I then graduated through the 4 track cassette portastudio and got my first 8 track system in the 90s which I agree at the time seemed fantastic. But this isn't the 90s any more. I don't want to sub-mix my vocals or horns or drums, I want everything on a separate track in one pass.

I got a system capable of this about 6 or 7 years ago using the aforementioned Phonic 24 and a HP pavilion laptop (with firewire). Both have given excellent service, and still do, but I know the laptop will die one day (probably quite soon) and so I'm planning for my next upgrade.

I don't want to go backwards. Currently I have 18 simultaneous record channels and I kinda like them. From the various replies I see I have these choices:

- get the same Phonic mixer I already have but the USB version. I very nearly did this but was put off with the reviews of this model with many people saying the power supply crapped out after a year. My firewire version hasn't shown any problems, but then it was built 7 years ago when maybe they used better components. Anyhow, I was disappointed to see that Phonic seems to be the only prosumer brand that caters for my market (although thanks for the tip about Behringer E32 - I'll look into that). I would like to have a bit of choice in the market.

- buy a s/h laptop computer with firewire. Possible, but this only puts off the problem until that one dies too.

- use a PCIe firewire system. I already do this at home. The laptop is for mobile multitracking. I am looking into building a micro atx lightweight system with PCIe but then I'd still have to tote around a screen, keyboard and mouse. You can't beat a laptop for portable power. Then I also need to consider whether even PCIe firewire will disappear - I guess it will, while USB seems like it will be here at least for the rest of my lifetime (or while my wizzened fingers can grasp a mouse anyway)

- get one of those double stacked lightpipe systems - I looked at those a while back and that's still a possibilty, but the problem here seems to be the $$$.

Again thanks to all,
TWJ

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:13:07 PM UTC+1, wrote:
>
> - get one of those double stacked lightpipe systems - I looked at those a while back and that's still a possibilty, but the problem here seems to be the $$$.

I take that back, just been browsing the Presonus offerings, quite reasonably priced.

[Tobiah]

> difficult to need more than 8 channels for that, but probably doable if you
> have enough singing wimmen.

Are we referring to the comic series?

Tobiah

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 11-04-2014 02:58, Tobiah wrote:

>> difficult to need more than 8 channels for that, but probably doable
>> if you
>> have enough singing wimmen.

> Are we referring to the comic series?

To Bach actually, one of his large pieces has three simultaneously
singing soloists and could need more than 8 channels for recording.

> Tobiah

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 11:45:25 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Hi there audio pros.
>
>
>
> This is a bit of an enquiry, bit of a rant. I am your typical musician/home studio recordist so I do my recording on a PC using mid priced / low end hardware. It seems at first glance that my sort are well catered for these days with a plethora of cheap USB and firewire interfaces, but I really struggle to find one that meets my needs, and it leaves me wondering who they are designed for.
>
>
>
> Firstly, they all seem to top out at 8 XLR mic inputs. This seems a bizarre number to me. My recording sessions fall into one of two categories: either layering/building/overdubbing in which case one would be enough; or recording my entire band in which case the horn section and vocals alone use up 6 of those 8 before I've even thought about the drums. So 8 xlrs seems right in the middle of the two ends of usefulness, too many for solo recording but just not quite enough for the band.
>
>
>
> Then there's the monitoring. The interfaces I've seen tend to have an input level control and then some overall balance pot between live and playback sound. I find this fairly useless, as the only control over individual monitor levels also changes the level sent to the recorded track. So you get everyone mic'd up, set the levels nicely and then the bass player says 'just a little more of me in the cans please' but you can't give him what he wants without the recorded bass track suddenly getting louder.
>
>
>
> Now I did find one piece of kit that answered all my problems and still falls into the price category I'm working in: Phonic Helixboard 24. Stop laughing at the back - I know this thing has a poor rep in this NG but it actually does give me what I need: 16 xlr inputs all sent to the computer individually over firewire. And because it is a full blown mixing desk I can adjust the input gain to get the required recording level and then set the players' individual monitors on the faders.
>
>
>
> But this thing is firewire only, and it's getting pretty impossible now to find a laptop with firewire (or even expresscard so you can add one). I need to find some hardware that does what the helixboard 24 does but over USB. Now you can get a USB version of the helixboard and this may be what I end up buying, but I would really like to consider some alternatives. But all my googling and searching just turns up the kind of interfaces I previously described: 8 xlrs, crap monitoring, and for 'USB mixers' it is nearly always the case that only the stereo mixdown is sent over the USB, not the individual tracks.
>
>
>
> So I'd appreciate any insights anyone may have on what is out there, and who uses these 8 input devices and is there some trick that I'm missing with respect to the monitoring? Because I find it hard to believe that there are so many devices out there following the same (imo) flawed formula.
>
>
>
> many thanks,
>
> TWJ.

If you have an audio interface that also has ADAT i/o, you can always add another 8ch preamp that has ADAT out. I have the Focusrite Saphire Pro40 and an 01V96 mixer. I can choose any 8 channels from the 01V96, via ADAT, to suplement the Pro40 giving me 16 channels to record (18 if you also count the spdif).