VERY Basic ProTools / Software Questions

[HWBossHoss]

OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.) or a
hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland, etc.)...

I guess one of the things that makes me want to avoid a software-based system
is my sheer ignorance of EXACTLY what I would need to get a GOOD, ADEQUATE
system up and running.

I am prepared to pay (almost) whatever it takes to put a good, semi-pro system
together. But I need to educate myself before jumping in with fistfuls of
money!!!

SO...once and for all, what would I need to put a software based recording
system together? TO HELP YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION, AND TO PROVE THAT I HAVE
BEEN DOING AT LEAST A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS SUBJECT, I HAVE SOME MORE
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS...READ ON:

1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac. What is a good, middle-of-the-road
Mac model to use, AND what is a good, adequate mHz speed. Are any Mac
Powerbooks up to the task?

2. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: What about the "stuff" needed to connect the
computer to the outside world? What are the recommended interfaces? What kind
of sound card(s) and interconnecting devices do I need? I AM ESPECIALLY
INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW I CAN CONNECT DEDICATED "BOX" SIGNAL PROCESSORS TO A
SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEM. I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't know
ANYTHING about the nuts-and-bolts aspect of connecting recording
gear--including dedicated sound processors--all together to work with a
software-based system. I would appreciate ANY web resources that can give
basic lessons on how to put together a high-quality software-based system that
can interface with external devices such as signal processors, keyboards, etc.

3. What kind of digital mixer is recommended? I know that the Digi 002 system
has its own mixer, but I am more interested in a mixer that has more faders
than that. I know, I know--I can swap the Digi 002 faders around and use them
on ANY track, but ideally, I would like to have one actual fader per track with
a minimum of computer shenanigans to simulate a "real" mixer.

4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
instead of building it around a computer?

5. Finally, what is a good microphone preamp to use? I'm looking into units by
Focusrite and Millenia, but can even be persuaded to go for an Avalon if I can
justify the cost.

Thanks in advance...I know I am asking a LOT, but damn it, I just don't know
anything about what seems to be the preferred way of doing things, and I'm just
so scared of buying more than what I need...or worse, buying something that I
can't use. ARE THERE ANY WEB RESOURCES OUT THERE THAT CAN TEACH ME THE BASICS
ABOUT SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEMS?

[Mondoslug1]

Boss Hoss wrote:

>OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
>software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.) or a
>hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland, etc.)...
>
>I guess one of the things that makes me want to avoid a software-based system
>is my sheer ignorance of EXACTLY what I would need to get a GOOD, ADEQUATE
>system up and running.
>
>I am prepared to pay (almost) whatever it takes to put a good, semi-pro
>system
>together. But I need to educate myself before jumping in with fistfuls of
>money!!!
>
>SO...once and for all, what would I need to put a software based recording
>system together? TO HELP YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION, AND TO PROVE THAT I HAVE
>BEEN DOING AT LEAST A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS SUBJECT, I HAVE SOME MORE
>SPECIFIC QUESTIONS...READ ON:
>
>1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac.

This is a can of worms waiting to open but starting with #1)....I would say
that this is a myth these days. PC's are up to the task unless you have to have
Digital performer or Logic I'm guessin'.
>

[Mondoslug1]

Boss Hoss wrote:

>OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
>software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.) or a
>hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland, etc.)...
>
>I guess one of the things that makes me want to avoid a software-based system
>is my sheer ignorance of EXACTLY what I would need to get a GOOD, ADEQUATE
>system up and running.
>
>I am prepared to pay (almost) whatever it takes to put a good, semi-pro
>system
>together. But I need to educate myself before jumping in with fistfuls of
>money!!!
>
>SO...once and for all, what would I need to put a software based recording
>system together? TO HELP YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION, AND TO PROVE THAT I HAVE
>BEEN DOING AT LEAST A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS SUBJECT, I HAVE SOME MORE
>SPECIFIC QUESTIONS...READ ON:
>
>1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac.

This is a can of worms waiting to open but starting with #1)....I would say
that this is a myth these days. PC's are up to the task unless you have to have
Digital performer or Logic I'm guessin'.
>

[Particle Salad]

You are asking a ton of questions.... good questions, but questions that
would require one person to spend an hour typing out the answers.

Do you have any friends who are doing digital recording? If so, start with
them.

Nobody can really answer a lot of the questions for you, because nobody
understands your workflow. For example... I focused on three channels of
good mics and pres, because that's all I usually record at the same time.
How about you?

I chose computer based recording over a stand alone unit because I preferred
the creative possibilities offered by software instruments/etc over the
reilability of a stand alone system.... plus I seldom needed portability.

I chose the soundcard I chose because I decided to use a digital mixer so
latency became much less of an issue.

I chose a Mac over a Windows box because I used both in the past, made up my
own mind, preferred the usability and workflow of a Mac, and my software
runs well on the Mac. Windows machines still have pound for pound more
performance.

You see what I mean? What's right for me isn't right for you, and vice
versa. There are too many options at this point.

Think about your workflow first... then find a solution that fits your
workflow best. Think about how you'll work, with whom, what instruments,
etc.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now available: new Particle Salad CD "The Track Inside."

See http://www.particlesalad.com for more info.

[Particle Salad]

You are asking a ton of questions.... good questions, but questions that
would require one person to spend an hour typing out the answers.

Do you have any friends who are doing digital recording? If so, start with
them.

Nobody can really answer a lot of the questions for you, because nobody
understands your workflow. For example... I focused on three channels of
good mics and pres, because that's all I usually record at the same time.
How about you?

I chose computer based recording over a stand alone unit because I preferred
the creative possibilities offered by software instruments/etc over the
reilability of a stand alone system.... plus I seldom needed portability.

I chose the soundcard I chose because I decided to use a digital mixer so
latency became much less of an issue.

I chose a Mac over a Windows box because I used both in the past, made up my
own mind, preferred the usability and workflow of a Mac, and my software
runs well on the Mac. Windows machines still have pound for pound more
performance.

You see what I mean? What's right for me isn't right for you, and vice
versa. There are too many options at this point.

Think about your workflow first... then find a solution that fits your
workflow best. Think about how you'll work, with whom, what instruments,
etc.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now available: new Particle Salad CD "The Track Inside."

See http://www.particlesalad.com for more info.

[Ben Bradley]

On 30 May 2004 20:33:44 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
>software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.) or a
>hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland, etc.)...
>
>I guess one of the things that makes me want to avoid a software-based system
>is my sheer ignorance of EXACTLY what I would need to get a GOOD, ADEQUATE
>system up and running.

I saw your other thread and decided not to try to add anything. But
here, I think you just need to start learning by doing. You can go to
http://www.fasoft.com and download N-Track and start learning how to
record on a computer. You can do almost everything with the free demo
(all if costs is your time and access to a Windows computer, it'll run
on an older one, as slow as 200MHz or so), and if you want a mixdown
file, the full registration is under $100.
Or you could download Pro Tools Free (which works with everyone
else's hardware (plain soundcards and such), just like everyone else's
DAW software does, instead of the Pro Tools hardware that comes with
Pro Tools Pay-Through-The-Nose), if you have the exact OS it runs on
(Win98SE, IIRC).

>I am prepared to pay (almost) whatever it takes to put a good, semi-pro system
>together. But I need to educate myself before jumping in with fistfuls of
>money!!!

I'm reminded of the college girl who, doing badly in a class, goes
up to her professor and says "I'll do anything to get a passing grade
in this class! ANYTHING!" and the prof looks back at her and says "Oh,
yeah? Will you study?"
That's probably not relevant to this thread, but maybe it's
amusing...

>SO...once and for all, what would I need to put a software based recording
>system together? TO HELP YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION, AND TO PROVE THAT I HAVE
>BEEN DOING AT LEAST A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS SUBJECT, I HAVE SOME MORE
>SPECIFIC QUESTIONS...READ ON:
>
>1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac. What is a good, middle-of-the-road
>Mac model to use, AND what is a good, adequate mHz speed. Are any Mac
>Powerbooks up to the task?
>
>2. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: What about the "stuff" needed to connect the
>computer to the outside world? What are the recommended interfaces? What kind
>of sound card(s) and interconnecting devices do I need? I AM ESPECIALLY
>INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW I CAN CONNECT DEDICATED "BOX" SIGNAL PROCESSORS TO A
>SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEM.

The computer interface (or "soundcard" or A/D and D/A) has
line-level inputs and line-level output just like any other kind of
recorder. Connect a line out to the input of the processor, connect
the processor's output to a line input of the computer interface. You
can send a track to the line out while recording the line in to a new
track, which will have the 'processed' signal on it.
There are some things that are so simple to do in a DAW that you
won't even think of sending a track to a processor to do, such as
delay.
Different models of interfaces have different number of inputs and
outputs. The Delta 44, as one example, has four inputs and four
outputs. The basic question for number of inputs is how many tracks do
you want to record at once?
One advantage of a DAW is that everything is modular. If you need
more disk space, just buy another disk drive. If your audio interface
has four inputs and you need ten, you can swap one out and put a
ten-input interface in. If you don't think N-Track Studio does what
you need, you can spend a few hundred on Adobe Audition and install
it, and N-Track is still there if you ever want to go back to it.
Probably the biggest disadvantage over dedicated recorders is the
DAW's learning curve. But that only means the sooner you start, the
more you'll know.

>I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't know
>ANYTHING about the nuts-and-bolts aspect of connecting recording
>gear--including dedicated sound processors--all together to work with a
>software-based system. I would appreciate ANY web resources that can give
>basic lessons on how to put together a high-quality software-based system that
>can interface with external devices such as signal processors, keyboards, etc.
>
>3. What kind of digital mixer is recommended? I know that the Digi 002 system
>has its own mixer, but I am more interested in a mixer that has more faders
>than that. I know, I know--I can swap the Digi 002 faders around and use them
>on ANY track, but ideally, I would like to have one actual fader per track with
>a minimum of computer shenanigans to simulate a "real" mixer.
>
>4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
>Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
>instead of building it around a computer?

Well, it's got buttons on a front panel instead of a keyboard,
mouse and screen. They have inputs and outputs, just like any other
multitrack recorder.

>5. Finally, what is a good microphone preamp to use? I'm looking into units by
>Focusrite and Millenia, but can even be persuaded to go for an Avalon if I can
>justify the cost.

I've read where people say all sorts of good things about those
brand names.

>Thanks in advance...I know I am asking a LOT, but damn it, I just don't know
>anything about what seems to be the preferred way of doing things, and I'm just
>so scared of buying more than what I need...or worse, buying something that I
>can't use.

Sometimes the preferred way of doing things is just go buy
something and try it, see how it works, get a little experience using
it. You're sure to have reactions that vary from "Well, that sucks" to
"Wow, I didn't know you could do THAT!" I think you're overanalyzing,
trying to figure exactly where to jump in whole hog, when you really
ought to be getting your feet wet.
Or do you really want to spend thousands of dollars based solely on
what some bozo like me tells you on a Usenet newsgroup?

>ARE THERE ANY WEB RESOURCES OUT THERE THAT CAN TEACH ME THE BASICS
>ABOUT SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEMS?

Okay, I give. http://groups.google.com

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

[Ben Bradley]

On 30 May 2004 20:33:44 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
>software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.) or a
>hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland, etc.)...
>
>I guess one of the things that makes me want to avoid a software-based system
>is my sheer ignorance of EXACTLY what I would need to get a GOOD, ADEQUATE
>system up and running.

I saw your other thread and decided not to try to add anything. But
here, I think you just need to start learning by doing. You can go to
http://www.fasoft.com and download N-Track and start learning how to
record on a computer. You can do almost everything with the free demo
(all if costs is your time and access to a Windows computer, it'll run
on an older one, as slow as 200MHz or so), and if you want a mixdown
file, the full registration is under $100.
Or you could download Pro Tools Free (which works with everyone
else's hardware (plain soundcards and such), just like everyone else's
DAW software does, instead of the Pro Tools hardware that comes with
Pro Tools Pay-Through-The-Nose), if you have the exact OS it runs on
(Win98SE, IIRC).

>I am prepared to pay (almost) whatever it takes to put a good, semi-pro system
>together. But I need to educate myself before jumping in with fistfuls of
>money!!!

I'm reminded of the college girl who, doing badly in a class, goes
up to her professor and says "I'll do anything to get a passing grade
in this class! ANYTHING!" and the prof looks back at her and says "Oh,
yeah? Will you study?"
That's probably not relevant to this thread, but maybe it's
amusing...

>SO...once and for all, what would I need to put a software based recording
>system together? TO HELP YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION, AND TO PROVE THAT I HAVE
>BEEN DOING AT LEAST A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS SUBJECT, I HAVE SOME MORE
>SPECIFIC QUESTIONS...READ ON:
>
>1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac. What is a good, middle-of-the-road
>Mac model to use, AND what is a good, adequate mHz speed. Are any Mac
>Powerbooks up to the task?
>
>2. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: What about the "stuff" needed to connect the
>computer to the outside world? What are the recommended interfaces? What kind
>of sound card(s) and interconnecting devices do I need? I AM ESPECIALLY
>INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW I CAN CONNECT DEDICATED "BOX" SIGNAL PROCESSORS TO A
>SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEM.

The computer interface (or "soundcard" or A/D and D/A) has
line-level inputs and line-level output just like any other kind of
recorder. Connect a line out to the input of the processor, connect
the processor's output to a line input of the computer interface. You
can send a track to the line out while recording the line in to a new
track, which will have the 'processed' signal on it.
There are some things that are so simple to do in a DAW that you
won't even think of sending a track to a processor to do, such as
delay.
Different models of interfaces have different number of inputs and
outputs. The Delta 44, as one example, has four inputs and four
outputs. The basic question for number of inputs is how many tracks do
you want to record at once?
One advantage of a DAW is that everything is modular. If you need
more disk space, just buy another disk drive. If your audio interface
has four inputs and you need ten, you can swap one out and put a
ten-input interface in. If you don't think N-Track Studio does what
you need, you can spend a few hundred on Adobe Audition and install
it, and N-Track is still there if you ever want to go back to it.
Probably the biggest disadvantage over dedicated recorders is the
DAW's learning curve. But that only means the sooner you start, the
more you'll know.

>I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't know
>ANYTHING about the nuts-and-bolts aspect of connecting recording
>gear--including dedicated sound processors--all together to work with a
>software-based system. I would appreciate ANY web resources that can give
>basic lessons on how to put together a high-quality software-based system that
>can interface with external devices such as signal processors, keyboards, etc.
>
>3. What kind of digital mixer is recommended? I know that the Digi 002 system
>has its own mixer, but I am more interested in a mixer that has more faders
>than that. I know, I know--I can swap the Digi 002 faders around and use them
>on ANY track, but ideally, I would like to have one actual fader per track with
>a minimum of computer shenanigans to simulate a "real" mixer.
>
>4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
>Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
>instead of building it around a computer?

Well, it's got buttons on a front panel instead of a keyboard,
mouse and screen. They have inputs and outputs, just like any other
multitrack recorder.

>5. Finally, what is a good microphone preamp to use? I'm looking into units by
>Focusrite and Millenia, but can even be persuaded to go for an Avalon if I can
>justify the cost.

I've read where people say all sorts of good things about those
brand names.

>Thanks in advance...I know I am asking a LOT, but damn it, I just don't know
>anything about what seems to be the preferred way of doing things, and I'm just
>so scared of buying more than what I need...or worse, buying something that I
>can't use.

Sometimes the preferred way of doing things is just go buy
something and try it, see how it works, get a little experience using
it. You're sure to have reactions that vary from "Well, that sucks" to
"Wow, I didn't know you could do THAT!" I think you're overanalyzing,
trying to figure exactly where to jump in whole hog, when you really
ought to be getting your feet wet.
Or do you really want to spend thousands of dollars based solely on
what some bozo like me tells you on a Usenet newsgroup?

>ARE THERE ANY WEB RESOURCES OUT THERE THAT CAN TEACH ME THE BASICS
>ABOUT SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEMS?

Okay, I give. http://groups.google.com

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

[Arny Krueger]

HWBossHoss wrote:

> OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
> software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.)
> or a hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland,
> etc.)...

Fact is these are all software-based systems. The Korg, Tascam, Roland etc.
boxes are just proprietary computer boxes running proprietary operating
systems and proprietary DAW software. The actual comparison is proprietary
hardware versus industry-standard hardware.

If you want to get your feet wet in multitracking with surprising quality
and absolutely minimum expense, get a modern PC (Dell, eMachines, etc.), a
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz sound card, and download a free copy of Audacity. If
you have a modern PC with 1000 MHz or more and a 40 Gb or larger hard drive,
you have that much already on hand to work with, but its best if your music
recording PC be for just that one purpose.

For mic preamps and monitoring use a small console from Behringer, Yamaha,
Mackie, etc. Use or adequate your favorite microphones, as your budget will
allow. One or more vocal mics like the SM58 and musical instrument mics
like the SM57 and/or the MXL 603 and Behringer ECM8000s can turn out to be
surprisingly long-lasting investments.

You will then have the ability to record and play 4 channels concurrently,
and mix down any reasonable-sized project. Total investment, perhaps under
$1,000.

Consider only the microphones as being non-expendable.

[Arny Krueger]

HWBossHoss wrote:

> OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
> software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.)
> or a hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland,
> etc.)...

Fact is these are all software-based systems. The Korg, Tascam, Roland etc.
boxes are just proprietary computer boxes running proprietary operating
systems and proprietary DAW software. The actual comparison is proprietary
hardware versus industry-standard hardware.

If you want to get your feet wet in multitracking with surprising quality
and absolutely minimum expense, get a modern PC (Dell, eMachines, etc.), a
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz sound card, and download a free copy of Audacity. If
you have a modern PC with 1000 MHz or more and a 40 Gb or larger hard drive,
you have that much already on hand to work with, but its best if your music
recording PC be for just that one purpose.

For mic preamps and monitoring use a small console from Behringer, Yamaha,
Mackie, etc. Use or adequate your favorite microphones, as your budget will
allow. One or more vocal mics like the SM58 and musical instrument mics
like the SM57 and/or the MXL 603 and Behringer ECM8000s can turn out to be
surprisingly long-lasting investments.

You will then have the ability to record and play 4 channels concurrently,
and mix down any reasonable-sized project. Total investment, perhaps under
$1,000.

Consider only the microphones as being non-expendable.

[Nahtan Tsew]

HWBossHoss wrote:

> 1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac. What is a good, middle-of-the-road
> Mac model to use, AND what is a good, adequate mHz speed. Are any Mac
> Powerbooks up to the task?

A G4 is a good middle of the road Mac that will run current software adequately.
Powerbooks can, but the software that can run on it might not be what you want.

> 2. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: What about the "stuff" needed to connect the
> computer to the outside world? What are the recommended interfaces? What kind
> of sound card(s) and interconnecting devices do I need? I AM ESPECIALLY
> INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW I CAN CONNECT DEDICATED "BOX" SIGNAL PROCESSORS TO A
> SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEM. I

Well that is scary if you don't know *anything*. Since it makes it impossible to
suggest something. Have you considered using a service like Carillion? They build
computers specifically for DAW's and will add any sort of interface you need.
Having said that: M-Audio makes several adequate cards that would suit your needs.

The Delta series is very good. RME manufactures several top end cards as well.
Echo products get rated okay. And after that you have to try them to see if they
suit your needs and budget.

> 3. What kind of digital mixer is recommended?

Mackie, Tascam, Yamaha, and Behringer all have mid level, mid priced digital
mixers.
The choices are dependent on how you want to mix, how much you want to spend to
mix, and what brand name you like.

> 4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
> Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
> instead of building it around a computer?

I won't. Not because it is wrong, but it is not a route I would ever go.

> 5. Finally, what is a good microphone preamp to use? I'm looking into units by
> Focusrite and Millenia, but can even be persuaded to go for an Avalon if I can
> justify the cost.

Which Avalon? And what is a justified reason for you?
Inexpensive pre's are around: The FMR RNP and the Studio Projects VTB-1. The Avalon
737 SP is nice for lots more money, as is the Manley Single Channel Mic Pre. I
sort of like the DW Fearn VT-1 too. Also the John Hardy M1 is quite good if you
just want a rock solid preamp.


> ARE THERE ANY WEB RESOURCES OUT THERE THAT CAN TEACH ME THE BASICS
> ABOUT SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEMS?

Well you certainly have an artistic temperament, with all that yelling and such.
Anyway, yes there are many web based forums to learn with. Here are a few.
http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/
http://www.cakewalk.com/forum
http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/ http://www.musicplayer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
http://www.homerecordingconnection.com/forum.php?frm=1



--
Nathan

'What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?'

[Nahtan Tsew]

HWBossHoss wrote:

> 1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac. What is a good, middle-of-the-road
> Mac model to use, AND what is a good, adequate mHz speed. Are any Mac
> Powerbooks up to the task?

A G4 is a good middle of the road Mac that will run current software adequately.
Powerbooks can, but the software that can run on it might not be what you want.

> 2. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: What about the "stuff" needed to connect the
> computer to the outside world? What are the recommended interfaces? What kind
> of sound card(s) and interconnecting devices do I need? I AM ESPECIALLY
> INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW I CAN CONNECT DEDICATED "BOX" SIGNAL PROCESSORS TO A
> SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEM. I

Well that is scary if you don't know *anything*. Since it makes it impossible to
suggest something. Have you considered using a service like Carillion? They build
computers specifically for DAW's and will add any sort of interface you need.
Having said that: M-Audio makes several adequate cards that would suit your needs.

The Delta series is very good. RME manufactures several top end cards as well.
Echo products get rated okay. And after that you have to try them to see if they
suit your needs and budget.

> 3. What kind of digital mixer is recommended?

Mackie, Tascam, Yamaha, and Behringer all have mid level, mid priced digital
mixers.
The choices are dependent on how you want to mix, how much you want to spend to
mix, and what brand name you like.

> 4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
> Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
> instead of building it around a computer?

I won't. Not because it is wrong, but it is not a route I would ever go.

> 5. Finally, what is a good microphone preamp to use? I'm looking into units by
> Focusrite and Millenia, but can even be persuaded to go for an Avalon if I can
> justify the cost.

Which Avalon? And what is a justified reason for you?
Inexpensive pre's are around: The FMR RNP and the Studio Projects VTB-1. The Avalon
737 SP is nice for lots more money, as is the Manley Single Channel Mic Pre. I
sort of like the DW Fearn VT-1 too. Also the John Hardy M1 is quite good if you
just want a rock solid preamp.


> ARE THERE ANY WEB RESOURCES OUT THERE THAT CAN TEACH ME THE BASICS
> ABOUT SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEMS?

Well you certainly have an artistic temperament, with all that yelling and such.
Anyway, yes there are many web based forums to learn with. Here are a few.
http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/
http://www.cakewalk.com/forum
http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/ http://www.musicplayer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
http://www.homerecordingconnection.com/forum.php?frm=1



--
Nathan

'What if the hokey pokey is really what it's all about?'

[Laurence Payne]

On 30 May 2004 20:33:44 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
>software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.) or a
>hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland, etc.)...
>
>I guess one of the things that makes me want to avoid a software-based system
>is my sheer ignorance of EXACTLY what I would need to get a GOOD, ADEQUATE
>system up and running.


OK. You've got to go and see some systems working. There are so many
possible approaches to your requirements.

Just a few general points.

Mac and PC. Both have their prophets. But there's no automatic
winner.

PC is an open system. It's possible to buy cost-cutting hardware
labeled "PC". But even with quality hardware, you get more PC for your
money.

Mac is currently going through operating-system hell. Some software
runs on one version, some on another. But Mac systems can work very
well.

EVERYTHING you are considering is a software-based system. Some of
the software runs on dedicated hardware. And you don't get a choice
of which program to run. But that's not so different to matching a
computer, operating system and software.



CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 30 May 2004 20:33:44 GMT, (HWBossHoss) wrote:

>OK, I am still struggling with the decision of whether to go for a
>software-based recording system (ProTools, Digital Performer, etc.) or a
>hardware-based system (various units by Korg, Tascam, Roland, etc.)...
>
>I guess one of the things that makes me want to avoid a software-based system
>is my sheer ignorance of EXACTLY what I would need to get a GOOD, ADEQUATE
>system up and running.


OK. You've got to go and see some systems working. There are so many
possible approaches to your requirements.

Just a few general points.

Mac and PC. Both have their prophets. But there's no automatic
winner.

PC is an open system. It's possible to buy cost-cutting hardware
labeled "PC". But even with quality hardware, you get more PC for your
money.

Mac is currently going through operating-system hell. Some software
runs on one version, some on another. But Mac systems can work very
well.

EVERYTHING you are considering is a software-based system. Some of
the software runs on dedicated hardware. And you don't get a choice
of which program to run. But that's not so different to matching a
computer, operating system and software.



CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:33:44 -0400, HWBossHoss wrote
(in message >):

> 1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac. What is a good,
> middle-of-the-road
> Mac model to use, AND what is a good, adequate mHz speed. Are any Mac
> Powerbooks up to the task?

If you buy a dual 2GHz machine today, it'll be middle of the pack tomorrow.
Buy as ast as you can.

> 2. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: What about the "stuff" needed to connect
> the
> computer to the outside world? What are the recommended interfaces? What
> kind
> of sound card(s) and interconnecting devices do I need? I AM ESPECIALLY
> INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW I CAN CONNECT DEDICATED "BOX" SIGNAL PROCESSORS TO
> A
> SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEM. I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't know
> ANYTHING about the nuts-and-bolts aspect of connecting recording
> gear--including dedicated sound processors--all together to work with a
> software-based system. I would appreciate ANY web resources that can give
> basic lessons on how to put together a high-quality software-based system
> that
> can interface with external devices such as signal processors, keyboards,
> etc.

Luke, the wall is too thick. Your laser weapon won't be able to penetrate it.
Stay away.

> 3. What kind of digital mixer is recommended? I know that the Digi 002
> system
> has its own mixer, but I am more interested in a mixer that has more faders
> than that. I know, I know--I can swap the Digi 002 faders around and use
> them
> on ANY track, but ideally, I would like to have one actual fader per track
> with
> a minimum of computer shenanigans to simulate a "real" mixer.

Young Skywalker, don't be foolish. More faders do not equate to better sound.

>
> 4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
> Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
> instead of building it around a computer?

Ask Mike Rivers young Skywalker. He knows well the depths of despair one may
experience with those things.

> 5. Finally, what is a good microphone preamp to use? I'm looking into units
> by
> Focusrite and Millenia, but can even be persuaded to go for an Avalon if I
> can
> justify the cost.

There are at least a dozen amazing preamps out there. Remember that each mic
will sound different with each one and embrace the madness, if you must.

> Thanks in advance...I know I am asking a LOT, but damn it, I just don't know
> anything about what seems to be the preferred way of doing things, and I'm
> just
> so scared of buying more than what I need...or worse, buying something that I
> can't use. ARE THERE ANY WEB RESOURCES OUT THERE THAT CAN TEACH ME THE
> BASICS
> ABOUT SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEMS?

Save your money and buy a big screen HDTV and a big comfy recliner. You'll
live longer. Too late? Hooked? Your life and bank account will never be the
same.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 30 May 2004 16:33:44 -0400, HWBossHoss wrote
(in message >):

> 1. Software systems seem to favor the Mac. What is a good,
> middle-of-the-road
> Mac model to use, AND what is a good, adequate mHz speed. Are any Mac
> Powerbooks up to the task?

If you buy a dual 2GHz machine today, it'll be middle of the pack tomorrow.
Buy as ast as you can.

> 2. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION: What about the "stuff" needed to connect
> the
> computer to the outside world? What are the recommended interfaces? What
> kind
> of sound card(s) and interconnecting devices do I need? I AM ESPECIALLY
> INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW I CAN CONNECT DEDICATED "BOX" SIGNAL PROCESSORS TO
> A
> SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEM. I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't know
> ANYTHING about the nuts-and-bolts aspect of connecting recording
> gear--including dedicated sound processors--all together to work with a
> software-based system. I would appreciate ANY web resources that can give
> basic lessons on how to put together a high-quality software-based system
> that
> can interface with external devices such as signal processors, keyboards,
> etc.

Luke, the wall is too thick. Your laser weapon won't be able to penetrate it.
Stay away.

> 3. What kind of digital mixer is recommended? I know that the Digi 002
> system
> has its own mixer, but I am more interested in a mixer that has more faders
> than that. I know, I know--I can swap the Digi 002 faders around and use
> them
> on ANY track, but ideally, I would like to have one actual fader per track
> with
> a minimum of computer shenanigans to simulate a "real" mixer.

Young Skywalker, don't be foolish. More faders do not equate to better sound.

>
> 4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
> Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
> instead of building it around a computer?

Ask Mike Rivers young Skywalker. He knows well the depths of despair one may
experience with those things.

> 5. Finally, what is a good microphone preamp to use? I'm looking into units
> by
> Focusrite and Millenia, but can even be persuaded to go for an Avalon if I
> can
> justify the cost.

There are at least a dozen amazing preamps out there. Remember that each mic
will sound different with each one and embrace the madness, if you must.

> Thanks in advance...I know I am asking a LOT, but damn it, I just don't know
> anything about what seems to be the preferred way of doing things, and I'm
> just
> so scared of buying more than what I need...or worse, buying something that I
> can't use. ARE THERE ANY WEB RESOURCES OUT THERE THAT CAN TEACH ME THE
> BASICS
> ABOUT SOFTWARE-BASED SYSTEMS?

Save your money and buy a big screen HDTV and a big comfy recliner. You'll
live longer. Too late? Hooked? Your life and bank account will never be the
same.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 2:15:21 -0400, Ben Bradley wrote
(in message >):

> I'm reminded of the college girl who, doing badly in a class, goes up to
> her professor and says "I'll do anything to get a passing grade in this
> class! ANYTHING!" and the prof looks back at her and says "Oh, yeah? Will
> you study?"
> That's probably not relevant to this thread, but maybe it's amusing...

I thought his answer was, "Fine, paint my house."

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 31 May 2004 2:15:21 -0400, Ben Bradley wrote
(in message >):

> I'm reminded of the college girl who, doing badly in a class, goes up to
> her professor and says "I'll do anything to get a passing grade in this
> class! ANYTHING!" and the prof looks back at her and says "Oh, yeah? Will
> you study?"
> That's probably not relevant to this thread, but maybe it's amusing...

I thought his answer was, "Fine, paint my house."

Regards,

Ty Ford

[EggHd]

<< instead of the Pro Tools hardware that comes with Pro Tools
Pay-Through-The-Nose) >>

Are you suggesting that the 002rack for around $1K street that includes
interface, control room monitoring and Protools software is pay through the
nose?





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

[EggHd]

<< instead of the Pro Tools hardware that comes with Pro Tools
Pay-Through-The-Nose) >>

Are you suggesting that the 002rack for around $1K street that includes
interface, control room monitoring and Protools software is pay through the
nose?





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

[Mike Rivers]

In article ews.com> writes:

> > 4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
> > Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
> > instead of building it around a computer?
>
> Ask Mike Rivers young Skywalker. He knows well the depths of despair one may
> experience with those things.

I didn't reply because it's too broad a question. As far as I know,
MOTU doesn't make a dedicated hard disk recorder, but Alesis, Mackie,
TASCAM, Iz, and Genex do. Add Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Akai, Fostex, and
Zoom if you want to include recorder/mixer combos.

I like my Mackie hard disk recorder. I'd like to get a console that's
quiet enough for digital (my 2" analog recorder did an adequate job of
making more noise than the console) but I don't do enough paying work
with it these days to justify a new investment.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article ews.com> writes:

> > 4. What about dedicated hard disk recorders like what Alesis and MOTU have?
> > Who can talk to me about building a recording rig around one of these units
> > instead of building it around a computer?
>
> Ask Mike Rivers young Skywalker. He knows well the depths of despair one may
> experience with those things.

I didn't reply because it's too broad a question. As far as I know,
MOTU doesn't make a dedicated hard disk recorder, but Alesis, Mackie,
TASCAM, Iz, and Genex do. Add Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Akai, Fostex, and
Zoom if you want to include recorder/mixer combos.

I like my Mackie hard disk recorder. I'd like to get a console that's
quiet enough for digital (my 2" analog recorder did an adequate job of
making more noise than the console) but I don't do enough paying work
with it these days to justify a new investment.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

EggHd wrote:
> << instead of the Pro Tools hardware that comes with Pro Tools
> Pay-Through-The-Nose) >>
>
> Are you suggesting that the 002rack for around $1K street that
> includes interface, control room monitoring and Protools software is
> pay through the nose?
>

Isn't that up to twice or more the cost of competitive hardware?

[Arny Krueger]

EggHd wrote:
> << instead of the Pro Tools hardware that comes with Pro Tools
> Pay-Through-The-Nose) >>
>
> Are you suggesting that the 002rack for around $1K street that
> includes interface, control room monitoring and Protools software is
> pay through the nose?
>

Isn't that up to twice or more the cost of competitive hardware?

[EggHd]

<< Isn't that up to twice or more the cost of competitive hardware? >>

Competitive hardware wih the same features?



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

[EggHd]

<< Isn't that up to twice or more the cost of competitive hardware? >>

Competitive hardware wih the same features?



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

[Arny Krueger]

EggHd wrote:
> << Isn't that up to twice or more the cost of competitive hardware? >>
>
> Competitive hardware wih the same features?

That implies that we would have some agreed-upon way to weigh the value of
individual features. Demanding exact compatibility with whatever features
that any given manufacturer chooses seems to be unfair.

[Arny Krueger]

EggHd wrote:
> << Isn't that up to twice or more the cost of competitive hardware? >>
>
> Competitive hardware wih the same features?

That implies that we would have some agreed-upon way to weigh the value of
individual features. Demanding exact compatibility with whatever features
that any given manufacturer chooses seems to be unfair.

[Jay-AtlDigi]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << Isn't that up to twice or more the cost of competitive hardware? >>
>
> Competitive hardware wih the same features?
>

Well, I think it's a good deal too, but what do I know? I spent more
than that on just a 2 channel DAC.
--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Jay-AtlDigi]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << Isn't that up to twice or more the cost of competitive hardware? >>
>
> Competitive hardware wih the same features?
>

Well, I think it's a good deal too, but what do I know? I spent more
than that on just a 2 channel DAC.
--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[EggHd]

<< That implies that we would have some agreed-upon way to weigh the value of
individual features. >>

No. It would be another box with the same I/O config and contorl room
monitoring.
<
< Demanding exact compatibility with whatever features
that any given manufacturer chooses seems to be unfair. >>

Then don't try and compare apples and oranges.



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

[EggHd]

<< That implies that we would have some agreed-upon way to weigh the value of
individual features. >>

No. It would be another box with the same I/O config and contorl room
monitoring.
<
< Demanding exact compatibility with whatever features
that any given manufacturer chooses seems to be unfair. >>

Then don't try and compare apples and oranges.



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

[EggHd]

<< Well, I think it's a good deal too, but what do I know? I spent more
than that on just a 2 channel DAC >>

Agreed.



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

[EggHd]

<< Well, I think it's a good deal too, but what do I know? I spent more
than that on just a 2 channel DAC >>

Agreed.



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

[Arny Krueger]

EggHd wrote:
> << That implies that we would have some agreed-upon way to weigh the
> value of individual features. >>
>
> No. It would be another box with the same I/O config and contorl room
> monitoring.
> <
> < Demanding exact compatibility with whatever features
> that any given manufacturer chooses seems to be unfair. >>
>
> Then don't try and compare apples and oranges.

For example I see control room monitoring as having very little value.

[Arny Krueger]

EggHd wrote:
> << That implies that we would have some agreed-upon way to weigh the
> value of individual features. >>
>
> No. It would be another box with the same I/O config and contorl room
> monitoring.
> <
> < Demanding exact compatibility with whatever features
> that any given manufacturer chooses seems to be unfair. >>
>
> Then don't try and compare apples and oranges.

For example I see control room monitoring as having very little value.

[EggHd]

<< For example I see control room monitoring as having very little value. >>

I understand. Thaat still has nothing to do with what I am talking about.





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

[EggHd]

<< For example I see control room monitoring as having very little value. >>

I understand. Thaat still has nothing to do with what I am talking about.





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