PC-based Studio VS. External hardware

[sohala]

Just wanted to the advice of Pro's here on: Can a PC-Based stduio be as
good as a studio with external mixer and effect.

Lets assume you have all the latest and best software and software
effects plus a pro-quality sound card for your computer based studio.
Can you produce the same quality with that setup than you you could with:

an external digital mixer, and the sound being recorded in ADAT's or
whatever external storage plus A/D is used nowadays, combined with
hardware effects (lets say you spend 30K on effects).

So which is better in terms of sound quality.

I know that both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages but
lets just focus on the sound quality. Personally I prefer to work with
PC-Based studio but that's another discussion. Thanks.

[Raymond]

>From: sohala
>Date: 7/16/04 8:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>Just wanted to the advice of Pro's here on: Can a PC-Based stduio be as
>good as a studio with external mixer and effect.
>
>Lets assume you have all the latest and best software and software
>effects plus a pro-quality sound card for your computer based studio.
>Can you produce the same quality with that setup than you you could with:
>
>an external digital mixer, and the sound being recorded in ADAT's or
>whatever external storage plus A/D is used nowadays, combined with
>hardware effects (lets say you spend 30K on effects).
>
>So which is better in terms of sound quality.
>
>I know that both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages but
>lets just focus on the sound quality. Personally I prefer to work with
>PC-Based studio but that's another discussion. Thanks.

The "pro" approach? OK, here I go again...

1) First, you need to have talent, good song, singers and musicans that have
the ability to perform the song, quality instraments and someone who knows how
to record this song.

2) Second, you need the proper built room for the voice and or instrument your
recording and critical listening for tracking, mixing etc.

3) Theird, you need to use the correct microphone in the best placment for what
your recording.

After you have all these requirements met you can start picking out your gear
but remember, a low cost (cheap) piece of equipment will always be just what
you pay for. As far as computer or analog, that's all up to what you prefer.

[sohala]

> The "pro" approach? OK, here I go again...
>
> 1) First, you need to have talent, good song, singers and musicans
that have
> the ability to perform the song, quality instraments and someone who
knows how
> to record this song.
>
> 2) Second, you need the proper built room for the voice and or
instrument your
> recording and critical listening for tracking, mixing etc.
>
> 3) Theird, you need to use the correct microphone in the best
placment for what
> your recording.


Lets assume you have all that. Then which has better sound quality
PC-Based or external Digital (not analog).




Raymond wrote:

>>From: sohala
>>Date: 7/16/04 8:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>Just wanted to the advice of Pro's here on: Can a PC-Based stduio be as
>>good as a studio with external mixer and effect.
>>
>>Lets assume you have all the latest and best software and software
>>effects plus a pro-quality sound card for your computer based studio.
>>Can you produce the same quality with that setup than you you could with:
>>
>>an external digital mixer, and the sound being recorded in ADAT's or
>>whatever external storage plus A/D is used nowadays, combined with
>>hardware effects (lets say you spend 30K on effects).
>>
>>So which is better in terms of sound quality.
>>
>>I know that both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages but
>>lets just focus on the sound quality. Personally I prefer to work with
>>PC-Based studio but that's another discussion. Thanks.
>
>
> The "pro" approach? OK, here I go again...
>
> 1) First, you need to have talent, good song, singers and musicans that have
> the ability to perform the song, quality instraments and someone who knows how
> to record this song.
>
> 2) Second, you need the proper built room for the voice and or instrument your
> recording and critical listening for tracking, mixing etc.
>
> 3) Theird, you need to use the correct microphone in the best placment for what
> your recording.
>
> After you have all these requirements met you can start picking out your gear
> but remember, a low cost (cheap) piece of equipment will always be just what
> you pay for. As far as computer or analog, that's all up to what you prefer.
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"sohala" > wrote in message


> Just wanted to the advice of Pro's here on: Can a PC-Based studio be
> as good as a studio with external mixer and effect.

Sure, why not?

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Just wanted to the advice of Pro's here on: Can a PC-Based stduio be as
> good as a studio with external mixer and effect.

Sure, in equally skilled hands.

> Lets assume you have all the latest and best software and software
> effects plus a pro-quality sound card for your computer based studio.
> Can you produce the same quality with that setup than you you could with:
>
> an external digital mixer, and the sound being recorded in ADAT's or
> whatever external storage plus A/D is used nowadays, combined with
> hardware effects (lets say you spend 30K on effects).

Sure. But it would take me a lot longer. Someone who knew how to use
that mouse stuff could probably do it a lot faster.

> So which is better in terms of sound quality.

Yes.


--
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

[Ethan Winer]

Sohala,

> Can a PC-Based stduio be as good as a studio with external mixer and
effect. <

Of course it can be as good. Digital outboard stuff is also based on a
computer and A/D/A converters and software - it's just missing the monitor
and mouse.

--Ethan

[philicorda]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:17:52 -0700, sohala wrote:


> Lets assume you have all that. Then which has better sound quality
> PC-Based or external Digital (not analog).

There is no difference in fidelity, other than your choice of convertors.
Higher sample rates and bit depths are easier and cheaper on a PC.

As far as quality goes, hardware often beats plugins for reverb, and
analog eq and compression has an edge over plugins IMHO, but you need to
spend some serious $.

Other than that, ergonomics start to become more important than absolute
fidelity.

[Arny Krueger]

"sohala" > wrote in message


>> 1) First, you need to have talent, good song, singers and musicans that
have
>> the ability to perform the song, quality instraments and someone who
knows how
>> to record this song.

>> 2) Second, you need the proper built room for the voice and or
instrument your
>> recording and critical listening for tracking, mixing etc.

>> 3) Theird, you need to use the correct microphone in the best placment
for what
>> your recording.

> Let's assume you have all that. Then which has better sound quality
> PC-Based or external Digital (not analog).

Either.

[sohala]

Thanks for the replies. I realize in theory A PC-based studio is
equivalent to external hardware based studio except for the effects and
the A/D conversion. But wanted to to know in practise can a computer
actually handle all the mixing, effects processing and still do it
properly. It looks like from the responses it can.

So in terms of effects, how poor are the software effects compared to
hardware effects. Lets say you could get any software effect that is out
there, can it match the hardware effects or come close (lets say the
Waves package, or you buy those external DSP cards for $500 dollars or so).



Arny Krueger wrote:
> "sohala" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>>1) First, you need to have talent, good song, singers and musicans that
>
> have
>
>>>the ability to perform the song, quality instraments and someone who
>
> knows how
>
>>>to record this song.
>
>
>>>2) Second, you need the proper built room for the voice and or
>
> instrument your
>
>>>recording and critical listening for tracking, mixing etc.
>
>
>>>3) Theird, you need to use the correct microphone in the best placment
>
> for what
>
>>>your recording.
>
>
>>Let's assume you have all that. Then which has better sound quality
>>PC-Based or external Digital (not analog).
>
>
> Either.
>
>
>
>

[Mondoslug1]

sohala wrote:

>Thanks for the replies. I realize in theory A PC-based studio is
>equivalent to external hardware based studio except for the effects and
>the A/D conversion. But wanted to to know in practise can a computer
>actually handle all the mixing, effects processing and still do it
>properly. It looks like from the responses it can.
>
>So in terms of effects, how poor are the software effects compared to
>hardware effects. Lets say you could get any software effect that is out
>there, can it match the hardware effects or come close (lets say the
>Waves package, or you buy those external DSP cards for $500 dollars or so).

This is sort of apples & different apples but there are a buttload of
commercial CD's being produced soley in the box with Pro Tools HD and the plugs
available for it.


>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "sohala" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>>1) First, you need to have talent, good song, singers and musicans that
>>
>> have
>>
>>>>the ability to perform the song, quality instraments and someone who
>>
>> knows how
>>
>>>>to record this song.
>>
>>
>>>>2) Second, you need the proper built room for the voice and or
>>
>> instrument your
>>
>>>>recording and critical listening for tracking, mixing etc.
>>
>>
>>>>3) Theird, you need to use the correct microphone in the best placment
>>
>> for what
>>
>>>>your recording.
>>
>>
>>>Let's assume you have all that. Then which has better sound quality
>>>PC-Based or external Digital (not analog).
>>
>>
>> Either.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Me at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

playonplayon wrote:


>On 17 Jul 2004 18:21:10 GMT, (Mondoslug1)
>wrote:
>
>>sohala wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the replies. I realize in theory A PC-based studio is
>>>equivalent to external hardware based studio except for the effects and
>>>the A/D conversion. But wanted to to know in practise can a computer
>>>actually handle all the mixing, effects processing and still do it
>>>properly. It looks like from the responses it can.
>>>
>>>So in terms of effects, how poor are the software effects compared to
>>>hardware effects. Lets say you could get any software effect that is out
>>>there, can it match the hardware effects or come close (lets say the
>>>Waves package, or you buy those external DSP cards for $500 dollars or so).
>>
>>This is sort of apples & different apples but there are a buttload of
>>commercial CD's being produced soley in the box with Pro Tools HD and the
>plugs
>>available for it.
>
>I think a lot of those CDs are still mixed outside the box, though
>aren't they? A lot of people track with PT but still mix thru a real
>console.

I would guess that the majority of them are mixed OTB for sure but still
there's a bunch with lesser budgets being done inside.

[EganMedia]

>I know that both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages but
>lets just focus on the sound quality.

I'd take a Sony Oxford console, a RADAR/Nyquist machine, and a TC M6000 and
Lexicon 9600 over any "inside the box" system I've worked on. I'd take a PT HD
( with the Sony Oxford and Waves Diamond bundle plugs) over a Mackie D8B and
and a bunch of DA 88s. There are high end and there are low end sytems in each
of these categories. Finding the one that is easist to work on is as important
to the final sound as anything else. A soundcard with great audio specs and
high latency is useless for tracking, but might be great for mixing. A console
with a button for every function" might be faster for mixing, but a total waste
of money and space for overdubbing.



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[EggHd]

<< I think a lot of those CDs are still mixed outside the box, though
aren't they? A lot of people track with PT but still mix thru a real
console. >>

It's hard to qualify. If you are trying to compare someone mixing in a pro
room then you need to add another category



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Thanks for the replies. I realize in theory A PC-based studio is
> equivalent to external hardware based studio except for the effects and
> the A/D conversion.

"Equivalent" is a pretty strong word. It's true that there are no
software equivalents to all hardware processors, and vice versa. But
there are compressors, equalizers, reverbs, delays, gates,
defragubobbulators in both software and hardware. But if you gotta
have a specific piece of hardware or you can't mix, then you can't mix
in software. Many have learned to do without specific pieces of
hardware or simply use the hardware and interface it. No big deal.

> But wanted to to know in practise can a computer
> actually handle all the mixing, effects processing and still do it
> properly. It looks like from the responses it can.

It depends on what "all the mixing . . . " encompases. I have a
console that provides 40 inputs for mixdown. I can't handle a 56-input
mix with it.

> So in terms of effects, how poor are the software effects compared to
> hardware effects.

It varies. There are also many effects that are only available in
software, and vice versa.

What, exactly, is your concern? Do you have a specific goal in mind,
or would you like to know if it's possible to mix, say, 128 channels
from external sources with 100 processors and do it all on one
computer?



--
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

[Geoff Wood]

philicorda wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:17:52 -0700, sohala wrote:
>
>
>> Lets assume you have all that. Then which has better sound quality
>> PC-Based or external Digital (not analog).
>
> There is no difference in fidelity, other than your choice of
> convertors. Higher sample rates and bit depths are easier and cheaper
> on a PC.
>
> As far as quality goes, hardware often beats plugins for reverb, and
> analog eq and compression has an edge over plugins IMHO, but you need
> to spend some serious $.
>
> Other than that, ergonomics start to become more important than
> absolute fidelity.

But a hardeware digital device is little more than a stand-alone plugin in a
dedicated box.

The bottom line beomes the conversion hardware in the DAW system, and the
DAW application itself, but only is a factor if one of these is flawed.

Mind you, there are plugins and plugins, and all are not equal in quality.

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

sohala wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. I realize in theory A PC-based studio is
> equivalent to external hardware based studio except for the effects
> and the A/D conversion. But wanted to to know in practise can a
> computer actually handle all the mixing, effects processing and still
> do it properly. It looks like from the responses it can.

A hardware DAW is not run by levers and gears - it invariably is itself a
computer.

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

playon wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 06:25:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "sohala" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Just wanted to the advice of Pro's here on: Can a PC-Based studio be
>>> as good as a studio with external mixer and effect.
>>
>> Sure, why not?
>
> Things seem to sound a lot better when mixed on a real hardware mixer.
> Using Samplitude, which is one of the best sounding audio apps for PC,
> taking 8 channels out to even a Mackie board sounds better to me than
> summing to stereo inside the computer.

Then you are doing something fundamentally wrong 'internally'.

I cynically think that the main reason ewxternal devices are used is that
the studio have them, have invested large amounts in them, the engineers
were largely trained/experienced on them, and they need them to help cement
their continued existance. I feel the more important aspect of a 'real
studio' should no longer be 'how big/expensive is my desk' , but 'my great
recording environment'.

I have a DAW with an analogue hardware mixer (but no outboard effects of
esoteric scale) and have no desire or necessity so far to do anything
externally. My mixer is basically a 24 chan mic preamp, headphone monitor,
and routing system.


geoff

[Mike Rivers]

In article > playonATcomcast.net writes:

> I think a lot of those CDs are still mixed outside the box, though
> aren't they? A lot of people track with PT but still mix thru a real
> console.

Not as many as there were a few years ago. Some engineers like the
sound of a particular console, some like the control, and some the
flexibility of the outboard gear that their favorite studios or rental
houses have to offer. But mostly these days it's just a preference.

Budgets are smaller today, too. If there's not money to go to the
$3500/day studio to mix, the engineer decides that he can do a good
job on his ProTools system at home.

--
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

[philicorda]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:06:12 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote:

> philicorda wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:17:52 -0700, sohala wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Lets assume you have all that. Then which has better sound quality
>>> PC-Based or external Digital (not analog).
>>
>> There is no difference in fidelity, other than your choice of
>> convertors. Higher sample rates and bit depths are easier and cheaper
>> on a PC.
>>
>> As far as quality goes, hardware often beats plugins for reverb, and
>> analog eq and compression has an edge over plugins IMHO, but you need
>> to spend some serious $.
>>
>> Other than that, ergonomics start to become more important than
>> absolute fidelity.
>
> But a hardeware digital device is little more than a stand-alone plugin in a
> dedicated box.

There are some great reverb plugins out there. Dedicated DSP chips
can still have the edge on general purpose chips for specific tasks
though. I also have the vague feeling they act as a hardware 'dongle' for
a company's precious algorithms.

Not such a big deal with things like Altiverb around, I guess. Has anyone
done a shootout of Lexicons TDM plugins vs the hardware?

>
> The bottom line beomes the conversion hardware in the DAW system, and
> the DAW application itself, but only is a factor if one of these is
> flawed.
>
> Mind you, there are plugins and plugins, and all are not equal in
> quality.
>
> geoff

[Arny Krueger]

"sohala" > wrote in message


> Thanks for the replies. I realize in theory A PC-based studio is
> equivalent to external hardware based studio except for the effects
> and the A/D conversion. But wanted to to know in practice can a
> computer actually handle all the mixing, effects processing and still
> do it properly. It looks like from the responses it can.

> So in terms of effects, how poor are the software effects compared to
> hardware effects.

They can be the same. As others have pointed out, a lot of hardware boxes
are implemented with DSPs which are just specialized computers. Other
dedicated boxes are in fact specially built computers. They might even have
most or all a more-or-less traditional PC or Mac under the covers. An XBox
is just a stripped-back specialized PC with a few twists. It runs a
specialized OS that is closely related to XP. Some integrated audio hardware
is just a stripped-back PC running a proprietary OS or even Linux. So are
some DAWs.

Secondarily, there is very little processing that exists in the analog
domain that can't be very closely matched in the digital domain.

> Lets say you could get any software effect that is
> out there, can it match the hardware effects or come close (lets say
> the Waves package

Let's put it this way. A effect composed of a 6 dB peak with a Q of 1 at 1
KHz is going to sound the same no matter how you implement it, as long as it
is cleanly implemented. Software, hardware, inboard, outboard, it all
matters not. IME it is a fact that at this time, many simple effects like
this has been cleanly implemented a variety of ways. They all can be
expected to sound practically the same.

OTOH, a complex or distinctive effects may only be implemented one way. At
this point its hard to predict a priori whether the distinctive effect you
want has been implemented any particular way. You have to take it the way it
comes, or leave it.

I suppose that *not all* implementations of the simple effect I mentioned
two paragraphs back are all free of all distinctive audible imperfections.
If you think that one of these distinctive imperfections is a critical
success factor, then the implementation that provides this unique
imperfection is going to be the only one that you like.

However, nobody can predict a priori which implementation of the effect has
the imperfection that you like, if you've never heard it before. You may
like none of the implementations with distinctive imperfections. Or not.

What can be predicted is that implementations that have been around longer
are going to have more people that like them. This really has nothing to do
with anything but history.

The nature of implementations is that they tend to migrate towards being
practically defect-free. Therefore in the end, the implementation that most
people like the most is the one that is the most free of defects. But at
points along the way, especially early points, more people may prefer a
implementation with defects, for historical reasons.

> or you buy those external DSP cards for $500 dollars or so).

The practical view of DSP cards has changed quite a bit as PC processors
migrated from say 200 MHz to 3.6 GHz. A given algorithm can give practically
and audibly the same results, whether implemented using a DSP or a Pentium
or other processor.

[Arny Krueger]

"playon" <playonATcomcast.net> wrote in message

> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 06:25:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "sohala" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Just wanted to the advice of Pro's here on: Can a PC-Based studio be
>>> as good as a studio with external mixer and effect.
>>
>> Sure, why not?

> Things seem to sound a lot better when mixed on a real hardware mixer.

Says who and why?

> Using Samplitude, which is one of the best sounding audio apps for PC,
> taking 8 channels out to even a Mackie board sounds better to me than
> summing to stereo inside the computer.

That would be your preference.

I mix extensively on a PC and a Mackie board. I bounce back and forth at
least once a week. I don't find that the Mackie board can even remotely hold
a candle to the PC for mixing and/or editing recordings. But, I use
different software - Audition.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Let's put it this way. A effect composed of a 6 dB peak with a Q of 1 at 1
> KHz is going to sound the same no matter how you implement it, as long as it
> is cleanly implemented. Software, hardware, inboard, outboard, it all
> matters not. IME it is a fact that at this time, many simple effects like
> this has been cleanly implemented a variety of ways. They all can be
> expected to sound practically the same.

It's the "practically the same" that will get you. There's been an
ongoing discussion over on the Pro-Audio list about minimum phase vs.
constant phase equalizers, FIR vs. IIR filter implementations, and
attempts to describe how they sound different given the same basic
frequency, amplitude and bandwidth parameters. But I'll be the first
to admit that I'm not doing anything critical enough to matter to me.

One of the most compelling arguments by proponents of real hardware,
and particularly "vintage" hardware is the presence of a simple
transformer. It does something which they consider euphoric in some
circumstances, even when the works are bypassed. For some reason
nobody's ever successfully created a transformer plug-in (or maybe
they've never bothered to do so).

--
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]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1090153775k@trad
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> Let's put it this way. A effect composed of a 6 dB peak with a Q of
>> 1 at 1 KHz is going to sound the same no matter how you implement
>> it, as long as it is cleanly implemented. Software, hardware,
>> inboard, outboard, it all matters not. IME it is a fact that at
>> this time, many simple effects like this has been cleanly
>> implemented a variety of ways. They all can be expected to sound
>> practically the same.

> It's the "practically the same" that will get you. There's been an
> ongoing discussion over on the Pro-Audio list about minimum phase vs.
> constant phase equalizers, FIR vs. IIR filter implementations, and
> attempts to describe how they sound different given the same basic
> frequency, amplitude and bandwidth parameters. But I'll be the first
> to admit that I'm not doing anything critical enough to matter to me.

I guess the the 21st century, I should have added the qualifier that I was
speaking of minimum-phase equalizers. Add that caveat and the both the phase
and amplutude domain performance has been nailed down for sure.

Digital equlizers can be minimum phase or not. Analog equalizers are almost
always minimum phase.

> One of the most compelling arguments by proponents of real hardware,
> and particularly "vintage" hardware is the presence of a simple
> transformer. It does something which they consider euphoric in some
> circumstances, even when the works are bypassed. For some reason
> nobody's ever successfully created a transformer plug-in (or maybe
> they've never bothered to do so).

A transformer like that violates the stated qualifier of "cleanly
implemented".

[Raymond]

>"sohala" > wrote in message

>
>> Just wanted to the advice of Pro's here on: Can a PC-Based studio be
>> as good as a studio with external mixer and effect.

Most DAW's will still require an external mixer for mic preamps, headphone
sends and anything else you may need a mixer in a studio for. I have a mixer
but use it for mic pres and headphone sends, I could (but probably never will)
set it all up like a live stage mix and use my mixers EQ's and aux's and do a
two or four track mix to the software. It would sound good (as I have a good
mixer), but then I can't go back and edit and remix and so on. I can set the
DAW up (in the software) how I want and the power of the CPU will say how many
tracks and plugs I can use.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Some "vintage" hardware has defects, some people for some reason like
> these defects and use vintage hardware just because they have tubes,
> transformers, magnetic tapes etc.

Real vintage hardware doesn't have defects because they weren't
intentially designed to mangle audio. Modern imitations often
have defects, because they are, and do.

> Maybe someday people will ask for MP3
> compression defect too.

That DEFINITELY has defects.


--
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 > writes:

> Most DAW's will still require an external mixer for mic preamps, headphone
> sends and anything else you may need a mixer in a studio for.

That was last year. This year there's a bunch of new gadgets on the
market to replace a mixer for people who aren't using it for mixing.
They range in price from about $100 up to $everalK$. And there are
interfaces like the TASCAM US-122 that have mic preamps, headphone
amplifier, volume contols for speaker monitoring, and input+playback
mixing built in.


--
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

[Raymond]

Mike wrote
That was last year. This year there's a bunch of new gadgets on the
market to replace a mixer for people who aren't using it for mixing.
They range in price from about $100 up to $everalK$. And there are
interfaces like the TASCAM US-122 that have mic preamps, headphone
amplifier, volume contols for speaker monitoring, and input+playback
mixing built in.



Yes, there are the combo type units (they've been around for a few years now)
but they are limited to only a few input's, that's hardly sufficient for doing
a full band.

[TonyP]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1090181710k@trad...
> In article > writes:
> > Some "vintage" hardware has defects, some people for some reason like
> > these defects and use vintage hardware just because they have tubes,
> > transformers, magnetic tapes etc.
>
> Real vintage hardware doesn't have defects because they weren't
> intentially designed to mangle audio. Modern imitations often
> have defects, because they are, and do.

Just because they weren't intentionally designed to have defects is
irrelevant.
Due to the limitations of the technology, materials, designer, and budget,
ALL vintage hardware had MORE defects than the best available hardware
today.
The fact that some crap is also made today is also irrelevant.

TonyP.

[Paul Stamler]

Talking about transformers...I remember what happened when I tried recording
drum overheads a pair of Gefell M930s through nothing but a pair of 1:1
transformers and a phantom supply, straight into ProTools. The M930s on
these drums, recorded through a Sytek preamp, sounded incredibly realistic,
clean, clean, all sorts of good things. Through the transformers, the sound
reverted to that thickened 1960s drum sound. We attribute it to the
cumulative effect of console, tape deck, tape, with transformers coupling
everything. Well, this setup got that sound, and it was the transformers
that made the sound happen. I know that because there was nothing else
there. Provoked some thought on my part, for sure.

All of which is irrelevant to the OP's question. The answer to it is that
you can make great recordings on either a PC-based studio or an
all-external-hardware studio. The WAY you make those recordings, though,
will be quite different, and you may find one system works for you a lot
better than the other.

Peace,
Paul

[ScotFraser]

<< Yes, there are the combo type units (they've been around for a few years
now)
but they are limited to only a few input's, that's hardly sufficient for doing
a full band. >>

That's what your rack of boutique mic preamps is for.


Scott Fraser

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:58:27 +1000, "TonyP" >
wrote:

>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>news:znr1090181710k@trad...
>> Real vintage hardware doesn't have defects because they weren't
>> intentially designed to mangle audio. Modern imitations often
>> have defects, because they are, and do.
>
>Just because they weren't intentionally designed to have defects is
>irrelevant.
>Due to the limitations of the technology, materials, designer, and budget,
>ALL vintage hardware had MORE defects than the best available hardware
>today.

An alternative description might be that designers have always been
energetic, that technology and materials have improved and that
budgets have decreased.

The resulting balance is almost always a good thing. But balance
is always a compromise. Modern electronics compromises linearity,
dynamic range and monotonicity for cost, consistency, power
consumption and manufacture-ability.

The inclusion of transformer coupling is classic: expensive to get
even remotely right, *but* providing truely floating connections.
Which is the limitation, to accept garbage injected into the ground
plane, or to spend lots of money on an otherwise terribly flawed
device?

There are two right answers.

Chris Hornbeck

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message


> The resulting balance is almost always a good thing. But balance
> is always a compromise. Modern electronics compromises linearity,
> dynamic range and monotonicity for cost, consistency, power
> consumption and manufacture-ability.

I don't see this at all. Modern electronics are incredibly more linear, have
greater dynamic range, and are more monotonic, either at a price or price
not so much an issue.

> The inclusion of transformer coupling is classic: expensive to get
> even remotely right, *but* providing truely floating connections.

More specificially, this is the linear transformer approach

Plan B: Optical digital.

Plan C: Digital mode transformers.

> Which is the limitation, to accept garbage injected into the ground
> plane, or to spend lots of money on an otherwise terribly flawed
> device?

We now have other options.

> There are two right answers.

There appear to be more than 2.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Yes, there are the combo type units (they've been around for a few years now)
> but they are limited to only a few input's, that's hardly sufficient for doing
> a full band.

Oh. For a full band, you need more.

--
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 > writes:

> but they are limited to only a few input's, that's hardly sufficient for doing
> a full band. >>
>
> That's what your rack of boutique mic preamps is for.

You also need a band that plays together in the same room and doesn't
need headphones to hear themselves, and does no overdubs. Otherwise
you also need a lot of patience (and outputs) to set up monitor mixes
"in the box." Or you can use a comsole.

--
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

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:03:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Plan B: Optical digital.
>
>Plan C: Digital mode transformers.
>
>We now have other options.

Are you talking about the microphones with built-in D/A? Are they
available yet? Probably out of my price range, but it would be
interesting to know.

Chris Hornbeck

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message


> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:03:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> Plan B: Optical digital.

>> Plan C: Digital mode transformers.

>> We now have other options.

> Are you talking about the microphones with built-in D/A?

That's one possibility.

Plan D for getting lots of isolation is to have remote audio interfaces, and
isolate the digital domain connection between the interface and the host.

I presume that AudioRail does this implicitly because of its 100BTX physical
connection, which is transformer isolated in the digital domain. I think
that interface is rated for 1500 volts, with the voltage limits being fairly
reasonable to extend.

There are seem to be a number of commercial optical extenders for Firewire
and USB.

> Are they available yet?

Yes, for Plan D.

> Probably out of my price range, but it would be interesting to know.

AudioRail is relatively inexpensive. 64 channels for $500, and remote
interfaces at about $25 per channel in blocks of 8. The host is a standard
ADAT interface for which computer cards and consoles are readily available.

Some of the Firewire and USB optical extenders I found were in the low
$100s. Interface boxes are more like $100 per channel. The host computer
interfaces are now almost a give-away - $25 or less.