PDA

View Full Version : Adv about rec gear and interfaces


Mogens V.
February 5th 07, 06:41 PM
This is a Bit of a longish post, hope it's ok.
I'm about setting up a home studio, and need to balance my investments.
Not having bought parts yet means I /may/ avoid shopping wrong parts :)

Most I know use Protools or they use Reason coupled with Cubase.
Here in .dk 80-85% of all installations are Protools.

I'm told at least the lower end of Protools interfaces aren't too good,
so I'm considering TC Konnect24D.
Like low-end Protools ifc's, it too has too few analog connects; however
the box can be cascaded for more later.

I also like the idea of having a TC powercore processor in the package,
but AFAIK the box isn't suppported with Protools.
Judging from
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/archive/index.php/t-1437808.html
it seems quite some folks have had problems with Konnect24.
This may be so or not, or some simply don't do it all right...

Shopping both a Protools package and the Konnect24 will give me the
Protools package with Reason Adapted, and Cubase LE.
I don't know if the Reason Adapted package can be coupled with Cubase
LE; if it can, I'd have all three pieces.


I'm also trying to plan ahead, and will need more interfaces later.
Unless TC at some point decides to make a Protools driver for Konnect24
(if that's the way it's done), I'll be unable to use that box with PT,
and of cause cascading more will be pointless.
I'll also have to work partially from one setup and visa versa.
Besides this scenario being somewhat impractical, I suspect using two
different interfaces might lead to diffs in the recording quality.

Reading threads like "16-input FireWire recording interface?" makes me
think along the lines of buying some Protools package having enough
digital ifc's, or be expandable for that, allowing for later adding a
separate AD/DA box using ADAT or S/PDIF connects.
The Konnect24 has a number of ADAT and S/PDIF, and is cascadeable;
another reason for considering it - if only it would work with PT.
I'll be using OSX, so stacking firewire interfaces is possible.

I could go for a RME solution; those are often available on ebay, and
will integrate with most all kinds of software.
Only, I nelieve a multicannel RME setup may be quite expensive.

I'll be needing a mixer at some point. While I'm not yet fully up on
products and prizes, I do speculate I may be in for a financial treat.

I know you guys will ask "How many channels are you planning for?"
I'm not sure. My studio plans are mainly for arranging and recording my
own music, but how can I know in advance what'll pop up...
I guess I'll want to be able to do a 16 channel mix.

I resently read a brief from a seminar with Fab Dupont from NY on the
subject Analog Summing Mixing.
This makes me think about possibly obtaining a less expensive used
analog mixer and apply this method.
This may have three implications:
.. Having more than enough AD channels for recording, when not mixing
.. Maybe save bucks on the mixer part
.. Possibly increasing costs on the interface side

Actually, that's one of my reasons for considering how to later add more
than just a couple AD/DA channels, as mentioned above.
I haven't yet done cost balance figures, though.

Regarding a used mixer, possibly needing some care, I'm educated in
electronics (doing I for many years now), which partly makes this
possible, partly makes me evaluate how much time I'll invest in getting
the stuff right vs actually getting to use it!

Regarding analog summing vs digital mixing, I guess that subject alone
may cause a long thread. Surely, I'll need to do some reading...
Dunno if we should have it here, on in another thread?

I dunno if this analog summing is a viable future, or someone (including
Fab Dupont) trying to look interesting doing something different, or
it's a modern version of old hypes.
I do realize there's a lot of hype an religion in this field.
Personally, I'm mostly into guitars, and have no religion, using both
SS, tubes and digital, in a combined rack/stompbox setup.


--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

gunnar
February 5th 07, 08:39 PM
Mogens,
it is not quite clear from your writing what you want to
achieve. Some ideas here:

- number if INPUT channels -- enough to record the number of sources
you need at one time. If it is only you playing guitar and singing,
two channels will be enough.
- number of OUTPUT channels -- two is enough for most people, left and
right speaker.

Mix -- mix in the box as a starter. Your software allows you to mix.
Might not be the most convenient or best sounding but it does work. No
need to have a complex, expensive, large analog mixing desc as a
starter.

Program. Well, there is probably more than 100 to choose from. Seems
like your friends uses ProTools, so why not go with the simplest MBox,
learn on that and go on later. Buy it used if possible, sell it used
later. Not a lot of money, but well invested in knowledge.

Basically, get a decent computer, an MBox and put your money into a
really good mic as a starting point. The rest may come later.

Gunnar

andrejs eigus
February 5th 07, 08:59 PM
hello,

> I also like the idea of having a TC powercore processor in the package,
> but AFAIK the box isn't suppported with Protools.
> Judging from
> http://acapella.harmony-central.com/archive/index.php/t-1437808.html
> it seems quite some folks have had problems with Konnect24.
> This may be so or not, or some simply don't do it all right...

i own konnekt 24D and i would just say its drivers are indeed too fresh,
however, the interface itself sounds great (feat. very good D/A and A/D
converters), and the problems i have personally encountered are not too
critical. however, i'd hope for the driver update soon with fixes for
current operational problems, better VST support and decreased latency.

it's a really good box though and i have tested it rather successfully with
ableton live 4.1 (ASIO) and various programs for playback, such as WinAmp.
haven't tested it with Protools, though. i do not think it is fully
supported by Protools at present moment, and equally i do not think Protools
is supported by current konnekt 24D drivers.

i think the driver/firmware update is coming out soon enough though.

andrejs

Preben Friis
February 5th 07, 09:31 PM
"Mogens V." > wrote in message
...

> I'm told at least the lower end of Protools interfaces aren't too good, so
> I'm considering TC Konnect24D.
> Like low-end Protools ifc's, it too has too few analog connects; however
> the box can be cascaded for more later.

1) There are nothing wrong with the low-end Digidesign interfaces IMHO.
2) Using Digidesign or M-Audio hardware is the only way that you will be
able to run Pro Tools. There are no such thing as a "Pro Tools driver" that
can be made by other companies.

> Reading threads like "16-input FireWire recording interface?" makes me
> think along the lines of buying some Protools package having enough
> digital ifc's, or be expandable for that, allowing for later adding a
> separate AD/DA box using ADAT or S/PDIF connects.

Digidesign makes the Digi002 (mixer or rack) which is an 18 input FireWire
interface, 8 analog I/O stock with 4 preamps, and it can be expanded by both
ADAT and S/PDIF interfaces.

> I know you guys will ask "How many channels are you planning for?"
> I'm not sure. My studio plans are mainly for arranging and recording my
> own music, but how can I know in advance what'll pop up...
> I guess I'll want to be able to do a 16 channel mix.

Even with an MBox2 Mini you can still do mixes with 32 channels of raw audio
excluding all the softsynths and efx that your CPU can handle - the
limitation is about how many channels you can record and playback
simultaniously. If you plan on doing live recordings of bands with real
drums, you will need 16 input though...

> I resently read a brief from a seminar with Fab Dupont from NY on the
> subject Analog Summing Mixing.
> This makes me think about possibly obtaining a less expensive used analog
> mixer and apply this method.

The people that mostly talks about mixing analogue from a DAW has mixers
that cost more than an average apartment and matching outboard equipment. I
don't think a cheap mixer will do better mixes as ITB (In the box) mixes.

You can always do ITB mixes, distort them a bit, add some hiss, roll of top
and bottom and tell everybody that you've mixed it analog. ;-)

> Regarding analog summing vs digital mixing, I guess that subject alone may
> cause a long thread. Surely, I'll need to do some reading...
> Dunno if we should have it here, on in another thread?

There are several weeks worth of reading on the net already.

> I dunno if this analog summing is a viable future, or someone (including
> Fab Dupont) trying to look interesting doing something different, or it's
> a modern version of old hypes.

Get your feet wet recording something, and you'll learn that there are
myriads of other topics you need to think about before you start thinking
about OTB mixing...

/Preben Friis