[Fredbob Jackson]

My normal live recording setup centers around my Alesis HD24 recorder,
but I'm looking to save some back pain on smaller gigs and use a
laptop instead. The lite setup would be 16 channels of pre's and a
MOTU 828mk3. I have a Macbook Pro, about a year old (Snow Leopard).

I'm still fairly new to Mac, and I'm wondering if Audacity will record
16 channels from firewire? Is there a better choice for recording
software?

Whatever software I end up recording with, I don't plan on editing
with it. I need to get the tracks home and dump them into Audition,
on an XP machine. I've never used anything but .wav files - are these
formats interchangeable enough for this route to work? Firewire to
Mac machine to Windows machine? Is Audacity now looking like a poor
choice?

Thanks in advance.

F

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Fredbob Jackson wrote:
My normal live recording setup centers around my Alesis HD24 recorder,
but I'm looking to save some back pain on smaller gigs and use a
laptop instead. The lite setup would be 16 channels of pre's and a
MOTU 828mk3. I have a Macbook Pro, about a year old (Snow Leopard).

I'm still fairly new to Mac, and I'm wondering if Audacity will record
16 channels from firewire? Is there a better choice for recording
software?

Whatever software I end up recording with, I don't plan on editing
with it. I need to get the tracks home and dump them into Audition,
on an XP machine. I've never used anything but .wav files - are these
formats interchangeable enough for this route to work? Firewire to
Mac machine to Windows machine? Is Audacity now looking like a poor
choice?

Thanks in advance.

F

Doze machines do not naturally support HFS/HFS+ file systems. Not
even unnaturally in an easy way.

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Sorry, no clue about Audition @ 16 tracks.

I would consider one of these first:
http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/index.html
Obviously not cheap kit there, but it's lighter
than an HD24 and eliminates the need to transfer
stuff.

That, of course, depends on how much pain the transfers would cost you
versus how much pain the JoeCo box would cost you.

--
Les Cargill

[Phil W]

"Fredbob Jackson":

My normal live recording setup centers around my Alesis HD24 recorder,
but I'm looking to save some back pain on smaller gigs and use a
laptop instead. The lite setup would be 16 channels of pre's and a
MOTU 828mk3. I have a Macbook Pro, about a year old (Snow Leopard).

I'm still fairly new to Mac, and I'm wondering if Audacity will record
16 channels from firewire? Is there a better choice for recording
software?

Well, I´m mainly a Windows user, but often use a friend´s Macbook Pro and
MOTU 828 mk2 for recording. These are just some general thoughts.

Anyway, your Macbook probably has GarageBand (part of the iLife package)
pre-installed. It´s a pretty "light" multi-track sequencer program, with
certain limitations. But for basic tasks like recording 16 audio tracks, it
should be just fine. Though, I do *not* know, if there is a limit for the
number of simultaneous recording.

Whatever software I end up recording with, I don't plan on editing
with it. I need to get the tracks home and dump them into Audition,
on an XP machine. I've never used anything but .wav files - are these
formats interchangeable enough for this route to work?

Mac OSX can handle .WAV files just as well as .AIFF files. On the other
hand, Windows can also handle both formats, so this should not be a concern.

Firewire to Mac machine to Windows machine?

IF both machines have FW ports and you have a cable that fits on both ends,
that´s one possibility. But if you have network router, it´s easier to
copy/move the files via LAN (hint: cable is faster than WLAN). Just enable a
shared folder (allow remote to read and write in this folder - ONLY this
one!)on each machine, put them in the same "workgroup". Then, you can
copy/move the recorded files on the Macbook to the WinXP machine´s shared
folder.
Third option: just burn a data cd or dvd on the Macbook and copy the cd/dvd
to WinXP.

Is Audacity now looking like a poor choice?

Well, if you happen to like Audacity... ;-) I´d suppose, it should be able
to do what you want, but I´ve never really used Audacity on any platform.

Just try it and see, if it works for you. If both programs do, choose the
one you get along with more comfortably. ;-)


Phil

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/30/2010 4:45 PM, Fredbob Jackson wrote:
My normal live recording setup centers around my Alesis HD24 recorder,
but I'm looking to save some back pain on smaller gigs and use a
laptop instead. The lite setup would be 16 channels of pre's and a
MOTU 828mk3.

Is that really less to carry than an HD24? Given that
preamps tend to come in 2-channel or 8 channel boxes, and
you'd need one preamp (or two, if you don't have 8 channels
of analog preamp) with its own A/D converters and ADAT
output. That's four boxes plus cabling, I sure think an HD24
is easier to carry and set up.

I'm still fairly new to Mac, and I'm wondering if Audacity will record
16 channels from firewire?

Sure.

Is there a better choice for recording software?

There are many choices, but it hardly makes any difference
for recording.

Whatever software I end up recording with, I don't plan on editing
with it. I need to get the tracks home and dump them into Audition,
on an XP machine. I've never used anything but .wav files - are these
formats interchangeable enough for this route to work?

Most any program today writes broadcast wave files. It
should be no problem using them with Audition.



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

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/30/2010 4:45 PM, Fredbob Jackson wrote:

I'm still fairly new to Mac, and I'm wondering if Audacity will record
16 channels from firewire? Is there a better choice for recording
software?

Hold the phone! I saw "Audition" later on in your message
and had that on my mind. Audacity can mix 16 tracks but it
can only record one or two tracks (a mono or stereo file) at
a time.

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

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Fredbob Jackson]

On Dec 30, 7:18*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/30/2010 4:45 PM, Fredbob Jackson wrote:

My normal live recording setup centers around my Alesis HD24 recorder,
but I'm looking to save some back pain on smaller gigs and use a
laptop instead. *The lite setup would be 16 channels of pre's and a
MOTU 828mk3.

Is that really less to carry than an HD24? Given that
preamps tend to come in 2-channel or 8 channel boxes, and
you'd need one preamp (or two, if you don't have 8 channels
of analog preamp) with its own A/D converters and ADAT
output. That's four boxes plus cabling, I sure think an HD24
is easier to carry and set up.


I'm thinking two racks - one with 16 channels of pre's (an OctoPre and
a Precision 8)
plus the MOTU box. If I can make the laptop work, that will get me
thru any gig up
to 16 channels. For 24-channel gigs, I need to bring the second rack,
which has
another OctoPre and the HD24. I usually have to plan on splitting all
the snake lines
and not getting any line-level stuff from FOH, so I need all those
pre's.

[Scott Dorsey]

Fredbob Jackson wrote:
I'm thinking two racks - one with 16 channels of pre's (an OctoPre and
a Precision 8)
plus the MOTU box. If I can make the laptop work, that will get me
thru any gig up
to 16 channels. For 24-channel gigs, I need to bring the second rack,
which has
another OctoPre and the HD24. I usually have to plan on splitting all
the snake lines
and not getting any line-level stuff from FOH, so I need all those
pre's.

Right, I think Mike's argument is that if you're carrying all those preamps
around anyway, the hard disk recorder is a relatively small amount of
space.

My experience has been that unless you're willing to sit down very
carefully with the PA guy, 8 channels won't give you very much in a
typical reinforced environment. Pick two for ambients, that leaves you
six stage feeds. You can do a lot with six feeds, but then again I have
had guitar players with more that six feeds for guitar alone too.

The 8-channel kit is a great idea for acoustic music or very small setups,
but it's not really that much more convenient than a larger kit.

The laptop will work if you have an appropriate interface, and if you
are willing to trust a laptop without any backup recording media.

There are small hard disk recorders with 8 channels out there and with
integral preamps; they aren't cheap but you don't have to lug a big rack
around.

Oh, and don't forget a monitor mixer to go with the hard disk recorder.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Fredbob Jackson wrote:

My normal live recording setup centers around my Alesis HD24 recorder,
but I'm looking to save some back pain on smaller gigs and use a
laptop instead. The lite setup would be 16 channels of pre's and a
MOTU 828mk3. I have a Macbook Pro, about a year old (Snow Leopard).

4 channels is light, 8 medium and go a loong way with classical, I have yet
to use more. With something multimiked and pa'ed the sky is the limit ....
the closer you go with the mics the more mics you need and anything DI'd
should in my vision of the world also have a mic on it.

I'm still fairly new to Mac, and I'm wondering if Audacity will record
16 channels from firewire? Is there a better choice for recording
software?

Here is why you need a dedicated harddisk recorder: it is less tempting and
less worry than a laptop and wont easily sell at a good price (10 percent of
over the counter probably) in a nearby shady bar, as the Good Book says:
lead them not into temptation. Yes, the audience social control will
generally look after your rig, but there is the risk of a "grabber" just
running off with something, just as there is on a railway station and it is
foolish not to take steps to reduce that risk by not having too good "grabs"
around. A laptop, especially a mactop, may in my opinion be unwisely
tempting to have in a recording rig placed in the audience area.

Whatever software I end up recording with, I don't plan on editing
with it. I need to get the tracks home and dump them into Audition,
on an XP machine.

So you have the HD24 as big shopping trolly and want a smaller. That would
then be a pair of Edirol 4-tracks. Or take a look at the mythical joeco, it
may have entered the world of reality. I use a Fostex MR8HD as "small kit",
and get amazing results when using the pre's of an old small Mackie, if I
need more than 4 channels I bring the HD24 for the flexibility. You'll need
a monitor mixer anyway, so get one that has preamps that are good enough for
general use, doing that saves more rig volume than bringing the HD24 uses.

F

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Fredbob Jackson writes:
Is that really less to carry than an HD24? Given that
preamps tend to come in 2-channel or 8 channel boxes, and
you'd need one preamp (or two, if you don't have 8 channels
of analog preamp) with its own A/D converters and ADAT
output. That's four boxes plus cabling, I sure think an HD24
is easier to carry and set up.

I'm thinking two racks - one with 16 channels of pre's (an OctoPre
and a Precision 8)
plus the MOTU box. If I can make the laptop work, that will get me
thru any gig up
to 16 channels. For 24-channel gigs, I need to bring the second
rack, which has
another OctoPre and the HD24. I usually have to plan on splitting
all the snake lines
and not getting any line-level stuff from FOH, so I need all those
pre's.

Right, and then there's monitoring your tracks if you plan
to do that on site.

I'd think with those two racks room for the hd-24 wouldn't
be that hard to come by. THere's the added advantage of it
being the devil you know.
IT's a one trick pony, so you won't have the glitches you
might find endeavoring to use general purpose computers.

Were it me I'd make room in my traveling rack(s) for the
hd-24 even on the smaller gigs.
I'm still studying my options for truckless on site, but I
want some sort of monitoring capability too.

IF I"ve got to run the split it's because there is sound
reinforcement and if there's sound reinforcement I'd rather
have my remote truck and be totally isolated, but if not
I'll bring the splitter too and hope for a back room
isolated well from the action.

I'm thinking about bailing on the hd-24 format for the
JOecoe black box recorder, if I can ever lay hands on one to check it out first. tHe only thing I don't like about the
hd-24 is that darned file conversion step after the gig is
over. But, I'd still prefer it to a general purpose
computer, especially when under the gun recording live.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fredbob Jackson" wrote in
message


My normal live recording setup centers around my Alesis
HD24 recorder, but I'm looking to save some back pain on
smaller gigs and use a laptop instead. The lite setup
would be 16 channels of pre's and a MOTU 828mk3. I have
a Macbook Pro, about a year old (Snow Leopard).

If the gigs are really that much smaller, you might want to look at products
like the Zoom R16/R24. The R24 will handle 8 mics with phantom power
concurrently. Recorded media is SDHC cards which are getting to be pretty
darn reasonable to buy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"Fredbob Jackson" wrote in
message


My normal live recording setup centers around my Alesis
HD24 recorder, but I'm looking to save some back pain on
smaller gigs and use a laptop instead. The lite setup
would be 16 channels of pre's and a MOTU 828mk3. I have
a Macbook Pro, about a year old (Snow Leopard).

If the gigs are really that much smaller, you might want
to look at products like the Zoom R16/R24. The R24 will
handle 8 mics with phantom power concurrently. Recorded
media is SDHC cards which are getting to be pretty darn
reasonable to buy.

Looking at the user guide, it appears that 2 R24s can be synched to handle
16 concurrent channels. Zoom R24s are about $500 each. MOTU 828s are $750
each, and require additional potentially fragile and expensive equipment
(such as a computer) to be useful.

Only you know the track count statistics for the gigs that you record. IME
flash-based purpose-built audio hardware is generally very robust. No hard
drives! No large LCD displays! No keyboard!

Another point. If someone runs off with your R24 your cash exposure is far
less than for the laptop, and you don't have any data but your last gig at
risk.

If 8 or 16 tracks gigs are frequent, an all-in-one or all-in-2 solution
involving self-contained equipment like the R24 could be an attractive
alternative.

I do a fair amount of location recording but have only needed 2 tracks so
far. My Microtrack has been a tremendous convenience.

I look at products like the R24 as being an 8-track Microtrack with a power
cord. It is really nice just hooking up the mics and one power cord, setting
levels and pushing the button. Having the recordings on industry standard
flash drives, which are inexpensive and convenient to use move around and
archive, and which can be loaded onto any personal computer with a USB port
and a $15 flash reader, can be very sweet.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-12-30 (ScottDorsey) said:
Right, I think Mike's argument is that if you're carrying all those
preamps around anyway, the hard disk recorder is a relatively small
amount of space.
I think you're right on the money there. The only thing the
laptop might buy you is the battery backup in case of power
failure. Especially with the hd-24 I'd plan on a ups.

snip

The 8-channel kit is a great idea for acoustic music or very small
setups, but it's not really that much more convenient than a larger
kit.
THis dovetails with my thoughts as well. IF there's sound
reinforcement involved I'm going to want more than 8
channels, I"m going to want to split every signal coming to
foh, and have some additional. Then there's monitoring as I
mentioend earlier. I note both Scott and I have mentioned
monitoring which you hadn't discussed. At least a line
level mixer to mix the outputs of the recorder to hear what
you're getting. My preference is either my remote truck
with its well tuned control room, or an isolated space away
from the sound reinforcement.
I've yet to find what I"m really wanting for that for the
grab and go sans truck rig. What I"d like is 24 hannels of
mixer, 3-4 rack spaces, I'd be satisfied with pan and level
controls for each channel. YEah I know, the controls would
be pretty tightly packed, so I"ll probably compromise my
wish list and go with something I've already seen out there,
but what I haven't decided on yet. Solo would be pretty
handy too.

The laptop will work if you have an appropriate interface, and if
you are willing to trust a laptop without any backup recording
media.
There are small hard disk recorders with 8 channels out there and
with integral preamps; they aren't cheap but you don't have to lug
a big rack around.

THis is true, but I note a lot of guys using the hd-24 in
tandem with a laptop, belt and suspenders.

As I said from my post from the bs earlier, I'd stick with
the devil I knew in your situation Fred, and think about
monitoring. IF you're isolated from the performance a small
power amp and a set of nearfield monitors and you're all
set.

Even for my remote sans truck rig I"d carry the handtruck
along, the rack or racks would go on the handtruck easily
enough.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:
I've yet to find what I"m really wanting for that for the
grab and go sans truck rig. What I"d like is 24 hannels of
mixer, 3-4 rack spaces, I'd be satisfied with pan and level
controls for each channel. YEah I know, the controls would
be pretty tightly packed, so I"ll probably compromise my
wish list and go with something I've already seen out there,
but what I haven't decided on yet. Solo would be pretty
handy too.

ARX makes something very close to what you want... eight channels into
two in a 1U space. I have one in my eight-track portable kit and it is
just fine. No solo, though.

Crest makes a modular mixer system that will give you eight channels in a
1U space, and they can be more easily ganged together. However, they
require an outboard power supply that is 1U so you are spending 4U instead
of 3U for your mixer. Add a 1U Hafler amp and you are good to go. It has
a solo, I think, and might be right up your alley.
--scott


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

[Fredbob Jackson]

Can the MOTU 828mk3 be used to monitor the HD24? The HD24
has ADAT outs as well as analog, so 8 analog and 16 ADAT out
of the Alesis into the MOTU. The ADAT outs may not be active
unless the ADAT inputs are in use. I've never used the ADAT
outs on mine.

I wouldn't in a million years call that MOTU 828 a mixer, but if
you only need something that's roughly balanced, and to be
able to check individual lines for hum and other PFL-ish tasks,
it could get you there. And a single slot.

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 30/12/2010 23:15, in article ,
"Les Cargill" wrote:

(...)

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Running a SAMBA server on a Mac? Why would one want to do that? All one
needs to do is on your Mac go into System Preferences/Sharing/File
Sharing/Options and tick the box that says "Share files and folders using
SMB (Windows).

Then put both the Windows box and the Mac on the same LAN or WLAN (cable is
faster than WiFi of course), and copy the files from one machine to the
other.

Done.

--
only a dead .sig is a good .sig

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 30/12/2010 23:15, in article ,
"Les wrote:

(...)

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Running a SAMBA server on a Mac? Why would one want to do that? All one
needs to do is on your Mac go into System Preferences/Sharing/File
Sharing/Options and tick the box that says "Share files and folders using
SMB (Windows).


That's what I meant by running a SAMBA server/service/client/whatever.
Perhaps the word "server" is off; not completely sure.

I don't remember if I did this through the GUI or shell; that shouldn't
matter.

Then put both the Windows box and the Mac on the same LAN or WLAN (cable is
faster than WiFi of course), and copy the files from one machine to the
other.

Done.


Ah, if it had only been that simple I started a thread a few months
back where this process had produced truncated or missing files. When I
rebooted a different machine against a Knoppix boot disk and
transferred the files that way, there was no loss.

Yes, I was surprised, too.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 30/12/2010 23:15, in article ,
"Les Cargill" wrote:

(...)

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Running a SAMBA server on a Mac? Why would one want to do that? All one
needs to do is on your Mac go into System Preferences/Sharing/File
Sharing/Options and tick the box that says "Share files and folders using
SMB (Windows).

That is, in fact, actually running a SAMBA server, it's just that you have
a fancy GUI on top to keep you from seeing what is actually going on.

Then put both the Windows box and the Mac on the same LAN or WLAN (cable is
faster than WiFi of course), and copy the files from one machine to the
other.

Done.

SMB on the mac is pretty solid and reliable. It's not as solid and reliable
as NFS on the PC, but setting it up, as you have pointed out, is very easy to
do.

It is MUCH more reliable than directly reading and writing ntfs volumes on
the Mac, which is an unfortunate side effect of Microsoft not releasing
details on ntfs internals causing all of the third-party ntfs drivers to be
based on reverse-engineering. The reverse-engineering gets better every
day but it's still not good enough that I'd stake a job on it.
--scott

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

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 31/12/2010 19:21, in article , "Scott
Dorsey" wrote:

Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 30/12/2010 23:15, in article ,
"Les Cargill" wrote:

(...)

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Running a SAMBA server on a Mac? Why would one want to do that? All one
needs to do is on your Mac go into System Preferences/Sharing/File
Sharing/Options and tick the box that says "Share files and folders using
SMB (Windows).

That is, in fact, actually running a SAMBA server, it's just that you have
a fancy GUI on top to keep you from seeing what is actually going on.

It is indeed, I thought he meant running a 3rd party SMB server in addition
to the built-in one.



--
only a dead .sig is a good .sig

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:

wrote:
I've yet to find what I'm really wanting for that for the
grab and go sans truck rig. What I'd like is 24 hannels of
mixer, 3-4 rack spaces, I'd be satisfied with pan and level
controls for each channel. YEah I know, the controls would
be pretty tightly packed, so I'll probably compromise my
wish list and go with something I've already seen out there,
but what I haven't decided on yet. Solo would be pretty
handy too.

ARX makes something very close to what you want... eight channels
into two in a 1U space. I have one in my eight-track portable kit
and it is just fine. No solo, though.
I've heard of that, never seen one. THe local dealer here
keeps telling me about the ROlls thing, but I don't want
some crappy mic amps, I'm not wanting to deal with all that, and the footprint is too large for too few channels iirc.
THe Arx might be an idea, I can always gang them together
easily enough.


Crest makes a modular mixer system that will give you eight channels
in a 1U space, and they can be more easily ganged together.
However, they require an outboard power supply that is 1U so you are
spending 4U instead of 3U for your mixer. Add a 1U Hafler amp and
you are good to go. It has a solo, I think, and might be right up
your alley.
I may ask about that, especially if all can be powered from
one psu. Really would like the solo so I can solo up a
channel I'm concerned about. tHis application would be
mostly lower track counts high sample rate, expandable in
the future. YEs the hd-24 is part of this but you can
guess the rest of that story. Higher sr lower track counts. I may ask my local dealer if he can get them.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Sean Conolly]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 30/12/2010 23:15, in article ,
"Les Cargill" wrote:

(...)

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Running a SAMBA server on a Mac? Why would one want to do that? All one
needs to do is on your Mac go into System Preferences/Sharing/File
Sharing/Options and tick the box that says "Share files and folders using
SMB (Windows).

That is, in fact, actually running a SAMBA server, it's just that you have
a fancy GUI on top to keep you from seeing what is actually going on.

Then put both the Windows box and the Mac on the same LAN or WLAN (cable
is
faster than WiFi of course), and copy the files from one machine to the
other.

Done.

SMB on the mac is pretty solid and reliable. It's not as solid and
reliable
as NFS on the PC, but setting it up, as you have pointed out, is very easy
to
do.

It is MUCH more reliable than directly reading and writing ntfs volumes on
the Mac, which is an unfortunate side effect of Microsoft not releasing
details on ntfs internals causing all of the third-party ntfs drivers to
be
based on reverse-engineering. The reverse-engineering gets better every
day but it's still not good enough that I'd stake a job on it.
--scott

If you're going over a network you can always use scp to do the job. Either
something like WinSCP, or do what I do and install the cygwin ssh daemon.
Over a Gbit hub you can get 70 MBytes / sec.

Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Webb wrote:
I've heard of that, never seen one. THe local dealer here
keeps telling me about the ROlls thing, but I don't want
some crappy mic amps, I'm not wanting to deal with all that, and the footprint is too large for too few channels iirc.
THe Arx might be an idea, I can always gang them together
easily enough.

I think it's down to the ARX Mix-8, the Speck X-Sum, and the modular
Crest thing which I think is now the X-Matrx in its latest incarnation.

I had forgotten about the Speck... that thing does 16 channels in a 1U
space. It's awfully cluttered, though. Also the most expensive of the set.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly wrote:

If you're going over a network you can always use scp to do the job. Either
something like WinSCP, or do what I do and install the cygwin ssh daemon.
Over a Gbit hub you can get 70 MBytes / sec.

Yes...way less overhead than samba. You actually have to copy from place
to place, you don't get the handiness of remote access, but it's certainly
faster and it's about as reliable as it is possible to be.
--scott

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

[Risto Sainio]

Sean Conolly wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 30/12/2010 23:15, in article ,
"Les Cargill" wrote:

(...)

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Running a SAMBA server on a Mac? Why would one want to do that? All one
needs to do is on your Mac go into System Preferences/Sharing/File
Sharing/Options and tick the box that says "Share files and folders using
SMB (Windows).

That is, in fact, actually running a SAMBA server, it's just that you
have a fancy GUI on top to keep you from seeing what is actually going
on.

Then put both the Windows box and the Mac on the same LAN or WLAN (cable
is
faster than WiFi of course), and copy the files from one machine to the
other.

Done.

SMB on the mac is pretty solid and reliable. It's not as solid and
reliable
as NFS on the PC, but setting it up, as you have pointed out, is very
easy to
do.

It is MUCH more reliable than directly reading and writing ntfs volumes
on the Mac, which is an unfortunate side effect of Microsoft not
releasing details on ntfs internals causing all of the third-party ntfs
drivers to be
based on reverse-engineering. The reverse-engineering gets better every
day but it's still not good enough that I'd stake a job on it.
--scott

If you're going over a network you can always use scp to do the job.
Either something like WinSCP, or do what I do and install the cygwin ssh
daemon. Over a Gbit hub you can get 70 MBytes / sec.

Sean
In a local network I would use FTP as it does not (de)encrypt the data and
one might be able to achieve even higher throughput over the network. A
Gbit should give some 90-100 MBytes/sec.

Risto

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

[location monitoring]

I think it's down to the ARX Mix-8

They seem to have stopped making it.

--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

On 2011-01-01 (ScottDorsey) said:
I've heard of that, never seen one. THe local dealer here
keeps telling me about the ROlls thing, but I don't want
some crappy mic amps, I'm not wanting to deal with all that, and
the footprint is too large for too few channels iirc.
THe Arx might be an idea, I can always gang them together
easily enough.
I think it's down to the ARX Mix-8, the Speck X-Sum, and the modular
Crest thing which I think is now the X-Matrx in its latest
incarnation.
I had forgotten about the Speck... that thing does 16 channels in a
1U space. It's awfully cluttered, though. Also the most expensive
of the set. --scott
YEp, PEter indicates the Arx is no longer in production but
may ask about it anyway at my local dealer, if not we'll
start calling around. WOuld like to do something next few
months for this though.
NEwly retained second engineer has the usual Mackie which we
can always carry along for that, but again, too large for
what I want to do with it, and the other factors.

tHe SPec sounds like a possibility as well, crowded, yes,
but, it's not like I"m trying to mix the show on it. THat's
where solo for each channel helps, especially if a crowded
panel, solo up the source I think might have an issue,
otherwise, ... well, you know the drill grin.

Local dealer keeps doing the "you don't have to use the mic
amps ... " bit, but hey wow, don't need eq, don't need aux
sends, don't care about all that other stuff. Level and pan
is what's necessary, and a solo would be nice.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Sean Conolly]

"Risto Sainio" wrote in message
...
Sean Conolly wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 30/12/2010 23:15, in article ,
"Les Cargill" wrote:

(...)

Even running a SAMBA server on a Mac is no guarantee of success. Once
that happens, the files will be interchangeable. It does take a while,
though. And I've had it fail.

Running a SAMBA server on a Mac? Why would one want to do that? All one
needs to do is on your Mac go into System Preferences/Sharing/File
Sharing/Options and tick the box that says "Share files and folders
using
SMB (Windows).

That is, in fact, actually running a SAMBA server, it's just that you
have a fancy GUI on top to keep you from seeing what is actually going
on.

Then put both the Windows box and the Mac on the same LAN or WLAN (cable
is
faster than WiFi of course), and copy the files from one machine to the
other.

Done.

SMB on the mac is pretty solid and reliable. It's not as solid and
reliable
as NFS on the PC, but setting it up, as you have pointed out, is very
easy to
do.

It is MUCH more reliable than directly reading and writing ntfs volumes
on the Mac, which is an unfortunate side effect of Microsoft not
releasing details on ntfs internals causing all of the third-party ntfs
drivers to be
based on reverse-engineering. The reverse-engineering gets better every
day but it's still not good enough that I'd stake a job on it.
--scott

If you're going over a network you can always use scp to do the job.
Either something like WinSCP, or do what I do and install the cygwin ssh
daemon. Over a Gbit hub you can get 70 MBytes / sec.

Sean
In a local network I would use FTP as it does not (de)encrypt the data and
one might be able to achieve even higher throughput over the network. A
Gbit should give some 90-100 MBytes/sec.

Encryption is really not much overhead on modern CPU's, so I don't worry
about it. I use -c'blowfish' on older systems to reduce CPU load.

Not sure about Mac's but out of the box Windows and Linux only get around
40MB/s over GB, unless you tweak the TCP parameters a bit. 70 MB/s is easy
just from adjusting the TX buffer, but I'm sure there's more available.

Sean