Hi there, I could use some advice on Firewire audio interfaces...

I am looking at some devices to record a band and I can't decide:

There's the Digi 002:

This is nice in the rack or DAW mixer format, but it only has 4 mic
preamps and its pricey. But it comes with ProTools LE - how does this
compare to Logic or Nuendo?

The Motu 896:

This looks like a nice piece of kit, with 8 mic preamps and 192 khz
sampling rate. Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling? I mean I'm not recording orchestras or anything
fancy...

The Tascam FW-1884:

This looks great too, its much cheaper than the Digi 002, has 8 mic
preamps. Is it fully-featured?


Any advice will be helpful, thanks in advance,

Ricky,

Ricky M wrote:

Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling? I mean I'm not recording orchestras or anything
fancy...

http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en

search for rec.audio.pro posts from Dan Lavry. People can try to tell
you what you can or cannot hear, but they're not you. On the other hand,
Mr. Lavry makes some of the world's best convertors, and he has some
thoughts about that very issue.

--
ha

Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling?

This will also depend on the quality of your source.



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

This will also depend on the quality of your source.
mainly...

In article ,
(hank alrich) wrote:

Ricky M wrote:

Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling? I mean I'm not recording orchestras or anything
fancy...

http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en

search for rec.audio.pro posts from Dan Lavry. People can try to tell
you what you can or cannot hear, but they're not you. On the other hand,
Mr. Lavry makes some of the world's best convertors, and he has some
thoughts about that very issue.

--
ha

and if the performance sucks, it really doesn't matter anyway, does
it....

dave stewart told me in a session we did a long time ago that "Sweet
Dreams" was mixed to a Revox 1/4" that hadn't been aligned in who knows
when. Annie still sounds pretty good on it and the song is very well
written and performed. do you think 24/192 would have made a damn bit
of difference?

jm
(blah blah blah credits, experience, blah blah blah... )

another viewer wrote:

In article ,
(hank alrich) wrote:

Ricky M wrote:

Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling? I mean I'm not recording orchestras or anything
fancy...

http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en

search for rec.audio.pro posts from Dan Lavry. People can try to tell
you what you can or cannot hear, but they're not you. On the other hand,
Mr. Lavry makes some of the world's best convertors, and he has some
thoughts about that very issue.

--
ha

and if the performance sucks, it really doesn't matter anyway, does
it....

Yeah, but if Lavry's right, it could suck even more at 192, and not
because the conversion is better in any terms except marketing. g

dave stewart told me in a session we did a long time ago that "Sweet
Dreams" was mixed to a Revox 1/4" that hadn't been aligned in who knows
when. Annie still sounds pretty good on it and the song is very well
written and performed. do you think 24/192 would have made a damn bit
of difference?

Naaaah, what's that deck, maybe nine bits and thirty-five KHz on a good
day?

jm
(blah blah blah credits, experience, blah blah blah... )

Don't hold back; pat yerself on the back.

--
ha
"dave stewart never told _me_ nothin'"

Ricky M wrote:

The Motu 896:

This looks like a nice piece of kit, with 8 mic preamps and 192 kHz
sampling rate.

8 mic preamps is good for a stand-alone interface, IOW something not used
with a console. Are they any good as mic preamps, that is the question.

Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling? I mean I'm not recording orchestras or anything
fancy...

Even if you were recording an orchestra or something fancy...

192 KHz sampling rate cards are easiest to justify as test equipment.

EggHd wrote:
Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling?

This will also depend on the quality of your source.

IME, it will depend mostly on the fact that we're still looking for the
first human being who can hear the effects of a good brick wall filter at 16
KHz.

Franz wrote:
This will also depend on the quality of your source.
mainly...

Hardly at all. No source material known to man can abridge the laws of
physics and psychoacoustics.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
EggHd wrote:
Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling?

This will also depend on the quality of your source.

IME, it will depend mostly on the fact that we're still looking for the
first human being who can hear the effects of a good brick wall filter at
16
KHz.

Not much of a challenge if you are young enough to hear above 16khz.... if
you had picked 20KHZ your argument might be valid.

Rgds:
Eric

Arny Krueger wrote:

Franz wrote:

This will also depend on the quality of your source.
mainly...

Hardly at all. No source material known to man can abridge the laws of
physics and psychoacoustics.

While no amount of that technical stuff matters at all in relation to
the quality of musical material or talent in front of the mics. When the
song sucks and so does the peformance, the best gear in the world will
not alter those apsects of reality. But a great song and a wonderful
performance will convey through marginal gear. And that is the point
being made by those who suggest to the OP that the diference between 96
KHz and 192 KHz sampling rates are less signficant than the quality of
that which enters the mics.

--
ha

Info on the 896HD....

Mic pre is a BB INA163
a/d AK5385 d/a AK4382
output BB DRV134PA
DSP TMS320VC5402
Switching power supply inside attached to lid...

Designed by S&S research Norwood MA USA

Build quality appears very good..
real xlr's on in and out...
mostly surface mount except pots and switches....
Case is Die Cast Aluminum.... very nice....
Level pots could be improved.... hard to set level to balance between
channels....
Microphone pre's could use more gain for Classical work...
Analog outs can click loudly during turn on.... I use the digital out so
have not investigated further...

For data sheets on the AK5385...
http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...a/ak5385a.html


Have been very happy with the sound of my 896HD, may look into increasing
the mic pre gain....

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/ina163.pdf


Don't know if it's still the case but the MOTU website was recommending TI
or Lucent firewire interface chips.... I use the TI.

I have not seen the need for 192khz.... as I have no pet bats to entertain.


Rgds:
Eric

(Ricky M)
Hi there, I could use some advice on Firewire audio interfaces...

I am looking at some devices to record a band and I can't decide:

There's the Digi 002:

This is nice in the rack or DAW mixer format, but it only has 4 mic
preamps and its pricey. But it comes with ProTools LE - how does this
compare to Logic or Nuendo?

The Motu 896:

This looks like a nice piece of kit, with 8 mic preamps and 192 khz
sampling rate. Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling? I mean I'm not recording orchestras or anything
fancy...

The Tascam FW-1884:

This looks great too, its much cheaper than the Digi 002, has 8 mic
preamps. Is it fully-featured?


Any advice will be helpful, thanks in advance,

If you want to use Protools there's no need of discussion
just buy the 002. If you want to use something else for software of the 3 I'd
buy the Motu 896, because there are too many complaints about the Tascam
FW-1884 (like Benjamin Mass's experience with the puppy detailed here on the
IF-FW/DM firewire card thread.) And salesguys in the stores tell me they don't
work right and keep getting returned.

I am happy with the Metric Halo Mobile I/O 2882 because the converters
_are_ a cut above everything you have mentioned here (and the 8 micpres sound
ok on loud sources IMO, Hank disagrees I think.) But I do use external micpres
with it most of the time, since I have accumulated quite a few of those.
Apparently the ADAT digital in has had some weirdness like channels showing up
in the wrong place, but for my purposes I like it. If I am doing more than 8
tracks at a time I tend to prefer using a 24 track digital recorder anyway ( I
have a Mackie SDR 2496) and then transfer the files later to computer.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Hardly at all. No source material known to man can abridge the laws of
physics and psychoacoustics.

I wasn't going into this area of the argument.



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

WillStG wrote:

I am happy with the Metric Halo Mobile I/O 2882 because the converters
_are_ a cut above everything you have mentioned here (and the 8 micpres sound
ok on loud sources IMO, Hank disagrees I think.)

No, Will, I concur; with sources of sufficient level and mics of
sufficient sensitivity the 2882 pres sound very nice. You already know
the rest of the story: anytime you'd need to open those pres to use
their so-called gain g, as you approach max you're going to hear lots
of hiss. And even then, they don't offer much gain. I've taken Kurt A's
mod'd C460's to a music teacher's house to record some quickies for her
choir students to practice with and used the 2882+DSP pres. The tracks
sound very nice, but even with those mics I need to ask more of the pres
than I fully appreciate.

I get beat up regularly on the MIO list for saying this, even thogh MH
agress, and that's why there is now the ULN version of the MIO. The
standard comeback is "Just use such and such a mic and the pres sound
fine". That's ass backwards in my book. Yeah, the mic-to-pre thing can
be important, but to me the differences between various mics vastly
exceeds the differences between a Great River and a Millennia, either of
which work wonderfully well with a wide array of mics of all kinds.

Day to day I still don't believe I got such good convertors for so
little money, and nevermind all the other nifty things of the MIO, like
the Console app.

I am a happy camper even if my tent isn't perfect.

--
ha

Greetings Will:

What does your Metric Halo use for converters....??
http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...383/ak5383.htm ??


Regards:
Eric


"WillStG" wrote in message
...
(Ricky M)
I am happy with the Metric Halo Mobile I/O 2882 because the
converters
_are_ a cut above everything you have mentioned here (and the 8 micpres
sound
ok on loud sources IMO, Hank disagrees I think.) But I do use external
micpres
with it most of the time, since I have accumulated quite a few of those.
Apparently the ADAT digital in has had some weirdness like channels
showing up
in the wrong place, but for my purposes I like it. If I am doing more
than 8
tracks at a time I tend to prefer using a 24 track digital recorder anyway
( I
have a Mackie SDR 2496) and then transfer the files later to computer.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Eric K. Weber wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
EggHd wrote:
Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling?

This will also depend on the quality of your source.

IME, it will depend mostly on the fact that we're still looking for
the first human being who can hear the effects of a good brick wall
filter at 16 KHz.

Not much of a challenge if you are young enough to hear above
16khz.... if you had picked 20KHZ your argument might be valid.

Yes it is! I guess you'll be surprised.

Try hearing the difference a 16 KHz brick wall filter makes in a DBT
comparing files from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm .

Hearing the elimination of all sound 16 KHz is not the same as hearing
pure tones 16 KHz.

In article ,
says...
Try hearing the difference a 16 KHz brick wall filter makes in a DBT
comparing files from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm .

Actually, you don't have a 16KHz up there, only a 15KHz and an 18KHz. I
can get the 15KHz nearly every time, for a confidence of 99%. The
18KHz, on the other hand, I'm hopeless at, even sighted.

One question, which may be dumb: I know that one of the proposed
theories for why 96KHz might-possibly-be-better-than 48KHz is that the
imperfect filters affect frequencies near the cutoff frequency. Is the
18KHz filter in the sample close enough to the 22.05KHz filter in my
converter that my converter's filter could be masking anything I might
otherwise hear? Have you ever tried listening to an 18KHz-cutoff test
sampled at (or upsampled to) 88.2 instead of 44.1, and would that even
demonstrate anything?

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

Jay Levitt wrote:
In article ,
says...
Try hearing the difference a 16 KHz brick wall filter makes in a DBT
comparing files from

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm .

Actually, you don't have a 16KHz up there, only a 15KHz and an 18KHz.

Obviously, its been too long since I've looked at my own site! Oh, I was
thinking of this other page I'm going to point you at...

;-)

I can get the 15KHz nearly every time, for a confidence of 99%. The
18KHz, on the other hand, I'm hopeless at, even sighted.

How about that?

;-)

One question, which may be dumb: I know that one of the proposed
theories for why 96KHz might-possibly-be-better-than 48KHz is that the
imperfect filters affect frequencies near the cutoff frequency.

I've heard this story.

The orthodox story is that that the human ear has one critical band above
about 12 KHz (depending on age and size of individual as ears scale
geometrically). This critical band tends to be "captured" by the loudest
sounds in it. It also tends to be captured by sounds at the lowest
frequencies in it.

So, if there are stronger sounds at the low end of this highest band, those
sounds tend to capture band and mask sounds at higher frequencies.

The nature of natural sounds at high frequencies is that they tend to be
broadbanded and composed of sounds at many different frequencies.
Furthermore, there's a very strong tendency for the spectrum to be rolling
off. There are some exceptions to this, and I specifically picked one such
sound (keys jangling) to include in my test files. Most people find that
promoting the exception doesn't help their cause a great deal.

Is the 18KHz filter in the sample close enough to the 22.05KHz filter in
my converter that my converter's filter could be masking anything I
might otherwise hear?

Maybe. I don't know too much about your converters. However, modern
converters tend to be pretty good. They tend to have flat response to fairly
close to the Nyquist frequency, and they also tend to have good group delay
characteristics. Here's an example of that:
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/L....htm#FR_2496-a . No matter
what the name of the tag, these are results for 44.1 KHz.

Have you ever tried listening to an
18KHz-cutoff test sampled at (or upsampled to) 88.2 instead of 44.1,
and would that even demonstrate anything?

Sure, check out http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

BTW, I went the high road, making the original recordings at 96 KHz. You
will need 96 KHz converters to benefit from much of this page.

Arny,

Just to let you know...I found your tests to be very thorough and save for a
few extreme cymbal heavy Elvin Jones type of drum bashing I was unable to
distinguish 128kbps MP3 from 128kbps WMA9. I'll also include this was the
first time I have encoded something in MP3 for a few years and I used Sony's
Sound Forge 7 for the encoding. I'm thinking that older encoders may not
have faired as well.

Charles Tomaras


PS. Your hotpop email address bounces with the message "closed due to
inactivity."


Sure, check out http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

BTW, I went the high road, making the original recordings at 96 KHz. You
will need 96 KHz converters to benefit from much of this page.

"Eric K. Weber" wrote
Greetings Will:

What does your Metric Halo use for converters....??
http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...383/ak5383.htm ??

I don't know specifically Eric, but they are I think the best in their class.
(I have no idea what the deal is with the asahi link...)

The Asahi link is to the AKK chip data which I suspect they use, for 96K
24bit converters in your unit.
http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...383/ak5383.htm

I suspect these Crystal/Cirrus units would be considered best in class....
if you are referring to 24/96 rather than by price.
http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/detail/P77.html

Note: the AKK units are built under licensee from Crystal/Cirrus.....

I find it interesting that most equipment reviews don't include information
on what converters are actually used...

The performance difference is probably undetectable on real world signals
due to room / microphone noise....

Regards:
Eric

"Will Miho" wrote in message
om...
"Eric K. Weber" wrote
Greetings Will:

What does your Metric Halo use for converters....??
http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...383/ak5383.htm ??

I don't know specifically Eric, but they are I think the best in
their class.
(I have no idea what the deal is with the asahi link...)

"WillStG" wrote in message Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Will

I notice your New York Base , I look for a store in the city that could help
me ( not knowing much) with Sounds cards and converters and all that. Is
B&K better then same Samash or should I go to Gotham sound or Professional
Sound Services or???

Thank You
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn
www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com

In article ,
Eric K. Weber wrote:
I find it interesting that most equipment reviews don't include information
on what converters are actually used...

While it's an interesting piece of information for geeks like me, it's
not as useful as you'd think, and it's often somewhat misleading.

The big problem is that gear that uses the same chips will not sound
the same, so by printing what chip is inside, the temptation will be
to say that since device X and device Y both use the 5396 chip (or
whatever), they must be similar and that if one is more expensive than
another, it must be a ripoff or that there's no value to buying the
higher priced model.

The quality of the clock used, the quality and design of the analog
front (or back) ends, the layout of the PC board, the quality of the
power supplies and regulators and how well the chips are bypassed can
greatly influence the sound of a converter _design_, independent of
which chip is used. Some of these refinements cost more money, some
do not, but they all can influence the sound quality of a finished
converter circuit.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

I dislike that Firewire doesn't have any sort of locking mechanism to keep
the cables in place. I've lost takes on my laptop because the cable came
out. NOt a huge deal if you're paying attention, but on my laptop, it's
pretty easy to pull the cable out. I;d go PCI or PCMCIA

"Dan [ www.sleepwalkermusic.net ]"
I dislike that Firewire doesn't have any sort of locking mechanism to keep
the cables in place. I've lost takes on my laptop because the cable came
out. NOt a huge deal if you're paying attention, but on my laptop, it's
pretty easy to pull the cable out. I;d go PCI or PCMCIA

I'd rather lose a take with a firewire cable coming out than rip out the
connctors to a PCMCIA card or worse, have my whole laptop end up on the floor
because I "wasn't paying attention"...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Dan wrote:

I dislike that Firewire doesn't have any sort of locking mechanism to keep
the cables in place. I've lost takes on my laptop because the cable came
out. NOt a huge deal if you're paying attention, but on my laptop, it's
pretty easy to pull the cable out. I;d go PCI or PCMCIA

Yes, the FW hookup is a point of potential insecurity. Makes me nervous.

Cheap, though. g

--
ha

WillStG wrote:

I'd rather lose a take with a firewire cable coming out than rip out the
connctors to a PCMCIA card or worse, have my whole laptop end up on the floor
because I "wasn't paying attention"...

So pay attention already. g

(Besides, I thought you were all done with trippin'.)

--
ha

ospam (WillStG) wrote in message ...
(Ricky M)
Hi there, I could use some advice on Firewire audio interfaces...

I am looking at some devices to record a band and I can't decide:

There's the Digi 002:

This is nice in the rack or DAW mixer format, but it only has 4 mic
preamps and its pricey. But it comes with ProTools LE - how does this
compare to Logic or Nuendo?

The Motu 896:

This looks like a nice piece of kit, with 8 mic preamps and 192 khz
sampling rate. Will I be able to hear the difference between 96 and
192 kHz sampling? I mean I'm not recording orchestras or anything
fancy...

The Tascam FW-1884:

This looks great too, its much cheaper than the Digi 002, has 8 mic
preamps. Is it fully-featured?


Any advice will be helpful, thanks in advance,

If you want to use Protools there's no need of discussion
just buy the 002. If you want to use something else for software of the 3 I'd
buy the Motu 896, because there are too many complaints about the Tascam
FW-1884 (like Benjamin Mass's experience with the puppy detailed here on the
IF-FW/DM firewire card thread.) And salesguys in the stores tell me they don't
work right and keep getting returned.

I am happy with the Metric Halo Mobile I/O 2882 because the converters
_are_ a cut above everything you have mentioned here (and the 8 micpres sound
ok on loud sources IMO, Hank disagrees I think.) But I do use external micpres
with it most of the time, since I have accumulated quite a few of those.
Apparently the ADAT digital in has had some weirdness like channels showing up
in the wrong place, but for my purposes I like it. If I am doing more than 8
tracks at a time I tend to prefer using a 24 track digital recorder anyway ( I
have a Mackie SDR 2496) and then transfer the files later to computer.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits


Can you help? I've just done the first recording on my Mackie SDR 2496
and want to continue to build up the tracks on my computer running
Cubase SX - when I transfer using the mass storage mode I get all the
tracks justified to the left in Cubase and not in sync - what have I
done wrong. I am recording at 44.1 - 24 bit
GeoffH

(Geoff H)
Can you help? I've just done the first recording on my Mackie SDR 2496
and want to continue to build up the tracks on my computer running
Cubase SX - when I transfer using the mass storage mode I get all the
tracks justified to the left in Cubase and not in sync - what have I
done wrong. I am recording at 44.1 - 24 bit

Well I use Nuendo, but a stereo track in Cubase is for *2* Audio files,
yes? Try importing into a setup template with 24 _mono_ tracks. And Broadcast
Wave files are a great format because they are timestamped, so if you use "Snap
To Origin" mode in Cubase all your SDR 24/96 files should automatically move to
their original location.

("Mass Storage Mode"? Ouch. USB is way too slow a way to transfer files,
this could be helpful... )

http://www.firedock.com/


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

(Geoff H)
when I transfer using the mass storage mode I get all the
tracks justified to the left in Cubase and not in sync - what have I
done wrong.

It just occured to me that when I import files into Nuendo they create new
tracks, so if you are doing that in Cubase and you get stereo, not mono tracks,
that might be an issue with how you have your audio interface set up. Set it
up for individual mono tracks, not stereo pairs.

As for things not being properly located, is the "SNAP" feature off? And
make sure your timecode settings in Cubase match the settings you have setup in
the SDR, and make sure Cubase is set up to write and record "Broadcast Wave"
files. Then if you drop files into Cubase they should just show up at the
right location, unless you mess with that in "Options".


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

(Ricky M) wrote in message . com...
Hi there, I could use some advice on Firewire audio interfaces...

There's the Digi 002:

yuk

The Motu 896:

yuk

The Tascam FW-1884:

yuk


Be sure to check out a Metric Halo 2882. I've got one of those and a
Metric ULN and they sound really really good which is kinda an
important thing.

-bh