[[email protected]]

To anyone who may be able to help...

I never used ADAT 8 track when it was popular, what, 15 years ago? I
was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,
with the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality
recording that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

Any advice would be appreciated. I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder but they record at a compressed codec of
128 kbps and the units only have unbalanced RCA outs, so I'd have to
rerecord everything with another D/A to A/D conversion to get it to
CD. However, maybe that wouldn't be too bad conceptually (128 kbps is
about 10% of what linear PCM mode at 44.1 mHz/16 bit requires), with a
decent mastering. Anybody want to ridicule me for thinking it's
possible? :*) I record ambient drum and bass type music, and today's
multitrack options seem to interfere with the composition process.

thanks again. Lou

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

I was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

First, you need a working ADAT. Assuming you're that far alongm
basically, the process is to play the ADAT tape and record it into the
PC. There are many ADAT optical interfaces available for a PC, some
internal (PCI card) and some external (Firewire or USB2) and that's what
you need to make a digital connection between the two. There are dozens
of recording programs that you can use, many of which are free or quite
inexpensive. If all you want is files, any one will do. If you intend to
use the computer for mixing, then you might want to be fussier about
your choice of program because you'll be living with it for a long time
and you'll have a lot to learn.

Probably the least expensive solution for connecting the ADAT to the PC
is the Frontier Design Wavecenter PCI card, but it's obsolete (making it
a good match for your Pentium III) so you'll have to find one.

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,

Do you have an analog mixer? ADATs have analog outputs. You can connect
analog-to-analog and record the mix to your PC, or any other stereo
recording device that you choose to use. That's the simplest approach,
but most people have the gut feeling that once audio has been digitized,
it needs to stay digital or horrible things will happen like the dreaded
"loss of quality." This is simply not so, but it's hard to fight human
nature. You may be able to find a suitable mixer for less than you'll
have to pay for a PC hardware interface and software, and using it will
become obvious after just a few minutes.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

From the information I gather, it looks like ADAT would be more of a
hassle than it's worth. I don't have one currently. Since most of my
music is ambient/minimalist I have a lot of low level audio, I don't
like the idea of bad converters, and the equipment maintenance could
be another hitch. Still, it might be the *best* option within my
ascetically-natured parameters (story of my life). To answer another
question, no I wouldn't need to transfer the channels separately to
computer, so all I would need to do would be to mix down to something,
so I would probably just go into my Echo adapter's stereo mini in on
the laptop to some shareware program to burn to CD. Mike, thanks for
pointing out that going from digital back to analog isn't necessarily
a doomed signal path.

Basically I only need four tracks, maybe bounce ability, and some real-
time mixing ability along with some aux sends for effects routing.
Limiting/compressing signal processing would be a bonus. I'm trying
to avoid the computer, because I don't seem to agree with using it to
record with. It's counterintuitive to me and I know there are
external control modules with knobs and levers you can use to control
the recording software, but it doesn't work for me. I just need one
small device to record tracks to, and then be able to send a stereo
signal out for mixdown to CD.

Compared with a modern standalone HD based unit, that gives you nothing
useful extra. I've used a MD multi track and lack of digital or per-track
outputs was one of its biggest disadvantages for me.

I like the looks of the Sony MDM X4 multitrack minidisc recorder for
my needs. I looks like it has outputs per channel, bounce capability,
and it functions as a mixer which is something I need. No digital
out, just -10 db RCAs. That along with the 128 kbps Atrac 3.5
compression format sort of scares me, but everything else is perfect.
The type of recording I do is all live manipulation so I don't really
need to go in and edit afterwards. I just need to dub another stereo
track on top afterwards. The other option seems to be the new hard
disk recorder Tascam DP-02, but that lacks the inputs of the Sony MDM
X4. Maybe there are some older devices in-between these two that
would work similarly, but I haven't found anything yet, that
approaches the simple/elegant design of these units. For quality of
sound, the Tascam DP would win over the Sony since it records to 44.1
kHz/16 bit and the top-end model has a built-in CD burner.

Maybe I should start my own company for a new generation of four track
recorders for minimalists.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

Basically I only need four tracks, maybe bounce ability, and some real-
time mixing ability along with some aux sends for effects routing.
Limiting/compressing signal processing would be a bonus. I'm trying
to avoid the computer, because I don't seem to agree with using it to
record with. It's counterintuitive to me and I know there are
external control modules with knobs and levers you can use to control
the recording software, but it doesn't work for me. I just need one
small device to record tracks to, and then be able to send a stereo
signal out for mixdown to CD.

So, buy an Ampex 440B-4, and a Mackie 1202, and be done with it.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

So, buy an Ampex 440B-4, and a Mackie 1202, and be done with it.
--scott

I like the concept (and bluntness) but reel to reel would be new
territory. But I do love tape. Maybe I'll look into analog recording
to VCR tape.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
So, buy an Ampex 440B-4, and a Mackie 1202, and be done with it.

I like the concept (and bluntness) but reel to reel would be new
territory. But I do love tape. Maybe I'll look into analog recording
to VCR tape.

That's the worst of both worlds. You get nasty FM crap, head switching
artifacts, auto gain, and you can't edit it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 8, 1:57 pm, wrote:
From the information I gather, it looks like ADAT would be more of a
hassle than it's worth. I don't have one currently.

That makes a big difference. Somehow from your initial post I thought
you had ADAT recordings that you wanted to work with.

The other option seems to be the new hard
disk recorder Tascam DP-02

That would probably be a good approach for you. There are lots of
things in that family, most of which are 8-track, but that's OK.
Usually they're a limited 8-track, like you can only record four at a
time, or they only have four inputs, or something like that. So you're
not getting full 8-track capability in all of them, but you're not
paying for it either. TASCAM, Korg, Roland/Boss, Yamaha, and maybe a
couple of others all make integrated workstations like this. Go to a
music store and kick some tires. You really can't get a sense of how
sensible they are to operate by looking at specs on line.

[DeeAa[_3_]]

On 8 syys, 20:57, wrote:

Maybe I should start my own company for a new generation of four track
recorders for minimalists.

Maybe not a bad idea .-)

Look, I'm not trying to aggravate here or anything, but I don't get it
how can an external mixer with everything be more complicated than
using a DAW on a laptop or something?

With a recorder/mixer there's all kinds of hassles to worry about,
plus once you got them tracks on the machine, it's pure hell to try
and bounce and arrange stuff and fuhgeddaboud editing etc. I think it
seriously limits any creativity and the complex technology gets in the
way, and when you're done, you need to mix it (which you can't do
again once its set then) which also takes a lotta time AND is
difficult.

With a DAW on the other hand, all you need is load the multitracker,
plug in the mics and all you need to worry is not to overload inputs.
Just press record. No need to create new tracks, bounce, label, find,
sort, tweak with anything. Just hit record and go and there's nothing
to stop you playing for 3 hours at one go, no need to worry about
tracks and space and whatever...nothing gets in the way of creativity
at all. I often just use one single project for like 10 songs and just
play them in a row then, same mix works for all of them. Plus audio
quality will be pristine. The whole thing happens easily and without
hassle, just hit rec.

Then when you're thru, you actually _see_ the music you just made;
select bits you like and drag and drop with a mouse to even create
totally new songs and rhythms, do whatever you want. Save it for 10
years and then mix. Send to someone else to mix. Make 10 different
mixes and you can always go back and remix it still. And you don't
need to learn much anything about it, just drag and drop and
experiment with plugins and it'll get you very far even if you don't
know jack **** about computers or music mixing etc....there are
zillions of plugins that do stuff semi-automatically for you. Hell
these days you almost just have to ask the computer and it does all
but composes for you. Want a drummer? Just hit 'add midi instrument'
and select the drummer you like and have installed, drag and drop drum
loops to project with a mouse. Easier than finding which hole is for
the 1/4 input jack. I just can't see how is that more complicated than
even a 4-channel small mixer? I find using an outboard compressor
several times more difficult than using a simple DAW like Cubase. (and
although they are simple on the surface, I don't even know half of
what is possible if you delve deep in them).

And not even to start with MIDI. Just plugin an el cheapo keyboard to
the same DAW and lay down some MIDI tracks, again no limits to any
direction. Create songs and not worry about even what sounds to
use...play them in with harmonica and a year later change the sounds
to some nice orchestral synth and it's a whole different song.

All in all...I've been making home recordings and music for years and
years, learning as I go. I used to have outboard gear, mixers, stuff,
recorders...but when I really found the DAW recording, the whole
recording thing in itself has turned from time-hogging necessity to
something transparent that I don't need to worry about at all. Just
plugin and go, when the idea hits I can just turn on the DAW and hit
rec and I'll be making music in less than a minute. I've got dozens of
songs on my DAW waiting, and sometimes I just load one of them and
evolve the idea, apply a few new sounds and maybe drums or something,
and before I know it, I have a new song.

I just think nothing is as easy and liberating as Cubase and a
soundcard on my laptop.

Cheers,

Dee

p.s. if you go to http://deeaa.pp.fi you can find some of my home
recorded stuff...first up is my live band which I recorded at the
training facility and the second collection 'devil make up' I made
home with drum machines etc...and I still have both projects on my DAW
so if I want to, I can just remix them again, or send somewhere to be
remixed. Play the guitars again if I want...anything is possible. And
I could NEVER in a million years do that without the DAW system.

ps2. This is just my 2c of course. But I have helped a few friends,
hobby musicians, who hardly used a computer before put up a simple DAW
and every single one has been completely excited over it right off the
start and now are recording new music like crazy, and good
stuff...stuff they would never have even attempted with the hassle of
recorders and mixers and whatnot.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sep 9, 12:15 am, DeeAa wrote:

Look, I'm not trying to aggravate here or anything, but I don't get it
how can an external mixer with everything be more complicated than
using a DAW on a laptop or something?

This is one of those "There are two kinds of people in the world"
things. People who can relate to hardware logically can put one and
one and one together and get three. You can look at the pieces, figure
out how they go together, and make stuff work the way you expect it to
work. People who have never done anything more with electronics than
plug in the computer can't understand interconnections, nor can they
understand why anyone would even want to bother since all of those
connections are already made in the computer.

Thing is that you can SEE and FEEL the signal paths if you have real
hardware, but you can't do that with a computer-based system. You can
see representations of connections, sure, but you can never be sure
where you're losing the signal if it doesn't get to where you expect
it.

It's easy to move a hardware control and hear an instant change (if
you move the right control) but with software, you often need to build
the control first (or select it from a menu or template) and make its
connections. And there's almost always a small time lag between when
you move the control and hear a change, so it's difficult to "sneak
up" on the right setting. But some people love the resolution with
which a control can be set and the ability to reset it accurately. If
you really want to boost 2.374 kHz by 4.28 dB, you can do that - every
time. On a hardware mixer, you trun the controls until you like the
sound and if someone asks "What are your EQ settings on that guitar?"
your answer is "Oh, I dunno, a little boost around two and a half
kilohertz." Not very satisfying to someone who wants to make his
guitar sound just like yours (HAH!)

With a recorder/mixer there's all kinds of hassles to worry about,
plus once you got them tracks on the machine, it's pure hell to try
and bounce and arrange stuff and fuhgeddaboud editing etc. I think it
seriously limits any creativity and the complex technology gets in the
way, and when you're done, you need to mix it (which you can't do
again once its set then) which also takes a lotta time AND is
difficult.

So why do all of that? People with hardware work differently. They
record things that they want to hear in the finished product and most
of the work is done before final mixdown. Why edit when you can play
it right or punch it in? Why do the mix again when you have it right?
You can work that way with a DAW, but most pepole don't, because they
don't have to. And they get into all sorts of detailed edits, volume
envelopes, plug-ins, and never-ending mix sessions.

With a DAW on the other hand, all you need is load the multitracker,
plug in the mics and all you need to worry is not to overload inputs.
Just press record.

And then what have you got? A jigsaw puzzle of audio scraps!

All in all...I've been making home recordings and music for years and
years, learning as I go. I used to have outboard gear, mixers, stuff,
recorders...but when I really found the DAW recording, the whole
recording thing in itself has turned from time-hogging necessity to
something transparent that I don't need to worry about at all.

OK, so you're the other kind of person. Or maybe you record music
that's much more appropriate for construction after audio capture. A
DAW is a good approach for someone who composes by recording and
arranging. The song can go in many different directions so you don't
need to know where you'll end up before you start. A hardware system
is better for people who have a song and an arrangement and maybe even
a band. Your goal is to get out what you put in. Not to make something
new and different from what you put in.

I just think nothing is as easy and liberating as Cubase and a
soundcard on my laptop.

And I think there's nothing as liberating as putting one or two mics
in front of a good musician or band and say "Take One!" and then move
on to the next song.

[DeeAa[_3_]]

On 9 syys, 13:34, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:15 am, DeeAa wrote:

Thing is that you can SEE and FEEL the signal paths if you have real
hardware, but you can't do that with a computer-based system. You can
see representations of connections, sure, but you can never be sure
where you're losing the signal if it doesn't get to where you expect
it.

I get the idea, yeah...but to me it's more simple on my DAW. I have 8
inputs, I plug in the mic, and if I only have Cubase on, I see the
audio meter move when I knock on the mic. I don't see how it could be
more direct and simple really - plug in, and you see it's active.

Of course, it requires that the hardware is installed properly in the
beginning, so that you have a base to start working with. But after
that it's just plug in and go, save under new name for each song.

It's easy to move a hardware control and hear an instant change (if
you move the right control) but with software, you often need to build
the control first (or select it from a menu or template) and make its
connections. And there's almost always a small time lag between when
you move the control and hear a change, so it's difficult to "sneak
up" on the right setting. But some people love the resolution with
which a control can be set and the ability to reset it accurately. If
you really want to boost 2.374 kHz by 4.28 dB, you can do that - every
time. On a hardware mixer, you trun the controls until you like the
sound and if someone asks "What are your EQ settings on that guitar?"
your answer is "Oh, I dunno, a little boost around two and a half
kilohertz." *Not very satisfying to someone who wants to make his
guitar sound just like yours (HAH!)

Yeah this I can understand. However I like to be able to freely shape
the curves on EQ with a mouse - while listening - instead of finding
the frequencies by ear alone, Q values etc. Plus I can have several
settings and A/B them with just a click.

But I understand in some ways turning knobs can be more immediate
sometimes.

So why do all of that? People with hardware work differently. They
record things that they want to hear in the finished product and most
of the work is done before final mixdown. Why edit when you can play
it right or punch it in? Why do the mix again when you have it right?
You can work that way with a DAW, but most pepole don't, because they
don't have to. And they get into all sorts of detailed edits, volume
envelopes, plug-ins, and never-ending mix sessions.

Ah, that is very true...when you can infinitely tweak it, you also
tend to, and never finish it :-)

With a DAW on the other hand, all you need is load the multitracker,
plug in the mics and all you need to worry is not to overload inputs.
Just press record.

And then what have you got? A jigsaw puzzle of audio scraps!

Well, I dunno...I think the audio graphs are pretty simple, like Lego
parts or something. I find it extremely difficult to try and figure
out track bouncing on HD recorders, though, or just keep track of
which session/track is which. Like on my Fostex, I had to write down
stuff like track 18 project 048, at 2:30 guitar comes in etc...on a
DAW you see it all in one glance on a clear timeline and just jump to
where you want to punch etc.

And I think there's nothing as liberating as putting one or two mics
in front of a good musician or band and say "Take One!" and then move
on to the next song.

Yeah, sure...but I'd still rather have them files on my DAW so I can
see the dates, times, and project names etc. right there and never
lose 'em.

Cheers,

Dee

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 03:34:55 -0700 (PDT), Mike Rivers
wrote:

I just think nothing is as easy and liberating as Cubase and a
soundcard on my laptop.

And I think there's nothing as liberating as putting one or two mics
in front of a good musician or band and say "Take One!" and then move
on to the next song.

And I've just spent an afternoon doing (mostly) just that into a DAW.
Except that just once, when we didn't quite agree on how to time an
ending, I was able to say "Don't worry - apart from that it was a
great take. I can easily slide that note along." And I could.

A DAW is a good approach for someone who composes by recording and
arranging. The song can go in many different directions so you don't
need to know where you'll end up before you start. A hardware system
is better for people who have a song and an arrangement and maybe even
a band. Your goal is to get out what you put in. Not to make something
new and different from what you put in.

Oh Mike, you've really got to get rid of these prejudices!

[Jason]

In article 57520242-a9e4-4973-8418-
,
says...
That along with the 128 kbps Atrac 3.5
compression format sort of scares me

I have a Sony MD recorder. It records in compressed format, as you
mention, but will also record 2-channel .wav files. I've had good
success with that.

[Anahata]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:01:16 -0700, mitchellrenner wrote:

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer, with
the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality recording
that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

You want to record multi track separately, keep it multitrack and then
transfer to PC?

Your best bet may be to look at the details of standalone hard disk based
"studio in a box" units and find one that gives you a simple way of
transferring the tracks (not just the stereo mix) to computer, typically
by USB. The Yamaha AW1600-G, for example certainly has USB and I think if
you plug it into a PC's USB port the PC sees an external disk drive
with .WAV files on it.

You'll get all the mixing and processing etc. for free, but the sales-
volume driven nature of the market is such that it's a cheaper option
than one (if it exists) that doesn't do the things you don't need, and it
doesn't take long to larn to use if all you want to do is record a few
tracks and then transfer them to PC later.

I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder

Compared with a modern standalone HD based unit, that gives you nothing
useful extra. I've used a MD multi track and lack of digital or per-track
outputs was one of its biggest disadvantages for me.

today's multitrack
options seem to interfere with the composition process.

You'll have to exaplain that in more detail to get a useful answer.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Anahata]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:47:23 -0500, anahata wrote:

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:01:16 -0700, mitchellrenner wrote:

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer, with
the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality recording
that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

You want to record multi track separately, keep it multitrack and then
transfer to PC?

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your question... you already have existing
mutitrack recordings (ADAT etc) and want to mix them without using a
PC? ...in which case Mike's reply makes perfect sense.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

I never used ADAT 8 track when it was popular, what, 15 years ago? I
was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

That is ADAT Lightpipe. You can get a Lightpipe interface for your
laptop.

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,
with the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality
recording that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

Why not dump the PC entirely and mix down with a regular console?

Any advice would be appreciated. I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder but they record at a compressed codec of
128 kbps and the units only have unbalanced RCA outs, so I'd have to
rerecord everything with another D/A to A/D conversion to get it to
CD. However, maybe that wouldn't be too bad conceptually (128 kbps is
about 10% of what linear PCM mode at 44.1 mHz/16 bit requires), with a
decent mastering. Anybody want to ridicule me for thinking it's
possible? :*) I record ambient drum and bass type music, and today's
multitrack options seem to interfere with the composition process.

The problem is that the converters in the ADAT are just awful. The
Tascam machines are a little better... you can find a DA-38 for cheap
and the converters aren't horrible although they aren't anything to write
home about. Budget about $350/year for the annual maintenance, which is
about what the maintenance costs on the ADAT are too. Or consider a
modern standalone hard disk recorder.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The problem is that the converters in the ADAT are just awful.

Scott,

Please remember Tonebarge and the stuff he brought to one of the RP CD
compilations, recorded into the 20 bit ADAT's, and sounding like a
million legit bucks, mixed on a "vintage" Mackie 1604.

I'm thinking in long hindsight that part of it might have been keeping
levels low on the way in. Whatever he did, that's what he used, and
killed the work of many folks, regardless of kit.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

The problem is that the converters in the ADAT are just awful.

Please remember Tonebarge and the stuff he brought to one of the RP CD
compilations, recorded into the 20 bit ADAT's, and sounding like a
million legit bucks, mixed on a "vintage" Mackie 1604.

Yes, and I bet he was fighting like hell all the way down.

I'm thinking in long hindsight that part of it might have been keeping
levels low on the way in. Whatever he did, that's what he used, and
killed the work of many folks, regardless of kit.

The Mackie wants the levels low, but the ADAT gets grainy at low levels.
I don't have a solution for that but it might involve pads.
--scott

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

[DeeAa[_3_]]

On 8 syys, 13:01, wrote:
To anyone who may be able to help...

I never used ADAT 8 track when it was popular, what, 15 years ago? *I
was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). *It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. *Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? *And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,
with the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality
recording that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

Any advice would be appreciated. *I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder but they record at a compressed codec of
128 kbps and the units only have unbalanced RCA outs, so I'd have to
rerecord everything with another D/A to A/D conversion to get it to
CD. *However, maybe that wouldn't be too bad conceptually (128 kbps is
about 10% of what linear PCM mode at 44.1 mHz/16 bit requires), with a
decent mastering. *Anybody want to ridicule me for thinking it's
possible? *:*) *I record ambient drum and bass type music, and today's
multitrack options seem to interfere with the composition process.

thanks again. *Lou

Hey Lou,

I'm no pro but I have been doing pretty much what you - I had a Fostex
recorder onto which I recorded, and then transferred the contents via
ADAT lightpipe to my PC (Cubase) which is just a matter of selecting
ADAT input and creating 8 tracks, one for each ADAT track and hitting
record. It works fine. I used a cheap EMU 1212 soundcard for
transfer...you'd need a PCMIA or USB card...I think Echo Layla would
work, or something similar.

I now however upgraded to a Presonus Firepod, which came with Cubase
LE too...now I don't need to carry the fostex - I just plug mics into
the firepod and the firepod to my laptop and record directly to
Cubase, I do lose the pre-recording EQ etc. and have to live with just
level control during recording, but in exchange I get pristine 48/24
recordings directly to my DAW, which is great. No real-time hassles
with copying back and forth and no extra conversion stages. Plus the
laptop and the firepod fit in a small suitcase easily along with all
the eight mics I need, much less than the recorder.

But anyway, if you want to stick with the record-to-adat first, you
just need a soundcard that has ADAT in. Then it's easy, but also
happens in real time.

Cheers,

Dee

[larrymac123]

Originally Posted by

To anyone who may be able to help...

I never used ADAT 8 track when it was popular, what, 15 years ago? I
was wondering how recordings made on the Alesis XT20 (or other
available ADATs) would be transferred to a pc laptop (I'm on xp,
pentium III). It looks like the Adat has a digital optical out in the
form of a rectangular Toslink. Would that run to a digital in on some
type of laptop adapter I could get? And then how would that transfer
be initiated?

I'm trying to find a way to use older multitrack devices that are more
basic than those around today, without having to use the computer,
with the caveat that I would still like to have a decent quality
recording that would transfer to my computer for mixdown to CD.

Any advice would be appreciated. I've also considered using a Sony
minidisc multitrack recorder but they record at a compressed codec of
128 kbps and the units only have unbalanced RCA outs, so I'd have to
rerecord everything with another D/A to A/D conversion to get it to
CD. However, maybe that wouldn't be too bad conceptually (128 kbps is
about 10% of what linear PCM mode at 44.1 mHz/16 bit requires), with a
decent mastering. Anybody want to ridicule me for thinking it's
possible? :*) I record ambient drum and bass type music, and today's
multitrack options seem to interfere with the composition process.

thanks again. Lou

I am using the alesis HD 24 in my studio i have 2 of the in the system for 48 tracks. to answer your question maybe, the fiber optic out on the rear of your machine wii transfer 8 tracs of audio at on time. by instaling a sound card with adat in, ( several on market) you can transfer tracs to computer to work on. also you can play tracs directly to pc with use of midi interface, jl cooper makes one for older adats. the HD 24 has an optional interface runs on firewire to drop to pc. i have used adats for the last 18 years, fee free to call me if I can help.

Larry McGure
Whistle Stop Studios
Tuskegee, Al
334-226-1046 (studio)