videodrone
New member
i know they both have 24 bit convertors and so on but do you guys know if theres any real difference in the sounds quality of recordings that I will be able to make the 890???
890 and 1680 the same basically for sound quality recordings?
- Thread starter videodrone
- Start date
volltreffer
Imply depressed
High!
IMO, the 1680 has only 20 bit converters...
The rest should just make the difference between 8 and 16 tracks and one vs. two FX boards...
aXel
IMO, the 1680 has only 20 bit converters...
The rest should just make the difference between 8 and 16 tracks and one vs. two FX boards...
aXel
videodrone
New member
so the 890 can make just as good sounding recordings as the 1680? correct?
volltreffer
Imply depressed
Should be true 
(but might take you LOADS of more time - and more bounces if you use much effects; the bounces may degrade the sound...)
aXel
(but might take you LOADS of more time - and more bounces if you use much effects; the bounces may degrade the sound...)aXel
videodrone
New member
why would it take loads of more time? what would effects have to do with it?
Ill only be using like 8 tracks total,
Ill only be using like 8 tracks total,
volltreffer
Imply depressed
Ok, this time I'll take a little more time...
If you use 8 tracks and you wanna mixdown on the machine, you'll have to do some bounces. That might take some time (oh wait -- I'm an 880EX user - does the 890 have extra mastering tracks?)... If you use something like an external CD to mixdown to forget that topic...
You have only 2 stereo FX on the VS 890. If you use them as paired mono (with the same FX algorithm - i.e. EQ a.s.o. you MAY use 4). Other FX like the mastering toolkit will need all of the FX power. So it might be quite likely that you use up your FX power very fast... An example:
I used on my latest song (on the 1680)
1) An Early reflection verb (Send/Return)
2) a delay (/Send/Return)
3) a phaser (Insert)
4) EQ (the algorithm patch, not the channel EQ) (Insert)
So you'll have to 'print' the phaser and the EQ to the tracks that need it. The problem is that you cannot really hear what you're doing, as you don't have the other effects and cannot listen to the complete mix while tweaking. Afterwards you set up the ambience and state that your phaser sounds a little too sharp... So you have to copy the original track back onto the printed and do the printing of the phaser again. Then back to the (if you were smart stored scene with the) verbs setting and listen to it... That is gonna take some time...
It gets even worse, if you are a compression addict like I am... It is REALLY hard to determine the amount of compression necessary if you cannot listen to the mix (or at least a submix) at the time you play with the compression settings... So you'll do your printing of all tracks and afterwards you'll notice that track X has not enough compression... You correct that, but then another track sounds a little 'weak' (or overcompressed...)
It is much nicer to have a fully equipped roland 16tracker than an 8tracker... I never record at 24 bit, anyway (being a stoopid Punk Rocker...) as I use my 880 for recording. Maybe I don't even know what I'm missing, but I'd alway prefer the 1680 (if equipped with two FX cards)
aXel
If you use 8 tracks and you wanna mixdown on the machine, you'll have to do some bounces. That might take some time (oh wait -- I'm an 880EX user - does the 890 have extra mastering tracks?)... If you use something like an external CD to mixdown to forget that topic...
You have only 2 stereo FX on the VS 890. If you use them as paired mono (with the same FX algorithm - i.e. EQ a.s.o. you MAY use 4). Other FX like the mastering toolkit will need all of the FX power. So it might be quite likely that you use up your FX power very fast... An example:
I used on my latest song (on the 1680)
1) An Early reflection verb (Send/Return)
2) a delay (/Send/Return)
3) a phaser (Insert)
4) EQ (the algorithm patch, not the channel EQ) (Insert)
So you'll have to 'print' the phaser and the EQ to the tracks that need it. The problem is that you cannot really hear what you're doing, as you don't have the other effects and cannot listen to the complete mix while tweaking. Afterwards you set up the ambience and state that your phaser sounds a little too sharp... So you have to copy the original track back onto the printed and do the printing of the phaser again. Then back to the (if you were smart stored scene with the) verbs setting and listen to it... That is gonna take some time...
It gets even worse, if you are a compression addict like I am... It is REALLY hard to determine the amount of compression necessary if you cannot listen to the mix (or at least a submix) at the time you play with the compression settings... So you'll do your printing of all tracks and afterwards you'll notice that track X has not enough compression... You correct that, but then another track sounds a little 'weak' (or overcompressed...)
It is much nicer to have a fully equipped roland 16tracker than an 8tracker... I never record at 24 bit, anyway (being a stoopid Punk Rocker...) as I use my 880 for recording. Maybe I don't even know what I'm missing, but I'd alway prefer the 1680 (if equipped with two FX cards)
aXel