Converter for PC?

S

ShaneAnthony

New member
I recently purchased a used Yamaha PM-2000 32 channel analog console to use with Pro Tools, in place of my MIDAS M32 Live digital console.

Can anyone recommend what would be the best converter/interface for me to use?

I want to be able to record at-least 20 tracks simultaneously into Pro Tools, and mix down 32 on my Yamaha console, analog summing a master back into ProTools.

I need to be able to monitor the input through PT while recording, without noticeable latency.

I was looking at the Ferrofish A32 Pro. Any thoughts on that?

Thanks, Shane
 
Last edited:
I'm also seriously looking at the new Lynx Aurora n 32-channel Converter with Thunderbolt 3.

My PC only has USB 3.0 and USB 3.1. I'm looking at getting a Thunderbolt 3 card for my PC.

The Lynx is a lot more expensive than the Ferrofish. Would the Lynx with Thunderbolt be a better long term option? Less latency? Better sound?

Please, any help would be appreciated.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I’m not being rude but I cannot imagine what a huge backwards step swapping an m32 for a seriously old analogue desk. I totally get the analogue craze, but it would actually be cheaper to have kept the Midas and used it as the interface? you had 32 really nice sounding and quiet preamps with lots of facilities and now you are go8ng to have to cascade, bodge and fiddle to get a system hugely less easy to work. Those yamahas will keep you seriously busy with noisy channels, sticky buttons and odd clicks and pops. I have a large format Yamaha from the 90s and keeping it going became such a pain, it’s not been out of the case for a long time. The interfaces are seriously limited for multitrack. I’d probably look at the ferrofish, but apart from Dante, and the higher sample rates it’s going to spend its time recording a fair bit of hiss from the desk. You’ve bought the desk, sold the other so your path is fixed. if you’re using protocols for mixing, then it will be a bit of a fudge, and so easy to get lost. Latency wise, those interfaces should be fine unless you start doing multiple in, out loops. I suspect if yo7 haven’t already included a patchbay in the wiring plan, that will be essential for flexible routing. I bet you end up setting 24 faders in a line, setting the EQs all to something neutral and doing the work in protocols.

im really curious as to what you didn’t like about the Midas? Protocols and the Midas surely offer a very comprehensive system that sounds good, and has moving faders, making mixes so much easier. I know some people want to run at 96, but I use the Midas occasionally with Cubase 12, but being honest, the fewer inputs on the Tascam interface are more convenient sometimes, and the sound is so close to the Midas usually the difference is just a tonal one.

so, looking at the specs, the ferrofish would seem ok, especially if your computer has a Dante card because in the future you can do a bit more routing options, but the desk you now have doesn’t really require this. Are you wiring it with each channel direct going to the new interface, or are you going from the groups to use the desks other features?
 
rob aylestone said:
I’m not being rude but I cannot imagine what a huge backwards step swapping an m32 for a seriously old analogue desk. I totally get the analogue craze, but it would actually be cheaper to have kept the Midas and used it as the interface? you had 32 really nice sounding and quiet preamps with lots of facilities and now you are go8ng to have to cascade, bodge and fiddle to get a system hugely less easy to work. Those yamahas will keep you seriously busy with noisy channels, sticky buttons and odd clicks and pops. I have a large format Yamaha from the 90s and keeping it going became such a pain, it’s not been out of the case for a long time. The interfaces are seriously limited for multitrack. I’d probably look at the ferrofish, but apart from Dante, and the higher sample rates it’s going to spend its time recording a fair bit of hiss from the desk. You’ve bought the desk, sold the other so your path is fixed. if you’re using protocols for mixing, then it will be a bit of a fudge, and so easy to get lost. Latency wise, those interfaces should be fine unless you start doing multiple in, out loops. I suspect if yo7 haven’t already included a patchbay in the wiring plan, that will be essential for flexible routing. I bet you end up setting 24 faders in a line, setting the EQs all to something neutral and doing the work in protocols.

im really curious as to what you didn’t like about the Midas? Protocols and the Midas surely offer a very comprehensive system that sounds good, and has moving faders, making mixes so much easier. I know some people want to run at 96, but I use the Midas occasionally with Cubase 12, but being honest, the fewer inputs on the Tascam interface are more convenient sometimes, and the sound is so close to the Midas usually the difference is just a tonal one.

so, looking at the specs, the ferrofish would seem ok, especially if your computer has a Dante card because in the future you can do a bit more routing options, but the desk you now have doesn’t really require this. Are you wiring it with each channel direct going to the new interface, or are you going from the groups to use the desks other features?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply!

I may not always make the right choices, but I hope I do. I do my research, and then make the best choice I can. Based on videos like this and many others which show the sound difference between analog summing, or summing in the box, I decided to go as analog as I could. We do a lot of Pink Floyd sounding stuff, and I believe this will suit us best.

Also, I had run a Kenny Chesney track out the computer through the Midas, and then back in, all levels set at unity, no effects, and I could hear a negative difference after just one round trip out and back in. Barely, but it was there. I did it 15 times, and the change was clear. I'm hoping a better converter will not do that.

As far as the board, I've only read great things about Yamaha PM-2000, and all the transformers in it. Electronically, the console at its core is a vintage API console. It contains two 2520 op amps on each channel - one in the preamp section (implemented like the API 312) and one post-fader (like an API 3208 console). There are 2520 op amps in the eight Masters for summing as well as on the two echo busses and the four foldback busses. They are literally everywhere. I do record full bands sometimes. The Yamaha was made in 1978, and cost $60,000 new. It's a class A desk that runs on bi-polar 24v rails with 32 channels and tons of headroom. They were hand wired in Japan. I drive out of state to pick it up later this month. The deal is done, and I hope I made a good choice. It will allow me the flexibility to record a full band, and also mix down using my outboard gear and analog summing.

Regarding the new Lynx Aurora n, they offer 3 connectivity options.

I want high quality, and also to be set for the future, for upgrading, or anything else down the road. I'd like the converter to be something I don't worry about for a long time in my studio.

I also want to run each recorded track out to my outboard gear (Pultec EQs, Tube Compressors, etc...) and then back into Pro Tools, then send everything back out to analog sum through my Yamaha PM-2000 using my Bricasti M7 reverb and my stereo Zener Limiter, then print the master back into PT. So with going in and out a couple times, I want the best conversion quality, so I'm not degrading sound each time.

I also want to input monitor through Pro Tools while recording. I know the Lynx is more expensive than the Ferrofish, but that's why I was wondering if the the new Lynx Aurora n would be better for me.

Regarding connectivity, I'm not sure which way would be best to go.

My PC has USB 3.0, and 3.1, but no Thunderbolt. I could get a Thunderbolt card for it, and get the Lynx Aurora w/Thunderbolt 3.

Or, if I bought the Lynx Aurora Dante version, could I connect it by plugging straight into one of my ethernet inputs on my PC? I've never used Dante before.

I'm not sure how MADI works.

Lynx also offers an HDX version with Digilink, but I'm not sure how that connects to my PC either.

What would be best?

Thanks again
 
It kind of doesn't matter which you choose. They are all good quality, any differences would be feature oriented.

Just for reference, when you get this all set up, run the Kenny Chesney track through the Yamaha 15 times and see what you come up with.
 
Farview said:
It kind of doesn't matter which you choose. They are all good quality, any differences would be feature oriented.

Just for reference, when you get this all set up, run the Kenny Chesney track through the Yamaha 15 times and see what you come up with.
Click to expand...
With the separate converter, I'll be able to bypass the board and run each track through my Pultec and tube compressors, then back in. That's my plan. I wanted the board for 2 things, to record full bands, and analog summing. Which connection should I go with for the Lynx? Would Thunderbolt, or Dante be best? Can I just connect the Dante version straight into my PC with an ethernet cable?

Thanks
 
I watched the video. I sighed. So many things that I'm just contrary to. That's fine, we all have opinions and he believes his and seems sincere.

The notion of the degradation of signals is perfectly sound. Every D to A and back changes the sound, but I'm old enough to remember bouncing 4 track reel to reels and the degradation was so much worse - and I really wouldn't think those exotic D/As will be much better. I appreciate you are sold on this system, and I wish you well with it - but frankly the money you are throwing at an ancient console would scare me to death. I've been offered really good money for my Midas and as it's underused and I have others, I was tempted, but I won't do it.

Frankly I'm at a loss to even consider repeat in to out loss because I never do it. I get the input sources to digital in the first step, and most stay digital from then on - only appearing as analogue at the speakers. Occasionally I need to go out to a piece of outboard, then back in, but even that is rare now.

2520 opamps were 70's technology and the current versions are not exactly easy to get now - Look at the component count for each channel strip. How annoying will it be to keep taking the entire thing out of service to fix it? Large format analogue live sound mixers never really worked that well in studios because the feature set was built around the needs of live sound. The resale value of the really popular ones (and sadly this was never really sought after) is at an all time low here in the UK. Allen & Heath and Soundcraft were the live sound market leaders here across the genres with the other brands coming in just behind them.

I wish you luck with the project, but my gut reaction is you are spending huge sums of money on a system that is already tired, has poor resale value, and is a mismatch of the best of old and new - but just awkward. You have protools that can do everything the mixer can do, without leaving the box and compromising quality.

I suspect you just want it - and are hoping for us to say wow, this is going to be amazing. I think it will just be a comromise, and I think that the quality of the preamps/interfaces you have money to buy are way above the quality of the antique mixer, which will always be one capacitor away from failure. The Yamaha I have still works fine - has 12 send, nice sounding EQ, but out of 32 inputs, only 20 odd that are noise free, and the failure rate was increasing, and it is newer than your one.

I really hope you get it going but I'd not want one of those mixers in my studio. No point in a mixer that will have crackly pots and faders, sticky buttons and failed lights in the meters. Even if now, everything works, I'd just be counting the days. Sorry. I hope I'm wrong.

Dante is really only an advantage when you want to route and change things digitally, quickly - with every device dante connected - it's like a manufacturers internal routing extended to every device, irrespective of make.

If you are going to bypass the board - why have it? You will be using protools for mixing, so all those faders are pointless - aren't they?

It will of course LOOK damn impressive, maybe your musicians are easily fooled?
 
rob aylestone said:
I watched the video. I sighed. So many things that I'm just contrary to. That's fine, we all have opinions and he believes his and seems sincere.

The notion of the degradation of signals is perfectly sound. Every D to A and back changes the sound, but I'm old enough to remember bouncing 4 track reel to reels and the degradation was so much worse - and I really wouldn't think those exotic D/As will be much better. I appreciate you are sold on this system, and I wish you well with it - but frankly the money you are throwing at an ancient console would scare me to death. I've been offered really good money for my Midas and as it's underused and I have others, I was tempted, but I won't do it.

Frankly I'm at a loss to even consider repeat in to out loss because I never do it. I get the input sources to digital in the first step, and most stay digital from then on - only appearing as analogue at the speakers. Occasionally I need to go out to a piece of outboard, then back in, but even that is rare now.

2520 opamps were 70's technology and the current versions are not exactly easy to get now - Look at the component count for each channel strip. How annoying will it be to keep taking the entire thing out of service to fix it? Large format analogue live sound mixers never really worked that well in studios because the feature set was built around the needs of live sound. The resale value of the really popular ones (and sadly this was never really sought after) is at an all time low here in the UK. Allen & Heath and Soundcraft were the live sound market leaders here across the genres with the other brands coming in just behind them.

I wish you luck with the project, but my gut reaction is you are spending huge sums of money on a system that is already tired, has poor resale value, and is a mismatch of the best of old and new - but just awkward. You have protools that can do everything the mixer can do, without leaving the box and compromising quality.

I suspect you just want it - and are hoping for us to say wow, this is going to be amazing. I think it will just be a comromise, and I think that the quality of the preamps/interfaces you have money to buy are way above the quality of the antique mixer, which will always be one capacitor away from failure. The Yamaha I have still works fine - has 12 send, nice sounding EQ, but out of 32 inputs, only 20 odd that are noise free, and the failure rate was increasing, and it is newer than your one.

I really hope you get it going but I'd not want one of those mixers in my studio. No point in a mixer that will have crackly pots and faders, sticky buttons and failed lights in the meters. Even if now, everything works, I'd just be counting the days. Sorry. I hope I'm wrong.

Dante is really only an advantage when you want to route and change things digitally, quickly - with every device dante connected - it's like a manufacturers internal routing extended to every device, irrespective of make.

If you are going to bypass the board - why have it? You will be using protools for mixing, so all those faders are pointless - aren't they?

It will of course LOOK damn impressive, maybe your musicians are easily fooled?
Click to expand...
OK, thanks for the reply! I appreciate your honest input.

Can anyone else tell me which way would be best to go with a Lynx Aurora? Thunderbolt or Dante?

Is there not going to be any quality difference in the conversion of the Lynx over others? Is there another one I should consider?

Thanks
 
I agree that Dante probably won't do anything for you.

Your other choice is about firewire or usb-c, which has nothing to do with the quality of the converters, just the shape of the connector.

With the level of stuff you are looking at and the number of i/o you are looking at, you won't find a sub-par choice. Just pick one that has the features you need and get it. There won't be an objective "better" at that level.
 
I have also just watched the whole video. I found his opinions very informative, as well as the comments here.
To say that the digital quality is only as good as the D/A is not quite true.
Everything you can do in the analogue world, can be done as well, or better in the digital domain, if the software is good enough.
If you look at the high end AMS-NEVE large format desks, they are all digital today. Such a major player would not invest their future
on inferior technology.
I'm taking my time considering a console for my setup. I think it will be a one-off lifetime investment, rather than
just what I can pick up cheaply.
 
ShaneAnthony said:
OK, thanks for the reply! I appreciate your honest input.

Can anyone else tell me which way would be best to go with a Lynx Aurora? Thunderbolt or Dante?

Is there not going to be any quality difference in the conversion of the Lynx over others? Is there another one I should consider?

Thanks
Click to expand...
How would you go Thunderbolt or Dante with an Analog board? It may be me - but you just took a huge step backwards in the mixing world.
 
rob aylestone said:
I watched the video. I sighed. So many things that I'm just contrary to. That's fine, we all have opinions and he believes his and seems sincere.

The notion of the degradation of signals is perfectly sound. Every D to A and back changes the sound, but I'm old enough to remember bouncing 4 track reel to reels and the degradation was so much worse - and I really wouldn't think those exotic D/As will be much better. I appreciate you are sold on this system, and I wish you well with it - but frankly the money you are throwing at an ancient console would scare me to death. I've been offered really good money for my Midas and as it's underused and I have others, I was tempted, but I won't do it.

Frankly I'm at a loss to even consider repeat in to out loss because I never do it. I get the input sources to digital in the first step, and most stay digital from then on - only appearing as analogue at the speakers. Occasionally I need to go out to a piece of outboard, then back in, but even that is rare now.

2520 opamps were 70's technology and the current versions are not exactly easy to get now - Look at the component count for each channel strip. How annoying will it be to keep taking the entire thing out of service to fix it? Large format analogue live sound mixers never really worked that well in studios because the feature set was built around the needs of live sound. The resale value of the really popular ones (and sadly this was never really sought after) is at an all time low here in the UK. Allen & Heath and Soundcraft were the live sound market leaders here across the genres with the other brands coming in just behind them.

I wish you luck with the project, but my gut reaction is you are spending huge sums of money on a system that is already tired, has poor resale value, and is a mismatch of the best of old and new - but just awkward. You have protools that can do everything the mixer can do, without leaving the box and compromising quality.

I suspect you just want it - and are hoping for us to say wow, this is going to be amazing. I think it will just be a comromise, and I think that the quality of the preamps/interfaces you have money to buy are way above the quality of the antique mixer, which will always be one capacitor away from failure. The Yamaha I have still works fine - has 12 send, nice sounding EQ, but out of 32 inputs, only 20 odd that are noise free, and the failure rate was increasing, and it is newer than your one.

I really hope you get it going but I'd not want one of those mixers in my studio. No point in a mixer that will have crackly pots and faders, sticky buttons and failed lights in the meters. Even if now, everything works, I'd just be counting the days. Sorry. I hope I'm wrong.

Dante is really only an advantage when you want to route and change things digitally, quickly - with every device dante connected - it's like a manufacturers internal routing extended to every device, irrespective of make.

If you are going to bypass the board - why have it? You will be using protools for mixing, so all those faders are pointless - aren't they?

It will of course LOOK damn impressive, maybe your musicians are easily fooled?
Click to expand...
But on the plus side Rob, old stuff can be opened up and fixed, as it won't have tiddly surface mount chips resistors and capacitors, like modern stuff.
 
I wonder, however, if the need to replace SM capacitors and resistors will be the same as the typical electrolytic and carbon resistors that tend to go bad. With SM caps, there is no liquid electrolyte to dry out or leak. As long as excess voltages are not applied, it would seem the dry ceramic layering techniques would seem to be stable for the long term. They seem to be working well in high stress, high temp applications like automobiles. Something like a piece of audio equipment would seem to be a relatively benign enviroment. Controlled temps, minimal vibration or physical stress.

Granted, it takes away the "mod everything" mentality, since you can't just unsolder it and stick in a different value to "fix" the sound, but for the typical user, it would seem to be a positive. Buy it.. use it for years.

I remember the days when you took your car in every couple of months for an oil change and lube job. Squirt some grease in all the various ball joints, tie rods, etc. I haven't had a car with zerk fittings for years. I've driven cars 120,000 miles without having to grease a single fitting. The same for changing points and plugs, and rejetting carbs. Sometimes, the changes are for the better!
 
ShaneAnthony said:
That's what the converter is for. D-Sub cable into the Lynx Aurora, then Thunderbolt out to my PC.
Click to expand...
Just a bit of warning, not every PC can be set up for Thunderbolt. It was not widely supported in the PC world until relatively recently. Make sure your bios and chipset support it. It's not like adding a new video card or even a PCIe Firewire card. The motherboard has to have the proper header... and the BIOS has to specifically support the Thunderbolt-3.
Microsoft doesn't support "PCIe via Thunderbolt" with Thunderbolt-2 controllers.

Before you go down the road, check your computer's motherboard/BIOS specs.
 
TalismanRich said:
Just a bit of warning, not every PC can be set up for Thunderbolt. It was not widely supported in the PC world until relatively recently. Make sure your bios and chipset support it. It's not like adding a new video card or even a PCIe Firewire card. The motherboard has to have the proper header... and the BIOS has to specifically support the Thunderbolt-3.
Microsoft doesn't support "PCIe via Thunderbolt" with Thunderbolt-2 controllers.

Before you go down the road, check your computer's motherboard/BIOS specs.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I don't know how to figure this out. Can you tell me exactly what I'm looking for? My motherboard is a Gigabyte Z170X-GAMING 5. Here is a screenshot of my system information, showing the BIOS info:

system-info.jpeg
 
Last edited:
It looks the the motherboard supports Thunderbolt. It's in the manual. There is a 4 pin header near the bottom labeled THB_C which is a thunderbolt connector.

GA-Z170X Motherboard Manual

You'll have to check with Gigabyte to make sure the T-bolt card you choose is compatible if you don't buy a Gigabyte card.
 
TalismanRich said:
I wonder, however, if the need to replace SM capacitors and resistors will be the same as the typical electrolytic and carbon resistors that tend to go bad. With SM caps, there is no liquid electrolyte to dry out or leak.
Click to expand...

Don't you believe it - I've had to replace more dried out surface mount electrolytic capacitors in the last couple of years than standard ones. Internally they're no different with a liquid electrolyte that can dry up or leak. You may be confusing them with tantalum or ceramic capacitors which are solid but tantalum capacitors have their own problems and aren't 100% reliable. Ceramic capacitors are potentially more reliable but have only recently been available in high values and the high value ones can suffer from poor temperature coefficients which means that the value changes as the temperature changes.
 
I guess I didn't consider that they are still relying on wet electrolytics that much. Some Tantalum and Niobium capacitors have pretty long lifespans, but the voltage ratings generally lower than wet Al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top