I've got two questions, really. First, I'm thinking about buying a D824, 'cause it's portable and has features I think would be useful (and the price is relatively low now). Anyone have any experience with the machine, and what's good/bad about it. Second, I've noticed it records .wav files. What sort of problems would I have dumping data recorded on it into a Mac? Do you have to do a file conversion (to AIFF), and, if so, what's lost in the process? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Gelon
D824
- Thread starter gelon
- Start date
skippy
New member
It doesn't record .wav files- it records in an oddball proprietary format called FDMS3. However, when you dump files to the SCSI port for backup purposes, and the SCSI media is formatted as a DOS FAT16 filesystem, it will automatically _convert_ the data to .wav as it writes the backup media.
This Is A Kluge. It requires that you preformat the backup disks in FAT16 with external hardware, something that might prove annoying for a Mac user. If you format with the Fostex, it can only format to FDMS3.
I'd recommend using an external sound card with ADAT I/O capabilities, so that you can simply fly the data over into your audio software via lightpipe. That opens up many, many possibilities, and is a very flexible option.
I use a Hammerfall, and fly tracks from my D1624 to Cubase on a PC-DAW. I also simultaneously record to the D1624 and Cubase fairly often: using the D1624 as the converters, and the 1624's recording as a backup in case Cubase has a problem (quite rare these days).
I believe that moving data back and forth from the Fostex to a DAW as ADAT lightpipe streams is a *much* better solution than sneakernetting disks back and forth... That avoids any .wav/AIFF problems, and should make life dramatically simpler. A Hammerfall is cheaper than a pair of Jaz drives, and a damned sight more reliable...
Hope that helps.
This Is A Kluge. It requires that you preformat the backup disks in FAT16 with external hardware, something that might prove annoying for a Mac user. If you format with the Fostex, it can only format to FDMS3.
I'd recommend using an external sound card with ADAT I/O capabilities, so that you can simply fly the data over into your audio software via lightpipe. That opens up many, many possibilities, and is a very flexible option.
I use a Hammerfall, and fly tracks from my D1624 to Cubase on a PC-DAW. I also simultaneously record to the D1624 and Cubase fairly often: using the D1624 as the converters, and the 1624's recording as a backup in case Cubase has a problem (quite rare these days).
I believe that moving data back and forth from the Fostex to a DAW as ADAT lightpipe streams is a *much* better solution than sneakernetting disks back and forth... That avoids any .wav/AIFF problems, and should make life dramatically simpler. A Hammerfall is cheaper than a pair of Jaz drives, and a damned sight more reliable...
Hope that helps.
Thanks, Skippy, for taking the time for your detailed answer! So, if I'm dumping via lightpipe to a sound card, it really doesn't matter, as the files would be written to the software on the Mac (or PC), is that correct? And the best backup would be straight to the Mac (but later backup from the Mac to a SCSI device wouldn't be problematic). Just want to make sure I understood (pls forgive my ignorance!). And your experience with the 1624 has been positive? Again, thanks for helpin' out! Gelon
skippy
New member
Right- dumping to a DAW saftware (Cubase or whatever) via the ADAT ports on the sourdcard will simply create the files on the machine in whatever the native format needs to be. No conversion there: it's all native from the word go.
You can record a session on the Fostex, perhaps working remotely. Then, when you get it back to your DAW, you can plug in via lightpipe and rerecord the data on the DAW (playback on the Fostex, record on the DAW). Since your audio data will be going over in PCM digital form, there's no reconversion: it's just a bit-for-bit transfer. You can then dump the files that are created by the DAW software to tape, CDROM, external SCSI device, or whatever format you prefer for backup.
That's the way I got started with my DAW. I bought the 1624 first, since I'm an old analog guy and just wanted something that acted like a simple old 16-track tape machine (and didn't involve PCs or Windows at all!). Later, to do backup, I built the DAW so that I could fly the tracks over, and then back up to my tape machine via Ethernet from the DAW. Only after doing that for a while did I finally come to (grudgingly) admit that the DAW is better for certain types of things (MIDI-based music, extensive editing, unusual plugin-based processing).
I still track primarily to the D1624, and consider it to have been the best single purchase I made. It *never* lets me down, which is something I cannot say for Cubase on my DAW. I do not want to lose takes to crashes, setup errors, or other computerlike annoyances. The 1624 is always ready, and it really does act just like a simple, basic, analog 16-track tape deck: arm the channels, punch "record", and you're printing tracks without question.
DAW software has a host of hazards that can cause crashes, or recording dropouts, or annoyances. There are a huge number of different ways that you can have recording problems with a DAW, basically- especially in the heat of battle, when the talent is in the room and the juices are flowing. A DAW is unquestionably much more powerful than the Fostex, and much more versatile: but with that versatility comes the very real threat of annoyance and interruption of the creative flow. I personally prefer to get the tracks while the fingers are working, and *then* transfer to DAW at my leisure for editing, munging, and such.
There's nothing more frustrating than doing an overdub in Cubase, and realizing after you've finished it that you forgot to move the "right marker" out past the end of the tune. so Cubase did what you told it to, and quit recording at the right marker: 2 seconds into the perfect take. When I'm recording, I want there to be _zero_ chance of losing a good take due to my own foolishness, or being in a hurry: so I use the right tool for the job.
You can record a session on the Fostex, perhaps working remotely. Then, when you get it back to your DAW, you can plug in via lightpipe and rerecord the data on the DAW (playback on the Fostex, record on the DAW). Since your audio data will be going over in PCM digital form, there's no reconversion: it's just a bit-for-bit transfer. You can then dump the files that are created by the DAW software to tape, CDROM, external SCSI device, or whatever format you prefer for backup.
That's the way I got started with my DAW. I bought the 1624 first, since I'm an old analog guy and just wanted something that acted like a simple old 16-track tape machine (and didn't involve PCs or Windows at all!). Later, to do backup, I built the DAW so that I could fly the tracks over, and then back up to my tape machine via Ethernet from the DAW. Only after doing that for a while did I finally come to (grudgingly) admit that the DAW is better for certain types of things (MIDI-based music, extensive editing, unusual plugin-based processing).
I still track primarily to the D1624, and consider it to have been the best single purchase I made. It *never* lets me down, which is something I cannot say for Cubase on my DAW. I do not want to lose takes to crashes, setup errors, or other computerlike annoyances. The 1624 is always ready, and it really does act just like a simple, basic, analog 16-track tape deck: arm the channels, punch "record", and you're printing tracks without question.
DAW software has a host of hazards that can cause crashes, or recording dropouts, or annoyances. There are a huge number of different ways that you can have recording problems with a DAW, basically- especially in the heat of battle, when the talent is in the room and the juices are flowing. A DAW is unquestionably much more powerful than the Fostex, and much more versatile: but with that versatility comes the very real threat of annoyance and interruption of the creative flow. I personally prefer to get the tracks while the fingers are working, and *then* transfer to DAW at my leisure for editing, munging, and such.
There's nothing more frustrating than doing an overdub in Cubase, and realizing after you've finished it that you forgot to move the "right marker" out past the end of the tune. so Cubase did what you told it to, and quit recording at the right marker: 2 seconds into the perfect take. When I'm recording, I want there to be _zero_ chance of losing a good take due to my own foolishness, or being in a hurry: so I use the right tool for the job.
skippy
New member
Yup. You need a little optional hardware, though. You'd need a SMPTE capable analog machine (or dedicate one track to timecode and use an external generator/reader). Install the SMPTE interface in the Fostex, stripe SMPTE timecode on the analog machine, and configure the Fostex to chase the analog machine.
I've never done this personally, but the procedures are pretty well documented. As long as you have timecode on the analog box, you should always be able to sync to it. How robust it is in the field, and what problems might typically occur, I have no direct knowledge of.
I routinely sync my 1624 to Cubase using MTC, and let the DAW chase the 1624: works great, but that's not what you asked. However, I've got this _serious_ Ghost lust going on, and if I ever break down and get one, I'm considering doing the SMPTE upgrade on the 1624 so that both it and the DAW can chase the Ghost's onboard transport controller (since SMPTE offers better resolution than MTC).
Do I really need that capability? Aw, hell _no_. But it'd sure be sexy, wouldn't it? My gear slut side is showing...
I've never done this personally, but the procedures are pretty well documented. As long as you have timecode on the analog box, you should always be able to sync to it. How robust it is in the field, and what problems might typically occur, I have no direct knowledge of.
I routinely sync my 1624 to Cubase using MTC, and let the DAW chase the 1624: works great, but that's not what you asked. However, I've got this _serious_ Ghost lust going on, and if I ever break down and get one, I'm considering doing the SMPTE upgrade on the 1624 so that both it and the DAW can chase the Ghost's onboard transport controller (since SMPTE offers better resolution than MTC).
Do I really need that capability? Aw, hell _no_. But it'd sure be sexy, wouldn't it? My gear slut side is showing...
Skippy, What's up with the "ghost" tracks on these machines? Are they like virtual tracks held in memory, during a session, from which you can comp tracks (vocals, guit solos, etc.), and can you bounce them down to one of the "real" tracks? Are there any limitations as to size (memory dictated)? Thanks, Gelon
skippy
New member
They are essentially virtual tracks: Whatever is on them is not accessible for playback, editing, or any other function. They are basically "parking areas" you can swap tracks into to get them out of the way, without having to delete or overwrite them. In order to make use of the data on them in playback (or to edit them), you have to move them back to one of the real tracks.
So if you like to track some part of your tune multiple times, and keep alternate takes around until the last minute, they are useful. Otherwise, IMHO they are mostly marketing fodder. They are just a parking zone. You can't edit from them: you can only exchange them back wholesale, by swapping them onto a real track and editing them there.
Of course, you have to remember my background: I'm an old analog guy, so my brain does not really work with the idea of "virtual tracks" anyway. Either it's real, or it doesn't exist... So somebody who learned their recording chops with computer hardware might find them _much_ more useful than I currently do. For that matter, maybe someday _I'll_ find them useful, once I learn a few new tricks. Right now, I still just overwrite takes I don't like, bounce down the way I always have, and I've never used any of the ghost tracks yet. Your mileage will almost certainly vary!
So if you like to track some part of your tune multiple times, and keep alternate takes around until the last minute, they are useful. Otherwise, IMHO they are mostly marketing fodder. They are just a parking zone. You can't edit from them: you can only exchange them back wholesale, by swapping them onto a real track and editing them there.
Of course, you have to remember my background: I'm an old analog guy, so my brain does not really work with the idea of "virtual tracks" anyway. Either it's real, or it doesn't exist... So somebody who learned their recording chops with computer hardware might find them _much_ more useful than I currently do. For that matter, maybe someday _I'll_ find them useful, once I learn a few new tricks. Right now, I still just overwrite takes I don't like, bounce down the way I always have, and I've never used any of the ghost tracks yet. Your mileage will almost certainly vary!