Digital vs Analog

M

mbazini

New member
BACKGROUND:
I'm currently running Cakewalk Pro 9 on a Athlon 750, 128MB RAM, etc with a Gadget Labs 8/24 soundcard. All of my recording is based around recording audio (no midi) - Im recording my band.

Im using an Alesis Studio 24 mixer for only line-in since I do not wish to leave the digital domain, or leave the PC to DAT then back again. It makes more sense to keep the audio in the PC.

QUESTION:

Since I don't use the Studio 24 mixer for playback (and I use the Cakewalk mixer instead)..would I truly benefit by using a digital mixer instead? Plus, I think I would have more flexibility for EQing tracks, etc. Does a digital mixer take control over the mixer that I see in Cakewalk? (If I move a fader, would I see it move on the PC?) I rely on the pre-amps on my analog mixer and don't know if the digital would lack in that department. I could use some advise before I lose my shirt on buying all this stuff.

My 8/24 card has an add-on option for optical lightpipe ($150). Ive been pricing out the Fostex VM200 ($699 thru Zzounds) or the Tascam TM-D1000 ($499 thru guitar center + $200 for the ADAT converter).

Im on a limited budget so I would probably sell my Alesis Studio 24 ($599 retail) to replace the digital mixer.

Please help.

Mike / info@rocketromano.com
 
I got a digital mixer with mixdowns in mind... but now that I have it I dont use it for that. Mostly because Im not good enough to nail a mix... AND because my TMD-1000 truncates all incoming signals to 20-bit, and my geek side rebels.

BUT my TMD SOUNDS a million times better than my old analoug mixers. Its hella clean, the converters are outside of the messy RF environs of my computer, and did I mention its hella clean?

so take a listen... compare the noise floor and all that... and make a choice.

But they say once you go digital, dont come back... so Id say get a dig soundcard...

xoxoxo
 
On the Fostex, you'll be lopping off those 4 extra bits from the Gadget card with no dither... like Camn said (20-bit I/O only). And 24 bit internal processing isn't the greatest. Internal DSP bit depth is a bad place to skimp. There's lots of room for rounding errors with all the complex math involved in processing the signal... you want all the bits you can get.

The Tascam looks better on paper. At least you'll get all 24 bits from your card. I couldn't find any specs on it's internal bit depth... probably 24 bits, again.

On the preamps, I'm guessing you'd be going from fairly transparent preamps to quieter, fairly transparent preamps. I see it as mostly a lateral move unless the noise on the Alesis pres is unbearable or is your biggest problem.

As for the DSP (besides the limited 24-bit internal processing), I'm not fond of hardware DSPs, period. You usually get what they give you, and that's pretty much "it". Open standard software plug-ins are much more consumer friendly, and the decent ones are of much better quality. Off-loading some of the CPU's work might be nice, but processing off-line once in a while isn't a huge nuisance. Plus, CPUs are getting more muscle every week, and there are interesting future possibilities with multi-processor setups. There is a reason these units are dropping in price.

As for the mixer integrating with software, check the Cakewalk forum and their web site. Most popular digital mixers should integrate with Cakewalk. This is one area I like. Mouse mixing blows, we all know that. But I still couldn't justify the price for the real faders and automation alone. With all the features on these mixers, each part is probably "okay" but nothing is likely to be great. A good external mixing surface without the DSP and mic pres should either cost a whole lot less or have a lot more features. I don't know squat about automation options, though. It's on my wish list but below a lot of other items, so I haven't really investigated it much.

In a nutshell, you already have most of the features you'd be getting from one of these mixers. I think if you pin-point exactly what you want to improve in your existing setup (sound quality? noise? easier use? performance?), you can do better by getting something specialized for that task. Some possible candidates: better mic, decent preamp, plug-ins, monitors, more RAM and bigger/faster hard-drive. That's just my take on it.
 
Thanks for your take on the matter. After some thought, I may just stay with my current setup. For me to go to digital, I'd have to re-vamp my whole setup from scratch. It's taken me some time to get to this point, and I don't have the energy to do it again -- not yet..

I already have a Art 2pac pre/compressor, awesome mic, screaming PC, etc. I felt that my mixer wasn't that suitable for my setup in the end. But, if I change my mixer and go digital, I negate my soundcard for being overkill(8ins and 8outs 1/4" when I could just get a simple soundcard with an ADAT connection to pump the digital audio).

The move is lateral, and is just another way for me to accomplish stuff. Would it be easier and better? Im not sure.

My Alesis Studio 24 mixer is quiet and noise is not an issue. The issue is the constant fight with getting a good level, eq, effects combination and utilizing it efficiently. With a digital mixer, it would be cool to have a configured environment with a push of a button -- but my PC could do that as well. Ohh...the agony of PC recording.

Time to go bang my head against the wall, and leave my credit card at home...
 
I'm not trying to aggravate your GAS,but digital mixers don't have crosstalk between channels like analog boards do,so if a good stereo sound image is important in what you do,a digital board will be more precise in this area.Cheers!
 
Of course, that analog mixer is not going to loss a bunch of linearity from doing a fader move from unity, or a panning move from center. So while you gain from better isolation between tracks, the bad processing and not so great dithering will cause a somewhat collapse in the stereo image anyway, so I think it is a wash really.

I worked a lot on a O2R a while back. With only a few tracks, it did a decent job because the lame DSP was not as noticable because I didn't have to do a whole lot with the console to mix. But when I got to 24 track mixes, it was outright unbearable. Stereo imaging started to get really bad. The eq's starting getting really harsh sounding. The loss of depth was the worse.

I still say you cannot get a decent digital mixer (hardware) for under $200K. If you want cutting edge for PC, you HAVE to look at Soundscape, ProTools, or even a Sadie to get any decent DSP for that many tracks. The new Sadie stuff looks very promising, but, a 24 track 24/96 system will set you back about $30K. Now, for that money, you can probably get a great used DDA, or Soundcraft, or Amek Matchless with at least VCA fader and mute automation, with lots of inputs, and the better then average OP amps and mic pre's, and get some decent 24/48 I/O cards for your PC. You would then have a good analog part of your signal chain (the console) that would help keep your tracks sounding pristine because there would be NO DSP issues involved because the computer is just a recorder and editor.

Ed
 
I'm still not 100% sure what you're looking for, though. Are you happy with the sound quality you're getting on everything?

You might investigate some of the available HUI's for use with software for the "recall" feature and faders that control the software totally in the digital realm. Then tell ME whatchya find ;).

For controlling input levels, a good compressor might help depending on the nature of the trouble you're having (I've never seen a bad word written about the RNC's... and they're only $200).
 
Im not having any trouble, the sound quality is good -- I just didn't know if it would be a better move overall to go to a digital mixer. There are pros or cons to everything. If I went digital, it would be a lot of work to get rid of my current setup to pay for another (digital) setup. $$ wise, it ain't worth changing what I have right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top