PC DAW Digest

TAE

All you have is now
Below I pasted a copy of a DAW Q & A newsletter I recieve. Although not nearly as sophisticated as HR.com. It does have some hip participants (and also not so hip). Over the years I have gotten some excellent advice out of it. It is pain in the butt to read compared to the way this board is set up . Anyway here it is:

pc-daw Digest 25 Nov 2000 15:46:16 -0000 Issue 20

Topics (messages 467 through 482):

Re: PTFree on a PC
467 by: Brian Graham
470 by: D.R. Holsbeck
476 by: John
479 by: George Freeman

Re: MPEG 2 with wave header?
468 by: Scott Gillen
469 by: Charlie Richmond


Re: Firewire Audio cards
477 by: Benjamin M J Ellis

CD recorders
478 by: Mark Barsamian

Re: Soundcards and Mixers
480 by: efernan.flashmail.com
481 by: Jim Gilliland

Quiet
482 by: Dan

Administrivia:

To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
<pc-daw-digest-subscribe@pcdaw.org>

To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
<pc-daw-digest-unsubscribe@pcdaw.org>

To post to the list, e-mail:
<pc-daw@pcdaw.org>

From: Brian Graham <bsgraham@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: PTFree on a PC
Message-ID: <3A1C1832.6CC13A68@mindspring.com>

Here-in lies my problem. I built a PC dedicated to nothing but Digital Audio Work.
I do all my editing, production, mastering, and CD Recording on this PC. NOTHING else
is on this one box as it contains JUST the specific high-end audio cards and software
required to do Audio Work. (ie. None of that cludgy Micro$oft Office or any other
application software)

When I attempted to install PTFree on this box, it wouldn't install. It claims it
needs Win98 or higher! I'm running WinNT4/SP6a without a problem and SAWPro
'kicks-butt' on this system (P2-400/128M). Apparently the designers of ProTools don't
realize the hierarchy of Micro$oft's Operating systems. Last time I checked, WinNT
*WAS* a "higher than Win98" operating system!

Also, it wouldn't install on my Application PC that is used for all my office tasks
(Word Processing, Web Browsing, Graphic Editing, etc.). Since this other PC is Win98
box, but only has 64M of memory, PTFree wouldn't install. I had the SAW line of
software running on my 386DX-40 many years ago without too many problems (it had to be
tweaked a bit under Win3x). Why does PTFree require so many resources?? I thought it
was supposed to be a superior product.

Since I can't install it, I'll say it is not. I'll stick with SAWPro as my choice
audio editing package, Thank You!

JohnL.Allen@legerity.com wrote:

> I guess this is why the Macheads think PC's are "non-pro". Given an
> arbitrary software package and an arbitrary PC, what are the chances that
> the combination will work together? I believe these problems are due to the
> vast array of mobos, uPs, and bus controllers available. From one
> standpoint, the competition is good for the consumer in that prices are
> reasonably low. This makes upgrading a system relatively painless. From
> another standpoint, all the possible variations of interchangeable
> components makes for wide variations in system timing and performance. You
> can in effect be pushing or exceeding the limits of any specifications that
> exist. This makes the job of the software developer (particularly in timing
> critical applications such as PT Free) alot tougher. Rather than validating
> on a single platform, you now must consider a wide range of possible
> platforms. (I wonder what platform(s) PT validated on). That's not to say
> Macs are perfect. As someone else pointed out in a previous post, Mac's
> don't always work the first time every time and they do crash. But they do
> have the benefit of being all the same (for like models of course). This
> means that variation in system behavior are very small and hence the system
> predictability is high. Imagine what the world would be like if we we're
> all the same;o) Sorry, that argument doesn't apply, I just couldn't resist.

--
Brian S. Graham Entertainment
Spam-Haters reply to: dj at knoxvillewedding dot com
Visit my DJ/Audio site at http://www.knoxvillewedding.com
The only kind of SPAM I want comes from Hormel, thank you!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:41:44 +0000
To: pc-daw@pcdaw.org
From: "D.R. Holsbeck" <drh@niptron.com>
Subject: Re: PCDAW- Re: PTFree on a PC
Message-ID: <3A1C2F88.39D751E3@niptron.com>

>From digidesign's web site:

Additional Notes:
* Pro Tools FREE can NOT be installed on systems running Windows 2000, NT, 95, or
3.1.
* While Windows 98 First Edition may run Pro Tools FREE just fine, only Millennium
& 98 Second Edition have been tested by Digidesign.
* Double-byte character version of Windows is currently not supported (i.e.
Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Arabic)

And yes NT is "higher" than win98. But the driver and kernel api are completely
different.

Brian Graham wrote:

> When I attempted to install PTFree on this box, it wouldn't install. It claims it
> needs Win98 or higher! I'm running WinNT4/SP6a without a problem and SAWPro
> 'kicks-butt' on this system (P2-400/128M). Apparently the designers of ProTools don't
> realize the hierarchy of Micro$oft's Operating systems. Last time I checked, WinNT
> *WAS* a "higher than Win98" operating system!

drh@niptron.com

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
- Henry Spencer, University or Toronto Unix hack

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 23:39:46 -0500
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
From: "John" <gollum@mailroom.com>
Subject: Re: PTFree on a PC
Message-ID: <00aa01c05507$6b7d9c20$6f9403cf@axe783>

I have installed PTfree on my old Gateway PII-233 128MB with a cheap-o
Creative AudioPCI ES1370 card and a 16-channel STUDI/O card. It installed
fine, and works quite well for recording and playback on the AudioPCI, with
one major exception -- It does *not* see the line input on the AudiPCI as
stereo, therefore I can only record one track at a time. If I have a signal
coming in on just the left channel, no matter what settings I change, PTFree
sees it on both the left and right channels. That is sort of frustrating. .
. Also, it doesn't recognize the Sonorus card, but Digidesign has stated
that they have not yet included support for pro cards.

So, other than that stereo issue, I'm liking PTFree more and more as I
continue to learn it. By the way, I also installed it on my work computer,
a Dell PII-233 64MB, and it installed and runs fine. I haven't tried
recording there, though. . . I'm not sure how my co-workers would handle my
making music in the office. . . :)

Anyway, if anyone has any ideas/similar experiences with the stereo issue,
I'd love to hear them! Thanks.

-John

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 14:29:39 -0500
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
From: "George Freeman" <gefreeman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: PCDAW- Re: PTFree on a PC
Message-ID: <002d01c05583$b963dc20$430c4f0c@warbird>

Where do I find ProTools FREE?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Graham" <bsgraham@mindspring.com>
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 2:02 PM
Subject: PCDAW- Re: PTFree on a PC

> Here-in lies my problem. I built a PC dedicated to nothing but Digital
Audio Work.
> I do all my editing, production, mastering, and CD Recording on this PC.
NOTHING else
> is on this one box as it contains JUST the specific high-end audio cards
and software
> required to do Audio Work. (ie. None of that cludgy Micro$oft Office or
any other
> application software)
>
> When I attempted to install PTFree on this box, it wouldn't install. It
claims it
> needs Win98 or higher! I'm running WinNT4/SP6a without a problem and
SAWPro
> 'kicks-butt' on this system (P2-400/128M). Apparently the designers of
ProTools don't
> realize the hierarchy of Micro$oft's Operating systems. Last time I
checked, WinNT
> *WAS* a "higher than Win98" operating system!
>
> Also, it wouldn't install on my Application PC that is used for all my
office tasks
> (Word Processing, Web Browsing, Graphic Editing, etc.). Since this other
PC is Win98
> box, but only has 64M of memory, PTFree wouldn't install. I had the SAW
line of
> software running on my 386DX-40 many years ago without too many problems
(it had to be
> tweaked a bit under Win3x). Why does PTFree require so many resources?? I
thought it
> was supposed to be a superior product.
>
> Since I can't install it, I'll say it is not. I'll stick with SAWPro as
my choice
> audio editing package, Thank You!
>
> JohnL.Allen@legerity.com wrote:
>
> > I guess this is why the Macheads think PC's are "non-pro". Given an
> > arbitrary software package and an arbitrary PC, what are the chances
that
> > the combination will work together? I believe these problems are due to
the
> > vast array of mobos, uPs, and bus controllers available. From one
> > standpoint, the competition is good for the consumer in that prices are
> > reasonably low. This makes upgrading a system relatively painless. From
> > another standpoint, all the possible variations of interchangeable
> > components makes for wide variations in system timing and performance.
You
> > can in effect be pushing or exceeding the limits of any specifications
that
> > exist. This makes the job of the software developer (particularly in
timing
> > critical applications such as PT Free) alot tougher. Rather than
validating
> > on a single platform, you now must consider a wide range of possible
> > platforms. (I wonder what platform(s) PT validated on). That's not to
say
> > Macs are perfect. As someone else pointed out in a previous post, Mac's
> > don't always work the first time every time and they do crash. But they
do
> > have the benefit of being all the same (for like models of course). This
> > means that variation in system behavior are very small and hence the
system
> > predictability is high. Imagine what the world would be like if we we're
> > all the same;o) Sorry, that argument doesn't apply, I just couldn't
resist.
>
> --
> Brian S. Graham Entertainment
> Spam-Haters reply to: dj at knoxvillewedding dot com
> Visit my DJ/Audio site at http://www.knoxvillewedding.com
> The only kind of SPAM I want comes from Hormel, thank you!


Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:13:41 +1300
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
From: "Scott Gillen" <sgillen@rhema.co.nz>
Subject: Re: PCDAW- MPEG 2 with wave header?
Message-ID: <001301c054c0$b55b7de0$8e01a8c0@wsb>

>> Any one know how to make mpeg2 files with a wave header?

>If you have a standard MPEG-2 audio codec installed, Sound Forge will let
you do this>>

Hi I have that and can do .mp3 format files but how do I add a wave header.

I can use SF, CEP or Samp

Thanks

Scott

Scott M.Gillen
Audio Engineer/Producer
RBG Auckland New Zealand
+649-307-1251 Ext 726
Mobile 025-642-4498
Phone For Freelance Audio Engineering

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:18:46 -0800 (PST)
To: pc-daw@pcdaw.org
From: Charlie Richmond <charlier@show-control.com>
Subject: Re: PCDAW- MPEG 2 with wave header?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011221217470.1893-100000@insomniaque.net>

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Scott Gillen wrote:

> Hi I have that and can do .mp3 format files but how do I add a wave header.

You need to convert the mp3 file to a wav file, not just add a wave header
to it..... ;-)

Good luck!
Charlie

+- Charlie Richmond-Richmond Sound Design-Vancouver, Canada -+
+------------ http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Charlie Richmond <charlier@show-control.com>
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: PCDAW- MPEG 2 with wave header?

> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Scott Gillen wrote:
>
> > Hi I have that and can do .mp3 format files but how do I add a wave
header.
>
> You need to convert the mp3 file to a wav file, not just add a wave header
> to it..... ;-)
>
> Good luck!
> Charlie
>
> +- Charlie Richmond-Richmond Sound Design-Vancouver, Canada -+
> +------------ http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:00:06 -0500
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
From: "Peter Haller" <phaller@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: PCDAW- MPEG 2 with wave header?
Message-ID: <031b01c054f1$1a791bd0$a0c8a018@pchpii400>

In Forge,=20

- Save as.=20
- Set the Save as type to Wave (Microsfot)(*.wav)
- Set the Format to the MPEG-2 (I assume you mean MPEG-2, Layer 3) =
codec installed on your system. I use the Fraunhofer codec.
- Set your desired Attributes for the codec

Click Save button.

You have a wave file that has the audio encoded in mpeg-2. It is _not_ =
an MP3 file, but is a wave file with the audio encoded in the MPEG =
format.

Peter

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Scott Gillen" <sgillen@rhema.co.nz>
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: PCDAW- MPEG 2 with wave header?

> >> Any one know how to make mpeg2 files with a wave header?
>=20
> >If you have a standard MPEG-2 audio codec installed, Sound Forge will =
let
> you do this>>
>=20
> Hi I have that and can do .mp3 format files but how do I add a wave =
header.
>=20
> I can use SF, CEP or Samp
>=20
> Thanks
>=20
> Scott
>=20
>=20
> Scott M.Gillen
> Audio Engineer/Producer
> RBG Auckland New Zealand
> +649-307-1251 Ext 726
> Mobile 025-642-4498
> Phone For Freelance Audio Engineering
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: pc-daw-unsubscribe@pcdaw.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: pc-daw-help@pcdaw.org
>=20

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:05:21 -0500
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
From: "Peter Haller" <phaller@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: PCDAW- MPEG 2 with wave header?
Message-ID: <033201c054f1$d60aafd0$a0c8a018@pchpii400>

A wave header refers the the RIFF file chunk - you know what RIFF is? - =
that defines a .wav file as being a wave file.=20

This header contains information about=20
- the format of the audio stream in the file - PCM, MPEG, floating =
point, etc,etc.
- The sample rate/bit depth/channels
- data alignment sizes
- Some other stuff...

This is then followed in the very least by the "data" chunk which is the =
actual audio data.

Peter

----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Dmitry Moshkov" <dmoshkov@spacelab.net>
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: PCDAW- MPEG 2 with wave header?

> what is a wave header? :)
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Charlie Richmond <charlier@show-control.com>
> To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: PCDAW- MPEG 2 with wave header?
>=20
>=20
> > On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Scott Gillen wrote:
> >
> > > Hi I have that and can do .mp3 format files but how do I add a =
wave
> header.
> >
> > You need to convert the mp3 file to a wav file, not just add a wave =
header
> > to it..... ;-)
> >
> > Good luck!
> > Charlie
> >
> > +- Charlie Richmond-Richmond Sound Design-Vancouver, Canada -+
http://www.RichmondSoundDesign.com

> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: pc-daw-unsubscribe@pcdaw.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: pc-daw-help@pcdaw.org


Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:28:24 -0000
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
From: "Benjamin M J Ellis" <benjamin.ellis@virtualaccess.com>
Subject: RE: PCDAW- Re: Firewire Audio cards
Message-ID: <BOEOIEMBNNKBCOGFBJKOMEJODAAA.benjamin.ellis@virtualaccess.com>

Interesting thing at called the Mobile I/O 2882, which ships in Feb next
year. Gives firewire to 4 ins, 8 outs, SPDIF, word clock and AES. Very
cool..

However, what I am really looking for is something that does firewire to 2
or 3 ADAT interface, so I can hook my digital desk to an iCube... Anyone
know of anything?

-Benjamin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pc-daw-return-432-benjamin.ellis=virtualaccess.com@pcdaw.org
> [mailto:pc-daw-return-432-benjamin.ellis=virtualaccess.com@pcdaw.org]On
> Behalf Of Richard B Ingraham
> Sent: 17 November 2000 15:36
> To: pc-daw@pcdaw.org
> Subject: PCDAW- Re: Firewire Audio cards
>
>
> Although it's not out out yet, Metric Halo Labs (makers of Spectra Foo) I
> believe have announced a new Firewire audio interface. I think they
> state a Jan. release date. Don't really know anything about them, I just
> heard about it on another news list. Look at their web site, sorry don't
> have the url handy right now, you'll have to do a search for Metric Halo
> Labs, or Spectra Foo.
>
>
>
> Richard B. Ingraham
> Resident Sound Designer
> The Cleveland Play House
> email at: RBIngraham@juno.com
>
> Hi,
> I'm currently looking at setting up a notebook to DJ music
> at dance competitions with. I've been thinking about getting the
> two card Magma PCI bus expander so that I can use a decent PCI audio
> card (and disk controller), but now that there are notebooks out there
> with FireWire support I'm wondering if there is a FireWire audio card in
> the near future that I could use instead? Thanks
> George

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:08:07 -0500 (EST)
To: pc-daw@pcdaw.org
From: Mark Barsamian <barsamia@math.sunysb.edu>
Subject: CD recorders
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.1001123115540.19842F-100000@math>

Okay, so technically this is not a PC-related question, but I'm sure many
of you have dealt with it.

I am looking for a stand-alone CD-R recorder to use as a session
recorder. (I do location recording of classical music, and would like a
back-up for my Tascam DA-P1 DAT machine.) I am familiar with the Tascam
CDRW700 and love it, but would like even more a deck with two wells that
would make high-speed copies, or a slightly cheaper single-well deck.

Questions:

1) I've heard that some of the "consumer" CD-R recorders can be "tricked"
into using data CD-R disks. Is this true? Which ones?

2) I will be editing these recordings in my DAW and burning CD's from the
edited files. If I use a "consumer" recorder, what will happen with the
SCMS copy code when I edit the audio?

Features I would like:

1) I must be able to record on 80-minute disks.

2) I would prefer to be able to use data CD-R, to save money on disks (and
to save the hassle of having to keep both data and music CD-R's on hand)

3) Coaxial SPDIF input

4) If those features were available in a dubbing deck, I would certainly
use the dubbing feature.

Any recommendations of specific recorders, or referrals to other sites?

Thanks,
-Mark Barsamian

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:42:07 -0300
To: <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
From: <efernan@flashmail.com>
Cc: <splashbk@dnai.com>
Subject: RE: Soundcards and Mixers
Message-ID: <000201c055a8$f25e31e0$2f044c40@x>

>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 20:41:36 -0800
>To: Digital Audio Workstation List <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
>From: Dana and Roberta Vincent <splashbk@dnai.com>
>Subject: Soundcards and Mixers
>Message-ID: <3A0A2B00.BEA94AF2@dnai.com>
>
>Folks, I am getting pretty close to making a decision on a soundcard for
>my project studio, and just wanted to get some opinions on the options I
>am seriously considering. My band is an instrumental surf rock group,
>with two guitars, bass, and drums. Occasionally we will throw in a
>vocal tune. I want to be able to record up to 8 tracks at one time,
>plus have a system that does not take up much space. My soundcard
>choices at this point are the Midiman Delta 1010, Ardvark Aark 24, RME
>Digi96/8 with an Analog Input Expansion Board, and the Echo Layla 24.
>Interestingly enough, the price is pretty close on all the units. Any
>thoughts?
>
>I have read good posts on all but the Ardvark piece, but just wanted to
>get the thoughts of those who may have had experience with these
>specific choices. I plan to marry the card with a Mackie, Behringer, or
>Soundcraft mixer/preamp, which brings up another question. How
>important is the 60mm versus 100mm faders? I understand the principle,
>but it seems like those that have the 100mm versions claim great
>superiority. Also, what about the Mackie "XDR" preamps? It seems like
>every manufacturer with a preamp states theirs is "ultra low noise",
>"transparent", and every other buzz word known to man. Everyone can't
>be the best!
>
>With the sound card and mixer/preamp I will have successfully blown my
>original budget two-fold; however, I don't want to get the equipment,
>and find out in a couple of months that I don't have the flexibility I
>need to get the job done without buying a new system. I have been there
>before with guitars, amplifiers, and effects, and don't want to repeat
>the exercise with different equipment. As always, any thoughts and
>advise will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
>
>Best regards, Dana Vincent
>
----------------------------------------------------------

HI! I know your post is pretty old by now... but well... maybe I still could
help...

My name is Esteban and I'm a professional audio installer (analog and digital)
and recording tech. I also play bass in surf/garage bands... so I know what are
you talking about :)

to the point...

A nice not-very-expensive setup for recording 8 tracks a time:

Mixer: Any small one with at least 8 mic pre-amps (XLR connectors) and 8 direct
outs (via dedicated or insert output)... a Mackie, Spirit, or other high-quality
brand will do the job. Faders? Really don't matter, specially if you're going to
mix inside the computer (I think you will). Quality of the pre-amps? They all
are pretty the same (in the same common league) don't worry too much about that.

Audio card: I think that the Echo Layla24 or the Midiman Delta 1010 are the best
choice... the Echo has the best converters around for an analog card. Both cards
are solid and have a great support. Anyway, you need a computer in good shape. I
recommended:

Computer:

Motherboard: any branded with Intel i440BX or i815 chipset (NOTE: some audio
cards have problems with Via chipsets).
CPU: Celeron original or II (Coppermine128), PII or PIII... the best
price/performance option is a Celeron II... Speed: 400+ MHz cpu: more speed,
more processing for mixdown (more plugins).
RAM: 64 MB is enough (works 100% OK) for audio only (up to 16-24 tracks) under
Win9x. You could buy a 128 MB stick for greater margin for newer apps.
HD: any 7200 RPM IDE drive would do it. You actually can use a 5400 RPM IDE
drive (newer) with up to 16 tracks without a problem.
CD-R: Any known branded IDE CD-R drive. 4X or 8X is good enough.
Video card: Any simple cheap AGP, like ATI, Trident. The Matrox are the best for
2D but more expensive. Some Virge, Diamond and maybe others have some problems.
Case: Buy a good quality ATX one with a big (~300W) power supply.

Software:

Multitracker: I found Cubase VST32 the most complete and very stable
multitracker, also not too expensive. Cakewalk works great too. Vegas Audio Pro
is one of the finest, but lacks some features (like a virtual mixer, making
mixing a nightmare). If you have the money, maybe the best choice today is
Nuendo, but if you don't use all the "extras" like automation, this app is very
similar to Cubase VST32. I don't recommend because their non-standard interfaces
and some other problems: SAW family, Logic Audio, Samplitude... too
incompressible and hard to use. CoolEdit is very slow and very limited.

Editing/mastering: The best choice is Wavelab, support for 24-bit and 32-bit FP
audio files, great format conversion (for example .mp3), very agile and fast
editing/processing. Excellent CD mastering. Sound Forge is outdated for today
standards (and slower than Wavelab), and CoolEdit is again too limited and slow
for editing.

Plugins: The best multitrackers now come with a great selection of plugins, of
very good quality (I couldn't say the same some months ago)... specially Cubase
VST32 or Nuendo. If you need more, there are lots of options. The best is to buy
some pack. The problem is that normally they are very expensive.

You don't need any more soft to work with audio than those two. A multitracker
and an editing/mastering app. Well, actually, you need Windows :) I recommend
Win98SE, not ME.

Other stuff: Obviously you need cables, mics, mic-stands, monitoring, etc.

Mics: 8 good quality mics is all you need: a pair of small-capsule condensers
(like Shure SM81, AKG C1000, or some cheaper ones, from Audio-Technica or any
other quality brand), a nice kick drum mic would be nice too (like a Shure
Beta52, Audio-Technica ATM25 or an AKG D112), and all others, general purpose
instrument mics (like Shure SM57). Don't buy cheap lightweight mic stands,
specially for the condensers.

Main monitoring: a pair of self-powered small near-field monitors or ok.
(Mackie, Tannoy, Spirit, Alesis, etc.)

Musician's monitoring: quality (but not expensive) closed headphones (Sony, AKG,
Sennheiser), in the same quantity as the musicians that are going to record at
the same time plus one of for the recording tech. You'll need a headphone
distribution amplifier for the musicians. There're some really good and cheap.
Buy one that may be put on the floor or near the musicians so they can control
their volumes, don't buy a rackmountable one, they are bigger and more difficult
to handle.

Cables: at least 8 XLR-XLR mic quality cables (Rapco, Horizon, etc.). Plug
cables (TS-TS for unbal. and TRS-TRS for the balanced connections) for the
mixer->audio card's module connection (8), for the return from audio-card's
module->mixer (2), from mixer->self powered monitors (2), from mixer->headphone
amp (1 for each mono mix, only mono sends from small mixers, you can create a
stereo mix with 2 aux sends, but somewhat difficult to operate), maybe some
headphone extension cords. Nothing more I guess :)

About space: You can put the small mixer and the audio card's module in a rack.
A 12 space one will be fine. If you spend more on a rackmountable computer case,
then you can have everything on a single rack (then you need maybe 16 rack
spaces). The only things outside this case would be the video monitor,
mouse/keyboard, headphone amp, main monitors, headphones, and the mics/stands ;)
Well, if you need more help (like a drawing or something showing how to put all
this together, or how to arrange the sessions) just ask :)
Good luck!
PS: I would like to know what system are you buying. I'm just plain curious ;)

PS2: Hey! instrumental surf!!!, any recording of your band yet???, I would
really like to hear something, and pls. some details of your band... location,
members, etc. :)

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:43:32 -0500
To: pc-daw@pcdaw.org
From: Jim Gilliland <gilliland@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: PCDAW- RE: Soundcards and Mixers
<3.0.6.32.20001123194332.00beb240@mail.iname.com>

At 03:42 PM 11/23/00 -0300, you wrote:
>Multitracker: I found Cubase VST32 the most complete and very stable
>multitracker, also not too expensive. Cakewalk works great too.

>Vegas Audio Pro is one of the finest, but lacks some features
>(like a virtual mixer, making mixing a nightmare).

I realize that there are lots of ways of working and lots of opinions, but
I have to say that I've found Vegas to be extraordinarily easy to use, and
especially easy to mix with. In fact, I think the fact that it does _not_
attempt to apply a "virtual mixer" concept is the very reason that it is so
easy to use for mixing. The Vegas mixer is much better suited to a
computer GUI/Mouse interface.

I've just spent the day mixing two concert recordings with Vegas and I
simply can't imagine how mixing could be any easier.

I certainly don't think that there's anything wrong with your choices, but
I've found mixing on _them_ to be a nightmare. <g> To each his own!

Jim Gilliland
gilliland@altavista.net

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 09:42:55 -0500
To: "pc-daw" <pc-daw@pcdaw.org>
From: "Dan" <dan@missionrec.com>
Subject: Quiet
Message-ID: <002101c056ee$00ccc980$0a01a8c0@home>

Turkey still got you guys on the couch?

Dan

------------------------------

End of pc-daw Digest
***********************************
 
Back
Top