Aardvark Q10 - opinions?

[Chris Tondreau]

I'm looking at upgrading in the next while (maybe long while ) much of my entry-level setup to something that truly resembles pro-quality. Unless I read wrong in my quick scan of the information, the Aardvark Q10 has eight analog inputs, each with their own pre-amp, and eight outputs. If I remember right, the extra two (you know, to make up the "10") was a digital I/O. Is this right that there are eight built-in preamps? What do they sound like? Is there any reason why someone would rather explore another option like a Delta 1010 and a hardware mixing console?

Chris

 

[Gidge]

yes, the 8 analog inputs all have preamps, 4 of them with phantom power......most consider them a tad better than the Mackie VLZ Pros......

I guess is one already has a mixer with preamps, that would be one reason.......or some just like all of the routing options a mixer has......or some just like mixing with faders, taking the outputs back to the mixer and mixing there, instead of in software........

of course, another drawback is that you have 8 of the exact same sounding preamp, even though they sound good.....

alot depends on how you feel about mixing in software, and how much external gear you will be depending on.......

 

[Bass Master "K"]

Love my Q-10, if it weren't in my rack I would take it to bed with me.

The outputs in the back make it nice and flexible. I just installed my TC Electronic M300 and use the SPDIF inputs on the back, keeps the effects in the digital domain. I also use two of the 8 outputs to go out to the headphone amplifier/splitter I have. Very versitile and flexible....

The unit sounds great and works great. People have complained about past driver updates being slow but that was before I got one because I have been nothing but happy with mine. Super low latency...I could go on and on.

OH ya, and expandablility....you can piggyback up to 4 aardvarks of any type to work together.

I'm a satisfied customer....

 

[Chris Tondreau]

Ok, cool..... thanks, guys. That was one of the things that appealed to me was having the mic pres built-in, as I have come to be doing my mixing and 99% of my effects within Cubase/plug-ins, etc. At the moment, I'm using a Behringer 802 mixer and a Delta 44. Even if I had a half-decent hardware mixer, I would lose the luxury of automation, saving all the parameters within the song, etc. Not that I'd be against trying things out as options...

What I'm looking for is a pro (or more realistically, near-pro) system with at least eight simultaneous ins (or more), and maybe eight outs. I was considering (and still am....) the Delta 1010, as I've heard good things about it. But, then, I'd need a bunch more pre-amps.... perhaps a good quality mixer, or some dedicated mic pres, or some combination thereof for variety. I realize that this COULD get VERY expensive. I want to do better than Mackie - not that I think Mackie is bad, but I just want to go more "pro-level" than that. At this point, the Aardvark starts sounding like a REALLY good option.

Perhaps a sixteen channel mixer with a Delta 1010 would be nice, to give me eight channels going into the 1010, and eight coming back from the Delta.... but then again, I kinda like software mixing.

I could go Motu 828 or something like that, but I'd still need pres.

Any other suggestions, or any other comments on the Aardvark? That may well be the direction I go, as the price/performance seems to be good. I could also use my Behringer as a sub-mixer/router of sorts, too, perhaps, but with 8 outputs, I might not need anything else.

Chris

 

[laptoppop]

I have two of the Aardvark's Direct Pro 24/96 units. They use the same preamps as the Q10, but also give some limited effects (reverb, compression, eq) for use in monitoring while recording. On the negative side, each one is only 4 channels, so I needed 2.

I really like the preamps. They have a huge amount of gain, they are *extremely* quiet, they are not colored in any way -- very neutral, accurate sound. If I want color, I can always plug a different preamp into the box. I am LOVING the sounds that I'm getting out of these units. My primary other experience has been with the Mackie d8b mixer -- I like these preamps a lot better.

A big plus with these units is for monitoring the work while recording. They give you a mini-mixer on the screen that has "zero" latency. On the negative side, using the mouse to control the interface to the preamps and monitoring setup is a bit clunky, but usable.

-lee-

 

[ChuckU]

Chris, I looked at the Q10, but driver support for Sonar wasn't available, so I got a Delta 1010. I already had a Mackie 1202, so I didn't need the pres. You can get a 1202 on Ebay these days for about $250US, just about the difference in price between the Delta and the Q10. I use the inserts on the Mackie for my inputs which skips the main out on the mixer and I monitor the 1010's output thru the rest of the board. All components operate in perfect harmony ".....ommmmmmm...."

However, I recently bought a second Delta (intended to reside in a second PC as a backup unit) and would like to test having two on the same PC. I have a thread up right now addressing that and apparently it's not real easy. Don't know if multiple Q10's are easy, but I realize that's not what you're after.....right now, that is.

 

[laptoppop]

If you have the PCI slots, the Q10s are designed to be used together in one system -- up to 4 in one system.

Sonar support in the drivers is excellent these days.

-lee-

 

[justwantyou2kno]

Awhile back I was looking into a Q10, but decided to get a Delta 1010 and an Alesis 12R mixer. I'm glad I chose the 1010, becaue there is just more versatility with the mixer+soundcard. Everything is much easier when the controls are right next to you. The pres in the Q10 are probably betetr then those of my Alesis mixer, but I think the ease of use outways hw good the pres are.

 

[laptoppop]

I'd have to agree AND disagree with you there

Yes, an outboard mixer is easier than using a mouse to mix with the mixer on screen. But... how much do you really mess with the mixer during a take anyway? For me, I set up the recording levels and monitoring levels, then record the take. I don't move those things much anyway.

Where I DO move things around a lot is during mixdown. For that, I'm recording into Sonar, and mixing down using Sonar (with all of its automation capabilities) combined with a Mackie Control control surface - best of both worlds.

Another way to look at it is - you only record once. The preamp quality you get is what you will be hearing 10,452 times during mixdown and beyond.

-lee-

 

[Ptron]

I like mine alot. The pre's are decent. Not having to deal with a mixer really simplifies things. One big warning though, if you use XP, the Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 it comes with will not work. The Aardvark tech support guy says they have it running on an XP machine but after countless wasted hours trying to get it to work, I finally gave up and bought Sonar.

Ptron

 

[ChuckU]

Laptoppop,
How do you like your Mackie Control?

I love Sonar's mixing and effects automation, but a control surface would really tighten things up.

Good to know about Q10's success in Sonar and the ability to use multiple units.

 

[laptoppop]

I've only done a few mixes on this new system - dual monitors and Mackie control - but so far I am totally totally pleased.

I use Sonar for my main mixing, and Cool Edit Pro for final touchups and pre-cd level setting (I'm not good enough to call it mastering ). I use a UAD-1 card and Izotope's Ozone for extra effects.

The Mackie control works WONDERFULLY with the Mackie control. You can download a help file from Cakewalk that describes all its features - check it out -- it controls a TON of functions. Cool Edit works darn well too, but not as good as Sonar. I needed to get the version 1.0 ROMs from Mackie because Cool edit didn't work well with the version 2.0 roms. I'm sure that will be addressed in the next version of cool edit.

With Sonar, for example, if you have a volume envelope, the motorized faders will follow as the song plays. If you have automation record enabled, if you make any changes to the faders while the song plays, the changes are made to the faders.

Having physical faders and knobs, as well as being able to change more than one at one time without having to group anything is making my mixes go MUCH MUCH faster. I'd say about 4 times faster so far. Its GREAT.

-lee-

 

[weatherbill]

if you do get the Q-10

you will have to upgrade to sonar if they enclose the cakewalk 9 cd. I upgraded a while ago and had to pay cakewalk $100 to up it to sonar, which for me was well worth it. Sonar is great to work with and easy to use. It's better than paying like $250 for Sonar in the stores.
I run a blue tube, 2 channel pre amp into my Q-10, even though it has the pre amps built in. I did this when I first bought it thinking it would warm up my sound even more, but tests prove to me that I could'nt really tell much difference in the warmth of my recordings. So those pre amps in the Q-10 are pretty darm good Wally!
p.s. you might check with cakewalk and see what the deal is with upgrading to sonar from cakewalk 9 before you get spendy.

 

[Ptron]

Re: if you do get the Q-10

p.s. you might check with cakewalk and see what the deal is with upgrading to sonar from cakewalk 9 before you get spendy.

$149 for 2.2
$249 for 2.2 XL

Ptron

 

[E. Chiasson]

I bought the Q10 for its layout but also for the way it is shielded. Nothing has been neglected. Even the card going into the computer is completely shielded. The power is filtered twice before entering the rackmount unit so the converters stay absolutely stable. The power is coming into the rackmount via a 25 pins shielded cable. There is no power supply residing inside the rackmount.

I even prefer the converters on the Q10 to the ones on my Yamaha AW2816. I realy like the Q10. It's a simple interface and a great performer.

 

[zekthedeadcow]

...and it's practically indestructable...

I've only managed to break 1 knob ...well it's just loose... and I had a portable rig and when I deployed and kept it in my feild fileing cabnet it was left on the back of a truck exposed to the elements in charlston, SC for 2 months ...everything on the truck was completely rusted and soaked...except the q10...which was just soaked... but still works great

 

[dudleys100]

I have the Delta 1010, and have had the Aardvark LX6. I will probably get yelled at for this, but when i listened to music I listen to often and music I have mixed I noticed the sound quality was not as good as the 1010. I don't know if it is due to the converters or what but the soundscape was much more narrow. Things I could hear at say 10 and 2 in my head now became more like 10.5 and 1.5 (like on a clock It just plain sounded better. I use the 1010 with a Soundtracs mixer (great pre's better than mackie imo) and they are cheap on Ebay. Aardvark was good, but I prefered the 1010 by far. Just my experience.

 

[Chris Tondreau]

Wow... thanks for all the feedback, guys! I've finally decided on the Delta 1010, and bought it a few days ago. (hooray!!) I talked to a few people who had problems with the Aardvark, and I have yet to hear anything problematic or funny about the Delta. Everything I hear is great.

Okay, yeah, so now I have to find a mixer. I like to have the option of using the hardware mixer, and of using my own pres instead of the ones provided to me by the Aardvark. I didn't see any information that suggested you could bypass the pres in the Q10, and I've heard mixed things about them. And now at the risk of sounding ridiculous (based more on rhetoric than on experience), I'm considering the Behringer UB2442 mixer. I'm going to check them out for myself, but I've heard that the new pres have lots of headroom, and sound great - very clean and open - comparable to the VLZ-Pro series from Mackie. It also has effects built into it for monitor feeds and stuff. It has eight direct outs, which would match up perfectly with the 1010, and has four subgroups in addition to the master. Lots of flexibility and good sound (allegedly) for a good price.

Chris

 

[bgavin]

Pulling the trigger on a Q10

I want to do high quality direct-to-computer recording of both live performances and track-at-a-time stuff. I understand the Q10 10-input limit, and that a hefty computer can accept up to (4) Q10 boxes and cards.

Is there any reason to not purchase the Q10?

They are selling new on eBay for $689 + $12 shipping, no tax, and full factory box/warranty. This is a whole bunch less expensive than the online stores.