Adat Tape Machine question

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcapel
  • Start date Start date
gcapel

gcapel

boom box recordings
Can you use an Alesis Adat tape machine as an A/D converter without using a tape? And what about D/A?

I would think you could, but I have never owned one.
 
gcapel said:
Can you use an Alesis Adat tape machine as an A/D converter without using a tape? And what about D/A?

I would think you could, but I have never owned one.
Click to expand...

The answer is yes; analog inputs to lightpipe out, and visa versa.
 
Yes, but I do not think you can use the channels simultaneously.
 
An ADAT makes a fine "front end" for a DAW setup with a lightpipe card. Before I got my HD24, I was using two blackface ADATS with 2 Terratec EWS 88d lightpipe cards to the PC. I stopped using tape at some point and just used the converters for a couple years. In theory, I could record 16 tracks at once that way (when the PC cooperated).
 
The way ADAT's work I am pretty sure you can only use 8 channels total. So you could do 6 a/d and 2 d/a, 4 and 4 etc... but not 8 a/d simultaneously with 8 d/a. Keep in mind also that the converters in an ADAT, even the 20 bit ADAT's are about as nasty as they get.
 
xstatic said:
Keep in mind also that the converters in an ADAT, even the 20 bit ADAT's are about as nasty as they get.
Click to expand...

That opinion isn't shared by everyone.

Quite a few people still use ADATS for A/D and D/A conversion, with very good results. To the original poster (gcapel) - try it and see what you think.
 
xstatic said:
The way ADAT's work I am pretty sure you can only use 8 channels total. So you could do 6 a/d and 2 d/a, 4 and 4 etc... but not 8 a/d simultaneously with 8 d/a. Keep in mind also that the converters in an ADAT, even the 20 bit ADAT's are about as nasty as they get.
Click to expand...

A lightpipe connection will serve 8 channels. You can use as many lightpipe connections TOGETHER as you want though.

Anyway, I agree that the ADAT converters indeed are nowhere as horrible as some make them out to be. ADAT was the first WIDELY USED digital format, and thus, suffered from a lot of engineers who were still trying to track to digital like they would analog, thus, were left were VERY tinty sounding recordings, then blamed it on digital recording in general and/or the "crappy" converters on ADAT's. :rolleyes:

I did these two projects with Black face ADAT's exclusively!

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/Audio/HeavyBrothers
http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/Audio/SkyBlueMind

I don't think the converters were where any problems lied in these two projects.
 
Well, I went through the phase where I used my ADAT's as converters. Personally, even the cheapest of the "pro" soundcards sound better in my opinion. I also find that ADAT projects sounded better to me when actually on the tape. Any way you look at it though, the technology in an ADAT is old. Alesis stopped making ADAT's several years ago and the last technological change in them was at least 5 years ago.

Generally though, the converters are regarded as pretty nasty. Of course there are those who would say otherwise, but there are also those who maintain that ADAT's are reliable as well.

As an aside here... before anyone takes this too far... I never said you couldn't make good music with ADAT's... just that the converters are about as bad as it gets... which is pretty widely accepted.
 
xstatic said:
Well, I went through the phase where I used my ADAT's as converters. Personally, even the cheapest of the "pro" soundcards sound better in my opinion. I also find that ADAT projects sounded better to me when actually on the tape. Any way you look at it though, the technology in an ADAT is old. Alesis stopped making ADAT's several years ago and the last technological change in them was at least 5 years ago.

Generally though, the converters are regarded as pretty nasty. Of course there are those who would say otherwise, but there are also those who maintain that ADAT's are reliable as well.

As an aside here... before anyone takes this too far... I never said you couldn't make good music with ADAT's... just that the converters are about as bad as it gets... which is pretty widely accepted.
Click to expand...

In the converters shootout, many guys commented on how good the XT converters sounded! Most of them don't "recall them sounding this good". LOL Really, it is just a case of people converting over from analog and not having a fucking clue how to track to digital. Most had to get used to the fact that what you hear is what you get! Unlike tape, where you intentionally hyped up the upper mids and highs to saturate the tape to overcome the rather piss poor sound dynamic range tape has!

I would STILL gladly use ADAT converters, and frankly, I would never find them to impede a recording enough to stop using them. Indeed, given the choice between them and some Apogee's, I would use the Apogee's, but the ADAT converters are FAR from "horrible", and in my opinion are no worse than many OTHER budget converters on the market!

You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think you could back it with much "proof in the pudding". ;)
 
I don't think there is any difference either in tape or using them as a front end!

Here are two live multi-track recordings I did using Black Face ADAT's into a MOTU 2408 MkII. Recorded right into Sonar 3.




I think both of these are outstanding sounding live recordings!

Here is the Ford Brothers (brothers or Roben Ford) recorded to an HD-24. Supposedly a "better" converter. Not much difference at all!

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/Audio/FordBrothers
 
And by the way, it was the same console (old Mackie 8 buss) and mic pack (RE-27 on kick, SM-57 on snare top AT 4041 on snare bottom, 421 on toms, D112 to mic the bass cabinet and Behringer Ultra DI for bass guitar direct to console, SM-57 on guitars and harps, and Beta 58's for the vocals...a little "audience facing" mics are added AKG C3000's) that did all those live recordings. It was just two different years. The second year, I had the HD-24. Oh, and the Ford Brothers was mixed in Sonar 4 instead of 3.
 
What seems to be the issue with ADAT unit converters? I've been using Tascam DA-38s (since I dont have the cash to upgrade the outboard recorder right now), and have found the sound to be perfectly fine. Of course, I don't have top-end converters to compare them to, but the sound going in sounds as close as I'd like to the original source, so I suppose that's all that matters, but I figured I'd ask.

Of course, upon further research, I couldn't find anything about ADAT in reference to the Tascam decks, even though I've heard them referred to as ADAT machines many times before in forums and such... perhaps someone can clarify.
 
Last edited:
Ford Van said:
I don't think there is any difference either in tape or using them as a front end!

Here are two live multi-track recordings I did using Black Face ADAT's into a MOTU 2408 MkII. Recorded right into Sonar 3.




I think both of these are outstanding sounding live recordings!

Here is the Ford Brothers (brothers or Roben Ford) recorded to an HD-24. Supposedly a "better" converter. Not much difference at all!

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/Audio/FordBrothers
Click to expand...
Very convincing....





...to Xstatic's point :eek:

Night and day difference between those two sets of files... if the setup was identical on both then the convertors on the HD-24 blow the ADATs out of the water...

And I'd always heard the same as what you were saying Ford... the old ADATs were pretty decent for cheap convertors, to the point of people picking them up with the transport dead just use the convertors. I question that logic now...

night and day
 
I can tell you that from the day I switched away from ADAT's and to an HD recorder for converters, the difference was extremely noticable. The ADAT converters seemed to get harsh much easier, the low end was not as tight, but the biggest diffference was in the ADAT's lack of detail and depth and clarity compared to even my original MOTU 2408. SInce then I have found that even the M-Audio converters (which I do not personally care for that much but are a bargain when factoring in other issues) smoke the ADAT converters.

I think that some of your assumptions are right concerning the misuse of ADAT's, but I think you are overgeneralizing it quite a bit. As far as the "proof is in the pudding" comment and how I can not back it up.... I guess I am supposed to take that as some sort of personal affront? I am not sure, but thats how it seems. Oh well. I have no need to prove anything to anyone. I have owned my studio for years, have a constant flow of new and repeat customers and have gone from competing with other home studios to competing with some of the big dogs around here and somehow managed to make enough to have over $200,000 of equipment or so invested in my place. I would say the proof is there.
 
There are mix difference between the two. But overall, there is little difference between those two set's of mixes.

I actually prefer the smoothness of the first two songs posts to the Ford Brothers. But, the bands sound very different from the Ford Brothers, but, the Ford Brothers definitely play better!

Sorry, I am not convinced that the difference is "night and day", nor "severe", nor NOTICEABLE for that matter.

But, believe what you want.
 
xstatic said:
Generally though, the converters are regarded as pretty nasty.
Click to expand...

By whom?

Primus' Tales From The Punchbowl was recorded to ADAT, and that album sounds pretty fucking good to me.
 
Settle down ez. It is vogue still to knock on stuff that some guy in a magazine article said was "nasty" sounding to them. ;)
 
I deal with many many people who do not like the ADAT converters at all. Once again, though, I am not saying that you can't make great stuff on ADAT. That doesn't mean the converters can't be poor either though. ADAT's served their purpose. Luckily, that purpose generally isn't needed any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top