Consoles, ADATs, DAWs and other things

  • Thread starter Thread starter sile2001
  • Start date Start date
sile2001

sile2001

_|_
Ok, I'm coming from the background of working with a DAW and recording straight into internal storage via rack preamps and an interface like my Motu 828. This all makes sense to me. All of my EQ'ing, compression, effects, etc. are done in postproduction rather than in tracking (via plugins or offboard gear).

I know that there are many here (such as Blue Bear...I think) who use consoles and things like HD24 recorders. I don't want this to turn into a "DAW is better than console" or vice versa argument. And maybe your methods with the consoles and ADAT recorders involve DAW's...I really just don't know that much about it. What I want to know is what do you see as the benefit for using the console and ADAT recorders?

Note to make it clear: If you primarily use a DAW, I am not looking for a response by you. I'm asking the people who DON'T use them. :D
 
Functionally, there isn't really that much difference - except on the DAW side having to potentially deal with latency issues, and any limitations with signal routing or signal processing during tracking.

The biggest difference is likely to be with the sound quality - there can be a distinct difference between summing "in-the-box" vs. summing busses of an analog or even digital console.

I'm actually about to cross-over to a degree -- I will be switching from an analog console (the ubiquitous Mackie 8-buss) to a digital console (Sony Baby Oxford). And I expect a substantial difference for obvious reasons, but also a significant difference between using the console and DAW summing based on results I've heard from my DAW and other engineers who've used digital consoles. DAW summing and digital consoles summing sound completely different, with the console outperforming DAWs by a signficant degree, IMO.

Once I have the new console in place, I will actually be in a position to do a comparison for some tracks recently mixed via the Mackie and see the difference after also being mixed on the Sony. Should be interesting to hear the results.
 
Thanks for the reply Bruce! I'm just trying to learn more about the different methods used, whether "older" or newer and this helped out a lot! I had never really thought about the difference in the summing of the tracks, but now that I think back across different projects I've worked on, I can see what you mean.

I guess there are still some things I don't understand about some of the basic operations that you would perform without a DAW. For instance, say you have a guitar track that you want to thicken by doubling it and delaying by a few seconds. How would you do something like that? For me, it's a simple copy/paste/drag operation.
 
sile2001 said:
I guess there are still some things I don't understand about some of the basic operations that you would perform without a DAW. For instance, say you have a guitar track that you want to thicken by doubling it and delaying by a few seconds. How would you do something like that? For me, it's a simple copy/paste/drag operation.
Click to expand...
In that case, there are a couple of ways of going about it -- you could duplicate the track on the multitrack recorder, use the on-board track delay feature there and pan it accordingly... or you can simply mult the track off the console to another track, run the 2nd track thru an outboard delay unit, and pan the 2nd track as needed. Just as simple as a copy/paste/drag....!
 
Last edited:
Wow...I said delay it by a few *seconds*....that could have some nice results... :rolleyes: Let's try miliseconds.

Ok, thanks for the explanation Bruce! As many have said, you are an invaluable resource here!
 
*meek voice from back of room*

what exactly is summing?

*ducks*
 
i think the biggest advantage of a standalone recorder (HD24, adats, or whatever) is the stability. you cannot beat it. i do most of my recording on the HD24, then transfer to my computer to do vocals and some overdubs. only cause iit is easier to piece takes together in the DAW environment. i feel like the HD24 is more, for lack of a better term, "musical". bruce, you know what i am talking about, right? anyway, i feel like the the biggest jump in quality i have ever had in my system was going to the HD24 instead of going straight in the computer...
 
foreverain4 said:
i think the biggest advantage of a standalone recorder (HD24, adats, or whatever) is the stability. you cannot beat it. i do most of my recording on the HD24, then transfer to my computer to do vocals and some overdubs. only cause iit is easier to piece takes together in the DAW environment. i feel like the HD24 is more, for lack of a better term, "musical". bruce, you know what i am talking about, right? anyway, i feel like the the biggest jump in quality i have ever had in my system was going to the HD24 instead of going straight in the computer...
Click to expand...
I agree 100%.... stability is a HUGE factor... as well - it sounds excellent - particularly the HD24!
 
I switched a year ago from tascam recorders (alike adats) to a daw. Wouldn't want to go back. Yes, stability is an issue, but once you get it wright it stays wright (at least on my mac) untill you personally screw it up again (on my mac, like every other day :rolleyes: ).

But is has many advantages like editing (uhm advantage?) and plugins. For choir work or guitarlayers there are quite some handy compressors etc as plugin available. For main vocals etc i still use tube outboards.

Portability...hmm..unless you have a pro 19" daw, leave it at home. But on the other hand...i kept one tascam recorder so i can remotely do some 8 tracking, and if i need more...i hire from an other studio. And remember that for remote recording you'll still need portable preamps, or a console you can take along. I have 24 preamps build into a 5 he 19" unit...that's a pretty small recording setup for at the spot recording.
 
I'd rather mix in the box for the repeatability of a mix but I still can't get it to sound as fat as a console mix. I tried just the other night for hours to remix a tune in the computer that I had done through the console previously. It's not that I was trying to match the console mix, I was just trying to get something I liked. I couldn't. Now I do edit in the box but that's a whole nuther ballgame.
 
I'm using it also just for recording/editing...mixing is done by a very tasty analogue console.
 
Nobody buys ADAT's for stability. Unless of course you screw it into a rcak to keep the rack from wobbling:D
 
xstatic said:
Nobody buys ADAT's for stability. Unless of course you screw it into a rcak to keep the rack from wobbling:D
Click to expand...
ADAT does not necessarily mean tape machines. :D Gotta love the Alesis ADAT HD24...a hard disk recorder that uses the ADAT interface.
 
xstatic said:
Nobody buys ADAT's for stability. Unless of course you screw it into a rcak to keep the rack from wobbling:D
Click to expand...



LOL!!! guilty of this one :D
 
Actually, ADAT really does in real life refer to the tape machines. There is nothing "ADAT" about and HD24. The term ADAT kind of stuck thanks to the lightpipe technology and Alesis pushing the ADAT pinout for synching. For all the Alesis HD24 owners out there, you should thank your lucky stars that there really isn't any real tie to the actualy ADAT machines:D

To defend ADAT though (which I hate to do) they really did change the market and fill a niche. Actually, they kind of created a niche. ADAT is very much reponsible for a lot of the "Home Recording" environments that have blossomed into what they are today.
 
sile2001 said:
ADAT does not necessarily mean tape machines. :D Gotta love the Alesis ADAT HD24...a hard disk recorder that uses the ADAT interface.
Click to expand...
Since you brought up Lightpipe, that just confirms what I said. ADAT does not necessarily mean tape machines. The meanings of things do change over time you know :) . So the HD24's don't actually use tape...they still work on the same principles. They just use a magnetic platter instead of magnetic tape. They're still ADAT.

This is just an extension of the whole Coke thing. I don't know about the rest of the US, but here in Texas every soda is a Coke. A common dialogue could go like this:

Person 1: "Hey, you wanna coke?"
Person 2: "Sure!"
Person 1: "What kind?"
Person 2: "Umm...Dr. Pepper"

Sure, a Dr. Pepper isn't REALLY a Coke, but Coke has become the generic term for a soda. Just like ADAT has become a generic term for a standalone device that takes multiple channels of analog sound and converts and stores them in digital format.

Yes, I just went and made a whole big argument over something that is completely and totally inconsequential. I have nothing better to do at the moment.
 
ADAT only applies to Alesis units or optical lightpipe. You are the first person I have ever heard that even calls an HD24 an ADAT. I have never heard any other devices refferred as ADAT
 
xstatic said:
ADAT only applies to Alesis units or optical lightpipe. You are the first person I have ever heard that even calls an HD24 an ADAT. I have never heard any other devices refferred as ADAT
Click to expand...
Ok, this is actually funny! Check this link out:

http://www.alesis.com/products/hd24/

What a wonderful product tag line Alesis has! "adat HD24: Finally, a hard disk recorder worthy of the name ADAT."
 
photoresistor said:
*meek voice from back of room*

what exactly is summing?

*ducks*
Click to expand...

Summing is basically the process of mixing all the separate recorded tracks into a stereo channel. It can be done by mixing all the channels straight into the stereo main channel, or by mixing various groups of channels (say, all the drum mics) into different submixing busses, and then mixing those busses into the stereo channel. It all depends on what you want to do with the sound and how the different hardware devices mix it.

Say, for instance, I'm trying to mix down a project that has a full drum kit in it. I want to apply some EQ to the individual tracks of the drum kit and then apply a hard limiter to the whole kit to keep anything from peaking (not best practice, but for example). So I would set whatever EQ's I wanted on the individual drum tracks, and then send them all to mixing bus 1 to mix all the drum tracks together. Then I send the output from bus 1 through the limiter and then finally into the main mix. Not only does it make things easier, but it can also affect the final sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top