Ddx3216

  • Thread starter Thread starter thedude400
  • Start date Start date
How can I achieve 16 plus digital outs (to run into the DAW) if I have 2 Aardvark cards (8 1/4" outs and 2 spdif on each)? I know I will be needing a word clock. Do I also need an A/D converter or will I need to ditch the aardvarks for new soundcards with different (more) capabilities?
 
thedude400 said:
How can I achieve 16 plus digital outs (to run into the DAW) if I have 2 Aardvark cards (8 1/4" outs and 2 spdif on each)? I know I will be needing a word clock. Do I also need an A/D converter or will I need to ditch the aardvarks for new soundcards with different (more) capabilities?
Click to expand...


oh no no.


I couldn't tell you about the Aardvark setup, I've never used it before, but a note on the work clock.

It's not worth the bother. Well it is, but a good master world clock usually crashes your wallet and maxes out your credit cards. The same with good sample rate conversion.

I've talked a little about workclock, but I haven't really gone in detail about when it's exactly worth the investment. At this level, it's just not enough bang for the buck.
 
Well, let me put it this way:

If I had 16 channels of DA analog conversion, I'd be looking for an analog mixer.

If I had a soundcard with 16-24 channels of digital connections, I'd be looking for a digital mixer.

The point being, I would not want to subject my music to all those conversions if you are going from your DAW to analog, to digital again into the mixer, then to analog again if you are going to a compressor or eq, then back to digital to get it back into the mixer. I'm assuming that you can take the stereo mix from the digital mixer digitally into the DAW.

So you need to look at the big picture and view your mixing setup as one system. Make it work how you want it to work. If you want to mix on a digital mixer, then you should have soundcards that support that so you can avoid unnecessary conversions. If you want to continue to use your current soundcards, then at least think about how best to mix.

In your situation I might not even get a mixer, but connect my outboard to the soundcards, and use them basically as busses and fx sends from the DAW mixer. There are so many ways to do this it is mind boggling.
 
yeah. Thanks for the replies you guys. I think I know what my problem is. I'm afraid of analog so I'm wanting all this digital stuff. I mean analog still sounds good right, big named people use it. It's not like analog sounds like a cassette tape. I'm just confused as to why a sound card would convert analog signal to digital for use on a computer, but then have a conversion back to analog in the form of 8 1/4" jack outputs. I know alot of people don't use those outputs, but I mean what in the heck are the point of those. Why go digital if you're gonna go analog again, why not stay analog the whole time?

Maybe I'll just pick up a mackie analog board instead of dropping a load of money on digital stuff that takes money away from the actual things that help me MAKE cool sounds and songs like guitars, effects, and keys. I had no idea the desire to stay digital and have actual knobs and faders to mix down with was so darn expensive.
 
I find the combination I like best is to record and edit in a DAW, mix analog, and then record back to stereo tracks in the computer.
 
For the brief period of time I was being forced to try and incorporate a digital mixer into my setup ( Yamaha DM2000 ) I used 2 RME HDSP 9652 soundcards to get 48 channels ADAT I/O to and from the piece of digital dogshit

Before and after this unfortunate experience I use a Mackie MCU for faders and knobs ( and more important for me switches )

A lot of guys are running that Behringer BCF thing and are LOVING it! Seems Behringer has made something that even if it falls apart in a month noone will caree as it does exactly what its supposed to and is DIRT cheap

Ill take my MCU, but either way, if you want your hands on it, I wouldnt suggest the digital mixer route, unless you are really planning on a lot of outboard fx, and then you better really look at converters
 
Yeah sonic albert, that is what I'm gonna do. Final answer. I'm gonna get a YAMAHA O1V 96 , record, bounce, and edit with it, mix analog, then send it into my interface. Master and burn it in the PC. Phew.......I can always resell the yamaha for an analog mackie if I feel the desire. ;)

Yeah pipeline, I too am gonna try the digital thing first. I just bought a Lexicon rack unit and it sounds gorgeous. I'm not comparing it to much though cause my recording experience has consisted of a trial version cool edit pro from years ago. I'll do the rack digital thing and if it doesnt work out for me I'll go analog and get a big ass board. It's such a tossup though. You have Analog: tons of easy to access knobs, mixdown seems easier, just plain simpler, and it sort of coinsides with a minimalist ideal in the respect that it doesn't change and expand as quickly as digital. Then you have digital. I don't even wanna get into the pro's of digital, the bottom line is, it's the future.

There you have it. One man's struggle with a decision between the digital and analog world. So tragic. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
One way that makes it easy for me always is what the goal of the project is.

IF the band is tight, and has written the song in full sometime BEFORE they are anywhere near the studio, AND they want mostly a documentation of what they do live, I can work a LOT faster and happier in analog


If it turns out like most of the bands today, Ill give up the ease of hands on for the ability to automate and edit the living hell out of the "performance"

Thats the analog large format console/analog recorder vs. digital+DAW decision for me
 
pipelineaudio said:
One way that makes it easy for me always is what the goal of the project is.

IF the band is tight, and has written the song in full sometime BEFORE they are anywhere near the studio, AND they want mostly a documentation of what they do live, I can work a LOT faster and happier in analog


If it turns out like most of the bands today, Ill give up the ease of hands on for the ability to automate and edit the living hell out of the "performance"

Thats the analog large format console/analog recorder vs. digital+DAW decision for me
Click to expand...

Great post, which nothing but truths as far as I'm concidered. Thumbs up.

Don't get me wrong, I've worked with things like the Yamaha O3D before and even though it seems like a nice package, I hated it. Menu after menu on a small lcd screen just to get a little mid boost going on on a guitar track, for example. If you got a song even a mild-bit bigger than your standard "throw some mics and record that shit" your gonna wanna control stuff more. EQ, panning, dynamics (compression) and sound color become more important, and even though you "seem" to have all the tools you need, they are tucked away deep inside your digital mixer. Only things that you can access on-the-fly are the faders, the pan pots, and perhaps a bit of EQ if you're lucky.

Personally, if I really wanted to keep it as analogue feeling as I can without skipping on the hugely handy stuff that the digital world brings, I would still say go with a sequencer controller like the aformentioned behringer. I do everything digital now, just mics to preamps to computer, all the work is in the box. I am young though, and have always worked with computers, plus I've learned my sequencer (cubase) pretty much completely by heart, and that helps a great deal in doing stuff fast. So yeah, if you're not gonna be able to do stuff on a computer fast, than it will be a great pain, and the knob-turning way will work alot better. Just realize that you won't get the same level of control.
 
can lightpipe send 8 individual digital tracks from the computer/interface to the digital board and them reassign them to 8 channels/faders?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top