digital mixers with pc's

  • Thread starter Thread starter StevaReno
  • Start date Start date
S

StevaReno

New member
what's up again?

now that im dead set on building a pc-- how's this sound:

1. p4 2.4-3.0 chip w/intel board(haven't decided on if i should
get a dual processor or not)
2. motu 2408 mkII-sound card
3. 2 scsi hard drives(i know i can use 7200 eide's but since i'm
paying for it -i want the best)
4. bout a gig of ram

how's that sound for starters-- im not worried about the monitors
yet(yes monitors- i want dual monitors now- yeah i know i don't
need them--BUT I WANT THEM!!---smile)

but guy's i have another issue now

i planned to run XP on the machine w/ sonar(latest version)
i have cakewalk 8 now and it works fine--- now i have a
2004 berhinger board and with my setup i need more inputs
i have the 12 inputs on the boarda and the 8 inputs on the motu
for a wopping 20 total inputs--sooooo!
between the mpc 8 outputs,keyboard,cd/dvd player,turntable
setup main pc out, and my sound modules that i plan to get---
i've run out of inputs(i dont like switching cables every time i'm
doing somethin different-if it's already plugged in all i have to do
is play-ya'll feel me!) so i've been looking at a bigger mixer
even thought about the berhinger mx3242 but analog mixers
don't have compression on them- unless you buy them-sooooo!
you say get a digital mixer OK! but as i look into them(there's
some nice stuff out there) it seems like they made more
compatible for MAC's(i know you can use them with PC's)
protools setups NOT cakewalk/sonar setups----

and here i am building this super pc and i don't know if i can use the software with a digital mixer--
because for the money a good analog mixer w/compressors
will run me about the same as the good(not the all-in-one)
roland,yamaha digital mixing board setups-

and before ya'll get on me i checked the other forum's
and no one had a similar problem as me

does any one understand my delima!!

if ya'll can help!!

thanks in advance!

steve
 
I don't quite understand what you want the digital mixer to do - it'll work as an outboard piece of equipment, just like an analog mixer. Are you hoping to use the digital mixer as a worksurface for Sonar?
 
sean79,
thanks for the reply-- to answer your question

yes - i guess it would be a work surface
mabey i could have said it different- it's just for the price
that i would spend on a analog mixer w/compressors
eq and effects-- i could go w/a digital mixer that has
compression,eq and effects per channel
and i don't know what would be better for the buck(future)
being that the cost is the same

im just a little confuse on whether i should upgrade my analog
mixer or move into the digital mixer arena
with the new "super pc" i'm gonna build
and being that i was gonna upgrade my software
i don't know if it will be compatible with a digtal mixer
ya feel me --cause i like to put my hands on the board
it makes me feel like i'm recording and mixing
and not all that mouse clikin'
ya know!

i hope i narrowed it down

steve
 
Couplea things to consider...

First off, when you're tracking, how many tracks do you compress at once (rather just limit, I hope)? If you're like me and only limit vocals while tracking, you wouldn't need a compressor for each channel, which would change the budget a bit.

Second off, I would positively check with both manufacturers (Cakewalk and whoever makes the digital mixer you're looking at) to make sure you have all the compatibility you'd need. If I was dropping that kinda loot, there's no way I'd trust anybody except the manufacturers' guarantee that it'll work.

Now you're comparing the process of (a) using a digital mixer and going through A/D, (into mixer) then D/A (out of mixer), then A/D (into your MOTU) conversion before hitting the computer, vs. (b) only one A/D process with an analog mixer, but not before going through the analog mixer's pre's. Good question. I can't say I know the answer to that. It'd be different if you were recording digital signals instead of analog with your MOTU. At very least though, If the digital mixer in question has lower quality converters than your MOTU, then I'd forget it.


For me, most of my projects contain more than 8 channels, so a worksurface would be pointless (for me) because I sure's hell can't afford a 16 channel digital mixer. I understand how important it is to have hands on faders, but I've gotten used to the mouse bit, and I actually prefer it now - even better if you're going for multiple monitors.

...lots of factors involved. Hope this helped a bit.

Sean
 
sean,

thanks alot for reminding me about the signal path
(i.e.. a/d through the board and motu and then the computer)

i can't remember where i read it but if i remember correctly
it's not good to keep converting back and forth like i would have
with digital board a/d>>d/a>>a/d then computer

normally i'd only use 2 inputs on the motu(for recording)but with
a stronger pc i can utilize more of the 8 inputs on the motu
(20 inputs total)i spoke of

and that brings me to my next question(this might sound dumb)but
once i get the signal to the motu(24 bit /48khz)
should i keep the signal at 48(do all my mixing) or try to dither up
which would be better?

and i see what you were saying about the compressor on the voc's
and i like to have compression on my kick's,snare's and bass's
not alot but enough
but i would only record 2 tracks at a time so it was easy to
apply it but now with the new pc i'm gonna build-- i can record
more of my drum tracks at once--i can always do it midi
but i'm gonna go audio

so what comes out the mpc(8 outs)goes straight to digital

and yes you helped alot --thanks in advance!

steve
 
StevaReno said:
im not worried about the monitors
yet(yes monitors- i want dual monitors now- yeah i know i don't
need them--BUT I WANT THEM!!---smile)
Click to expand...

Dual monitors are definetly the way to go with multitrack software. A second monitor powered by an older pci display adapter is a very effective way to increase productivity that you wouldn't even notice the hundred bucks that's missing from your vallet that you can get a used CRT and a usable display card with. I had an old 15" monitor that goes green sometimes and a 4mb display adaptor laying around unused but one day before last Christmas I decided to try if I could hook them up to my computer and now I wouldn't dream of giving it up for a single larger monitor. Maybe someday in the near future when people start moving from 15" LCD monitors to bigger ones I grab two of them for myself and get rid of the CRTs. That's keep the noise out of the single coil guitar sound while playing in front of the monitor.

PS: You might be interested in my post about using Fostex VF16 as a digital mixer to computer DAW. Maybe not quite what you're looking for but nevertheless you might find something useful there. Check it out on the "Computer recording vs. hard disk recorders" thread.
 
As far as dithering goes, the rule of thumb is to keep your resolution up until you're ready to burn to CD. So track, mix and master at 24/48, then take your mastered 24 bit files and dither down to 16/44.1. Dithering more than necessary can kill your sound quality in a heartbeat, and you want the highest resolution possible for processing audio.
 
thanks sean for explainig that to me

i can see now

holla!

steve
 
Personally I run a P4 2.26GHz CPU on a Gigabyte GA-8IEXP motherboard with 1G Ram...pretty much as your describing, except not an Intel motherboard, though it has the Intel chipset. That can be important, as VIA chipset's tend to either not work with your pro audio sound card, or not work well. I'm running with 2 ATA 66 7200RPM 40's internally, and a 40GB 7200rpm Firewire drive.

I'm running the Dakota sound card, which is being fed by a Fostex VM200 digital mixer and a Fostex VC8 A/D/A converter. I listen through Roland DS-90a speakers. The only two points at which my audio is converted A/D/A is on the inputs, and in the DS-90a monitors, as they have S/PDIF inputs on them. I do feed alot of my channels of input through a 48-point patch bay. I have recorded as many as 18 tracks at once live...no problem with this system.

As a bonus, the Digital mixer doubles as a control surface for the Sonar. I simply assigned each slider to it's corresponding slider(s) in Sonar. I also use 2 monitors: 17" LCD and 20 tube monitor, both set at 1280x1024. Can't beat it!

If this is the direction you are contemplating, I'd say that you're on the right trail. Just make sure that you know what you are getting, and read up on posts at the Cakewalk news groups and here. There's alot of experience out there, just like what I've shared here. Many items have issues, so before you buy something, such as a certain motherboard or sound card, see what people are saying about them.

One more warning: Once you start buying the hardware, it never stops! For example...I have another 100GB drive to add to the system...and just added a USB Dazzle video capture device, so that I can play with that too..., then there's Mics, Cables (snakes), more mics, effects, software plugin effects and softsynths, more guitars/basses/etc..... A faster CPU.... :cool:
 
That VIA chipset part is old news. At least I've never had or heard of someone having problems with a VIA KT266A chipsets. The older KT133 chipsets are known to cause trouble but not the current ones.
 
Actually, the VIA chipset issue I'm talking about is very current. It has to do with the fact that Intel didn't license VIA to make a chipset for their P4 CPU's. There is a compatibility issue that causes, amongst other things, our Pro Audio cards not to function properly. If you follow the Cakewalk Newsgroups at all, you will see from time to time where this subject comes up.

In fact, I helped a friend build his studio machine last year, and found out about it first hand. He has an Echo Layla. It would appear to be working fine, until you got into it's control panel. Some features were missing, greyed out, or mis-labeled. When we called Echo about this, they said that they would help us, as long as we were using a P4 with a VIA chipset. Since then, I've seen it in a number of discussions on the subject; both at manufacturers websites, and on sites such as Tom's Hardware. There was a big lawsuit pending on this issue between Intel and VIA. I don't know if it was ever settled, though.

Now, AMD cpu's and VIA are not an issue. Neither ar PIII Intel CPU's and VIA Chipsets. They were licensed on that one, and therefore involved Intel in their designs.
 
Sorry about the misinfo. I haven't had an Intel processor since 486. Is there some benefits that Intel processor have over AMDs?
 
You didn't go there, did you Pete!?

Now this little topic is going to take off...and get heated, as they always do! I doubt that there is really much difference overall. You can look at hundreds of numbers...Intel beats AMD here, but AMD beats Intel there...then there's stability...then there's compatibility....whatever.

My opinion: Buy whatever works for you. You can save money on an AMD-based system. It may perform better or worse than an 'equivalent' Intel system, but if it performs well for you...then you should be happy with it. Heck, I ran a PIII-700 for years without any disappointment. However, I knew that eventually I'd want to play with softsynth pluggins in Sonar, so I had to finally upgrade. I don't forsee another such upgrade for years to come. 2.26GHz will suit me fine!

I went the Intel route after the P1, though I had an AMD back then...and back with the old 486 before that. Since they aren't interchangable anymore on any motherboards, as they were with the 486 and P1 systems, we have to chose the way that we want to go, then live with it. I've just always felt that given this type of option, I'd stick with the bigger, longest-standing name...Intel. However, for our purposes, AMD works perfectly fine, as it's proven on these boards over and over... I just don't care or want to get into all of the hype. My system rocks for me, and that's all that matters! If I can run 20+ tracks, including some softsynths and effect pluggins, then I just need to get busy and record. More power isn't going to make my music sound better....though it might make me broke! :D
 
Well, I've been very happy with my Athlon XP 1600+ and Epox KHA8+ mobo for over a year now. They've accepted every card I've thown at them without any problems and the performance is good enough for me and for what I do. There's been no software conflicts either and now that I upgraded form win98 to W2K system runs better than ever.
 
Yes going to Windows 2000, and especially Windows XP makes all of the difference in the world when it comes to performance. I definitely recommend your next upgrade would be upgrading from Windows 9x/Me to Windows 2000 or XP....just make sure that when you 'Upgrade', you actually install a new/fresh copy...not an actual upgrade to the existing OS, as that tends to cause a few bugs.
 
Tell me about upgarding from Win98 to w2k.

I tried just that first because I had only one large HD with one partition and didn't want to backup it nor loose all the data but after fighting for 6 hour to get it done I gave up and mached the next morning to nearest computer store and bought a new HD and did the fresh install. It's not worth the fight even if you somehow manage to finish the installation over Win98 which I didn't.

After installation it's important to shut down all unneccessary processes that start at the startup of w2k to free all the resources for recording. I actually made another hardware profile for recording and removed all unneccessary services and disabled all unneccessary peripherals like printer, network card aso.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top