Is the Digi002 really all that?

  • Thread starter Thread starter akpcep
  • Start date Start date
Excellent responses guys, thanks a lot.

I basically just want to try out ProTools, as part of my own "education" in sound recording, and obviously I can't do this without buying some Digi hardware, so it seems like good sense to start off with the Mbox2 (on my PC, and my iBook). If we really get on, I guess I can upgrade to the 002 if I need more inputs, although if it sounds the same and uses the same software there might be little point.

Regarding the track limitations of LE, I don't think I've ever used more than 20 tracks in my life, and if there were more than that (with plugins) it's likely my DAW would start chugging anyway. I like to keep things as simple as possible so this limitation might even work in my favour, stopping me from "overproducing" things which is always a risk.
 
FWIW- I've never hit the hard limit of PT LE in a way that I couldn't get around. I've even done video work with it and don't have the DV toolkit.

If you don't do surround its more than likely enough for most tasks that a home recordist is likely to run into. Everyone has their own way of working... and my way of working typically doesn't require me to have more than 28 or so tracks. I get close to the limit, but rarely hit it.

Maybe the difference is that I started on a 4-track and stayed there for YEARS. Upping to 8 tracks on an ADAT was phenomenal! I brought careful track and arrangement planning with me to digital recording and I still use it. Granted, I'd rather have my options than not... its never really been an issue.

And the system is rock solid stable.

Chris
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
Maybe the difference is that I started on a 4-track and stayed there for YEARS. Upping to 8 tracks on an ADAT was phenomenal! I brought careful track and arrangement planning with me to digital recording and I still use it. Granted, I'd rather have my options than not... its never really been an issue.
Click to expand...

it is kind of funny to hear people complain about that when 30 or so years ago they were lucky to have one 24 track tape machine in a room. And that thing cost more than several Pro Tools setups! And editing was all done by the skilled craft of a razor blade!
:eek: ;)
 
30? Try 10 years ago! :) The digital non-linear revolution is still pretty new.

Even now the best (or at least *expected* to be best) records are done on 2" 24.

Editing is for folks that can't play. Harsh? Maybe. True? Yes. I might not have said that a few weeks ago, but then I bought a tape machine. Sounds *fantastic*- if I could just play a good take! :D The years of digital recording have taken their toll on my playing ability! (Along with such minor considerations as work...)

Take care,
Chris
 
It's not that I couldn't live with a 24 track limitation. I operated for years on 16, and then 24 channels of ADAT. However, nowadays I don't HAVE to live wioth limitations. So why should I? It allows me to run more drum tracks, more bass and guitar tracks etc... and not have to worry about ever commiting a group of tracks to a single with a bounce before the song has fully revealed how the bounce would need to be. True, a lot of stuff is still done on 2" 24 tracks, but how do youknow that they don't have multiple machines running? Most of your major studios have several machines that run simultaneously. There have also been a lot of albums cut to 48 channel DASH systems. Like I said earlier, even just 5 years ago, Pro Tools was one of the only software platforms that was mature enough to be run in a professional studio. Now there are lots of options. It always surprises me at how many musicians think Pro Tools is just computer recording and have no idea that there are actually different applications and that Pro Tools is actually just opne specific application. It is also important to remember that back in the day, people used to do edits on analog tape too. Just because I have editing features readily available does not mean that I rely on them. In fact, I work just the opposite. I would much rather spend time having a musician re track something than try and edit it to sound the way it needs to be. There are plenty of good reasons to edit something, just as there are plenty of people who edit things instead of doing it the right way. So editing in and of itself has absolutely NO bearing on a persons ability to play. They may use edits to help mask their lack of ability, but the fact that there is an edit really has no correlation with individual talent if the edit was done for a viable reason.

Bottom line is that I still don't feel like Pro Tools is the only way to go like some of the Pro Tools junkies out there do. Most likely they are just trying to justify their own purchase. At the same time, there are a lot of anti Pro Tools people out there as well, and I don't stand for that either. The end goal is always the same. Making the best music we can. For some people that includes Pro Tools, for some of us it doesn't. However, none of us are right or wrong for chosing one over the other. For me right now, spending 10k plus on the smallest of PT HD rigs doesn't make a lot of sense. For the way that I record things it would just be an expense and would offer no real benefits over the way I do things now. The only benefit it would really offer me is in the marketing department, and I am still considering it for that purpose. However, the 2 mics, 2 channel strips, sub and new converters that I could get for just a little bit more would have a MUCH larger impact on the music that I do. Thats why HD is hitting the back shelf for me for a bit.
 
I just want to say - wow - me and Xstatic agree for once!! Not only that, but he's putting my case far more eloquently than me!! :)

No agenda either way, guys, we're all just trying to get the best platform and working process for our own situations .....

Nik
 
deepwater said:
Why not get a Tascam FW1884 for $1200 new it gives you the same setup at the Digi 002 just with out protools. You also want be locked to not being able to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Can you be a bit mroe specific as to how the FW1884 is upgradable and the Digi002 is not? :confused:
 
I think the point there is how are you going to upgrade a Digi 002? With other manufacturers you can usually either upgrade, or change gear completely should you want. With Pro Tools LE, the Digi 002 is pretty much the end of the road. I do agree though that most users will have enough features right on the Digi 002 to do what they need so in many cases, this really isn't even an issue:)
 
xstatic said:
I think the point there is how are you going to upgrade a Digi 002? With other manufacturers you can usually either upgrade, or change gear completely should you want. With Pro Tools LE, the Digi 002 is pretty much the end of the road. I do agree though that most users will have enough features right on the Digi 002 to do what they need so in many cases, this really isn't even an issue:)
Click to expand...

Are you talking hardware or software? On the hardware side, the I/O on the FW1884 is no more upgradable than the Digi002. They have both have LightPipe so you can upgrade with an 8 channel converter of your choice. On the software side, you can use any software you want with either product, as long as the software supports ASIO. You can't use PT software with any hardware other than Digi's own, or a good number of M-Audio interfaces. There are plenty of choices there to meet many applications.

It all boils down to choosing the right tools for the job, and a PT-LE system is not always the best choice. But to say say that someone should not choose a Digi002 beacause it's not upgradable is a moot point.
 
I meant upgrade by buying another unit. I agree that the example given may not be a good one:) Unless of course you can use 2 simulataneously.... hmmmm.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top