Multi-channel Sound cards, do they work

[farichi]

I intend to build a simple computer based studio. I use fruity loops and Reason to produce some instrumentals. Nw I need to incorporate live acoustic guitar + base and electric guitars.

1. Is a soundcard good enough to capture sound from acoustic and electric guitars.
2. Do I need multichanneled sound card for track at once recording for live perfomances?

Help please, I have been on the net for way too long!!!!!!

 

[tmix]

farichi,
The sound cards that come with most computers are generally not sufficient in the long run to capture acoustic instruments.
By all means, give it a go! But as your ears develope you will be increasingly unhappy with what you hear, particularly if you are limited to 16 bit.Cheap audio cards are like cheap instruments, they sound bad and are generally discouraging to use. You may think you are doing a lousy job engineering when it may be the cards inability to acurately capture (and play back) what you are recording.
The number of inputs you need is directly proportional to how many instruments and or mics you will be rercording SIMULTANEOUSLY.

If all you are ever going to record is one thing at a time, and drums are not one of your considerations, then a stereo card will suffice.

 

[farichi]

Software base mixers- i'm confused

Thanks for the reply.

NOw, What is the difference between digital mixers and analogue mixers.
and how good are digital mixers compared to software applications with mixing components eg Reason??

What purpose do the digital workstations play....aint this all the same????
I am confused.

Why would one need an analogue mixer in a studio when he/seh can capture the sound through an Analogue to digital interface????

Do the analogue mixers retain "quality" of music better than software / digital workstation ones?????

PLease help once more.

Thanks

 

[lpdeluxe]

A relatively inexpensive digital mixer will be much cleaner than an inexpensive analog mixer. And if you use outboard A/D converters, cleaner still, since one place manufacturers cut costs in the A/D department. You may find that an analog mixer sounds "better" than digital or vice-versa. For myself, I went with a hardware digital mixer for other reasons: 1) having a central place for A/D - D/A conversion 2) multiple routing options -- I use a pair of analog outs to drive my headphone amp, another pair for the monitors, and record using one set of digital outs, and I route an RTA/EQ through parallel digital I/O and an ART preamp in via analog...and as needed I can route in a DAT or cassette or reel-to-reel or CD player (all of which I have had occasion to do in the last month) without disturbing the headphone amp or power amp connections -- this does not exhaust all the possiblities 3) manual control over levels & panning (this is important enough that I added a Tascam US428 for hands-on control of the software) and 4) it looks cool sitting in its rack!

A digital work station is a self-contained mixer/I/O device/hard drive (usually) recorder that does everything in one box. The advantages are portability and user friendliness; the disadvantages are limited drive space and displays that are pitiful compared to a full size computer screen.

Finally, as for "quality": this has caused a lot of controversy and my own take on it is that I am sure that high-end analog gear will outperform non-high-end digital gear (which is what I have). BUT I can't afford it, so I'd rather concentrate on getting results with what I have than on debating the relative merits of multi-$K consoles and tape decks. I think anyone starting out now should be using digital gear because it's the future of recording, and the gear will only get better, and you might as well learn how to use it from Day One...I spent 30 years recording with tape before I got a computer, and being an old guy, watching me stumble through the manuals was not a pretty sight! Harking back to the first line of this paragraph, good digital stuff will get you 'way further down the road than low-end analog.

 

[tmix]

I'll try to answer.Some will be extremely oversimplified because there are exceptions to every rule and products made by different manufacturers handle things differently.

Analogue mixers handle every thing as voltage with op amps , resistors , transformers and the like. In some cases it imparts some thing desirable (in better consoles) and in some cases... things not so desirable (cheap - low headroom mixers)

Digital mixers are basically the equivelant of an analogue bunch of preamps going through a multi input A/D converter and using something similar to a computer for routing / effecting the sound before spitting the signal out either another set of D/A converters or perhaps some digital outs. They are self contained, built specifically (and oftenadmirably) to handle the chores at hand with the familiarity of sliders and rotary pots many have become familiar with through years of analogue work.

Using a software program and computer can work very well depending on the program, but you are generally left to mixing with a mouse or a small controller. This is not bad per se, many (including myself) have become quite adept at doing so. Having a 17 inch or bigger monitor for a visual interface is nice. The software itself comes more into play at this point as does the audio card you have attached. The algorthyms and how they sum the audio becomes the arguable acid test for those who like to argue those things.

A stand alone digital work station is a combination of all this.

People like analogue boards to so as to still use all the analogue gear they have accumulated though the years, plus I am still convinced that software effects have not fully caught up with their analogue counterparts in all areas.

There are seriously hot debate as to whether analogue mixing sounds better than digital. It is a matter I don't ever think will be decided. They are both good in the right hands, and lousy in the wrong ones.

Oops! someone else posted while I was typing!