Need a soundcard for mastering

  • Thread starter Thread starter colorsound
  • Start date Start date
C

colorsound

New member
Hi I record analog on a Tascam 8-track (the midistudio 688) but I would like to have the option of mixing digitally. I am thinking about getting the midiman m-audio delta 1010lt sound card. I know this is a cheap sound card, but it would allow me to capture 8-tracks simulataneously which is what I need to do. I would just have 8 coaxial cables going from the 688 to the inputs on the card.

My question is, should I invest in something better, like an Echo or Aardvark? Or do I not need good preamps if I'm still recording analog, and just mixing digitally. I don't want the sound to be harmed or ruined when it is transferred to the computer, and even my Creative sound card does a good job (I think) of this, but the Creative card I have can unfortunately only capture 2-channels of sound at once.

Thanks
 
The 1010 isn't the end-all-be-all, but once you hook that baby up, you'll wonder why you didn't burn your Creative card a long time ago.

Night and day. Apples and... Books. There is no comparison other that they do both produce audio.

John Scrip - www.massivemastering.com
 
Massive Master - Hey I checked your website out. Good stuff. I could relate to a lot of it because I've spent hours trying to make a bad recording sound decent in two-track WAV form, sometimes successful sometimes not. And you're right about the importance of good mastering.

SPINSTERWUN - So the extra money for the MOTU is worth it? How come? Simply because of better preamps? I don't need an otical out just 8 analog ins is all I require.

I used to use my laptop's cheap built in sound card for line-in, and I noticed sometimes certain sound would get lost in mastering. So I got SoundBlaster Extigy and for me that was a big upgrade. I noticed the improved sound immediately. So if getting this M-Audio Delta thing or the MOTU will go to my desktop (looks like I'll have to transfer tracks over the network unless I want to shell out $ for Leyla laptop) with 8-tracks at a time, and STILL be an upgrade, I'm all for them :)
 
Massive Master said:
John Scrip - www.massivemastering.com
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to decipher what one does to the mix when you talk about stereo imaging. It does makes some sense to me.

I get the impression what you are saying is that for double guitars that instead of panning each guitar 100% Left and Right that perhaps it should be 60%? Is this anything? ;D
 
At the risk of sounding "zen" - Stereo imaging, at least the way I do it, is a technique that attemps to make panning transparent -

Look at it this way - If you pan an acoustic guitar all the way to one side, or really anywhere for that matter, it doesn't sonud like the guitarist is actually sitting where the track is. Using more complicated stereo mic'ing techniques of course can change this, but the stereo image still (nomally) doesn't sound "real" -

I try to explain it visually - Many (read "most project studio") mixes I get in seem to have 3 sections - Left, center, right. Think of them as three triangles. These sections commonly seem to have space in between them. Obviously, the ear isn't used to this space in real life. This is a pretty standard thing with stereo panning and nothing to be worried about for the most part. What I try to do is blend those sections together in a way that makes the stereo field realistic to the ears and brain while actually making the image seem more open and airy.

That "Typewriter" sample on my site is a prime example of this - That was made with a down-shooting spaced-pair of mics. If everyone's ears were 16 feet apart, it would sound pretty natural. This is a pretty extreme example of only 2 "sound triangles" There's really no "center" to speak of. In the A/B file, you can hear the stereo image suddenly become realistic - There's a left, center and right that sit together while the stereo image becomes wider and more open to the listener.

It's a fairly complex technique using several stereo and mono tracks, MS, parallel compression, send compression, several frequency dependent delays, etc.

That single stereo track was broken up in to 5 or 6 stereo tracks to get that sound. This is one of only a few techniques that I actually have "starter templates" for due to the sheer time it takes to set it up.

Hope that all makes some sort of warped sense...

John Scrip - www.massivemastering.com
 
The way I see it, there's two things that you can do to make something stand out in a mix (assuming it's at level or low volume): EQ uniquely or pan it off somewhere unique. The whole "stereo imaging" thing to me sounds like something that balances left and right, and perhaps brings out the clarity of panned tracks using compression eq etc... but is careful not to make them sound more "in the center" in doing so.

One thing I've never had sucess with is noise reduction plugins. Only way I've ever found to get rid of hiss is to EQ the track. Same with those "pop" removers, I never found one that works. Any reccomendations?
 
If you take care of your EQ'ing in mono (so instruments don't squash each other) the panned stereo version will normally sound that much better...

Rough call on the noise & rumbles without hearing it specifically. I use different plugs and/or EQ and/or outboard gear for each individual instance.

Waves Restoration plugs are wonderful (but quite expensive). DART could be worse... If it's still out there anywhere...

John -
 
Hey John, nice post... there are a lot of mixes that get stuck in that invisible center channel (and always the vocalist). My guess as to cause is too many project studios doing the whole mix with nears, or ... gasp... headphones... the second you demo the mix on a real system, in somebody's living room, or worse, their car, the ineffectiveness of that becomes obvious... I'd love to find out how you're using the freq. delays in creating your images... but... a magician should never reveal his secrets ;)


a moment of 2408 thought... while I think it is a fantastic soundcard to have, I think that not because of the great converters... don't get me wrong, they are very solid, and 8 channels of analogue io at that price point that sound that good, is a steal... but, where this card really shines is in flexibility... it has word clock IO, it has 24 channels of adat io (at 24/48, 12 channels at 24/96, a limitation of the format, not the card) 24 channels of tascam's tdif format... 2 channel io spdif, 1 master spdif out... separate stereo out for master output (controllable on the front... (nice if you're mixing in the box, and have active monitors) and headphone out...

The point is, if you plan on doing this for a while, it is a really nice card to have, as you're prepared for a lot of situations... (you can also buy the 24io or the hd192 to add on to your system...

However, if all you need is nice analogue io, then this might be overkill, and you might have features that you will NEVER touch... in which case, check out M-audio's cards, or the RME Hammerfall line... (which incidently work with linux, unlike MOTU)

Just some thoughts...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top