Newbie at Computer Recording

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaded
  • Start date Start date
J

Jaded

New member
this is crossposted in the computer recording and soudcards forum as well.

Hello,

I've been reading some of the previous threads and you all seem like pleasant and helpful people far from those other online asshats who have nothing but sarcastic, offensive, and unhelpful remarks if you know what I mean. I'm sure you've run into them before.

So I want to start recording music on my computer which I know is plenty powerful enough to do the job. The problem is I just don't know how to go about it. I'd like to think I have a keen ear and know that I want to avoid the consumer level soundcards. I've heard demos with those products being used and I can hear all the electronic interference noise from the other PC components, quite irritating. so I've been told that I should go with something that has balanced inputs.

How important is it to have balanced inputs/outputs? I've looked at some entry level professional cards yet they have RCA connections which I know are unbalanced. Noticeable or insignificant difference?

Now, ideally, I want to be able to control the tracks through a physical mixer on playback and adjust levels as such just as you would be able to on stand alone systems. I do not like the idea of virtual mixers, too cumbersome while a physical mixer is much more tactile. I probably don't need to have more than 4 inputs recorded simultaneously. I read through some posts about "routing"? Where you have the line outs of the recording device to the mixer? Is this why some products offer more outputs than inputs? How is this done? Where do the connections go? Just in the open line inputs of the mixer? When you alter the levels during playback are you actually affecting the recorded track on the hard disk so when you mixdown the adjustments will be there or are you just altering what you are hearing through the mixer? Does the recording software aware of the changes you made on the mixer itself? This is where I get confused.

Also have any of you used these USB controllers like from Tascam, Edirol, or Event? They seem like they would do the job for me providing a mixing console, controlling actual track levels through playback, etc. Opinions welcome.

I sorta asked a lot of questions so I hope someone or collectively you all will be able to answer my questions. TIA.
 
Your budget is the largest consideration here. You could go for a 4-in 4-out card like a Delta 44, or a Delta 66 which will add a S/PDIF in/out to the 44. Neither of these have mic preamps in them, so a mixer is still needed in the equation.

I use an Audiophile 2496, and have no complaints about the RCA inputs, but I haven't used a card with balanced ins, so I may be ignorant as to what I am missing.

You can go higher, and get a Delta 1010 (no pres), or an Aardvark Q10 (with pres).

I understand your reluctance to use a virtual mixer, but you have a few more considerations to make:

You may only be recording 4 ins at a time, but I highly doubt a song will have only 4 tracks. If the song has 10 tracks, you will need a soundcard with 10 outs so you can physically mix them all at once. If your song has 16 tracks, 32 tracks, 45, etc.... you will see immediately that wanting to use a physical mixer for mixing your songs is not going to work unless you buy 4 Delta1010's or 4 Aardvark Q10s and stack them... that is a very expensive route, however it would be great.

Most of the software packages have decent virtual mixing interfaces, and you can program a control surface to do the physical mixing. I use an Evolution MK249C midi control keyboard, and had it setup to do the physical mixing, but in the end, I never use it for that purpose, I actually find the virtual mixer easier to use with a mouse.

It is still worth having a good mixer outside the computer, for routing your signals in/out of the soundcard, for applying outboard processing etc, but without the appropriate number of outs from your soundcard, you can't use this mixer for "mixing".

the software will only recognize external mixer fader/panning/eq movements if the mixer is digital/USB, otherwise all you are doing is moving faders on the output, not altering what is happening in the PC. This is why the virtual mixer is useful, because you can automate and record the movements you make. The external mixers designed to do this job that you are describing are hella-expensive, which is why I suggested at the very top that your budget is numero uno.

those are my two cents.
 
hey thanks for your input i appreciate a response.

i'm not concerned with budget just yet because i want to understand the concept and ways computer recording can be done. after reading some articles, i don't think i want to use a mixer's direct outs but still have to use the software's mixer for mixdown. sorry, this is just a personal preference, but i just prefer having a real mixer that can control the tracks properties during mixing.

i am aware of recording a whole lot of tracks and not being able to control them with a phyical mixer and i'm not completely closed to using the software's when i have to.

i think these usb mixers are what i'm looking for. i am liking the edirol ua-80 and event ezbus. they give me physical control over tracks and are able to control a good amount of them as well. i still welcome any opinions, suggestions, etc.
 
Jaded said:
.....i'm not concerned with budget just yet .....
Click to expand...

It is important to the other members reading this thread. It will help us steer you in the correct direcion once we know what your approximate budget is ...... ;)

Peace...

spin
 
Originally posted by Hornplayer

***I posted this review before, but here is an update to it***

Well I'm a new user of the TASCAM FW-1884 control surface, so I guess I'll share some thoughts with everyone on the unit. I've had the unit for 2 weeks, and have had quite a bit time to form some personal opinions on it.

First my equipment:
Pentium IV 1.8 GHZ processor ASUS mobo
1 GIG of memory
2 80 GIG hard drives 7200rpm each
This computer has served me well. Solely dedicated to audio, and tweaked accordingly.

SONAR 2.2 and SOUNDFORGE 5.0f application software

The control surface can act as 3 units, either separately or together.
1. Control surface to control application software inside a DAW. (like SONAR)
2. Stand alone mixer with 18 inputs and 2 outputs. (actually up to 8 outputs, so surround can be mixed, but I do not use it for that.) 8 analog, 8 adat digital lightpipe, 2 SPDIF
3. A 4 in 4 out MIDI controller

I obsoleted the following equipment in my studio:

MOTU XT Express 8 in 8 out MIDI controller

PRESONUS Digimax 8 channel mic pre-amp
****I decided to keep this, even though it's a bit of overkill in the studio*****

1 48 point patchbay

MOTU 2804 MKII sound card.
*****I have subsequently taken the MOTU sound card completely off the system. Bad conflicts between it and the FW-1884. This has not seemed to be a problem. The FW-1884 is the primary (only) sound card on the system, and is recognized by Windows 2000 Pro as such, so no other sound card is needed.
I have had no trouble with any playback selected so far, including links off the web.*****

So the unit does a lot.

I have used it to control SONAR 2.2. I REALLY like it for mix down. It controls 8 audio and/or MIDI channels simultaneously. If you have more channels, you have to hit the bank button to switch to the next bank of 8 faders. Haven't found this to be a draw back yet, because I usually mix down the drum kit first, and bounce it to one track, then bass, then instruments, then vocal, so I have enough faders to handle the mix job.

A side box of 8 more faders is going to become available shortly, so you could control 16 channels at one time. I'm going to wait on that until I'm sure I have a need to control 16 channels at one time.
*****Spin brought up that Sonar 3.0 may not support the outboard additional 8 channel sliders. I checked with Cakewalk. They say they will be writing another software interface template for it, and it will be available shortly. I don't know what shortly means, but they are aware that the current template does not do the job. The additional 8 fader unit is not quite out yet, so I'm sure Cakewalk is not too concerned until the units hit the street.*****

It cuts down on mouse work easily by half or more.

The transport controls work the same as SONAR, except they are faster and easier to get at. Play, Rewind, Fast Forward, and Record, are very straight forward.

*****automation on the unit has a glitch. I arm a track for auto mation record,(fader for volum control) which works fine through the unit, but when I hit record on the unit the unit does not start recording. I have to go to the tool bar and select the transport menu, and click on record automation for it to start recording. I can record but it has to be initiated off the mouse command, not the control surface. I think the template has a programming glitch. I'll get with Cakewalk support on that.******

The jog/shuttle wheel is very nice for precise placement of NOW TIME for any editing you may want to do. Much faster to be very accurate with cursor placement as opposed to the mouse.
*****Once I got used to the time selection, and loop selection, I was very impressed at how fast it is. Great way to work in Sonar.****

It controls only one effect I know of so far, and that is the SONAR FXEQ.
****This is a bit of a draw back. I haven't been real happy with using the unit for effects. I still find myself in the track view using the mouse.*****,

but it controls the AUX send gain up to 8 AUX Busses. NOW TIME, LOOPING, and MARKERS can all be set with one touch of a button. ENTER is the F7 key, and accepts any request from SONAR the same as the keyboard enter key does.

That's about all I've tried on the SONAR control side. There is more to look at, especially programming additional keys, but I haven't gone there yet.
****Programming additional keys is a snap. The real problem is what keys to program. (ie defining how you personally want to work with the unit.)*****

Stand alone mode:
Works fine as a stand alone mixer. Works just as you would expect an analog mixer to work, except there are no channel EQ's. So if you have a need for EQ during playback, this doesn't have it.
*****I have a mini PA set up that I use for mid field monitoring work, (as opposed to near field monitoring), and have to use the 31 band graphic eq for control of sound. A minor drawback.*****

Also, remember that the unit is connected to the computer via firewire at all times, so it uses the default setting from anything you try to play back off the computer. I had to change the Media Player 9 setting to output to the MOTU sound card, which is patched to the input of the FW-1884 so the faders will control the channel volume. Otherwise the unit thinks it is monitoring, and will only allow control off the monitor volume control.
*****The above is all obsolete now for me. The FW-1884 is the only sound card on my system. I does split the signal within the board to control it seperatelywith the master fader, and a monitor knob.*****

Otherwise an adequate mixer, but no aux or eq on the channels when used in standalone mixer mode..


MIDI controller
Controls my keyboard, and Roland JV1080, both for recording and playback. Works just as any MIDI controller would work, with the added advantage of controlling volume and Velocity via the faders. Pretty cool.
I haven't had a whole lot of time to mess with this yet, so there will be more discoveries in the future I'm sure.
****I've done a little more work with this, and the above stands. It is an adequate midi controller.*****

Impressions.
1. It's great for mixing in SONAR. MUCH faster than a mouse, and editing with the jog wheel is faster, and just as accurate as the mouse.
2. Recording and monitoring are very good. Zero latency with monitoring input, and play back while recording. I had no problems
3. Midi control is very good, but nothing more than a good midi interface would do. Not quite as versatile as the MOTU XT express, but adequate for me. Heavy MIDI users may have a different outlook on that.
4. It's adequate as a stand alone mixer, however, it doesn't have the channel control of even basic mixers, so if you need that you will be disappointed.
***My above impressions still stand*****

Goods:
Helps speed up the mixing process by eliminating the mouse work. Very nice

Replaced my big mixer giving me more desk space in the studio

AD/DA converters seem ok to my ears. No better or worse than my PRESONUS Digimax or the MOTU MKII.

Supports digital input/output, so I'm covered using my FOSTEX D-160 for remote recording, and then flying tracks to SONAR

Has analog inserts so you can use rack mounted gear to add to the recorded signal. (reverbs, compressors, eq units)
***This is nice becasue no outboard gear is obsoleted. In fact I will be adding a mic-pre soon.****


Neutrals:

MIDI control doesn't offer anything more than a good MIDI interface. In fact the programming of the input and output channels is a bit more limited than the MOTU XT Express

Stand alone mixer is adequate, but leaves a bit to be desired in the channel strip department

Not so goods:

I have had some audio drop outs. I will admit to maybe having some operator error here with buffer size and latency setups. I haven't played with this too much yet, so I mention it with that caveat.
****I found the source of the audio drop outs. It was a conflict between the FW-1884 amd the MOTU 2408 MKII. I eliminated the MOTU, and haven't had one glitch since. Unit is very fast with the firewire connection. So a problem solved here.*****


This is overall a very good unit. It is worth the $1300 bucks I paid for it, to me. It is not for newbies. (at least newbies without help) Signal flow and set up must be clearly understood, or it will give you fits. Particularly if you want to use it as a stand alone mixer as well as a control surface. The control surface was the easiest part to set up. The stand alone mixer, (working separate from the computer, even though the unit is hooked up to the computer at all times, (read signal routing)) was a bit tricky within the software applications on the DAW.
*****I will soften my caution here to newbies. I initially thought I could use 2 sound cards, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. It is not a problem not being able to, and by using the unit as the only sound card on the system, signal flow is no more complex than with any other sound card, IMHO.*****

I'm still happy with the unit. Even happier as time goes by. It was a good studio addition for me.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top