smartest way to sum 24 tracks to analog without spending my life savings.....

[thedude400]

Ok. I have an aardvark q10 with 8 trs line outs and am buying a Mackie 24VLZ pro mixer either 4 or 8 bus. I want to buy 2 more aardvarks and D/A sum 24 tracks from the aardvarks into the board for mixdown. Then I wanna sum the final mix A/D out of 2 channels back into the aardvark for mastering.

This should work just fine I believe. I've heard the aardvark has some reasonable converters as does the mackie. I know aardvark has gone under but their soundcards are inexpensive and seem to be reasonable quality (despite the lack of tech support and available parts repair). I should be able to get 2 more cards for around 700 bucks on ebay. But before I do this I wouldn't mind hearing some feedback and asking a couple quick questions.

First off, has any one done this before with aardvarks and with success?

Secondly , are there any other courses of action to achieve 24 tracks of analog from a PC without buying 2 more soundcards?

and lastly, when I connect the 24 cables from the aardvark outs to the mackie ins, is it a good idea to keep the connections TRS(aardvark out) to
TRS (mackie in) or should I connect trs(aardvark out) to XLR (mackie in). How will these different connections differ in sound quality if at all?

 

[pipelineaudio]

you SURE this is what you want to do?

There are DAW's with bad math, and there are myraids of reasons like latency where consoles can be easier, but this sounds like some sort of self inflicted trauma to me

 

[Fireal402]

I'm going to agree with pipeline.

You would be making a very poor mistake in doing that. First off, by converting the sound from it's original source to digital back to analog back to digital is going to affect the sound. The Aardvark may have decent converters, but the multiple conversions are going to reduce the quality of the sound, especially going into a Mackie. You will lose most of the good high and low frequencies, and get some weird midrange ones from the Mackie.
And if you're using a PC in the first place, you should never leave the digital domain. I know a number of people say doing analog mixes is great, and it is, but you need the high quality gear to get anything above ok results.

Just stick with mixing inside the box, and your mixes will represent your vision without interference

 

[LemonTree]

I can't agree with the above posts. I sum out of the box via 24 chanels of M-Audio Delta convertors and a 24 channel soundtracs Topaz Project 8. The pro's far outweigh the cons. At 24/48 I hear no sound degridation, hell I can even record the 2 track master back in at 24/96 after summing from the console with the luxury of outboard compression and effects.

Think of it like this, how much quality do you lose going through your convertors the first time you record the track? If you're getting a good representation of the original signal then there's no reason to think you'll be getting any less of a result passing through a second time, or infact a third time after you've summed to the 2 bus

 

[HangDawg]

Dump the aardvark thing and get 1 Alesis HD24. 1 unit/24 tracks, has good converters, it's easily mobile if you want to do location recording. Best decision I've made. I have a 32 channel Soundtracs console with 8 of the mic pres(25-32) hooked up to the first 8 ins on the HD24. Those first 8 can be routed to 1-8, 9-16, or 17-24 on the HD with a push of a button. The 24 outs are sent to tape ins on channels 1-24. It truely is an excellent way to work. Very easy. I missed the part where you said you know they went under. I wouldn't waste your money to buy a product with absolutely no support. No freakin way.

 

[SonicAlbert]

I think recording in the computer and mixing analog is the best of both worlds. While I'm not sure technically if you can stack three Aardvarks, in principle I think your setup seems quite reasonable. I don't agree that you lose something going analog, and even if you did lose some slight resolution, I personally feel the advantages outweigh any disadvantages. But this is very much a matter of opinion.

 

[thedude400]

The truth is, a setup like this really is a matter of opinion. Some Feel the degradation of the signal far outweighs the pro's. But then you have those who love the feeling of having a big board in front of them to tweak, bring in live rack effects, while at the same time not really hearing a discouraging amount of degradation in comparison to digital. You can stack up to 3 aardvark's. I just read that people have done it and the aardvark manual says it is possible.

I am trying to get my hands on a Ghost but they are considerably more expensive than a Mackie. I believe I'll follow through with this setup and I will post my results and my first finished recording for any interested. Then maybe someone could be kind enough to post a song they mixed completely in the box and we can have a sound quality shootout. Thanks for the opinions guys.

 

[Ford Van]

So, have you added in the all the costs of outboard gear and cabling?

Let's just use this as an example.

You want, 4 noise gates, 8 compressors, a stereo digital reverb, and a DDL line.

IF you were to spend all the time and hassle to possibly score a Behringer MultiGate and 4 Behringer Composer Pros, you would be lucky to get all of them for less than around $300 used. New, we are talking around double that.

Let's just say the average worth having effect processor used will be $125 each. About $200 each new.

TRS to TRS cables from card to console = 3x $40 $120
Insert cables for dynamic processors = 3X $30

You think you might want to do your inserts pre eq? Well, gonna need a patchbay. Double your TRS expense, and more than double your insert cable expense, as well, add another $50 per patch bay ( you will need two ).

Misc cabling for the effect processor = $40.

So, you added for used processing plus no patchbay cabling = $850
New processing plus no patchbay cabling = $1250

To incorporate a patchbay into your setup, add about $500 to either above price.

Next, have you considered just how cool automation and recall are? First off, with recall. You HAVE to finish your mix before you zero out the console to work on anything else. Good luck thinking you will get an accurate recall even IF you took all the time to write down every setting on the console. You WILL not have it any closer to maybe 80% on the Mackie.

Automation = MUCH BETTER MIX!

I don't think these days that it is worth the expense to do what you are talking about doing via a VERY marginal console like the Mackie. Now, if you were to step up to say a Amek Angela, then I could see some value! But, to equal the quality of processing you can get with about $1000 worth of software, you would EASILY spend $10k on hardware, and perhaps much more, and you STILL would not have recall and automation!

Really doesn't sound worth it to me!

I am with you. I love having knobs to turn, and feel it is easier to achieve a good mix via hardware with ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. But, the fact remains that all things are NOT EQUAL anymore! DSP quality is getting much better, and frankly, an application like Sonar comes with stock dynamic and effect processors that are much better than most of the sub $1000 hardware boxes!

. There is my in the box mix I offer up. I got others.

 

[Robert D]

Hi,
I do miss the sound of my AMEK console, but not enough to go back. My suggestions;

Take heed in Ford Vans last post, there's a lot of coin involved in this venture - more than is at first apparent.

Try it out first with an 8 track project and a borrowed or rented mackie board, and compare the in the box summing with the Mackie summing. If you don't hear a difference that you like at 8 tracks, you probably aren't gonna be happy at 24 tracks and the money that went into it.

Try listening to other software demos to see if you hear a difference with the summing. Massive Master and I have at least one thing in common, we hear a clearly superior summing algorithm in Samplitude. I'd strongly suggest giving the Samplitude demo a listen.

I like Mackie boards for what they do well, but I've never thought they had the character to be a good mixdown desk. Be sure you like the sound of their EQ's before you go this route.

Good luck,
RD

 

[thedude400]

Wow, well I suppose that was a bit of a wake up call. While I have been looking far ahead at my gear options, I never went that far. Thanks for the post ford van, though I didn't completely anticipate this setup to cost so much, I had a feeling it had the potential. By the way that sample did sound pretty darn good.

I'm just gonna take this slow and optimize the amount of use I can get out of each piece of gear as I buy it. I already have a lexicon MPX-500 on my rack. I've been mixing in the box for years now and don't get me wrong, I love it. It's easy and cheap. And to tell you the truth, I will still utilize some of my digital options until I get a piece of outboard gear to replace them. And If my mixes sound like shit half analog, half digital, oh well. I'll be patient until I complete my setup.

I didn't mean for this post to be yet another "according to budget/analog vs. 'in the box' war". The fact is I made up my mind and I'll be following through with this setup. Though I do not have a crazy amount of money to be spending on all this gear, I do have some and in combination with a little patience, I think I can make this happen in the next 4 months.

One thing that keeps me sane about my decision is that if I find this setup is wrong for me, I'm not stuck and ebay is always there waiting for used gear . I've been "in the box" for years, I'm ready to get out for a while. Maybe I'll be back, time will tell.



Thanks all for the feedback!

 

[pipelineaudio]

then again dont let this stop you! I have a stop and go project of a passive transformer summing box Ive been working on for....jeez....8 years on and off

anytime a piece of gear with a reichanbach tranny dies anywhere near me, I get one more channel. 17 now. I wish I coulda just sprung for 32 Jensens all at once, but you know

We just got a Manley Vari-Mu and now I really think that I have my make up gain box one of these days

but really. ITB vs OTB, all I know anymore these days is one I can do EVERYTHING I need to anytime. the other I can do pretty cool stuff in NO time, but nowhere near as accurate as a modern band would need

 

[Ford Van]

Yeah, sadly, with the way most bands work now, and their expectations in the studio, you almost HAVE to mix in the box!

Again, I am not opposed to a guy working out of the box. I would LOVE to be grabbing knobs and turning them again! It invited MUCH more experimentation, and mixing came SO easy to me then! Having to click through a bunch of windows and shit gets old for sure, and VERY tedious!

BUT, you really need some pretty high end analog to match what digital is offering. The cost vs performance factor isn't even close anymore. $1000 worth of software will do as good or better than $10,000 worth of hardware SOUND WISE, you then there are the things that hardware won't do until you jump up into insanely expensive stuff.

Again, I see NO value in buying a Mackie and trying to mix on it. I would rather go back to Sonar 1 and mix in that!

 

[thedude400]

Again, I see NO value in buying a Mackie and trying to mix on it. I would rather go back to Sonar 1 and mix in that!

I think you're right about that for sure. Thugh I don't think it would sound terrible, I'm gonna steer clear of the mackie. I've got my eyes on a Soundcraft or an Allen and Heath.

Modern recording software is expanding incredibly fast and is a hot topic for argument no doubt. I used cool edit pro for a while. It was so user friendly. Then I switched to Sonar Home Studio and it was like stepping outside. Alot of cool things were at my fingertips, I actually had midi options. But at times I still missed my edit wave screen with cool edit. But now that I have A Kurzweil K2500, I have much much less need for alot of the midi and rythmic programming that come with these programs. Once I learn to use the sequencer and the sampler perfectly on this thing, thy sky will be the limit. This has definitely played a part in my setup change.

If I bail on this new setup, I'll sell it all off for DAW

 

[Ford Van]

Be careful about which A&H you pick. They are FAR from all being equal!

 

[Bob's Mods]

More details please.....

Hi,
Try listening to other software demos to see if you hear a difference with the summing. Massive Master and I have at least one thing in common, we hear a clearly superior summing algorithm in Samplitude. I'd strongly suggest giving the Samplitude demo a listen.
Good luck,
RD

Please go into more detail about the superior summing algorithm in Samplitude. I have suspected that all summing algorithms may not be created equal and only using Cakewalk 2.2, I have no way to prove this. Just what makes Samplitude better in this respect? Is this an in your face improvement or would I have to strain to hear the difference?

Bob

 

[mshilarious]

Be careful about which A&H you pick. They are FAR from all being equal!

As much as I love my MixWiz, I wouldn't do a mixdown on it. It's too noisy, even after I upgraded the grounding. Turn on all 16 channels and there is probably noise at -60dBu (~ish, working from memory here as the mixer is not kept in my house). They quote a noise spec of -88dBu, but I don't know how they test that, maybe only one channel on the mix bus Nobody cares for live use, and the direct outs are great for tracking, but it's way too noisy on the main bus for mixdown.

I would think for a >8 track mixdown, you would need a console with serious grounding and shielding.

That is one of the great benefits of digital recording--practically speaking, zero noise from the mix process.

 

[Ford Van]

Please go into more detail about the superior summing algorithm in Samplitude. I have suspected that all summing algorithms may not be created equal and only using Cakewalk 2.2, I have no way to prove this. Just what makes Samplitude better in this respect? Is this an in your face improvement or would I have to strain to hear the difference?

Bob

Do you have Sonar 2.2XL?

If so, immediately get off that junk and upgrade to at least ver.4!

Sonar 2.2 did not sound so hot.

I don't think it is so simple to say that one app does "summing" much better than the next without exploring a LOT of complicated issues, and internal workings of that app. I will bet $20 right now that anybody would be HARD PRESSED to here the difference in summing 8 channels together in just about any application.

How an application handles the math of gain changes, aux sends, busses, panning, and plugin path big depth are REAL problems. I can hear different apps handling all this stuff very differently!

It is dangerous language to make generalizations about software summing. 3D Audio did some very compreshensive summing tests with all major DAWs, and golden ear types can seem to agree on the results by a long shot!

Here is some interesting reading. Don't jump to conclusions about the mixing buss of your DAW! Things might not be as your think they are!

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/forumdisplay.php?f=15

I refuse to go too deep into discussions about how well different software sums audio. One mans "finger nails screeching on the chalk board" is another mans "voice from heaven!".

 

[Bob's Mods]

This seems to be a hot topic at 3d audio. I wish industry insiders had some comments on this issue. Has Cakewalk made any statements to the effect it has an improved mix engine?

 

[Robert D]

Please go into more detail about the superior summing algorithm in Samplitude. I have suspected that all summing algorithms may not be created equal and only using Cakewalk 2.2, I have no way to prove this. Just what makes Samplitude better in this respect? Is this an in your face improvement or would I have to strain to hear the difference?

Bob

When Cakewalk and other sequencers was just making their first clumsy steps at adding audio to their midi software, Samplitude cared very little about midi, and had already built and refined a serious audio engine. They had a pretty confusing user interface though, and CPUs at the time weren't powerful enough to handle many tracks natively, so Pro Tools won the day with their hardware/software approach. As the PC got powerful enough to do the job, Samplitude re-tooled their user interface, and that's when I became a believer. I'm not privy to their code, so I couldn't tell you how or why their summing is better, but they were the only ITB solution that sounded good enough to me to make the switch from my MDMs and console. While the engineers there are still not the best at midi, they're also not the best at marketing, and so Samplitude has never gotten the attention (usually paid for with ad dollars) that other programs have.
To answer your question about whether it's an in your face improvement, or a strain to hear the difference......That probably depends on the same factors that make some people hear a huge difference between semi-pro and high end converters, or mid to high end mic pres, and some strain to hear the difference. Best thing is to download the demo, or try the 90 day rental. There's a lot of other things in Samplitude that make it an excellent end to end audio app. The only fly in the ointment is that they are as far behind in midi as they are ahead in audio, so heavy midi users will be happier with one of the more midi oriented programs. But basic midi stuff, including VSTI's is well supported.

Cheers,
RD

 

[Bob's Mods]

Thanks for the reply. I'm actually rather happy with Cakewalk 2.2s performance. It is unlikely I would switch at this point as I use both MIDI and audio. Learning a new program can be time consuming too. I expect Cakewalk will work out the issues in time anyway. They have a history of doing that.

I do remember trying Samplitude a few times and found the interface very funky as you pointed out. Its high cost and funky interface kept me away. This was at a time when processor power was much less. Ford Van seems to feel that the newer versions of Cake are an improvement over my version. I'll see what I can get out of Cakewalk regarding their mix engine performance improvements.

Bob