K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
i ve been lookin @ this thing for a few days now, and was wondering is it worth it. Does the 01v96 give it a good run for the bang in the buck section for hookup to the rme 9652.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I own a DM-24 and have also looked closely at the DM-3200. While the 01v96 is a good mixer, I think you get more for your money with the Tascam. The DM-24 certainly is well outfitted with I/O and features, and the DM-3200 is even more so. If possible try to find a dealer that has both in a showroom and try them out. That's the only way to really know what suits you best.
X
xstatic
New member
Well, if I remember right, the O1V only has a max of two ADAT optical outputs (the 1 that copmes stock, and one expansion port). In this sense it may not be your best match up. As far as features go, they are fairly comparable. The reasons I prefer the yamaha stuff to the Tascam stuff is simple. First, I think the yamaha's are built better, second I think they sound better. Of course this is all just opinion though.
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
cool!
Sonic how are the tascam converters or a/d via adat
Sonic how are the tascam converters or a/d via adat
fraserhutch
Flypaper for freaks
A/D via adat? Adat doesn't perform A/D, it just carries a digital signal. I use outboard A/D conversion with my DM24 via adat.Killah_Trakz said:
The REALLY cool thing is that you can get a 24-channel firewire card for the DM24/DM3200. I use it and it's flawless for me. So, I get 24 channels to and from my computer.
I did find that my convertors didn't sound great until I added an outboard clock. Then the sound of the convertotr tightened up considerably. YMMV.
I really like my DM24, though.
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
yeah but i mean the quality of the sound, im pushing some samplers through line ins and i need a digi mixer to push the rme and i dont feel like bying 3 adda converters and 3 mackie controls and etc. when the dm looks like the perfect companion to my 9652.
fraserhutch
Flypaper for freaks
Killah_Trakz said:
I told you. I wasn't thrilled with the convertors, but adding an extrernal word clock cleaned them up a lot.
This has NOTHING to do with ADAT, though. Are asking about what it sounds like to send the DM24 output to the RME via adat? It's duigital so what is in the DM24 will be what the RME gets. No change via A/D or D/A. Again, ADATA DOES NO AD/DA conversion.
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
i know i mean just sound is it colored do the pres suck u know....i mean if im routing my daw back to mix via the mixer is it a good clean sound. i can buy all the external mic pres i want and this mixer comes with 2 spdif ins/outs wow! im gettin this asap! now to sell my car.
X
xstatic
New member
If you can just get all the external pre's you want, why not just get a control surface, a real console with converters, or a more serious digital console?
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
so you saying the dm32 is a waste of time. I mean it looks convenient and every thing is bang for the buck status if you think about it, but 16 channels of lynx auroras and 2 mackie control is much better you saying right.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I really think you need to take a look at the DM-3200 it's a really good console. So is the DM-24. The converters and preamps sound fine. They of course are not boutique gear, but they are neutral in tone and good quality. Nothing to be ashamed of, certainly good enough to do pro work on them.
16 channel of lynx aurora's and two mackie control surfaces are not nearly the same thing as a mixer like the DM-3200. The DM-3200 gives the converters and control surface, plus tons and tons of other useful features all blended together into one mixing environment. Add the firewire card and you have turned it into a huge soundcard with built in preamps, faders, compressors, eq, and on and on. You'd have to spend *way* more money on separate units to put together the same capabilities.
I use the DA converters in my DM-24, feeding them via TDIF from my MOTU 2408mkII. I send the audio digitally from the computer to the mixer, then buss it out to analog from there. So I use the converters on the DM-24 for that. If it didn't sound good I wouldn't do it.
Sure, something like the Rosetta 800 would likely sound better, but that one box is almost the cost of a whole DM-3200.
I do use my Universal Audio 2192 as the master clock for my studio. And before that it was an AardSync II. The conversion is fine, perfectly useful in my opinion, until you get into wanting everything ultra high end.
16 channel of lynx aurora's and two mackie control surfaces are not nearly the same thing as a mixer like the DM-3200. The DM-3200 gives the converters and control surface, plus tons and tons of other useful features all blended together into one mixing environment. Add the firewire card and you have turned it into a huge soundcard with built in preamps, faders, compressors, eq, and on and on. You'd have to spend *way* more money on separate units to put together the same capabilities.
I use the DA converters in my DM-24, feeding them via TDIF from my MOTU 2408mkII. I send the audio digitally from the computer to the mixer, then buss it out to analog from there. So I use the converters on the DM-24 for that. If it didn't sound good I wouldn't do it.
Sure, something like the Rosetta 800 would likely sound better, but that one box is almost the cost of a whole DM-3200.
I do use my Universal Audio 2192 as the master clock for my studio. And before that it was an AardSync II. The conversion is fine, perfectly useful in my opinion, until you get into wanting everything ultra high end.
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
Ok i guees ill grab 1 of these monsters for my personal enjoyment. Did they fix the daw fader problems as in moving 16 channels @ a time. Im gonne be using the adat ligths via my 9652 and i got a head nod from the wife to sacrifice a purchase of her new car down payment for this yuppy woooohoooo.
X
xstatic
New member
My complaints with the Tascam digital consoles so far have been...
1) I have never liked the preamps much and find them to basically be in the same category as Mackie, Spirit, yamaha MG etc...
2) The EQ has always seemed fairly natural, but never seems to do much and then suddenly seems to do too much.
3) Tascam has had fader problems for 8 years or more now with their digital consoles. At least form the DM24 back... I can not speak to this concerning the DM3200 though.
The Tascam DM3200 may have fixed some or all of these problems, or it may not have fixed any of them. Sonce I have not used a Tascam DM3200 yet, I can not state for certain what my opinion of them would be. However, I can at least relay the problems that I have had with ALL other Tascam models (digital mixers that is). They do seem to offer more features at a lower price, but it also seems to copme at the cost of sonic integrity to a certain degree. My biggest gripe now with buying one (they really aren't bad, just not my choice) is that the Yamaha's are just too close in price, but outperform them in my opinion. Also, the Sony DMX R100's can now be had on the market for as low as $5000. Just my 2 cents
1) I have never liked the preamps much and find them to basically be in the same category as Mackie, Spirit, yamaha MG etc...
2) The EQ has always seemed fairly natural, but never seems to do much and then suddenly seems to do too much.
3) Tascam has had fader problems for 8 years or more now with their digital consoles. At least form the DM24 back... I can not speak to this concerning the DM3200 though.
The Tascam DM3200 may have fixed some or all of these problems, or it may not have fixed any of them. Sonce I have not used a Tascam DM3200 yet, I can not state for certain what my opinion of them would be. However, I can at least relay the problems that I have had with ALL other Tascam models (digital mixers that is). They do seem to offer more features at a lower price, but it also seems to copme at the cost of sonic integrity to a certain degree. My biggest gripe now with buying one (they really aren't bad, just not my choice) is that the Yamaha's are just too close in price, but outperform them in my opinion. Also, the Sony DMX R100's can now be had on the market for as low as $5000. Just my 2 cents
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Hey there Albie,SonicAlbert said:
I have been eyeing that UA 2192 in the catalogs for a while now (just as recently as this morning, as a matter of fact) and have alays been curious about it. I have not yet run across any reviews or first-hand expereince or users of these...until now
.I'm really curious about what you have to say about the 2192.
Killa, I don't mean to steal your thread here, let's continue to talk about the 3200 and it competition. Was just hoping to get some quick sidebar info on the 2192 while the opportunity presented itself.
G.
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
Lol your cool glen, im gonna invest into the dm regardless. Means no more air jordans and gizmos for me for a while lol!
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Well, best of luck with it, KT. I'm envious; I've had the 3200 on my wish list for several months now. Just trying to build the budget back up again. Stupid me has been using all my income to pay bills.Killah_Trakz said:
G.
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
Southside You Jinxed Me!
yeah man damnit everytime im bout to make some new advance some b/s pops up darnit! im going the aurora route with the 16 in and mackie control and xt at least i wont debate my ad converters, now im searching for a humble mic preamp thats a bang for the buck. SIKE! DM3200 HERE I COME.
yeah man damnit everytime im bout to make some new advance some b/s pops up darnit! im going the aurora route with the 16 in and mackie control and xt at least i wont debate my ad converters, now im searching for a humble mic preamp thats a bang for the buck. SIKE! DM3200 HERE I COME.
Last edited:
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I haven't had any problem with my DM-24 faders. But I don't think I've ever had all 16 going at once, either. I pretty much stick to saving presets for my mixes, and switching between those. I do volume automation in the DAW, and don't have the DM-24 faders track the moves.
Killah, the only thing about digital mixers is figuring out how to do the signal routing when you first get it into your studio. It can be a real puzzle because the mixers are so flexible. You are going to burn up a few brain cells on that, I know I did. Just take the time to sort it out, and after a while it will get real easy.
Southside, I am a big fan of the 2192. It is the first converter I've heard that sounds analog to me. So much digital gear sounds "spiky" to me, for lack of a better word. Like it responds too fast, like all the edges are sharp, and like there is a certain hollowness here or there in the frequency spectrum. None of that with the 2192.
A couple months ago my mix engineer was in here to mix a film score I did. I always like trying out my new gear on him, because he'll give an honest reaction. The rule is, if we like the new gear it stays in the mix, and if we don't it doesn't get used (and usually sold shortly thereafter). It doesn't matter how much the gear cost me, if it doesn't do anything for us we don't use it.
We usually mix for a while just monitoring straight out of the mixer, bypassing any conversion. Then, when we get closer to a final mix we change the routing so the mix goes through the converter into the DAW, and from there to the monitors. This has always been a source of slight dissapointment in the past, as the mix has always sounded a little worse after passing through the converters.
So anyway, we got to that point in the day, and routed the mix through the 2192. We listened a bit. Then with a sense of surprise and slight awe my engineer said, "It sounds better!". He felt the 2192 actually pulled the mix together a bit, helped it gel. I felt the same way. It is just a really great sounding converter that is accurate and detailed and doesn't color the sound, but at the same time is very smooth and pleasant on the ears.
I think you would probably be pretty happy with it. What are you using now?
Killah, the only thing about digital mixers is figuring out how to do the signal routing when you first get it into your studio. It can be a real puzzle because the mixers are so flexible. You are going to burn up a few brain cells on that, I know I did. Just take the time to sort it out, and after a while it will get real easy.
Southside, I am a big fan of the 2192. It is the first converter I've heard that sounds analog to me. So much digital gear sounds "spiky" to me, for lack of a better word. Like it responds too fast, like all the edges are sharp, and like there is a certain hollowness here or there in the frequency spectrum. None of that with the 2192.
A couple months ago my mix engineer was in here to mix a film score I did. I always like trying out my new gear on him, because he'll give an honest reaction. The rule is, if we like the new gear it stays in the mix, and if we don't it doesn't get used (and usually sold shortly thereafter). It doesn't matter how much the gear cost me, if it doesn't do anything for us we don't use it.
We usually mix for a while just monitoring straight out of the mixer, bypassing any conversion. Then, when we get closer to a final mix we change the routing so the mix goes through the converter into the DAW, and from there to the monitors. This has always been a source of slight dissapointment in the past, as the mix has always sounded a little worse after passing through the converters.
So anyway, we got to that point in the day, and routed the mix through the 2192. We listened a bit. Then with a sense of surprise and slight awe my engineer said, "It sounds better!". He felt the 2192 actually pulled the mix together a bit, helped it gel. I felt the same way. It is just a really great sounding converter that is accurate and detailed and doesn't color the sound, but at the same time is very smooth and pleasant on the ears.
I think you would probably be pretty happy with it. What are you using now?
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
The only converters I have worth talking about are in my original MOTU 2408. Servicable, but certainly nothing to brag about.SonicAlbert said:
My system is badly dated; I have not added or chaged any hardware since I last re-designed my room in 1999. It has all worked very well for me. I have also skipped by with it quite a bit in that most of my audio-centric work these days is in mixing and not so much tracking. So a few software upgrades and plugs is where my money has been concentrated.
But if I can ever get past the living from gig-to-gig groove I'm in now, I have a major hardware upgrade in mind. You know I have had my eye on the 3200 for quite a while now, we have talked about that a few times in the past; I like control surfaces
. But I also want to have at least of couple of relatively top shelf channels that go direct, bypassing the 3200. These channels would consist solely of better than average preamps going into better than average converters. Hence the curiosity about the UA.G.
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
SouthSIDE Glen said:My system is badly dated; I have not added or chaged any hardware since I last re-designed my room in 1999.
I like control surfaces
G.
You took the words out of my mouth. But i havent upgraded my pc since 2002 well yes i have, from 2.0 to 2.6 p4 and thats it. I just took out my delta 44 and replaced it with the 9652 (wow 4yrs ago as a high school grad present) .
And thats y im really tense because this beast is gonne be sittin, but i wanna hear the conversion. 99.9% of digital is transparent and theirs millions of ways to "warm" up the signal pre conversion. My thing is; I wanna know that this is a purchase i will make and 4 yrs later wont give a care if theirs a 64 channel with blah blah specs that came out even cheaper.
and glen helped me realized that their comes to a point well excuse my french
when the damn shit just works.. and i'm happy and the customers or whomever are happy. Thanks.