jgourd
New member
My primary card is a MOTU 2408. For me there was really no choice since I am dumping 16 tracks of ADAT light pipe at a time into the DAW.
S
secretorchard
New member
I'm kind of new to this whole home recording scene, so bear with me as I try to reason this out. I've done a lot of reading on this site and others about sound cards commonly used in the recording arena. I especially enjoyed this link, provided by one person in a similar discussion:
http://www.bway.net/~rongon/home_rec/home.html#TOC
Anyway, I get the impression that many of you are using the sound card as the location of your analog and midi sound inputs into the computer, hence the need for 8 inputs and outputs, and all of this. The way I understand it, if you are plugging any analog source into your souped-up sound card, your card is primarily serving as an analog-to-digital converter, with lots of other nice features built in (e.g. multiple channels, analog outs for monitoring, great sampling rates, mike pre-amps etc.). Thing is, I have an FD-4 digital multi-tracker. It has 4 channels, analog outs for monitoring, good-enough sampling rates, etc. Do I really need one of these high-end sound cards?? If so, why? Are the A/D converters in these high-end cards that much better than those present in stand-alone, dedicated multi-trackers?? As such, would a person be ok buying a mid-range sound card, transferring tracks optically from the FD-4 (or ANY digital multi-tracker), and then using a sound editor for all the good stuff? Is my understanding correct here, or what? I would appreciate any input. Thanks.
secretorchard
http://www.bway.net/~rongon/home_rec/home.html#TOC
Anyway, I get the impression that many of you are using the sound card as the location of your analog and midi sound inputs into the computer, hence the need for 8 inputs and outputs, and all of this. The way I understand it, if you are plugging any analog source into your souped-up sound card, your card is primarily serving as an analog-to-digital converter, with lots of other nice features built in (e.g. multiple channels, analog outs for monitoring, great sampling rates, mike pre-amps etc.). Thing is, I have an FD-4 digital multi-tracker. It has 4 channels, analog outs for monitoring, good-enough sampling rates, etc. Do I really need one of these high-end sound cards?? If so, why? Are the A/D converters in these high-end cards that much better than those present in stand-alone, dedicated multi-trackers?? As such, would a person be ok buying a mid-range sound card, transferring tracks optically from the FD-4 (or ANY digital multi-tracker), and then using a sound editor for all the good stuff? Is my understanding correct here, or what? I would appreciate any input. Thanks.
secretorchard
O
oneArtist
New member
sec,
I also have a HDR , D824, and I do all live recording using it. Then, I transfer through light pipe to the computer. I was surprized at the sound quality of the recording at a formated sample rate of 44.1K and 24 bit(96K is also possible). It is obviously better than I used to get going through my sound card and recording directly in Emagic or Samplitude. I think we get caught-up in Digital vs analog and HDR vs sound card. The systems can all work together. If I record a concert, it's simple to take the HDR and pop off the remote face plate, record, bring it back and process it with Samplitude and burn a CD using Samplitude(way better than Adaptec software)
Find a card that will accept your outputs from FD-4 and use the computer for processing.
Chuck
I also have a HDR , D824, and I do all live recording using it. Then, I transfer through light pipe to the computer. I was surprized at the sound quality of the recording at a formated sample rate of 44.1K and 24 bit(96K is also possible). It is obviously better than I used to get going through my sound card and recording directly in Emagic or Samplitude. I think we get caught-up in Digital vs analog and HDR vs sound card. The systems can all work together. If I record a concert, it's simple to take the HDR and pop off the remote face plate, record, bring it back and process it with Samplitude and burn a CD using Samplitude(way better than Adaptec software)
Find a card that will accept your outputs from FD-4 and use the computer for processing.
Chuck
M
musicsdarkangel
New member
ok, should I get delta 66, or omnistudio package?
i'm confused. Its 80 bucks more for package, what is so special?
i'm confused. Its 80 bucks more for package, what is so special?
dobro
Well-known member
Dolemite
New member
musicsdarkangel said:
With the omni studio you basically get 2 good mic preamp, a mixer, headphone amp, and (I believe) a better software package. You would spend a minimum of $200 to add these items to the Delta 66 separately. Worth much more than the extra $80, IMO, and probably a better option than the 1010 if you're just starting out.
M
musicsdarkangel
New member
would it be a good idea just to get the delta 66?
Dolemite
New member
no...
If you ever want to record with mics, you'll need the mic pre's. The Delta 66 alone will not do that. The Omni Studio is the Delta 66 + the Omni I/O, which does a lot of things that you can read about here:
http://www.midiman.com/m-audio/html/products/omni.htm
You're getting a lot for that extra $80, and you're saving over having to buy that stuff later.
If you ever want to record with mics, you'll need the mic pre's. The Delta 66 alone will not do that. The Omni Studio is the Delta 66 + the Omni I/O, which does a lot of things that you can read about here:
http://www.midiman.com/m-audio/html/products/omni.htm
You're getting a lot for that extra $80, and you're saving over having to buy that stuff later.
O
oneArtist
New member
dark,
Omni Studio has XLR mic ins with preamps , two headphone monitors and a good basic setup for recording the Delt 66 doesn't have. Dolomite said the Omni is on sale at Musians Friend for $379. If you want two more mic ins plus midi, get a Aardvark Direct Pro 2496 at 8th St music for $489. I also picked up a Behringer B-2 mic there for $199, same inards as a Rode NT2.
Chuck
Omni Studio has XLR mic ins with preamps , two headphone monitors and a good basic setup for recording the Delt 66 doesn't have. Dolomite said the Omni is on sale at Musians Friend for $379. If you want two more mic ins plus midi, get a Aardvark Direct Pro 2496 at 8th St music for $489. I also picked up a Behringer B-2 mic there for $199, same inards as a Rode NT2.
Chuck
M
musicsdarkangel
New member
crap its gonna take me like 8 months to save up for the package, but i'll do it.
Tekker
New member
I'm with oneArtist on the Aardvark Direct Pro, I just got it about a month ago and it is awesome. 4 mic pres, 6 analog outs, S/PDIF I/O, and MIDI I/O. Awesome card and worth saving for IMO, but I haven't tried the M Audio stuff to compare.
-tkr
-tkr
getuhgrip
Bring Back Transfat!
So Tekker, Dolemite....
You guys are or are not using conventional mixers? If not, inserts/fx are handled by way of what...software exclusively?
I'd like to hear how that works for you.
Thanks
Rick
You guys are or are not using conventional mixers? If not, inserts/fx are handled by way of what...software exclusively?
I'd like to hear how that works for you.
Thanks
Rick
A
AJay
New member
I just want to make sure that i understand that last question because i think i was wondering the same thing. Are you asking them if they are not using "Hardware" mixers and how they are installing effects? If so , I ask that too. Also, if not using hardware mixer, what do you use the 6 analog outs for on the Ardvark?
O
oneArtist
New member
I have a Tascom TMD-1000 mixer but even the forum adminsistrators at Tascam say that if you don't use the buil-in effects on the mixer, you can maintain a 24 bit signal through the mixer. If I were to use the mixer effects, I drop to 20bit. The other four bits are for processing. Then, the signal comes back to 24bit. I do my effects processing with Pulsar modules, Emagic effects, or Samplitude processing. All my live recording is done using a Fostex D824 HDR and all processing is done in the computer and CDs are burned by Samplitude 2496 software.
Chuck
Chuck
Tekker
New member
All my effects are done within Cakewalk PA 9, (and also used to be done in Cool Edit 2000 until the demo ran 
). The Aardvark also has built in effects like reverb, EQ, and a compressor which are pretty good too. But they can only be recorded live, so if I want to use an effect on something that's already been recorded, I have to go digital out, then back in and re-record it with the effect (there's a little latency but that's easily fixed in CW). Sometime in the near future though, I would like to get one of the Waves bundles for effects and EQ (those things are sweet 
) And I have no outboard effects units and a Behringer mixer. 
) but when I do get external effects or maybe 2 sets of monitors or something, then I could put them to use.
-tkr
). The Aardvark also has built in effects like reverb, EQ, and a compressor which are pretty good too. But they can only be recorded live, so if I want to use an effect on something that's already been recorded, I have to go digital out, then back in and re-record it with the effect (there's a little latency but that's easily fixed in CW). Sometime in the near future though, I would like to get one of the Waves bundles for effects and EQ (those things are sweet ) And I have no outboard effects units and a Behringer mixer. I'm not at the moment, (it's just nice to know they're there
) but when I do get external effects or maybe 2 sets of monitors or something, then I could put them to use.-tkr
Tekker
New member
Has anyone used the Aardvark Direct Pro "and" the Delta (66, Omni Studio, 1010, or other) that can compare them?
-tkr
-tkr
J
j
New member
i've got a direct pro and an omni studio..........i don't think you can go wrong with either an aardvark or a delta.......thing that sucks for SONAR users is no WDM from aardvark...it's at least a month away.
Tekker
New member
Hey j, if you HAD to pick (which you do ), which one would you say is better??
-tkr
), which one would you say is better??-tkr
J
j
New member
hey Tek,
which one is better? which one do i like better? i'm using the OMNI STUDIO..........but the q10 looks pretty cool.
i don't think you can beat the OMNI STUDIO if it meets your needs....though the Direct Pro is excellent too....it's a different design........sound quality with both is great, no matter what some may say about converter specs and word clock and such...i.e., either is usable for acheiving a good recording........plus it is just too cool to have preamps on your soundcard interface, especially when this type setup is competitive with a sound card and external preamp setup in the same price range.
which one is better? which one do i like better? i'm using the OMNI STUDIO..........but the q10 looks pretty cool.
i don't think you can beat the OMNI STUDIO if it meets your needs....though the Direct Pro is excellent too....it's a different design........sound quality with both is great, no matter what some may say about converter specs and word clock and such...i.e., either is usable for acheiving a good recording........plus it is just too cool to have preamps on your soundcard interface, especially when this type setup is competitive with a sound card and external preamp setup in the same price range.
A
ABSOULUTE
New member
I posted a thread on the same subject,but with a little higher price range.what do you guys think of the roland studio pack:$699 at musicians friend.It comes with a 20 channel mixer/you can record 8 channels at a time/about 30 effects/2 mic pre's/12 inputs/and it comes with it's own digital hardware mixer......what's wrong with it?
When I was looking in another forum someone mentioned it I went to musicians friend,and there it was $699.for some one looking to get serious with their music this seems to be a perfect package.Can anyone elaborate ?
When I was looking in another forum someone mentioned it I went to musicians friend,and there it was $699.for some one looking to get serious with their music this seems to be a perfect package.Can anyone elaborate ?
Similar threads
