For your info: I had two firefaces. I had trouble with CPU load while trying to use both at once, however alone the unit worked well. The Pre-amps I found lacked a bit of gain. The A/D was pretty good, an certainly the unit was built well. The fireface had a very nice PCB layout, as I recall.

As for a monitor amp, I think it would be very nice. You can set it up with the PC, and it retains your previous set up when you reboot. Very nice feature if you don't want to have the PC On, or running the mixer app. all the time.

My 8-track location rig consists of...

4 ribbons and 6 CCMs.
4 stereo RABBIT mic pres (battery powered)
Modified FF400 (battery powered).
Laptop capable of 8-tracks of 2496. (battery powered)
Micro-Tracker as a 2 track safety recorder.
1 tall stand for ww spot and misc.
All other mics hang or attach to venue supplied support.
Cables, of course.

All fits into two gig bags which I carry in one trip from the car.
Lite weight and complete independence from venue power.

Thanks guys!

So, in your opinion, how useful/user-friendly is the RME mixer.

As much as I like my Lynx stuff, I find the mixer to be clunky and annoying at best - limiting and frustrating at worst.

I have the Lynx L22, and I agree the mixer is funky. Usable but funky. I like the way RME laid out there mixer. It took about 5 minutes to figure it out, after that my only complaint was there was so many I/O options it was hard to display them all at once. But all and all its a pretty good set up.

Having the very same thoughts at present, looking to rid myself of all my rack gear and replacing it with a small battery powered kit.

This all came to a head again last week when I had three nights of a music festival to record in an inner city venue with NO PARKING. I had to get help from my 82 yr old father to come and collect me with the car at the end of each night.

Now I want a very high quality multi track rig that fits in a backpack. Its going to be based around the beautiful new Nagra 6, 6 channel recorder, some small pres, probably from Kostas Metaxas, and maybe a laptop for control and backup.

Looking to dump the Lynx A/D (beautiful device mind you), AMEK and TC preamps and the Genex recorder. I am not getting any younger and the important thing for me now is to actually be able to comfortably get to these venues on public transport, after a long work day, and record well, with minimal setup and hassle. Bring on the battery powered devices.

Zilla, your kit makes me green with envy. Well sorted.

Link555 wrote: I have the Lynx L22, and I agree the mixer is funky. Usable but funky. I like the way RME laid out there mixer. It took about 5 minutes to figure it out, after that my only complaint was there was so many I/O options it was hard to display them all at once. But all and all its a pretty good set up.

Yep, I find the Lynx mixer to be very ergonomically suspect, its a case of reflecting the hardware layout instead of reflecting how the user will use it. I have complained to Lynx about it, and was given a dismissive explanation that it reflected what the hardware did. :)

The RME TotalMix hardware mixer is very comprehensive. The nice thing about TotalMix is that if you laptop craps out, TotalMix keeps going. It runs in the FF device itself. Therefore your safety recorder will not loose its mix feed.

I did notice that when you pull down a fader to -infinity an audible plop sometimes accures. This has not been a practicle problem for me as usually I am dealing with static mixes only.

Both the 400 and 800 have been solid and good sounding. For live location recording they are just fine. For those times that you want to raise the bar, a quality clock (Rosendahl) will take these units to the next level.

Thanks!

What about muting the channel - does it make a similar plop? I'm usually working with static mixes as well, but who knows, sometimes a change occurs...

Thats interesting I never heard any plops when I pulled the faders down to -infinity on the firefaces I used to own. Although I didn't mess with total mix that much after I got my basic routing set up. I had alot of issues with 2 firefaces being used together however.

All great stuff so far! Thanks guys!

I don't suspect I'll need 2 interfaces - with 16 channels of ADAT input and 10 channels of analog (or 12...I can't exactly tell), I should be covered.

I would love to see this:

Single, self-contained system containing 8 high-quality preamps, built-in A/D conversion (96 kHz at least, but for the marketing hype, 192 wouldn't hurt). A built in 2 channel summing mixer with analog out and headphone out which records directly to hard disc.

Perhaps this could be built into a simple 2RU computer chassis and based on a linux system or something similar.

Personally, I wouldn't require or even want 48V phantom. I'd be very content doing that externally closer to the mics (when necessary). I'm much prefer the cleanliness from not having it in the circuitry. In addition, I'd like to see 70dB of gain.

I wonder if such a device would be buildable by the collective minds on this forum.

I'd gladly pay $5K for this! (And I can probably get the programming guy to do it with promise of payment from unit sales...)

Any interested takers on putting this project together??

Get this and be done with the mixing and matching!!!!

http://www.zaxcom.com/deva_58.htm

That out to do it!! LOL

I hear it has really good preamps.

Jeremy, what you need is a 'Schleper'..... a audio utility person to help transport, setup, lay cabling, and answer questions from lookie-lou types, as well as security.
I have experience with this type of work...........
Maybe you are getting too big and need to partnership with someone, or hire somebody to help for a couple of bucks... someone trustworthy.
You are going to like the Deva...... it's only about $13,000

Wow your asking for a cheaper spider:
http://www.cranesong.com/spider.html

Believe me - I've been looking very seriously at the spider.

I just wish they offered it without the conversion!!! I REALLY want an 8 channel pre with a summing bus and pan controls that operate post direct output and gain.

Cucco wrote:
would love to see...Single, self-contained system containing 8 high-quality preamps, built-in A/D conversion (96 kHz at least, but for the marketing hype, 192 wouldn't hurt). A built in 2 channel summing mixer with analog out and headphone out which records directly to hard disc.

..But then you write...

Cucco wrote: I REALLY want an 8 channel pre with a summing bus and pan controls that operate post direct output and gain.

Which is it?

The first is a pretty tall order. Probably not possible for under $15k.
The second request is significantly more achievable.

Yeah...I know - I said I want two different things.

I'd love to have the all-in-one interface. But...I realize that this is impractical at best. Could it be built? Sure. But, the best way to do this (from a business point of view) is to build it in bulk and market it. All of which takes a lot of money!

However, I could get by (quite satisfactorily) with a preamp as I described in quote b above. In fact, this would negate my need for a new control surface and others...

I would be willing to pay a decent price for the 8 channel pre/summing bus/mixer so long as it had the high gain (70+ dB), clean/transparent sound (on par with my existing pres). Again - phantom power not necessary as I'd be willing to do that in a seperate box, but I'm fine if it's in there too.

What are your thoughts?

I've been chatting with another RO'er off-line about this too. I just have to figure out exactly what I want and how much I'm willing to pay for it.

Cucco wrote: I just have to figure out exactly what I want and how much I'm willing to pay for it.

Exactly. This is the design process. You must first list desired goals (size, cost, weight, cost, features, cost, audio quality, cost, and cost). This narrows the possibilities from infinite to something digestible; then start compromising.

Just remember that the more goals you try to meet, the more you will have to compromise. My current philosophy is to have more task-specific devices. Then I can optimize circuits for its intended purpose with less compromises in quality, size etc.. To this end I have seperate kits: a live archival rig, a session-rig, and a take-no-prisoners-high-end rig.

Zilla wrote: [quote=Cucco] I just have to figure out exactly what I want and how much I'm willing to pay for it.

Exactly. This is the design process. You must first list desired goals (size, cost, weight, cost, features, cost, audio quality, cost, and cost). This narrows the possibilities from infinite to something digestible; then start compromising.

This I know. After all, I do design weapons systems for our government - it's all a requirements-based setup.

The two things which I've identified have actually been very well thought out. They are just two separate and different desires. Both are valid and I would purchase both. However, one is more obtainable (the 8 channel pre with mix/sum bus). The other is a pipe dream that I wish someone would develop (and I would buy!)

My huge gripe is that many companies offer some kind of 4 channel preamp with a summing bus included (API, Benchmark, others.) However, I often need more than 4 channels!

I'd LOVE to start recording in 2 track only (rather than having 4,6, or 8 tracks rolling) but...
1 - I don't want to use a standard mixer to do this for two reasons -
A - I don't trust many brands of mixers available to me to not destroy the sound from the preamps
B - I don't want to have to lug a heavy mixer in addition to what I have to carry currently.
(The API external mix bus looks like a good solution/alternative though.)

The other reason I don't mix to 2 track in the field is because I don't trust what I hear in the field. Since 80% of my mixes are done through cans on location and I simply don't trust cans, I don't want to take the risk of a horribly mutilated recording due to a piss-poor monitoring situation.

I can kind of get past that last reason since I'm finding myself trusting myself (not the cans) more and more as time goes on, but that initial feeling of letting go is always a scary one.

Cucco wrote:
This I know. After all, I do design weapons systems for our government - it's all a requirements-based setup.

I figured so. I wrote that for others reading these posts. And also to elicite more specific requirements from you. Something like...

It can't weigh more than 117 pounds,
It must have 4'' diameter bakelite knobs.
It must be transformer coupled, tube gain with no negative feedback.
It must be purple and lime green.

You mixer is totally buildable. One suggestion that I would offer is this: NO PAN-POTS. This will reduce the complexity greatly and allow a much cleaner signal path. Have an L-C-R bus assignment switch instead. I have done without panning for 8 years now, and there is no lack for spacious width and depth in my recordings, rather there is more.

Interesting...LCR bus - this is a great idea!

Okay, so here's my list of requirements -

Stepped attenuation. (prefer stepped switches, but will accept high-tolerance stepped attenuators)

3U or less

Solid build - max weight 35 lbs (yes, I know that's heavy as hell!)

Must be all XLR in/out all operating balanced at +4.

I don't have any preferences as to whether it's transformer/transformerless (but I don't like that prick Optimus Prime...such a do-gooder...) or tube. I'm more interested in a clear sound than the topology and while I know the sound is directly affected by topology, I also know that any of these topologies is capable of a clean/open/transparent sound.

I would prefer an internal 110vac power supply but would accept external if necessary or significant improvement could be had.

I would prefer the unit to cost less than $4000. (negotiable).

I would need direct outputs on all 8 channels as well as the 2 channel mix bus.

Metering is not essential as I do this elsewhere anyway and unless it's comprehensive metering, I find it to be useless. Besides, I also assume/expect it to be very unlikely to overload the input stage.

Does that help a little?

Stepped attenuators: Built up Elma 24-pos (times eight) will easily eat up $600 alone, but will provide better quality than pots. What resolution (2dB per step?)

3U/35lbs.: Liberal! Allows for many design options. Cool.

Clear Sound: Well, tubes are more clear but not reliable in live situations, probably better go solid state.

PowerSupply. I only make external supplies. But the mixer could be 2U and the ps 1U = 3U total.

Direct outs: Will you have seperate mixer faders? If so will the DI follow the fader or are they pre-fader?

If we assume that the control surface will be a 2U rack unit, draw a lay-out of how you would like the controls arranged.

Zilla wrote: Stepped attenuators: Built up Elma 24-pos (times eight) will easily eat up $600 alone, but will provide better quality than pots. What resolution (2dB per step?)

That would be fine...but with only 2dB per step and a total gain of 70dB, that would only give me 48dB of gain range with a minimum of 22dB. Unless of course you had a 20dB pad as well...
The tighter the control, the better, so 2dB is fine if there was a pad or some other means of controlling that last bit of gain.

Zilla wrote:
3U/35lbs.: Liberal! Allows for many design options. Cool.

Yeah...I know. Of course 15 lbs would be MUCH better, but weight is not my biggest concern...

zilla wrote:
Clear Sound: Well, tubes are more clear but not reliable in live situations, probably better go solid state.
[/qutoe]
Agreed. Besides - I have to deal with clumsy interns sometimes. I could just imagine a short drop and the sounds of glass shattering. Bye-bye $200 worth of tubes (or more depending upon what variety...)

[quote=Zilla]
PowerSupply. I only make external supplies. But the mixer could be 2U and the ps 1U = 3U total.

No beef there. It fits in the requirements.

Zilla wrote:
Direct outs: Will you have seperate mixer faders? If so will the DI follow the fader or are they pre-fader?

Do you mean "Will the direct output follow the fader..." or did you mean DI?? I would think there would need to be a seperate gain stage - input gain (70dB gain range with stepped switches) with the outputs working post this gain stage. The second gain stage would be attenuation only and would operate as the mix bus gain stage. This should probably be continuous (non-stepped) and follow behind the direct outputs (outputs pre-fader - mix-bus post-fader). Am I stating this clearly? I know what I mean, I just don't know if I'm describing it exactly the clearest.

Zilla wrote:
If we assume that the control surface will be a 2U rack unit, draw a lay-out of how you would like the controls arranged.

I will try to do so in the very near future and post here when completed.

Yeah, I meant DO, not DI.

So the signal path is like this?...

MicPre: Balanced in, no phantom
a) 12-60dB gain in 24steps @ 2dB/step, addition +10dB boost circuit.
b) 12-60dB gain in 12steps @ 4dB/step, addition +10dB boost circuit.
[ a has more control, b is half the cost]

Direct Outs: Independent of Mixer [Post-MicPre, Pre-Mix Channel Fader]

Mix Channel Fader: feeds mix bus via L-C-R switch (Unity/-infinity pot).

All Outputs balanced +4dBu

No metering or monitoring positions.

Everything looks about right to me.

The only exception is:
"No...monitoring positions"

I would like a headphone amp strapped across the 2-bus output. Sorry - forgot to mention that.

J.

I wonder...

Would this make it even more complicated...

How difficult would it be to add 8 additional channels of line source only? Single gain stage with the same pan controls?

Obviously, I'd be willing to move up a RU or 2.

Cucco wrote:
How difficult would it be to add 8 additional channels of line source only? Single gain stage with the same pan controls?

8 inputs: mic/line switchable
-or-
16 inputs: 8 mic, 8 line

are the line inputs balanced?

Interesting topic - as I am turning 60 next month I too want to limit what I am carrying.

Can someone point me to some information on the Rabbit Preamps?

Thanks
Larry Elliott

I believe they are the ones designed and built by our own Zilla.

BTW - Zilla -
I would think that I would want 8 pres, 8 Line ins (balanced) versus 16 pres. I think this would give me the option of adding "colorful" pres later if so desired.

@ lell010 - The RABBIT pres are my own design and build. They are battery powered, stereo mic pre's for use with passive mics. I also have a version which will work with ccm and cmc type schoeps. They are about 3x4x6'' in size. There are other threads about it.

@ Cucco: So then its 16 total inputs? (sorry, still not sure). The problem with having balanced lines is that you need an active stage to receive it. I cannot think of any line receiver which will not have some kind of color. May I make another suggestion? Drop the balanced line req. If you stayed single ended on everything (except mic inputs), you would eliminate 50% of the electronics. This saves $$$ and removes any colorations all together. I have been single ended for some time and cannot report hum or other emi type problems. YMMV.

Yes - 16 inputs - 8 mic, 8 line.

I'm perfectly fine with single ended. In fact, my cables are likely to never be longer than 3 feet (usually less than 12")

I would still want the +4 level.

I suppose the best way to wire this would be:

hot to hot
balanced neg to unbalanced ground
balanced ground float (or strap to unbalanced ground - either way)...

Does that make sense?

Edit...

I mean to say - when connecting between the unbalanced I/O on the unit and balanced I/O on other units.

16 inputs is a lot for a 2U. And it would suck to have to carry something bigger on gigs that you only need 8. I am thinking modular. Have the original 2U mic pre/mixer and a separate line-in 1U "sidecar" which connects to the first when needed.

Yeah...if I went to 16, I'd be willing to go to 3U (plus 1U for PS).

You have a valid point though. I rarely exceed 8 channels any way.

I'm older than all of you and a woman. I'm getting damn worn-out from all this schlepping! That's why I built the remote truck 17 years ago but now, everything has been considerably miniaturized and so, now I am back to where I started with the Chevy van, schlepping all this stuff.

I like redundant recording.

I like redundant recording.

So, Jeremy, a few API 3124m's, ganged together for its 2 track output and with its discrete outputs to feed the HD 24XR with the improved converters running as 12 track, 88.2/96kHz and utilizing an inexpensive M-Audio Transit capable of 24/96 for 2 track, line input, backup safety into the computer, from the stereo outputs of the API's.

I love my computers/laptops but I don't trust them as primary recording devices (even though I have). Being a hard-nosed, long-term, old-fashioned broadcaster/recording engineer, I prefer a dedicated recorder like the HD 24XR as my primary recorder. Before I got the HD 24, it was a series of TASCAM DA38/88/78's which also proved to be unreliable in comparison to old-fashioned analog tape. At least, the dedicated recorders don't have anything else to think about or do. So it's difficult for dedicated recorders to f*ck-up, as easily as a flawed operating system by Bill Gates. And what's with that Linux camp anyhow? No quality anything designed for that operating system yet, that we want to use. WTF??

So why do people keep screwing around with computers that they know will crash? Isn't that a little like Russian roulette? Not my favorite game.

Could you please pass the bullets?
Ms. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD wrote: So why do people keep screwing around with computers that they know will crash?

But I have been recording to laptops for, like, 10 years now. Not one crash, not one fail. Difficult to argue with success.

Well geez Zilla? You're the only person I know of whose Bill Gates operating system hasn't screwed up for! How's that possible??? I guess there has to be at least one success story using that operating system? I guess you don't go to the porno sites either? Maybe the Windows operating system in Hollywood works better than any other place in the country? After all, Hollywood does things better than any other place in the world. Why shouldn't the operating system work better there also?

I'm moving to California! Not interested in any more computer crashes.

Maybe I should sign up at central casting when I get there???
Ms. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD wrote: I guess you don't go to the porno sites either?

BINGO! No internet, ever.

And not just windows, but mac as well. What can I say, no problems.

-edit-

Well, no problems in the field. I work out all the problems before putting the 'puter into service.

Yes, with careful hardware choice and a clean, all crap removed Windows XP OS, you can have a 100% reliable computer. I have been a chief database architect for 12 years and our servers and similarly setup workstations have never failed from OS problems, we have only ever had PSU problems and they have been minimal and covered by redundant PSU's.

That being said I still do not want a laptop on site. Its not the laptop crashing so much, although this can be a problem, what with all the installed CRAP they are shipped with these days, the main thing I hate with them are the sloppy little firewire connectors that pop out with .001 Newtons of force applied, or the terrible switchmode PSU's that interfere with all the pristine audio, for example. I/O on them is a disaster.

No, its the new Nagra 6 for me. Someone mentioned the Deva, its value for money is sinking fast now. The new Nagra is going to be 6 channels, including 4 with mic pres for less than $7000 AUD.

Windows XP works fine in North Carolina as well. Never touch the internet with the recording PC! Andy

I'm in the dedicated recorder camp. Enough of this mixing and matching.
Get the Deva or Nagra and record discrete tracks and put them together later where you can hear them.
Reme has a good idea, the scaled down remote van. You can also hear better there, removed from the performance area. And nobody is going to give you a dirty look for lighting up a cig or having a quick-nip when you get to the slow movement!
Then you can spend more time positoning mics for better sound, rather than hauling stuff from your car.
Besides, you're going to need the van to carry all that duvateen and carpets to get the premium sound you'all are lookin' for!!!

Sincerely,
Ambient abatement police

DavidSpearritt wrote: No, its the new Nagra 6 for me. Someone mentioned the Deva, its value for money is sinking fast now.

Which Deva, Dave?

DavidSpearritt wrote: The new Nagra is going to be 6 channels, including 4 with mic pres for less than $7000 AUD.

Nagra 6 as the core of a portable multitrack rig? Surely you jest, Mr Spearritt!

I reckon that if you’re looking for something portable to replace the Genex et al, you need to make sure it will suffice for the majority of your multitrack jobs (i.e. 70% or more), so that when you *do* have to excavate all of that heavy old rack-mounted fossilised dinosaur poop, you’ll feel justified in doing so.

With that in mind, and from the perspective of doing similar work to you when I’m in Sydney, I think the Nagra 6’s four mic preamps and six recording tracks make it an under-achieving choice. Sure, you can carry an additional two channel preamp. Why not? All it requires is more cost, more fiddling around at set-up, more to pack up, more interconnecting leads to accidentally leave at home to cripple the session, more confusion during operating time, less portability, bigger and heavier backpack, more batteries to stress over, more AC adaptors to forget to bring, more power boards to bring, more power points to find, and, er… nah, forget it. That’s not a portable solution. It’s just replacing one set of problems with another set that happen to fit into a backpack.

Bah humbug.

A portable rig should not only be portable, it should offer greater elegance and operational simplicity than the rig it is replacing. Freeing yourself from reliance on cars, road cases and power points is nice, but if you’re designing a portable rig from the ground up then it should aim to do more than that. These days I can see no reason why a well-designed portable rig cannot outperform a road-cased, rack-mounted, mains-tethered fossilised-dinosaur-poop boat anchor rig in every way, except perhaps for pure audiophilia (which 90% of recording clients don’t notice/appreciate, and which really only serves to impress other engineers and a small percentage of record critics i.e. both non-clients).

There are other devices on the market that offer more tracks and more preamps in one box than the Nagra 6. As a point of comparison, HHB’s Portadrive offers eight tracks with six preamps – those two extra tracks (a 33% increase over the Nagra 6) and two extra preamps (a 50% increase over the Nagra 6) push it over application thresholds the Nagra 6 can never cross. Never. The Portadrive works well, sounds good, and I can attest to its ruggedness and reliability after recently lugging one around the Himalaya in a backpack for three months.

Another point of comparison. These two guys [/www.projectharvest…] have spent the last 18 months travelling around the world with a Zaxcom Deva. The latest version, 5.8, offers 10 tracks and 8 mic pres. And I won’t even mention the Aaton Cantor, because every time I do I pee my, er, excuse me…

Back again. New pants, same seat – doh… [Splashing on regardless.]

Then there are the numerous laptop multitrack solutions that offer something the dedicated boxes can’t do – the ability to overdub, drop in, and so on, along with the benefits of concise track naming/filing and eliminating the need to transfer files across from an acquisition machine like the Nagra, HHB, Zaxcom, Aaton, etc. (There was a guy sitting across from me in this internet cafe a week ago transferring pics from a portable FireWire hard drive; I noted that he had a rubber band rigged around the connector and the hinge of the screen to make sure the plug didn't come out. Looked like a workable solution to me...)

Don’t get me wrong… I am still a huge fan of Nagra and I have nothing against the Nagra 6, but with four preamps and six tracks I don’t consider it to be a multitrack solution. Stereo rig with spot mics, yes. Multitrack, no… Six tracks are not enough – you can add preamps and mixers to connect more microphones, but you can’t add tracks.

Having said all of that, if you’ve done the maths (as I'm sure you have), gone over all of your recordings for the last two years and determined that four preamps and six tracks will satisfy 70% or more of your anticipated multitrack jobs, then I reckon the Nagra 6 is an excellent choice. Otherwise, leave it to the guys Nagra obviously designed it for: location film guys with a boom mic, a stereo atmos mic, and a couple of wireless lav receivers outputting line level.

Zilla wrote: Not one crash, not one fail. Difficult to argue with success.

Interesting... I've had nothing but problems using laptops in the field; I give it a go every few years, and come whimpering back with my tail between my legs. And there's always a student or two who want to assist on some of my recording gigs and use their laptops. Problems, problems, problems. And some of these guys are very switched on when it comes to OS and so on.

Between you and I that gives laptops a 50/50 chance at best. With or without highly streamlined versions of Windows; no difference. I cannot recall ever doing a laptop gig that did not have problems or finished with the same fingernail mass it started with, therefore for me a 100% fail rate.

Difficult to argue with failure.

Having said that, when/if my IBM ThinkPad finally dies (it's been an excellent machine), my next machine will be an Intel Mac, and I'll be expecting great things from it. I can't see the point in buying any other laptop nowadays.