Only what you might apply while editing.

Seems like a lot of time wasted though, why not just track to the PC, or mix in the PC?

Bill

Because the RADAR has fantastic a/d coverters....it's sort of really famous for it's sound, y'know...

Cheers,
Dingo

Originally posted by Sir Dingo:
Because the RADAR has fantastic a/d coverters....
Dingo

Right. And you have achieved that by tracking to RADAR. But now you transfer to the PC. Why transfer back?

If my only reason foir using RADAR was the converters yet I found myself editing elsewhere, I'd look for better converters for the 'elsewhere' and eliminate a step or two. My time is valuable to me.

Bill

Originally posted by Bill Park:
But now you transfer to the PC. Why transfer back?

My time is valuable to me.

Bill

...because I have a lovely large console that sounds really great which gets used for mixdowns. IMHO, mixing "in-the-box" licks big dirty dog's balls. I want a fader in my hand, not a mouse. Plus by mixing in the box, one can't take advantage of the beautiful console EQ's, or insert a nice outboard compressor, etc, etc.

My time is valuable to me too, but having the best possible sound quality is even more valuable ;) Call me crazy...

Cheers,
Dingo

Don't you bypass the a/d-d/a conversion anyway when you transfer via any digital interface? So there should'nt be any degrading of audio quality too.

I would think that would be the case as well.
But..once I did a straight import into Cakewalk, of files recorded in Cubase, and boy did they sound like crap. This was individual tracks, soloed and everything, so no combining, and no samplerate conversion or nothing. They just inexplicably sounded like they'd been time stretched, and then brought back to speed (you know that ugly flanging deal....) I don't know if this is the wrong conclusion to come too, but I'm pretty convinced that each audio engine adds its 'character' to the sound.
So you may not lose quality in the transfers, but if you're applying EQ or anything in PT, it may not translate after you bring it back into the RADAR.

Why wouldn't you just edit in the RADAR?

RADAR can do cut copy paste editing but that's it.

If you want to do anything else, say run a de-noising plug or auto tune or...... you would need external processing whether it be hardware or plug-in.

So, now I'm having a little bit of confusion here. I understand that you like the sound of your console, and I agree that the RADAR sounds great. But, for far less money, you could get a great set of AD Converters, patch your console into them, then go directly into your PC. Now you can track, make your edits, and mix down all in the same place. As for tweaking the levels once they are in the PC, you can get any sort of control surface nowadays and adjust levels while editing.

And hey, while your at this studio revamp, sell me your RADAR (cheap) - I could use it b/c I record almost exclusively in the field.

Enjoy!

J...

Dingo...I agree with what your doing. I would do the same if I was in your shoes, but I also agree that the radar system might have been a tab much for a/d/a converters...I'm sure you could get apogee's for far less.

Anyways that's not the answer to your question. To answer your question there should be no signal degedration as long as you have a good master clock as moving things digitally suffers no signal loss unless your pc's input card is crappy. In that case they might have skipped on the TDIF input's and you might get some signal loss...try it with un-processed tracks and see what happens. I do agree that using plug-in's will change the sound..but that's the idea. Just make sure you're using the best quality plug-in's you can find..as cheap one's will ruin the sound and the whole tracking to Radar thing will be a waste of time and valuable $$

To moles, the difference is caused by the program itself or maybe it was a clocking issue with your computer. I believe that each program has it's own "sound" though I've never done side by side tests to prove this.

To moles, the difference is caused by the program itself or maybe it was a clocking issue with your computer. I believe that each program has it's own "sound" ......

Those were my conclusions exactly, and I suppose I have done side by side tests, however unscientific.

But my point was, if audio is coloured by the playback engine running, how accurate are any edits/sound manipulation going to be if the audio is eventually going to be played on a different system? (I am not referring to transfer degradation - simply monitoring accuracy)

Simple test would be to get a bunch of tracks, mix them all at unity gain or constant levels and pans in a few different DAWs, then export them (no FX, no dither) and see if the resultant files null out.