Digi 002 is more than a beefed up 001. It's a 24 /96, 32 track, firewire or pci card interface, control surface, protools LE software and hardware package. A whole new product. Looks really sweet.

If it would only take a SMPTE input to lock up........

With 32 tracks I'm sure someone could spare 1 for timecode and chase the 002. Fats.

I have made my feelings known on various forums but here goes again,

I don't think it makes sense.

Even if the DSP becomes available to PT in future releases etc.
As a stand alone mix ?? So what! I wouldn't take my Digi hardware out to a gig ??
As a control surface. OK it's a control surface and you have to decide how much that is worth to you.
96k ....
Yep it's 96k. I am only just now going across to 24bit and I have been on Mixplus since the release. If you need 96K then get it cos the MBox may not be enough for you.

Can you live with the MBox?
if not why not? It's ok if you don't like it but just tell me why.

The 002 on the desk top will make the desk top a mess and full of wires ... mic leads and midi leads and Firewire cable .... monitoring leads ... yuck!

No talk back as such.

I have more !

Tell me your thoughts and I'll add more and give you my reasons for another choice.

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
With 32 tracks I'm sure someone could spare 1 for timecode and chase the 002. Fats.

I suppose... If you don't mind it not technically being locked with the D/A delay.

E-cue,
You are correct, that would be a wild sync but there still are ways to generate a sample locked smpte. You could drive off the midi on the 002 and convert to smpte through a BRC or generate smpte on a BRC and lock computer word clock to the BRC. I haven't ever done this, but wouldn't that work? Fats

Can exisiting Digi001 users upgrade to the new PT version and have 32 tracks? :c:

Yes,
I believe both PC and Mac are on the web site. I will point out that I have not done this yet so I am just going on info on other forums.

This does not give 96k to the 001. (and it may never happen)

It will be interesting to see what Core Audio will bring to the Digidesign Hardware.

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
E-cue,
You are correct, that would be a wild sync but there still are ways to generate a sample locked smpte. You could drive off the midi on the 002 and convert to smpte through a BRC or generate smpte on a BRC and lock computer word clock to the BRC. I haven't ever done this, but wouldn't that work? Fats

Hmmm.... good idea. In this senerio,you are driving off midi, and aren't you still going to get like a 5 ms slop? Won't this freak out the clock reference that is basically suppling the positional sync (which should be correcting that midi slop)? I think I missed something here.

And ultimately, we are talking about buying MORE gear to get this to work. Something most people instrested in the 002 can't/don't want to afford.

Before I bought my Mix + I had the Digi001.
I used a MidiTimePiece AV. It allowed me to chase with TC. Was only as accurate as Midi allowed, but across a 5 minute song the drift was negigible. But good enough to fly stuff in (like vocals) fix and fly back. I mean, with Lynxes we were usually only having the machines resolve to themselves using the code on the machines...pretty rare that anybody in the music only world was ever using black between Lynxes to have a common clock. So with that in mind...you can get around it (even though it's not as palatable as it would be, if they had given true TC support to these things)

I think that someone starting from scratch could put together a better package from stand alone components like a mixer, outboard preamps, etc, that will get a better sound and hold value longer. The 002 will become obsolete long before individual components will. My humble opinion. Doc.

Well, it's simple, 'cause there is nothing to compare to. 002 is the most perfect system I've seen so far, and I'll will get it as soon as possible.
The next thing to compare to is 4 x the price for 002.

Uhm. Perfect? Please explain?

32 tracks? etc...

What makes you think it's perfect? (at least so far?)

I mean, don't the SMPTE issues along make it non-perfect?

Interesting Thread,
Not everyone requires TC. Unless you need to fly in and out of another platform or you are doing video work why else you you need TC (please explane)? Digidesign had to hold something back in these lower cost packages to motovate people to buy their more expensive TDM systems. Also (and I may be blowing this out of my aft) , according to the manual I recieved with my Frontier audio card, most audio software that generates and reads SMPTE TC originates as MTC from the system and is converted to smpte. If this is the case what is the difference? I still wonder (I really don't know) if locking to the clock out on the computer and taking MTC to smpte will give you a sample accurate lock. Opinions? As far as extra gear that point is well taken but in my case as I am sure in others, I alredy have a lot of this stuff around from the past 10 years of doing digital audio. Any time I can find a purpose for a door stop it makes me happy! Fats

why else you need TC (please explain)

Console-Automation?

most audio software that generates and reads SMPTE TC originates as MTC from the system and is converted to smpte. If this is the case what is the difference?

Taht's right. The difference in those two is a very important one:
SMPTE/EBU is analog, MTC is digital.
So at some point, you have a D/A or A/D conversion to happen. The secret for sample(phase) accurate sync lies in this stage, combined with the SMPTE/MTC/Wordclock conversion itself.

I still wonder (I really don't know) if locking to the clock out on the computer and taking MTC to smpte will give you a sample accurate lock. Opinions?

Certainly not with any tape-machine. Your chances are growing, if using a digital tape-machine or DAW synced by MTC and Wordclock:

but there still are ways to generate a sample locked smpte. You could drive off the midi on the 002 and convert to smpte through a BRC
or generate smpte on a BRC and lock computer word clock to the BRC. I haven't ever done this, but wouldn't that work? Fats

AFAIK only at 48k but that would be a good option.

Always make shure, that you are chasing the right Master!

Niko

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
Interesting Thread,
Not everyone requires TC. Unless you need to fly in and out of another platform or you are doing video work why else you you need TC (please explane)? Fats

A lot of people, especially in R&B and Hiphop lock to drum machines like an MPC 3000/2000. Smpte is pretty much vital, as a lot of producers would print a 2-track stereo instrumental so they could have 30 tracks left over for vocals. Later, after the vocals are tracked, many producers re-lock to the track with the MP so they can have separated instruments for the mix. Some do this because they have to (budget, out of tracks, etc), and some do it so people can steal their drum samples, or do a track and finish it before paying them.
Automation would require SMPTE, as would any second tape source you need to lock to the 002. And while you mentioned video, even if there was a Smpte connection, there still isn't a Video Ref connection (as far as I know).
I didn't expect smpte, but if it had it, I'd buy one just for the portability factors (I already own 2 mix rigs).

e-cue,
I am familier with the process you described. In the early 90's I did a lot of hip hop and rap in the Bay Area and we used to do exactly what you described for many of the same reasons. The programer would prepare the music tracks, we would lay it back to the multitrack on 2 tracks and then we would do the vocals. But can't that be done with MTC or wild sync SMPTE? Isn't sample accurate / work clock / timecode only necesseary for transfers between digital devices? Even the newer budget digital consoles accomodate MTC for automation. My guess is the designers at Digidesign reasoned that most people will use the 001 and 002 as a stand alone piece, pehaps with a MIDI keyboard / drum machine/ sampler rig. This is certianly not a live tracking rig with only 8 tracks to disk at a time. I know w/ external converters you can get 18 at once but really who is going to do all that? Once your there there are a lot of reasons to go with somthing else. As far as automation for consoles, unless your using a digital console again won't wild sync work? While were on consoles, one of the main reasons I wanted to get into recording and mixing in the computer is to get rid of the console and the associated costs of keeping it running, installing patchbays, cableing etc. ( In 5 years I spent over 5 large on my MCI 600, in maintainance alone!) It certianly isn't because the computer sounds better, 'cause it doesn't, or (for me) because of editing and performance correction. I personally think that is ruining music. It's because it's more cost effective and it gives me the opportunity to stay on a level playing field with the guys who get this stuff and play with themselves at home with no overhead. Th-Th-Th-Thats all folks! Fats

"Everyone thinks they're Stevie Wonder"

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
[QB]But can't that be done with MTC or wild sync SMPTE? Isn't sample accurate / work clock / timecode only necesseary for transfers between digital devices? [QB]

Yes. You are correct, and make very good points. Basically, I'm just saying, I can't use this easily in a pro enviroment. Don't get me wrong, I've tracked and mixed songs completely in 001 in the past that have done very well. But I hate it when I get 4 or 5 Digi 001 sessions from a producer that didn't know how to properly lock his system together (if at ALL sometimes!). Some of the prosumer market products make the pro market suffer.

e-cue,
Hear, hear!!!, and "Can I get a Harumph?, (that guy over there didn't harumph!)
The democratization of audio is a double edged sword. While more people have access to recording these days, the loss of interning, mentoring and the proliferation of inexpensive recording systems has really dumbed down audio (IMO). Too many deaf effers mixing! "You don't let blind people drive, don't let deaf people mix!" The golden age of pop recording has certianly passed and I mourn it. That's why I applaude efforts such as this forum. If I can share a little info with someone maybe I won't have to listen to another bad recording. In return I am picking up bits of stuff I don't know and techniques I haven't thought or heard of.
On the flip, Fats....("Everyone thinks they're Stevie Wonder")

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
e-cue,
Hear, hear!!!, and "Can I get a Harumph?, (that guy over there didn't harumph!)
The democratization of audio is a double edged sword. While more people have access to recording these days, the loss of interning, mentoring and the proliferation of inexpensive recording systems has really dumbed down audio (IMO). Too many deaf effers mixing! "You don't let blind people drive, don't let deaf people mix!" The golden age of pop recording has certianly passed and I mourn it. That's why I applaude efforts such as this forum. If I can share a little info with someone maybe I won't have to listen to another bad recording. In return I am picking up bits of stuff I don't know and techniques I haven't thought or heard of.
On the flip, Fats....("Everyone thinks they're Stevie Wonder")

So true. And I fear the labels will only embrace artists doing songs in their bedroom more & more to cut costs, and perhaps "sell out" to the MP3 thieves that bitch about having to shell out $15 mesley bucks for a cylander that can bring them years of emotion.

Originally posted by Cedar Flat Fats:
("Everyone thinks they're Stevie Wonder")

Boy..the accountants shure do...labels are paying invoices as timely as mr.wonder (FAMOUS for being late to a session...sometimes by DAYS)

Recorder Man,
I feel your pain! I have been in the same position before, "literally", but I was referring to Mr. Wonders ability to play all the parts on a track and actually make it sound good....Fats
--------------------------------------------------------------
"You don't let blind people drive, don't let deaf people mix".

FWIW

PT-le locks up better to time code than PT 4.x TDM EVER did. The only thing missing is time code graphics. While it doesn't work with digi's synchronizer, it works with anybody else's such as a DA-88 or a time code DAT machine.

MIDI time code is every bit as accurate as any other kind.

The sample-accurate problem is related to some general slop in the Pro Tools software, not MIDI time code. The Sound Designer application always locked up sample-accurate to MIDI time code.