Skip to main content

DAW editing software

i have enjoyed your posts on RAP for years. i am curious, do you regularly use any editing software (not a splicing block and a razor :-) ) if so what do you use ?



alphajerk Wed, 03/14/2001 - 07:43

true, i dont try to make digital sound like analog. i'd post some but my connection is ridiculously slow and im not a big fan of mp3 other than people hearing to get the jist of it all. i do have a mp3 rough mix up of some 70's stoner rock though for those eager.


anonymous Wed, 03/14/2001 - 14:50

Originally posted by Mixerman:
BTW: The experiment is simple. There can be no rides internally within Pro Tools. The moment you do rides you fuck the sound. You can experiment with that too if you like. But here's the curent proposed experiment:

Run the outputs of drums to individual faders of your Mackie, or whatever board you have available. Run the stereo outputs of the computers 2-bus to 2 channels of the Mackie. Now it's a fair test. Because either way you're going through the Mackie.

Yes, I realize, normally you wouldn't take the stereo ouputs to a Mackie, BUT, if you do, then the Mackie is tainting both sounds equally, and you can properly exaluate the DIFFERENCE between the two. Remember 'control' from science class?

NO internal rides, unity gain, and make sure that as you A/B, the monitoring level is identical. You'll be amazed at how much shittier the stereo output will sound then the individual outputs.

Don't argue, Try.


I gotta try this - one Q, are you panning anything? If so, I'm thinking you'd have to match pans on both the mixer and the DAW.

I sure as hell hope you are right about this 'cause it is going to be a pain in the ass to setup since I don't work that way at all. I do have a ripe and ready A&H 16 channel I can drag into service for this.

I'm also betting if I post MP3s, no one can pick out the difference after MP3 mangling - but we'll see.

Off to the lab...

alphajerk Wed, 03/14/2001 - 15:57

try both panning and mono. also try without running the DAW's stereo output through the mackie, it'll sound better. why put the piece of gear that you are comparing into itself?

also, MAKE SURE THE VOLUMES ARE EQUAL! muy importante! louder will ALWAYS sound better. use your aux sends to send unity/prefader out to the individual DAC's [if you are using ADATs, they will naturally output out their respective tracks on the DAC's as well as run out the pipe to the DAW]. your converters must be the same as well both out to individual tracks and out the DAW.

run the mackie output and the DAW to a switcher to the amps/speakers. then the switcher is an unbiased constant that both have to run through. by going through the mackie, you are tainting the sound of the DAW.

if you REALLY want to hear the difference, run more than just drums through, run the bass through with it. listen to the interaction between the bass and kick on both sides. then add guitar, see what happens to the mackie. then drop some vocals in there... you get the picture? i've even gone SO far in test that i have built two mixes in both enviroments equally between the two, and also used full on everything getting both to sound "best" individually and then compared the two mixes when i was done.

Mixerman Thu, 03/15/2001 - 13:01

Originally posted by alphajerk:
switch A-DAW output
switch B-mackie output

A/B goes to amp/speakers

switch between the two for A/B comparison


Use the Mackie as a control. Plug both the stereo output of the DAW into the Mackie (or whatever board you have available), and the individual outputs of the drums into the same board to compare the pure difference betweeen the two.

YOUR experiment compares a Mackie to a DAW's stereo bus, who cares who wins that battle? They're both shit. What I'm trying to get people to hear is the DIFFERENCE between the stereo mix of the drums out the computer, and the individual outputs of the drums summed by a console.

Thanks for helping, but it WAS my experiment. If you'd like to make your own experiments, we'd be glad to partake in them.

I knew you hadn't tried it.


alphajerk Thu, 03/15/2001 - 14:50

your experiment [which i have done...1-8 drums, 9-10 stereo send off DAW] isnt proper since both are going through the mackie mix bus. you can send what you are comparing through itself. you HAVE to take them both into a singluar constant

otherwise you are tainting the sound of the DAW with the board.

i do YOUR little experiment EVERYTIME i record [i have a stereo send coming up on two channels, not a switcher]. my complaint with DP is that there is no center section to speak of so i cant pull my board out of the setup yet. so i use it to send out headphone mixes and monitor in the control room as well as talkback. so invariably everytime i have a mix up analog and a mix up inside DP. i compare the two ALWAYS. ive probably done this more times than you have. ive built mixes on both to see how each would turn out, the analog board used to win, now it doesnt anymore.

alphajerk Thu, 03/15/2001 - 21:57

a fresh recording to dispell this once and for all. the setup:
akg d112->api312 [inside kick 1" off beater head]
soundelux u195->cranesong flamingo [fat] [2" off resonator head, FAT engaged]
shure sm57->cranesong flamingo [fat] [typical positioning]
octava mc012 matched pair->api312 [split LR equidistant from snare]
soundelux u99 [omni]-api312 [10' back, 4.5' off ground]

16/44.1 into ADAT XT->DP. ran individual outs [aux prefader @ unity] into mackie 1604vlz [borrowed special for this test since that is what has been mentioned, i tried my eurodesk too... hey, i got the cheapest board i could find for monitor sends while tracking... and suprisingly it sounds pretty much exactly like the mackie] channels 1-6/DAW stereo bus out to 7/8. all panned zero, unity gain. [also panned overheads fully LR as well for shits and grins]

the top end on the DAW is so clear you can see the nylon tip strike the cymbals with a nice tight sound, the mackie not so clearly with a more dampened sound.

the midrange fairs well between both listening to the snare and the attack of the kick although the DAW seems more punchy overall.

the bottom is where it all hangs out. i just see that little old lady from the wendy's commercial going "where's the bass?" when listening to the analog submix, the extended bottom that the DAW has [and quite tightly] is gone like a HP filter is somewhere in the chain. its REALLY noticable on the room mic. in a blindfold test with the one room mic, you could pick it 100% of the time [i had to check the boards EQ to make sure it wasnt on several times on that channel].

the real problems dont appear though until you start adding all the other elements of a typical rock mix. add bass on the mackie, lose definition, the DAW stays tight.

and here is the kicker, pull any average music consumer off the streets and i bet not one [i9f not, then only a few] could hear a difference, or for that matter a 2" and largeframe. if they cant hear the difference between an mp3 and a cd, then all this is moot anyways. it all comes back to what you work best on. for me, instant recall and massive automation/editing along with a tighter bottom...

i hope everyone else is trying this too. mixerman might think its shit but i think his attitude is shit. how you climbed as little as you have is beyond me.

Mixerman Thu, 03/15/2001 - 23:04

Originally posted by Tony C:
Hey Mixerman, do you think all DAW's are shit?....... just curious.

No, I think the stereo output of an internal mix of all DAW's is unacceptable. And I'm trying to show people that are happily going through life thinking that their system is the SHIT, that they might want to re-think their position.

My point here isn't to bash DAW's. It's to educate people. (I'm beginning to wonder why I try to educate people, because it's not necessarily worth the ration of shit that one gets for it). Perhaps instead of laying down $5000 on a few compressors, someone will try my experiment, and then buy a console instead. My point is to prevent people from being lazy, and have some passion for what they do. To learn why they can't make something sound the way they want. I may be incredibly blunt, and perhaps even abrasive, but I have passion for what I do. Why else would I have chosen to do it every day as my primary living?

Gear is a tool that makes life either easier or more difficult, not makes a great mix. However, the stereo bus makes or breaks everything. If the DAW's stereo bus, and internal mixing system is inherently flawed, (currently) then you have no chance of creating the mix you desire.

Alphajerk thinks my experiment is invalid. But it's not invalid. All I want is for people to hear the difference between a mix of instruments internally in the computer out the 2-bus, compared to individual outs into the same console. It's the DIFFERENCE that I want people to hear. It's OK that it goes through the same console. It still illustrates the difference.

Whatever, Alpha wins. He obviously has way more time than me. He can outpost me any day, since my attention is to making records. Even when I take a break at the studio and I read responses, my head isn't there. It's when I get home at night and I'm totally wired that I can focus on the topics here.

You all can leave what I have to say. Alpha knows better than me. I can't even make it through his posts, (partly because there are so many), and they are so incredibley detailed and never have any discrepencies in logic. He has the time to impart his wisdom, at all times of the day and night, of all his years mixing and recording albums. Thank you, Alpha.


anonymous Thu, 03/15/2001 - 23:16

For what it's worth, I think it is good that a few of you brought this up if it is even a possible concern considering the investment required to get a good PT system up. Regardless of the results, running the test will have been worth the trouble for the peace of mind in making an informed purchase or not.

However, I agree that putting the DAW into the "analog mixer" is degrading/enhancing (depending on your camp) the actual sound of the DAW stereo bus which has been called into question. It should be easy enough to do both versions of the test.

In a controlled experiment you want to vary only one parameter. (One group gets the placebo, the other gets the dose - not the dose plus the placebo.) So the outputs of the tracks should go thru one mix bus or the other and nothing else. Then on to the common playback amp/monitors.

Otherwise you are comparing "one bus" plus "some of something else" to the "something else". You wouldn't print a mix this way so it makes little sense to evaluate it this way.

Mixerman Thu, 03/15/2001 - 23:33

Originally posted by alphajerk:

i hope everyone else is trying this too. mixerman might think its shit but i think his attitude is shit. how you climbed as little as you have is beyond me.

You're right, Alpha. On a pure Industry level, I _have_ climbed so little. However, I believe my name is on at least 4 or 5 million more albums than yours. Now, the question is, does that make me more qualified than you?

If the answer is no, then why are bringing sales up as if it did?

I have never professed to be a HUGE name in the industry. That could change in a week, it could never change (I broke my chrystal ball). But if you want to make sales an issue, go for it.

Personally, I prefer to keep it on a level of knowledge. Seeing as knowledge (let alone talent)rarely has anything to do with sales.


anonymous Fri, 03/16/2001 - 04:13

Originally posted by Mixerman:
Personally, I prefer to keep it on a level of knowledge. Seeing as knowledge (let alone talent)rarely has anything to do with sales.

I learned that lesson in NYC. I honestly thought that if I knew my shit, I could walk in any studio as a 1st engineer. After 6 months of banging on doors, I decided to take a seconding gig to try the climb. My very first session involved a top-dollar "engineer" with credits out the ass. I was actually looking forward to maybe picking up a few tricks when he turned to me with a freaked look in his eyes and asked me if I knew how to turn on the automation. I thought he was just kidding, but after grinning and telling him to hit the run button, he didn't even know where it was. I'm not saying the talent of an engineer is decided by whether or not he/she can use a certain automation system, but that was certainly one of many eye-opening situations. After two weeks of that BS, I decided that being a kiss-ass was not in my make-up, so I continued down the independent path I was originally on.

Back to the discussion at hand, it has been my experience that the 2-bus is a weak point in a lot of analog consoles, as well as the daw shit. The SSL E's and G's 2-bus totally sucked. Most quality studios using SSL's bypassed the factory 2-bus either with on-board mods, or outboard faders. The "J" seems to be better, but most of the daw's do indeed blow. I agree with Mixerman on this topic. Alpha, maybe there is something technically wrong with your mackie (other than the design). If everything is done the way MM suggests in his experiment, there is a definite difference in the quality (daw is not as acceptable). If you feel the daw is better, that's your choice. Maybe you have taught your ears to hear things a certain way, and anything different is translated in your mind as less quality. This is a scary thought, as most people born after a certain date will not have had the experience (as was brought up earlier) of hearing what the rest of us are hearing as a degradation in quality. At any rate, if you are working and your clients are happy, run with it. We are simply trying to defend what we know certain styles should sound like.

Dave g

anonymous Fri, 03/16/2001 - 07:41

OK folks I did a quick but basically fair test to show my findings on this (stereo) sum/busing in DAW vs DAW direct outs to analog channels for sum/busing.A/B thang.....
Contense - six tracks previously recorded 24 bit/44.1 tracks.Preamps> > 24 bit converters >> Digital Performer 2.7.2 and Cubase 5.0 (same signal path and bit resolution) - (bass dr., snare, hats, bass guitar, acoustic. guitars L&R).

I made a quick mix in DP then in Cubase then bused these individual six tracks into my analog mixer routed through 6 separate DA converters then recorded a stereo take through the mixer mains without adding anything to the mix.
THEN with all things being the same in the in DP and Cubase mixes I bused the overall mix from the DAW stereo master bus section>> DA converters then to the analog mixer (two channels) and did a take.
Note; I did the best could to get a good level comparison with out going to crazy (which I feel is not necessary in this case).
DP basically passed with flying colors, in fact the acoustic guitars seemed to have more harmonics with the two channel mix from the DAW 's master bus..... Other than that it sounded Pretty much the same!
Cubase did exactly what Mixerman has been saying in this thread. The bass fell apart and my D35 Martin sounded like it was under water. And yes, the analog mixers individual channels busing worked better w/ Cubase for sure.
My humble Conclusion:
Not all DAW's are created equal!!!!!
However, I will proceed to try this test another time with at least 24 tracks to do a more in depth test or......... maybe I’ll just get a Paris *DAW* and not even think about it any more! ;)
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition....... I’m done for now

alphajerk Fri, 03/16/2001 - 09:18

ditto, why i use DP, its better sounding than PT, definately Cubase.

this is an industry where success is based TOTALLY on LUCK! obviously, the more you play, the better your chances are of winning. very little has to do with sound quality, you kid yourself if you think otherwise. otherwise bill laswell would be HUGE! talent however is based on hard work and there are TONS of people with talent, far more than are successful.

i dont think eMineM has done this test properly. why? because he is so convinced in his opinion but reality says something different. not to mention is test IS flawed in its design to begin with.

and frankly, i dont care how many albums have your name on them mr. PMDD, it doesnt make you right. knowledge is everything and budgets being equal, i bet i could whip your sonic little ass all over the floor, and im not just talking mixing... EVERYTHING from initial tracking to printed mix.

now all of you who hear the "sonic degradation", is it because of what was told to you was the right sound [heavily compressed to get over the noise floor with inherent distortion coloring the sound]? how do you know that you are right? you probably are for what you are trying to accomplish to fit your third ear but not everyone shares that opinion.

as to my posts... sorry that you cant get your head out of something [yo ass] in order to concentrate. i just guess i've been blessed with the ability to multit ask beyond normal means. i know people though who cant patch a fuckin cable and be talked to at the same time.

anonymous Fri, 03/16/2001 - 09:34

A while ago, a mixing project that had been tracked to Cubase came across my desk. The client bought the software for me and I set in to learn it to mix the album.

I hated the way Cubase sounded.

I didn't understand it, I had always thought that while D/A converters were very different, once in the digital realm, DAWs all did the same thing. That the only thing unique to a program would be the interface, colors, bells, whistles and other features.
Now, thanks to you fine folks (indescretions and spats aside) I find out that I am not insane!!!

As with all other tools in the wonderful world of audio, personal taste and preference is the ultimate arbiter (most people seem to love the way Cubase sounds).
Brand and product loyalty are(semi-)natural extensions of human nature, but the quality of a program's digital summing is fairly quantifiable.

I am interested in hearing what others find with their own DAW configurations.

Charles Rieser
Southwind Studios
Austin, Tx. :)

erockerboy Fri, 03/16/2001 - 11:39

man oh man, am I glad to have stumbled into this conversation....

Thank God I'm not the only one who thinks all-in-the-box DAW mixes are pure crap. I used to be a "once-digital-stay-digital" kinda guy.... my shop had a bunch of O2R's linked together, and then we got into ProControl when it came out. Mind you, I never got a chance to cut my teeth on a nice 2"-into-SSL kinda rig. So when the O2R came out, and I suddenly had access to an 80-track moving fader all-digi board with dynamics on every channel (you know the drill) ...well, I just about wet myself. And I think, having that kind of control over EVERY ELEMENT of my mixes forced me to stop making excuses for what was wrong, and start paying more attention to space, and arrangement, and getting it right "at the source". In short it made me a better producer, no question about it.

But... I had a series of epiphanies about a year ago, when I decided I wanted to have a home studio again. I got a li'l MOTU rig, and inherited a hairy old Mackie mixer to monitor through. Plus I had a couple nice analog pieces to track thru (Manley VoxBoxes and a couple Distressors).

And the strangest thing happened. Quite frequently I'd spit tracks out across multiple outs from the MOTU, and do my mixes analog... just 'cuz I didn't have an O2R or ProControl at the house, and still wanted to grab faders. So I mixed analog, and got into doing things like submixing drums thru the Distressors, or slapping the Manley EQ's across the lead or BG vox. Well, the first time I tried to take one of my "at-home" mixes downtown, with the intent of re-doing it on the all-digi setup, I just about fell out of my chair. For the life of me, I could NOT recreate the phatness of my analog mixes at the house, done on my el cheapo Mackie. And the OUTBOARD?? Fuggedaboutit. The O2R EQ's versus my Manleys? Ha!! The Waves RenComp vs. my Distressors? Not a chance.

At about the same time, a few of the other composers at my shop were getting their home rigs going as well... and the verdict was unanimous. People were preferring their at-home Mackie (or Behringer or whatever) mixes to the all-digi O2R mixes from "studio A". Phatter, bigger, more musical, you name it.

So all of a sudden, my nice little all-digital universe was totally trashed. Ever since then, I've been gearing toward using my DAW just as a storage medium, not a mixing medium.

But this does leave a couple big holes in my toolbox. For one thing, the total recallability in ProTools/O2R-land is a MAJOR timesaver. For another thing, boy do I miss the dynamic automation. So what's a spoiled former digi-junkie to do?

I am thinking fairly seriously about buying a Euphonix or something for my home studio. I know it's big bucks, but I'm doing enough work to justify the expense, and my shit really needs to be master-quality right out the door... I don't have time to re-do my "rough mixes" anymore. I'm also thinking about buying something like a D&R or Oram console (in the $30-50K range... cheaper than Euphonix but no auto), and using the dough I save to buy some VCA modules or Niche ACM's for fader auto, and a shitload of nifty analog outboard. No more plug-in's for me, boys.

Glad to see I'm not the only one wrestling with this issue. What have some of you other DAW junkies done, to deal with the mixdown question? I'd really appreciate any advice you guys would care to offer, as I'm gearing up to drop a ton of effort and expense into this.

Stay healthy,


alphajerk Fri, 03/16/2001 - 14:04

"And to be honest, it's not professional to be posting while clients are hanging around. Surely you don't have that much down time if you're so good? Or do you take 30 ear breaks a day?"

nope, dont post when clients are in session. most of my days are spent recording with a few off here and there. at night, i do animation which requires FREQUENT breaks before insanity sets in. so most of my posting happens at night in between cycles of work or when i hit a wall.

generally i work about 80 hours a week [8 recording/8 animating per day] i take two 8 hour shifts off a week to spend with my family. in general, i can usually do three things at once, sometimes more sometimes less.

anonymous Fri, 03/16/2001 - 16:10

Alpha wrote:

generally i work about 80 hours a week [8 recording/8 animating per day] i take two 8 hour shifts off a week to spend with my family. in general, i can usually do three things at once, sometimes more sometimes less

Holy Fuck-balls, Batman! I used to work like that, but now my family is far too important to only give them 16 hours a week. I average about 6 projects a year (away from family for 2 to 3 weeks at a time), and the rest of the time I'm raising my girls. I'm currently in my second month of no "serious" work. My next real gig isn't until April, but I'd have it no other way. I am extremely fortunate to be able to spend this kind of time with my kids. I have an 11 year old daughter to my first marriage, and I missed out on so much of her life by putting my career first. There is NO WAY I'm missing anything this time around.

Alpha, I don't know if you have kids, and if you do, I'm sure you care for them very much. I just don't want to see the same thing that happened to me happen to anyone else. Put your kids first. The audio shit will all work out - especially if you're as good as you say you are.

Dave g

anonymous Fri, 03/16/2001 - 16:35

Listen to say Miles Davis "Kind of Blue".
Then listen to "Two Against Nature",arguably the state of the art in digital.
I like both recordings
but the difference in sonics is not subtle.
Rupert Neve said: "Analog quality is still far in excess of what digital technology can attain.Although I believe my company will soon be able to show the standards thought to be the ceiling of digital quality aren't so at all, the limitations of the present digital system actually produces fatigue when you listen.CD's aren't just not producing the resolution of an LP, but they're also producing other artifacts beyond the normal limits of hearing that the brain can sense. It creates a disturbance that brings on anger, frustration, and tension.That's not what you want when listening to music."
While Mr. Neve is talking about CD's I believe his statements could be applied to multi- tracking also.

alphajerk Fri, 03/16/2001 - 19:23

i got a 14mo son. i get to see him since i work at home

he comes into the studio and listens, hangs out with the bands. he loves music... hes already twisting knobs. but my eyes look like racoons. hey, you rest when your dead.

plus, i work like this for a while and then take a week off. cant live like this without that earned break. then im spending lots of time with the family. i need one soon.

anonymous Sun, 03/18/2001 - 04:11

Man, late session. :roll: It's almost 6:00 AM and the group just left so here I am going for a brain drain and I see this thread. Just gotta toss my .02 out there.

Over the last 30+ years of doing this for a living I've worked with, assisted, learned from and taught so many engineers that I couldn't remember them all with a gun to my head. Some names stand out in neon and others are lost in the haze of mediocrity. There's one constant through it all, though. No two worked the same way using the same tools.

My take is that the technology doesn't, in any form, embody accuracy. I don't think the media/hardware available today is the cat's ass. When push comes to shove they all suck gerbil weenies. They are all +effects+ of one type or another.

Makes me think of film. What's better? Ektachrome or Kodachrome. Want more blue? Want more green? More red? They're all tools and palette colors.

Somebody posted that the reason another poster favored analog is because of the "mistakes he was making." Does that same poster use outboard FX? Yup. Is that because he's making "mistakes?" Wassup? They're +tools+ and nothing more. The real challenge is using them to create art. Good art. Great art.

They +all+ suck. eol

Kind regards,


Jon Best Tue, 03/20/2001 - 17:46

Originally posted by alphajerk:

im just sick of this elitist attitude from people who use analog [and it IS a giant crutch of a medium]

Well, maybe, but I do most of my work on the 2" for a couple of reasons:

1) I like being limited to 24 tracks, and having the editing limitations

2) (the big one) For the sound quality level I was looking for, it's just plain cheaper. I spent $6500 for a beautiful mid 80's MCI/Sony JH24, maybe a grand more for shipping and ancillary stuff. Now, while I'd be happy to run an analog board with a digital recorder, I haven't heard anything less expensive than the Mytek AD/DA's that I like the sound of, so we're talking well over 10 grand for 24 channels of conversion. Then you're talking DAW- cheap would be MOTU 2408/G4/DP, and that'd be another $2500-3500. Better, IMO, would be Radar24 or some such, throw a few more grand on the pile.

Doesn't make sense for me, yet- when Scott Dorsey gets his RME converter, and I get a chance to listen to it, maybe I'll change my mind....

anonymous Sat, 03/24/2001 - 19:11

Originally posted by EJolson:
How do the Mytek converters stack up to Apogees? I'm thiiiiis close to buying a stack of AD-8000's... are the Myteks (or anything else) worth a serious listen in that price range?

IMO opinion this a REALLY bad time to buy an AD8000, especially if you are in the purchase for the long run.

1)There will be no upgrade from Apogee for the AD8000 to 96K or higher.

2)I have only heard the AD-8000, but after talking to MANY *non-dealers* and dealers alike the Apogees blow away the Mytek, and the SE versions are in a league of their own.

3)Mytek's customer service sucks. You will be lucky if you talk to a person after two days. Mmmmm, is that the kind of support you want for a $15K (or whatever) investment?

4)The Apogee IntelliDAC D/A is reportedly on the same quality as the SE D/A. Street price: $2K for 16ch of D/A. I heard it from a little reliable birdie. ;) But of course, the IntelliDAC has no meters, but you should/might have them on you digital recorder or DAW, so it shouldn't be an issue.

alphajerk Sat, 03/24/2001 - 21:00

check out the RME ADI-8 Pro/DS. people have had nice things to say about them [although i havent heard them yet] and put out good price to performance. they are the exact same thing as the nuendo ADAC, jsut a different silkscreen across the front but $450 cheaper.

i would be real reluctant to drop what Apogee AD8K's go for on ADAC's right now. there have been vast improvements on the lower end converters closing the gap on apogees so the mid range is doing quite well. if you are doing real critical work, then i could understand. although a nice tight clock to go with those converters would help too.

anonymous Sun, 03/25/2001 - 05:25

there have been vast improvements on the lower end converters closing the gap on apogees so the mid range is doing quite well. if you are doing real critical work, then i could understand. although a nice tight clock to go with those converters would help too.

OK, so the burning question in my mind is "What is the best word clock generator?"

I have read jitter spec after jitter spec on A/D converters such as the RME, Apogee, Mytek, Benchmark, Swissonic, etc. but I can't seem to see a jitter spec on the Aardsync or the Nanosync stuff, to just name two. Who makes the most stable WC generator/distributor?


anonymous Sun, 03/25/2001 - 13:12

Here's something I got from Apogee on the future of AD8Ks (BTW, the IntelliDAC has no AD - probably still barely cheaper to add the DA8 card to the AD8Ks if you need both and go want to go Apogee):

Hello Stephen,

There will be an upgrade path available for all AD-8000 owners to the next generation AD8000 replacement. How much this will cost and when exactly it will come about has still yet to be determined. I believe it should be somewhere in the timeframe of a year.

I am very amazed at how far digital audio technology has come as well...the DA78HR machines are a breakthrough. I would like to say that Apogee not only focusing on technology for the perfection of digital audio sonic quality, but also other encompassing technology that is often overlooked but yet so important. UV22 (and now HR) is a perfect example of making sure lower resolution medium retain as much of the initial detail from the master as possible. Soft Limit gives you added protection against overs and optimizes analog levels for the analog input section. Combined with hi res metering, overs counting, format conversion, bit-splitting, etc gives any profession facility an arsenal of tools that are essential to making the final professional product, from beginning to end. Being that you are an AD-8000 user, I am sure you are already quite sold on this.

Happy Holidays,

Eric Gibson
Apogee Electronics Technical Support and Sales
3145 Donald Douglas Loop South
Santa Monica, CA
310-915-1000 X29

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Powell"
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 9:00 PM
Subject: AD8000s

I currently own two AD8Ks as interfaces for pre-amps for direct to TASCAM DA78 tape machines. I would like to add a 3rd but recent converter entries into the market are causing me to re-evaluate this approach.

I enjoy some of the flexibility in signal routing I get using these and hope the sonic differences over the DA78 converters make owning them worth it.

My question is this: what is the future for the AD8Ks? Will there be upgrade for the converter chips to keep the boxes above the newer and more affordable 24bit and higher converter boxes coming onto the market?

With the new DA78s, the benefit of external converters is very hard to hear and I wonder if we are getting to the point of diminishing returns considering the cost of external converters.

So to reiterate, what is the upgrade future of these boxes that will preserve the fairly steep investment users have in them?

Thank you.

Stephen Powell
BMS Productions

Bob Olhsson Mon, 03/26/2001 - 07:39

[QUOTE]Originally posted by alphajerk:

ole roger nichols goes as far as to state that the "summing" of the channels should be exactly the same as well which to me says that a $600 DAW on a $2k computer will sound exactly the same as a $1M digital console [sans EQ/DYN/FX]

Ol' roger is only correct about the theoretical potential. In fact theoretically, digital summing networks should leave all analog combining in the dust.

In the real world, it just ain't there yet probably because most dsp engineers don't understand the issues. Heck, most analog console designers don't understand the issues as well as any experienced mixer needs to...

erockerboy Mon, 03/26/2001 - 11:31

Originally posted by proaudio101:

2)I have only heard the AD-8000, but after talking to MANY *non-dealers* and dealers alike the Apogees blow away the Mytek, and the SE versions are in a league of their own.

Really? I've heard from several people I trust that the Myteks compare favorably to the Apogees. Have you had the chance to listen to both of 'em yourself?

Don't get me wrong, I use and love Apogees all day long... but for 24ch of conversion, the Myteks will be substantially cheaper, and it sounds like they're at least worth a listen. Too bad nobody stocks 'em around here....

anonymous Mon, 03/26/2001 - 22:45

I think most all Posters on this topic would do well to try the test Mixerman proposed if you have not - and I suspect most have not based on the considerable amount of apparent conjecture.

I also think Roger Nichols is more than just theoretically correct. He probably made some tests to base his statement on.

I took some drum tracks I had lying around on a DA88 Tape (8 tracks at 44/16) and made 7 mixes from them. The mixes were done with Cakewalk PA9, Samplitude2496, Vegas LE, CubaseVST32 5.0(demo), an O2R, a Soundscape Mixtreme PCI mixer card in my PC, and an ANALOG Allen & Heath MixWizard 16:2(which I mixed into WaveLab 3.0). No panning, no gain on any of them.

I ended up with seven 44/16 wav files that I burned to CD to trot around and listen to.

I listened to them on a myriad of systems for hours and could never tell any difference between them - because there pretty much wasn't any. The good news is that neither my ears nor my brain was willing to be fooled into "finding" a difference. The emperor was naked, pretty much.

Check it out – all the digital mixes I did are the identical waveform – all the stereo mix wav files are identical!!!! I couldn’t hear anything different at all after wasting hours listening to them, so I pulled them into Samplitude and compared them two at a time – lined them up sample for sample and then flipped the phase on one pair. Dead silence – perfect cancellation. Even the O2R and Mixtreme Hardware Card mixes were the same as Cakewalk, Cubase, Vegas, and Samplitude. Any pair mixed together would cancel out completely with the phase flipped on one of them. Of course, the Allen & Heath analog mix was different – but very, very, very close - inaudible differences. And the waveform was surprisingly close, too. Maybe for another $900K or so, it would have been dead on as well.

Whaddaya make o’ that?

If there's any corruption happening on the digital summing stereo buses, all these guys are in collusion with their math and the people at A&H are apparently trying to copy them.



Your recently read content