More "set-up snapshots?"

[Drumstruck]

Yes, misinterpretation, derogatory comment and exit stage left - best approach.

Bye

 

[rqstudio]

???

 

[captdan]

I've been thinking about this thread past couple of days. Dangerous as that may be, it's possible some of us (like myself) may've swerved off Drumstruck & AudioWave's point - that the DM mixers (the 4800 in particular) offer far more channel module real estate than the most 'popular' (firewire) single interface is capable of transmitting bidirectionally at any given time. So logic (not the DAW) suggests that leveraging the native power of a modern DAW (with potentially 100+ tracks) with a more robust interface (MADI, for example) is something that should at least be explored.

I pulled up a ProTools session over the weekend; lo and behold, there were 39 individual 'ribbons' in the session - many of these, multiple/comp takes of various parts. Ironically, these extra tracks were, themselves, a workaround to defeat the latency drawbacks of performing punch ins while monitoring OTB on the DM. So, essentially, this extra material was never intended as 'increased track count,' but rather 'harvesting' sources for purposes of bussing or routing into the restricted firewire 'sphincter' to the DM. What if that weren't necessary, and those original elements could be dedicated to an outboard, discreet pathway? Well - something like MADI would allow that. In that scenario, every DAW element would have its own channel on the DM - up to, perhaps, 88 if desired.

So, in a sense there's a routing advantage to having more than 32 bi directional channels. However, whether that capability leads to better - ie: sonically improved - mixes is a separate debate. But it's arguably an advantage worth considering for many users, while perhaps, an unnecessary complication to others.

Did I get any of that right?

CaptDan

 

[jamsire]

Then my answer is simple - get two DM4800's with firewire cards in each, two computers sync'd up together with their respective software, and go up as many as 64 audio tracks.

Still can't imagine why, but ok. MADI or no MADI, I can't hear more than 4 things at once anyway - even if I tracked 19 different guitars for one song.

Yay!!

 

[captdan]

Yes, sir - it's a simple answer. But is it the 'best' answer for everybody? I can't say. I'm just trying to see around the corner to another point of view.

Although I agree with you absolutely about 'track count' and audience brain cortex limitation, the issue may be more about workflow suitability without need to add an additional console to solve a fundamental, perceived limitation. That's not my perception, but it exists nonetheless. So - at least from a philosophical standpoint - it's a valid discussion to have occasionally.

After all, nobody is suggesting that the DM mixers are wimpy; on the contrary - just LOOK at all those friggen faders. It's only human to imagine each of them harnessed to an individual audio 'pipe.' You know - like mountain climbing; enthusiasts do it because - the mountains exist.

CaptDan

 

[TascMan]

Going against my better judgment here, but I wanted to chime in too. If the debate is still about the pros and cons of increasing I/O interface channel count, even if not for anything more than convenience, then I am for any improvement. Everyone here has made great points. But I think the discussion has revolved around the validity of a MADI interface (or the like) in the realm of home/self/project/small studio recording. While this might seem overkill for this domain, I definitely could see a MADI interface card enabling the DM line in a more robust environment, like large live sound venues that would include mobile recording facilities, as well as a pro-commercial audio/video broadcasting facility. After having a look at the current set of add-in cards for the DM line, The FW interface is the only thing with more than 8 channels. MADI is not a new thing, but is a standard for large channel count consoles. If it's implementation is possible in a DM card, why not? I think it would open the DMs to a whole new world, and provide convenience for the home user. It doesn't need to be mandatory, but what a great option it could be. For that matter, why not go to HyperMAC; 384 bi-directional channels over fiber! Might be overkill.....
BTW,...Where can I get a rainbow cookie?

 

[AudioWave]

I've been thinking about this thread past couple of days. Dangerous as that may be, it's possible some of us (like myself) may've swerved off Drumstruck & AudioWave's point - that the DM mixers (the 4800 in particular) offer far more channel module real estate than the most 'popular' (firewire) single interface is capable of transmitting bidirectionally at any given time. So logic (not the DAW) suggests that leveraging the native power of a modern DAW (with potentially 100+ tracks) with a more robust interface (MADI, for example) is something that should at least be explored.

I pulled up a ProTools session over the weekend; lo and behold, there were 39 individual 'ribbons' in the session - many of these, multiple/comp takes of various parts. Ironically, these extra tracks were, themselves, a workaround to defeat the latency drawbacks of performing punch ins while monitoring OTB on the DM. So, essentially, this extra material was never intended as 'increased track count,' but rather 'harvesting' sources for purposes of bussing or routing into the restricted firewire 'sphincter' to the DM. What if that weren't necessary, and those original elements could be dedicated to an outboard, discreet pathway? Well - something like MADI would allow that. In that scenario, every DAW element would have its own channel on the DM - up to, perhaps, 88 if desired.

So, in a sense there's a routing advantage to having more than 32 bi directional channels. However, whether that capability leads to better - ie: sonically improved - mixes is a separate debate. But it's arguably an advantage worth considering for many users, while perhaps, an unnecessary complication to others.

Did I get any of that right?

CaptDan

Thanks CaptDan for allowing yourself to be open minded to the perspective I'm coming from as to maximizing and leveraging the full capability and productivity of the DM mixers even if some think that perspective it is overkill and unnecessary.

And sorry, 2-DM-4800's, 2-IFFW cards and two computers? Now that would be very much overkill, unnecessary and way over-complicated band-aid approach when there is true possibility that a far more simple and elegant solution could be developed that would also take less space and be less expensive that dealing with kind of mess.

Perhaps it would be an option if having 2-DM-4800's would truly be like having one fully interrogated console and connection to one computer. But in my eyes, the cascade option is pretty half-baked and not worth pursuing in general, yet alone for the lack of value of what you get with the limitations of the cascade option that also outweighs the cost of what it takes to implement it.

 

[Drumstruck]

Yes, I think the 2 x DMs part of the equation might just be ok, but 2 x PCs sync'd together may require doubling of many of your licence costs, double dongles, sync'd patch levels etc. Maybe running 2 instances on a VM build with multiple firewire over thunderbolt connections would be more manageable - at least you could snapshot the images for a quick rebuild...... starship enterprise taking off.....

 

[jamsire]

Perhaps it would be an option if having 2-DM-4800's would truly be like having one fully interrogated console and connection to one computer. But in my eyes, the cascade option is pretty half-baked and not worth pursuing in general, yet alone for the lack of value of what you get with the limitations of the cascade option that also outweighs the cost of what it takes to implement it.

Ummmmmmm.......this is already possible with the Cascade feature.

I said it before, there are no digital mixers with more than 32 channels of audio I/O built into them right out the box ready to go - period. None. The ones that handle more audio do it with external peripherals. In that case, the DM is in the same boat as all the other other products out there.

So.....

The answer is just spend more money, get an RME xyz box, MADI up to 64 channels at 96khz (which I believe gives you half the track count in some units, AVID's unit gives you 192khzHD with their systems), add word clock and ADAT for sync purposes, then all cabling go to the DM and you're good to go.

FYI - Katy Perry's "Teenage Dream" - 130+ tracks, based on three notes. Big hit!!!

 

[AudioWave]

As I said, the cascade option is half-baked and you get some shared features but don't get the same full functionality that one would need and expect in cascading two mixers. And I don't really need or want another mixer, nor another computer to manage it. What I need and what I desire is simply more Driver (CoreAudio/ASIO) I/O capability. Not another full duplicate setup. That's just lame...

At this time MADI is the logical solution and is what most people are familiar with in large I/O channel capability, but it is only one option. It rates high as an already stable low-latency protocol with fully supported products in the marketplace.

There are other new technologies in play that are already being used in the Broadcast and Corporate worlds that are in the development stage for milt-channel recording interfaces such as AoE, AVB & DANTE.

Some these are in Alph now and by the end of this year one or more them will be in Beta or even close to the RC stage with products that allow you to connect together and control ANY audio interface on the same Network. Then you could combine any spare or any other audio interface to combine the I/O to make it as large as you would likely ever need. This will also allow one to have one main audio interface in one room and another type of audio interface in another room with each connected to separate computers or controlled from one computer or IOS type of device. OS X Yosemite 10.10 will allow DAW software to mature and take advantage of this as well.

While latency is currently an issue in this kind of implementation, preliminary results are showing that at launch it won't likely be any worse that what we currently have deal with using the IFFW FW400 card.

 

[cmaffia]

Well I agree with you Gravity Jim, but it really doesn't matter. However I do mic every drum, two on the snare, LOL But I was just looking for a few snapshots to make my life easier and wanted to know why my transport lights weren't lighting up. I guess I got what I was looking for although you wouldn't know that by looking at some of the post!
It's good to see the DM users still have some spunk in them. Happy mixing Ya' all.

In my most recent project which I posted over in the demo area, I recorded my acoustic kit for the first time using 2 mics on the snare, 1 on each of my 2 toms including floor tom (3), 2 on kick (inside and in front) and 2 overheads. 9 mics total. I tried less but I found for me this offered me the most amount of control with the least amount of mics.
My needs are simple as I rarely record more than 3 people at once with my projects so I/O is never an issue. Also I mix in the box so having more IF/FW channels isn't a problem but I have to admit when I tried the ITB method, I instantly felt the single track count constraint after being so used to the remote layer and not having to worry about track limitations. It forces you to do work arounds and be more prudent in your tracking...which is great but I like to work quickly. Perhaps my tracking and project management approach is sloppy but then again I'm not taking photos of my projects for "Better Homes & Gardens". However, Jamsire and others are right in saying that that other mixers have this limitation as well. In addition, not many mixers, especially at this price point, offer 96khz/32 channel I/O which is an amazing feat!
Early on I did an ITB/OTB comparison and I didn't hear much of a difference between the 2. Actually I didn't hear any difference at all and I'd like to think my ears, although not "golden", are good. My conclusion was the ITB mix didn't sound better or different from the OTB mix so why subject myself to the OTB limitations? Plus it just seemed like more work setting up a project on the DM each time. For the more advanced and more technology robust engineers, I can certainly see the need for more track and I/O but thankfully I'm not that guy because I spend far too much money on music $hit as it is! Again I am more of a player and writer and most of what I've learned came out of necessity because no one else I work with had decent equipment or wanted to invest the time learning the recording process. I'd like to believe that many of these "requests" will be incorporated in a new DM line of mixers that will be released sometime next year. Please Tascam.. pretty please with rainbow cookies on top!!

 

[TascMan]

Rainbow cookies raining down everywhere and I cant seem to find a single one!

 

[cmaffia]

Great now I'm going to have to go to the Italian bakery tomorrow as Rainbow cookies are my favorite.

 

[rqstudio]

Would I be beating a dead horse if I were to say the ole' 16 track 2 inch was the best sounding recording devise ever built? Lock two of them babies together and you got something!!! Even with the newest PT and Tascam digital stuff the difference between them and my MCi/Sony JH-24 - 2 inch was quite noticeable but kids today have no clue so what'cha gonna do?

 

[captdan]

Would I be beating a dead horse if I were to say the ole' 16 track 2 inch was the best sounding recording devise ever built?

No - but you'd be beating the almost dead 24 track machine that might disagree. (rimshot)

Long, unending story short: I've heard some GREAT analog recordings; I've heard some equally GREAT sounding digital ones. But in the sense that modern, high end digital imaging (HD) can equal 35mm film on an artistic level, modern digital audio most assuredly equals analog/tape. But each format has a subtly unique feel to it.

I like phat tape; I like phat digital. Is your digital as phat as YOU can make it? And if not, why?

CaptDan

 

[rqstudio]

I agree, and it may not even be a quality thing. Maybe it is the tape compression, but what ever it is, it's a different animal.

 

[Arjan P]

It's mostly perception, nostalgia and psychology IMO.

 

[cmaffia]

I'd never go back. I did for a short while after my Akai DPS24 and right before getting the DM3200. I found it depressing, limiting and I would never work that way again in my home. My recordings today blow away my old home studio. You forget how difficult it was to use that old equipment. Like everything else, time heals old wounds.

 

[jamsire]

I work with tape anytime I can - I love it. I like that it slows me down so I can think on rewinds, setting up, etc. My guitars sound beautiful through my Tascam 388-8 track machine. Kind of like cars - I get weary of cars that hard drives in them. Weird. But I also love the fact that I straddle both at any given time with "happiness."

Can't say I ever encountered a transport issue with an autolocator!

 

[captdan]

Nostalgia, indeed. I have many fond memories of being in higher end rooms, 24 track MCIs and Ampexes whirring away. Had the opportunity to work in some fine 'vintage' LA studios, including the old Hanna Barbera, RCA, and Sound City facilities. In their day, they were the best of the best.

One thing they - and even the lower-rent demo studios - had in common were the engineers and maintenance staff. The latter in particular were virtually indispensable; every day, and prior to every session, they'd have the old Studers 'n 'Pexes 'hoods' up - tweakers in hand, bias tapes flying through reels, the grandiose voice announcing from the ginormous JBLs, " ...FIVE THOUSAND CYCLES....EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" All it took was for the recording machines' heads to be a smidgeon out of spec, azimuth off a few notches, and the golden audio would turn to dreck faster than you can say 'Where did THAT come from!!?"

Running a full on tape based facility today is more than a challenge; it's a full time occupation. It's like owning a classic car; if you can't do the maintenance yourself and don't live in a major production center, you're pretty much done before you start. My hat's off to those who walk that path because they have to wear a lot of hats themselves.

Fun times.

CaptDan