Anyone set Dm3200 to Live in remote mode??? or someone have any ideas??? I think to usa control port 5-6 its maybe correct?
Ableton Live 8 and DM3200
- Thread starter mixtrip81
- Start date
I tried for an hour to get my 3200 to remote with Ableton Live 8 without any luck. Seems the two won't communicate. I've also tried with Logic 9 and can get faders to move but not the transport. But it does works flawless with Pro tools 10.
**My question**I am running Pro Tools 10 on a Mac Pro tower with my 3200 through Firewire without any issues so far. I've heard a lot about Pro tools HD with it's advance features. Will Pro tools HD sound better in quality with its converters as opposed to using the 3200 alone as an interface? I purchased the 3200 for the 16 analog ins and control surface capability for PT's but would like to know anyones experience with both with sound quality.
**My question**I am running Pro Tools 10 on a Mac Pro tower with my 3200 through Firewire without any issues so far. I've heard a lot about Pro tools HD with it's advance features. Will Pro tools HD sound better in quality with its converters as opposed to using the 3200 alone as an interface? I purchased the 3200 for the 16 analog ins and control surface capability for PT's but would like to know anyones experience with both with sound quality.
captdan
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,309
- Karma
- 217
- From
- Northern California
- Website
- www.gliskrecords.com
- Gear owned
- DM3200
I run PT10 with Win/7. Been quite happy with it. I'm also quite satisfied with the DM's converters and pres - though I use an outboard preamp for some things - mostly because of convenience.
I wish I could answer your question - whether HD sounds better than the DM as a front end. I DO know two things: HD provides higher track count at higher bandwidths and that it allows zero latency monitoring. However, the DM is more than capable on the second issue, with the ability to monitor inputs to avoid latency - which essentially - is the same thing HD does at added cost.
I really wish a true, double blind test could be conducted - empirically comparing the DM to PT-HD. Frankly, I wouldn't accept any opinions about this otherwise, because, like so many aspects of the audio world, subjectivity and wishful thinking play too great a role. Those who make the investment often rationalize it by assuming the expenditure quantifies equally in quality.
This is just an opinion, which obviously isn't worth too much.
CaptDan
I wish I could answer your question - whether HD sounds better than the DM as a front end. I DO know two things: HD provides higher track count at higher bandwidths and that it allows zero latency monitoring. However, the DM is more than capable on the second issue, with the ability to monitor inputs to avoid latency - which essentially - is the same thing HD does at added cost.
I really wish a true, double blind test could be conducted - empirically comparing the DM to PT-HD. Frankly, I wouldn't accept any opinions about this otherwise, because, like so many aspects of the audio world, subjectivity and wishful thinking play too great a role. Those who make the investment often rationalize it by assuming the expenditure quantifies equally in quality.
This is just an opinion, which obviously isn't worth too much.
CaptDan
Thanks Captdan. Track count has never been an issue with me. Even the most complex bands I record never go pass 32 tracks and I have plenty CPU power for plugin situations. Now if I were to track a symphony or edit a movie score I understand the need for HD. I'm hearing from another engineer that the HD "math" is better when it comes to conversion and that is what makes the sound bigger. I just haven't heard or read anything to confirm that.
captdan
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,309
- Karma
- 217
- From
- Northern California
- Website
- www.gliskrecords.com
- Gear owned
- DM3200
I'm hearing from another engineer that the HD "math" is better when it comes to conversion and that is what makes the sound bigger. I just haven't heard or read anything to confirm that.
I'd be interested in knowing the particulars - specifically what he means by 'conversion.' Would that be downsampling/bit reduction from 24/32bit to 16? The ADC math process, or how the system handles DSP and throughput?
I'd be a bit skeptical if the allegation concerns bit reduction; all things being equal, a 24 (or 32) bit mix dithered to 16 should essentially null - ie - be a virtually identical clone. This would be true for any modern DAW's algorithms, as well.
Also, the DM's converters are - if memory serves - at least 128x oversampling chips - nothing at all to sneeze at fidelity and noise floor wise.
What makes this issue especially difficult to gauge is the likely differential between many HD facilities and typical standard ProTools project studios. The former are likely to be part of a broader standard of higher end mikes, preamps, acoustical optimizing and carefully designed signal chain and electrical plans. These aspects are bound to positively affect overall quality, to the extent that the DAW platform would be difficult to isolate from the equation. The reverse can also be true: a standard PT rig in a good room could likely produce product superior to a sub par HD studio.
But my mind is always open to empirically based findings - ie - those made without subjectivity or profit motive
CaptDan
I'd be interested in knowing the particulars - specifically what he means by 'conversion.' Would that be downsampling/bit reduction from 24/32bit to 16? The ADC math process, or how the system handles DSP and throughput?
I'd be a bit skeptical if the allegation concerns bit reduction; all things being equal, a 24 (or 32) bit mix dithered to 16 should essentially null - ie - be a virtually identical clone. This would be true for any modern DAW's algorithms, as well.
Also, the DM's converters are - if memory serves - at least 128x oversampling chips - nothing at all to sneeze at fidelity and noise floor wise.
What makes this issue especially difficult to gauge is the likely differential between many HD facilities and typical standard ProTools project studios. The former are likely to be part of a broader standard of higher end mikes, preamps, acoustical optimizing and carefully designed signal chain and electrical plans. These aspects are bound to positively affect overall quality, to the extent that the DAW platform would be difficult to isolate from the equation. The reverse can also be true: a standard PT rig in a good room could likely produce product superior to a sub par HD studio.
But my mind is always open to empirically based findings - ie - those made without subjectivity or profit motive
CaptDan
I got my dm 4800 working with Ableton 8. Use the steinberg configuration and Ableton will work. Also i have a Protools HD connected to my dm 4800, the sound of the HD systeem is more clean than the DM 4800 incl with the IF card. But i dont use them both bequase off some high qualithy AD / DA converters in my studio.
Hope this will help
Hope this will help
captdan
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,309
- Karma
- 217
- From
- Northern California
- Website
- www.gliskrecords.com
- Gear owned
- DM3200
"because of high quality AD/DA converters in my studio."
PT-HD is cleaner, but your AD/DA converters are cleaner yet? So - this is specifically in regard to how audio sources - voices and instruments - translate/convert into the digital realm, not so much about whether PT-HD processes the audio in a superior way?
If so, I can understand. If not - I think I don't.
CaptDan
PT-HD is cleaner, but your AD/DA converters are cleaner yet? So - this is specifically in regard to how audio sources - voices and instruments - translate/convert into the digital realm, not so much about whether PT-HD processes the audio in a superior way?
If so, I can understand. If not - I think I don't.
CaptDan
hii.. i ve setupsteinberg emulate on dm3200 and transport its working but when i move fader 1 , fader 8 move same direction, 2 and 9 .......... ive setup on ableton
mackie control input port 1 output port 1
mackie control in port 2 out port 2
where is my mistake??
mackie control input port 1 output port 1
mackie control in port 2 out port 2
where is my mistake??
@indefinido, TE AGRADEZCO MUCHO EL DATO.. ERES EL UNICO QUE LO HA RESUELTO. TE PREGUNTO: NO ME FUNCIONANA EL PLAY REC Y STOP. QUE ME FALTA HACER POR FAVOR?
