Initial Impressions of my new DM-3200 and A Question

[JHTorch]

To All:

Yesterday was a very exciting (though tiring) day doing our initial hook up and test of the DM. We did not have as much time as we would have liked as my studio partner had two back-to-back sessions, though they were not terribly involved.

Ergonomics/Feel:
You can't help but like this board sitting behind it. The controls feel right and the layout is sensible. The on-board screen reminds me of the screen on one of our Korg keyboards. Gets the job done but some screens are a little small for my old, bespeckled eyes. Accessing various menus will take a little time to get used to and certain things are far from intuitive, but this is just a matter of practice and use.

Not really keen on the placement of the power switch. At the moment, we have the board set on a small computer desk. So, the switch's location is not really an issue. However, we plan to get one of the semi-custom desk housings for the DM such as the Argosy or Omnirax desks. Looking at the pictures of these desks, it seems as if turning the board on and off may be an issue in terms of accessing the power switch.

http://www.argosyconsole.com/html_internal/argosy_studiofurniture_tascamdm3200_70DM3200R.html

http://www.omnirax.com/index.php/DisplayProduct/0-153

Setup:
Software installation was a little clunky and so far, the mixer companion software for the PC seems a little useless but I was able to add Mackie Control on the DM and get it (initially) to control Nuendo. Transport features were very nice and a step up from the Mackie. On the audio side, we initially setup 4 outputs of our Lynx converter using the first 4 analog "full" inputs. No issues with the sound except for forgetting to change the input switch from mic to line. Stupid us, but it had been a while since my partner and I used a mixer rather than a control surface.

It took us a while to "get" the routing but I think we have it down for most part. We didn't set up any of the digital i/o because we couldn't get the TDIF cables. That should be (hopefully) today's project. We have some other cabling issues with respect to hooking up our two sets audio monitors: Mackie HR824s and Yamahas. We want to be able to switch back and forth between the two monitors.

The DM's Sound:

We compared the sound of the DM's converters to the Lynx. The DM's converters are fine but no where as detailed as the Lynx. In comparison to the Lynx, the DM's converters were less detailed and a little "pinched" sounding particularly in the upper mids. Also, the stereo image was not wide as the Lynx's. The difference is not vast, but certainly noticeable. So we will certainly record with the Lynx and take 2 outputs of the Lynx to connect directly to our speakers.

Complaints:

While we were initially able to control Nuendo on each of our systems (transport, faders, pan), we could not get the board to show the position of the project, either on the meter bridge or the console. We tried various setting changes but it just wouldn't happen.

After my partner left for the evening, I reconnected the board to my system and was unable to get transport control, even though I kept the settings the same. Yet, I was able to mute and solo individual tracks on playback engaged only by the keyboard and mouse. I tried reconnecting the USB connection of the board, rebooting Nuendo, as well as the computer. Nothing.

Present Opinions:

This board seems like a fine product and I'm sure that just have to do the proper settings (the manual really needs to be clearer though). I'm anxious to resolve our present issues with DAW transport and metering. Once this is fixed or setup properly, I think we will be very happy with the DM.

Now, my question: how do we get back transport control? We have Nuendo configures with the MIDI ports 6 & 5 as per the Tascam Steinberg MC setup manual and MTC out of Nuendo setup on MIDI channel 4 (in and out). We are not using the RS-422 connection, do we need to do so for full transport & location readings?

 

[captdan]

I'll forgo commenting on your impressions, other than to say - welcome to DM-Ville.

There are two settings parameters: MMC and Remote Transport. In the latter, you must 'tick' the (TR)ansport 'box' in the DM's menu. Otherwise, no worky.

RE: MTCode: by default, MTC 'speaks' on USB/Midi3. Both sides must be enabled - DM & DAW. Important: in the DM's Automation Screen, you must specify MIDI3 as the MTC portal.

If this doesn't help, then more info is going to be required - meaning which device (DM or DAW) is going to be the MTC master? Usually, the DM is master and the DAW receives MTC. But not always, and not with all DAWs. In which case, different settings and menus are applied.

CaptDan

 

[JHTorch]

I'll forgo commenting on your impressions, other than to say - welcome to DM-Ville.

There are two settings parameters: MMC and Remote Transport. In the latter, you must 'tick' the (TR)ansport 'box' in the DM's menu. Otherwise, no worky.

RE: MTCode: by default, MTC 'speaks' on USB/Midi3. Both sides must be enabled - DM & DAW. Important: in the DM's Automation Screen, you must specify MIDI3 as the MTC portal.

If this doesn't help, then more info is going to be required - meaning which device (DM or DAW) is going to be the MTC master? Usually, the DM is master and the DAW receives MTC. But not always, and not with all DAWs. In which case, different settings and menus are applied.

CaptDan

Thanks CaptDan. I was planning on removing the software on the computer and re-installing as well deleting and adding again the Steinberg MC profile in the remote setting. But I will follow your suggestions and hopefully everything will work.

As far as the MTC master, we had it setup with the DAW (Nuendo) as the master as this is how we had it with the Mackie UC. Once we get Nuendo set, I will try the DM with additional software. My partner occasionally uses Pro Tools because he occasionally gets PT projects to complete. I also do some video editing and production in Vegas.

As far as setting the master clock for digital purposes, we will have both the Lynx (8 ch. AES/EBU) and the MOTU 2408 MKII (TDIF 3x, plus ADAT 1x) connected to the DM. Do you have any opinions as to which should be the master? Both the DM and the Lynx work at 96k -- not an issue for me but my partner works at that sampling rate for mastering.

 

[captdan]

In my humble (and controversial) opinion, 96kz is preferable, but ADAT doesn't operate at that spec (without channel deficit). Now, whether upsampling to 96kz from a lower rate improves fidelity - is another matter entirely. Plenty of mastering experts insist that nothing is added in upsampling - other than more zeros. Others disagree, claiming that DSP is cleaner at higher rates. My opinion: if you're going to use 96kz (or, if you prefer - 88.2), then it's best to start tracking in that spec and staying there until it's time to down sample to CD16.

I digress.

As for which should be MTC master - you don't have a choice with Ptools - IF you're going to use the DM's mix automation. In that case, Ptools 'expects' the DM to be the MTC master. However, there are some issues - among them - loss of the DM's remote'RECord' transport. It's an anomaly requiring mouse assistance if recording (say a Stereo Track) back to PTools is the goal. It's for this reason that two setups are required: PTools sending MTC for tracking and editing, and the reverse for automated mixing. Not a big deal, and easily switchable in less than a minute. But this is strictly for Ptools; I can't speak for Nuendo.

I wrote a lengthy message about this about a year ago; it should be in the message archives. If you can't find it, I'll try to retrieve it for you.

CaptDan

 

[JHTorch]

In my humble (and controversial) opinion, 96kz is preferable, but ADAT doesn't operate at that spec (without channel deficit). Now, whether upsampling to 96kz from a lower rate improves fidelity - is another matter entirely. Plenty of mastering experts insist that nothing is added in upsampling - other than more zeros. Others disagree, claiming that DSP is cleaner at higher rates. My opinion: if you're going to use 96kz (or, if you prefer - 88.2), then it's best to start tracking in that spec and staying there until it's time to down sample to CD16.

I digress.

As for which should be MTC master - you don't have a choice with Ptools - IF you're going to use the DM's mix automation. In that case, Ptools 'expects' the DM to be the MTC master. However, there are some issues - among them - loss of the DM's remote'RECord' transport. It's an anomaly requiring mouse assistance if recording (say a Stereo Track) back to PTools is the goal. It's for this reason that two setups are required: PTools sending MTC for tracking and editing, and the reverse for automated mixing. Not a big deal, and easily switchable in less than a minute. But this is strictly for Ptools; I can't speak for Nuendo.

I wrote a lengthy message about this about a year ago; it should be in the message archives. If you can't find it, I'll try to retrieve it for you.

CaptDan

Thanks again Cap. For me, 96k is a non-issue. Personally I would record at 96k only for acoustic jazz, orchestral/chamber music, Indian ragas and other un-amplified delicate music. My partner does mainly hip hop and typically using sample loops from records or sequences from Reason or hardware workstations but he still will master at 96k. He claims it is for the greater headroom of all frequencies that you FEEL as opposed to hear.

In any case, I'm going to have the DM as the master clock initially and see how it works.

I'll keep everyone posted on our continued journey through DM-ville.

 

[captdan]

I would record at 96k only for acoustic jazz, orchestral/chamber music, Indian ragas and other un-amplified delicate music.

At the risk of pre-test prejudice, you might want to perform another audio test - recording and mixing with the DM as front end at 96kz. Then, compare the results by auditioning via the DM's ADC only, and then adding the Lynx to the chain. Even further, you might find an unexpected difference between the DM/96kz and the DM with Lynx @ 44.1 or 48kz.

I don't want to resurrect an old discussion (as you might imagine, this topic has been beaten to death), but there's simply no question that - in my workflow and studio - there's a perceivable qualitative difference at higher sampling rates - in several areas, including some that you spoke to previously.

If memory serves, the DM's converters sample at 384kz; so it follows logically that higher sampling rates on the board would be advantageous - regardless of program material. Of course, the genre and perceived loudness (RMS) of a particular audio selection might play a role in how strongly the differential presents. But speaking personally, having done a slew of material at 48kz over the years, I'm staying at the higher floor of the building.


CaptDan

 

[JHTorch]

LOL -- yes, this and other topics/opinions about X method vs. Y method can lead to a lot of...oye. However, I should revisit recording at 96k just as a general matter. I tried it years ago when PCs were a lot less powerful and drives were more expensive and smaller. (Jeez, I remember around that time buying a used Yamaha SCSI CD burner from Sam Ash for about $400 and thinking it was a bargain).

I digress.

But seriously, while there may be some performance issues with being able to run a boatload of plugins, the quality of the audio itself may be worth the effort. I know that Lamb of God's "Resolution" album was recorded at 96k and that album is about as metal you can get. Yet, the sonic details on that album ring through the mayhem -- more so than their prior albums.

 

[Jarno]

but some screens are a little small for my old, bespeckled eyes

In that case, I would suggest considering 2seemy: http://2seemy.com/ With this little gadget you can use as large display as you want with your DM.

certain things are far from intuitive, but this is just a matter of practice and use.

Definitely. There's so many unintuitive things there. But it's not a show-stopper.

Not really keen on the placement of the power switch.

Me neither. But I'm using external power switch and haven't touched DM's power switch for last 3 years.

We compared the sound of the DM's converters to the Lynx.

Not wanting to start a converter war here, but ...

Also, the stereo image was not wide as the Lynx's.

Stereo image width is a result of differences between channels. If it's wider with some converters, it means these converters introduce more differences. And what is difference, which is not present in the other one? Answer: distortion. This means, wider the image -> more distortion -> worse converters. No magick here, pure sciense.

Now, whether upsampling to 96kz from a lower rate improves fidelity - is another matter entirely. Plenty of mastering experts insist that nothing is added in upsampling - other than more zeros. Others disagree, claiming that DSP is cleaner at higher rates. My opinion: if you're going to use 96kz (or, if you prefer - 88.2), then it's best to start tracking in that spec and staying there until it's time to down sample to CD16.

Upsampling does not improve fidelity and only adds correct inter-sample values (if done correctly). But processing audio in faster sample rates helps to reduce aliasing (in case you have a bad-behaving processing hardware/software, which introduces aliasing in the first place). In my opinion, it's completely irrelevant with today's hardware/software, but hey ... I do it anyway, just in case.

He claims it is for the greater headroom of all frequencies that you FEEL as opposed to hear.

Hmmm... if he "feels" ultrasionic frequencies, he must be an alien

If memory serves, the DM's converters sample at 384kz;

Don't remember the exact number, but of course DM's converters do oversampling. All modern converters do, because it's easier to implement steep low-pass filter on digital than analog domain.

 

[captdan]

Hi Jarno, (it's good to see you posting regularly again),

I think it was you who mentioned the AKai/DM convertor specs some time ago. I could be mistaken, but 384kz was the number.

Then again, oversampling is so common these days, what's a few kilohertz among friends, right?

PS: I don't worry about the DM's power switch either. Everything goes into a master Furman Conditioner. It's a one-two-switch/on-off deal. I suspect the folks at Tascam expected users to do something along these lines. Plus, it's just a lot less clutter to position that switch where it belongs - with all the other 'holes' and spaghetti on the unit.

Captdan

 

[JHTorch]

In that case, I would suggest considering 2seemy: http://2seemy.com/ With this little gadget you can use as large display as you want with your DM.

Yes, I saw this item. It may be worth getting.

Not wanting to start a converter war here, but ...

Stereo image width is a result of differences between channels. If it's wider with some converters, it means these converters introduce more differences. And what is difference, which is not present in the other one? Answer: distortion. This means, wider the image -> more distortion -> worse converters. No magick here, pure sciense.

I have to say that I respectfully disagree. My perception of the width of the stereo difference could be due to other issues. I did the comparison using a rough mix of a song that I'm presently working on. I'm using some subtle panning flange & reverb effects which simply were not as defined using the DM's converters.

That said, I'm not saying that the DM's converters are garbage -- far from it. However, the Lynx converters noticeably revealed a greater level of detail than the DM's converters or other converters that I've owned and worked with, like RME and MOTU. I haven't done an A/B test between the DM and the MOTU, but I found the DM to be comparable to the sound of the MOTU's that I last used about 2 years ago. Still have them in my rack.

The main purpose of a D/A converter is to be able to hear as accurately as possible what's going on with your tracks -- the good, the bad and the ugly. Of all the converters I've owned, the Lynx gives me the clearest picture of my recorded tracks and mixes.

Upsampling does not improve fidelity and only adds correct inter-sample values (if done correctly). But processing audio in faster sample rates helps to reduce aliasing (in case you have a bad-behaving processing hardware/software, which introduces aliasing in the first place). In my opinion, it's completely irrelevant with today's hardware/software, but hey ... I do it anyway, just in case.
[/quote]

Hmmm... if he "feels" ultrasionic frequencies, he must be an alien
Don't remember the exact number, but of course DM's converters do oversampling. All modern converters do, because it's easier to implement steep low-pass filter on digital than analog domain.

Well, we do feel sound waves that are outside of the normal range of human hearing and in fact, there are deaf musicians and composers, such as Evelyn Glennie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Glennie

 

[Jarno]

I think it was you who mentioned the AKai/DM convertor specs some time ago. I could be mistaken, but 384kz was the number.

Guilty as charged! Just forgot the exact value in the meantime.

 

[JHTorch]

PS: I don't worry about the DM's power switch either. Everything goes into a master Furman Conditioner. It's a one-two-switch/on-off deal. I suspect the folks at Tascam expected users to do something along these lines. Plus, it's just a lot less clutter to position that switch where it belongs - with all the other 'holes' and spaghetti on the unit.

Captdan

I used to do that with my analog Soundtracs board, though the switch was on a power supply that sat on the floor (with the "spaghetti" of course).

 

[Jarno]

I said, I don't want to start a war, but ...

My perception of the width of the stereo difference could be due to other issues.

Stereo image width is well-defined measurable phenomenon. If you hear something else, don't call it "stereo image width", because <WAR MODE=ON>it might as well be frontplane colour of your A/D converter box<WAR MODE=OFF>.

The main purpose of a D/A converter is to be able to hear as accurately as possible what's going on with your tracks -- the good, the bad and the ugly.

Definitely agree with the purpose of a converter, but how can you say:

Of all the converters I've owned, the Lynx gives me the clearest picture of my recorded tracks and mixes.

How are you sure, Lynx gives you "the clearest picture"? You can only say it, if you have Absolute Truth, to which you can compare Lynx and others. Maybe the most accurate converter isn't Lynx, or DM or (insert expensive brand name here), but the cheapest SoundBlaster you can find at your computer store. Of course we know, it isn't, but how can you be sure?

 

[JHTorch]

I said, I don't want to start a war, but ...


Stereo image width is well-defined measurable phenomenon. If you hear something else, don't call it "stereo image width", because <WAR MODE=ON>it might as well be frontplane colour of your A/D converter box<WAR MODE=OFF>.


Definitely agree with the purpose of a converter, but how can you say:

How are you sure, Lynx gives you "the clearest picture"? You can only say it, if you have Absolute Truth, to which you can compare Lynx and others. Maybe the most accurate converter isn't Lynx, or DM or (insert expensive brand name here), but the cheapest SoundBlaster you can find at your computer store. Of course we know, it isn't, but how can you be sure?

No, I wouldn't use the term war -- healthy debate is more appropriate. However, you are right to point out some imprecision in my terms. I should have said stereo imagery, movement or perhaps a better defined stereo image.

In terms of the quality of converters, I know how performances sound in the room which they were tracked, warts and all. The Lynx Aurora 8 converters are very natural sounding and seemingly virtually identical to the sound source. Through the right mic pre, playback of recorded speech for example can sound like a person is actually speaking to you without a hint of machinery being involved in the sound source. Basically we have that "is it live or is it Memorex" feeling when we listen to the Aurora.

Look, I have no ownership interest in the Lynx company and my comments regarding my admittedly subjective take on their converters are meant to advise anyone interested in a top flight converter. I'm far from the only one who believes that the Lynx Aurora 8/16's are pretty amazing:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun06/articles/lynx.htm

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/elec.../350751-lynx-aurora-8-vs-apogee-ensemble.html

http://mixonline.com/products/review/audio_lynx_studio_technology/

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Aurora16/reviews

The fact of the matter, except for us studio geeks, 95% of the music listening public doesn't give a flying bean bag about what is used for making a record. They just want it to sound "right." I think that the Lynx is one of the tools at my disposal that will get me there.

Cheers.

 

[waterstrum]

Happy to have you onboard.
Thanks for posting here.

Just for my curiosity....

To All:
The DM's Sound:

We compared the sound of the DM's converters to the Lynx. The DM's converters are fine but no where as detailed as the Lynx. In comparison to the Lynx, the DM's converters were less detailed and a little "pinched" sounding particularly in the upper mids. Also, the stereo image was not wide as the Lynx's. The difference is not vast, but certainly noticeable. So we will certainly record with the Lynx and take 2 outputs of the Lynx to connect directly to our speakers.

How did you perform this comparison?
For any scientific test, the methodology is critical to an accurate assessment.
Your assertions are stated as matters of fact.
If a Lynx really sounds much better, sign me up.
I just want to know how you arrived at your conclusions.
Thanks

 

[JHTorch]

Happy to have you onboard.
Thanks for posting here.

Just for my curiosity....


How did you perform this comparison?
For any scientific test, the methodology is critical to an accurate assessment.
Your assertions are stated as matters of fact.
If a Lynx really sounds much better, sign me up.
I just want to know how you arrived at your conclusions.
Thanks

Hi Water,

To the extent that it was "scientific" it was only by direct observation of one of my own rough mixes of a song that I am currently working on I recorded all of the instruments and played everything but the drums So I am very familiar with the original sources

I suggest that you audition the converters yourself, ideally in your own studio. I am sure that your local equipment rental place would have a unit at a reasonable cost if you're in the market But of course you should audition against other converters

 

[JHTorch]

To CaptDan: Tried your suggestion re: timecode meter It worked. However, while it follows while playing, it does not follow while rewinding. Transport on both computers works nicely now and we know how to set up. Thanks for your wise advise. Except for the failure to follow rewind and fast-forward, we have all of the important DAW playback, pan, track arming, etc, down.

However, we are having issues with the TDIF playback from the MOTU I will describe in a new post.

 

[waterstrum]

Hi Water,

To the extent that it was "scientific" it was only by direct observation of one of my own rough mixes of a song that I am currently working on I recorded all of the instruments and played everything but the drums So I am very familiar with the original sources

I suggest that you audition the converters yourself, ideally in your own studio. I am sure that your local equipment rental place would have a unit at a reasonable cost if you're in the market But of course you should audition against other converters

I think you misunderstood my question.
I just want to know how you did the A/B comparison.

 

[JHTorch]

I think you misunderstood my question.
I just want to know how you did the A/B comparison.

Yes, we did an A/B.

 

[captdan]

"However, while it follows while playing, it does not follow while rewinding."

Unless the DM is generating and sending internal MTC to the DAW, and the latter is correctly set as slave to the DM's MTC, timecode will not rewind in a 'tape-like' fashion. Jumping back or forward on the timeline, however, should reflect an instantaneous change in the master MTC timeline (both that reflected on the DM meterbridge and in the DAW).

If neither conditions are true, then there's likely an excluded or incorrect setting - either on the DM or in [Nuendo/ProTools].

CaptDan