New Card Suggestion...Any Interest??

[JHTorch]

While I am not certain as to the specific technical/programming issues involved, it seems to me that a great add-on card for the DM-3200/4800 would be a card that would run 3rd party VST plug-in from the board itself rather than from the DAW. UAD plugs are my personal faves and of course they are widely regarded, and I suspect that many here would love to be able to fully use the board's controls to manipulate all of the parameters of their favorite VST plugs.

I'd suspect that such a card would sell very well among present Tascam users and would perhaps lure others presently using competing boards/control surfaces.

Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[captdan]

Heh! Check out the Sticky atop this forum - regarding another video the eminent Jamsire produced.

You guessed it: you don't need a card to control your VSTs.

CaptDan

 

[JHTorch]

LOL -- Sounds like I'm going to pause and re-wind this video several times for sure. That's good news but I was thinking also of resource saving from the Mac/PC with off-lining plugs to an optional Tascam card. I have two UAD cards -- I'd love to have room for a 3rd or 4th. This would require an expansion chassis. Instead, having a card plugged into the board should be less expensive and very easy.

The hardest part is I suspect (other than perhaps the coding involved to port the plugs over to Tascam's OS) would be for Universal Audio and Tascam to settle on licensing fees and terms.

 

[Jarno]

Years ago I had this same idea and wrote about it on the previous tascamforum. But after thinking it again realised it was a stupid idea: to run a VST pulgin you need a computer with operating system and audio interface. To pack all this into DM-format card is possible of course, but given the fact it would only sell few thousand copies, it would be extreamly expensive. And then how to control this PC/Mac on card with DM's knobs/faders? Well ...

But if TASCAM built a card with 8 (or even 32) channels of FX (additional reverbs, graphic EQs, emulations of analog compressors etc (probably licenced from 3rd party manufacturers) I would buy it immediately.

 

[captdan]

It would be a handy add on for sure. However, I don't see it happening; it's hard to image corporate motivation to embark on the R&D when 64 bit PCs/Macs/HDs are becoming increasingly more powerful, capable of handling a myriad of 3rd party plugs. Proprietary PCI hardware bundles like UAD, Duendo, etc, specifically reduce CPU load, which in itself is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Seems every time I look, there's a new series of plug ins coming out - some pretty inexpensive. And there's also a lot of duplication; just how many different graphic EQs and 'vintage compressors' does somebody need? Sure, there are alleged sonic differences (if you believe the 'testimonials'), but then, after using some of these things for awhile, one ends up going back to the tried and true anyway. And I say this as somebody who regularly likes to combine certain plugins with the DM's onboard efx.

Then, there are the hardware adherents who couldn't care less about any of this.

CaptDan

 

[JHTorch]

Years ago I had this same idea and wrote about it on the previous tascamforum. But after thinking it again realised it was a stupid idea: to run a VST pulgin you need a computer with operating system and audio interface. To pack all this into DM-format card is possible of course, but given the fact it would only sell few thousand copies, it would be extreamly expensive. And then how to control this PC/Mac on card with DM's knobs/faders? Well ...

But if TASCAM built a card with 8 (or even 32) channels of FX (additional reverbs, graphic EQs, emulations of analog compressors etc (probably licenced from 3rd party manufacturers) I would buy it immediately.

I'm not sure that it would be that expensive (at least on the R&D end). I'll use UAD as an example because they are my go-to plugs. It seems as if it would be a matter of taking a UAD card and retrofitting it for the Tascam mixer slot and OS. Seems like there would be a market for it in both recording and live sound.

Mackie had a digital board a few years ago which came with an optional UAD card and apparently it is still in production:

http://www.mackie.com/products/digitalxbus/

 

[JHTorch]

It would be a handy add on for sure. However, I don't see it happening; it's hard to image corporate motivation to embark on the R&D when 64 bit PCs/Macs/HDs are becoming increasingly more powerful, capable of handling a myriad of 3rd party plugs. Proprietary PCI hardware bundles like UAD, Duendo, etc, specifically reduce CPU load, which in itself is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Seems every time I look, there's a new series of plug ins coming out - some pretty inexpensive. And there's also a lot of duplication; just how many different graphic EQs and 'vintage compressors' does somebody need? Sure, there are alleged sonic differences (if you believe the 'testimonials'), but then, after using some of these things for awhile, one ends up going back to the tried and true anyway. And I say this as somebody who regularly likes to combine certain plugins with the DM's onboard efx.

Then, there are the hardware adherents who couldn't care less about any of this.

CaptDan

I've been a user of the UAD cards (then known as Powered Plug-Ins) from when they first were released. Yes, back then the CPU's processing power was more of an issue and now is sort of a non-issue these days. I have a pretty powerful system, yet I love the UAD because of the sound quality of the plug-ins. If UAD made native versions of their plugs and they sounded just as good, I'd still use them.

 

[Jarno]

I'll use UAD as an example

UAD approach is quite different than having generic VST host card for DM.

1. Technical issues:
1.a. UAD: your card only need to run plugins designed for this board and only run their DSP part, because you have a DAW computer as a user interface.
1.b. VST for DM: you need a card which has capabilities of a regular PC/Mac and also able to communicate directly with DM (without standard interfaces (like USB, firewire, PCI ...) and also implement user interface protocols (display/mouse/keyboard) on DM.

2. User-base issue:
2.a. UAD's potential user-base is every DAW user.
2.b. VST for DM user-base is every DM user.
Well ... 2.a group is at least 1000 times larger than 2.b group.

You have to spread developement costs to significantly smaller number of units sold, which increases the unit price, which decreases the units sold, which means you have spread developement costs .... do I have to continue?

Even in case of UAD, I would say if it came to the market today, it would not succeed. When it was introduced, there was real need for that kind of systems and there were many of them available (like Creamware ... anyone remember?) but only UAD survived. Nowadays as DAW native power is much greater, you only buy UAD, because
a. You are familiar with it and like it
and/or
b. It's cheaper than it used to be, because they have paid their initial developement costs ages ago

New product like that into market today: no way.

http://www.mackie.com/products/digitalxbus/

Apples to oranges ... If I'm not mistaken, Xbus is heavily based on PC technology just like some TASCAM products: SX1 & X-48 while DM definitely isn't. It's (quite) trivial to add hardware/software designed for PC/Mac there.

 

[JHTorch]

UAD approach is quite different than having generic VST host card for DM.

1. Technical issues:
1.a. UAD: your card only need to run plugins designed for this board and only run their DSP part, because you have a DAW computer as a user interface.
1.b. VST for DM: you need a card which has capabilities of a regular PC/Mac and also able to communicate directly with DM (without standard interfaces (like USB, firewire, PCI ...) and also implement user interface protocols (display/mouse/keyboard) on DM.

2. User-base issue:
2.a. UAD's potential user-base is every DAW user.
2.b. VST for DM user-base is every DM user.
Well ... 2.a group is at least 1000 times larger than 2.b group.

You have to spread developement costs to significantly smaller number of units sold, which increases the unit price, which decreases the units sold, which means you have spread developement costs .... do I have to continue?

Even in case of UAD, I would say if it came to the market today, it would not succeed. When it was introduced, there was real need for that kind of systems and there were many of them available (like Creamware ... anyone remember?) but only UAD survived. Nowadays as DAW native power is much greater, you only buy UAD, because
a. You are familiar with it and like it
and/or
b. It's cheaper than it used to be, because they have paid their initial developement costs ages ago

New product like that into market today: no way.


Apples to oranges ... If I'm not mistaken, Xbus is heavily based on PC technology just like some TASCAM products: SX1 & X-48 while DM definitely isn't. It's (quite) trivial to add hardware/software designed for PC/Mac there.

I do not deny that R&D costs to port over from one platform to another can be significant. I do not know how difficult it would be port over "generic" VST plugs to a DSP card that can go into one of the slots of the DM. Maybe the R&D costs would not be recouped by the potential market. However, I would suspect that many Tascam users and potential users would find it very attractive to have their favorites plugs: UAD, Waves, etc. available within the DM environment, particularly if the option card is no more than $500.

Ideally, a user could buy the card and then load any of his VST plugs -- even the free ones onto a DM card. However if due to technical/cost issues this were not possible, then presumably Tascam could partner with a few of plug-in developers to code for a DM DSP option card. Tascam evidently did this with TC Works.

The point is all about flexibility and convenience for the end user and for Tascam, as well as any manufacturer, to continue to have demand for their products.

Over the last 10 years, there have been major changes in the way we work. I, like many others, am able to do first rate work without a mixer. Indeed, it seemed like mixers were becoming dinosaurs in the project studio market and for that matter, stand alone recorders. Yet, Tascam and a few others still make and sell both of these "dinosaurs."

I'm not sure what the numbers are but it would not surprise me if 50% of home and project studio owners do not have a mixer or a control surface.

I have a good producer friend who does electronic dance pop music who just released a single for a label and his mix was done on a Mac with mouse and keyboard. He came to my studio to track his singer since I have the vocal booth, mics and outboard.

 

[captdan]

From what I gather, there are many users who dedicate their DM mixers to controller duty only. That's unfortunate because they're deliberately excluding a large portion of routing and mixing power from their arsenal.

There are several distinct advantages to using the DMs as hybrid mixer/surfaces - among them - eradication of latency, ease of combining stems into mix busses and groups, alleviation of patch bays, and the ability to combine the excellent DM sound shaping tools with their favorite DAW plug ins. Then, there's the comprehensive automated mixing power which, in my opinion, is more user friendly than DAW automation - if for no other reason - than mix files can be stored separately from project data.

What's even more ironic is, despite how many in-the-box engineers exist, there's a wide spread romanticism for the traditional analog console. I'm willing to bet most in-the-box aficionados would trade their lottery ticket gains for a classic 1983 AMEK - aiming that box all the way outside towards ConversionVille. And yet, the DM can provide most of those advantages without D/A conversion, noise, and the inevitable specialized maintenance an old school console requires.

But then, this is a very strange business with many contradictions and peculiarities.

CaptDan

 

[JHTorch]

From what I gather, there are many users who dedicate their DM mixers to controller duty only. That's unfortunate because they're deliberately excluding a large portion of routing and mixing power from their arsenal.

There are several distinct advantages to using the DMs as hybrid mixer/surfaces - among them - eradication of latency, ease of combining stems into mix busses and groups, alleviation of patch bays, and the ability to combine the excellent DM sound shaping tools with their favorite DAW plug ins. Then, there's the comprehensive automated mixing power which, in my opinion, is more user friendly than DAW automation - if for no other reason - than mix files can be stored separately from project data.

What's even more ironic is, despite how many in-the-box engineers exist, there's a wide spread romanticism for the traditional analog console. I'm willing to bet most in-the-box aficionados would trade their lottery ticket gains for a classic 1983 AMEK - aiming that box all the way outside towards ConversionVille. And yet, the DM can provide most of those advantages without D/A conversion, noise, and the inevitable specialized maintenance an old school console requires.

But then, this is a very strange business with many contradictions and peculiarities.

CaptDan

Yes, latency free monitoring is certainly a major advantage of having a mixer. When I first started recording to a computer, I implemented my analog board this way. The need for this ended when I picked up an RME Hammerfall interface as it had rather low latency to begin with (around 1.5 to 3 ms) and had a built-in digital routing/mixer facility that allowed for latency-free monitoring. But yes, I take your point. I suspect that we will modify our workflow to incorporate having a mixer in the studio again. I know I am going to make more use of my Lexicon PCM 80 and this Digitech unit I have for pitch shifting. These units presently sit in the rack but are rarely turned on.

CaptDan, I am curious...which processors/effects do you find yourself reaching for on the DM and which do you use within your DAW? I love my UAD for compression, EQ as well as their modeling of the FATSO, which is practically required for hard rock/metal. I also use the Duende SSL plugs for my virtual console.

I used to use the Yamaha 02R, but I was not in love with most of its on-board processing and effects. I'm assuming with the advances made since the 02R's release, the on-board compression & EQ are probably a lot better.

Yes, I agree -- I think a lot of people would final mixes outside the box with a classic analog board but probably to another computer or back into the DAW on separate tracks.

 

[captdan]

...which processors/effects do you find yourself reaching for on the DM and which do you use within your DAW? I love my UAD for compression, EQ as well as their modeling of the FATSO, which is practically required for hard rock/metal. I also use the Duende SSL plugs for my virtual console.

I do very little, if any, rock and metal. 90% of my work is in instrumental contemporary/pop jazz. The remainder is a smorgasbord of mastering/mix jobs I do for others. So, my choices might be different than yours. But, I absolutely rely on the DM eqs, compression, TC 'verbs and delays on a majority of my work. I use the EQs for 'surgery,' often combined with ProTools channel strips for sound shaping. I'll use the PT stuff for tonal adjustment, and - say - a DM EQ with a high-pass filter for final mixdown. The DM's 4 band parametrics are just more precise for that kind of thing.

Another example would be a parallel compression setup, using Bomb Factory plugs for power, and the DM for additional mix boost. This combo is extremely handy for elements like kick drums which have to pop through a denser mix. I have a series of TC 'verbs and delays I've edited specifically for my guitar tracks. If you've worked a lot with digital delays and 'verbs, you know they almost never sound right unless they're carefully edited. Still, my Lex MX200 is good for specific things; I'm mixing a piece with sax tracks now; the Lex really works on reeds, as well as string tracks.

RE: Yamaha: I used the O2r's 'offspring,' the AW4416 for nine years. Did a couple of albums with it. To be perfectly honest, despite how good that mixer/recorder was, I'm not much of a fan of Yammie's idea of 'natural sound.' To me, that's a contradiction in terms. Something about the math/processing, combined with the weaker pre amps and questionable conversion which adds up to something lacking to my ears. The Tascam/DM concept is far more pleasing to me; maybe it's because it's a later iteration of digital mixer with much better conversion. Or, perhaps there's something else going on. I think the higher sampling rates help too - particularly with signal processing down stream - mastering, etc.

Capt Dan

 

[jamsire]

I think JHTorch is on to something - but not in the right way. A long time ago there was an interesting product called the CME UF/VX. That keyboard allowed for a card to be put in it that had a whole slew of ADDITIONAL plugins. That card was called the Use-Audio Plugiator ASX - Seen here http://www.use-audio.com/asx.htm. This card emulated their super cool, but underrated Plugiator Table Top Synth. Very hip little box that sounds great! I have one.

Korg also did this with their M3 Keyboard workstation. They made a card called the Korg EXB Radias MMT Expansion Board that attached to the inside of the M3 and then you instantly had the sounds of the Korg RADIAS synth (another synth I have which sounds FABULOUS!!).
http://www.zzounds.com/item--KOREXBRADIAS

So, I say all that to say I TOO would love a card that had eight assignable channels of awesome sounding TC Electronics modulation, reverb, and other effects that could be programmed accordingly in the console that would compliment the EQ's, Compressor/ Limiters, and Gates.

All Kinds of YUMMY! YUMMY YUMMY YUMMY!

 

[captdan]

As the defeated swordsman said to his captor: "I see your point!"

But frankly, I also don't see it happening......UNLESS some enterprising 3rd party developer (like a '2Seemy type of guy) jumps in and gets it done.

CaptDan

 

[jamsire]

Indeed CaptDan, Indeed.

 

[JHTorch]

...which processors/effects do you find yourself reaching for on the DM and which do you use within your DAW? I love my UAD for compression, EQ as well as their modeling of the FATSO, which is practically required for hard rock/metal. I also use the Duende SSL plugs for my virtual console.

I do very little, if any, rock and metal. 90% of my work is in instrumental contemporary/pop jazz. The remainder is a smorgasbord of mastering/mix jobs I do for others. So, my choices might be different than yours. But, I absolutely rely on the DM eqs, compression, TC 'verbs and delays on a majority of my work. I use the EQs for 'surgery,' often combined with ProTools channel strips for sound shaping. I'll use the PT stuff for tonal adjustment, and - say - a DM EQ with a high-pass filter for final mixdown. The DM's 4 band parametrics are just more precise for that kind of thing.

Another example would be a parallel compression setup, using Bomb Factory plugs for power, and the DM for additional mix boost. This combo is extremely handy for elements like kick drums which have to pop through a denser mix. I have a series of TC 'verbs and delays I've edited specifically for my guitar tracks. If you've worked a lot with digital delays and 'verbs, you know they almost never sound right unless they're carefully edited. Still, my Lex MX200 is good for specific things; I'm mixing a piece with sax tracks now; the Lex really works on reeds, as well as string tracks.

RE: Yamaha: I used the O2r's 'offspring,' the AW4416 for nine years. Did a couple of albums with it. To be perfectly honest, despite how good that mixer/recorder was, I'm not much of a fan of Yammie's idea of 'natural sound.' To me, that's a contradiction in terms. Something about the math/processing, combined with the weaker pre amps and questionable conversion which adds up to something lacking to my ears. The Tascam/DM concept is far more pleasing to me; maybe it's because it's a later iteration of digital mixer with much better conversion. Or, perhaps there's something else going on. I think the higher sampling rates help too - particularly with signal processing down stream - mastering, etc.

Capt Dan

Thanks for describing your workflow. So it seems like you use PT more as a multitrack recorder and do most of your processing on the DM. Do you mix to PT or an outboard 2-Track?

Once I get acquainted with the DM I will certainly check out its on-board processors and effects.

I do more than rock and metal, though at the moment, I am working on my solo album, which is thrash metal. However, I'm also producing a R&B/pop signer and have been doing some engineering for a dance music producer. My studio partner does 90% hip-hop, with a smattering of contemporary R&B.

But for whatever project I work on, UAD's plugs are my first call compressors and EQ's. I have the Lexicon Native reverb that usually call up on most occasions. Delays, flanging, etc., I'm a little more varied in my approach. I love the delays & modulation effects in my hardware Lexicon. So, I'm certainly going to hard-wire that to the board.

My partner, who also has a UAD in his system, swears by Nebula plugs.

http://www.acustica-audio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=180&Itemid=306

I have to admit that they sound very, very good though I find the GUI's somewhat clunky to work with.

Tomorrow afternoon is our big day in hooking up the board. I'll keep ya' posted.

Thanks for your insights.

 

[JHTorch]

I think JHTorch is on to something - but not in the right way. A long time ago there was an interesting product called the CME UF/VX. That keyboard allowed for a card to be put in it that had a whole slew of ADDITIONAL plugins. That card was called the Use-Audio Plugiator ASX - Seen here http://www.use-audio.com/asx.htm. This card emulated their super cool, but underrated Plugiator Table Top Synth. Very hip little box that sounds great! I have one.

Korg also did this with their M3 Keyboard workstation. They made a card called the Korg EXB Radias MMT Expansion Board that attached to the inside of the M3 and then you instantly had the sounds of the Korg RADIAS synth (another synth I have which sounds FABULOUS!!).
http://www.zzounds.com/item--KOREXBRADIAS

So, I say all that to say I TOO would love a card that had eight assignable channels of awesome sounding TC Electronics modulation, reverb, and other effects that could be programmed accordingly in the console that would compliment the EQ's, Compressor/ Limiters, and Gates.

All Kinds of YUMMY! YUMMY YUMMY YUMMY!

I'm all about flexibility and experimentation, particularly when it comes to music production. As I have yet to run any audio through the DM, I cannot opine on the quality of the sounds & the ease of getting the sound I'm looking for. For all I know, after working with the DM for a month, I will want to sell my UAD cards. I doubt it, but it could happen.

However, given my love for UA's plugs, I'd love to see UA partner with Tascam and deliver their plugs on a DM compatible card to keep it all "in-house." But I'd love to see other 3rd party plug-in companies do the same to increase our options with the board.

I started my first home studio in the late 80's and I've purchased all sorts of gear since then. But there are only a precious few pieces of gear that I can say without hesitation were truly great purchases and one of them was my original UAD-1 card and I subsequently went with two UAD-2 cards. Happy with every plug I've purchased for UAD platform.

I certainly hope that I come to feel the same about the DM. Certainly CaptDan seems to love the board.

BTW, Jamsire, thank you for producing your video on the DM and Cubase. Very, very informative.

 

[jamsire]

Thanks!

Seriously though - Tascam gave us A LOT with this console. Keep using your UAD and go forward. I have a whole host of plugins - Both in the virtual instruments area and effects, and I hardly use them. I have an incredible KORG Kronos 88 workstation for ANY synth or sampled sound I could ever need, and 3 analog cards in the DM4800 for outboard gear and parallel effects processing. Since I know how the board "sounds" I know how to put instruments through it and get the tonal character for my guitars and vocals 90% into the DAW of choice and use the EQ's and Dynamics in the console starting with their presets.

I have fun.

 

[captdan]

seems like you use PT more as a multitrack recorder and do most of your processing on the DM. Do you mix to PT or an outboard 2-Track?

That's pretty accurate. PT10 - for what I'm doing - is the best DAW I've used. Everything is straightforward, editing is relatively easy, and the big payoff for me, anyway, is how effortlessly tracks can be routed in/out of PT to the DM. I can't say that for the other DAWs I used before - names withheld to protect the guilty.

Most of the time I mix back to a PT stereo track, then bounce down to mastering files from there. However, I have a Masterlink, which I'll use if I need all 32 channels dedicated to the mix (2 output slots are necessary for sending back to DAW) - or perhaps - as a backup target recorder while PT is printing the DM automated mix.

CaptDan

 

[jamsire]

YAY!! Masterlink. CaptDan, do you go to your Masterlink through its digital ports or through its analog inputs?