best audio interface for D.P.?

[Umbrella]

Ok, for 24 i/o I can see what you mean by limited options - MOTU or DIGI as far as I know..

With the nice pres, a Lynx Aurora or 2 wouldn't hurt - especially with an 828mkiii if you like MOTU firewire interfaces..

You really need as in, absolutely neeeed 24 ins and outs?

It would be ideal for me for live tracking and outboard interfacing that I would like to capture in the studio.

The Lynx stuff is nice but expensive. Look at me - begging and then complaining about the cost!

CC

Yeah, the Auroras are pricey..

I forgot about this thing:

http://www.tcelectronic.com/digitalkonn ... atures.asp

[mhschmieder]

Don't forget Alesis HD24 (or whatever it's called), if you need 24 simultaneous inputs. I'm pretty sure it can serve as a front-end as well as an initial recording capture unit.

I keep looking into it myself, but don't trust the reliability of the brand after many past experiences. It's a shame really, as it's the only unit out there that does what it does.

[jimagine]

The question is sort of like, "what's the best car".

The answer is wholly dependent on your purposes - studio or live, project studio, post production, full tracking etc.

So my criteria is this: a studio that does broadcast production, small film post and composition, but doesn't do drum micing, live performance or more than perhaps three artists at any time. In this room the 828 MKII works wonderfully with a pair of quality mic pres in front and doing all ITB mixing and mastering.

[rob fetters]

I'm very happy with my MH ULN2 Expanded w/ 2D Card. I never record more than 2
tracks at a time in my little studio ( I use bigger places for drums and ensembles ). Great pre's and conversion ( to my ears ), and the 2D Card includes a mixer with "character" settings that I can't live without anymore. I hesitate to call it a real "summing mixer" but that's the way I use it. MH made good on their promise to offer updates to older systems so my unit, purchased 3 years ago, is totally up to spec today.
I was urged to go the Metric Halo route by some severely critical audio geezers a few years back. Phrases like "no brainer" and "you'll thank me for telling you" came up as I timidly considered coughing up the dough....

[Armageddon]

The question is sort of like, "what's the best car".

The answer is wholly dependent on your purposes - studio or live, project studio, post production, full tracking etc.

So my criteria is this: a studio that does broadcast production, small film post and composition, but doesn't do drum micing, live performance or more than perhaps three artists at any time. In this room the 828 MKII works wonderfully with a pair of quality mic pres in front and doing all ITB mixing and mastering.

I think that's the same criteria that most home studios (not insinuating that yours is) are looking at; most home studio people are also composers that play one instrument at a time (either guitar or keyboard or both) and accomplish drums either via electronic drum kit, playing drums on keyboard or relying on drum software/hardware to do the job. If they need a mic pre, it's usually for one mic at a time (vocals, micing cabinets or a DI for guitar or bass), hence the proliferation of single-channel boutique mic pres that easily interface with their computer interface. It's amazing that the "one-man band" has proliferated as much as it has, but it's due in no small part to technology. It's also due to the fact that computers have allowed us to achieve professional results while giving us the ability to concentrate on perfecting things like MIDI drum tracks, expansive keyboard-based arrangements without fretting issues like studio time or track limits, and emulating instruments realistically that used to require a fleet of extra musicians, thus enabling us to be far more creative than our forebears. On the other hand, I think we've lost a lot of the ingenuity that people with more limited means had to use to create the same results in the past.

[slotz71]

Mine is a Solid State Logic Alpha Link XL connected to a 64- channel SSL PCIe card via fiber optic. This thing is FEROCIOUS.

Frodo,

I'm also using an SSL Alpha Link MADI-AX and love it. I'm interfacing all 24 channels of it with a 2408MK3 via ADAT lightpipe. I decided to go this route because I already had invested in multiple 2408's and I still needed additional ADAT connectivity for a digital mixer, and an spdif IO to connect to a Rosetta 200. Also, I don't have to deal with the Cue mix console.

I have been thinking about getting another Alpha Link and getting the SSL MADI card and ditching my PCI-424 card.
I've got a question for you about using the Alpha Link with the MADI card.
Do you have access to all of the IO simultaneously with the Alpha Link interfaced to the computer via MADI? I mean, would you have 48 Channels of IO (24 analog + 24 ADAT)

Thanks!

[Frodo]

I've got a question for you about using the Alpha Link with the MADI card.
Do you have access to all of the IO simultaneously with the Alpha Link interfaced to the computer via MADI? I mean, would you have 48 Channels of IO (24 analog + 24 ADAT)

Thanks!

I believe I do, although I've yet to grow into a need for that many channels. I do have a couple of outboard synth/sampler modules I'd like to put back into service and having 24 channels will come in handy when the time comes to reconnect those modules. That channel count will decrease as the project sample rate increases, though.

My second Mac (G5) had a 2408, so for a while I had it connected via ADAT to the SSL. Within the past year I got Vienna Ensemble Pro which sends audio and MIDI via ethernet. This has eliminated the need for the 2408 and the extra MIDI interface. The SSL has allowed for some serious hardware streamlining.

For now, my analog inputs are limited to 2 or 3 channels for recording piano and 1 channel each for recording guitar, bass, or vocals.

[jimagine]

The question is sort of like, "what's the best car".

The answer is wholly dependent on your purposes - studio or live, project studio, post production, full tracking etc.

So my criteria is this: a studio that does broadcast production, small film post and composition, but doesn't do drum micing, live performance or more than perhaps three artists at any time. In this room the 828 MKII works wonderfully with a pair of quality mic pres in front and doing all ITB mixing and mastering.

I think that's the same criteria that most home studios (not insinuating that yours is) are looking at; most home studio people are also composers that play one instrument at a time (either guitar or keyboard or both) and accomplish drums either via electronic drum kit, playing drums on keyboard or relying on drum software/hardware to do the job. If they need a mic pre, it's usually for one mic at a time (vocals, micing cabinets or a DI for guitar or bass), hence the proliferation of single-channel boutique mic pres that easily interface with their computer interface. It's amazing that the "one-man band" has proliferated as much as it has, but it's due in no small part to technology. It's also due to the fact that computers have allowed us to achieve professional results while giving us the ability to concentrate on perfecting things like MIDI drum tracks, expansive keyboard-based arrangements without fretting issues like studio time or track limits, and emulating instruments realistically that used to require a fleet of extra musicians, thus enabling us to be far more creative than our forebears. On the other hand, I think we've lost a lot of the ingenuity that people with more limited means had to use to create the same results in the past.

I don't know...I don't think most home studios are focused on broadcast work and film post - composition and self-production would be my guess.

I certainly don't agree that "we've lost a lot of the ingenuity..." I was one of the people with limited means in my earlier creative/production days. I started with 8 track tape then 16 then 24, all the while splicing and riding faders and doing it all the way we all had to.

DP and all of the digital innovations that fill my studios today are a boon to ingenuity and creativity. Otherwise I'd do things the old way.

But getting back to the best interface - I just wanted to make the point that at least in this professional environment, the 828 MKII continues to work great while providing broadcast quality ins and outs and throughput for all MIDI, extensive monitoring... the whole nine yards. I just wanted to add some context to the "best" question.

Opinions about this stuff are obviously subjective, and without knowing the intended scope of use and experience of the original questioner, it seems to make more sense to clarify what you do with your interface as part of your reason for preference.

[rumorcontrol]

I use the Apogee Symphony system as well, 2 Rosetta 800's, 2 X expander cards and the Symphony 64 card. Sounds great, totally DP friendly.RC

[scooter]

My other concern about this topic is that what is the use of having a great sounding Mic-Pre and mic if you're audio interface is not up to snuff.
My guess is that if I recorded a vocal into my modded AKG414 into my Avalon 737 and then into my 2408mk3. It won't sound as inspiring as it would taking that same front end stuff into say something like rumorcontrol's Apogee Symphony or Rosetta 800.
I haven't A-Bed this kind of set up but I would be interested to hear the results!

scooter

[jimagine]

I'll bet the sound would be indistinguishable to virtually anyone...certainly the public that listened to the product.

The subjective nature of this stuff can be debated forever, but in the few actual controlled comparisons I've been involved with (including a pretty prestigious one I wrote about here recently), even the people who make the interfaces couldn't pick there own out of the blind audio test.

Nor could engineers, musicians, even product developers correctly differentiate between tube and digital preamps.

Can things like S/N be directly critically measured...of course. But when you say "up to snuff", while I can't claim any experience with the 2408, there's no question that an 828 MkII is up to snuff, if the user knows how to get a quality signal into it.

A great producer once said to me when I was starting my biz, "you've already got 90% of what you need to make world class music. It will cost you a million dollars to go all the way and the other 10% is mostly esoteric".

He was 100% right and that's been proven time and time again.

If you need to have the "very best" according to Mix Magazine in order to draw and maintain the top bands and producers in the world to your studio then sure, go for it. But that is exactly the esoteric nature of it. You most definitely don't need that to to create killer, award winning work.

We were doing that on Fostex 1/4" 8 tracks and Tascam mixers in our first studios.

[scooter]

Nor could engineers, musicians, even product developers correctly differentiate between tube and digital preamps.

I hope you're right about that!
It's a good argument for not just rushing out and buying costly gear.
And of course the stories abound of people who turn out incredible sounding music on the most minimal cheap equipment.
Also, it might have sounded like I was complaining about my MOTU 2408mk3. It's probably the most reliable piece of gear I have in my studio.
My point is, I guess, is that there's got to be a reason that the more expensive studios are using mostly expensive mic pres, mics and audio interfaces .

scooter

[Armageddon]

I don't know...I don't think most home studios are focused on broadcast work and film post - composition and self-production would be my guess.

That's what I meant, though I know a few people that post movies from their home setups, some of which use DP as their post DAW.

I certainly don't agree that "we've lost a lot of the ingenuity..." I was one of the people with limited means in my earlier creative/production days. I started with 8 track tape then 16 then 24, all the while splicing and riding faders and doing it all the way we all had to.

DP and all of the digital innovations that fill my studios today are a boon to ingenuity and creativity. Otherwise I'd do things the old way.

I agree and disagree. I was actually referring to mic'ing, recording and outboard gear techniques, not the actual act of parsing 8 or 16 analog tracks into a full mix. These days, people can just drop a plug or six on any recorded track and get virtually any effect they want. Before DAWs, people had to rely on a few paltry pieces of outboard gear, or recording drums in a hallway or on a wooden floor to get a "big drum sound". I myself recall having to creatively patch-change four multi-timbral keyboards, or switch tracks on the fly, just to eke out a few extra sounds (or fuller sounds, for those with limited polyphony) for one song. Not only were these results hard to achieve, they actually wound up creating and defining the sound of that era. We're freed up now to create insanely huge arrangements and mind-bogglingly elaborate mixes in our DAWs, but many people have too much reliance on the technology without understanding that it's experience and practical knowledge that really count. That's not to say that you're one of the guilty. In fact, what you said just proves that point for me. Your experience with recording in the pre-DAW era probably helps you more today than all the plugs in your digital arsenal.

[Umbrella]

Nor could engineers, musicians, even product developers correctly differentiate between tube and digital preamps.

I hope you're right about that!
It's a good argument for not just rushing out and buying costly gear.
And of course the stories abound of people who turn out incredible sounding music on the most minimal cheap equipment.
Also, it might have sounded like I was complaining about my MOTU 2408mk3. It's probably the most reliable piece of gear I have in my studio.
My point is, I guess, is that there's got to be a reason that the more expensive studios are using mostly expensive mic pres, mics and audio interfaces .

scooter

These days, if the 2408mkIII is the "weak" link in the chain, then it's a very strong chain. The returns get so diminished the higher you go, that in a way it really does become irrelevant compared to the room, the mic, the pre and other things (like the sound itself .

There's been a lot of debate about high-end -vs- pro-sumer conversion lately, and the "emperor's new clothes" have been pointed out more than a few times in shootouts between MOTU and more expensive interfaces where golden-eared folk in blind tests chose the MOTU as the better sounding one (and then later had to recant for embarrassment).

Expensive studios use high-end converters for a mixed bag of reasons - that elusive "extra 5%" (which may or may not boil down to the converter), reliability / ruggedness, peace of mind / psychological reasons, and the sex appeal of having a finely built, very expensive piece of machinery.

But nowadays the gap between low-end and the high-end conversion has really narrowed, and probably will continue to do so.

Also, http://www.blacklionaudio.com/Modificat ... Interfaces offers modifications to some MOTU interfaces. Many have praised these mods as being worthwhile upgrades...

[HCMarkus]

Expensive studios use high-end converters for a mixed bag of reasons - that elusive "extra 5%" (which may or may not boil down to the converter), reliability / ruggedness, peace of mind / psychological reasons, and the sex appeal of having a finely built, very expensive piece of machinery.

Its the knobs, man.