Okay, I'm looking to set up a home studio. I just need some help with my interface. I want to run 24+ channels at 192kHz. I have no prefrence with firewire or PCI. I'm thinking that a few HD192's is my best option...
I'm just stuck!
I've worked with MOTU stuff before and I've been pleased, but I'm not sure if I'm barking up the right tree. I'm not worried about cost. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Confused as hell...
Moderator: James Steele
Forum rules
Discussion related to installation, configuration and use of MOTU hardware such as MIDI interfaces, audio interfaces, etc. for Mac OSX
Discussion related to installation, configuration and use of MOTU hardware such as MIDI interfaces, audio interfaces, etc. for Mac OSX
-
Sticky Fox
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:38 am
- Primary DAW OS: Unspecified
It's always good to be ready to expand, but 24 channels is an awful lot for a home studio. How much space do you have? Are you using a 24-channel analog mixer? If you're not using a bunch of outboard gear or micing a whole band independently, you should probably put that money elsewhere. You can at least start with 8 channels and upgrade later if it becomes an issue.
Also, 192kHz looks impressive on paper, but really just crushes your computer's processing power for a tiny (maybe even inaudible) bit of audio improvement. If you are using more than $5000 in microphones and preamps, you might consider recording at 96 or 192, and then converting it to 48. If not, you're just going to burn up four times the disk space. Outside of recording, higher sample rates don't add anything to the sound, so there's no reason to keep it at 192 once it's on disk. Another thing to consider is that if your interface oversamples, it's already recording at 192k (probably much higher in fact) and converting down on the fly, no matter what your sample rate is, so recording and downsampling on the PC really is a waste of time and space. However, I don't know if this is true of the HD192.
I know you aren't worried about cost, but if you keep things simple, you can streamline your system for maximum effect and invest more of your budget, whatever it is, in the areas that will really pay off for you.
Also, 192kHz looks impressive on paper, but really just crushes your computer's processing power for a tiny (maybe even inaudible) bit of audio improvement. If you are using more than $5000 in microphones and preamps, you might consider recording at 96 or 192, and then converting it to 48. If not, you're just going to burn up four times the disk space. Outside of recording, higher sample rates don't add anything to the sound, so there's no reason to keep it at 192 once it's on disk. Another thing to consider is that if your interface oversamples, it's already recording at 192k (probably much higher in fact) and converting down on the fly, no matter what your sample rate is, so recording and downsampling on the PC really is a waste of time and space. However, I don't know if this is true of the HD192.
I know you aren't worried about cost, but if you keep things simple, you can streamline your system for maximum effect and invest more of your budget, whatever it is, in the areas that will really pay off for you.
Thanks!
I have quite a bit a space. Here's some specs on my computer that I've dedicated to the studio:
Pentium® D Processor 940 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB)
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
500GB Performance RAID 0 (2 x 250GB SATA HDDs)
With this system I doubt that bandwidth is an issue, but I do want to be sure. You're saying that Firewire may use more bandwidth than PCI?
24 tracks is, and isn't a lot. Yes, this will be a home studio, but I plan to record other bands for some extra $$$. Plus I figured that I may as well just make it a business so I can write off all this equipment next year, good idea?
I just don't want to grow out of it very soon. But to tell you the truth, I only need 16 channels, so would 2 896HD's be a good option?
Like I said, I'm confused.
Pentium® D Processor 940 with Dual Core Technology (3.20GHz, 800FSB)
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
500GB Performance RAID 0 (2 x 250GB SATA HDDs)
With this system I doubt that bandwidth is an issue, but I do want to be sure. You're saying that Firewire may use more bandwidth than PCI?
24 tracks is, and isn't a lot. Yes, this will be a home studio, but I plan to record other bands for some extra $$$. Plus I figured that I may as well just make it a business so I can write off all this equipment next year, good idea?
I just don't want to grow out of it very soon. But to tell you the truth, I only need 16 channels, so would 2 896HD's be a good option?
Like I said, I'm confused.
-
Sticky Fox
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:38 am
- Primary DAW OS: Unspecified
Re: Thanks!
Sounds good to me!siforek wrote:Plus I figured that I may as well just make it a business so I can write off all this equipment next year, good idea?
I noticed that when I switched from ADATs to using HD recorders that my track usage went down dramatically. You can do operations on a computer that are impossible on tape without lots of extra tracks, so depending on how you work you may or may not need the extra channels of A/D. But I ain't saying that they won't look cool stacked up in your rack...
I'm using firewire for everything, but the most channels I've run simultaneously is 12. I would expect that the PCI solution is more robust, as MOTU's card is designed specifically for this application (and now supports PCIe).
-
Atardecer
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:35 pm
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Hey there,
Just a note with using 4gb RAM. Someone correct me if i wrong (which i probably am) but i think you need to set up your computer specifically to use this extra RAM. Has this been done? Most computers will not make use of more than 2GB of RAM as is, and the xtra 2GB will be pretty much useless. There was an article on this in Sound On Sound although i've forgotten which issue! Not really relevant to your question but just a thought...
regards
Just a note with using 4gb RAM. Someone correct me if i wrong (which i probably am) but i think you need to set up your computer specifically to use this extra RAM. Has this been done? Most computers will not make use of more than 2GB of RAM as is, and the xtra 2GB will be pretty much useless. There was an article on this in Sound On Sound although i've forgotten which issue! Not really relevant to your question but just a thought...
regards
Atardecer (and all),
My host requirements are usually pretty modest, so I'm not real big on giant RAM either, but I *think* much of the RAM limit info we've heard isn't all that current. IIRC, the 2GB number, with 2K/XP or whatever, is something related to the amount which different processes are limited to, so there may be several 2G "chunks" of memory being used simultaneously (depending on what you're running). There may even be prefs or tweaks to assign more than that, if that is indeed a current limit. I think it's also somewhat of an "application thing", so stuff which can actually use ridiculous amounts of memory, is probably written accordingly (I think Nuendo may be able to use more). Either way, with large RAM available like that, it's probably worthwhile to do a fair amount of "fishing" for DAW/RAM/pagefile tweak info on the web, to get the most out of it. (...wish I had 4G)
BTW- I think the actual maximum memory in my head these days is about one and a half percent of an Atari 2600 cartridge, so we may both be wrong now.
@ siforek-- I'm with many others on the >48k rate arguments. The vast differences in analog and digital hardware quality, as well as the infinite amount of technique and knowledge to be acquired, should keep most of us busy for a while, and isn't likely to "ruin" any tracks which you'd want to use for anything later on.
Also, I've become more and more into the idea of "separating" the converters from the interface/driver part of the chain these days. With your mention of not wanting to "grow out of it" too soon, it may be an important thing for you to look into as well. I think with any decent grade of "physical" interface hardware, you'll be more likely to have the drivers or the "style" of card or connection become incompatible with host parts or software in the future. For instance, if you grabbed some decent 8x8 ADAT lightpipe boxes, and then picked out a nice (or adequate) host card, with multiple ADAT connections, for right now, the "bulk" of your system would be guaranteed to make it through to your next DAW host (or beyond). Worst case, you could just swap to a different ADAT card later on, but if you initially pick one with reputable support, you'll probably be able to keep running it for a while anyway. The ADAT "streams" are no different than any other (analog), as far as your interface is concerned, so any realtime, direct-monitoring sort of stuff your card can do, will be just the same. The lightpipe i/o idea is also quite "modular", so if you wanted to start with even a cheap 1x1 ADAT card and a single 8x8 converter, you could add an 8x8 converter (or two), later on, as well as a fancy digital card or box to host them, plus you'd have your "old" card free for a second, backup computer, or something you could drag around for remote stuff with one of the converter boxes.
Two BTW's- If you haven't figured already, I also sort of trust PCI, but there's no reason not to go with something else. Also, the Behringer ADA8000 isn't actually as horrible as the name would imply. I track drums with one here, and it's replaced a couple other things. It's not a bad thing to have on hand regardless, and it's only around 200 bucks, so you could almost buy a pile of them for what a larger multi-analog interface would cost, and you'd be out a lot less money as the technology advances down the road. (all that stuff is obviously just my opinion)
Good luck on it!
George
My host requirements are usually pretty modest, so I'm not real big on giant RAM either, but I *think* much of the RAM limit info we've heard isn't all that current. IIRC, the 2GB number, with 2K/XP or whatever, is something related to the amount which different processes are limited to, so there may be several 2G "chunks" of memory being used simultaneously (depending on what you're running). There may even be prefs or tweaks to assign more than that, if that is indeed a current limit. I think it's also somewhat of an "application thing", so stuff which can actually use ridiculous amounts of memory, is probably written accordingly (I think Nuendo may be able to use more). Either way, with large RAM available like that, it's probably worthwhile to do a fair amount of "fishing" for DAW/RAM/pagefile tweak info on the web, to get the most out of it. (...wish I had 4G)
BTW- I think the actual maximum memory in my head these days is about one and a half percent of an Atari 2600 cartridge, so we may both be wrong now.
@ siforek-- I'm with many others on the >48k rate arguments. The vast differences in analog and digital hardware quality, as well as the infinite amount of technique and knowledge to be acquired, should keep most of us busy for a while, and isn't likely to "ruin" any tracks which you'd want to use for anything later on.
Also, I've become more and more into the idea of "separating" the converters from the interface/driver part of the chain these days. With your mention of not wanting to "grow out of it" too soon, it may be an important thing for you to look into as well. I think with any decent grade of "physical" interface hardware, you'll be more likely to have the drivers or the "style" of card or connection become incompatible with host parts or software in the future. For instance, if you grabbed some decent 8x8 ADAT lightpipe boxes, and then picked out a nice (or adequate) host card, with multiple ADAT connections, for right now, the "bulk" of your system would be guaranteed to make it through to your next DAW host (or beyond). Worst case, you could just swap to a different ADAT card later on, but if you initially pick one with reputable support, you'll probably be able to keep running it for a while anyway. The ADAT "streams" are no different than any other (analog), as far as your interface is concerned, so any realtime, direct-monitoring sort of stuff your card can do, will be just the same. The lightpipe i/o idea is also quite "modular", so if you wanted to start with even a cheap 1x1 ADAT card and a single 8x8 converter, you could add an 8x8 converter (or two), later on, as well as a fancy digital card or box to host them, plus you'd have your "old" card free for a second, backup computer, or something you could drag around for remote stuff with one of the converter boxes.
Two BTW's- If you haven't figured already, I also sort of trust PCI, but there's no reason not to go with something else. Also, the Behringer ADA8000 isn't actually as horrible as the name would imply. I track drums with one here, and it's replaced a couple other things. It's not a bad thing to have on hand regardless, and it's only around 200 bucks, so you could almost buy a pile of them for what a larger multi-analog interface would cost, and you'd be out a lot less money as the technology advances down the road. (all that stuff is obviously just my opinion)
Good luck on it!
George
Well I don't think that anyone really needs 192kHz. For me it's just having the ability if I want it. I suspect that I won't actually use 192 for a wile, 48 will due for now, but life I said, I don't want to upgrade for a wile.
Also, I have been going back and forth between the 896HD and the HD192. The 896 is cheaper, uses firewire, but will limit me eventually to 16 tracks(not using ADAT). The 192 is quite a bit more expensive, but it uses PCI, and will give the ability for a lot more tracks.
In my opinion 2 HD192's is going to pay off in the long run. Good idea?
Oh, and about the Ram; I've got that covered. I've got a friend that's an IT Consultant, he's actually been quite helpful with things.
Also, I have been going back and forth between the 896HD and the HD192. The 896 is cheaper, uses firewire, but will limit me eventually to 16 tracks(not using ADAT). The 192 is quite a bit more expensive, but it uses PCI, and will give the ability for a lot more tracks.
In my opinion 2 HD192's is going to pay off in the long run. Good idea?
Oh, and about the Ram; I've got that covered. I've got a friend that's an IT Consultant, he's actually been quite helpful with things.