Alternatives for 002?
Old 5th December 2006
  #1
Gear addict
 
ClaySchmitt's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Alternatives for 002?

First Post!

I am looking to upgrade from my current setup. I am currently running on an mbox2 and am looking to record drums and do larger projects. There seems to be a lot of talk about the 002 not being worth the money and there being other alternatives with better results.

Well, its my 21st birthday and my parents want to help me out and get me some really nice gear! I am currently looking at getting a Great River 1NV, a hamburg mk2, a Senn 609, sm7b, Senn 609 and 3 604s, and some other cheap/effective microphones. Most of which will be purchased from Gearslut members!

Here is the catch: with my schools discount on Digidesign products I can get a 002 unit for $1250.00. I am just wanting to make sure that this is the best solution for my...wants.
Old 5th December 2006
  #2
one man, ONE mic pre
it's what I would do if I were you
Old 5th December 2006
  #3
Gear addict
I'd get the 002 rack if you can get that for even cheaper, no big plastic thing taking up desk space then.
Old 5th December 2006
  #4
Lives for gear
 

Here's some stuff we've done through an Digi 002... (all but the songs labeled as live)

http://www.starkweatherboys.com/music.htm

It would pretty much sound the same no matter what the interface. I do think your choice of mic preamp (Great River NV series) and the mics you've chosen will mean a lot more in terms of sound than the interface box.
Old 5th December 2006
  #5
Gear addict
 
ClaySchmitt's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Thank you for your suggestions! Anyone else have an opinion on the 002 rack vs. unit?
Old 5th December 2006
  #6
Moderator
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

The rack and unit-with-faders are basically the same for I/O and soundquality. The fader version adds a handy controller and can be used as simple standalone digital mixer as well.

For $1250, defenately go for it. Sure, there are better sounding units out there, but it's sure good enough to do very good stuff with. It's all about what you do with it
Old 5th December 2006
  #7
Gear maniac
 
Bassace's Avatar
 

i am just about to get a 002 rack with a Pre 8 from motu and a Command 8 controller as you can also use that with Logic,where as you cant use Logic as the with the 002 Controller......and as i am Trading my 001 i will get a buyback on the 002....
Old 5th December 2006
  #8
Moderator
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassace View Post
i am just about to get a 002 rack with a Pre 8 from motu and a Command 8 controller as you can also use that with Logic,where as you cant use Logic as the with the 002 Controller......and as i am Trading my 001 i will get a buyback on the 002....
I'm not too sure you can use the Command8 with Logic. A Mackie Control would work both with ProTools and Logic however.
Old 5th December 2006
  #9
Gear maniac
 
Bassace's Avatar
 

mmmmm yes i see , so it seems you have to write an envoirment in logic for the command...some helpful chap at DUC has done a simple one any more info on this anyone? idont really want to buy a mackie controller
ty for the info Dr Delta
Old 5th December 2006
  #10
Moderator
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassace View Post
mmmmm yes i see , so it seems you have to write an envoirment in logic for the command...some helpful chap at DUC has done a simple one any more info on this anyone? idont really want to buy a mackie controller
ty for the info Dr Delta
I think it's basically a trade-off in what software you want to work most.

A Command8 obviously works great in ProTools, but in Logic support is gonna be minimal and akward with an environment fix I fear...

A Mackie Control will work great with Logic (Logic Control mode), but ProTools support is just HUI, which is fine, but most likely doesn't go as far as the Command8.

Isn't a Mackie Control about the same price as a Command8 anyway? It'd give you the extra master fader (doesn't work in PT tho afaik), and looks a bit less toyish, as well as is easily expandable with more faders in the future.

IMO, Command8 is only a good choice if you work purely in ProTools.
Old 5th December 2006
  #11
Lives for gear
 
LoopQuantum's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeltaM View Post
I'm not too sure you can use the Command8 with Logic. A Mackie Control would work both with ProTools and Logic however.

Yep. you can use it in MIDI mode for apps outside of PT and it behaves much like a mackiecontrol.
Old 5th December 2006
  #12
Moderator
 
DrDeltaM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoopQuantum View Post
Yep. you can use it in MIDI mode for apps outside of PT and it behaves much like a mackiecontrol.
Old 5th December 2006
  #13
Rocket Scientist
 
foldback's Avatar
The 002 has some DSP in it, the 002R does not.

You can add a Command 8 to an 002 and have 16 motorized faders. You can't do that with an 002R.

I have a Command 8 and rarely use it. I use a Wacom tablet and can clean up a 24 track mix really fast with that. YMMV.

That's an amzing price on the 002. I'd get that. You'll never regret learning Protools, it is so much easier, faster and more intuitive to use than Logic (which has one of the most awkward interfaces ever created).

The integration of the 002 will allow you to focus on recording instead of connecting things together.

A lot of folks on GS like to low-crawl the converters and sound of the 002 and 002R. I like great converters, I have a UA 2192 and it sounds fantastic. We do a lot of radio production work with 002 and 002R. Everyday thousands of ears hear my work. Nobody ever phones in and complains, and most of the time they are listening to the results of 002 converters, not the 2192. Nobody, ever complains.

The mics and signal processors you use will have a much bigger impact on the timbre of your sound than the converters you're using IMHO.

With my back against the wall, I edited an ad for a Fortune 50 beer company using just the analog i.o on my Powerbook. The agency rep never knew converters would make a difference, the sales puke at the radio station didn't know either, they only knew that time would be a big loss of revenue if the spot did not run. Nobody complained about the tone of my laptop converters driving analog into a Tascam CD recorder to save the day.

All the compression and processing done by TV and radio stations undoes so much of our hardwork anyway. Not an excuse to cheese out, just the reality of things.

Equipment is not a substitute for good production skills. IMHO, Protools is the easiest DAW software to use and it is extremely reliable, it has never ever let me down or wrecked a song. I can't say the same about Digital Performer and Logic.

Best of luck to you no matter what you choose.
Old 5th December 2006
  #14
Gear addict
 

Like Foldback wrote it's very handy that the controler works flawlesly with protools. I bought my digi 002 controler because i didn't want annoying computer hassles and have been very content with it. Never had problems. It works right out of the box and you can start making music.

Hans

BTW the chanels 5-6 and 7-8 don't go through the -not so good- pre amps of the Digi 002, so if you connect your mic pre to one of these channels the sound quality is OK.
Old 5th December 2006
  #15
Gear maniac
 
Bassace's Avatar
 

thanks for he feedback guys
i love PT too editing recording like a tape machine ..great...and i come from 2"
PT midi not so great:(
i also need logic for the sequencer ...midi ...production things..
i started with ....remember├č atari ..unitor and 2" sync ed up

and still need a powerfull midi sequencer (which PT is not).
Old 5th December 2006
  #16
Gear addict
 
ClaySchmitt's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Because the 002 unit as a little DSP, does that limit me to the amount of power within the unit, or does it use both my computer and the unit? (may be a stupid question..)

A few more questions:

Someone mentioned that the unbalanced inputs(5,6,7,and 8) are OK for using your own preamp because they dont have a built in pre. Does this mean using an external pre on 1,2,3, and 4 would be bad? Basically, will it sound like shit if you have 2 pre's in one signal path? or will it bypass the internal one on the 002? (this has always confused me)

Also, the Mcdsp plugins, are they TDM only?
Old 5th December 2006
  #17
Vum
Lives for gear
 
Vum's Avatar
 

I think the McDSP is TDM only.
Old 5th December 2006
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaySchmitt View Post
Because the 002 unit as a little DSP, does that limit me to the amount of power within the unit, or does it use both my computer and the unit? (may be a stupid question..)

A few more questions:

Someone mentioned that the unbalanced inputs(5,6,7,and 8) are OK for using your own preamp because they dont have a built in pre. Does this mean using an external pre on 1,2,3, and 4 would be bad? Basically, will it sound like shit if you have 2 pre's in one signal path? or will it bypass the internal one on the 002? (this has always confused me)

Also, the Mcdsp plugins, are they TDM only?
The built in pres don't totally suck. Putting the signal through a quality mic pre and then through one of the mic pre channels sounds pretty good but it's not as ideal as those channels where you don't have mic pres in the circuit. Don't worry about it.
Old 5th December 2006
  #19
Rocket Scientist
 
foldback's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassace View Post
thanks for he feedback guys
i love PT too editing recording like a tape machine ..great...and i come from 2"
PT midi not so great:(
i also need logic for the sequencer ...midi ...production things..
i started with ....remember├č atari ..unitor and 2" sync ed up

and still need a powerfull midi sequencer (which PT is not).
I've done a fair amount of midi in Protools, what do you find lacking?

In particular, I edited a lot of midi tracks for the light show my band uses which is DMX controlled by midi. It was really helpful to be able to go to a song posittion and edit the lighting program while hearing the song.

I've also had good luck editing midi in Protools and then when I get the part worked out well, I like to burn it to a digital audio file (my favorite sequence track :-)
Old 6th December 2006
  #20
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaySchmitt View Post

Someone mentioned that the unbalanced inputs(5,6,7,and 8) are OK for using your own preamp because they dont have a built in pre. Does this mean using an external pre on 1,2,3, and 4 would be bad? Basically, will it sound like shit if you have 2 pre's in one signal path? or will it bypass the internal one on the 002? (this has always confused me)

?
The inputs 5,6,7, and 8 are balanced, but line level only.

It's mentioned above already : It's better not to send the signal through two pre amp sections. It won't sound shit, but i think the quality suffers a bit.

You cannot bypass the pre in channel 1,2 3 and 4 because there's no insert.

Hope this helps, Hans
Old 6th December 2006
  #21
Gear maniac
 
Bassace's Avatar
 

hi foldback
well i dont find the midi in PT lacking exactly...ive never used it
i just tend to track in PT and then import everting to logic as i like all the soft synths and stuff with logic and like to be able to see the notes etc

cant you use the 1234 mic inputs for line then ? as on my 001 they have the XLR/TRS
connectors and a 20 dB pad ?
Old 6th December 2006
  #22
Lives for gear
 
LoopQuantum's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vum View Post
I think the McDSP is TDM only.
Nope, Rtas installers on the TDM version when you buy 'em...they also sell native versions of most of their stuff now at a lower price....
Old 6th December 2006
  #23
Gear maniac
 
Bassace's Avatar
 

i have just seen a pic of the 002 rack rearview that has line /inst inputs on inputs 123and 4.....are 567and 8 unbalanced then? cheapskates !!

i have a rtas Mc Dsp on PT LE
Old 6th December 2006
  #24
Rocket Scientist
 
foldback's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassace View Post
i have just seen a pic of the 002 rack rearview that has line /inst inputs on inputs 123and 4.....are 567and 8 unbalanced then? cheapskates !!

i have a rtas Mc Dsp on PT LE
Seems like you're awfully quick to be negative. First you slam PT midi and later admit you've never used it and then get down on the 002 i.o. without good info.

All of the inputs and outputs on the 002 are balanced.

Credibility is a sorry thing to waste.
Old 6th December 2006
  #25
Lives for gear
 
jslevin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by foldback View Post
You can add a Command 8 to an 002 and have 16 motorized faders. You can't do that with an 002R.
What? You can? Never heard of that.

As to the original question, for a compact multitrack setup, there is definitely some logic in having an all-in-one interface and control surface. Real easy to pick up and take with you, too. Those who don't get an integrated solution often end up procrastinating the control surface purchase -- and don't realize what they're missing.

If you're going with Pro Tools, frankly, it makes little sense to worry about whether the control surface will work with other software. It would be nice to know that the compatibility was there, but how much is that worth, really?

By the same token, if you're going with Logic, it makes little sense to have any of these pieces.

I say, go with with the full 002.

JSL
Old 6th December 2006
  #26
Gear maniac
 
Bassace's Avatar
 

hey foldback
i didnt mean to slam PT and its midi and the balanced question was a question ??
i seem to remeber the 882 having unbalanced I /0s too and i have audio transformers on my 001 to balance them ....
I like the PT software love it in fact as an audio editor... i have been involved with Logic and unitor and emagic since around the beginning and see that as also being the powerful tool that it is

horses for courses
Old 6th December 2006
  #27
Rocket Scientist
 
foldback's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassace View Post
hey foldback
i didnt mean to slam PT and its midi and the balanced question was a question ??
i seem to remeber the 882 having unbalanced I /0s too and i have audio transformers on my 001 to balance them ....
I like the PT software love it in fact as an audio editor... i have been involved with Logic and unitor and emagic since around the beginning and see that as also being the powerful tool that it is

horses for courses
No problem. I've been accused recently of being a pompous ass for some of my posts. I'm trying to be more friendly and thoughtful, after all, it is the holiday season.

All the best to you, happy holidays and Merry Fu@#ing Christmas :-)
Old 6th December 2006
  #28
Gear maniac
 
Bassace's Avatar
 

i think easter has a better interface than christmas ...i maen christmas is soooooo analoge dont you think?

have a good un
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
jaye b / So much gear, so little time!
28
dongle / Music Computers
7
hollywood_steve / So much gear, so little time!
1
Renie / Music Computers
27
littledog / Music Computers
3

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.