Login / Register
 
A/D's on Alesis HD24XR vs. an HD ProTools set up
New Reply
Subscribe
b_side
Thread Starter
#1
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #1
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20

Thread Starter
b_side is offline
A/D's on Alesis HD24XR vs. an HD ProTools set up

The HD24XR is much cheaper, just wondering how the A/Ds on ADAT compare to the HD ProTools.

Anyone?
#2
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #2
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 22,496
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is offline
Hmm...not sure what you mean by "much cheaper"? well of course it is...one is a fully integrated recording and mixing program with plugins, automation etc...and one is a tape machine replacement, with some basic editing options.

I've used this Alesis machine (I think) for a location recording, and it went very well - quality was fine. However, I don't think you should base your choice of HD rig or standalone HD recorder on the quality of the converters. Since these can be changed for both systems, surely other factors (like if you want to work ITB, editing capabilities, price?!) are more important? There's no one converter for PT - the usual one is the Digi 192, but there's plenty of other options, so what do you want to compare the Alesis to?

NOW to interpret your Q another way, are you asking if how the Alesis's ADs compare to the 192s if used as ADAT inputs TO PT? if so, you'd still need a digital 192 to get Adat in...the Alesis won't have inputs that can be aligned in the same way most pro converters can be, and their overall quality isn't likely (and this isn't based on personal experience) to be up to the same level as the 192s. They're a different product, made to a price point, and aren't really aimed at people considering an HD rig. IMO.
b_side
Thread Starter
#3
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #3
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20

Thread Starter
b_side is offline
thanks for that

I guess I'll it expand b/c my question doesn't quite make sense.

I'm considering getting a mid-range mixing console (particularly the Soundcraft Ghost).

So I'm trying to decide if I should get a Ghost and the HD24XR which would be like 5Gs versus getting a ProTools HD Setup which would be closer to the $8000.

I really want to learn to mix OTB and was wondering what would be the best way to go about it. If recording into a 192 sounds MUCH better than the HD24XR I would try to wait and save more for the full HD set-up

I'm working off the most basic of set-ups now, just a M-Audio Delta 1010 rack and M-powered PT.
#4
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #4
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 22,496
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_side View Post
I guess I'll it expand b/c my question doesn't quite make sense.

I'm considering getting a mid-range mixing console (particularly the Soundcraft Ghost).

So I'm trying to decide if I should get a Ghost and the HD24XR which would be like 5Gs versus getting a ProTools HD Setup which would be closer to the $8000.

I really want to learn to mix OTB and was wondering what would be the best way to go about it. If recording into a 192 sounds MUCH better than the HD24XR I would try to wait and save more for the full HD set-up

I'm working off the most basic of set-ups now, just a M-Audio Delta 1010 rack and M-powered PT.
Right. In that case, I'd be more inclined to get a PT system first, then a console better than the ghost (or a summing box) later along the line.

That's if you find yourself doing a reasonable amount of editing, have to work on projects where you need to be able to open PT sessions, and are only going to have mid-range outboard to work with.

Your choice of Ghost+Alesis wouldn't give you any automation options either, which would mean you'd be missing quite an important part of mixing, IMO.

And I'm not sure the midrange quality of the Ghost would be a great advantage over just working ITB or via a summing box, regardless of the converters.

For my money, if you're just going to mix through the ghost, the converters again aren't going to be your weak link.
b_side
Thread Starter
#5
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #5
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20

Thread Starter
b_side is offline
Thanks

that definitely sheds some light.

my other issue is that most of what i'm recording right now is multi-tracking off an mpc and sp-1200 alot and the latency is killing me when i'm squencing/programming

is there mixer you'd reccomend to run these things through while sequencing/programming on these machine before recording to the computer?
#6
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #6
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 22,496
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_side View Post
that definitely sheds some light.

my other issue is that most of what i'm recording right now is multi-tracking off an mpc and sp-1200 alot and the latency is killing me when i'm squencing/programming

is there mixer you'd reccomend to run these things through while sequencing/programming on these machine before recording to the computer?

If you're just using to monitor - anything really. A small mackie would probably fit budget requirements, whilst still being relatively robust and not sounding too awful.

I'd get a couple of nice pres and DIs to track things into the computer for when you've finished programming though.
#7
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago west suburbs, IL
Posts: 2,109

Yetti is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_side View Post
I guess I'll it expand b/c my question doesn't quite make sense.

I'm considering getting a mid-range mixing console (particularly the Soundcraft Ghost).

So I'm trying to decide if I should get a Ghost and the HD24XR which would be like 5Gs versus getting a ProTools HD Setup which would be closer to the $8000.

I really want to learn to mix OTB and was wondering what would be the best way to go about it. If recording into a 192 sounds MUCH better than the HD24XR I would try to wait and save more for the full HD set-up

I'm working off the most basic of set-ups now, just a M-Audio Delta 1010 rack and M-powered PT.
I have to laugh when I read people who comment negative about the Ghost...
It wasn't too many years ago that the Ghost recieved RAVE reviews from magazines like Electronic Musician. It was the premium choice for those looking to upgrade from the Mackie 24x8 buss.....the eq was the same as they used in the higher end products... Full Sail used the Ghost consoles to train their students, yada yada yada.......

The converters in the HD24XR are really good. Before I bought it, I purchased Lynn Fuston's Convertor shootout CD as a way to compare.

Sure, some of the super high end convertors like the Lavery, Weiss sounded better, the HD24 convertors sounded on par with more expensive stand alone convertors. (in my opinion)

The good news for you is that the price of used Ghosts is so low right now.
Sure, my opinion is biased since it is my setup, but it sounds damn good.
Attached Thumbnails
A/D's on Alesis HD24XR vs. an HD ProTools set up-ghostxt.jpg  
__________________
Yetti-
#8
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #8
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 22,496
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is offline
Well, as I said, I've not really used the Alesis enough to make a solid comment.

The Ghost I have used however, so I stand by my comments there.

I still don't think the OP is comparing like with like. If you need the editing+plugin capabilities of PT, you're not going to be satisfied with the Alesis. If you tend to just want a tape-replacement, PT HD is probably overkill.

My comments still remain regarding automation. For me at least, automation is a big part of how I mix. An Alesis+ghost wouldn't give you that option. how do you get round that yetti?
#9
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #9
Lives for gear
 
danasti's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,198

Send a message via MSN to danasti
danasti is offline
You really need to hear them to make a decision. I prefer Apogee converters to Digi but I do find digi converters to be superior to those in the Alesis. I would choose PT if it were me. However, your cost for PT is going to be higher unless you alread own mic/line preamps and eqs. For pro tools I personally need a HUI controller, with faders, mutes and pots; something to interface with the software is essential for me. Mixing with a mouse is frustrating and it's time consuming for me. I went from OTB to ITB and all the routing and other concepts are essentially the same. I believe that if you learn to mix professionally it will translate either way. You might have trouble with an 100 plus channel SSL board but if, or when you get to that bridge, a ghost isn't going to save you much from that learning curve.

Best of Luck!
Dam

Quote:
Originally Posted by b_side View Post

So I'm trying to decide if I should get a Ghost and the HD24XR which would be like 5Gs versus getting a ProTools HD Setup which would be closer to the $8000.

I really want to learn to mix OTB and was wondering what would be the best way to go about it. If recording into a 192 sounds MUCH better than the HD24XR I would try to wait and save more for the full HD set-up
#10
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago west suburbs, IL
Posts: 2,109

Yetti is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
My comments still remain regarding automation. For me at least, automation is a big part of how I mix. An Alesis+ghost wouldn't give you that option. how do you get round that yetti?
That's correct, I don't have automation.
Sure, there are times that I am 3 min. into the song, and miss a fader move, or forget to mute something, or aux. delay shot and have to start again.

I get around it, and have alot of FUN by getting the bands involved in thier mixdown by getting extra hands.
Really, it's alot of fun getting them invoved.
Not every tune requires it, but usually a few songs have several "moves" required, so I give them jobs to do.
It's even fun when one of them f@cks it up...everyone going ahhh you a@@hole, a few slaps to the back of the head....then we all laugh and try it again.
#11
3rd February 2008
Old 3rd February 2008
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,063

deuc647 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_side View Post
that definitely sheds some light.

my other issue is that most of what i'm recording right now is multi-tracking off an mpc and sp-1200 alot and the latency is killing me when i'm squencing/programming

is there mixer you'd reccomend to run these things through while sequencing/programming on these machine before recording to the computer?
Latency when tracking with the mpc and sp? That really weird, i personally like the alesis XR converters, they are really clear, great headroom. Im debating on getting another XR or going daw, just really need playback cuz ill be using external efx.
__________________
Carlos Henard
#12
9th February 2008
Old 9th February 2008
  #12
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 269

digi882 is offline
Well how about this get a hd24xr then 96i/o and use it with you hd, also it must be said that dont take any advice form anyone who has NOT used a hd24xr. Im amazed hwo people use imagination as a guide to what is better, the hd24xr ran my radr 24 pretty close and radr is light years ahead of digi192 and the rather useless 96i/o (pretty bad converter in the da side). 192s are good ad and da's the alesis hd24xr is better tho, to be fair these days quite a lot are better than the 192 partly becuase it is quite old (7 years ish).

The one thing the hd24xr is clear and crisp wihtout being harsh. If you dont believe me use the search and look for jim williams comments. as for the guuys that simply say 192 are better well IGNORE them they dont know what they are talking about 192s arent popular on this forum, they are good enough tho i have to admit but they aint better than the hd24xr.
II use a simple mixer for out the box stemming and believ me it is better than just in the box so if you want hd then for the price of a 192 get a hd24xr and a 96i/o. Howvere be aware neither the 192 nor the 96 i/o do smux haha ha you have to love digi crippling them this way NOT!!!!
#13
19th March 2008
Old 19th March 2008
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Oslo , Norway
Posts: 549

ThomasWho is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yetti View Post
That's correct, I don't have automation.
Sure, there are times that I am 3 min. into the song, and miss a fader move, or forget to mute something, or aux. delay shot and have to start again.
Yetti , if you have 2 spare tracks on the HD24 you can mix back to those , in sections (just punch in). That`s what they did in the old days , or so I hear. Do an "Intro mix" and record the intro , then a "Verse mix" and record that etc...

just an idea.

Thomas
#14
19th March 2008
Old 19th March 2008
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,494

Snatchman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasWho View Post
Yetti , if you have 2 spare tracks on the HD24 you can mix back to those , in sections (just punch in). That`s what they did in the old days , or so I hear. Do an "Intro mix" and record the intro , then a "Verse mix" and record that etc...

just an idea.

Thomas
Not to "older days"..I used to do this with my Adats......
#15
19th March 2008
Old 19th March 2008
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Yetti's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago west suburbs, IL
Posts: 2,109

Yetti is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasWho View Post
Yetti , if you have 2 spare tracks on the HD24 you can mix back to those , in sections (just punch in). That`s what they did in the old days , or so I hear. Do an "Intro mix" and record the intro , then a "Verse mix" and record that etc...

just an idea.

Thomas
Hey Thomas,
That does sound like a great idea!
The only issue I can think of is the conversion....
I currently send the main mix directly into an Apogee Rosetta>Masterlink.
I would not be able to have assign adat input to only 2 tracks....or could I?
Well even if I did have to go another round of ad/da through the XR convertors, it may be the way to go for a complex mix.
Thanks Brotha!
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Jonk / Music Computers
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.