get the adat out a here?

[smoochmyhoop]

hope I'm not repeating and already done thing.... just call me new. what's the thought on hd24x and a-dats in general? do they still have a place in the studio... or just another antiquated peace of gear? i have a pretty nice set up already but I'm trying to find the downside to owning a hd24x is there one or are adats still usfull when tracking live stuff from the consol to the box and everthing between? my initial choice was to go with a high end converter such as the aurora 16 but with the adat i would be making full use of the toft consol... what's your oppinion? either way i would still need an rme pcie light pipe card. except with the aurora i'm still down eight channels ad/da... is the quality of the aurora exceptionaly better then that of the adat's converters or just slightly better?

[paul999]

I use Adat hd for live recordings and when I need more than 16 tracks. I am in a similar situation. Interested to see replies for sure.

[travisbrown]

There are dozens of threads on the HD24 and people still using it. Using the search will help you.

The HD24(XR) is hardly antiquated since Alesis still makes and sells them. And ADAT as a transfer protocol isn't going anywhere.

I'm not sure that the Aurora 16 is any better than an HD24XR. Sure the Aurora goes to 192k, but there are few compelling arguments that there's any benefit to anything over 88.2k/96k, and many quite happily get excellent results at 44.1k/48k.

It's really just a workflow choice rather than a sonic choice. Do you want an external recorder or do you want to record to a DAW?

[smoochmyhoop]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

There are dozens of threads on the HD24 and people still using it. Using the search will help you.

The HD24(XR) is hardly antiquated since Alesis still makes and sells them. And ADAT as a transfer protocol isn't going anywhere.

I'm not sure that the Aurora 16 is any better than an HD24XR. Sure the Aurora goes to 192k, but there are few compelling arguments that there's any benefit to anything over 88.2k/96k, and many quite happily get excellent results at 44.1k/48k.

It's really just a workflow choice rather than a sonic choice. Do you want an external recorder or do you want to record to a DAW?

well that's just it... i really love my toft and would love to make full use of it when in a live recording atmosphere plus i love to be able to make use of it for summing from the box as well... i love the ability to do both. and it would be nice once in a wile to just hit record... plus there is always the live venue aspect of it wich would be nice to take advantage of. and i think that the race for higher sample rates might just be the new race for the moon. sure can go there... but do you really need to?

[Kultjoe]

I think its a useful peace of gear for live recordings, quick setup, easy to use. Bougt one when they came out (I think it was 2003 or so, I'm not shure), and use it since then. The converters are not the best, but I can live with them, there ist of course always the option to use external preamps with better converters via adat lightpipe. In the studio are better ways to record I think, the onboard edit options aren't really usefull and not comfortable to use. So you will always have to transfer the files to your daw for editing.

[smoochmyhoop]

Originally Posted by kultjoe

i think its a useful peace of gear for live recordings, quick setup, easy to use. Bougt one when they came out (i think it was 2003 or so, i'm not shure), and use it since then. The converters are not the best, but i can live with them, there ist of course always the option to use external preamps with better converters via adat lightpipe. In the studio are better ways to record i think, the onboard edit options aren't really usefull and not comfortable to use. So you will always have to transfer the files to your daw for editing.

was thinking more of being able to use as a direct pass through to the rme light pipe pcie card with the option to hit record if i'm feeling in the mood,,, so i can mix and playback 24 channels direct from the daw. Plus of coarse have the option to use it as a stand alone recorder

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by Kultjoe

I think its a useful peace of gear for live recordings, quick setup, easy to use. Bougt one when they came out (I think it was 2003 or so, I'm not shure), and use it since then. The converters are not the best, but I can live with them, there ist of course always the option to use external preamps with better converters via adat lightpipe. In the studio are better ways to record I think, the onboard edit options aren't really usefull and not comfortable to use. So you will always have to transfer the files to your daw for editing.

One important point for those who don't know is that while the HD24 has mediocre convertors, the HD24 XR has superioir convertors - the very best you will get for 24 at $2k. People have been known to buy an XR just for A/D. You can upgrade a regular to XR with the EC2 kit.

L

[Bassmankr]

If you want to use a DAW with the HD24 or HD24XR there is a free app along with buying a specific hard drive caddy for your computer which will let you just move the hard drive between the two easily. So if you do remote recording, just pop the drive in your DAW computer and transfer the files. You can use the HD's as converters only right into/out of the DAW with a simple interface card like the RME 9652 (PCI) or RME Raydat (PCIe). If you go the 9652 route you can add two more cards for a total of 72 I/O. Given the used price on a HD24XR of $1200 and used price of a 9652 of $300 you can have a 72 I/O DAW for only $4500. Add your choice of analog desk and outboard and you have a very nice hybrid setup. The HD24XR/9652 converters and interface is one of the best bang for the buck choices today for high I/O channel counts. In fact the latest RME beta drivers allow for six 9652 cards to be used in a computer bringing that channel count up to 144 but I have yet to hear reports about how well anyone with more than three cards is working. This combo probably has more life to it than other options due to it's flexability and expandability. Plenty of threads already on this stuff.

[FeatheredSerpent]

Hi, is it true that the XR does not function in 'full duplex'?

ie if you have one hooked up to a 9652, you can only stream in or out, not both simultaneously?

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by smoochmyhoop

well that's just it... i really love my toft and would love to make full use of it when in a live recording atmosphere plus i love to be able to make use of it for summing from the box as well... i love the ability to do both. and it would be nice once in a wile to just hit record... plus there is always the live venue aspect of it wich would be nice to take advantage of. and i think that the race for higher sample rates might just be the new race for the moon. sure can go there... but do you really need to?

I rarely use 96k, actually usually only on 2 track recordings. I have never heard any compelling argument for anything above 96k, so the 192k of the Aurora 16 might just be wasted. Not that you have to operate at that rate anyway, but, might not need to be a deciding factor.

There are lots of threads here on the merits of the different sample rates. I'd read those and make your decision.

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent

Hi, is it true that the XR does not function in 'full duplex'?

ie if you have one hooked up to a 9652, you can only stream in or out, not both simultaneously?

You can select the monitoring, input or playback. Not both except in per channel switch mode...

L

[FeatheredSerpent]

Right, thanks.

I'm interested in finding the best solution to get 24 channels out the daw, and the XR seems to be the best cost/quality step up from three ada8000s..
Just trying to work out the overdub situation.

The 9652 has 24 adat channels plus coaxial s/pdif.
I'm sure I can submix the 24 channels feeding the XR down to just a stereo pair from within the rme hdsp mixer, and send them out via s/pdif, even when the XR is in input monitoring mode.

Then I would need a seperate stereo dac to feed that into the mixer's 2 track inputs for example, or any stereo return?

Sorry for all the questions!

[Bassmankr]

The HD's are not full duplex, but are selectable in pairs of channels, any combination you want. There is more info on all of this in old threads here, a search will answer alot of questions. Also check into info on the RME software mixer that is part of their interfaces as it's one of the better ones out there.

[smoochmyhoop]

Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent

Hi, is it true that the XR does not function in 'full duplex'?

ie if you have one hooked up to a 9652, you can only stream in or out, not both simultaneously?

freeked me out for a second... the rme ray dat pcie card allows 32 light pipe input output simultaneously....awesome card, i believe the pci version of their light pipe card had limitations.

[smoochmyhoop]

Originally Posted by FeatheredSerpent

Right, thanks.

I'm interested in finding the best solution to get 24 channels out the daw, and the XR seems to be the best cost/quality step up from three ada8000s..
Just trying to work out the overdub situation.

The 9652 has 24 adat channels plus coaxial s/pdif.
I'm sure I can submix the 24 channels feeding the XR down to just a stereo pair from within the rme hdsp mixer, and send them out via s/pdif, even when the XR is in input monitoring mode.

Then I would need a seperate stereo dac to feed that into the mixer's 2 track inputs for example, or any stereo return?

Sorry for all the questions!

is it the hd24 that has the limitations on simultanius rec/mon or is it the rme9652?

[FeatheredSerpent]

It's the Alesis, but I haven't fully checked out bassmankr's comments yet, not sure if you can monitor in or out full stop, or whether you can monitor both simultaneously so long as pairs are not doubling up as in and out.

Got to check.

I've got the 9652, no limitations. Same system as the raydat minus the extra adat port and aes/ebu.

XR seems like overkill now though to be honest, I think I underestimated the used prices on an XR!
Anyway, buying new, an SSL alphalink AX costs £1,300 as opposed to £1,700 for an XR. I doubt the SSL converters are going to be inferior to the XR, but really don't know.
Maybe I'm being greedy but 24 channels doesn't really seem to be enough!
It's annoying because even with the raydat you'd have to get another 8 channel adat converter on top of the SSL for example to make the most of it.
It's academic for me at the mo as I'm not in a position to buy, but I like to have these things figured out in advance.
I want a mixer, got to feed it. Would actually work out cheaper to get another used 9652 and the SSL (preferably used), keep my ada8000 and have enough potential in/out to keep me happy for quite a long time, probably forever.

It's either this route or wait for a decent hybrid mixer that will take a decent amount of adat channels, give me nice analogue eq and 100mm faders, then all I need is a couple of 9652s, the mixer and a nice stand-alone stereo D/A fed from the mixer's s/pdif control room outs.

Perhaps the A+H R24 will deliver, but there's still a lot of attraction in a nice second-hand well-regarded analogue mixer doing it the first way.

It's actually less stressful considering these things when you don't have the cash to buy yet! (But not quite as satisfying )

[jetam]

You can also get RME and use 16 Aurora convertors and aditional 8 ADAT's convertors if you need 24 channels.

[FeatheredSerpent]

The aurora is twice the price of the SSL for 8 fewer channels. I would like nice converters but that kind of price difference doesn't make any sense to me!

[jetam]

If i were you, I would actualy go for Alphalink.
It sounds way better than any old ADAT.

[TC Custom Audio]

Originally Posted by jetam

If i were you, I would actualy go for Alphalink.
It sounds way better than any old ADAT.

As stated by others previously, this thread primarily refers to the HD24's equipped with the XR converters. Those are thought of by many to compare favorably to the Lynx's, SSL's and the like.

FWIW, I own Lynx Aurora's

[uncle duncan]

A really economical way to interface a HD24 with a DAW is the Motu 2408, which has 24 channels of lightpipe. You can find them used for under $500. The 2408 uses a PCI card which includes an ADAT sync connection. With this setup, you can slave sync the DAW to the HD24 and transfer 24 tracks in one pass (assuming your DAW will do slave-sync. Obviously, Motu Digital Performer has this feature.)

I use my HD24 for tracking bands, and then use the DAW for overdubs and mixing, after doing the 24 track transfer. What's nice about tracking with the HD24 is zero latency monitoring. Using it with a decent mixer gives you the ability to send different headphone mixes to each player, depending on how many aux sends your mixer has.

I don't consider a studio with only 16 inputs and no zero-latency monitoring "pro", so, to answer your question, the HD24 definitely has a place in the studio, especially compared to the limitations of a digi 003, which is the main rig in many wanna-be "pro" studios.

[jetam]

Originally Posted by Sannytown

As stated by others previously, this thread primarily refers to the HD24's equipped with the XR converters. Those are thought of by many to compare favorably to the Lynx's, SSL's and the like.

FWIW, I own Lynx Aurora's

I'm sorry for my mistake, but I would still prefer SSL (unless HD24 will be also used standalone) because HD24XR allows only 12 channels of 96kHz audio simultaneously and also SSL is (or at least was) great brand.

Originally Posted by uncle duncan

A really economical way to interface a HD24 with a DAW is the Motu 2408, which has 24 channels of lightpipe. You can find them used for under $500. The 2408 uses a PCI card which includes an ADAT sync connection. With this setup, you can slave sync the DAW to the HD24 and transfer 24 tracks in one pass (assuming your DAW will do slave-sync. Obviously, Motu Digital Performer has this feature.)

I use my HD24 for tracking bands, and then use the DAW for overdubs and mixing, after doing the 24 track transfer. What's nice about tracking with the HD24 is zero latency monitoring. Using it with a decent mixer gives you the ability to send different headphone mixes to each player, depending on how many aux sends your mixer has.

I don't consider a studio with only 16 inputs and no zero-latency monitoring "pro", so, to answer your question, the HD24 definitely has a place in the studio, especially compared to the limitations of a digi 003, which is the main rig in many wanna-be "pro" studios.

Probably it wouldn't be bad to look for used RME HDSP card because you can find it for about 300 and RME's drivers are usualy better than MOTU's.

[TC Custom Audio]

Originally Posted by jetam

. . . I would still prefer SSL (unless HD24 will be also used standalone) because HD24XR allows only 12 channels of 96kHz audio simultaneously and also SSL is (or at least was) great brand.

Probably it wouldn't be bad to look for used RME HDSP card because you can find it for about 300 and RME's drivers are usualy better than MOTU's.

Agreed on all counts. I've heard the XR's and they were nice, but I guess the S/MUX half channel count thing can be a pain. I've not had a chance to audition the SSL stuff, but it seems very compelling in terms of both price and performance.

As for MOTU, that's something I wouldn't recommend to any PC user. On the other hand, the RME stuff works great on both platforms and always has. If you need lightpipe, it's a no-brainer.

[paul999]

I have a possible/probable stupid question.

If you set the convertors in the xr to 48 do they sound the same as the regular hd convertors. In other words do they only sound better because you can set them to a higher rate?

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by paul999

I have a possible/probable stupid question.

If you set the convertors in the xr to 48 do they sound the same as the regular hd convertors. In other words do they only sound better because you can set them to a higher rate?

Nothing stupid at all about that!

I have an HD24 that I use only at 44.1 for CD production without SRC. Adding the EC2 kit to turn it into an XR, I have immediately and obviously better sound from the very start, and I have never used it at 48 or 96k.

They sound better because it is a superior chip and circuit design. Jim Williams might be able to tell you more about why; I can't even remember what the chips are exactly. I'm just a simple audio engineer...

L

[paul999]

hmmmmm time to upgrade. damn. Thanks.

[loujudson]

If you plan to, do it ASAP. Alesis seems to be abandoning the product - first the XR disappeared, now the EC2 is getting hard to find. If you come across one buy it immediately!

I'm afraid they have no plans to do anything when current stock runs out. I'm planning to buy a JoeCo box when they become available - they are better in so many ways, though nobody has had one to review and compare with the audio quality of the HD2XR. If it sounds as good A/D convertor-wise, using USB drives is enough to make it an obvious improvement.

But I hope my XR never dies!

L