The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Anybody using a Digi 003 or 002 with a Command 8 in PT 12?
Old 19th August 2017
  #1
Gear Nut
 

Anybody using a Digi 003 or 002 with a Command 8 in PT 12?

Currently own a Command 8. Use as control surface for PT 12, love it

I'm opening a second room across town. Want to bring C-8.

But don't want to leave other room controller-less...


Looked at C-8 manual, says you can use as 16-track alongside Digi 002 or 003.


I've seen videos of people using Digi 002 w/ PT 12. and 003 is supported officially to 12.7


But I haven't seen videos of anybody using a Digi 002 or 003 with a C-8 for a 16-fader control surface the way I'm imagining.

I'd like to go with adding an 002 or 003 if possible, rather than a non-Avid unit, to later on have the option to combine the two units as a 16 channel control surface, if I ever go back to having one place again.

if you have this set up then post pics & videos!!

Also: how does banking/paging work with 16 channels? are you stuck on 16 or do you have 32 or more??

any help? suggestions? thanks!
Old 19th August 2017
  #2
I was always under the impression it was either/or. I'd go artist mix if you want 16 faders - Eucon is great and they can be had 2nd hand cheaply in most areas. Still supported, not tying yourself to inferior IO etc.
Old 19th August 2017
  #3
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I was always under the impression it was either/or. I'd go artist mix if you want 16 faders - Eucon is great and they can be had 2nd hand cheaply in most areas. Still supported, not tying yourself to inferior IO etc.
thanks for the advice. I have IO covered, looking exclusively @ the automated controller capability of the 002 console. If I could put two C-8's together I would.

However, this is from the C-8 manual page 7 - maybe I'm understanding this wrong? :

"When used as a MIDI control surface with a supported Digi 002 system, Command|8 faders function as additional faders (9–16). (Plug-ins cannot be edited on Command|8 when used with a Digi 002.) You can use Command|8 for expanded fader control, or for remote transport control and monitoring."

So it's an 'officially supported' use - I just wanted to see if anyone is actually doing this.
Old 19th August 2017
  #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiobuild View Post
thanks for the advice. I have IO covered, looking exclusively @ the automated controller capability of the 002 console. If I could put two C-8's together I would.

However, this is from the C-8 manual page 7 - maybe I'm understanding this wrong? :

"When used as a MIDI control surface with a supported Digi 002 system, Command|8 faders function as additional faders (9–16). (Plug-ins cannot be edited on Command|8 when used with a Digi 002.) You can use Command|8 for expanded fader control, or for remote transport control and monitoring."

So it's an 'officially supported' use - I just wanted to see if anyone is actually doing this.
If you have io covered, the 002/3 won't help you then. You can't use it as a standalone controller, only as an interface with controller.

I didn't know that about the c8 functioning as an extension.

I had a 002, and I don't see why the Artist mix is much difference in implementation - the only thing is it doesn't have transport etc (though I have an artist control too, which has that function!)

If you're not up for artist mix (and that really is the best solution imo), I'd suggest a 2nd hand c8 - the 002/3 won't work for what you need.
Old 20th August 2017
  #5
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
If you have io covered, the 002/3 won't help you then. You can't use it as a standalone controller, only as an interface with controller.

I didn't know that about the c8 functioning as an extension.

I had a 002, and I don't see why the Artist mix is much difference in implementation - the only thing is it doesn't have transport etc (though I have an artist control too, which has that function!)

If you're not up for artist mix (and that really is the best solution imo), I'd suggest a 2nd hand c8 - the 002/3 won't work for what you need.
Why won't an 002/003 work? There are two FireWire ports on the back. My other IO is an apogee duet that uses FireWire, so I can just daisy chain the duet from the 002/003.. just cuz it has 4 channels doesn't mean I have to use them... right?

I already have a c8 I don't want to buy another since I can't link them together in the future..

I am resisting the artist mix for two reasons: high price and weak plug in control/mapping.. ( I am ITB with an SSL plug on every channel)

Plz See the following video on why C8 is better than artist mix for plugins. I agree with the guy. C8 is wayyyy underrated!! Not sexy and new but gets the job done the best

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=faqwPMq_Kqo
Old 20th August 2017
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiobuild View Post
Why won't an 002/003 work? There are two FireWire ports on the back. My other IO is an apogee duet that uses FireWire, so I can just daisy chain the duet from the 002/003.. just cuz it has 4 channels doesn't mean I have to use them... right?

I already have a c8 I don't want to buy another since I can't link them together in the future..

I am resisting the artist mix for two reasons: high price and weak plug in control/mapping.. ( I am ITB with an SSL plug on every channel)

Plz See the following video on why C8 is better than artist mix for plugins. I agree with the guy. C8 is wayyyy underrated!! Not sexy and new but gets the job done the best

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=faqwPMq_Kqo
You can't separate the control function from the interface, unless it's changed in PT10 (I got rid of my 002 when PT9 came out). It's one driver for both. You can't use the 002/3 as a control surface but the Duet for IO.
Old 20th August 2017
  #7
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
You can't separate the control function from the interface, unless it's changed in PT10 (I got rid of my 002 when PT9 came out). It's one driver for both. You can't use the 002/3 as a control surface but the Duet for IO.
ohhhhhh if that is true that would suck.

however, why would they have two firewire ports on the back if it was not intended to daisy chain it to another IO interface??

i have successfully used two devices for IO - mackie onyx 1640i (16 inputs) daisy chained to the duet for 18 inputs, clocked internally to the mac, and it works in pro tools 12..

not sure why an 002 would be any different??
Old 20th August 2017
  #8
Lives for gear
 
huub's Avatar
I haven't tried it in PT12, but in PT11 I could choose digi003 as interface (and thus controller), and after that change my audio interface, and the 003 would stil work as a controller.

(Not really answering your question but might be useful info for some people)
Old 21st August 2017
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiobuild View Post
ohhhhhh if that is true that would suck.

however, why would they have two firewire ports on the back if it was not intended to daisy chain it to another IO interface??

i have successfully used two devices for IO - mackie onyx 1640i (16 inputs) daisy chained to the duet for 18 inputs, clocked internally to the mac, and it works in pro tools 12..

not sure why an 002 would be any different??

Quote:
Originally Posted by huub View Post
I haven't tried it in PT12, but in PT11 I could choose digi003 as interface (and thus controller), and after that change my audio interface, and the 003 would stil work as a controller.

(Not really answering your question but might be useful info for some people)
If that's the case it goes against what I've said - but if a fiddle for a "pro studio" but it might get you through.

It's different to other manufactures because with pro tools you've got a complete system from one manufacturer - didn't use coreaudio, it used their own DAE drivers. It's not like a coreaudio + control
Surface driver, everything was built into PT.

Ps the 2nd port could be for anything - drive for example. Or a 2nd interface for a different application perhaps?
Old 21st August 2017
  #10
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by huub View Post
I haven't tried it in PT12, but in PT11 I could choose digi003 as interface (and thus controller), and after that change my audio interface, and the would stil work as a controller.

(Not really answering your question but might be useful info for some people)
interesting…what exactly do you mean by "change" though?
change/select new audio interface under peripherals inside ?
can you expand on this….what interface and connection type TB/Firewire/USB
Old 21st August 2017
  #11
Lives for gear
 
huub's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky View Post
interesting…what exactly do you mean by "change" though?
change/select new audio interface under peripherals inside ?
can you expand on this….what interface and connection type TB/Firewire/USB
If your change you audio interface (set up> playback engine) to any other audio interface.
Old 8th May 2019
  #12
TJ5
Gear Nut
Old thread but just wanted to add that I'm currently using my Digi002 that I bought in 2003 as a control surface for my Apollo Twin Quad Mk2 on Pro Tools 11 and everything's working fine. Like huub mentioned above, I have to set the playback engine to the Digi002 first before switching it back to Universal Audio in order for the Digi002 to work as a control surface.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #13
Here for the gear
 

Still using a Digi002

Hello all, this my first post and I apologize for reawakening an old thread. I am currently running Pro Tools 8 LE on an old 2009 MacBook Pro (OSX 10.6.8, 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4GB 1967 MHz DDR3/250SD) and using a Digi002 rack for A/D convertors. This setup stays in my basement, my DW drum kit is mic’d up with some decent standard microphones. Two AKG C414s as overheads, two SM81s for the ride and hi hat, two Sennheiser MD421s on the rack and floor tom, SM57 on the snare top, and an AKG D112 inside the kick. The OHs, snare, and kick feed into a Warm Audio WA412 preamp, and the other four mics go into a Black Lion Audio modified M-Audio ProFire 2626 connected to the Digi002 by ADAT.

The sound quality I get is pretty decent, but my question to you guys is: is the Digi002 my limiting factor as far as audio quality, or should this theoretically not matter since I record at 44.1 kHz 24 bit? Would there be any benefit to updating my word clock, or buying a new A/D interface all together? If so, any recommendations?

I should also note that upstairs, I use Pro Tools 12.8 on a 2011 iMac (i7-2600 Quad Core 3.4GHz 32GB memory). With this setup, I record vocals, guitars, keyboard, etc. using a Black Lion Audio B173 into a Digi002 board. Again, I’m thinking the Digi002 board would be my limiting factor as far as the sound quality that I can attain, or am I assigning the blame to the Digi002 unjustly? Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
huub's Avatar
I'm sure audio quality of audio interfaces has gone up through the years but back then I have heard organic sounding great productions recorded with a 002.
So a "limiting factor" it is not I would say.

Huub
Old 4 weeks ago
  #15
TJ5
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by recombinantdna View Post
The sound quality I get is pretty decent, but my question to you guys is: is the Digi002 my limiting factor as far as audio quality, or should this theoretically not matter since I record at 44.1 kHz 24 bit? Would there be any benefit to updating my word clock, or buying a new A/D interface all together? If so, any recommendations?

Again, I’m thinking the Digi002 board would be my limiting factor as far as the sound quality that I can attain, or am I assigning the blame to the Digi002 unjustly? Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
I'm only a hobbyist right now so I'm no expert by any means but I did take up recording arts engineering back in 1990 and performed and still performing in a band since 1989. I upgrade to the Digi002 in 2003 after using a Fostex R8 since 1989. I upgraded last year to a UA Apollo Twin Quad and doing everything ITB (In The Box) now.

To my ears, I can't hear any significant difference between the Digi002 and the Twin Quad even though the dynamic range is 108dB vs 115dB and THD is 98dB vs 105dB (I recorded some vocals using both interfaces and listened with headphones). The newer Twin X is 127dB and 117dB respectively so perhaps that jump is more noticeable.

Hope that helps.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump