The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why doesn't anyone make this?... Monitor Controllers
Old 30th November 2009
  #31
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
* 4 recording inputs (two stereo, two mono).
* 4-way recording input selector.
* Recording output to DAW.

2 Stereo and 2 mono inputs = 6 inputs. Is that what you meant?

What makes the stereo inputs 'stereo'? Why not just 4 inputs?

And why 4 inputs as opposed to 2, or 8?

I'm not bustin yer balls, just trying to get clear on your vision.

What would help me tremendously (if you're so inclined) would be to spell out a scenario and say *how you'd use it*, rather than listing the features you want. Sometimes there are better (or cheaper or easier) ways to implement functionality, and functionality is what you actually want, features are simply the means.

Thanks!


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Old 30th November 2009
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES View Post
May I do not get it but all the RME stuff is doing this very simple.
Just route the input in the matrix to the output switch of the host software output and you have left a technically latency of 1 ms...

so fun for me I can track my vocalist without any latency and it works.
.

Yes, man. So far, as I've said, the RME FF seems to be the best 'non simple analog box' solution - and the one we're currently using. There are some small issues w/ the FF, including slight bit loss concerns in splitting to both powered and passive monitors - adjusting using input selectors and fine-tuing in RME mix software may solve the problem, but seems slightly non-standard.

Cheers.
thumbsup

.
Old 30th November 2009
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
2 Stereo and 2 mono inputs = 6 inputs. Is that what you meant?

What makes the stereo inputs 'stereo'? Why not just 4 inputs?

And why 4 inputs as opposed to 2, or 8?

I'm not bustin yer balls, just trying to get clear on your vision.

What would help me tremendously (if you're so inclined) would be to spell out a scenario and say *how you'd use it*, rather than listing the features you want. Sometimes there are better (or cheaper or easier) ways to implement functionality, and functionality is what you actually want, features are simply the means.

Thanks!


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
.

Will do, Gregory.

We'll put up our list of current studio signal routing, and desired goals ASAP.

Thanks, man!


.
Old 1st December 2009
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
.

Well, we're close to 1,100 views, and some more interesting contribution here.

Thank you all so much for your feedback here. This is much appreciated.


And thanks, Silvertone, for that vibey looking box - very interesting - what does it sound like?



.
Think a fat little Neve/API type sound, slightly cleaner than a Neve, slightly thicker than an API... the best of both worlds IMHO. Right now my kick and snare are in the mic pre's on that puppy so I can watch the VU's from across the room when I play!

Run keyboard, bass or guitar through the instrument in's and really be prepared to be blown away by the sound. Up there with the best DI boxes on the market (and I own or have owned just about all of them) with the Reichenbach x-formers on the inputs and outputs it's a huge sound.

This one is very nice as well but only a 6x2 configuration (has a main & separate monitor & headphones section via the VU box that goes with it)....
Attached Thumbnails
Why doesn't anyone make this?...-q8-lm6200-6x2-mixer.jpg   Why doesn't anyone make this?...-q8-lm6200-vu-meters.jpg  
Old 1st December 2009
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
Think a fat little Neve/API type sound, slightly cleaner than a Neve, slightly thicker than an API... the best of both worlds IMHO. Right now my kick and snare are in the mic pre's on that puppy so I can watch the VU's from across the room when I play!

Run keyboard, bass or guitar through the instrument in's and really be prepared to be blown away by the sound. Up there with the best DI boxes on the market (and I own or have owned just about all of them) with the Reichenbach x-formers on the inputs and outputs it's a huge sound.

This one is very nice as well but only a 6x2 configuration (has a main & separate monitor & headphones section via the VU box that goes with it)....
.



.
Old 1st December 2009
  #36
Gear Head
 

Use scenario

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
And why 4 inputs as opposed to 2, or 8?
I'm not bustin yer balls, just trying to get clear on your vision.
Hi -- I work with Joseph on gear selection / evaluation, etc. Joseph says I should post something, because he's too sloppy, and you're too precise.

Here's the basic scenario. Joseph wants to choose an input to record, and he wants to choose what monitors to listen to it through. For example, he wants to record vocals from a mic and monitor through headphones. Or he wants to record guitar through a Pod and monitor through his HR824s. So, one button push to choose the record input, and one button push to choose the monitors.

Here are the input sources he has available at the moment:

- Buzz ARC (mono)
- Presonus MP20 (dual mono)
- Line6 Pod (stereo)
- Vox Tonelab (stereo)
- NI Guitar Rig (stereo)

Here are the monitors he has at the moment:

- Mackie HR824s
- Linkwitz Orions
- Presonus HP60 headphone preamp
(AKG 240 phones)

Most monitor control units can't mix the record signal with the playback from the DAW (for ZLM).

Of course, it would be good to have a volume setting for each input so we could dial it in relative to the playback level once and for all. And it would be good to monitor vocals with reverb but record them dry.

The FF800 can certainly do all this. Joseph just got it recently, so it's new to his workflow. But you can see that an analog monitor section could be simple and work well, without the need for full digital matrix mixing. I'll try to be clearer about the pros and cons of FF800 vs analog later. And I'll have a look at the MH and API stuff.

As for Joseph's budget, let's say around $1000. In some sense, it depends on build quality and sound quality. If it was an US-made, boutique high-end unit, we'd pay the appropriate price. It it was a mass-market Chinese-made unit, we'd pay the appropriate price. But nobody is making it, and it really seems that a lot of people could use it.

Thanks,

David
Old 2nd December 2009
  #37
.

Thanks, David.

Just to be clear, UBK - I'm Joseph...no, my real name is not Sqye...heh



.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #38
Gear Head
 

More info...

Okay, I looked at API, Metric Halo, and the Audient Centro.

API:

The 7800 Master Module is $2550.
The 8200 8-input line mixer is $1700.
Together, they form an 8-input 2U rackmount mixer for $4200.
They interface mainly via DB25.

I was hoping for a less expensive unit with XLR or TRS I/O. For the price of the API units, we can also consider SSL X-Desk, SSL X-Rack, Tonelux, or various 500 modules.

Metric Halo:

Sqye uses a PC, and MH is Mac-only, so it's a non-starter. They actually say "Mac-only" like it's a feature ! I think Steve Jobs writes their marketing literature.

But seriously, the MH unit is incredible, because of the DSP, which RME doesn't have. It might be worth buying a Mac just for the MH DSP !

The 2882 with DSP costs $2600. The ULN-8 with DSP costs $6000 (yow!). But the ULN-8 has analog level control, so you can connect your monitors directly without losing resolution.

Okay, back to earth. For this application, we don't need DSP, and we do need to run on PC. So we're better off with the FF800 than the MH.

Which brings us back to the analog-vs-digital question. An extra A/D/A conversion in the monitoring path won't kill us, since the latency is around 2ms. But in general:

* Not everyone has an audio interface with matrix mixing (Sqye only got the FF800 recently).

* From an aesthetic point of view, it's nice to stay in analog when possible. After all, we're talking about a simple mixer.

In general, we need three functions:
- Input selection for recording
- Zero-latency playback / record mixing
- Output selection for monitoring
And nothing does all of these.

Audient Centro:

The Audient Centro is *supposed* to do it all. And I think it can. But when you look at *how* you'd actually arrange it, it's not straightforward, and it seems like a misuse of the unit. So I'm disappointed.

The most promising unit I've seen is the SPL MTC 2381. It doesn't do Input selection, but it does ZLM and Ouput selection. Or at least I think it does -- the manual doesn't include a block diagram.

David
Old 3rd December 2009
  #39
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidespinosa View Post
It doesn't do Input selection, but it does ZLM and Ouput selection.

Honestly, from a designer's perspective the need for switchable input selection is gonna be a tough sell. You want 4 (or is it 6?) inputs, but that number is completely arbitrary and contingent on the uniqueness of your setup. Others will want 2, some 8... where should a designer draw the line?

This is why nobody makes exactly the configuration you want: it's too specialized to be a production piece.

Imho the choice of 2 fixed inputs is the most intelligent approach from a design perspective. It enables the functionality you seek and the stock config covers probably 50-70% of your market, no additional equipment needed. For folks like you who do want multiple source switching, all you need to do is put a patchbay upstream, it's why god invented them.

If you *really* want the convenience of hitting a button rather than patching a cable, just get a a line-level source selector, of which there are dozens if not hundreds of units out there with different i/o possibilities.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Old 3rd December 2009
  #40
.

Hey, thanks UBK, for the response...much appreciated, man thumbsup

I'm sure David will respond when he has a minute.


However, NOW in 2010 - I really DO NOT think my setup is so specialized or unique, at all.

MOST people recording these days have a roughly equivalent set-up!

DAW + a few inputs and outputs...seriously! I mean talk about basic!

You don't really get much more basic than this! And having to patch to 8/16/24/48 point patchbays for a few ins and outs is, again - just more unecessary hw / real estate.

Most people now simply don't need all this I/O, DB-25 connectors, expansion, etc.!

You want to switch between a few inputs and outputs, record, and playback...with ZLM.

I mean, hello?! ...Don't make me feel like a freak here...a few people here, some serious professionals, have already said they would buy one, if there was something equivalent available.

But there isn't. Instead, you've got to string together input and output with patchbays, splitters and monitoring.

I mean, it's not the end of the world, but jeeez, if I were a builder, I'd be seriously looking at this.

I'm sure you, yourself, could probably use one in your studio, UBK.

Yes, you can always makes something work in other ways. This is just a simpler idea. One simple box for basisc DAW I/O and mixable ZLM monitoring.

It's NOT rocket science - on the design OR sales/marketing end.

Until then, I guess it's RME FF + Coleman, or some equivalent.

.
Old 4th December 2009
  #41
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
However, NOW in 2010 - I really DO NOT think my setup is so specialized or unique, at all.

MOST people recording these days have a roughly equivalent set-up!

DAW + a few inputs and outputs...seriously! I mean talk about basic!

I mean, hello?! ...Don't make me feel like a freak here...

Hold on, you're misreading me. heh

I didn't mean to imply you were a freak for having several input sources. What I meant to say was that the actual number of sources you have is particular to your situation.

When you say "I just want to switch between a few inputs and outputs" understand that as a designer I can't design "a few", I have to choose a number. I have to factor in and balance out component and construction and real estate and circuit complexity issues with feature set and price point and end user needs.

In other words, I have to draw a line somewhere and that line has to balance economic good sense with maximizing utility for the greatest number of people.

Offering 2 inputs with a blend enables you to have what you need most: zero-latency monitoring of your signal in the analog domain. Without 2 inputs you have zero functionality, with them you have full functionality.

Once you go past 2, the actual number of inputs then becomes an issue not of functionality but of convenience for you. But that convenience comes at a cost, literally. Everything becomes more expensive and more complicated, and the resulting benefit of those 2 extra inputs is far less drastic and is not shared by everyone, although everyone bears the financial cost. Some users will only need 2, some will need 5, some 8, some 24.

I get that you need what you need; if you really need something that specific, you would do well to hit up the diy forums and contract somebody to build you one custom. It won't break your bank, and the box will reflect exactly what you need.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you're like everyone else I've ever known in this game, your setup will eventually change. If you add just one preamp, you're then in the same boat as most others, and will need to take one of steps I mentioned before: patchbay or external source selector.


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 4th December 2009
  #42
.

Thanks for taking the time here, UBK. Understood.

Again, I'm simply looking for a basic analog ZLM selectable DAW I/O box.

Not complicated. Specific I/O can always be tweaked. ZLM is the key.

Selectable I + selectable O is also key.

thumbsup

.
Old 4th December 2009
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
.

Thanks for taking the time here, UBK. Understood.

Again, I'm simply looking for a basic analog ZLM selectable DAW I/O box.

Not complicated. Specific I/O can always be tweaked. ZLM is the key.

Selectable I + selectable O is also key.

thumbsup

.
so you need a dangerous D-box with a littlelabs cloud trimmer.. totalcost = 2200$.

right? heh
Old 4th December 2009
  #44
Lives for gear
 
illacov's Avatar
 

All I'm going to say is that logistically on paper, the design of this sort of thing is rather simple.

If you know a tech then getting something like this built into a 2RU case is 1 2 3.
The concepts behind units like this are rather old, however, I find it interesting that we are recommending summing units and expensive mini mixers lol. The fact remains, this goes right up there with the protection for SDCs and LDCs that get used on drums. Its a simple thing yet nobody sells or makes it. But its rather obvious theres a need for it.

Looking forward to that email Dan!

Thanks

Peace
Illumination
Old 4th December 2009
  #45
Gear Nut
 

Once you get the Ff800 setup and running you'll realize you already have the box you've been continually describing with in/outs to spare. 2 cheap passive speaker attenuaters for the 2nd and 3rd monitor pairs and you're ready to roll. The GUI of the Rme is horrid but the matrix screen is simple enuf to setup the box to do just what you want.
Old 4th December 2009
  #46
Gear Head
 

UBK -- Excellent points about product design. Absolutely, one size never fits all. Also, I forgot another obvious reason to prefer analog over digital -- physical knobs.

illacov -- Thanks for offering to hook us up with your tech friend. Other people have offered to build stuff for us as well. We'll be in touch when we settle on a solution.

Part of the point to the thread was to get a solution for Sqye, and another part was to encourage manufacturers to add ZLM to their monitoring units, so we don't have to get a custom unit.

George -- That's brilliant! You're saying we can use the summing inputs on the D-Box as an input selector. And there's a "Sum Out" that we can record from! The Redcloud would be great at the summing inputs. And we can put a stereo attenuator between the DAW and the D-Box Analog In. [We could have used the Digital In for the DAW, but there's no level control.] Overall, very cool!

BTW, I read some posts about the SPL units, and they didn't inspire confidence. :(

David
Old 4th December 2009
  #47
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidespinosa View Post
UBK -- Excellent points about product design. Absolutely, one size never fits all. Also, I forgot another obvious reason to prefer analog over digital -- physical knobs.

illacov -- Thanks for offering to hook us up with your tech friend. Other people have offered to build stuff for us as well. We'll be in touch when we settle on a solution.

Part of the point to the thread was to get a solution for Sqye, and another part was to encourage manufacturers to add ZLM to their monitoring units, so we don't have to get a custom unit.

George -- That's brilliant! You're saying we can use the summing inputs on the D-Box as an input selector. And there's a "Sum Out" that we can record from! The Redcloud would be great at the summing inputs. And we can put a stereo attenuator between the DAW and the D-Box Analog In. [We could have used the Digital In for the DAW, but there's no level control.] Overall, very cool!

BTW, I read some posts about the SPL units, and they didn't inspire confidence. :(

David
yeah.. but remember that there are small buffer chips between your signal on the summing input and the sum out (obviously it's a summing box..). sound is pretty transparent.

stereo attenuator: smproaudio makes a cheap passive one. i tested it, and not so much sounddegradation. you should upgrade some stuff in there to adjust crosstalk and stereo balance.

cheers
G
Old 4th December 2009
  #48
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Songcatcher View Post
Once you get the Ff800 setup and running you'll realize you already have the box you've been continually describing with in/outs to spare.

He actually won't, because the box he's been describing is analog and offers immediate, visceral and tactile control over each function with a dedicated knob or switch.

This is not a small or trivial distinction; for many of us, our preference for the immediacy and simplicity of hardware solutions is non-negotiable and even though software can technically get the job done, we're willing to pay for a physical object that offers a radically different experience of the same job.


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 4th December 2009
  #49
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
Here, here! thumbsup

Speaking of tactile and visceral...my new console should be arriving any day now...

I'm an RME FF800 user myself and while TotalMix is brilliant and very flexible, it's still software. For me there's nothing like just turning some aux knobs on a console and hitting some assignment buttons to setup a cue mix. I felt so strongly about this that that I purchased a Toft ATB24 to accomodate this.

I totally get what Joseph and David are asking for in a product. There are things on the market you can cobble together to get the job done but the simple elegant integrated solution doesn't really exist in the correct form as far as I know. I think a lot of folks would find such a product useful if it were to exist. Especially all those guys using 8 channel FW interfaces recording only one or two sources at a time.

Brad
Old 4th December 2009
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidespinosa View Post
Okay, I looked at API, Metric Halo, and the Audient Centro.

API:

The 7800 Master Module is $2550.
The 8200 8-input line mixer is $1700.
Together, they form an 8-input 2U rackmount mixer for $4200.
They interface mainly via DB25.

I was hoping for a less expensive unit with XLR or TRS I/O. For the price of the API units, we can also consider SSL X-Desk, SSL X-Rack, Tonelux, or various 500 modules.

Metric Halo:

Sqye uses a PC, and MH is Mac-only, so it's a non-starter. They actually say "Mac-only" like it's a feature ! I think Steve Jobs writes their marketing literature.

But seriously, the MH unit is incredible, because of the DSP, which RME doesn't have. It might be worth buying a Mac just for the MH DSP !

The 2882 with DSP costs $2600. The ULN-8 with DSP costs $6000 (yow!). But the ULN-8 has analog level control, so you can connect your monitors directly without losing resolution.

Okay, back to earth. For this application, we don't need DSP, and we do need to run on PC. So we're better off with the FF800 than the MH.

Which brings us back to the analog-vs-digital question. An extra A/D/A conversion in the monitoring path won't kill us, since the latency is around 2ms. But in general:

* Not everyone has an audio interface with matrix mixing (Sqye only got the FF800 recently).

* From an aesthetic point of view, it's nice to stay in analog when possible. After all, we're talking about a simple mixer.

In general, we need three functions:
- Input selection for recording
- Zero-latency playback / record mixing
- Output selection for monitoring
And nothing does all of these.

Audient Centro:

The Audient Centro is *supposed* to do it all. And I think it can. But when you look at *how* you'd actually arrange it, it's not straightforward, and it seems like a misuse of the unit. So I'm disappointed.

The most promising unit I've seen is the SPL MTC 2381. It doesn't do Input selection, but it does ZLM and Ouput selection. Or at least I think it does -- the manual doesn't include a block diagram.

David
And yet I'll sell that Electrodyne for 2500.00 to a GS member (I was asking 3K on ebay last time I had one listed). I also sold one to a friend for 2K (that only had 2 mic pre's in it (later I got him 6 line input transformers) and he's using it as the backbone for his mastering rig).

I also have 4 extra mic pre cards for that puppy and it can be modded for direct outs.

Also as Tom Reichenbach told me they can't wind those transformers anymore as it was a lost art that only his Dad and a hand full of guys knew how to do at the time... he has tried a few times he told me... they are copper with a nickel underlay (just a work of art really). But in the end it's the sound that really matters and that's what this thing delivers... quality sound!
Old 4th December 2009
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Fishmed's Avatar
Joseph,

Have you looked at the MOTU 24 I/O?

The mixer on the PCI-424 card is very robust and would fit your requirements. I upgraded from their PCI-324 card awhile back and I was blown away how flexible their newer card is.

If you used the 24 I/O, you could have up to 12 stereo individual output mixes from all 24 inputs whether it is from outboard gear or from your DAW and there is no mixing latency.

I am using the 2048mkII, 1224, and 308 in my setup and I can mix and match my mixer's I/O like crazy.

You can PM me if you have any specific questions about the MOTU.
Old 4th December 2009
  #52
High End Moderator
 
mwagener's Avatar
Could this do what you are looking for?
MR816 CSX
Old 4th December 2009
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishmed View Post
Joseph,

Have you looked at the MOTU 24 I/O?

The mixer on the PCI-424 card is very robust and would fit your requirements. I upgraded from their PCI-324 card awhile back and I was blown away how flexible their newer card is.

If you used the 24 I/O, you could have up to 12 stereo individual output mixes from all 24 inputs whether it is from outboard gear or from your DAW and there is no mixing latency.

I am using the 2048mkII, 1224, and 308 in my setup and I can mix and match my mixer's I/O like crazy.

You can PM me if you have any specific questions about the MOTU.
.

Thank you very much for your input, here - Fishmed.

I had NIGHTMARES with the original 24 I/O. Their PC support was TERRIBLE.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass - for my purposes.


Also, thanks Michael, as usual - I haven't actually looked at that unit yet - will check it out! thumbsup

And Larry, the Electrodyne boxes are indeed intriguing, to say the least thumbsup

We'll post back later!

Thanks guys - you rock!


.
Old 4th December 2009
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Fishmed's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
.

Thank you very much for your input, here - Fishmed.

I had NIGHTMARES with the original 24 I/O. Their PC support was TERRIBLE.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass - for my purposes.


Also, thanks Michael, as usual - I haven't actually looked at that unit yet - will check it out! thumbsup

And Larry, your boxes are indeed intriguing, to say the least thumbsup

We'll post back later!

Thanks guys - you rock!


.
I can see where you are coming from. They actually have three versions of their PCI-424 card. The first version worked fine on my old PC, but when I built my new PC I had to get the newer card that comes in PCI or PCIe. I went with the PCIe version. Other than the card versions, MOTU has been quite stable for me on Calkwalk/SONAR since 1999 with the original PCI-324.

Good luck!
Old 4th December 2009
  #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishmed View Post
I can see where you are coming from. They actually have three versions of their PCI-424 card. The first version worked fine on my old PC, but when I built my new PC I had to get the newer card that comes in PCI or PCIe. I went with the PCIe version. Other than the card versions, MOTU has been quite stable for me on Calkwalk/SONAR since 1999 with the original PCI-324.

Good luck!
.

Yes, I'm a happy Sonar user - have been since DOS versions heh. I also have a special relationship with CW, and I'm a featured SONAR artist / producer, as well. Personally, I have no issues with CW.

However, I had no luck w/ the 24 I/O - for whatever reason - whether additional HW compatibility issues (UAD HW, etc.,) or that my productions tend to be extremely dense - tons of tracks, plugs, synths, etc. I had endless MIDI / audio sync / playback issues. And MOTU made it plain to me at that time - a few years ago - that they were not taking PC users seriously.

Also, I had really horrible experiences dealing with MOTU tech support.

Since my wife does high end corporate computer support for a living, I have ZERO patience for companies who do not want to serve their freeking customers

...Sorry - but you're pushing a button here

Thanks again for your suggestion - and I'm glad you've had success with MOTU.

Currently, the RME FF is blowing them out of the water. With little effort and setup time - the thing just does what it's supposed to do out of the box - imagine that!

Even the Presonus FP was lightyears easier to deal with.

Obviously, this is all just my personal experience.

I know this is High End, and there are plenty of High End Slutz with million dolar (+) studios working on PC these days - like Michael Wagener, etc. My studio is obviously humbler than this - but I do work with some higher end gear.

My close friend and tech consultant (as well as musician, language programmer and Gearslut) David Espinosa, has been integral in helping me explore, configure and even design and build gear for the last few decades.

So we're trying to figure this ZLM box out together!

Anyway, BOT. thumbsup

.
Old 4th December 2009
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Necola View Post
so you need a dangerous D-box with a littlelabs cloud trimmer.. totalcost = 2200$.

right? heh
.

Yeah, we talked with the guys at Dangerous at AES years ago about the same thing - and they still haven't done it heh

Certainly good suggestions, George - but again, 2 boxes.

Thank you, man thumbsup

.
Old 4th December 2009
  #57
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
He actually won't, because the box he's been describing is analog and offers immediate, visceral and tactile control over each function with a dedicated knob or switch.

This is not a small or trivial distinction; for many of us, our preference for the immediacy and simplicity of hardware solutions is non-negotiable and even though software can technically get the job done, we're willing to pay for a physical object that offers a radically different experience of the same job.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

Thank you for understanding, UBK!

thumbsup

.
Old 4th December 2009
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad McGowan View Post
Here, here! thumbsup

Speaking of tactile and visceral...my new console should be arriving any day now...

I'm an RME FF800 user myself and while TotalMix is brilliant and very flexible, it's still software. For me there's nothing like just turning some aux knobs on a console and hitting some assignment buttons to setup a cue mix. I felt so strongly about this that that I purchased a Toft ATB24 to accomodate this.

I totally get what Joseph and David are asking for in a product. There are things on the market you can cobble together to get the job done but the simple elegant integrated solution doesn't really exist in the correct form as far as I know. I think a lot of folks would find such a product useful if it were to exist. Especially all those guys using 8 channel FW interfaces recording only one or two sources at a time.

Brad
.

EXACTLY...Thanks, Brad!..thumbsup...And hey, have fun with your new mixer!

.
Old 4th December 2009
  #59
Gear Head
 

More...

Michael -- The MR816 CSX looks nice. DSP plus more attention to ZLM plus two HP outs could make it ergonomically better than the FF800. I'll look in more detail later. But I'm reluctant to give up those RME drivers! And we would prefer analog if possible.

Sqye -- The Redcloud is tiny and fits in the back of the rack. It provides input trim for the D-Box inputs, which we may not even need. We would need a stereo attenuator between the DAW and the D-Box, but that also fits in the back of the rack. And we'd need a TRS to DB-25 patchbay for the inputs, which also fits in the back. So it's an extremely good solution.
Old 4th December 2009
  #60
Gear Head
 

The Pope goes analog

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
for many of us, our preference for the immediacy and simplicity of hardware solutions is non-negotiable and even though software can technically get the job done, we're willing to pay for a physical object that offers a radically different experience of the same job.
I thought I was preaching to choir, but it turns out I'm preaching to the POPE !
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Matt Grondin / So much gear, so little time
5

Forum Jump
Forum Jump