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
MOTU 1248, 8M, 16A Thunderbolt interface Audio Interfaces
Old 16th April 2015
  #1441
cbm
Gear Head
 
cbm's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaBrain View Post
So yes, by itself 30 samples isn't a huge deal. It's all of the little system delays that add up. 0.5ms being ~ half a foot isn't a big deal for a virtual piano, but when cumulative delays add up to several milliseconds it can be problematic for a sensitive player. If you are used to hearing player perspective from the piano bench, it can be frustrating when the piano suddenly sounds 6-8ft away from you.
I suppose that a 6-8ms delay could maybe start to get annoying, but there's already a latency between the middle of a grand piano keyboard and your ears of maybe 2-3ms, and the high and low ends of the keyboard of maybe a couple ms more, so I still have a little trouble considering the 625 µSec as much of a problem. It does add up, but there must be some juicier low hanging fruit in a system than this tiny difference.

Quote:
Vocalists tend to be much more sensitive as well. For a guitar player through an amp, this wouldn't be an issue as that distance would seem pretty normal.
To a vocalist that is used to using stage wedges this shouldn't be an issue.

A lot of electric guitarists have a fair amount of latency between their ears and their brain, in addition to the latency between their amp and their ears. (I'm a guitarist)

I used a Yamaha 02r console for a while, and it had a couple ms latency, and no one ever complained about it. Well at least no one ever complained about the latency


Quote:
I typically use a HEAR system following an analog monitor board pulling signals directly for the talent. I can apply effects or inserts this way with virtually no latency and also fulfill the occasional funky request without printing.
The 1248 has its own DSP mixer that lets you do similar things with monitor mixes. Plus, isn't the HEAR system based on digital distribution? Doesn't it impose its own latency?

Quote:
I realize those 30 samples alone won't solve these issues that we have to work around as engineers, but if everyone improves product performance a little bit.... First world problems I know. We are leaps and bounds from where we were even a decade ago.
Ain't that the truth? The fact that we're discussing a sub-ms difference in audio interfaces that provide remarkably high audio quality shows that we've come a long way.
Old 16th April 2015
  #1442
Here for the gear
 

To answer your question, the HEAR system latency would be comparable to using the direct monitoring features of the 1248. The spec is < 1.5ms total system latency. It's been a good solution and it eliminates a lot of the "more me" requests that can slow down a session. Clients love it and that's what is most important. The 1248 mixer would be a good solution as well but would require a more hands-on engineering approach. Some engineers will like that. Giving talent any controls is a big no-no to some. Others won't. It's all about preferred workflow. But I suppose this is really topic for another discussion.

I agree with the rest for the most part but ask that you keep an open mind when it comes to latency sensitivity. True, a lot of players won't complain about 6-8ms of latency. Experience has shown me that some do notice as the placebo tricks I might use to pacify a diva won't work on those that really perceive it. They can detect it repeatably. That tells me the concern is real. I can't hear it as much as I can 'feel' it on a piano. At the end of the day it's about making the customer happy. I've never had a complaint under 2ms and anyone perceiving latency under 4ms likely popped out of the pages of a Marvel comic book. Similarly most people can't see 120Hz flicker of an incandescent light bulb, but the 100Hz flicker of 50Hz AC circuits is very perceptible to some people and even more can catch it out of their peripheral vision. I've very much enjoyed this geeky discussion though. Try to have a technical conversation about latency in the studio and that's when the talent will choose to go for a smoke! Haha.

To bring this back to topic and to clarify, I'm certainly not trying to imply the 1248 is deficient in this regard. It is marginally behind another excellent product in this spec alone. With regard to latency it performs better than the Symphony I/O even, and it is only slightly behind the Pro Tools HD Native interface specs. My recommendation to the original poster is don't let latency disparities influence purchase decision. Audio quality and flexibility are much higher weighted factors. I'm VERY pleased with my 1248 purchase and would recommend it. MOTU raised the bar with the AVB line.
Old 16th April 2015
  #1443
Quote:
Originally Posted by skjensen View Post
This is great, it means that output can be trimmed without audio degradation!!!

Are there other ways of accessing the DAC's internal volume control?

Is it possible to link trims for several channels to scale them up and down in parallel?
Yup! As for other ways of accessing the controls, you can get to them from the front panel of the interface. You could also control them (like anything you see in the web app) via OSC or the HTTP API. While there's no built-in way to link several trims together, you could use something like TouchOSC to make a knob that updates the trims as a group.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash Telecaster View Post
I am considering buying one of these. I actually started a thread, choosing an audio interface, but saw this and since it is relevant I thought I would post.

First off, I am an amateur. Well I do get paid for playing out on occasion but not as a studio tech. So I do question the wisdom of spending this much on an interface. It's definitely a want, not a need.

Here are the things that make this appealing to me.

1. Thunderbolt. It's new, it's fast. Hopefully it will be around for a while.

2. 16 line level inputs that will interface nicely with my mixer which has 16 direct outs.

3. Decent metering.

One thing that I see as a potential problem is my PC is in another room to keep the heat and the noise over there. It looks like a $300 investment in a suitable cable in addition to the cost of the unit. That is a critical consideration for my amateur budget.

The second concern is that while this thing is feature packed I don't know that it will outperform, audio quality-wise, other interfaces that cost significantly less. For example the Allen & Heath ICE-16 which uses Firewire. The unit costs less and the cable for the A&H will cost about $30 and Firewire is theoretically better than the usb 2 interface I'm using now although I have read that Firewire can be finicky and is a dieing standard.

There are much cheaper alternatives as well like the Presonus Firestudio Project. I can get 2 of those for around $800. I have no doubt both the Motu and A&H are higher quality but does that actually produce a better result especially considering it will be used very lightly in my home compared to a pro studio.

In fact my existing Tascam us-1800 is a 24/96 device. Sure it is a budget piece of gear but will there actually be a significant improvement in audio quality? Is the increase in dollars more a matter of function than audio quality? Will it make a difference when it is connected to my other lower end gear like my Mackie 1604-vlz pro board?

Obviously I am not the demographic that Motu is aiming for with this device. Still I am an audio junky and this thing looks way too cool.
With the AVB line, we're trying to combine near top-of-the-line quality; flexible configurations; expansion via AVB; and a (relatively) affordable price point given all that. Choosing an interface is all about what best fits your needs and budget. As for whether it's worth it for you and your setup, I can't say. $1500 is a lot of money and I myself wouldn't want to drop that much without knowing what I was getting. See if you can borrow one from a local audio shop to audition, perhaps. I would say the same for other interfaces you're considering.

I noticed that you mentioned a PC and Thunderbolt. We don't currently have a Thunderbolt audio driver for Windows so that's not really an option at this time. On the plus side, a long USB cable is a lot cheaper!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guitarmuzic View Post
I have been watching this thread hoping for a response from Mr. Miller ensuring us that the reverb is just as good in the AVB devices and with some tips for tweaking the reverb sound. Still no feedback aside from a few people saying they don't care about the DSP. At least I know from the several other responses here that others are also unhappy with the AVB reverb sound so I am not imagining things. Can anyone offer help about the reverb before I return or sell the ultralite AVB?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tft View Post
as said earlier, i still like what this unit does for me in all other regards (i have a 112D). all the connection options, routing, the whole mixer apart from the reverb (update for compressor is coming (automakeupgain switchable), as stated by mr. miller).
it is so well designed in all aspects, that i just need to call for "DECENT REVERB"
We're listening and brainstorming ways to improve things. The reverb algorithm is somewhat constrained by DSP resources on the box at this point. Most major changes would mean less DSP for EQs and compressors. That may end up being a worthwhile tradeoff but we still need to look into it further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bduke View Post
MrMiller, please consider adding the high pass filter to the reverb and group's channel strip.
Hmm... I'll look into why that's not available on the Reverb bus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by and3x View Post
I am now at a crossroads and need to commit into a purchase. I have been holding off as long as possible in order to get some more info about the Thunderbolt support on Windows. Im building a live-rig where the lowest possible input-->output latency is of critical importance. Are there any news or advances regarding TB/Windows. I know drivers will not probably roll out tomorrow, but if i could get some kind of indication of the status of win/TB, then the 1248 is still my no. 1 contender.
It's still a real possibility but we haven't started writing a Windows Thunderbolt driver yet. We are definitely interested in getting low latency performance on Windows. I can't guarantee we'll get there via Thunderbolt, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by and3x View Post
In this live-rig i might have to use a second PC to do some of the heavy VST-amp-sim lifting since i will be at 24/96. Is it possible to use the ADAT´s of the 1248 to connect to a second PC in a "real time roundtrip matter"? What i want to do is this:

1. Connect the whole band into the pre´s of the 1248. Send some of these channels to the "main DAW" that the 1248 is connected to.
2. Send the rest of the inputs directly to the ADAT-outs (bypassing DAW/computer) and going into the second PC´s ADAT-in for real-time (well, low latency) processing there.
3. Those processed signals then get routed back into the 1248/main DAW via second PC´s ADAT-out into 1248´s ADAT-in, and then merged with the processed audio of the main DAW at stereo out.

Presuming i have the same latency and buffer settings on both computers, would this work? The routing in itself is purely digital, so that would not result in any latency due to AD/DA, right? Since its not a matter of splitting individual instruments across the computers i guess i would not have to deal with any phasing issues?
Your other PC has ADAT? Or would it be via another audio interface? Regardless, the 1248 would have no issue with such a routing. There's going to be some latency induced by looping through the second computer but the ADAT itself won't be the driving force in that. As such, you'll need to do some latency compensation at some point in the chain to get the two computers aligned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swartzfeger View Post
It's down to the 1248 and the Ensemble 2 for me, the biggest thing being for me is low-latency monitoring. I usually program a scratch track in SS4 then DI bass and guitar over that. For whatever reason, my timing with previous setups was always terrible unless I bounced my track in Logic X. And I don't want to be forced into screwing around with a software mixer like I was with my Apollo. That's part of the Ensemble's appeal -- plug it in, arm track in Logic, done. Is the 1248 the same?

Looks like I'll be starting fresh with page 1 to see if there are any comparisons with Ensemble's DMA latency (hint hint) :D
The latency's pretty similar, though as others have mentioned, we're about 30 samples slower. And yes, we do support direct hardware monitoring. You'd route your analog input into the computer and also into the mixer along along with your computer outputs. You'd then route that summed bus to your monitors. Once you set it up once, you're good to go. You'd probably want to mute the track in Logic so you don't hear the signal passing through the computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaBrain View Post
I do see that MOTU recently released a new driver that significantly reduced the latency of this unit to what I am reporting now. This type of continued development is much appreciated. Perhaps we could see parity between the Ensemble 2 latency and the 1248 in the future?
It should be possible to improve the latency further but it's admittedly not one of our top priorities right now. We've got lots of features and fixes we're working on!
Old 16th April 2015
  #1444
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaBrain
I hate to nit pick over 30 samples, but this is gearslutz and most of us obsess over the last 5-10% of performance per routine.
Yes, we'll nitpick over 30 samples... all while ignoring an additional 4 preamps and $1,000 dollars
Old 16th April 2015
  #1445
Gear Head
 

Thanks Mr Miller,

I appreciate the info. I didn't realize you didn't have a Windows Thunderbolt driver. Thats good to know. Now I just have to decide if I should wait for the new stuff to come out of go with usb 2 or Firewire. From my reading it looks like I can get a 30' Firewire 400 cable and in theory it will even work. I'm using a 36' usb 2 cable now that works fine.
Old 16th April 2015
  #1446
cbm
Gear Head
 
cbm's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikoli View Post
Yes, we'll nitpick over 30 samples... all while ignoring an additional 4 preamps and $1,000 dollars
I don't think that those are ignored as much as they are just obvious enough distinctions that they don't need much discussion.
Old 17th April 2015
  #1447
Here for the gear
 

[QUOTE=mrmiller;10975753]
We're listening and brainstorming ways to improve things. The reverb algorithm is somewhat constrained by DSP resources on the box at this point. Most major changes would mean less DSP for EQs and compressors. That may end up being a worthwhile tradeoff but we still need to look into it further.


Dear Mr. Miller,

I for one would be happy to sacrifice some of the DSP resources devoted to EQs and compressors in favor of a better sounding reverb. Maybe there could be a "reverb quality" button on the reverb panel, where the user could choose how much of the DSP resources would go to reverb.
Old 17th April 2015
  #1448
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmiller View Post
We're listening and brainstorming ways to improve things. The reverb algorithm is somewhat constrained by DSP resources on the box at this point. Most major changes would mean less DSP for EQs and compressors. That may end up being a worthwhile tradeoff but we still need to look into it further.
encouraging to hear you're discussing it!
thanks for listening.
Old 17th April 2015
  #1449
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbm View Post
I don't think that those are ignored as much as they are just obvious enough distinctions that they don't need much discussion.
I don't disagree that those are obvious distinctions... but for some reason people keep comparing the 1248 to the Ensemble. So it seems like the difference may not be all that obvious to some.

I mean... if you don't need the additional 4 pres that the Ensemble offers, why would you pay the extra $1,000 dollars for it vs the 1248?

Conversely, if you do need the additional pres then shouldn't you be looking at the 8m... seeing if it offers enough functionality to look past the Ensemble (and its additional cost)?
Old 17th April 2015
  #1450
I still have a hard time seeing reverb as an issue. Can someone gimme the short form as to why this truly matters? Are you guys just talking live settings? Why not use a DAW reverb?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, absolutely in love with my MOTU 16a. And if I ever need more that 16 I/O, I'll just buy another!
Old 17th April 2015
  #1451
Gear Maniac
Does anyone know whether these interfaces have compatibility with Logic Pro X ?

For instance, in LPX 10.1 and Logic Remote 10.2 you can control common parameters on recent apogee audio interfaces from within the mixer window/view. Does the Motu have similar functionality?

Here's a description of what I'm talking about.
Old 17th April 2015
  #1452
cbm
Gear Head
 
cbm's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikoli View Post
For instance, in LPX 10.1 and Logic Remote 10.2 you can control common parameters on recent apogee audio interfaces from within the mixer window/view. Does the Motu have similar functionality?
Not directly from Logic, but because the control is done through a browser, any platform that has a browser can control everything about the interface.
Old 17th April 2015
  #1453
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmiller View Post

We're listening and brainstorming ways to improve things. The reverb algorithm is somewhat constrained by DSP resources on the box at this point. Most major changes would mean less DSP for EQs and compressors. That may end up being a worthwhile tradeoff but we still need to look into it further.
Mr. Miller,

Thanks for your continued information and replies on this forum. The information you are providing is a great help to everyone involved. Also, thanks for this reply to the specific topic of the AVB Reverb.

The marketing copy for the Ultralite AVB claims that it has twice the DSP power of earlier models. However, the Ultralite Mk3 and 828 mk3 run cuemixfx with what seem to be very similar EQ and compression on each channel and each bus, but with what seems like much better sounding reverb with 4 room choices (probably a more complicated reverb algorithm).

How is it that the Ultralite AVB, with more processing power, doesn't have enough power left for at least the same quality reverb processing as the older model? Are we to assume that running the browser based mixer on the AVB boxes consumes more processing power than the stand-alone mixing offered on the Mk3 models? Is it because of this web based mixer being hosted on the AVB boxes themselves that the Reverb algorithm had to be simplified and this caused the sound quality to be lesser than the Reverb of the Mk3?

Again, I appreciate the feedback you have provided, even though this is disappointing to hear. I was very excited with the release of the new Ultralite AVB, specifically for the control offered from phones and tablets, along with improved sound quality. However, the step back in Reverb quality is not worth it for me, as that is one of the main reasons I use the Ultralite - for a very high quality digital mixer for live sound with a very small footprint.
Old 17th April 2015
  #1454
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sam guaiana View Post
I still have a hard time seeing reverb as an issue. Can someone gimme the short form as to why this truly matters? Are you guys just talking live settings? Why not use a DAW reverb?
Yes, just talking live settings. I perform full time for a living with about 5 gigs per week with guitar and voice. I play a huge variety of venues and usually provide my own sound system. I have a lot of live sound gear and take larger or smaller setups depending on the gig.

I use the Ultralite MK3 hybrid as a compact digital mixer. It is the smallest mixer I have found which offers eq, compression, limiting and reverb. The main factor in using it is that it is tiny and super portable, allowing me to setup and tear down very fast with a very small setup. I use many other pieces of sound equipment for larger gigs, or when working with a band, but for the smallest solo shows when I still want to have eq, compression, limiting, and good reverb, the Ultralite MK3 really shines. It sounds great, plus I can record the stereo main mix digital direct to the MAudio Microtrack II, or I can bring a laptop and record the guitar and vocal separate to mix later for a great quality live recording.

I have had great luck with using the Ultralite MK3 hybrid as a very tiny stand-alone mixer for pluging in my vocal mic and guitar. I have spent a lot of time dialing in the EQ, compression, reverb, and limiter on each channel to create a great sounding mix. I have saved several presets depending on if I am plugging straight into the ultralite then into the main PA, or if I am using my acoustic guitar amp and sending a vocal sound to the amp, then the line out from the amp with guitar and voice back to the ultralite to mix for a the main outputs. I have different mixes for if I am singing solo with one mic, or if another vocalist joins me then I simply change to another preset with effects setup on the 2nd mic pre. All of these high quality mixing tools can be edited from the front panel, or for easier use I can bring a laptop to bring up the cuemixfx software mixer.

I have been very happy with the live mix I can get from the Ultralite MK3. I use an 828MK3 in a larger setup racked with a seperate lexicon effects unit for vocal reverb and delay, but the Ultralite Mk3 is so small it is very convenient to use when I want to pack light and get in and out of gig as fast as possible. Trust me, when you setup and tear down your own equipment by yourself 5-7 times a week, it is a relief to have a very small system that works for some of the smaller gigs.

For recording, of course I almost always use a plugin for editing and mixing changes, so my point about the AVB reverb quality is strictly for live sound use. This may not affect a lot of people because I bet most people are only using the reverb for direct monitoring while tracking in the studio. However, the small footprint of the Ultralite makes it a great live digital mixer for my case where I play solo most of the time and can use the same mix each gig. I can make small adjustments from the front panel of the MK3 devices, and I thought the wireless control of the AVB devices would be great.

For live sound mixing with effects, the inferior sound quality of the Reverb on the Ultralite AVB compared to the Mk3 is a real bummer and is a deal breaker for me. I am very surprised that MOTU would have compromised the excellent effects quality of the Mk3 on this newer AVB model. I never would have guessed this by reading all the specs and marketing copy of the Ultralite AVB, but after buying one and trying to duplicate the same mix I have setup on the Ultralite Mk3, the Reverb quality on the AVB just sounds bad in comparison.

That turned into a very long answer, but I hope you can understand what the importance is of the reverb quality now. When I want the best possible live sound I take more gear, a lot larger rack with more effects and control, but the ultrailte Mk3 is a killer digital mixer in a very small box! Too bad the AVB did not retain the same high quality DSP effects.
Old 17th April 2015
  #1455
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbm View Post
Not directly from Logic, but because the control is done through a browser, any platform that has a browser can control everything about the interface.
Got it. Thanks!

Apple/Logic makes it sound like it's a function that's available to any interface manufacturer to do... so I don't believe it's exclusive to Apogee. I wonder if Motu plans to include this functionality in any of their AVB products.
Old 18th April 2015
  #1456
cbm
Gear Head
 
cbm's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikoli View Post
Apple/Logic makes it sound like it's a function that's available to any interface manufacturer to do... so I don't believe it's exclusive to Apogee. I wonder if Motu plans to include this functionality in any of their AVB products.
I'm not sure that that's a public API. I wonder if anyone else has implemented this?

At any rate, you can do all the same stuff with the MOTU AVB series, you just have to use a second app to do it. In practice, this extra step doesn't bother me too much, as it mostly setup stuff.
Old 18th April 2015
  #1457
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sam guaiana View Post
I still have a hard time seeing reverb as an issue. Can someone gimme the short form as to why this truly matters? Are you guys just talking live settings? Why not use a DAW reverb?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, absolutely in love with my MOTU 16a. And if I ever need more that 16 I/O, I'll just buy another!
monitoring in the studio with lowest latency, while keeping the usb driver at safe settings (1024 smpl for example). going through my ad converter to the 112D through the mixer and back to the converter for monitoring gives me a latency of under 1 ms, which is just not achievable when going through the daw, even with lowest buffersettings for the usb driver.
live use is not that critical with latency, but still nice to have lowest latency, if possible.
seems not to be of concern for you, everybody has different needs/views.

i love my 112D too, but that doesn't keep me from having ideas for improvement, where it seems appropriate and useful.
Old 18th April 2015
  #1458
Gear Maniac
I just received two of the new Motu Interfaces and they're a blast! Sound quality is better than I need it anyway for a live situation and the interfaces absolutely delivered in the features I was looking for (low latency, local DSP mixing, flexibility in routing, stability and expandability). With a buffersize setting of 64 samples on 44.1 I get 3.32(!) ms latency and the routing possibilities are endless. I had an issue with the AVB stream in the beginning but it was resolved when I upgraded the firmware. After updating, I couldn't replicate the issue... Which is good I guess

I do have one wish though: Why are the Mix Post FX Inputs not post fader but pre fader? I would really love to be able to control the level of these inputs with the mixer's fader but unfortunately that's not possible... or am I missing something?

So great buy overall, can't recommend these interfaces enough!

Last edited by kirky; 18th April 2015 at 07:44 PM..
Old 18th April 2015
  #1459
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by not like this View Post
I just got a 16A to add to my 1248 and I'm having serious issues.

Connected the 16A to the 1248 via Cat 5. The 1248 is plugged into my Hackintosh via Thunderbolt. Both pieces are running the latest firmware.

There seems to be a bandwidth limitation that is sporadic. The AVB streams seem to randomly cut into what all my session musicians are lovingly calling "8-bit mode" . It has an awful high pitched squeel and everything sounds terrible... then it just goes away.

Mr. Miller can you help? Any similar issues from anyone else?
That's the problem I was talking about in my post above. Like I said, I couldn't replicate it with the latest firmware but since the guy I quoted here is also running the latest firmware, I'm wondering if the problem really got fixed by the update or if it's still there and I was just lucky that it didn't occur last time I used it. I'm currently on a trip and can't test it, but I would love to hear if this issue has been adressed, since I use the interfaces live and such a thing occuring on stage would be fatal. Mr. Miller?
Old 19th April 2015
  #1460
Here for the gear
 

reverb

Quote:
Originally Posted by sam guaiana View Post
I still have a hard time seeing reverb as an issue. Can someone gimme the short form as to why this truly matters? Are you guys just talking live settings? Why not use a DAW reverb?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, absolutely in love with my MOTU 16a. And if I ever need more that 16 I/O, I'll just buy another!
My only complaint with the reverb is the lack of high pass filter on it's channel strip. When I solo the wet signal on the reverb on sources I get too much low end rumble even with the low shelf @ -20db . Then I have to use the mid to remove more low end.

I was initially annoyed with the reverb controls but have gotten better at adjusting it. So I can see how other's may be unhappy.

That said, I also love the hell out of this box (Ultralite AVB). I think the compressors are very useful and the routing and general flexibility is a dream come true. Also for me the drivers perform very well on a pretty plain PC (i5 with 8GB).
Old 19th April 2015
  #1461
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bduke View Post
My only complaint with the reverb is the lack of high pass filter on it's channel strip. When I solo the wet signal on the reverb on sources I get too much low end rumble even with the low shelf @ -20db . Then I have to use the mid to remove more low end.
and in addition to the highpass filter, please change the layout of the mid/high controls to low/high (it should have been like that from the beginning).
but i repeat myself ...
Old 20th April 2015
  #1462
Lives for gear
 
emrr's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tft View Post
and in addition to the highpass filter, please change the layout of the mid/high controls to low/high (it should have been like that from the beginning).
but i repeat myself ...
Mid and hi is more representative of the way reverberation actually propagates/diffuses in nature, addition of a HPF option would let you control the bottom.
Old 20th April 2015
  #1463
Lives for gear
 
emrr's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by emrr
I still haven't seen any comment about direct hardware playthrough for DP. Anything there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmiller View Post
We're actively thinking about ways of adding a similar feature to DP for the AVB line. The architecture is so different compared to the CueMix FX boxes, though, that it's a little tricky and takes some doing.
Yet you can make the 16A do direct hardware playthrough if it's connected via ADAT to a MOTU box that does support direct hardware playthrough. So close....
Old 20th April 2015
  #1464
Here for the gear
 

My 1248 arrived last week. This is a significant upgrade from the old presonus firepod so I am very happy with what I've got. With AVB, the possibilities are immense for a home studio. Fortunately I have cat 5e connectivity in pretty much every room around the house so you can imagine how excited I am about the flexibility AVB can bring.

My wishlist: A "nanolite" interface - smaller form factor and reduced connectivity compared to the ultralite (e.g. 1 mic in, 2 inst/line in, 2 line out, 1 headphones out, AVB eth, possibly midi i/o) at a reduced price (ie in the $300-400 range).
Old 21st April 2015
  #1465
tft
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emrr View Post
Mid and hi is more representative of the way reverberation actually propagates/diffuses in nature, addition of a HPF option would let you control the bottom.
these controls are not about, how sound may propagate in nature.
but to give you the right control of how to shape a reverbmodel, so it gives you the right cues over loudspeakers to evoke the illusion of space, room, hall, ...
we are not dealing with "nature" here.

and to control the reverberationtime in the lowend comes in very helpful.
(and you want to control that in an acoustic space too, by the way. otherwise your concerthall will compromise clarity and intelligibility of music)
Old 21st April 2015
  #1466
Gear Head
Anyone know if three stereo busses in the mixer can be combined to make a 5.1 output?
Old 22nd April 2015
  #1467
Lives for gear
 
Jim Rosebrook's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnno View Post
My wishlist: A "nanolite" interface - smaller form factor and reduced connectivity compared to the ultralite (e.g. 1 mic in, 2 inst/line in, 2 line out, 1 headphones out, AVB eth, possibly midi i/o) at a reduced price (ie in the $300-400 range).
And imagine if this also had Power-Over-Ethernet. (POE).

This would be so handy to fan out to all the musicians in the studio...one box per player... One ethernet cable running to each musician handles the audio to/from and no need for a separate power cord either.

Just have some AVB switches around the studio... super-clean cable runs..
Old 22nd April 2015
  #1468
cbm
Gear Head
 
cbm's Avatar
 

As long as we're dreaming, I would love to see some sliders on this mythical "nanolite" musician's interface, to adjust stems for the local headphone mix.

Last edited by cbm; 22nd April 2015 at 08:20 AM..
Old 22nd April 2015
  #1469
Here for the gear
 

sliders are so 1998 - the musicians wouldn't need them if they could just control their own mix via OSC or the interfaces's webpage

...But I like where you're going with this!
Old 23rd April 2015
  #1470
anybody had a problem to connect A16 thru USB ?
I've just bought new interface, all drivers are downloaded OK the way it should be [drivers before connecting device]
Device seems it is working alone, I can change parameters on the front panel but... my computer don't see it. No devices found.
And drivers work properly but cannot run the device...

I tried two different usb cables and two different computers one with WIN7 64bit and second WIN8 64bit.
drivers 1.1 ver.

Thanks for any help in advance....
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