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
Tags: , , ,

In need of a safety/back-up for live recordings Recorders, Players & Tape Machines
Old 21st September 2011
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
No, it's not. It has happened to me, more than once.
Ive never had power go down on the recorder only out of probably 150+ live shows ive recorded.. How did you manage to loose power on the recorder only ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
When I go into a venue and ask the FOH guy about recording off the console inserts, they are always very glad to hear that no problem with my rig could interrupt their audio.
Im surprised you find FOH people would even contemplate putting a recording device on inserts in series before FX.. That setup puts you in the way of the FOH persons normal workflow too much i think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
The one I use is the version designed to pass an analog console's inserts. It has 8 insert returns on its rear panel for using outboard gear in line if you want.
How do you take the insert out on more than 8 channels if you can only return 8 of them to the console ? If an insert isnt returned you dont hear anything through the channel obviously so unless you use those specific insert cables that wire send to return in the cable, how do you record 24 tracks ?

Also does that mean the FOH guy can only use 8 insert FX ? What do you do if they want to use more ? And what happens if they want to change something patched into an insert mid gig ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
I find it a little interesting that some people would like to give the impression (belief even!) that the HD24 recorders are immune to problems, when a simple internet search, even on this forum, shows that is not the case. To those that have had excellent service and luck with theirs, great!
That isnt me, ive had problems with the HD24 under certain high SPL scenarios..

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
The JoeCo machines are a good alternative with a more recent design, much lighter and smaller, that uses a variety of drives obtainable anywhere and was designed with the expressed purpose of recording live events, with no somewhat irrelevant extras regarding multitrack overdub recording and editing, and with the timecode and XML features than are a dealbreaker for the HD24 in film/TV etc work, at least mine!

phil p
If the Joeco was somewhere around $1499 retail i wouldnt have a problem with it but at its current price tag ($2500-2800 ??) i think its a rip off.. You can buy a fireface UFX for less and it will record 30 tracks and has loads more features than the joeco, not to mention its made by a reputable company.. I cant see value in the joeco at all personally and i dont like how they try and market certain features as being a big deal which really arent IMHO.
Old 21st September 2011
  #32
Quote:
If the Joeco was somewhere around $1499 retail i wouldnt have a problem with it but at its current price tag ($2500-2800 ??) i think its a rip off.. You can buy a fireface UFX for less and it will record 30 tracks and has loads more features than the joeco, not to mention its made by a reputable company.. I cant see value in the joeco at all personally and i dont like how they try and market certain features as being a big deal which really arent IMHO.
I am not sure you can really compare the 2 boxes directly.

Yes, the UFX is capable of 30 inputs, but you need 16 channels of ADAT conversion and two channels of AES. The four front panel inputs are not balanced when used as "line" and are not capable of handling the higher-level line signals that would normally be in tolerance of a balanced +4 input. It is designed primarily as an interface for a computer.

The JoeCo BBR can do 24 line inputs, it can be sync'ed with multiple units to reach 48 tracks (or more), provides the ability to work with time code, all in a single RU package. While I am not an advocate of using the line inserts on a FOH console to record a show (and any recording company that depends on this type of setup as their modus operandi is essentially obsolete and redundant at this point - the PA company can do this just as well and make the extra revenue with a minimum of fuss and investment), the BBR was aimed at the live sound market as much as at the live recording market - it truly simplifies recording for a touring PA company.

And while JoeCo is a "new" company, the folks who founded it and designed the BBR don't seem to be the "fly-by-night" sort. They have been around this industry for a long time and also have a good reputation, as does RME. So far, all of the people I have talked to who own this box are pleased with its performance, so a swipe at the reputation of the company here is really not justified I think.

The two devices are related, but are not really the same kind of animal. Though some of their functions overlap, they are aimed at different markets and different users.
Old 21st September 2011
  #33
If one wants to record a show with an HD24XR using console inserts and they are afraid of recorder power failure disrupting the show, just wire your insert plugs across tip and ring, then send the signal to the HD24. That way you tap off the insert feed without interupting it.
Old 21st September 2011
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebulb View Post
Ive never had power go down on the recorder only out of probably 150+ live shows ive recorded.. How did you manage to loose power on the recorder only ?



Im surprised you find FOH people would even contemplate putting a recording device on inserts in series before FX.. That setup puts you in the way of the FOH persons normal workflow too much i think.




How do you take the insert out on more than 8 channels if you can only return 8 of them to the console ? If an insert isnt returned you dont hear anything through the channel obviously so unless you use those specific insert cables that wire send to return in the cable, how do you record 24 tracks ?

Also does that mean the FOH guy can only use 8 insert FX ? What do you do if they want to use more ? And what happens if they want to change something patched into an insert mid gig ?



That isnt me, ive had problems with the HD24 under certain high SPL scenarios..



If the Joeco was somewhere around $1499 retail i wouldnt have a problem with it but at its current price tag ($2500-2800 ??) i think its a rip off.. You can buy a fireface UFX for less and it will record 30 tracks and has loads more features than the joeco, not to mention its made by a reputable company.. I cant see value in the joeco at all personally and i dont like how they try and market certain features as being a big deal which really arent IMHO.
Power loss--do you think I made that up? It happened because someone was moving too fast in the dark trying to plug something else in. It happened because we got bad info about the building's circuits. It happened because someone wanted to plug in a camera AC supply fast because their batteries were discharged. The list goes on and on. I've lost the whole rack, or maybe just one part due to this kind of thing.

Inserts: well, that's what we did. There was a discussion of the best ways to go in these situations, and often the choice was left to the FOH guy. So inserts it was.

Insert returns: the recorder returns ALL the inserts (24) to the console. You might want to check the JoeCo website out to understand what I'm talking about. The 8 insert returns I'm speaking of allow access to the loop of 8 of the channels for patching in other outboard gear.

Insert FX: this scenario allows only 8 inserts for FX per 24 console channels. If that doesn't work for the FOH people then we hook up another way. The choice is up to the FOH guy based on their console (inserts, direct outs or transformer mic split).

Price: the JoeCo came out before the UFX (I've had mine a year now), which I agree is a very cool box (I have other RME gear and am a fan). If I was buying today I'd certainly consider it, but I had been doing laptop-based location recording for MANY years (and still am for some projects) before going with JoeCo, and had wanted to try a different approach for some of the anti-laptop reasons stated above by others, ie the standalone recorder. I picked the JoeCo over the HD24XR-plus-EC2 etc mainly for size/weight, operational simplicity and timecode issues. The diff in price between a new HD24+ the upgrade and the BBR-1 wasn't a dealbreaker for me, considering.

phil p
Old 21st September 2011
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
If one wants to record a show with an HD24XR using console inserts and they are afraid of recorder power failure disrupting the show, just wire your insert plugs across tip and ring, then send the signal to the HD24. That way you tap off the insert feed without interupting it.
Yes, true, have done with other systems.
Old 22nd September 2011
  #36
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
I am not sure you can really compare the 2 boxes directly.

Yes, the UFX is capable of 30 inputs, but you need 16 channels of ADAT conversion and two channels of AES. The four front panel inputs are not balanced when used as "line" and are not capable of handling the higher-level line signals that would normally be in tolerance of a balanced +4 input. It is designed primarily as an interface for a computer.
If you added 2 x 8 channel pres on the ADAT ins and used the 8 line ins you still have 24 channels balanced lines.. Not to mention youd still have 4 more pres on the UFX for mics.. Also you can add 2 x basic 8 channel pres and still be cheaper than 1x joeco. not to mention you can use the UFX with a laptop and have a backup, you get a software mixer and 30 channels of comps and EQ.. Its 192 khz, its got midi I/O and you can run it with a control surface.. there are so many really useful extras the UFX has over the joeco its not funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
The JoeCo BBR can do 24 line inputs, it can be sync'ed with multiple units to reach 48 tracks (or more), provides the ability to work with time code, all in a single RU package.
Im aware the two boxes arent identical, but the UFX blows the joeco away for features.. Why would you want to sync 2 x Joecos anyway, what would that cost you $5400 ? you can buy a tascam X48 for $4000 and do it all in one box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
the BBR was aimed at the live sound market as much as at the live recording market - it truly simplifies recording for a touring PA company.
i dont really mind who they are marketing it towards its still way overpriced IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
And while JoeCo is a "new" company, the folks who founded it and designed the BBR don't seem to be the "fly-by-night" sort. They have been around this industry for a long time and also have a good reputation, as does RME. So far, all of the people I have talked to who own this box are pleased with its performance, so a swipe at the reputation of the company here is really not justified I think.

The two devices are related, but are not really the same kind of animal. Though some of their functions overlap, they are aimed at different markets and different users.
What other products have joeco made ? I never said the company was **** cause i dont have enough info to be able to judge that aspect yet, i just think the product is overpriced for what it does and they are a relatively unproven entity.. If RME want to charge more for a product they have built up enough cred to be able to justify it i think, joeco from what i can tell havent got a history of proven success but im happy for you to show me im wrong if you have some examples..

And realistically i dont think the products are that different.. Just because the UFX looks more like a computer interface just means it has extra functionality at the end of the day.
Old 22nd September 2011
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
Power loss--do you think I made that up? It happened because someone was moving too fast in the dark trying to plug something else in. It happened because we got bad info about the building's circuits. It happened because someone wanted to plug in a camera AC supply fast because their batteries were discharged. The list goes on and on. I've lost the whole rack, or maybe just one part due to this kind of thing.
IMO, anyone who leaves their power accessible to 3rd parties to trip over or trying to plug in video cameras off the recorders power boards is asking for problems.. at the very least you either dont let people near your power boards or you gaff them..

The only example you gave i can forsee as problem that may be unavoidable (where the joecos analog pass through might be helpful) is the venue loosing power on the specific power point that you are running the recorder off (while also not loosing power to the FOH mixing console, power amps or any other critical component) and also be using inserts on that particular night for your feed.. its a fairly unlikely scenario, if you asked an insurance company to protect you against that type of failure id say you'd have a very low premium.


Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post

Insert returns: the recorder returns ALL the inserts (24) to the console. You might want to check the JoeCo website out to understand what I'm talking about. The 8 insert returns I'm speaking of allow access to the loop of 8 of the channels for patching in other outboard gear.
Ok ive just looked at the joeco site again, the option with the analog outs is a different incarnation of the box tpo the basic model i looked at previously.. BBR1B is the version with analog in and out... This would be the model you used to return the insert connection i imagine and then used the 8 insert points on the back of the joeco.. So if im to refer back to my original point about the UFX making more sense feature versus price..

You could buy 1 x UFX plus 2 x basic 8 channel pre amps and still be around the same price as the joeco BBR1B ($2800).. but under that scenario you would also gain the following with the UFX..

1. up to 30 channel recording (as opposed to 24 on blackbox)
2. 192khz (as opposed to 96khz)
3. You would have 20 channels of pre amps (4 on UFX and 16 on the two other pre amps) for roughly the same cost as the blackbox which would only give you TRS I/O
4. Ability to use the UFX as a computer interface
5. The ability to record to a DAW as well as the onboard USB at the same time to enable a backup recording
6. 2 x midi I/O
7. Software mixer with extensive I/O routing options and 30 channels of compression and EQ onboard UFX DSP
8. two headphone outputs
9. RME trusted reputation

theres probably a few more things also but those points alone make a solid case i think.. Unless you need to occasionally sync a second black box for 48 channels, or you are using it specifically in a setup where you can only get insert sends (and use the black boxes 8 inserts) well i cant see any other benefits to it over the UFX example i gave.. And to the contrary theres at least those 9 points of benefit with the UFX.



Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
Insert FX: this scenario allows only 8 inserts for FX per 24 console channels. If that doesn't work for the FOH people then we hook up another way. The choice is up to the FOH guy based on their console (inserts, direct outs or transformer mic split).
Right.. And if you hook up the other way you are no longer needing the analog pass through feature, which was the contentious aspect wasnt it ?

Can you tell me, are you able to assign the 8 insert patch points on the joeco to whichever of the 24 channels you choose ? or are those 8 insert points hardwired to specific channels ? Since my initial post i realised the 8 insert points they added on the back of the box make it feasable to be used with normal FOH operation (so long as the 8 inserts can be assigned to whatever channel you like).. Its still not ideal though because when i mix live halfway through a set i may want to remove an insert from one channel and repatch it to another, it would be a pain if you had to go into the joeco setup mid gig and change that, especially if the FOH isnt familar with the unit. But its a decent feature if they are intent on promoting inserts as a recording send..

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
Price: the JoeCo came out before the UFX (I've had mine a year now), which I agree is a very cool box (I have other RME gear and am a fan). If I was buying today I'd certainly consider it, but I had been doing laptop-based location recording for MANY years (and still am for some projects) before going with JoeCo, and had wanted to try a different approach for some of the anti-laptop reasons stated above by others, ie the standalone recorder. I picked the JoeCo over the HD24XR-plus-EC2 etc mainly for size/weight, operational simplicity and timecode issues. The diff in price between a new HD24+ the upgrade and the BBR-1 wasn't a dealbreaker for me, considering.

phil p
No worries.. I dont mind what people use so long as its working.. I personally dont like the features versus cost of the joeco though and today id buy the UFX with no contest.. Fair enough 1 year ago the UFX onboard recording wasnt implemented so the choices werent the same as right now..
Old 22nd September 2011
  #38
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSDj View Post
My interface has 8 direct outputs...

I've seen the RME:Fireface UFX, but that's way too expensive and does so many things I don't need.
Thanks for introducing the JoeCo, but the OP thinks even the RME FF UFX is too expensive...
Old 22nd September 2011
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebulb View Post
IMO, anyone who leaves their power accessible to 3rd parties to trip over or trying to plug in video cameras off the recorders power boards is asking for problems.. at the very least you either dont let people near your power boards or you gaff them..


No worries.. I dont mind what people use so long as its working.. I personally dont like the features versus cost of the joeco though and today id buy the UFX with no contest.. Fair enough 1 year ago the UFX onboard recording wasnt implemented so the choices werent the same as right now..
"....don't let people near your power boards...." In a perfect world, I guess, which is not the one I live and work in.

UFX is way cool, and a great deal. But...you need a pretty decent laptop to run it for the style of recording most people I know do with it, so for a fair price comparison you'd have to factor that in too. One could use their home "office" computer, but we all know that the right way to do computer based recording is with a dedicated "clean" machine. All the UFX users I know doing concert work are on higher-end Mac Book Pros, not a cheap computer.

phil p
Old 22nd September 2011
  #40
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
"....don't let people near your power boards...." In a perfect world, I guess, which is not the one I live and work in.

UFX is way cool, and a great deal. But...you need a pretty decent laptop to run it for the style of recording most people I know do with it, so for a fair price comparison you'd have to factor that in too. One could use their home "office" computer, but we all know that the right way to do computer based recording is with a dedicated "clean" machine. All the UFX users I know doing concert work are on higher-end Mac Book Pros, not a cheap computer.

phil p
You can use UFX as a standalone recorder! No computer is needed.
For more convenient control, you can plug a tablet / netbook in.
Old 22nd September 2011
  #41
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

If you run a UFX as standalone recorder you can bring a laptop to run RME's DigiCheck software. DigiCheck has a full set of meters AND it can simultaneously record all tracks directly to the computer hard disk. This is a simple way to get a simultaneous full backup of the recording.

DigiCheck efficiently reads the PCM stream directly from the UFX off the USB cable -- it does not require DAW software and consumes much less of the computer's resources than DAW software does.

DigiCheck feature list from the RME website:
  • Stereo Level Meter
  • Multichannel Level Meter
  • Global Level Meter
  • Spectral Analyser
  • Vector Audio Scope
  • Correlation Meter
  • Totalyser, Bit Statistic & Noise
  • Global Record
  • ASIO support, multi-client operation, display of +dBFS levels, display of playback data, K-system, free reference/scale, third colour
  • Hardware Level Meter
  • RMS Slow and RLB weighting filter
  • Optional Correlator
  • Level meters vertical/horizontal
Old 22nd September 2011
  #42
In the interest of full disclosure, I actually own the UFX. I do not own the BBR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebulb View Post
If you added 2 x 8 channel pres on the ADAT ins and used the 8 line ins you still have 24 channels balanced lines.. Not to mention youd still have 4 more pres on the UFX for mics.. Also you can add 2 x basic 8 channel pres and still be cheaper than 1x joeco. not to mention you can use the UFX with a laptop and have a backup, you get a software mixer and 30 channels of comps and EQ.. Its 192 khz, its got midi I/O and you can run it with a control surface.. there are so many really useful extras the UFX has over the joeco its not funny.
All valid points, but your illustration points out why this does not easily integrate with a FOH workflow. Not to mention that most larger shows (esp. the ones with a budget that could afford a BBR) are running more than 30 inputs.

Quote:
Why would you want to sync 2 x Joecos anyway, what would that cost you $5400 ? you can buy a tascam X48 for $4000 and do it all in one box.
Also a good point about the Tascam, but the the JoeCo could do 96 inputs in the same amount of rackspace, and probably far less weight. Also, not sure if this has changed, but the X48 used to come stock with only TDIF inputs. You had to buy analog cards (or whatever format you wish) extra, which brings the unit price nearly in line with the JoeCo.
Quote:

i dont really mind who they are marketing it towards its still way overpriced IMO.

What other products have joeco made ? I never said the company was **** cause i dont have enough info to be able to judge that aspect yet, i just think the product is overpriced for what it does and they are a relatively unproven entity.. If RME want to charge more for a product they have built up enough cred to be able to justify it i think, joeco from what i can tell havent got a history of proven success but im happy for you to show me im wrong if you have some examples..
You are entitled to your opinions, and they are not under attack here. However, I think that the pricing of the unit needs to be based on sustainable cost and profit structures. I am not privy to JoeCo's books, but I am sure they have priced this unit at this point for a reason, and I don't think it's because the CEO is looking to buy another chateau in France heh

Quote:
And realistically i dont think the products are that different.. Just because the UFX looks more like a computer interface just means it has extra functionality at the end of the day.
And the BBR also has functionality that the UFX does not. Depending on your needs and which market you are in, you might use these differences to choose one over the other. It is not a "right" or "wrong" decision.

I think most of us base our purchases on our needs and our means. If price and need for a computer interface are your priorities, then you would no doubt choose the UFX. If high track counts, integrated ADDA conversion, SMPTE and so forth are factors, and price not so much, you would no doubt be looking at the JoeCo.
Old 22nd September 2011
  #43
Lives for gear
 

OK, UFX drivers! How many of you are doing jobs, like as hired by clients, doing location recording with the UFX with NO computer involved? Your only rig is the UFX and the drive--no laptop at all? How do you see what TotalMix is doing w/o a computer? I understand how the direct USB recording thing is a great feature, but you still need the computer to set up and run your job, and that cost needs to be factored it. And all this UFX talk still dodges the issue that a lot of experienced recordists are not comfortable with laptop-based recording of live shows, for whatever reason. This leaves exactly one standalone recorder if you need TC, BWF recording and small size: the BBR. Those of you with a beef with JoeCo, especially those who have never used one, I invite you to do what I did and rent one as a backup for a real job, see how it goes, then tell me what you think.

phil p
Old 22nd September 2011
  #44
Gear Maniac
 

The OP wants a "back up" recorder, so s/he already has a laptop to go with...

And are you going to back up the JoeCo with another recorder?
Old 22nd September 2011
  #45
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by claying View Post
The OP wants a "back up" recorder, so s/he already has a laptop to go with...

And are you going to back up the JoeCo with another recorder?
The comparison was for the primary, re the laptop cost. I agree that RME was very smart to make the UFX be able to be the interface for whatever app and record a back up off its USB port. My point was that I doubt professional work is being done much with JUST the UFX and a drive w/o a laptop. Backup for the JoeCo, in my case, depends on client budget and needs.

phil p
Old 22nd September 2011
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
a lot of experienced recordists are not comfortable with laptop-based recording of live shows
That's me. Wouldn't use a laptop.
Old 23rd September 2011
  #47
Gear Maniac
 

Even I am not a pro, I could hardly not bring my laptop and just record with the UFX standalone function! However, I can't think of any better option for the OP's needs, which is also mine, before the UFX comes.
Old 25th September 2011
  #48
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
How do you see what TotalMix is doing w/o a computer?
Phil, just to clarify... TotalMix is the computer software that controls the DSP-based mixer in the UFX. The UFX will mix without it, but it is simply not practical without TotalMix if you have more than, say, two inputs. With TotalMix you have the equivalent of a digital mixing board in 1RU controlled by the PC/Mac software. It even has preset groups / scenes.
Old 25th September 2011
  #49
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick View Post
Phil, just to clarify... TotalMix is the computer software that controls the DSP-based mixer in the UFX. The UFX will mix without it, but it is simply not practical without TotalMix if you have more than, say, two inputs. With TotalMix you have the equivalent of a digital mixing board in 1RU controlled by the PC/Mac software. It even has preset groups / scenes.
No clarification needed, I have RME interfaces in the studio and drive Totalmix every day. MOTU boxes work the same way, with fewer busses on their mixer and a greater need for screen real-estate (which they should fix, I think).

phil p
Old 25th September 2011
  #50
Gear Maniac
 

As a MOTU ex-user and RME user, I think RME is much more stable than MOTU. Especially, I am running via PC.
Old 25th September 2011
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post

All valid points, but your illustration points out why this does not easily integrate with a FOH workflow. Not to mention that most larger shows (esp. the ones with a budget that could afford a BBR) are running more than 30 inputs.
I actually dont think the example i gave is much different in workflow terms myself.. In the end with the UFX + 2 pres you have a 3RU space instead of 1 and a couple of optical cables linking the boxes, thats about it.. You still end up with 24 x TRS ins but you also get pre amps and XLR so if you wanted to run some audience mics it would be easy to do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
Also a good point about the Tascam, but the the JoeCo could do 96 inputs in the same amount of rackspace, and probably far less weight. Also, not sure if this has changed, but the X48 used to come stock with only TDIF inputs. You had to buy analog cards (or whatever format you wish) extra, which brings the unit price nearly in line with the JoeCo.
Fair enough if you need to record more than 48 channels and you want to achieve this via inserts and you dont want to consume much rack space the joeco may be a better option than the tascam, but you start getting into fairly isolated territory.. The majority of people dont need more than 48 and many get away with only 24, i guess you can always find an exception but im thinking about what most people would find most useful.

The pricing for one x48 is around $3500 you add two of the 24 analog ins and out cards for $2200.. that brings you up to $5700.. 2 of the joeco boxes with 48 analog ins/outs is around $5600.. So for the same price the only benefit i can see with the joeco is it would consume 2RU and not 4RU and you get the ability to use inserts as your sends.. Lets be straight though, who in their right mind recording 48 channels is going to think using inserts is the best option ?? Anyone with half a clue knows they should be taking ISO splits if they want to do it properly..

Besides that with the X48 you get a mountain of other benefits, full GUI, in built digital mixer, 4 x USB expansion, ethernet + firewire + DVD backup.. And most alarmingly if you wanted ADAT ins instead of analog your X48 would cost you only $4300 instead of $6800 with the joeco (youd save almost 40% with the tascam)..

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
You are entitled to your opinions, and they are not under attack here. However, I think that the pricing of the unit needs to be based on sustainable cost and profit structures. I am not privy to JoeCo's books, but I am sure they have priced this unit at this point for a reason, and I don't think it's because the CEO is looking to buy another chateau in France heh
I dont know joecos books either but my guess is the gross profit in one of those boxes (especially the ADAT model) would be high.. I realise they have R&D and other costs to recoup and they may have lower production runs than tascam, but those types of companies also have lower running costs so it balances out.. At the prices they are asking it doesnt represent value to me.. My gut feeling is the company probably thinks its a niche market with very little competition and therefore think they can inflate the margins.. shock horror ?

What i see with joeco is a small company with no history or proven product lines asking premium prices for a box which is easily beaten (feature wise) by other reputable branded products that cost less.. Then i see attempts to justify the pricing with (what i believe to be redundant) features such as insert pass through points (when most real location recordist will use splitters).. If people want to buy it thats fine but thats just what i think..


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
And the BBR also has functionality that the UFX does not. Depending on your needs and which market you are in, you might use these differences to choose one over the other. It is not a "right" or "wrong" decision.
There may be some functionality benefits on the BBR over the UFX example but not many.. I agree there is ultimately no right and wrong, but in terms of what most people would see beneficial most of the time id say the UFX example is clearly the better option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
OK, UFX drivers! How many of you are doing jobs, like as hired by clients, doing location recording with the UFX with NO computer involved?
As of right now probably not that many because the updated firmware for the UFX hasnt been out that long but just because its new doesnt mean its not a good option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
How do you see what TotalMix is doing w/o a computer? I understand how the direct USB recording thing is a great feature, but you still need the computer to set up and run your job, and that cost needs to be factored it. And all this UFX talk still dodges the issue that a lot of experienced recordists are not comfortable with laptop-based recording of live shows, for whatever reason.
I dont have one yet but from what i understand you dont need a laptop at all you can use it to record completely standalone, you arm tracks on its LCD and hit record and thats it, no different to the joeco.. Then if you use a laptop you can record a backup via the digicheck software and not even use a DAW.. Then of course with the laptop you also get the total mix software should you need an easy mixing facility, but i have also heard you can use the mixer through a control surface (via midi) without the laptop as well (someone correct me on that if i am wrong).. At the end of the day if you dont want a laptop in your setup you dont need the laptop.

Another point id be interested to find more info is how the two boxes compare with different USB drives.. I remember reading about 1 year ago of a few incompatible USB drives with the joeco and thats one of the things i fear with companies like that.. Id like to know how good the two units are at handling different brands etc.. Also does the joeco power a drive from its USB port ? and does it allow you to record onto USB thumb drives like the RME ?
Old 25th September 2011
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Tell you what--you do a real job with that UFX you don't have with only the interface and a drive and NO computer involved then come and tell us how it went. No computer at all--not even to set the UFX up--right?

The owner-designer of JoeCo is Joe Bull, who has been around in the audio industry for a great many years (Sadie, etc).. He's not a kid in a garage somewhere, he knows what he's doing. BTW I have yet to find a USB drive that doesn't work. The drive has to have its own PSU. I've been using cheap WD usb "Elements" drives (per Joe's recommendation), 24 chan 24/48, no problems. I haven't tried a thumb drive.

I just used those supposedly useless pass-through points on my BBR on the job the night before last for a PBS special--they worked very well. BTW, I am a "real" location recordist--35 years and counting!

phil p
Old 25th September 2011
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebulb View Post
I actually dont think the example i gave is much different in workflow terms myself.. In the end with the UFX + 2 pres you have a 3RU space instead of 1 and a couple of optical cables linking the boxes, thats about it.. You still end up with 24 x TRS ins but you also get pre amps and XLR so if you wanted to run some audience mics it would be easy to do.
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I was trying to say that the JoeCo was being marketed to touring live sound companies - not live recording companies. I don't see many live sound companies patching in preamps ahead of their FOH consoles.

It would be easy to integrate a box like the JoeCo without much of a fuss. Trying to integrate the UFX into an existing FOH setup would be much more difficult.


Quote:
Lets be straight though, who in their right mind recording 48 channels is going to think using inserts is the best option ?? Anyone with half a clue knows they should be taking ISO splits if they want to do it properly..
Again - using inserts to feed the recorder is something that would benefit a live sound company - record all of your inputs right off the console mic amps with a minimum of fuss. For a live recording company, the JoeCoe with ADAT inputs or balanced analog line inputs would be the better option: mic level splits feeding mic amps and converters.

Quote:
My gut feeling is the company probably thinks its a niche market with very little competition and therefore think they can inflate the margins.. shock horror ?
It is a niche market - I have no problem with someone trying to make a profit. I am trying to do the same - I am not in this for charity. If the prices are too high, they will not make enough sales and will have to lower their price point. However, if they are moving enough units to be profitable I say good for them. I wouldn't mind if they dropped their prices - I'd be first in line to grab a JoeCo at a discount - but I'd rather the company make enough money to stay in business so that they can support their product for many years to come.

I'd say for most shows with a recording budget worth talking about, you are looking at track counts greater than 24 tracks. For recording on this level, I would not be trusting a laptop to do a real mix of any kind other than a monitor mix. I can't think of anyone doing live-to-air mixes on a laptop, for obvious reasons.

For small-scale low-budget stuff, 24 tracks is typically either enough, or you will have to make do with the limited track count for the price point.

Again - what are your priorities and needs and what is your budget? You will find that each of these boxes solves a unique set of problems at a different price point.

Quote:
and does it allow you to record onto USB thumb drives like the RME ?
Actually, if you do some research on RME's own forum, you would find that there are problems using thumb drives. This is not due to any shortcoming of the UFX, but because of the nature of the design of many thumb drives.

I have so far tested the LaCie Rugged with my UFX and it seems to work well in the "lab." I expect to do some real-world testing of this feature in the not-too-distant future.

Don't get me wrong - I like the UFX very much and it has some wonderful features. But these two devices are playing in completely different sandboxes.
Old 25th September 2011
  #54
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
Tell you what--you do a real job with that UFX you don't have with only the interface and a drive and NO computer involved then come and tell us how it went. No computer at all--not even to set the UFX up--right?
I dont know why you are suggesting the RME may not work properly.. What makes you differentiate joecos capaibilty over the RME ? If anything you would think from RMEs great reputation would instill confidence it will work well..

But i'll tell you what, why dont you you read the thread where loads of people are already talking about recording live with them.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remot...-recorder.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
The owner-designer of JoeCo is Joe Bull, who has been around in the audio industry for a great many years (Sadie, etc).. He's not a kid in a garage somewhere, he knows what he's doing. BTW I have yet to find a USB drive that doesn't work. The drive has to have its own PSU. I've been using cheap WD usb "Elements" drives (per Joe's recommendation), 24 chan 24/48, no problems. I haven't tried a thumb drive.
To be honest id have more faith in a kid in a garage than joeco.. The kid in the garage probably would be motivated by the products technical perfection, not the gross profit on each unit which is what i see with joeco..


Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
I just used those supposedly useless pass-through points on my BBR on the job the night before last for a PBS special--they worked very well. BTW, I am a "real" location recordist--35 years and counting!

phil p
Good on yer mate..i never meant they were totally useless for everyone, but in terms of what most people need in a location recording business they wont get used.. Most people will use splitters and their own pre amps so they can control their own gain..

I'll say this, in terms of a no fuss box for an engineer who is in control of FOH and recording at the same time i can see the joeco makes some sense.. I still think its way overpriced for what it does, but if you are in total control of what happens with inserts and dont have to negotiate with an in house guy sound guy about interupting his workflow then fair enough.. For a quick solution inserts are better than direct outs most of the time because they are pre EQ.. If houwever you are a rocking up at different venue with no say in FOH operation then recording off inserts arent going to be the preferred method..
Old 26th September 2011
  #55
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant. I was trying to say that the JoeCo was being marketed to touring live sound companies - not live recording companies. I don't see many live sound companies patching in preamps ahead of their FOH consoles. It would be easy to integrate a box like the JoeCo without much of a fuss. Trying to integrate the UFX into an existing FOH setup would be much more difficult.
Fair enough.. In the instance of a PA company i can see how that makes more sense than the UFX example.. Somewhere towards the beginning of my posts i did acknowledge the joeco (to a degree) for inhouse setups which in essence includes touring PA companies who have outright control of the patching.

The original poster wasnt a PA company though, i guess i was still making my points based your typical location recording companies expectations, not the in house PA expectations. Also the joeco does have an ADAT model which suggests they are trying to market it wider than just PA guys recording off inserts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
Again - using inserts to feed the recorder is something that would benefit a live sound company - record all of your inputs right off the console mic amps with a minimum of fuss.
Im willing to accept that but you might notice phil isnt making his point from that perspective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
It is a niche market - I have no problem with someone trying to make a profit. I am trying to do the same - I am not in this for charity. If the prices are too high, they will not make enough sales and will have to lower their price point. However, if they are moving enough units to be profitable I say good for them. I wouldn't mind if they dropped their prices - I'd be first in line to grab a JoeCo at a discount - but I'd rather the company make enough money to stay in business so that they can support their product for many years to come.
Im not against people making money either, but im against price gouging if/when i think its happening.. Im sure Joeco know theres been basically no comeptition in the 24 track standalone recorder category (since HD24 finished) so perfect reason to inflate the price.. They can do that if they like but i dont have to agree with it..

Also now the UFX is in the mix and it presents such a solid option for most people, i'll be interested see if joeco stand by their prices..


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
I'd say for most shows with a recording budget worth talking about, you are looking at track counts greater than 24 tracks. For recording on this level, I would not be trusting a laptop to do a real mix of any kind other than a monitor mix. I can't think of anyone doing live-to-air mixes on a laptop, for obvious reasons.
yeah but if you are talking about a scenario like that you also wouldnt be using inserts for your sends and having to juggle FOH gain with your recording and if you need more than a software mixer, you would also want to be away from FOH so you could monitor your channels properly without FOH spill and have space for a larger console.. That makes the whole insert pass through feature on the joeco redundant in that example.. And it also makes the signal pass through (if power fails) redundant also because thats feature is only valid if the joecos power failing threatens to harm FOH operations.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAnderson View Post
Actually, if you do some research on RME's own forum, you would find that there are problems using thumb drives. This is not due to any shortcoming of the UFX, but because of the nature of the design of many thumb drives.

I have so far tested the LaCie Rugged with my UFX and it seems to work well in the "lab." I expect to do some real-world testing of this feature in the not-too-distant future.

Don't get me wrong - I like the UFX very much and it has some wonderful features. But these two devices are playing in completely different sandboxes.
At the end of the day we may just have to agree to disagree on some of this.. I acknowledge the devices have some specific aspects which appeal to different applications but there is a very large cross over demographic.. Thats who i am referring to with the points i make, if you are intentionally looing for a box that can use inserts to record then of course the joeco is the go, id say most location recordist using splitters could find more value in the UFX with pre amps example i gave..

I think the ultimate thing to hope for with USB drives is that the overwhelming majority work.. If some ultra cheap thumb drive with no brand doesnt work then i wouldnt be worried but when you see things like multiple name brand drives that dont work and powered drives that cause problems then you can start to raise alarm bells.. you should eb able to expect 95% of things to be compatible i think.
Old 26th September 2011
  #56
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebulb View Post
I dont know why you are suggesting the RME may not work properly.. What makes you differentiate joecos capaibilty over the RME ? If anything you would think from RMEs great reputation would instill confidence it will work well..

But i'll tell you what, why dont you you read the thread where loads of people are already talking about recording live with them.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remot...-recorder.html



To be honest id have more faith in a kid in a garage than joeco.. The kid in the garage probably would be motivated by the products technical perfection, not the gross profit on each unit which is what i see with joeco..




Good on yer mate..i never meant they were totally useless for everyone, but in terms of what most people need in a location recording business they wont get used.. Most people will use splitters and their own pre amps so they can control their own gain..

I'll say this, in terms of a no fuss box for an engineer who is in control of FOH and recording at the same time i can see the joeco makes some sense.. I still think its way overpriced for what it does, but if you are in total control of what happens with inserts and dont have to negotiate with an in house guy sound guy about interupting his workflow then fair enough.. For a quick solution inserts are better than direct outs most of the time because they are pre EQ.. If houwever you are a rocking up at different venue with no say in FOH operation then recording off inserts arent going to be the preferred method..
Read my posts. I LIKE RME, I use them in my studio, and I said the UFX is way cool. You said it was cheaper than a JoeCo for location recording, I say it isn't if you factor in the laptop I'm pretty sure you'll want to use with it. Both will make boffo recordings. I've done many many years of laptop-based location recording, which is what the UFX is the latest example of--my issue isn't the UFX, it's the LAPTOP! And I need TC, 23.98 BWF, ext clock, and small size. These factors taken together= JoeCo for me. Since you haven't used either a UFX or a JoeCo, why don't you report back when you have?

You can have an infinite number of kids in garages, and I'll stick w/ Joe Bull and his guys. (And RME...)

phil p
Old 26th September 2011
  #57
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
Read my posts. I LIKE RME, I use them in my studio, and I said the UFX is way cool. You said it was cheaper than a JoeCo for location recording, I say it isn't if you factor in the laptop I'm pretty sure you'll want to use with it. Both will make boffo recordings. I've done many many years of laptop-based location recording, which is what the UFX is the latest example of--my issue isn't the UFX, it's the LAPTOP! And I need TC, 23.98 BWF, ext clock, and small size. These factors taken together= JoeCo for me. Since you haven't used either a UFX or a JoeCo, why don't you report back when you have?

You can have an infinite number of kids in garages, and I'll stick w/ Joe Bull and his guys. (And RME...)

phil p
I dont need to use the Joeco to conclude it is bad value for money, im comparing price alongside features, not performance.. I'm already giving it the benefit of the doubt and presuming it performs flawlessly.

The RME is absolutely cheaper because you simply dont need a laptop.. You are getting peeved off with what im saying but you arent comprehending the facts along the way.. If you plug a USB drive into the UFX and arm the tracks and you hit record and its absolutely no different to the joeco.. Like i said earlier you can buy two 8 channel pre amps and run them into the UFX for 24 x TRS and 20 x XLR/pres and still be cheaper than 1 joeco box and have way more features at your disposal..

Point is you dont need to factor laptop costs into anything because it works entirely standalone.. Im happy for you to make the point you like the joeco, but dont keep repeating inaccuracies about needing a laptop to record!
Old 26th September 2011
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebulb View Post
The RME is absolutely cheaper because you simply dont need a laptop.. You are getting peeved off with what im saying but you arent comprehending the facts along the way.. If you plug a USB drive into the UFX and arm the tracks and you hit record and its absolutely no different to the joeco..
Hi !

I don't know the point of (heated?) discussion, but as a user of RME UFX for occasional location recording, I would say laptop is "preferable" to bring with, at least to control the TotalMix FX software. It is really PITA to change gains, 48V, Rec channel, from the tiny screen of the unit, if I have more than 3 input channels. The peak meter LED for each channel is so narrow, and I need reading glasses (!) to find out which channel is OVR. When something need to be changed on the fly, operating with these tiny knobs and screen is really difficult.

To be able to control TotalMix FX, netbook or cheap laptop is just fine, but to be able to record simultaneously with front USB recording, I need to bring a good laptop which is equipped with fast hard drive and optimized for audio. In my case, I use Lenovo W520/i7 2820QM CPU/8GB RAM, which is probably as expensive as Macbook Pro.

I can't compare how easy this is as compared to JeoCo, since I don't have experience using JoeCo.

Just chimed in to talk about personal experience.
Old 26th September 2011
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masaaki View Post
Hi !

I don't know the point of (heated?) discussion, but as a user of RME UFX for occasional location recording, I would say laptop is "preferable" to bring with, at least to control the TotalMix FX software. It is really PITA to change gains, 48V, Rec channel, from the tiny screen of the unit, if I have more than 3 input channels. The peak meter LED for each channel is so narrow, and I need reading glasses (!) to find out which channel is OVR. When something need to be changed on the fly, operating with these tiny knobs and screen is really difficult.

To be able to control TotalMix FX, netbook or cheap laptop is just fine, but to be able to record simultaneously with front USB recording, I need to bring a good laptop which is equipped with fast hard drive and optimized for audio. In my case, I use Lenovo W520/i7 2820QM CPU/8GB RAM, which is probably as expensive as Macbook Pro.

I can't compare how easy this is as compared to JeoCo, since I don't have experience using JoeCo.

Just chimed in to talk about personal experience.
I agree a laptop isnt hard to include in a recording rig, if its just there to allow a larger screen to see a mixer most people probably already have an old laptop sitting around somewhere that would do the job.. And its not actually recording anything so the argument about a laptop being unreliable is a moot point when its just acting as a screen.

When making the comparisons though, the joeco has a small LCD as well and doesnt even give you the option to connect a laptop.. It doesn't have an internal mixer or any pre amps like the UFX..
Old 26th September 2011
  #60
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebulb View Post
I dont need to use the Joeco to conclude it is bad value for money, im comparing price alongside features, not performance.. I'm already giving it the benefit of the doubt and presuming it performs flawlessly.

The RME is absolutely cheaper because you simply dont need a laptop.. You are getting peeved off with what im saying but you arent comprehending the facts along the way.. If you plug a USB drive into the UFX and arm the tracks and you hit record and its absolutely no different to the joeco.. Like i said earlier you can buy two 8 channel pre amps and run them into the UFX for 24 x TRS and 20 x XLR/pres and still be cheaper than 1 joeco box and have way more features at your disposal..

Point is you dont need to factor laptop costs into anything because it works entirely standalone.. Im happy for you to make the point you like the joeco, but dont keep repeating inaccuracies about needing a laptop to record!

OK! Let me know when you do that big job with your UFX and NO laptop! None at all, not for setup or anything--left home! Stylistically we're far apart, I'm not into the preamps+laptop+interface thing anymore, but no problem there. Rock your UFX when you get one. I have a year's worth of flawless location recording with my JoeCo already!

phil p
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