Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
which : USB or Firewire audio interface + MB or MBP ??
- Thread starter marbles
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hi, as far as I'm aware, all the decent soundcards use firewire. Motu make some of the best ones like the Motu Ultralite and they only offer firewire so that says it all.
I bought a USB one some years back and I had drop outs and popping it was terrible...
Decent preamps are important but dont need to shell out on the very best interfaces if your only recording decks, only need so much dynamic range for that- more important for vocals.
Saying that Id get that Ultralite if you can cause you get so many options, like running it standalone without your laptop! Its also got its on DSP's for effects etc, its awesome..
Dont know about your DVS thing but for audio its simply firewire for anything decent.
The M-audio Axiom 25 is also a great little keyboard, semi weighted keys, pads, rotaries, compact and only round £100 now i believe.
So frustrating that theyve done this with the new Macbooks... so sexy yet so crippled.. What exactly is the problem with the firewire on new MBPs??
I bought a USB one some years back and I had drop outs and popping it was terrible...
Decent preamps are important but dont need to shell out on the very best interfaces if your only recording decks, only need so much dynamic range for that- more important for vocals.
Saying that Id get that Ultralite if you can cause you get so many options, like running it standalone without your laptop! Its also got its on DSP's for effects etc, its awesome..
Dont know about your DVS thing but for audio its simply firewire for anything decent.
The M-audio Axiom 25 is also a great little keyboard, semi weighted keys, pads, rotaries, compact and only round £100 now i believe.
So frustrating that theyve done this with the new Macbooks... so sexy yet so crippled.. What exactly is the problem with the firewire on new MBPs??
thanks for the minds image of you in the bathroom
.. too much information .just asked about a vid as a mate of mine was asking me the other day to demo dj kit online and I have no time spare just now , ..ah nvm . anyway , checked out some reviews of Deckadance and it looks like it could be a bit flakey from what I've read( especially for using timecoded vinyl) , may have improved now though ?
I wasn't slagging you btw for being new(ish) to the dj game , I'm impressed you know so much actually , fair play, advice from anyone is a good thing imo .
I just have to work out whats best for me , kind of an odd situation for me I suppose , completely new to digital dj'in / performing ,bit of a mind **** really but I'll get the jist of what to do and go for it , your help has been helpful and gratefully received . you know much more about this side of djin than I , that's for sure .
Seriously , I appreciate your helping out and the time taken to do that .
look forward to what you find out with Deckadance etc
cheers
rj
no apologies necessary , hope I didn't come across as being 'off' in responding to yourself ( or anyone ) I've mentioned before when it comes to putting words on a screen and expressing what I want , I'm the worst .,
I definitely would like to hear all sides of this subject ,especially from experienced recording guys !. dj's and whoever else who has an interest in this subject ,it's a good thread for this for DVS and recording and if more and more join in like those who have already it'll become a great resource for peeps like me just steppin into the digital world from the analouge and there are more and more of us everyday from what I can see.
it's all good mate
maybe I will give that a go too ( all sources into Ableton & go from there ) at some point , all this will have to be played around with until I find out what works best for me , just trying to ascertain exactly what I'm going to need , to do what it is I want to do.
I don't think I could buy the current ( 2.1 -oct/nov 08 ) plastic macbook out of principle , it was cheaper for the same type CPU white 2.4 only a few weeks ago . don't get that .anyways ..
..probably will go for a firewire interface with high quality recording 24/192, just to give me the more of an overhead as someone mentioned earlier in the thread , was that you ? , just need to clarify a few points with the DVS, and specifically ,which DVS I am going to invest in & importantly which controllers , audio interfaces & mixers play nicely together .
not sure yet how many ins/outs/ MIDI control etc the audio interface will need to have( just don't understand this bit yet )
all I know is at the moment I'd like be using three turntables via mixer to control timecoded vinyl in a DVS while also using a MIDI controller / keyboard / drum pads / sampler type device(s) to help me use Ableton Live for looping effects and mixing/ remixing on the fly within a set .
cheers
rj
come on in and comment , all with knowledge welcomed
I'm finally out of time-out (as of this morning), so my "holidays" are over and I will respond to this thread once again. However, since this thread took off for real after I left, I will have to take notes and so forth, and I really don't have the time right now (need to do some shopping and a little bit of work before). That means I can't do it before later on today.
Anyway, in general I think you should throttle back. Both in what you want and what you "need". The thing is, many of us in this thread are either super geeks, pros or both. And we sure do like to share our knowledge and especially our preferences.
But I think that while we do so we also have a tendency to make everyone else think that it is necessary to get the quality we _aim_ for. This is not the case, and certainly far from the case for someone who's "merely" getting started in the digital realm. This not to say your needs doesn't matter, but you can't (and shouldn't) start out with "the best out there" (as if) as that would be a waste of money and energy.
Anyway, I will be more specific to some of the questions posed later, and even though you guys have touched upon 24bit vs. 16bit, 192khz vs 96khz (and lower) and so on, I will try to explain the practical differences for those things as well, if you want it.
Yes, im still on my holiday but I was able to get a Serato Time Coded Vinyl and on monday, going to resume testing Deckadance time coded --> ableton live 7. My only problem is Deckadance's limit to 2 tables and you wanted three leaving only TSP as your only choice.
I will try TSP --> ableton on tuesday. After messing around ableton live 7 with Deckadance, I could understand why people DJ with Live 7.
Screw it! I couldn't help myself:
You need to sit down and think how you will connect everything. There are numerous ways of doing it, and before you can know how many inputs and outputs are needed on each step you won't be able to tell.
Good things about mixing before using the interface: You can use an interface with less ins and outs.
Bad things about mixing before using the interface: When it's mixed (in the analogue realm before coming into the interface) that's it. You have the mix, not the separate tracks.
However, if you keep the tracks separate as long as possible (all the way into the digital realm, recording it as separate tracks, and perhaps playing it back through the interface as separate tracks), you will have full control all the way, at all times. This means that even when playing back what you made earlier, combined with your "live" performance you can adjust each and everything on the fly.
I know I explained the above like an idiot, but I hope you "get it". Feel free to ask me to explain it again in other terms.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
So, how to connect it all?
Well, to save money, you could indeed sum the tracks, then later on buy an interface with more inputs. This way, you will get used to working digitally, save money, and only spend money on a better interface when you know exactly what you want and need.
Output-wise, you seem to want to do three things: Record at home. Go out and play sets. And allow your kids to play. What will be needed to do each thing? What gear will you have to bring along to play gigs – two turntables, computer, keyboard/controller? What will they be plugged into? Two channel analogue interface? From there it's a matter of counting. I know, It sounds ridiculous, but that's what it is. And what's more, there are more than one way of skinning a cat, so you preferences will evolve depending on how you work or would prefer to work.
I think the best way would be to make some schematics, and then see which interface and/or mixer combination would do the job. And with the different mixer/interface combo see how the schematics could be reworked to make it all work.
__________________________________________________
24bits vs. 16bits
In all practicality, this means most in two circumstances:
24bit will supersede the noise floor of most any preamp. It mostly matters when recording low level audio (or speech, for that matter), because it will allow you to stay the hell away from -0db – This is where analogue equipment begin to distort, but digital clips. If it hits the ceiling, it simply won't be recorded.
Now, most likely, you already knew that, but in practice it means one must have the levels high, but low enough so that there is no risk that it will ever touch -0db no matter what happens (no, I don't believe in limiters if they can at all be avoided – they kill the dynamics).
With 24bit you get to have the levels a bit lower, yet having plenty of space down to the noisefloor, allowing you to "lift it" (="normalise" it) later (in the chain or in the recording) digitally without having to hear the noisefloor as would often be the case with 16bits.
If you want to hear some differences between 16bit and 24bit, take a listen to this:
http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/recorders/real-world-24-bits/
(I have no affialitation with them, other than I use their 722-recorder and like their products. Anyway, their examples are good).
Listen to the audio with your best (preferably closed) headphones on.
______________________________________________________
KHz (not the whole deal as usual):
According to the Nyquist theorem, which the 44.1kHz of CD's are based on, this yields 22.05Khz of frequency range. This is well above what most people can hear.
In practice, however, this theorem is all but useless the moment you don't record at -0db, use effects or even just play around with the levels (volume).
If you're going to do a lot of that stuff, go for higher sample rates. If most are going to mixed down or played back at 44.1khz, you ought to go for 2x44.1khz=88.2, or 4x44.1=176.4KHz.
If the playback won't be for CD's, you can go for 48, 96, or 192kHz.
If it will be for timecoded MOVIES, well, then it depends where you are in the world, who the producers are, what the production is, and so forth. But here, that hardly matters.
The problem with actually using 192kHz is the space it takes, and how much it takes the chips in the interface. I only use 192kHz, if I am going to make a recording of, say, bats, and having to be able to hear it (one can "cheat" the system by playing back a 192kHz file as a 48khz file, and thus make it play at a quarter of the speed, but at the quality of 48khz).
This brings me back to the doubling and quadroupling of the "CD-kHz". It's simply easier to work with sample rates of 44.1, 88,2 and 176,4Khz in such cases if you want to play around.
192kHz is great if you have the proper equipment, but I would really, once again, advice against it. First of all, it will most likely get you _less_ quality than a decent 96kHz recording, and it will take up twice the space. By all means, go buy an interface capable thereof, but resist the temptation to actually use it actively.
Even if you somehow got hold of a sweet deal (someone gave it to you) on a superb $100.000 digital interface/mixer, it will be unnecessary and would still most likely get you better quality if you recorded in 96kHz on that thing.
______________________________
With all this said, I can do my work with whatever is available. Hell, in a pinch I'd do my work with an iPod with mic, a cell phone or whatever (if necessary). It's more important to get it done when it has to be done than anything else. It won't be as good quality as I want it to be, but what I'm trying to say is this: Don't sweat the tech specs too much. Get the basics of digital recording down and care about preamps and how to connect the buggers (i.e. the practical stuff which is just about the same as in the analogue realm ) and most importantly: Do it - even if it's not your dream set-up.
You need to sit down and think how you will connect everything. There are numerous ways of doing it, and before you can know how many inputs and outputs are needed on each step you won't be able to tell.
Good things about mixing before using the interface: You can use an interface with less ins and outs.
Bad things about mixing before using the interface: When it's mixed (in the analogue realm before coming into the interface) that's it. You have the mix, not the separate tracks.
However, if you keep the tracks separate as long as possible (all the way into the digital realm, recording it as separate tracks, and perhaps playing it back through the interface as separate tracks), you will have full control all the way, at all times. This means that even when playing back what you made earlier, combined with your "live" performance you can adjust each and everything on the fly.
I know I explained the above like an idiot, but I hope you "get it". Feel free to ask me to explain it again in other terms.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
So, how to connect it all?
Well, to save money, you could indeed sum the tracks, then later on buy an interface with more inputs. This way, you will get used to working digitally, save money, and only spend money on a better interface when you know exactly what you want and need.
Output-wise, you seem to want to do three things: Record at home. Go out and play sets. And allow your kids to play. What will be needed to do each thing? What gear will you have to bring along to play gigs – two turntables, computer, keyboard/controller? What will they be plugged into? Two channel analogue interface? From there it's a matter of counting. I know, It sounds ridiculous, but that's what it is. And what's more, there are more than one way of skinning a cat, so you preferences will evolve depending on how you work or would prefer to work.
I think the best way would be to make some schematics, and then see which interface and/or mixer combination would do the job. And with the different mixer/interface combo see how the schematics could be reworked to make it all work.
__________________________________________________
24bits vs. 16bits
In all practicality, this means most in two circumstances:
24bit will supersede the noise floor of most any preamp. It mostly matters when recording low level audio (or speech, for that matter), because it will allow you to stay the hell away from -0db – This is where analogue equipment begin to distort, but digital clips. If it hits the ceiling, it simply won't be recorded.
Now, most likely, you already knew that, but in practice it means one must have the levels high, but low enough so that there is no risk that it will ever touch -0db no matter what happens (no, I don't believe in limiters if they can at all be avoided – they kill the dynamics).
With 24bit you get to have the levels a bit lower, yet having plenty of space down to the noisefloor, allowing you to "lift it" (="normalise" it) later (in the chain or in the recording) digitally without having to hear the noisefloor as would often be the case with 16bits.
If you want to hear some differences between 16bit and 24bit, take a listen to this:
http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/recorders/real-world-24-bits/
(I have no affialitation with them, other than I use their 722-recorder and like their products. Anyway, their examples are good).
Listen to the audio with your best (preferably closed) headphones on.
______________________________________________________
KHz (not the whole deal as usual):
According to the Nyquist theorem, which the 44.1kHz of CD's are based on, this yields 22.05Khz of frequency range. This is well above what most people can hear.
In practice, however, this theorem is all but useless the moment you don't record at -0db, use effects or even just play around with the levels (volume).
If you're going to do a lot of that stuff, go for higher sample rates. If most are going to mixed down or played back at 44.1khz, you ought to go for 2x44.1khz=88.2, or 4x44.1=176.4KHz.
If the playback won't be for CD's, you can go for 48, 96, or 192kHz.
If it will be for timecoded MOVIES, well, then it depends where you are in the world, who the producers are, what the production is, and so forth. But here, that hardly matters.
The problem with actually using 192kHz is the space it takes, and how much it takes the chips in the interface. I only use 192kHz, if I am going to make a recording of, say, bats, and having to be able to hear it (one can "cheat" the system by playing back a 192kHz file as a 48khz file, and thus make it play at a quarter of the speed, but at the quality of 48khz).
This brings me back to the doubling and quadroupling of the "CD-kHz". It's simply easier to work with sample rates of 44.1, 88,2 and 176,4Khz in such cases if you want to play around.
192kHz is great if you have the proper equipment, but I would really, once again, advice against it. First of all, it will most likely get you _less_ quality than a decent 96kHz recording, and it will take up twice the space. By all means, go buy an interface capable thereof, but resist the temptation to actually use it actively.
Even if you somehow got hold of a sweet deal (someone gave it to you) on a superb $100.000 digital interface/mixer, it will be unnecessary and would still most likely get you better quality if you recorded in 96kHz on that thing.
______________________________
With all this said, I can do my work with whatever is available. Hell, in a pinch I'd do my work with an iPod with mic, a cell phone or whatever (if necessary). It's more important to get it done when it has to be done than anything else. It won't be as good quality as I want it to be, but what I'm trying to say is this: Don't sweat the tech specs too much. Get the basics of digital recording down and care about preamps and how to connect the buggers (i.e. the practical stuff which is just about the same as in the analogue realm ) and most importantly: Do it - even if it's not your dream set-up.
great news , hope your having fun doing it , thanks for the help man , hope I can do the same for you some time .
all I know is that I need to connect my decks to a mixer to run timecode vinyl through DigitalVinylSoftware and also connect a MIDI controller and keyboard .
I suppose the only way to do a mix the way I intend is to do it before hand as afterward is more of a mastering process , no ?
say I have three or four tracks that I would like to mix on the fly to create a new sound (by looping scratching and the like) which is basically what I do now only with vinyl alone and no software at all , I dont understand how I could do this separately.
You might think you explained it like "an idiot" not I though! , it's me , an old dog who is trying to learn new tricks , who does not really understand fully , yet !.
Are you familiar with the term : Turntablist ? , that describes my way of work the best , mix it all up , live,..... then throw the beats through the master out to amp etc , most times I have at least two records playing at anyone time , beat matched and drop others in to alter the 'direction ' or the 'flow' of the vibe I'm trying to accomplish .
No , this gear is for my home use only , other gear for performances will be provided at venues and set up by the crew there , I will just bring my tunes/laptop and play .
yes about the children though , I'd like to teach them piano and music composition , this will be at home too .
__________________________________________________
I am a turntablist/mix dj , so all levels will be played around with ,also effects etc will be added during a mix and then sent out the master to the amp then out to speakers
The performances will be recorded ( by someone else) and sold on cd's I believe , maybe at some point I will delve into mixing movies but for now I'll leave that till I know more about this technology.
Problem is some folks seem to be getting away with using a lot less audio quality than 24/192 on there gear, have a look at the Audio 8 audio interface which is sold as part of the Trakto Scratch Pro set up I'm leaning toward using at the moment http://www.native-instruments.com/traktormicrosite/#/en/traktor-scratch-pro/?page=audio8dj
( still waiting for an update from the Serato + Ableton guys tho')
Ableton : http://www.ableton.com/
Serato Scratch Live: http://www.serato.com/
Space , as in hard drive space ? or ...
I where to have a interface capable of 192kHz then that would afford me less drop outs better quality if I where to record at 96kHz instead of 192kHz as opposed to buying a 96kHz interface and recording at 96kHz , I think I understand ( more space in the pipe ??)
______________________________
yeah man I agree ,but I'm investing here for a bit of gear to get used to the digital realm , I hear what your saying tho ' just do it ', fully intend too , but gotta spend the money wisely ya know.I'm a pedantic sob when learnin new things but I have to be to get this new knowledge into my analogue brain...
Hookin the **** up shouldn't be a prob per se , it's makin sure I get the right kit in the first place so I don't have to deal with hassle of finding out I bought the wrong box's 6 weeks down the line .
which is why my thanks go out to you also
cheers
rj
m box 2 pro with macbook pro
Hi, I'm new to this forum so apologies for not knowing how to start a new thread...
I am about to purchase a new(late 2008) macbook pro 2.53ghz and the mbox 2 pro to go with it. Has anyone been able to connect these two succesfully as there is a firewire 400 on the mbox 2 pro and only a 800 on the mbp. Digidesign are still running tests for converter cables and express card solutions, but their tests are weeks away from complete. For certain circumstances I need to buy the gear sooner rather than later... Can anyone please advise, I would be very grateful...
Also, how quite will the fans be when this system is working, I am mostly acoustic vocal based and do not yet have the studio I dream of... quite the contrary...
Any help would be greatly appreciated...
Hi, I'm new to this forum so apologies for not knowing how to start a new thread...
I am about to purchase a new(late 2008) macbook pro 2.53ghz and the mbox 2 pro to go with it. Has anyone been able to connect these two succesfully as there is a firewire 400 on the mbox 2 pro and only a 800 on the mbp. Digidesign are still running tests for converter cables and express card solutions, but their tests are weeks away from complete. For certain circumstances I need to buy the gear sooner rather than later... Can anyone please advise, I would be very grateful...
Also, how quite will the fans be when this system is working, I am mostly acoustic vocal based and do not yet have the studio I dream of... quite the contrary...
Any help would be greatly appreciated...
Search for answer first.
If you don't find an answer simply go to the forum which most represents your situation , then click new thread button at top of page ,on left had side to start new thread .
Coming into an established conversation to ask your question probably wont get you the answer you need as people look at the thread title and so will most likely miss your question .
( sorry I don't know the answer try a search )
hope this helps
rj
Since you want to use three turntables, all programs are out the door except Traktor Scratch Pro.
I am trying to get the master out from TSP to Live via Jack OS X or Soundflower. This would be easy but I want timecoded control witch makes it very damn hard.
I got it to work if I use two audio interfaces but I do not want to introduce lag into this. I want all routing to be done inside the computer for no lag.
Will continue after class today.
I am trying to get the master out from TSP to Live via Jack OS X or Soundflower. This would be easy but I want timecoded control witch makes it very damn hard.
I got it to work if I use two audio interfaces but I do not want to introduce lag into this. I want all routing to be done inside the computer for no lag.
Will continue after class today.
Top man.
side note:
After all this I bet Ableton an Serato go an release some monster softwares at NAMM 09
But it would not matter to you, they got two turntables. What we are trying to do is use more then two.
Quick Update. These are demo version of TSP and Live 7. I have Traktor Scratch but right now I am not ready to pay $100 for the update. As for Live 7, I do not know if I want LE or 7. I have the lite version but again, no ready to pony up the money to anyone yet.
Quick Update. These are demo version of TSP and Live 7. I have Traktor Scratch but right now I am not ready to pay $100 for the update. As for Live 7, I do not know if I want LE or 7. I have the lite version but again, no ready to pony up the money to anyone yet.
