|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 2:19:18 GMT -6
This definitely has the benefit of feeling sensible and simple. Good things. Another question that's been nagging me. With the Apollo's I'm monitoring through Console and the latency is better than anything I can get on my Mac Mini M1 monitoring through Studio One. You've used both systems recently. What's your take on the latency comparison for monitoring? MOTU wipes the floor with the Apollo in terms of latency.. If you're tracking through console and only using UA plugs fair enough there's not much in it, the problem is VSTi's / native and every other plugin you might use. MOTU at 96 / 32 will do 1.6ms RT.. Edit: There is one thing to consider, unfortunately the MOTU studio interfaces are TB2 so you'll need an adaptor. That's kind of lame. Whatever. Apple and its stupid adapters. Anyway, 1.6ms? That's insane. Man, I sure wouldn't mind just working out of my DAW. UAD Console is not fun. Always feels silly to me bouncing back and forth between two pieces of software when I'm just trying to do one thing.
|
|
|
Post by paulnajar on Feb 10, 2022 2:53:38 GMT -6
Another question that's been nagging me. With the Apollo's I'm monitoring through Console and the latency is better than anything I can get on my Mac Mini M1 monitoring through Studio One. You've used both systems recently. What's your take on the latency comparison for monitoring? Make sure you’re comparing apples to apples here. Not sure if you’re aware but when you HP monitor through UA Console you’re not monitoring through your DAW, you’re splitting the live input signal and routing back to headphones - so yes in any Apollo HP monitoring scenario this approach would yield near zero RTL. Apollo forces you to work this way. There is no other viable way because if you create your HP mixes via sends in your DAW the actual RTL of Apollo is too high - like 5.5ms minimum. A USB RME (and possibly a MOTU but I’m not sure) will do the same job using sends in your DAW - accessible via a control surface if you like - and get the live signal back to the headphones in about 3.0ms @ 44.1 or around half that at 96 and the kicker is that it will do it with a lower CPU overhead than many worse performing interface driver brands - which is the rarely talked about aspect that’s just as important in this equation. RME’s TB interface will give even lower RTL like about 2.5ms 1x and 1.3ms 2x. The other benefit as it sounds like you’re realising is that you’re not dealing with two separate layers of software. The analog studio analogy for this is you’re creating headphone mixes from the tape returns. On a busy band tracking session this makes giving everyone what they want in a timely fashion MUCH less stressful for you. But as I said in my first post, making your headphone mixes by splitting your input/s might be totally OK for your use case. It’s just not for me.
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 3:16:57 GMT -6
Another question that's been nagging me. With the Apollo's I'm monitoring through Console and the latency is better than anything I can get on my Mac Mini M1 monitoring through Studio One. You've used both systems recently. What's your take on the latency comparison for monitoring? Make sure you’re comparing apples to apples here. Not sure if you’re aware but when you HP monitor through UA Console you’re not monitoring through your DAW, you’re splitting the live input signal and routing back to headphones - so yes in any Apollo HP monitoring scenario this approach would yield near zero RTL. Apollo forces you to work this way. There is no other viable way because if you create your HP mixes via sends in your DAW the actual RTL of Apollo is too high - like 5.5ms minimum. A USB RME (and possibly a MOTU but I’m not sure) will do the same job using sends in your DAW - accessible via a control surface if you like - and get the live signal back to the headphones in about 3.0ms @ 44.1 or around half that at 96 and the kicker is that it will do it with a lower CPU overhead than many worse performing interface driver brands - which is the rarely talked about aspect that’s just as important in this equation. RME’s TB interface will give even lower RTL like about 2.5ms 1x and 1.3ms 2x. The other benefit as it sounds like you’re realising is that you’re not dealing with two separate layers of software. The analog studio analogy for this is you’re creating headphone mixes from the tape returns. On a busy band tracking session this makes giving everyone what they want in a timely fashion MUCH less stressful for you. But as I said in my first post, making your headphone mixes by splitting your input/s might be totally OK for your use case. It’s just not for me. Welcome to the forum by the way! The cue routing in Console is so clunky that I don't even bother. I just do a send from the DAW into the Cranborne and adjust from there. On the latency, yeah it's been so long since I've monitored through software it's hard to imagine those numbers are real. Software monitoring is certainly untenable with the Apollo I'll tell you that. Which just adds one more annoying layer as I have to flip back and forth to Console to do the most basic thing such as "where the heck is that open channel???" I looked at the MADI solution. Might be overkill for my needs. I'm in a mostly one room studio with vocals occasionally making use of a guest room. The MADI format looks extremely cool though. I think the problem is that with a setup like that RME one I'd also need to add a few other basic things like monitor controllers for example that would spike my cost. I really do like the idea of having at on of ADAT inputs though. And if I could swing it, adding a second Cranborne 500ADAT on top of that RME setup would be very cool (and it would take care of the monitoring question too). I just wouldn't have anything left over to put anything in the ADAT. Currently I'm comparing the MOTU 828es to the 1248 and there are some things I really like about the 828. Color display for one (lame I know but these things matter when you're tracking yourself on drums from 15 feet away). I also like the insert. And, weirdly, I like the front facing jacks. I say weirdly because I normally hate front facing jacks but, in this case, I'm liable to use these as "throw a cable in the closest open jack" type pres. The extra two pres and hi-z jacks in the 1248 don't matter to me at all. Anyway, dreaming of not using Console is making me want to ditch Apollo. I also just loaded up three recent mixes using only Satellite Quad and they all fit in the DSP, so no issue there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2022 3:46:34 GMT -6
Anyway, dreaming of not using Console is making me want to ditch Apollo. I also just loaded up three recent mixes using only Satellite Quad and they all fit in the DSP, so no issue there. Actually I do use the MOTU console but my setup is a bit different to yours.. The routing matrix can be mind boggling but you only have to set that up once, the mixer itself is relatively straightforward there's just tons of options. I wanted to avoid DAW HW inserts, printing specific channels one at a time or potential sample alignment issues etc. so with the SSL I'd send everything to the mixer / through my HW and then just print the final product. I'd have to use EQ plugs on the sends because the SSL EQ's were a bit limiting and I'd do midi editing through the DAW but apart from that my computer was just a multi-track tape deck as such. The MOTU AVB setup will do the exact same as the SSL it just uses digital faders instead (which is now controlled by an Ipad for rides etc.), every piece of HW will be looped in with zero latency and mixed via the massive amount of Aux's available. This way I can overdub at 96Khz / 32 without ever hitting issues, also the other benefit was I could use MOTU's surgical DSP EQ and do everything in one place. Despite it not being super simple you'd be surprised how powerful the setup is. I know it sounds crazy but in part I bought the SSL Big Six to limit myself as you can just keep chucking HW at an AVB setup.
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 4:01:23 GMT -6
Anyway, dreaming of not using Console is making me want to ditch Apollo. I also just loaded up three recent mixes using only Satellite Quad and they all fit in the DSP, so no issue there. Actually I do use the MOTU console but my setup is a bit different to yours.. The routing matrix is can be mind boggling but you only have to set that up once, the mixer itself is relatively straightforward there's just tons of options. I wanted to avoid DAW HW inserts, printing specific channels one at a time or potential sample alignment issues etc. so with the SSL I'd send everything to the mixer / through my HW and then just print the final product. I'd have to use EQ plugs on the sends because the SSL EQ's were a bit limiting and I'd do midi editing through the DAW but apart from that my computer was just a multi-track tape deck as such. The MOTU AVB setup will do the exact same as the SSL it just uses digital faders instead (which is now controlled by an Ipad for rides etc.), every piece of HW will be looped in with zero latency and mixed via the massive amount of Aux's available. This way I can overdub at 96Khz / 32 without ever hitting issues, also the other benefit was I could use MOTU's surgical DSP EQ and do everything in one place. Despite it not being super simple you'd be surprised how powerful the setup is. I know it sounds crazy but in part I bought the SSL Big Six to limit myself as you can just keep chucking HW at an AVB setup. I'm leaning towards one of a few options at this point. Much simpler, no dissertation coming up. I think I've decided to sell the Apollos. Or at least pack them up for future sale while I try a simpler approach. So with that said... 1) 828es w/16a 828 really seems to fit my needs better than the 1248 weirdly. It's a little odd and frustrating that the 624 and the AVB Ultralite are so expensive because that's all I really need if I have the 16a. 624 is only a couple hundred less than 828? I guess you pay for portability or something.
2) 16a plus little labs headphone controller plus $2400 of additional gear. Kind of an EQ kick. Maybe Ironworks V2. Maybe four half racks of something, not sure. 3) 16a plus Dangerous D-Box+ or RND Orbital. Here's why, I'm really thinking that part of what I'm loving about the way things sound through the Cranborne is just the space of things being processed that way. Or maybe it's the sound of good conversion? I don't know. But my small tests in analog summing showed pretty shocking results in sound stage, so it's possibly this is the right route. Plus the D Box includes monitor and headphone outs which I'd need if I just went with 16a for interface.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2022 4:32:29 GMT -6
3) 16a plus Dangerous D-Box+ or RND Orbital. Here's why, I'm really thinking that part of what I'm loving about the way things sound through the Cranborne is just the space of things being processed that way. Or maybe it's the sound of good conversion? I don't know. But my small tests in analog summing showed pretty shocking results in sound stage, so it's possibly this is the right route. Plus the D Box includes monitor and headphone outs which I'd need if I just went with 16a for interface. I've thought about option 3, I was looking at an RND 5059 to replace the SSL. Because I've got quite a bit of HW I'd need another 16A with an AVB switch and if I'm looking for colour / saturation / summing then the Better Maker mastering limiter already does that. If it had a -4.5dB pan law then maybe it would be worth it? I dunno. Other issue is I already have a Shelford Channel which does the same track at a time. The RND stuff is on the cleaner side so hmm?
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 4:36:33 GMT -6
3) 16a plus Dangerous D-Box+ or RND Orbital. Here's why, I'm really thinking that part of what I'm loving about the way things sound through the Cranborne is just the space of things being processed that way. Or maybe it's the sound of good conversion? I don't know. But my small tests in analog summing showed pretty shocking results in sound stage, so it's possibly this is the right route. Plus the D Box includes monitor and headphone outs which I'd need if I just went with 16a for interface. I've thought about option 3, I was looking at an RND 5059 to replace the SSL. Because I've got quite a bit of HW I'd need another 16A with an AVB switch and if I'm looking for colour / saturation / summing then the Better Maker mastering limiter already does that. If it had a -4.5dB pan law then maybe it would be worth it? I dunno. Other issue is I already have a Shelford Channel which does the same track at a time. The RND stuff is on the cleaner side so hmm? I think I've got it. And it hits my budget exactly. Motu 828es Motu 24 AO RND Orbit Solves all my needs. 16 of the the AO outs go straight into the Orbit which gives me 8 stereo busses at mix down. That's like a dream come true for me for the way I mix. 8 of the AO outs go into my patchbay. I can then pull back in on the 8 line inputs on my 4-710 when mixing. Bonus is that the AO has three sets of ADAT ins so I've got very easy expandability when I decide to add a million Cranborne 500 ADATS or even something more reasonable like borrowing/renting some I/O for a large session. Then the MOTU 828es serves as my hub, a few extra pres, and I think have maybe two or three pairs of I/O left over. It's almost too perfect! And exactly the cost of selling my Apollos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2022 4:40:04 GMT -6
Motu 828es Motu 24 AO RND Orbit Solves all my needs. 16 of the the AO outs go straight into the Orbit which gives me 8 stereo busses at mix down. That's like a dream come true for me for the way I mix. 8 of the AO outs go into my patchbay. I can then pull back in on the 8 line inputs on my 4-710 when mixing. Bonus is that the AO has three sets of ADAT ins so I've got very easy expandability when I decide to add a million Cranborne 500 ADATS or even something more reasonable like borrowing/renting some I/O for a large session. Then the MOTU 828es serves as my hub, a few extra pres, and I think have maybe two or three pairs of I/O left over. It's almost too perfect! And exactly the cost of selling my Apollos. Well I'm glad you've come to a conclusion, I hope I've helped in some small way.
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 4:45:31 GMT -6
Motu 828es Motu 24 AO RND Orbit Solves all my needs. 16 of the the AO outs go straight into the Orbit which gives me 8 stereo busses at mix down. That's like a dream come true for me for the way I mix. 8 of the AO outs go into my patchbay. I can then pull back in on the 8 line inputs on my 4-710 when mixing. Bonus is that the AO has three sets of ADAT ins so I've got very easy expandability when I decide to add a million Cranborne 500 ADATS or even something more reasonable like borrowing/renting some I/O for a large session. Then the MOTU 828es serves as my hub, a few extra pres, and I think have maybe two or three pairs of I/O left over. It's almost too perfect! And exactly the cost of selling my Apollos. Well I'm glad you've come to a conclusion, I hope I've helped in some small way. Very helpful actually, thanks everyone who contributed. Everything is returnable but I think this will work. And virtually zero change to my workflow. I'm basically just trading out the Apollos for the Orbit for the cost of some DB25 cables. Let's do it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 10, 2022 7:34:50 GMT -6
I've thought about option 3, I was looking at an RND 5059 to replace the SSL. Because I've got quite a bit of HW I'd need another 16A with an AVB switch and if I'm looking for colour / saturation / summing then the Better Maker mastering limiter already does that. If it had a -4.5dB pan law then maybe it would be worth it? I dunno. Other issue is I already have a Shelford Channel which does the same track at a time. The RND stuff is on the cleaner side so hmm? I think I've got it. And it hits my budget exactly. Motu 828es Motu 24 AO RND Orbit Solves all my needs. 16 of the the AO outs go straight into the Orbit which gives me 8 stereo busses at mix down. That's like a dream come true for me for the way I mix. 8 of the AO outs go into my patchbay. I can then pull back in on the 8 line inputs on my 4-710 when mixing. Bonus is that the AO has three sets of ADAT ins so I've got very easy expandability when I decide to add a million Cranborne 500 ADATS or even something more reasonable like borrowing/renting some I/O for a large session. Then the MOTU 828es serves as my hub, a few extra pres, and I think have maybe two or three pairs of I/O left over. It's almost too perfect! And exactly the cost of selling my Apollos. Awesome. I use the 828es as my hub as well, but I have the 24ai plugged into it since I need a lot of inputs for tracking rather than outputs for mixing. On the 828es I use one of the front panel inputs for talkback mic, the other for random DI. I use all 8 outputs for the headphone stems. Main outs to the analog monitoring (speaker amp or headphone amp) and the coax SPDIF out for my KH310Ds. It's just about the perfect box for all this routing.
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 11:08:16 GMT -6
Just realized that I probably don't want to run from the DAW to the Oribt, it's a needless layer of conversion. I want to take my outboard and put it straight into the Orbit. So looks like I'm gonna need another patchbay. Simple I think... just set up a 16 inputs underneath my existing patchbay and patch into that when I'm at mix stage.
|
|
|
Post by paulnajar on Feb 10, 2022 16:50:49 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum by the way! The cue routing in Console is so clunky that I don't even bother. I just do a send from the DAW into the Cranborne and adjust from there. On the latency, yeah it's been so long since I've monitored through software it's hard to imagine those numbers are real. Software monitoring is certainly untenable with the Apollo I'll tell you that. Which just adds one more annoying layer as I have to flip back and forth to Console to do the most basic thing such as "where the heck is that open channel???" I looked at the MADI solution. Might be overkill for my needs. I'm in a mostly one room studio with vocals occasionally making use of a guest room. The MADI format looks extremely cool though. I think the problem is that with a setup like that RME one I'd also need to add a few other basic things like monitor controllers for example that would spike my cost. I really do like the idea of having at on of ADAT inputs though. And if I could swing it, adding a second Cranborne 500ADAT on top of that RME setup would be very cool (and it would take care of the monitoring question too). I just wouldn't have anything left over to put anything in the ADAT. Currently I'm comparing the MOTU 828es to the 1248 and there are some things I really like about the 828. Color display for one (lame I know but these things matter when you're tracking yourself on drums from 15 feet away). I also like the insert. And, weirdly, I like the front facing jacks. I say weirdly because I normally hate front facing jacks but, in this case, I'm liable to use these as "throw a cable in the closest open jack" type pres. The extra two pres and hi-z jacks in the 1248 don't matter to me at all. Anyway, dreaming of not using Console is making me want to ditch Apollo. I also just loaded up three recent mixes using only Satellite Quad and they all fit in the DSP, so no issue there. Thanks for the welcome:-) Yes I'm new around here although I've been lurking for some months. I think MOTU Cuemix is quite similar to RME Totalmix in that both offer a separate mix of live inputs and software outputs for every stereo hardware output pair the device has. I know all interface makers are struggling to stay relevant and offer new features so people want to upgrade. That's their business model. In recent years the race has been about offering onboard DSP processing separate to your DAW. Heaps of companies are doing it including RME - but unlike others they have kept that dsp development quite minimal compared to others. Perhaps a reflection of their great low latency performance? I dunno. Personally I couldn't care less about DSP processing on input via the interface other than to provide the best RTL performance. If I want to record any of that DSP I can do inside my DAW - but don't want to record any of it as I'm heavily invested in great analog front end for that. If you like the idea of a second Cranborne and lots of Adat IO maybe check out the RME Digiface USB. It has only a headphone output but 4 Adat pairs of IO. They are cheap and offer all the low latency performance I have already mentioned. With your existing gear of 1 or 2 500Adat and UA 710-D you would have at least 16 inputs straight up and if you only record 8 or less inputs at a time then you may well have enough outputs to serve your needs. If the MOTU's offer similar low latency at low CPU overhead then maybe that does suit your needs more? The upside I see with 2 x Cranborne's is 16 channel summing at mix down and their converter quality is better than almost every audio interface out there but downside and speaking from experience, add up carefully what getting deeper into 500 series will cost to fill all those slots.
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 17:17:30 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum by the way! The cue routing in Console is so clunky that I don't even bother. I just do a send from the DAW into the Cranborne and adjust from there. On the latency, yeah it's been so long since I've monitored through software it's hard to imagine those numbers are real. Software monitoring is certainly untenable with the Apollo I'll tell you that. Which just adds one more annoying layer as I have to flip back and forth to Console to do the most basic thing such as "where the heck is that open channel???" I looked at the MADI solution. Might be overkill for my needs. I'm in a mostly one room studio with vocals occasionally making use of a guest room. The MADI format looks extremely cool though. I think the problem is that with a setup like that RME one I'd also need to add a few other basic things like monitor controllers for example that would spike my cost. I really do like the idea of having at on of ADAT inputs though. And if I could swing it, adding a second Cranborne 500ADAT on top of that RME setup would be very cool (and it would take care of the monitoring question too). I just wouldn't have anything left over to put anything in the ADAT. Currently I'm comparing the MOTU 828es to the 1248 and there are some things I really like about the 828. Color display for one (lame I know but these things matter when you're tracking yourself on drums from 15 feet away). I also like the insert. And, weirdly, I like the front facing jacks. I say weirdly because I normally hate front facing jacks but, in this case, I'm liable to use these as "throw a cable in the closest open jack" type pres. The extra two pres and hi-z jacks in the 1248 don't matter to me at all. Anyway, dreaming of not using Console is making me want to ditch Apollo. I also just loaded up three recent mixes using only Satellite Quad and they all fit in the DSP, so no issue there. Thanks for the welcome:-) Yes I'm new around here although I've been lurking for some months. I think MOTU Cuemix is quite similar to RME Totalmix in that both offer a separate mix of live inputs and software outputs for every stereo hardware output pair the device has. I know all interface makers are struggling to stay relevant and offer new features so people want to upgrade. That's their business model. In recent years the race has been about offering onboard DSP processing separate to your DAW. Heaps of companies are doing it including RME - but unlike others they have kept that dsp development quite minimal compared to others. Perhaps a reflection of their great low latency performance? I dunno. Personally I couldn't care less about DSP processing on input via the interface other than to provide the best RTL performance. If I want to record any of that DSP I can do inside my DAW - but don't want to record any of it as I'm heavily invested in great analog front end for that. If you like the idea of a second Cranborne and lots of Adat IO maybe check out the RME Digiface USB. It has only a headphone output but 4 Adat pairs of IO. They are cheap and offer all the low latency performance I have already mentioned. With your existing gear of 1 or 2 500Adat and UA 710-D you would have at least 16 inputs straight up and if you only record 8 or less inputs at a time then you may well have enough outputs to serve your needs. If the MOTU's offer similar low latency at low CPU overhead then maybe that does suit your needs more? The upside I see with 2 x Cranborne's is 16 channel summing at mix down and their converter quality is better than almost every audio interface out there but downside and speaking from experience, add up carefully what getting deeper into 500 series will cost to fill all those slots. The 500 series adds up for sure. That's why I'm gonna attempt this 828es + 24ao + RND Orbit approach. My plan is: 8 outs from 24ao to the 4-710 (since it doesn't accept ADAT in) - 8 ins back via ADAT 16 outs 24ao directly to Orbit - then to Silver Bullet then 2 ins back either through MOTU or Cranborne 6 I/O from 828 to Patchbay 2 I/O from 828 to Reverb I think I'm just going to send to the Orbit straight from the DAW for recall and ease of workflow. Maybe it would sound better going there right from the hardware, but the amount of notation to nail the recall probably isn't worth it. But there's the question for you. Would you send you Mix outs from the Orbit/SB back through the Cranborne or the Motu for the last step of A/D? Kinda think it might be six one way, half dozen the other but the Cranborne sounds quite good to these ears.
|
|
|
Post by paulnajar on Feb 10, 2022 18:14:52 GMT -6
The 500 series adds up for sure. That's why I'm gonna attempt this 828es + 24ao + RND Orbit approach. My plan is: 8 outs from 24ao to the 4-710 (since it doesn't accept ADAT in) - 8 ins back via ADAT 16 outs 24ao directly to Orbit - then to Silver Bullet then 2 ins back either through MOTU or Cranborne 6 I/O from 828 to Patchbay 2 I/O from 828 to Reverb I think I'm just going to send to the Orbit straight from the DAW for recall and ease of workflow. Maybe it would sound better going there right from the hardware, but the amount of notation to nail the recall probably isn't worth it. But there's the question for you. Would you send you Mix outs from the Orbit/SB back through the Cranborne or the Motu for the last step of A/D? Kinda think it might be six one way, half dozen the other but the Cranborne sounds quite good to these ears. OK. I get what you're suggesting. Is your Cranborne rack full and do you wish to use it's analog channels during mix down? Given the MOTU 24 AO has no analog inputs then your only way to print the mix is via Cranborne or UA 4710 line ins right? I would be inclined to go 4 analog from MOTU > 4710 colour inputs and just use it's analog outs to Orbit ins. I would go Adat out to Cranborne in, and process 6 of its 8 inputs and send those 6 through it's own summing mixer out to stereo in on Orbit. So far you've only used 6 of 16 orbit ins. The other 10 orbit ins could be used if you have other analog processing so that would mean MOTU outs > other analog processing > orbit ins. Then finally go Orbit out to Silver Bullet ins then SB outs to last pair available of Cranborne ins which go back to computer for printing. Only other option would be go SB outs to 4710 Line ins and back to computer via 4710 Adat but question mark on the converter quality. This may be an option if your Cranborne rack is full and you wish to use all 8 channels for sub mix processing. All of this would leave you enough outputs from MOTU to wire in control room speakers and headphones via Cranborne aux ins.
|
|
|
Post by paulnajar on Feb 10, 2022 18:32:38 GMT -6
Oops I just noticed one more thing. Why do you need the 828es at all?
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 18:59:21 GMT -6
The 500 series adds up for sure. That's why I'm gonna attempt this 828es + 24ao + RND Orbit approach. My plan is: 8 outs from 24ao to the 4-710 (since it doesn't accept ADAT in) - 8 ins back via ADAT 16 outs 24ao directly to Orbit - then to Silver Bullet then 2 ins back either through MOTU or Cranborne 6 I/O from 828 to Patchbay 2 I/O from 828 to Reverb I think I'm just going to send to the Orbit straight from the DAW for recall and ease of workflow. Maybe it would sound better going there right from the hardware, but the amount of notation to nail the recall probably isn't worth it. But there's the question for you. Would you send you Mix outs from the Orbit/SB back through the Cranborne or the Motu for the last step of A/D? Kinda think it might be six one way, half dozen the other but the Cranborne sounds quite good to these ears. OK. I get what you're suggesting. Is your Cranborne rack full and do you wish to use it's analog channels during mix down? Given the MOTU 24 AO has no analog inputs then your only way to print the mix is via Cranborne or UA 4710 line ins right? I would be inclined to go 4 analog from MOTU > 4710 colour inputs and just use it's analog outs to Orbit ins. I would go Adat out to Cranborne in, and process 6 of its 8 inputs and send those 6 through it's own summing mixer out to stereo in on Orbit. So far you've only used 6 of 16 orbit ins. The other 10 orbit ins could be used if you have other analog processing so that would mean MOTU outs > other analog processing > orbit ins. Then finally go Orbit out to Silver Bullet ins then SB outs to last pair available of Cranborne ins which go back to computer for printing. Only other option would be go SB outs to 4710 Line ins and back to computer via 4710 Adat but question mark on the converter quality. This may be an option if your Cranborne rack is full and you wish to use all 8 channels for sub mix processing. All of this would leave you enough outputs from MOTU to wire in control room speakers and headphones via Cranborne aux ins. There's another MOTU though. There's the MOTU 828es which was 8 in 8 out. It's a lot simpler than that thankfully! At the end of the process I'm going to be left with a stereo out from the Orbit and then it's a matter of which converter I prefer, MOTU 828es or Cranborne 500ADAT. I guess it's not that tough to just test it once the stuff arrives. Even so and even though I don't need to, interesting point about "sub summing" in the Cranborne. I had that thought as well. I don't normally do mixes that large but good to remember that it's possible.
|
|
|
Post by paulnajar on Feb 10, 2022 19:19:51 GMT -6
Even so and even though I don't need to, interesting point about "sub summing" in the Cranborne. I had that thought as well. I don't normally do mixes that large but good to remember that it's possible. The sub summing works just fine here. I have to daisy chain 3 500Adat's to achieve 24 channel sum (22 really) Slots 23&24 carry a Wes Audio Dione fed by Silver Bullet. In a way getting a RND Orbit is a bit of duplication given you've already got 8 channel summing in the Cranborne..
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 19:59:22 GMT -6
Even so and even though I don't need to, interesting point about "sub summing" in the Cranborne. I had that thought as well. I don't normally do mixes that large but good to remember that it's possible. The sub summing works just fine here. I have to daisy chain 3 500Adat's to achieve 24 channel sum (22 really) Slots 23&24 carry a Wes Audio Dione fed by Silver Bullet. In a way getting a RND Orbit is a bit of duplication given you've already got 8 channel summing in the Cranborne.. Kind of. But I have been struggling for months to try and figure out a workflow where I can use it for summing. And the problem is that on full mix projects it forces me to make processing decisions based on where my 500 slots are located instead of based on what’s best. Does that make sense? I guess I could have just printed my fx and then summed, the thing is that I wanna be able to monitor my summing as I mix. Do you know what I’m saying, it’s tricky when there are effects that have to be taken into account. I have some summed smaller projects through it and it sounds amazing. If I had a second one it would be a whole lot easier.
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Feb 10, 2022 20:43:43 GMT -6
The last switch I made was Apollo to RME. I often wonder if i should pick up a Motu to compare it too. I like the Apollo, i just didn't like the latency for amp sims & VIs. This wont be a problem for everyone or even many people. You can get a great cue mix for the vocalist on an Apollo.
Over the years ive owned many interfaces RME(firewire/pci/usb/standalone), Apogee's, Metric halo, Focusrite, Apollos, M-audio.
Some interfaces are objectively bad, but a lot of it comes down to workflow and how you are going to use it. I recorded many many tracks on a profire2626 and never had a hick-up, great latency. Same goes for the fireface 800. Did they sound great.... err not really... but an RME ADI solved that in the mid 2000s.
Unfortunately, you need to test out an interface in your setup to see if it works for you and is not easy to do unless you enjoy wheeling and dealing. Maybe in the US where they have good exchange/refund policies it is easier.
The last 10 years have been great for us with audio interfaces, too many good choices!!
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 21:07:01 GMT -6
The last switch I made was Apollo to RME. I often wonder if i should pick up a Motu to compare it too. I like the Apollo, i just didn't like the latency for amp sims & VIs. This wont be a problem for everyone or even many people. You can get a great cue mix for the vocalist on an Apollo. Over the years ive owned many interfaces RME(firewire/pci/usb/standalone), Apogee's, Metric halo, Focusrite, Apollos, M-audio. Some interfaces are objectively bad, but a lot of it comes down to workflow and how you are going to use it. I recorded many many tracks on a profire2626 and never had a hick-up, great latency. Same goes for the fireface 800. Did they sound great.... err not really... but an RME ADI solved that in the mid 2000s. Unfortunately, you need to test out an interface in your setup to see if it works for you and is not easy to do unless you enjoy wheeling and dealing. Maybe in the US where they have good exchange/refund policies it is easier. The last 10 years have been great for us with audio interfaces, too many good choices!! Definitely an advantage to the US market. If I don't like the MOTU I can just return it. But I really can't see why I wouldn't. It has the features I need and if folks like svart and Shadow are saying the conversion is good, I'm sure it's good. So, we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Feb 10, 2022 21:25:20 GMT -6
It was the high praise from folks here that led me to the 828es when I upgraded interfaces.
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 22:27:58 GMT -6
It was the high praise from folks here that led me to the 828es when I upgraded interfaces. If there was an Oscars for Internet forums, RGO would hands down be the winner for "Best Specialist Community." I haven't said it in a while but what a great group here. So glad I stumbled on this place! And massive shout out to Johnkenn for making it what it is and setting the tone. Don't ever stop!
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Feb 10, 2022 22:51:11 GMT -6
Here's another opinion on the RME brand from a guy who has been using MOTU 16a for years. But he is primarily a mix and mastering engineer who has a studio of analog gear. He said the reason he was moving away from MOTU was that the power converters on the 16a were failing every two to three years and he was tired of the reoccurring issue. I've not heard of this from others, so maybe he's particularly hard on them.
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Feb 10, 2022 23:31:54 GMT -6
Here's another opinion on the RME brand from a guy who has been using MOTU 16a for years. But he is primarily a mix and mastering engineer who has a studio of analog gear. He said the reason he was moving away from MOTU was that the power converters on the 16a were failing every two to three years and he was tired of the reoccurring issue. I've not heard of this from others, so maybe he's particularly hard on them. That's interesting. I recall seeing an episode of his thing where he was talking about the power in his place. If I recall he's in a commercial building and he was talking about how the power in the building is meant for like operating machine presses and stuff. So there's a room stepping it down for normal use. If I had to guess, I'd point the blame there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2022 0:15:36 GMT -6
Yeah, I mean preferences aside I've been running my MOTU 1248 for 8 years. It's still going..
|
|