| Home recording and general music post from the archived Yabb Recording Website Message Board. Some of the info here may be outdated but many of the audio recording and home studio tips are still good. Note: The only tags I made and attempt to convert are italics, bold, center and underline. So if you see some gibberish surrounded by brackets, just ignore it.
Recording Website Archived Yabb board Post
Febuary 2001 Yabb Message Board Archive
Subject: Digital Console VS Analog Console
by Will L. | 03/08/01 at 02:59:24
Hi. When using a digital console for mixing, does the sound, once running into the console, get converted to 24-bit within the console itself -- or is it converted when it gets to its recording source (i.e. computer or HD stand alone)? For instance, if I were to use a digital mixer, but record to a studer reel, would my efforts be in vain, as the sound would be converted to 24-bit, only to go back to analog? Would I be better off just using an analog console? Ideally, I would like to record to tape, then transfer to computer, then using the digital console to digitally edit, but I also want to compromise the sound as little as possible -- meaning as few conversions as neccessary.
Subject: Re: Digital Console VS Analog Console
by Silent_Bob | 03/08/01 at 18:41:42
it really depends on the machine. For instance, there's one mixer I read about that had 20 bit convertors and 24 bit effects but the volume and pans were 16 bit. There's some that are 24 bit all the way through. Some autodetect the input and auto convert to the mixer's supported format. So, before you settle on a mixer, get all the specs you can get, and feel free to E-mail the company with your quesitons. If they don't answere you, then they don't want your business.
Also, there's something called DSD mixers which are the best money can buy. They utilize 1 bit digital stream at a sample rate greater than 200KHz. They are the equivelant of 20 or greater but without any truncating, sample conversion or any of the artifacts attributed with the typical pulse code modulation.
Subject: ps
by Silent_Bob | 03/08/01 at 18:52:26
Didn't read you whole post the first time, sorry. It sounds like you're making more steps for yourself than you need. If you want to edit the tracks on computer, then record directly to the computer and save a generation loss. If your computer will have digital outs, then by all means, use the digital mixer. If the outs are analogue, use an analogue mixer. If the convertors and supportest file format on the computer are anything less than 20 bit, then use the studer along with an analogue mixer.
IMHO, there's one reason to use a digital mixer. If the original recording is digital and can be directly transfered digitally though the mixer and directly transferred digitally to a digital mixdown medium.
Subject: Re: Digital Console VS Analog Console
by Puke | 03/09/01 at 00:15:24
Dude,
If you want the final to end up on a studer reel (I assume 2 track analog), I'm having a hard time finding a reason why you would want to remove the analog from your analog by messing with digital in between.... unless you are not going to end up on analog at the end, there are NOT a lot of compelling reasons to go digital and then back again.
Subject: Re: Digital Console VS Analog Console
by Will L. | 03/09/01 at 03:22:11
Well, here's my personal pinch: I prefer the sound and methodology of recording to tape, but digital mixing is the perfect chiselling tool for sound. Thus I seek to gain the best from both worlds -- even though I have to in turn have one generation loss. What I'm not clear on is, will I need two mixers or one? Certainly, if a digital mixer converts signal to sample rate internally, I'll have to use an analog mixer, as there's no reason to record the sampled-rated sound to tape, only to re-convert it back into a computer.
The mixer that has me wondering is the Mackie Real-8 Bus. They have a diagram of an analog recording set up, but I'm still not sure about the specifics of what will happen to the sound source once it enters the console.
Basically, I guess I'm envisioning an analog console which can then be turned around and used to interact with computer software so as to have hands on digital mixing.
Subject: Re: Digital Console VS Analog Console
by Silent_Bob | 03/09/01 at 18:08:58
I see. Trying to get the best of both worlds. What I usually do is track analogue, mix using an analogue console and mix directly to computer for mastering. That usually works well for me. But if you want to manipulate the tracks on a computer, I'd track directly to the computer, mix using an analogue console to an analogue medium like a 1/4" stereo.
Subject: Re: Digital Console VS Analog Console
by ManOhMan | 04/03/01 at 16:29:20
Sorry to break the line of inquiry here but I got to ask - Silent Bob, what is that animation blob supposed to be?
Subject: Re: Digital Console VS Analog Console
by ManOhMan | 04/09/01 at 12:05:02
Silent Bob - I really mean it, what is that animated blob supposed to be?
Subject: Re: Digital Console VS Analog Console
by pcrecord | 04/09/01 at 13:04:36
Hey will,
Have you check the digital 328 for spirit by soundcraft ? Could be a alternative to the mackie.