Questions about the Alesis HD24

[Mystic Steamship Co.]

So it looks like my friend is getting a Ghost for our studio real soon, but we are going to need something with at least 24 ins and outs and therefore our 002 just ain't gonna cut it. I've been really looking into getting an Alesis HD24 for a while now but I still want to clear a few things up before I make up my mind.

The first thing I want to know is how much better are the converters in the XR version compared to the normal? I've heard the XR's are great and that they can be modded even further by Jim Williams to sound amazing. But say compared to a 002, how are the converters in the normal HD24? Right now I don't have the scratch to really spend $1600 on the XR especially when I can get the normal version for half of that. I would likely upgrade later but in the long run that will probably be a bit more expensive. But if the HD24 stock converters are better than the 002 (probably can't get much worse) I would be fine with that for now.

The second thing I was wondering, what is the best way to use this with pro tools? Should we hold on to the 002 and get the firewire option for the HD24, or could I get something like the M-Audio Lightbridge and just use the HD24 as converters? Can that thing really handle 24 ins and outs...without fucking up? I've heard of people getting the RME cards and using another DAW but I have an Imac and kind of need to be able to use pro tools for school. I've tried logic but I just couldn't get used to it.

All and all I am SUPER excited to get a console and a 24 track recorder. I just got a Soundcraft M8 last week to mix OTB with the 002 and its amazingly fun and most importantly it really makes me want to record/mix something every time I sit down in front of my desk, instead of surfing the web or studying. The ghost with 24, ins and outs will be a 1000 times more flexible and even more fun.

[kayagum]

Just do it!

* Stock converters are more than fine for just about any application. I wouldn't bother with the upgrade unless you have a fully acoustically good sounding (i.e. treated) room.

* Yes, all 24 tracks are bullet-proof.

* If you have the Fireport, you can fly tracks in and out of your PC/Mac at will. Use your plugins or any other tool, and fly it back out for mixdown.

For the money, you can't beat it!

[Sean Sullivan]

So, does it have some sort of file management software to upload on to your computer?

If you had the Fireport, you could just dump everything on to your computer and maybe get a Digidesign Micro to use Pro Tools?

They way I imagine using it is tracking with the Ghost, dumping into the computer to mix a couple channels to use automation, and bring it back into the console.

That's kind of confusing...

[eh91311]

Alesis Fireport ships with software to upload/download audio files from the HD24 hard drive to the computer and back. You can then save them as .aiffs or .wavs, import them into your DAW software. Well worth the $.

[kayagum]

Other bonuses with the Fireport- you can rename tracks at will, # of tracks per song (e.g. record as a 6 track recording, import into a 24 track song).

Plus, if you have decent outboard gear, you may decide you don't really need PT at all- just use your Ghost to coordinate everything for the mixdown.

[Sean Sullivan]

That would be nice, I'm going to try to get a stereo link Distressor, a couple dbx 160X, and maybe a Summit Audio TLA-100A or a good vocal compressor, in the near future. I'm not really a plug in guy, we have a Hiwatt Custom Tape Echo, Deltalab Effectron, and TC M2000 for effects.

[Jeff White]

Question.

Can the HD24 be used as a stand alone converter? Lots of folks are asking this. Please explain if you have or are using it this way.

I used to have one before I had a G5 and a Powerbook (2002 until 2005). They are bullet proof. Seriously awesome sounding recorder. I never had the fireport and used to dump remote sessions via lightpipe 8 tracks at a time into Digital Performer. It was sample accurate and really awesome. Fireport would even be better, obviously.

Jeff

[Sean Sullivan]

What appealing about the HD24 is we wouldn't have to get a new computer (we use an iMac) because nothing CPU intensive will be going on.

[emrr]

I can't comment on the sound of the standard HD24 converters. The HD24XR converters are pretty nice as-is. They sound noticably better at high rates in 12 track mode.

The stand alone converter question: Yes, but it's a pain in the ass. Why? Analog input for recording, lightpipe over to your DAW setup through some other interface. Ready to play back? Time to manually switch the inputs on the HD24 into digital input AND set to monitor all inputs AND then hit play on the DAW. You can imagine how tiresome this would get in an overdub situation, when you need some inputs set to digital for playback and others set to analog for new recording. Yes, it's down in a sub-menu. I thought I could make this fly, but the sheer frustration led me to purchase another converter in/out that work automatically from the DAW like a tape machine should. If you are really only recording 100% live, and then playing it all back, you won't be bothered by this hassle. I predict it would drive anyone else up the wall.

Fireport transfers to the computer are relatively quick and hassle free. I have found transfers from computer to DAW to be entirely unpredictable and untrustworthy. I have never seen a non-sequential track selection transfer properly, nor a group of tracks starting at anything above track #1 transfer properly either. I have never seen high sample rates transfer back to the HD24 successfully via any method other than one at a time. 44.1/48 tracks in sequential order, like tracks 1-10, transfer fine. If you then have 14-24 to transfer, I find they must be done one at a time. Transfer an entire records worth of songs this way, and you will need half a day to do it and then audibly verify correct transfer. I have found transfers that appeared successful, yet somehow managed to abort partway through. In short, I don't trust DAW to HD24 transfers without rigorous post-transfer listening verification. I am on the fence as to whether or not real time lightpipe transfer might not actually be the faster method once you account for all the brain twisting accounting and verification that the Fireport requires.

I have kept my HD24 around primarily for remote work. I had a BRC already, and was sorely disappointed by the poor interaction and numerous unsupported features. 44.1 with an HD24 and a BRC is a technical disaster. I added a MOTU 24 I/O since I already had a 2408 PCIe system, and it's been flawless. If you will be working in protools extensively on most projects I suspect you'd be better off with a dedicated converter set, even if you plan to treat it like a tape machine and output tracks to the console for analog mixing. I use a mix of DAW processing and analog processing with mixing and panning in an analog board. There are seldom times when a session is simple enough to stay in the HD24, and transfers to the DAW and subsequent DAW setup just seems to add to the time to no advantage. My 2 cents.

[Mystic Steamship Co.]

What I really should have done was keep my Otari MX80 that I sold last month. I didn't know we were getting a console so soon; and I felt silly having a 24 track without it even getting touched. It's all good though, I got a bunch of kickass stuff on trade for it.

[Sean Sullivan]

We should just break down and get Radar II, the 24 BIT/48 K versions sell for around $2000 with remote these days.

[GooberNumber9]

To the OP: I still regret not getting the XR version. The normal one is fine, though. Definitely get the fireport (as others have said, it is very useful). You can record on the HD24, fly into PT with the fireport, edit and even create effect tracks (like a reverb track), and then fly back to HD24 for mixing if you want.

The biggest downside to the HD24 is that you can't layer takes on top of one another on a single track (no virtual tracks). It's just like a tape machine, or maybe more like three ADATs slaved together. If you want to do multiple vocal takes, you have to leave some tracks available when you're doing the instruments. With good musicians, it's not a problem since you can punch in pretty easily. If you are used to taking and comping a lot, the HD24 isn't so good at that.

[kayagum]

(no virtual tracks)

For me, that's a plus. I already suffer enough from options paralysis, and this forces me to make decision.

I was looking for a digital next step past my beloved Tascam 238s (more because of the commercial sound design/location work than anything else), and the HD24 totally fit the bill.

[cgarges]

We should just break down and get Radar II, the 24 BIT/48 K versions sell for around $2000 with remote these days.

You'd have many of the same problems Doug mentioned with a RADAR II. If you use it as a converter, the same issues are there for doing overdubbing (switching back and forth between digital and analog I/O) and since the RADAR IIs don't handle RADAR 24 software upgrades, you can't install software that includes things like gain changes and BWAV transfers.

If you can find a RADAR 24, that'll take care of the file transfer problems, but you'll still have the same issues using it as a stand-alone converter. On the plus side, you'd have a totally stable and awesome-sounding stand-alone recording device.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[GooberNumber9]

(no virtual tracks)

For me, that's a plus.

In retrospect I regret using the term "downside" to describe that aspect of it. Maybe "important difference when coming from a DAW perspective" would be more accurate, if wordy. I've made all of my best recordings with an HD24, so it's not a big disadvantage. I do like to record vocal takes into PT since I'm much more likely to do takes and comps on vocal tracks.