Your killer Digi 001 rig

general questions, comments and ideas about recording, audio, music, etc.
rauri76
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 6:56 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by rauri76 » Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:42 pm

Thanks for takin' the time pardner,
I would like to know about yer killer Digi 001 rig. How ya got around the not so great pres, the not so great A/D D/A, mixing outside the box or whatever else you did to augment yer humble system into something that sounds better to you.
Me I got a spirit M-8 mixer to kill two birds. 1 better pres spozda be like the ones in the ghost. 2 my whole entertainment system goes through it so I can get to know my Event PS8's real well.
Thanks and take 'er easy.

BigCats
gimme a little kick & snare
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:40 am

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by BigCats » Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:10 pm

Yeah . . . let's see, it was the day I sold it and upgraded to a 002.

Seriously, for the 001 I got a decent pre (PreSonus MP20, the older one), an RNC, some decent mics, the Waves gold package and (the secret weapon) PSP's vintage warmer. Could you get better, well yeah, but could I afford it, well no! A better front end signal chain really helped particularly on acoustic guitar and vocals (vs the 001 alone).

Thta being said, the 002 really did make a huge difference. The convertors on the 001 tended to smear everything at the top end - probably not good when acoustic guitar is a foundation for a lot of your songs. Better convertors would have done the same for my old 001 but I was so sick of how that Tinker Toy 001 product design looked, I just upped for the 002 . . .

K

joel hamilton
zen recordist
Posts: 8876
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 12:10 pm
Location: NYC/Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by joel hamilton » Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:13 pm

I bought an 001. Like one of the first 50 or so they sold to the public.

I milked SO much out of that thing. I clocked it with a rosendahl nanosynch, I hooked up all kinds of different snazzy A/d/A to it via lightpipe, and I ALWAYS fanned the outputs to a console.

With a good clock source and something nice connected via lightpipe you can get away with it for years.

I would mult EVERY input right from a pre, to a mult, then to a channel for monitoring off the input, and I would mute in protools while recording, to work around the latency issue. I spent a lot of time slipping tracks back to where they were supposed to live. multing everything on the way in was ridiculous, but it kept people from asking if I had effects on the acoustic...

Latency is unacceptable and I cant believe these fuckers dont just foldback the inputs for you! other companies do it, why cant digi just foldback right off the input, and let you choose an "auto" function to switch to "sync" like a tape machine when you are punching?
I guess that would raise the price by too much to stay competitive. Why not make this a function available in an "002+" model or something?

Something that truly is a step between a full blown TDM/HD rig and an 001!>?!?

jvanslem
gettin' sounds
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:36 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by jvanslem » Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:15 pm

Joel Hamilton wrote:I would mult EVERY input right from a pre, to a mult, then to a channel for monitoring off the input, and I would mute in protools while recording, to work around the latency issue.
Joel,
Did you just use the patchbay for multing? Unbalanced?

joel hamilton
zen recordist
Posts: 8876
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 12:10 pm
Location: NYC/Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by joel hamilton » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:09 am

Yeah, I would use the patchbay, balanced though, not unbalanced.

User avatar
chuckfurok
steve albini likes it
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:49 pm
Location: ABQ
Contact:

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by chuckfurok » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:13 am

Joel Hamilton wrote:I would mult EVERY input right from a pre, to a mult, then to a channel for monitoring off the input, and I would mute in protools while recording, to work around the latency issue. I spent a lot of time slipping tracks back to where they were supposed to live. multing everything on the way in was ridiculous, but it kept people from asking if I had effects on the acoustic...
scuze me ignorance but what does "mult" mean? also I thought pro tools automatically put the files where they should be, why did you have to move the tracks? all of the sudden I feel like everything I have been doing is wrong!?

Sean

joel hamilton
zen recordist
Posts: 8876
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 12:10 pm
Location: NYC/Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by joel hamilton » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:21 am

A "mult" is a group of interconnected patch points on a patch bay for connecting "multiple" devices from a single source.

This has NOTHING to do with protools operation, as this happens BEFORE the signal even reaches the converters.

This is not needed with my PT HD rig, as there is no latency.

The reason I would take the signal from the pre, run it to a mult, take TWO outs from the mult, run one to the console and one to the input of protools.
I would then MUTE the channel in protools, so we were not listening through the 001, we were simply hearing the sound of the mic and pre, without the latency.

I hope that makes more sense to you.

User avatar
chuckfurok
steve albini likes it
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:49 pm
Location: ABQ
Contact:

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by chuckfurok » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:32 am

Joel Hamilton wrote:I hope that makes more sense to you.
It does make sense and now seems obvious once its been explained. But what about the moving files part, why did you have to do this? Thanks

Sean

kevindale
audio school graduate
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:48 am
Location: this little township of...

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by kevindale » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:35 am

hi Joel,
but why the issue of pushing tracks around in PT?
Multing pre-converters shouldn't affect the....ohhhh wait, YOu spent a lot of time pushing things around BECAUSE of latency issues. THEN you began MuLTING to solve the latency issue, say in overdubs, i.e. NO MORE PUSHING overdub tracks Around...
is this right?
-kev
joelhamilton wrote:
"I spent a lot of time slipping tracks back to where they were supposed to live. multing everything on the way in was ridiculous, but it kept people from asking if I had effects on the acoustic... "
you start out owning stuff, but sooner or later that stuff owns you.

Electricide
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2105
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:04 am
Location: phoenix

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by Electricide » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:36 am

chuckfurok wrote:
Joel Hamilton wrote:I hope that makes more sense to you.
It does make sense and now seems obvious once its been explained. But what about the moving files part, why did you have to do this? Thanks

Sean
Joel is referring to sliding the audio file back in time a few samples (or more) so that the file lines up with the other tracks. Due to latency, the file won't get recorded at the moment in time that you play it. That's why trying to listen to the file off of the hard drive as you record it doesn't work, because by the time it goes through the circuits, to the hard drive, back out the circuits and to your speaker its milliseconds behind where it should be.

He wasn't talking about the location of the file on the disk or in a folder.

Electricide
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2105
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:04 am
Location: phoenix

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by Electricide » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:42 am

Also,
If you're using a mixer on the front-end, maybe use the aux send as your send to the 001, depending on how the eq is set (pre or post). Then you can use the L/R mix to monitor the instrument you're tracking along with the return from Protools. Just ensure that the aux sends on the Protools return are turned down, and that you mute the channel in Protools to which you are recording (mute is post-hard disk, so it won't interrupt tracking). That way you hear the instrument without latency. ou may have to slide in into place in ProTools later, though.

User avatar
chuckfurok
steve albini likes it
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:49 pm
Location: ABQ
Contact:

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by chuckfurok » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:46 am

Electricide wrote:
chuckfurok wrote:
Joel Hamilton wrote:I hope that makes more sense to you.
It does make sense and now seems obvious once its been explained. But what about the moving files part, why did you have to do this? Thanks

Sean
Joel is referring to sliding the audio file back in time a few samples (or more) so that the file lines up with the other tracks. Due to latency, the file won't get recorded at the moment in time that you play it. That's why trying to listen to the file off of the hard drive as you record it doesn't work, because by the time it goes through the circuits, to the hard drive, back out the circuits and to your speaker its milliseconds behind where it should be.

He wasn't talking about the location of the file on the disk or in a folder.
I understand the that hes talking about sliding the files, but i thought latency was purely a monitoring issue and became a non-issue once the files were recorded. dosent pro-tools adjust for this? I dont really have to move every track that I overdub do I?

TrumpsHair
buyin' gear
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:47 pm

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by TrumpsHair » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:49 am

I do have a killer 001 rig. But I first had to decide that I wasn't going to record a lot of instruments at one time, bands etc.
Since I genrerally just record myself or my friends, I realized that using 1 or 2 tracks at a time would be sufficient for my purposes.
So I got 2 Brent Averill 1272's, preamps. These are identical copies of Neve 1272s. So now with 2 great preamps it was time to address the converters. Again, thinking in terms of 2 channels only, I got an Apogee Rosetta A/D converter which smokes the 001s converters. And for the D/A converter, I got a Benchmark DAC1.
So my recordings are as sonically happening as those in the best studios, but I can only do 2 at a time, which is no problem for me. I use Mackie HR 624s to monitor.

Electricide
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2105
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:04 am
Location: phoenix

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by Electricide » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:07 am

well, because ProTools LE systems utilize the native processor in the computer, latency will vary from machine to machine, so I'm not sure how PT would determine the appropriate amount.

Anybody else?

User avatar
leigh
carpal tunnel
Posts: 1635
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:16 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Your killer Digi 001 rig

Post by leigh » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:42 am

Electricide wrote:well, because ProTools LE systems utilize the native processor in the computer, latency will vary from machine to machine, so I'm not sure how PT would determine the appropriate amount.
Latency times are standardized, regardless of the CPU speed. Latency time is determined by the i/o buffers that Pro Tools uses, not by the CPU running at full-tilt.

I/O latency should be down to about 3ms with PT LE's "Low Latency Monitorting" option checked.

Besides that, latency would be dependent on how you have the i/o buffers set in Pro Tools, for 128, 256, 512, or 1024 samples.

THAT SAID, I still don't understand moving an overdubbed sound file back. Why doesn't it line up automatically (eg with automatic latency compensation)?

And when Digi claims for PT 6.4 that they've implemented automatic delay compensation, do they mean just for plug-ins, or would this fix this supposed latency of overdubbed tracks? (I understand that it doesn't get rid of REAL TIME latency while you're overdubbing, but I mean, how it lines up those tracks with the existing ones.)

Leigh

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 29 guests