Motu HD192 and pro tools HD

[MichaelAlan]

Ok. My options for digital before I decided on analog were the Digi 002 or the Motu HD192. They are both around the same price. Look at what you're offered, MOTU = 192 Khz, PCI card based, And it is an interface with pre's.
The Digi 002 is 96Khz, 4 pre's and the little automated board. The big problem I see is, the Pro tools HD system starts at like $10,000! I guess my question is why is the MOTU card, interface, and pre's only $2000 when the Pro tools HD's card and interface $10,000? This thinking led me to analog. Please let me know what I'm not getting here.

Mike

[I'm Painting Again]

your getting the standard with PTsoftware..and then with PTHD your getting special hardware that handles the dsp instead of the host system..i guess those are some reasons..

[tiger vomitt]

digidesign like to overprice things. cuz they can.

[greatmagnet]

What Up Foamy!?!?

This is gonna be a long-ass post, but I recently got a PM from another TapeOpper who had an Otari 5050 tape machine like mine and then a Digi 001 system, and he was curious what my thoughts were on the pluses and minuses of MOTU stuff because he was finding his system a bit unstable (crashy) and the hardware connections to be rather chintzy as well. So, he was thinking about switching. I'm gonna paste my reply to him below (with some new thoughts added) and hopefully it will be more helpful than long-winded! Here goes:

The DP interface is a bit hard to learn simply because it does so DAMN MUCH! But in the long run, it's a good thing. Once you get used to where all the different functions are located, you're a whiz. The manual is the size of War and Peace, which I think is good...if you need the manual you can find most things covered, though perhaps not where you expected them to be covered or what they should be "called" in your mind. Actaully they just came out with the new version of DP, and it looks like you can integrate all your "palletes" (as I think of them being a graphic desiogner by day) into a single window which is cooler.

Another thing it APPEARS as though they've addressed with the new version is automatic delay compensation on plugins and monitoring. They were just about the only software that didn't have that yet and it really pissed me off (I had Cubase before I switched)...I actually had to SELL my lovely UAD-1 card because their latency compensator plugins were so fucking hard to use. Now I guess that's not an issue?

I agree with the "Evil Empire" of the highly-overpriced Digi stuff...and in the past I thought their stuff was supposed to be far more stable...maybe not so true now? Maybe still true with the higher-up systems as opposed to 001/002 stuff. I've never used any ProTools stuff since I do not have a trust fund in my name. Anyhow, OSX is so damn stable compared to the old days, that's hardly an issue...especially with Macs being so fast now. I don't know shit about PCs. I can't imagine that the proTools interface DOES more...I know lots of people use a ProTools backside and use the DP interface simply because it's more elegant and useful. One other thing: DP records in Sound Designer 2 files just like PT. Dropping PT files into DP couldn't be more seamless, and it also converts WAV or AIFF or anything else no problemo.

I believe that with professional-level Pro Tools setups (not the 001/002) the big difference is that you have your processing dedicated to two proprietary hardware cards...one for primary functions and one (or more) for effects plugins if I understand correctly. This has always kinda been the ProTools "edge"...taking the processing strain off the computer to make things operate faster and more stable and allowing for more plugins and such. Honestly, on my dual 1ghz G4 with max ram, I can do pretty much anything I want and my computer never flinches...my processor bar usually stays at around 25% max. If you're looking at an 001/002 Digi system that "edge" is gone if it's even relevant anymore. Again, I have no ProTools experience so caveat emptor I may be talking out my ass.

THE BAD STUFF ABOUT MOTU...

The reason the MOTU hardware is so cheap (I am guessing here) is that the build quality is TERRIBLE. The soldering in particular. I've owned the 896 and then the 2408s and I've literally had to take each peice of MOTU hardware I've bought back to Guitar Center AT LEAST once and sometimes twice because they break almost immediately if you get a lemon, which happens all the time it seems by my experience. So buy your MOTU hardware local and treat it with kit gloves. Also the TRS jacks on the 2408 are incredibly loose and will spit out your plugs without you even knowing what went wrong. Suddenly you simply have no signal and you kinda have to learn the hard way that oops you must have jostled the cables in the back of your rack and the 2408 spit them out!

One of my 2 current 2408s has a broken headphone pot...I emailed tech support to ask about acquiring a new one, and they responded A WEEK LATER and told me they did not do that and that I'd have to send the whole fucking box in for repair all the way across the country.

This is the other bad thing: their tech support is a joke. If you email them for help you can forget about ever getting a response back. I believe their tech support is literally just a couple guys working out of their apartments. That's not a joke. And they work banker's hours. Strictly 9 to 5.

Back to the good stuff to finish off, I can't think of another company whos' software or hardware is clearly designed by people who make music on the computer and on the Mac. It's very clear by the choices they give you as far as ins/outs/connectability goes that they are meant to be used by working musicians and they are very scale-able.

There ya have it!

[sonikbliss]

the motu hd 192 is an awesome interface. it uses the exact same A/D chip that the PT HD stuff uses and is just as good. the main difference is that the motu doesn't come with software, but for around $1000 you can get the newest Logic or what have you. IMHO this is a pretty badass setup for the money and would probably out perform anything analog at the same price. (though analog is great and i own a R2R, so please don't jump all over me all you hardcore analog junkies)


check out the in the studio link, very cool.

http://www.achilles-heel.net/

recording.
the entire album was recorded with mark of the unicorn's dp4 program using a mac g5 and the motu hd 192 hardware interface. most of the songs were recorded at a 192khz sampling rate. the album was recorded and mixed between october 2003 and january 2004 at the bands "studio" in rural washington.

[greatmagnet]

Inspiring to see such a humble setup much like my own used for such great things! Nice to see the 2 RNCs sitting under the mighty 1176 and LA2A!

Interesting also to see that they recorded the whole schmeer at 192 khz! I've been scared to try that as I don't know what my G4 would do with files that big...guess it doesn't matter if you've got a G5!

i was also interested to see that they put their mixes through a Ghost console and then re-recorded it back to the computer for mixdown. That's basically like an analog summing kinda thing, plus it shows that you can do your analog summing and then just pipe it right back to the computer for mixdown...you don;t need a Masterlink or anything necessarily!

I just got a Folcrom and I've been getting ready to try that!

[joel hamilton]

"analog summing kinda thing, plus it shows that you can do your analog summing and then just pipe it right back to the computer for mixdown"

I do this all the time, even if I am printing to analog. I do it as a safety, the same way we used to print to a DAT even when going to a nice 1/2" machine.

I will do this regardless of sample rate. Even if I am at 44.1 with a session handed to me that way, I would rather print 24 bits through good converters than to a DAT machine with errors and 16 bits and rewind....

Once you get outside 48k everything gets better. Nyquist was on to something, but we all realized the effects of the psychoacoustic material out to 50k...

[greatmagnet]

Joel, just out of curiosity do you think that sonically there are truly audible advantages to using a nice summing mixer like my Folcrom as opposed to simply using a not-too-expensive "pro-sumer" type mixing board (say a Soundcraft Spirit series for example) for the same purpose...simply to do analog summing of your DAW mixes before taking them back to digital for mastering?

I ask because I just got my Folcrom and haven't really started using it yet as I am still saving up to buy some really decent pres to put after it for the requisite signal "boost".

I am wondering if I might be just as well off selling the folcrom and getting a 16-channel mixer of the aforementioned caliber, simply because if I had a mixer rather than the Folcrom, I could use it for other studio tasks as well like signal routing most importantly. I've got a totally "mixerless" setup right now, and sometimes I miss the ability to route signals to different places like I could when I had my little 10-channel Soundcraft board. Obviously th Folcrom sounds great but is a one-trick pony as far as studio uses goes.

Perhaps sonically I'd need to spring for a far nicer board to do what I suggested...you tell me.

[joel hamilton]

I did mixes for a while with a soundcraft Ghost that worked incerdibly well with a 2mix comp, because its insert points work well to "save" headroom at the master fader by inserting a comp there.

Printing right back in sounded great under the right circumstances. I mixed a few projects on a ghost this way and really just used the faders and groups, with buss comp's on the drums and guitar, or maybe not.

I personally would rather mix on a mackie, then print back in through a buss comp just licking the mix rather than bounce to disk. That is just my opinion, and other people would strongly disagree I am sure, but with something a little better with a console the good outweighs the conversion IMO.

Even the grit of "real" outboard is important to me. More importtant than what console I am using for the most part, meaning if I have to do a project on a ghost I will, but I will use all analog compression and outboard EQ (if needed).

It is a tough call. I use a completely custom all discrete console I have built up over the years, and that is why I mix everything these days in my own place, with my own gear, to avoid the tradeoffs you are talking about.

[greatmagnet]

Thanks, Joel. Obviously a used Ghost is not too much more expensive than a Spirit or something and they can be had pretty cheap considering what you could do with it...and they are good enough for Pedro.

[underthebigtree]

I recently did a shootout between the MOTU HD192 and a Digidesign 192 I/O. We recorded grand piano to both at high resolution, using the same signal path to record and monitor back.

Sorry to report that, whether MOTU uses the same ADC chipset or not, it does not sound as good as the Digi 192. The piano sound was flatter, lacking in depth, and generally not pleasing to the ear. The Digi unit simply sounded better, to our ears.

Having said that, we also recorded to my Ampex 2" 16-track, which sounded better than either of the above.

[anewman]

I'd like to start by saying that I'm both a big fan of the MOTU stuff for its value for the dollar, and the protools stuff because its standard and offers me a lot of flexability in where I record because every studio in Chicago has ProTools.

I have owned an 896, and 896HD and have never had problems. I would say don't buy the HD192 though if you are looking for bang for buck. Keep in mind that while it has XLR inputs, there are NO preamps. The MOTU pres on the 896 are passable, as are the pres on the 002. Most of the time I record at 24bit/48k. If this is for home, you most likely will not need to go above 96k anyway - in fact, at home 96k is somewhat rediculous to me, but it takes all kinds, so do what you will.

After going through several configuration changes, here is how I've put together my studio to offer the most flexability that one can get for the dollar:

I have a digi 002 as the primary interface and an 896 as a secondary. They are ADAT'd together so that I have 16 in and out of ProTools and Logic. Keep in mind that Logic will use an 002, but ProTools will not use anything other than Digi hardware. I have all my nicer pres connected to the 002 and use the 896 for things that are not so important in the home recording situation: scratch vox, toms (i know we can argue, but gimme a break), scratch guitars, double mic'd stuff, etc. It works out.

My reason for going this way is that with the 002 you get ProTools, so for the initial investment you already have software and your're ready to go. Because of DigiDesign's lack of support for other interfaces, it's easier to start here than end up here.

If the most for the money is the intended result, start with an 002, add via ADAT, and add addition DAW software as needed.

-Adam

[greatmagnet]

Great friggin' thread...

Hey Adam, doesn't the 002 come with ProTools LE, though, as opposed to the full-blown version that comes with an HD system or older card-based systems?

[sonikbliss]

I recently did a shootout between the MOTU HD192 and a Digidesign 192 I/O. We recorded grand piano to both at high resolution, using the same signal path to record and monitor back.

Sorry to report that, whether MOTU uses the same ADC chipset or not, it does not sound as good as the Digi 192. The piano sound was flatter, lacking in depth, and generally not pleasing to the ear. The Digi unit simply sounded better, to our ears.

Having said that, we also recorded to my Ampex 2" 16-track, which sounded better than either of the above.

Yeah but taking into account that most people here are building home studios the MOTU is a more reasonable setup than PT HD. For a $10,000 starting price for PT HD compared to a $2-3,000 price for the MOTU and DP or Logic the differences would have to be mind blowing to justify spending an extra 7 grand, IMHO. Keep in mind that the MOTU HD192 also has 12 analog inputs compared to the 8 on the PT 192 I/O. Neither interface comes with preamps though. Even if the PT interface is better sounding than the MOTU if you get some good outboard pres you can still make some great sounding recordings. Just think of how many great sounding albums were recorded on ADAT.

[Paul Fury 161]

Hi all

has anyone done ashootout between the HD192 and the cheaper dididesign hardware (001 /002).I'm interested how it squares upto that stuff-at the price that'swhat it's intended to compete with anyway, i think.

Anyone?

thanks in advance,

Paul Fury 161