A link would help me talk apple/apples with you. Some of those things are probably mixers that will send and receive a couple of track each with the computer, but everything else is either on-board recording, or just an analogue mixer, sending a stereo bus to the PC.
But I may be wrong. The most I've seen is 8 channels, but I wouldn't trust it for anything I care about.
I can tell you this... I could ask 500 Nashville producers/engineers how many of them use or would ever consider using USB over Firewire for anything other than recording quick little scratch demo tracks, and my junior high school shop teacher could count the number on one hand. :-)
It just was never meant for that purpose, while Firewire.... was, specifically.
In where? The snake/cables run to the board, in and out of a rack of pre-amps and processors, then into the interface, or they run straight to the interface and the mixing/level setting is done with software (or some combination like that), then to the computer. The only thing making noise, besides the band :-), is the computer.
So run a firewire cable in with the USB cable that provides your computer console connection. Keep the noisy computer OUT of the studio. All you want inside is your instruments and your controls. Nothing with a fan. Nothing with a motor. Nothing with an escapement. They all make "noise" that is not meant to be part of your "music". I don't know what kind of music you play/record - and some people might call "it" noise -
But whatever is NOT supposed to be part of YOUR music is noise. Keeping it out of the studio is easier than keeping it out of the recording.
We understand all that. I was just pointing out, as a side note, that it's Firewire and not USB, and that sort of took on a life of its own.
However, my point is still valid that I assume, for whatever reason, he can't have them in another room or he'd never had posted this in the first place.
A computer used for actual recording of music in a professional recording studio is rarely anywhere but in a "control room", or in close proximity thereto, and very little "recording" is done in a control room in a professional environment. Therefore it is extremely rare for the noise generated by the computer itself to end up on the "music".
The perceived problem is that computer(s) generate noise that canl possibly interfere with the critical listening necessary to either recording, or mixing.
I say "perceived" and "possible", because, IME in 30 years of professional studio work, it is rarely a problem, and, considering most recording is done at an SPL of 60 to 80 db, and mixing an average of
90-105 db, then only a problem for those who delight in making a mountain out of a molehill, of which this discussion is plainly guilty.
IOW, as in the "audiophile" business, the perceived problem is largely an opportunity sell something expensive to the "perceiver".
The difference being, lots of music is recorded in home studios and often by one person doing the whole thing. If you have a professional studio, then you'll have a separate sound room and control room (and the personnel to run the equipment). A well built and maintained computer is not going to be a problem. If you are in a typical home studio (very often a spare bedroom or similar), the computer *can* be an issue. In a home studio environment, building (or buying) a box to enclose the computer is more cost effective than building a control room.
And, to touch on another point (which I snipped), if all your recording is done at levels between 60 and 80 db, I'd suggest you go look up dynamics. I guess if all you are recording is punk rock (or another genre that is all on or all off), computer noise won't be a problem... or might even be desirable.
My kids have a saying... "don't yuck my yum". They use it at meals to say, if it's what I like, don't say how awful it is or how stupid I am for liking it. The same could apply to this.
I disagree. The best place is at the level of the computer components that are of most concern - CPU chip, memory, etc. Some chips have built-in temp sensing that can be monitored.
What part of "professional" did you not understand in the above?
If you have a professional
Gee .. thanks for that highly informative information.
I guess if all you are recording is punk rock (or another
LOL ... so you conveniently snipped a part so that you could insert a figment of your imagination?
I came NO where near saying at what SPL "my" recordings are done at ... it's a trade secret. :)
My kids learned to say if you have NO experience in what you're talking about (in this case the world of professional recording), say nothing ... which applies particularly to your reply.
Roland has one that is expandable to 40 channels, for a Roland price. For under 400 bucks you can get a 16 channel Tascom.
Googling "USB multitrack audio" gets 110,000 hits, and most of them point to a device of one sort or another, most of which have mor than two channels.
And there was a time when if you asked them if they used Firewire they'd say "fire_WHAT_?".
Time marches on.
In any case, everybody does't need the same equipment as a Nashville producer.
So what? All that either of them does is move bits across a wire. USB2 has enough real-world bandwidth to carry more than 1000 192kb streams. There's nothing about Firewire bits that makes them sound different from USB bits, although I'm sure that the same sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Haudiophiles who buy Monster speaker cables for a ludicrous price will say otherwise.
With Apple dumping Firewire on the latest iBook the handwriting is on the wall.
USB also has Isochronous transfers, so that's not an issue. Firewire is a little more flexible though. Any device can be a "master" and talk to any other. USB is a bit more rigid. USB started out brain-dead but had a miraculous recovery. It took time to notice. ;-)
LOL... is right. I see no reason to talk to a dreamer. Very few clients, I take it. That's why you fantasize about recording on a woodworking group? That's why you can't even use a real name?
I agree with everything you said, but just want to add that more and more recordings, even stuff you hear on the radio and TV, are being done in more of a home environment, in which you do have quite a few tracks being laid down in the control room.
A lot of acoustic guitar and vocals are done in the control room, out in the open. It just seems to free up the creative process to be there, right next to one another, instead of locked in a little booth and communicating through headphones.
That's not really very loud. Normal conversation is well over 60. Instruments you'd never consider loud, like an alto sax, can get well over 80db in a small room. Classical music being played on a grand piano is at the upper end of that scale. Most of those players and very good with the dynamics. :-)
With current gear for the home recordist it has become, for all practical purposes, a moot point ... and many are capable of both USB2 and Firewire operation. Mark Of The Unicorn (MOTU) sells some pretty good gear for the home recordist with that in mind, as well as TasCam, as you mentioned.
I would worry more about computer processor power, as audio glitches, that really pop up (no pun intended) when a single processor comes close to maximum utilization, are the achilles heel of home recording for most.
Hard to beat a minimum of dual processors and multi-threaded software ...
In my 30+ years in the business, that type of problem is generally used as a convenient excuse by the perceiver for his inability/failure to get the job done.
The idea that the average professional recording studio is somehow the epitome of "sound proof" quiteness and a miracle of acoustic engineering is nonsense.
I've worked in many well known studios in this country (in which you've most assuredly have heard their product on the radio/bought the CD), both in front of and behind the glass, where we routinely waited for the subway to go by to start a take, or stop an otherwise good take for the same reason (or decide to keep it anyway and use a filter during mixing). Same with traffic going by on the street outside, bleed from the next studio over, or a myriad of other noises, not part of the music that may be in a recording, but are not heard by the average listener for a myriad of reasons ... masking, muting, gating, filtering, et al. As you know, you rarely hear the hiss of a mic'ed guitar amp when not playing, or the room noise from the drum overheads when the drums quit, because they're either gated during the take, or these days, muted/erased on the audio work station software during mixdown.
Indeed, a large part of the job of mixing is attempting to remove noise and artifacts that were not intended to be part of the music ... I say attempt, because many can't be removed ... example: many instrumentalists unconsciously "vocalize" (often out of tune) ... when playing (Pablo Casals was well known for audibly grunting while playing) ... you want their playing, you deal with the artifacts, or leave them in and justify in some way, ie, as part of the charm.
All said and done, and in actual practice, _most_ of the studios built with heavy investment in pursuit of the acoustic holy grail of "sound proofing" are the result of rich men's investments and rarely, if ever, have had a hit cut in them ... here today, gone tomorrow.
IOW, and as the sign says: "Just STFU and play!". ALL the best music ever recorded transcended the available technology, and ALL the worst was recorded in spite of the technology.
What he said was, "considering most recording is done at an SPL of 60 to 80 db, and mixing an average of
90-105 db, ". If this is his considered opinion, I think he would do well to learn about dynamics. While those classical piano pieces can reach the upper end, parts are well below that 60db mark also. Not everything is that Phil Spector "Wall Of Sound". (grin)
If MOTU is doing it successfully, then it will catch on and succeed.
They are smart to take an already successful, cornerstone, interface, and add the new technology to it. People will trust it more than starting from scratch with a completely new box.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.