Ok so I need a a/d converter with atleast 8 channels. I need to to work with my digi 001 and with pro tools so that I can get 16 simultainious inputs.

My price range is 200-750... inless something is significantly better for a little more.

I care most about the quality of the connections, 48khz is fine because thats all i record in anyways. My main concern is I want the best sound, this isnt being used for mics its being used for a Akai MPC and a korg triton Keyboard.

Thanks for the suggestions guys :).

8 channels or preamp and A/D for $750? I don't know if quality is going to be something you can count on for that amount, I'm sorry to say. You can't even find quality preamps w/o the converters for that much money.

I know that Presonus makes a box that might suit your needs. It's a single rack space unit that has eight channels of pres, comps and A/D IIRC. I used it once and wasn't thrilled about the headroom of S/N ratio, but it might suit your needs.

I don't understand. If you're using a Akai MPC and a Triton, why are you wanting to record them as audio tracks? I would think that you'd be using them as Midi devices and create midi tracks in Pro Tools. Unless you're mixing entirely in the box, I guess.

Why 8 preamps? It would probably be better to get a high quality 2 channel converter and do 2 tracks at a time.

Why not just get a Mackie 1604, run your audio out of the Digi 001, drive your MPC & Triton through midi and spread your outputs to the Mackie?

Well Mike I am wanting to send my songs i make on the mpc and triton into pro tools to be mixed down and saved. Then to also add vocals and some plug in effects too. I am very green at sound engineering so if thats not the way to do it I am all ears.

As for getting a good 2 channel and just sending each sound in seperately, how hard is it to get them to all sync together perfect? I would imagine its very easy using bar and tempo time, but i dont know how.

As for why I wanted 8 converter channels more. My mpc has 10 outputs the triton 6, and I just wanted to be able to stream the entire song at once. Mostly because itll be easier, but its also the only way I know to have all the tracks perfectly sync up.

I am all ears to learn though.

In that case, I'd definitely purchase a mixer like a Mackie 1604 VLZ (any incarnation should be fine in your price range).

Are you assigning instruments/sounds to each of the MPC's 10 outputs and the Triton's 6? That's quite a bit of separation there. I'm not saying that's it's not needed, I'm just trying to understand your logic.

If it were me, I'd record all your music in Pro Tools via Midi and send that data to the MPC & the Triton. When working with drum machines, I would generally assign the kick & snare to mono channels, the toms to a stereo pair (or two individual channels panned L-R) and the cymbals to another stereo pair (or two individual channels panned L-R). That would take up six channels on the Mackie (maybe eight, if you were to assign some percussion or special effects to another two channels). That would leave an additional 8 channels for the a combination of the Korg & any audio tracks from Pro Tools.

At that point, you would be mixing audio from the 001 (via the analog audio outs) along with the midi tracks from your MPC & Korg. From there, you can record the entire song back into Pro Tools using the Main Mix outs on your Mackie into two analog inputs on your 001.

Yes I am assigning different sounds/instruments to each output on the triton and mpc. Although on the triton I cant put each instrument on a serparate output because I use around 10 instruments usually. So I do need to group some, sometimes.

One big problem I have with doing it via a physical mixer as your talking about is that I cannot go in and make changes once its recorded. In order to do that I will have to record the thing all over again. If I send everything on separate tracks into pro tools I can mix it inside the box easily.

If its nessicary I can wait a bit to buy a 16-24 channel a/d converter. If I have to I geuss I can spend 2-4 grand on one. I just want one with good headroom and great sound quality. I geuss w/e I have to spend to get a good one I will do it.

You can remix the song at any time. You'd have all your Midi sequences in Pro Tools and your audio files in Pro Tools. All you'd be doing to mix is running everything through the mixer back to 2 channels in Pro Tools. If you wanted to change levels or effects, you'd just remix the song at any time.

Personally, I think it would be a total waste of money to spend 4k-5k on Apogee convertors just to record Midi instruments. But that's your call.

There must be something I don't understand here. I am assuming that the MIDI tracks are being played from teh computer that you are recording the audio on.

It seems to me that you could record one virtual instrument at a time into two audio channels (or one if the audio is mono). Enable only one instrument on the first pass and arm one track for record, then the next one on the second and so on. You will have to do a little switching of cables for different physical instruments and may have to change the routing of virtual instrument to physical output on the physical instrument. I have done this on my set up when I wanted to record each drum part to a different track.

The audio will be in synch, aside from the typical MIDI latencies, which will only differ between differewnt physical instruments (and will be small/inaudible anyway).

So, I think you only really need a two channel. The only complication I might see is if the drum machine doesn't make it easy to mute seperate parts (snare/ kick/OHs etc.) In which case you would need to edit the midi drum track to separate tracks.

Yeah for now I am just working with my digi 001 which has a total of 8 inputs. But I am still doing it as audio and not midi. No problems yet but soon enough I will start experimenting with midi tracks on pro tools too, but for now I am just doing it audio signals.

As for the mute thing Mihaly, the Akai MPC is a really amazing drum machine muting seperate tracks or pads is just a single button its no biggy. Come to think of it the MPC is the best drum machine I have ever seen.

For now I am content with my current equip... but down the road I am sure I'll want more equip lol. I'm just like a crackhead buying rocks... I can always use a little more :D.

The M-Audio Octane runs for around $600, and is exactly what you're looking for; 8 pres with lightpipe connectivity to the 001.

Bypass the 001 pres and converters, it's pretty common knowledge they suck. If you must use them, use them for secondary tracks, not primary, and use the Octane outs for monitoring. You'll be amazed at the difference between that and the monitor outs through the 001's crappy converters.

If you're recording only audio for CD, stick with 44.1k sample rate, and skip the downsampliing from 48k.

Best of luck.

If you're happy at 48K sampling rate,and are looking for a good quality used digital mixer.You can probably pick up a Panasonic DA7 with an ADAT lightpipe card for about $1,000.00 or less.
You'ld get better AD and DA conversion,16 preamps,and have a total of 18 inputs for yor synths.I think Craig Anderton may still be using his DA7/001 set-up.

Rick

The 001 won't do anthing higher than 48K.

I like that you are doing audio tracks, not MIDI. That's different and different is GOOD - it makes you have a style that is not like everyone else. Just because you don' hav MIDI editing power, you are having to do things the hard way - but I find the hard way makes you a better person, better player, etc. etc.

But you mentioned not being able to make changes - this is also the hard way! You could so a whole remix if you have to, just do it. I find the concept of "I can redo this and this and this little bit" TOO MUCH TROUBLE. Just do a mix, do a good one, and let it go. If you need another, go back and do another. It will com out different each time.

If you use Midi tracks you can easily make changes at any time. Recording audio tracks off the synths would not permit that, you'd need to go back and record the audio again off the synths.

The simple solution is a decent mixer and to record your synth tracks midi until you are finished mixing. Then, if you feel you must, record the audio tracks from them for archive individually.

You can do this with the 001's 8 analog inputs, since they will all sync via midi anyway.

I use to use a lot of virtual MIDI tracks back in the early 90s'...but I haven't done that in a long time.

If I have a sequenced MIDI track of a synth...I will play it and record the output of the synth into the DAW as an audio file.
I never do final mixes using both audio and MIDI tracks anymore.

Yeah...it's a commitment...but it's no more a commitment than when you play a guitar or drums or a bass...or sing vocals.

The thing that is bad about using virtual tracks mixed in with audio tracks...is if you ever need to go back to those mixes in a year or two...and you no longer have that synth module...or you no longer have the right synth patches...etc...
..and now, you are sitting there trying to reprogram your virtual synth patches to sound like what you had before. Good luck!

With real audio tracks...they are there...as you recorded them.

Also...If you are going to keep going back to the original MIDI tracks to edit, then first get your editing finalized...and then just record the MIDI as an audio file and be done with it.

Precisely why we archive the audio of the midi tracks after we finish mixing.



Easier said than done, and IMHO continuing with the midi tracks until the final mix is complete, then archving them as audio, if/when you edit the midi tracks, there's no need to waste time during the mix process recording them (in real time) to audio tracks. Once the mix is completed and you are committed to the sounds of the virtual tracks, archive those.

Also, making good notes on the midi patches can be extremely helpful for remixing.

It really makes little difference to keep MIDI tracks as MIDI until the end....because if you make any dramatic changes to your MIDI tracks...then they will not match up to the other, prerecorded audio tracks.

So you end up having to start fresh, with it all…

If you are just hashing out a song...and you are still doing pre-production instead of final tracking...they yeah, keep the MIDI tracks as MIDI during that process.
But IMO...once recording starts...you might as well cut the umbilical chord from the virtual MIDI tracks and have everything tracked as an audio file.
There as LOT...a LOT less crap you have to archive and keep notes on.

Also...what if the synth module you used is no longer available or functional 2-3 years down the road...?
You will have to reconstruct the patches from scratch anyway.
The MIDI data is not going to help you much there, unless you are able to find the exact same modules/libraries...etc…

Hey...10-15 years ago...I had MIDI up to my eyeballs.
And I was doing exactly what you describe...and it was a real PITA…a real time consumer.
Then I stopped and asked myself why the heck I would want to stay with virtual tracks...?
And I then decided to just record the output of the synths as real audio.
Also...I record it to tape first before I dump into the DAW...and the tape really smoothes out the digital hash you can get from some synths.

I'm just a lot happier working with pure audio tracks once I commit myself to actual tracking and past the pre-production stage.

But, if some folks like working with MIDI virtual tracks throughout their production...there is nothing wrong with that. I just prefer the all-audio SOP.

Exactly why you should stick with the midi tracks until finished mixing. Any changes you can easily make to the midi tracks, however if you commit to audio you have to re-record to make any changes.


It's midi, it's nothing in terms of data size vs audio files. Hundreds of midi tracks would have to be involved to equal one audio track in file size.


That's why we archive after we finish mixing.



That's all fine, until you want to make changes. Then, it's back to recording those tracks...again.

Never had a problem...doing it my way.

Having to archive and keep notes on MIDI files...plus having to also preserve the actual patches/programs of the synths...not to mention keeping the actual synth modules/keyboards in good operation and on tap...
...it's just lot of useless overhead...IMO.
I rough out my tracks using MIDI...and then I record them as audio.

No different than when you set up fro a vocal or a guitar or drum track. You first do a couple of sound checks...maybe record a take or two to make sure you are getting what you want...
...and then you commit the vocals, guitar and drums, etc…as an audio track.
Why treat a synth any different t…just because it is MIDI capable…?

I'm a firm believe in making a commitment instead of always second guessing myself "just in case"….and having multiple versions/choices to have to always wade through every time I want to make a mixing decision.
I know that SOP works for some people...but you end up with too many takes and saves...

Since most of my tracks are instruments recorded as audio…worrying about one or two MIDI tracks is a waste of time. I’ll just record them as audio too.

If I was doing all-MIDI/synth music…then I might worry about preserving all the MIDI data and all the synths/patches…etc….but I doubt it, as I would just record all of them as audio too…and be done with it.

But you do it the way you like to...nothing wrong with it, if that's what/how you need to do.

Lets see, small data files for midi that can be edited at will
vs
rerecording in real time for every change in the track.

I'll take door #2 thanks.

If you're playing with your own material on your own time that's one thing, however when it's someone elses time/money, IMHO they should have every option available to them.

You gotta keep notes on the audio files same as the midi files. There will be far less midi files than audio. Then there's the whole file size difference as well.

Another factor in the equation is most virtual tracks these days are not hardware but software not hardware based.

Yeah...OK...whatever....

...I prefer to record audio...not MIDI.

Given the choice of recording it through cheap pres as the OP intends or sticking with midi tracks and doing far less work recording and rerecording I'll stick with the midi tracks, eliminating at least one conversion in the process.

PLUS, with MIDI tracks, you can keep the perormance and adjust/change the sound when you get to a final mix.

Well...one other reasons I don't bother with MIDI after I get past the pre-production state...is that you always have to keep turning on all your modules and samplers and keyboards everytime you open up the project to do some work...
..otherwise...you got nothing playing back from your MIDI tracks.

With everything recorded as audio...I can just turn on my monitors and my DAW...I don't need anything else on while I'm editing.

Yes and it's so much work to turn things on, God all those on switches are exausting. And launching those soft synths is so much extra work...LOL!!!!!!

Please, if it's that much of a hassle just sit in front of the tube with another chilli dog.

Client: I'd like to have the (insert fav chord here) at measure 84 hold for a whole note not a 1/2 note.

Engineer: Sure, no problem, there, that should take care of it. We can continue what we were doing.

OR

Client: I'd like to have the (insert fav chord here) at measure 84 hold for a whole note not a 1/2 note.

Engineer: OK well I'll need to stop what we are currently doing to rerecord that since I'm not using the midi files I recorded them all to audio.

Which client do you think is coming back?

It's not really exausting...just more layers to the cake!

If a lot of the MIDI sounds come from modules/keyboards that were brought in specifically for that porject...what do you do, hang on to all of that gear until the project is mixed...???

Seems like a lot of overhead for little gained...

Plus...if you and the client are still making pre-production decisions after tracking...then that's a whole other issue.

As far as editing....with my Object oriented editing capabilites in Samplitude...I can do most any type of tricky edit right to the audio file...I have no need for keeping MIDI tracks.

Given most of the synths used today are soft, the issue of hardware not being available is pretty moot. Obviously in the case of hardware coming with the artist the ONLY choice is to record audio, so that also is a moot point.

Music is constantly evolviing from conception to final product and beyond. How many times have we gone to concerts and heard different versions of songs than were the recorded ones?

Taking away the ability to make changes in this situation is limiting the artists creative ability unnecessarily. We prefer to give our clients every option possible, rather than explain to them why we cannot, or need to take so much time, to do something so elementary.

Not sure how recording audio tracks is "taking away the ability to make changes"...???

Great recording sessions were being done L-O-N-G before MIDI existed...
...and in the last 10 years or so, there has been a move away from MIDI for many people who at one time used it extensively (like myself)...and yet, great sessions are still being recorded using audio-only tracks.

Though I can understand why for some who may still be overtly MIDI-focused…it's tough to think outside the MIDI box....

You use MIDI tracks…I’ll use audio-only. I’ve had no complaints so far.

Read my previous posts I explain it very simply.




But it's not long before midi existed, it's 2007. Softsynths are a major part of music, and are becoming more so every day. Far beyond the synthesis strings and horns of early days, drums, full orchestras, pretty much anything you can ask for is available via midi.

I already did...and I still say, I don't see how recording audio tracks is "taking away the ability to make changes"...???

So...you feel that once you record audio tracks...you can't make any changes...???

Boy...there's a lot of guys NOT using ANY MIDI that would disagree with you!
I dunno'...with my DAW, I sure can make a LOT of changes to the audio tracks...and I'm not using MIDI.

Not without re-recording you can't, but then we've already discussed that.

Please tell me your solution for the scenario in my past post(regarding lengthening a chord) with your daw, I'd love to hear it.

Unless you totally don't like a particular track, or you need a totally new track of something you do not already have recorded...
...you don't necessarily need to "re-record" just to fix a few notes or a few hits or a few chords or a few phrases.
With cross-fade editing, I've extended chords/notes MANY times in the DAW...and I guarantee that you could not find the edit point with your ears!
Especially things like synth pads, organs, strings...they are very easy to manipulate in the DAW.
I would say that at least 90% of the time, you already have all you need within your existing audio tracks...you just have to do some creative editing by taking from one section, manipulating as needed, and then adding it at the required section.
I’m sure you done some of that type of editing, haven’t you…?

I've always said...to me, the real strong point of a DAW, are the editing capabilities.

Except for creating some basic scratch tracks during pre-production, just to lay out the song structure and it’s tempo....I've been recording "MIDI-free", audio-only sessions for quite awhile now.
It's just a question of knowing what you can and can't do in your DAW.
And…I will often record some additional “sounds” when tracking.
Like…long chord strums…or additional cymbal hits…or certain vowels and phrases…
…that way, when I am editing, I can also use these if needed to edit into the existing tracks.
It’s just a question of knowing ahead of time what it is you want to do with a song.
If you just record a bunch of tracks…and then wait until the editing/mixing phase to consider arrangements and song direction…then you are really still doing pre-production…which is fine, but that’s a different use of studio time.

With a good DAW and it’s editing capabilities…most needs can be met without having to involve MIDI tracks as a “safety net”…
…though like I keep saying…if you prefer using MIDI tracks…there is nothing wrong with that, it’s just a different SOP.

I prefer not to.

And…let’s not now get into a whole extended debate about what can and can’t be done within a DAW…

In the time it takes me to type this I can stretch those notes the addtional 1/4 note the artist wants.

Now, back to the OP's question. Stick with your midi for now, and spend the money on a decent mixer instead. The quality of a decent mixer in that price range is far above that of a pre/adda in the same range. Budget in a good 2 channel spdif AD to go from mixer to 001 (bypassing the crappy 001 coverters). This IMHO is the best scenario for quality audio given your hardware limitations.

I guess then you are not that familiar with doing cross-fades to extend notes/chords.

It's OK...you should stick with MIDI editing.
It's a lot simpler/easier for most people to master...and you always have that "virtual saftey net" to C.Y.A. if the edit isn't done right.

I used to go that route 10-15 years ago...

I'm sure we are all quite familiar with the process, and know that it takes a lot longer than it does to etend a midi note 1/4 note, and the midi note edit is much simpler than editing the actual audio. Not to mention if there are multiple tracks (as in the case of what the OP's orignal post suggested) the time it takes is even greater.

Example: 4 stereo track, lets say brass, reeds, strings and organ.

We'll use the afore mentioned example.

For me, I select the notes (click-drag) and extend the 1/4 note and I'm done.

For you, since each pair of tracks has unique audio properties, you will need to stretch then x-fade each one separately, requiring you to work on each one individually, first stretching, then getting each of the 4 x-fades right so they are clean and inaudible.

In the time it took me to type how it' done with midi I'd be done.

For you, well you're telling the client to go have some coffee.. You may say you're not, we know different, so please don't insult our intelligence and say you can do it as fast.

AFA the "virtual safety net" I can undo that edit just as fast. This is the digital domain, unless you are an idiot nothing gets destroyed. In this case it's a matter of simply once again click-drag to select and shortening the notes 1/4 note.

But again we digress from the OP's question. OP, Stick with your midi for now, and spend the money on a decent mixer instead. The quality of a decent mixer in that price range is far above that of a pre/adda in the same range. Budget in a good 2 channel spdif AD to go from mixer to 001 (bypassing the crappy 001 coverters). This IMHO is the best scenario for quality audio given your hardware limitations.

Like I mentioned a couple of posts ago...let's not now get into a whole dragged out debate on what one can or can not do with a DAW.

The thrust of your debate so far has been that MIDI is the way to go until the very last mixing stage…right?
I just don't find that to be the case.
I know your approach...I've used your approach when I was mixing 10-20-30 MIDI tracks/instruments at a time.
I don't bother with that anymore...as I prefer to just work with audio tracks.
If there are 2-3 instruments/sounds that I may use that happen to have MIDI capability...I just find it easier and less complicated to make my arrangement/production decisions with them by treating them just like any other instrument (guitar, drums, bass…etc)…and so I record them as audio tracks.

I've gotten pretty good and quick using the corss-fade approach, and I find it much simpler/easier/quicker than having to always "attach" virtual MIDI instruments to every editing/mixing sessions until I'm finally done.

I'm not sure why you have to keep going on and on how YOUR way is the better way...???
This is a constant "theme" with you no matter which thread you are on and no matter with whom you debate.
You just went through the same thing on a couple of recent threads…

As I’ve said many time in the past…there are many SOPs that work.
You go with what works for you…and let others go with what works for them…
…without you always beating down THEIR chosen SOP in every thread on these forums.

It’s becoming a very predictable approach with you.
Why not just discuss audio without all that?

I suggeest you re-read the OP.

I never said my way was better, once again don't put words in my mouth. Obviously it is faster and more convenient in some situations, such as the client wishing to make changes, which yes does happen during overdubbing and mixing.

OP, Stick with your midi for now, and spend the money on a decent mixer instead. The quality of a decent mixer in that price range is far above that of a pre/adda in the same range. Budget in a good 2 channel spdif AD to go from mixer to 001 (bypassing the crappy 001 coverters). This IMHO is the best scenario for quality audio given your hardware limitations.

You may never say "your way is better"...
...but pounding down every poster, and continually negating all other suggested SOPs (except your own)...
...is the same thing.

You do that in just about every thread, and with just about every poster who thinks differently from you.
It's become quite a regular thing....and others have said the same to you...so I know I am not off the mark.

I really don't understand why there can't be room for more than one way...more than one SOP?
You have good points...BUT...they are not the ONLY good points around here.

And just to close this "MIDI" debate....
I know a lot a people who NEVER bother with MIDI...instead they recored their synths just like they would any other instrument.
Works real good.
You are placing way too much importance on MIDI tracks.
But I will not bother debating with you any more on this topic...it's pointless.

Just to be clear...

I really do not wish to argue with you (or anyone for that matter).
It would be nice to debate issues...I like debating...but at some point there has to be equal give and take of ideas. And regardless of how much we agree or disagree...there should be some exchange of respect, otherwise it DOES become one person's forced view over all others.

Don't you agree?

1. I'm not arguing.
2. Midi editing is faster than audio editing in the discussed scenario.
3. I never said there was only one SOP.
4. I never "pounded down" anything.
5. I never said mine were the only good points here.
6. Certainly recording audio from midi sources works fine, until you need to make musical changes. Then MIDI is far faster in most cases to edit.
7. You should try giving a bit. Seems you are the one trying to "pound down" your way over anyone elses, and neglected the OP entirely.
8. Seems most every post you are involved with eventually ends up with you complaining when someone doesn't see things your way.

OP, Stick with your midi for now, and spend the money on a decent mixer instead. The quality of a decent mixer in that price range is far above that of a pre/adda in the same range. Budget in a good 2 channel spdif AD to go from mixer to 001 (bypassing the crappy 001 coverters). This IMHO is the best scenario for quality audio given your hardware limitations.