Yamaha DM2000 vs Sony DMXR100

[GregB]

I own a project studio based around Tascam 38's, Sonar and a decent collection of outboard mic pre's and efx modules. I had initially intended to upgrade to a DMXR100 + Radar48's. Now I'm leaning towards the DM2000 because of its onboard efx, it's 96k capabilities and other features not found on the DMXR100. Has any one heard the DM2000 or read any reviews? Any suggestions? I do mostly midi-based projects. I have a vocal room and will be adding a live room over the next several months.

[Gtoledo3]

Right now is not the best time for plunking down the dough on a digital console; I get the feeling that the major companies are either working on better consoles than the ones they are marketing right now, or they're milking old technology for one last round. The Sony has it's issues (shitty OS, and they don't have much "space" in the internal computer to upgrade it). The DM2000 is just hokey- IMO the O2R wasn't that killer and this looks like a dumbed down 02R that can do some higher sampling rates. Each of these boards are really going to be outmoded in even a year's time. Of course that's always going to be the case w/ digital equipment (especially software) that's going to be exacerbated by a number of other factors, in this case. One significant factor is that it's pretty obvious mackie is blowing out the d8b's to make room for a new model. Another, is that most of the major manufacturers were gearing up for 96k- PT HD upped the ante to 192, and pretty soon most people are going to want their boards to do this, without a reduced track count or limitations with internal effects. If you can wait, wait.

[Eliot]

[quote]Originally posted by GT3: [b]Right now is not the best time for plunking down the dough on a digital console; I get the feeling that the major companies are either working on better consoles than the ones they are marketing right now, or they're milking old technology for one last round. The Sony has it's issues (shitty OS, and they don't have much "space" in the internal computer to upgrade it). The DM2000 is just hokey- IMO the O2R wasn't that killer and this looks like a dumbed down 02R that can do some higher sampling rates. Each of these boards are really going to be outmoded in even a year's time. Of course that's always going to be the case w/ digital equipment (especially software) that's going to be exacerbated by a number of other factors, in this case. One significant factor is that it's pretty obvious mackie is blowing out the d8b's to make room for a new model. Another, is that most of the major manufacturers were gearing up for 96k- PT HD upped the ante to 192, and pretty soon most people are going to want their boards to do this, without a reduced track count or limitations with internal effects. If you can wait, wait.[/b][/quote]Your opinion of the O2R is suspiciously free of hands-on experience and is not shared by either the broadcast, post,sound design,project or composition-for-film crowd, such as those notorious tin-ears (!) Hans Zimmer, Frank Filipetti, Roger Nichols, Phil Ramone,etc. I would say that this renders your opinion of the latest generation of digital boards somewhat moot.In fact, I think you are about as wrong on the current state of digital board development as it's possible to be without your head falling off. Does this make you a lurker?

[Gtoledo3]

Ha ha! That's rich; just say somebody's wrong, and all of a sudden it becomes true :) I have worked on an O2R before; they are a great solution - especially when they first came out. I haven't worked on the O2R 96- I'm thinking it's probably pretty hip too. And this thread isn't about the 02R. SO WHAT CRAWLED UP YOUR ASS AND DIED?

[Eliot]

[quote]Originally posted by GT3: [b] have worked on an O2R before; they are a great solution - especially when they first came out. I haven't worked on the O2R 96- I'm thinking it's probably pretty hip too. And this thread isn't about the 02R. SO WHAT CRAWLED UP YOUR ASS AND DIED?[/b][/quote]This thread is about purchasing decisions based on the likelihood that you'll get x productive and relatively trouble-free years out of something that can be bought NOW. While someone is waiting for the next-big-thing after the current-big-thing, they're not being as productive or having as much fun as they could be.For a much better exposition of tis philosophy, read Steven St.Croix' more recent writings in Mix magazine. Your recommendations are based on your experience to date. You now seem to have reversed your original direction on the O2R, in terms of its useability and appropriateness in a pro setting.How are we to infer consistency in your thinking from this simple example? Yamaha has demonstrated an outstanding ability to give a level of functionality coupled with bomb-proof reliability way beyond the relatively humble price-points at which these pieces of kit are pitched . you seem to be saying that, at least from the point of view of their latest offerings, this is not the case. Your estimation of the state of the current development cycle of competing manufacturers is IMO completely wrong. The DSP implementation and loading-factors inherent in offering a higher-than-96KHz multi-track solution....capable of running day in and out in even a semi-pro facility.... militate against an early 192KHz budget board for the obvious reason of amortization of development cost. I find your tone puzzling.This forum debates these matters at least semi-seriously and your original statement invited fairly rigorous examination. Does this make you uncomfortable?

[Gtoledo3]

I'm not to keen on semantic wars, but here goes. I said that I thought that the 02r wasn't "killer." That's a lot different than saying it sucks. There was no "reversing" of opinion. And as far as functionality exceeding price points, I'm sorry, but that's just not reality. You said "Your estimation .... IMO, is completely wrong." Yeah "IMO." So Eliot, what would you- in your infinite wisdom-do if you had to decide about buying a Sony or the new Yamaha. Care to give an opinion instead of busting my balls?

[alphajerk]

i agree wtih GT3's original statement. sony dropped its price heavily on the dmxr by several thousand dollars, mackie has too. the yamama is too new but i would guess its price point will drop as well. in all i am VERY reluctant to invest in a digital board at this time. i know i am going to go with the mackie controller of which for $4k, i can have 32 channels of faders, little investment... and not limited it its design being simply just a controller and rely on the software/computers to upgrade as technology develops. $13k [average price of the digital boards] is a LOT to invest in something that will most likely be outdates in just a few years time. my money would be better spent in other areas that dont devalue as quickly [pres/mics/other outboard]

[Gtoledo3]

Exactly. And w/ fully tricked out digital boards, you can end up at $20,000 easily. The best bet is really on an analog board, or external pre's and converters. As long as I'm writing automation, it may as well be happening inside of the program, w/ an external controller, but that's just me. When you're talking about that kind of chunk of change, it's a serious damn decision- not "I guess I'll run out and by a digital board, without even considering the drawbacks." And by the way, who the hell cares what Steven St. Croix has to say about anything? Talk about a bitter guy- he really showed his ass w/ that "comedy" peice about new pop and hip hop.

[Eliot]

This may surprise you, but I'm actually quite interested in your opinion on this too. My initial reaction to your post may have been a little colored by having been jumped on as a "lurker" in the "Vote" thread. As a very happy early adopter of the O2R, my experience of this board is measured in years and I'm glad to be able to support Roger Nichols' contention that the sound of the O2R compared to the Oxford, at least in the digital domain "is,for all intents and purposes, virtually pretty much identical.(You can quote me on that)." He said that in 1997. That was what I meant by value at the price-point.It has also proved to be upgradeable, which is nothing short of amazing for an early-generation digital product. Now,years on, I've upgraded mine to output 5.1 as AES/EBU, on top of 32 CH AES I/O, 8 Ch. of AES FX returns and 8 Ch. of ADAT I/O. To mix, I hire in a D/D upsampler and a 192 KHz D/A. My actual recording is on 2 Tascam MX2424s, so I've been looking at the Sony and the Yamaha boards to go full-time 96 KHz but trying all this out has been complicated by my moving to the USA in the last 9 months. Given that the Sony has great-sounding converters which almost justify the new price by themselves, and the Yamaha looks to be the longer-life but costlier product, able to function additionally as a Protools control, I'm seriously considering both. If you mix in analog, you are limited by the number of decent D/A channels in your studio to interface between your MDMs and your desk. Anyone running Tascam 38s would benefit from a D/A upgrade (not to mention A/D) and 24 ch. of quality A/D/A can easily set you back $5k+. Using a new Sony or Yamaha could do this for you. This is only the surface of the issue of whether it's wise to upgrade at this point. At some stage, you have to make up your mind, go for it, and make your decision pay for itself. But fear based on the future has no place in this debate. The Yamaha will ship soon and I will listen to the converters. This is what will decide me.

[alphajerk]

well the future does hold some weight. right along with the ROI. if you can get back your investment AND make a healthy profit NOW off the purchase, it is a consideration. BUT if your return on the investment might exceed gains in technological advances WHILE what you use NOW is capable of function, it might be best to wait.

[Eliot]

I hear you, but how do you respond to a situation where the purchase of a piece of gear gives you an audible improvement in your mixes, combined with one less kludge in your mixing process, but you are sure that in 2-4 years, you'll get the same level of utility for 50-60 pct less? And how do you quantify the ROI when 50 pct of your time is spent on your own projects......sound quality is also an issue in decisions, but its benefits are not so easily amenable to ROI analysis. A single piece of music recorded at your facility might be outstanding to someone, from a purely audiophile standpoint, and persuade them to block-book you for months. None of this is anything other than conjectural, but it revolves around yours and others' perception of quality.Without trying to come over all Robert Pirsig on this, I think this is an emotional as well as an intellectual issue.

[Gtoledo3]

So, to get back on task.... Who around here's heard the fx on the DM2000. I haven't checked out this board yet. Do the fx outweigh the features on the Sony?

[Bill Mueller]

This is my first reply on this forum, so as a newbie, I respond with trepidation to what appears to be a hot subject. I am not a beginner engineer however. My sound engineering/recording career extends back to 1971 with the Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon tour, through work with Aerosmith, Green Day and Genesis all the way to a recent live recording gig with Emenim. All in all I have engineered (mostly live broadcast - THE most difficult form of audio engineering) for about 200 major artists and have been nominated for a Grammy Award for engineering. I recently established my own studio after working for a major studio for 25 years. I selected the DM 2000 and MX 2424 combination. Previously, I exclusively used Solid State Logic Consoles, specifically the SL4048 and Axiom MT, along with Sony 3324A digital recorders. My studio is private, so this is not an ad to get clients. The DM 2000/MX 2424 combo is the finest sounding, most flexible, unbelieveably powerful system I have ever used. The mic pre amps in the Yamaha have the most linear high frequency phase response I have ever heard and are damn near stone quiet. The console PUNCHES when you need it, unlike the Axiom, and without eq or compression is clear, finely detailed and perfect for acoustic instruments. I have recorded gorgeous sounding vocals through this system with a Neumann KM105. I find myself equalising for tone detail of the source instead of trying to get a "good" sound out of the system. Being old school, I am not big on slathering efx on my mixes, so I have not dug around in the verbs that much, but I can say that when I need something it is there, I can modify it to my taste and the efx are stone quiet with no stepping in the tails. My only criticism might be that they are not as super lush as a Lexicom 480. They are however at least twice as quiet. I am mixing for 5.1 and Dolby surround (my company is developing a PS2 game) and I would NEVER attempt that with an analog console. Actually I lied, I did try that with an SL4000 and an after market 5.1 monitoring controler. What a mess. The DM2000 has 5.1 reverbs, compression, eq mastering tools and monitoring facilities. When you consider the cost of adding on good mic preamps, 5.1/Dolby surround capable outboard reverbs, monitoring facilities and mastering facilities to some low cost (cheap summing amps) analog console, you are WAY above the $17,000.00 I gladly paid for this gem. Lets not even talk about built in control of Pro Tools, a beautifully concieved automation/recall system and the fact that EVERYTHING is packaged in one, integrated system that fits in my control room, does not need a machine room or extra air conditioner and allows me to sit in the sweet spot and fly like a bird. OK, I think I'm done now. Best regards, Bill

[Super 8]

I'm so glad I don't have to worry about making these choices. The price ranges we're talking about pretty much keep riff-raff like me at bay.

[Sergievsky]

The DM1000 is quite a bit more reachable though, and is supposed to have quite a bit of its older brother's specs. Anyone has one of those?