[LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant.

[John Murphy]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:39:29 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 09:19 -0800, Len Ovens wrote:
> > On Sat, December 22, 2012 7:42 am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2012-12-22 at 14:58 +0000, John Murphy wrote:
> > >> Synth manufacturers: Why no ADAT out?
> > >
> > > Would be nice for homestudios today, assumed there would be cheap cards
> > > with several ADAT inputs. My RME card only has got one ADAT, that btw.
> > > does not work with Linux.
> > >
> > > OTOH even for my homestudio I like to use an analog mixer, for sure my
> > > homestudio mixer has got drawbacks, but I can't see (or should I say
> > > hear? ;) any drawback for professional analog mixers.
> > >
> > > I don't have experiences with professional digital mixers, but they
> > > should have enough analog inputs with a good quality too.
> > >
> > > IMO ADAT for synth for pro audio isn't needed.
> > 
> > It would remove two conversions from the stream. Nothing against analog
> > mixers, but starting with digital, converting to analog and then back to
> > digital has got to loose something. On the other hand it could be a pain
> > having digital audio coming in at 48k on a 44.1k or 96k project. I am sure
> > the synth has one internal sample rate and to add more would mean
> > resampling to make it sound right.
> 
> No, most cult synth from Dave Smith I know and one of my friends has got
> a lot of them, are analog, I guess even the samplers have analog
> filters, so perhaps all synth I know are analog synth.

Indeed they are analog circuits, so not as much conversion as Len's point.
They're stereo so 12 inputs required if panning is to be preserved. 1.5 ADA
8000s etc.

> Many musicians just use a keyboard amp, they don't use computers or do
> recordings at home.
> Should they pay for professional converters that convert the analog
> sound to digital, while they don't need them?
> 
> If you ever would have used a mixing console, such as the Neve, you
> would be aware that they can make the sound better.
> 
> ADAT can do 48KHz, 96KHz and 192KHz. Nobody will use 44.1KHz for
> pro-audio, so that wouldn't cause an issue.

All good points, thank you.

> > The problem with ADAT is that it came from the ADAT (no kiddin') and is
> > seen as a 8track street. What would make it a lot more useful (and
> > expensive?) is that every adat unit would do through work. So a 2 channel
> > adat IF would have an adat in and allow routing however many tracks come
> > in around its own tracks. So in the case above with the 6 channel synth
> > there should be an adat in where two more channels could be routed to
> > 7+8.... But that is not part of the spec.
> 
> This could be solved, but OTOH the ADA8000 I own doesn't cost much, but
> it only can do 48KHz and perhaps the sound quality is limited, I can't
> hear this at home. OTOH even if the sound quality of the ADA8000 should
> be bad, you can start with this device and replace it as soon as you get
> the money. For a synth you need to pay for good converters directly.

Two ADA8000s here so far. No complaints on the sound quality yet.

> Regarding to the needs of the OP. He starts a professional carrier, I
> finished my some time ago ;). So I'll add another thing to reconsider.
> He needs just on Microphone input, but it never can harm to have
> additional inputs, in case one should get broken during a production.

True. :) but I now have about 24 mic. inputs and I expect I'll have many
more before my home studio is finished. I guess I must pay for versatility
I don't need. Better tailored products would perhaps be more expensive, as
they would cater to a smaller market.

-- 
John.