8 ins on the v-700 isn't enough

The VS-700 has adat in which allows another 8 channels for a total of 16 not 8. I havent checked but there may be an SPDIF input which would give you another 2 for a total of 18 inputs. You can also link 2 VS700's together = 36 inputs.

Is there an echo in here, I could have sworn thats what I just said.

I hear echoes through this whole forum. I could swear the 18 total inputs has been said before elsewhere.

So: 19 inputs with one 700R & 37 inputs with two 700Rs.

Umm, since when does 19+19 = 37??? LOL.

By the way, good one Seth.

Seth, how does windows see the single input?

Does windows call the audio driver "left" or "right"? I'm unfamiliar with Windows using true mono inputs?

Can you use it to get a 9th 96kHz input?

best regards,
mike

Good question. It's because that odd/ extra input is on the control surface. So when you stack two I/O's you still have one control surface. 18 ins on each I/O plus the one on the surface.

Ah, gotcha. And what Mike asked was a good qyuestion as well.

ORIGINAL: jerry@macwood.com

All of what is said it still requires additional hardware and creates other issues when they coudl have just added 8 more combi xlrs with pre and you would be good to go out of the box. Most live recordings require more than 8 channels in teh studio or out. Looking for a tight integrated solution to pu tinto a studio requires you to use protools which I refuse to do. I like sonar and hope for a product that works out of the box! Of course there are always issues!

Hi Jerry,

In case you didn't know if you want to have more than 8 analog inputs in a Pro Tools HD system you have to do the same thing as with the VS. You need to either buy multiple I/O's or piggy-back ADAT units on top of them. In fact, the DIGI HD interfaces don't even come with preamps built in ... and most of their interfaces you have to use a DB25 snake to get analog I/O, then hook up your preamps etc. So really, an HD system is much more complex to setup than the VS is.

I'm not knocking PTHD in any way, but it is hardly an "out of the box" solution. You need a core card, an interface, a snake, plus seperate preamps, headphone amps, etc. With the VS all you have to do is connect the system with two cables ... one cable form the conrol surface to the I/O, and one cable from the I/O to the computer. Plus we have built in compression, phase switch and pads on our preamps ... and tey are digitally controlled. Digi offers an 8 channel digitally controlled preamp seperately, but then that's another thing you have to hook up.

Seth

How about 24/96?

How many 24/96 inputs can a windows system base on the V-studio accept?

8 analog to 24/94

4 ADAT in at 24/96?????? That's a question... can it accept 24/94 thru ADAT in?

2 AES/EBU at 24/96? That's also a question... does it have AES/EBU?

1 front input at 24/??

What's the total 24/96 simultaneous input capability of the V-Studio?

How does the clocking work? If one ends up with a freestanding analog to ADAT converter, and a freestanding analog to AES/EBU to converter what is the ideal way to tie the clocking together?

best regards,
mike

2 AES/EBU at 24/96? That's also a question... does it have AES/EBU?

Seth noted in post #3 that it does have AES/EBU.

Hey Guys,

In comparing the VS to a PTHD system I was symplt responding to Jerry's quote,

Most live recordings require more than 8 channels in teh studio or out. Looking for a tight integrated solution to pu tinto a studio requires you to use protools which I refuse to do. I like sonar and hope for a product that works out of the box!

. To me that sounded like the VS was an incomplete, difficult system to set up where a PT HD system gives you everything you need in one box. Clearly that's not the case and I just wanted to clarify that.

ORIGINAL: Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk]

And c'mon the matter of fact statement that PT is a vastly superior product is highly debatable to say the least. If that were the case, it would mean that each and every SONAR user would be better off with PT, wouldn't it?

Each and every user can not afford a PT HD rig. I can't think of many users that wouldn't be better of with a top of the line HD rig.

UnderTow

Robin,

ORIGINAL: Robin Kelly [Cakewalk]

great thing about using WDM vs ASIO is you can add more than one device. If you want more I/O and do not want to use a second VS-700r is run in WDM mode and add another I/O. Now before everyone screams "but my other I/O does not work well under WDM" I guess that's the VS-700s fault too.

No of course not but that does not address that issue for the people that have it, right? Many people already have I/O that works well in ASIO mode and not so well in WDM mode. Purchasing a V-700 effectively makes that previous purchase unusable. That just ads to the total cost of the V-700 system for those users.

And why the cheap poke? Some of Cakewalk customers might be exactly in that position.

Anyway, your argument misses the biggest criticism of the product: If the system would have been modular, customers could have purchased the control surface without any I/O removing the problem entirely.

Also, if you have another card you could connect it to the Digital ins on the VS-700 and add more i/o that way too.

Again this misses the greatest criticism of the product.

To undertow. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve saying not everyone can afford it but people would be better off if they could. The whole point is we have a solution at a price, they have a solution at a higher price. There are enough threads comparing SONAR and PT so I won't get into it here but comparing a PT HD system to the VS-700 price is a major factor. For a significantly smaller outlay of cash you get an incredible system for what maybe a third of the price?

Given the state of the economy I would say I can't think of users who wouldn't be better off purchasing a VS-700 system.

For one the state of the economy is more recent than the design of the V-700 and secondly, it is an argument against the current design. Being able to purchase the parts separately for less money would be a massive advantage with the state of the economy. Again your argument misses the main criticism of the V-700.

The thread started with 8 I/O is not enough. Answers were given there is an option to use a second VS-700r. If that is not OK there are other options like using WDM and multiple cards or the digital ins on the VS-700r.

So what's your goal? Are you asking for us to make more I/O options and expand the offerings on the VS-700 system?

Yes and no. I think that would only make sense if the product was modularised. I could be wrong but I believe the type of customer likely to want to purchase the V-700 in its current design might, on average, not be the type of customer that would want or need massive amounts of I/O. Of course there will always be exceptions but there has to be enough of those to make it commercially viable.

Are you saying PT is so amazing why did we bother?

No. I am saying: Copy a successful strategy. Don't reinvent the wheel. Think of the vast existing customer base and their needs and come up with a solution that will satisfy the largest portion of that user base.

Are you saying if you cannot install PCI cards you should not have the knowledge to operate a piece of software?

No. I am saying that Robin's was highly exaggerating the difficulty of setting up and the complexity of a PT HD rig. Arguments like "most of their interfaces you have to use a DB25 snake to get analog I/O, then hook up your preamps" really don't hold any water.

Help me understand.

Robin

I am hoping that Cakewalk and Roland will have a hard think about all the feedback given on this forum and elsewhere when (and if) the product line gets extended. I hope that the next product will have modularity built in from the start so that the only limitation to expandability is the customer's budget and not anything in the design. And of course that customers can pick the parts they need without having to pay for anything that they don't want or need.

When I read what Seth posted it makes me fear that people at Cakewalk might be waving all the criticism away with arguments that, to me at least, amount to not much more than wishful thinking. As though their minds are set that this is the best solution and are rationalising that opinion rather than really thinking about what customers might want.

I am hoping that this product line WILL be expanded and that is why I keep hammering on what I think is the best solution for most users: Modularity.

UnderTow

Hi Robin

The only reluctance some of us have with WDM drivers is the relatively convoluted way one has to manage a change in sample rate.

If on a daily basis you work with, say for example, both 44.1kHz and 96kHz content, it's far more convenient to use ASIO drivers. It's simply a matter of opening your project and the project plays. If you try that with WDM drivers you are in for a treat... you get to play Wave profiler roulette... which isn't always fun.

Other than that I think people such as myself use the ASIO drivers because it's simply efficient and they work... if there is any compelling reason to use another driver technology I think you'll see there very little loyalty to one flavor over the other. End users just wan drivers that work.

Having explained that I'd like to ask:

1) What's the running total for 24/96 inputs? How many 24/96 inputs can you input simultaneously with accurate clocking if you are willing to use multiple V-studio deices?

2) How does the clocking work? If one uses WDM drivers and multiple V-studios simultaneously how are the clocks sync'ed? If one ends up with a freestanding analog to ADAT converter, and a freestanding analog to AES/EBU to converter what is the ideal way to tie the clocking together to the V-studio?

3) Whats the round trip latency of the V-studio?

best regards,
mike

Are you saying expansion only works in WDM mode? I can't see that happening.

(quote]No of course not but that does not address that issue for the people that have it, right? Many people already have I/O that works well in ASIO mode and not so well in WDM mode. Purchasing a V-700 effectively makes that previous purchase unusable. That just ads to the total cost of the V-700 system for those users.

You mean expansion with a V-700r? I imagine that your PC (and Sonar) will just see the extra I/O as part of the existing ASIO/WDM driver. If you mean expansion with another interface then yes. ASIO unlike WDM only officially supports one audio interface at a time. This is an ASIO limitation not Sonar's limitation.

Yes, expansion with another interface is what I'm refering too. So if your existing ASIO interface has the I/O's to accept 8 more inputs via ADAT for example, you could chain the V700r to that interface and expand your channel count? The 8 analog inputs on the V 700r would then be available through the ADAT link?