Michael Five
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 366
- Joined: 2008/01/18 00:43:06
- Status: offline
Upgrade Time, interface question...
Hi everyone, I'm adding some channels and functionality, and wondering if you guys had experience with any of the things I'm considering with Sonar X. FWIW, I'm on x1, but will probably move to 3 as I go here.
Basically, I'm shifting from mostly writing and recording solo to working with a band, and adding preamps and channels to my setup, which is currently a FF400 with a couple of strips. Once I looked at my requirements, I started thinking about a hybrid mixer/interface as a good solution, and have, I think, narrowed it down to a A&H Zed or a Presonus Studiolive. Considered an onyx as well.
Anyone have experience with either of these and sonar? Is there a Roland/Cake alternative that compares that might be more tightly integrated? All thoughts appreciated...
_______________________________________________ X1c, p35 6600 Quad OC@3Ghz, FF400, Saffire 6, IBM T42, UAD-1, Superior 2.0
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: Upgrade Time, interface question...
2014/03/25 21:26:12
(permalink)
I think the first two are your best bets. A&H is known to work well with Sonar as does the StudioLive. They are very different though. The A&H is an analog mixer where the StudioLive is digital. I prefer digital but that is totally up to you.
|
Michael Five
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 366
- Joined: 2008/01/18 00:43:06
- Status: offline
Re: Upgrade Time, interface question...
2014/03/25 23:54:44
(permalink)
Thanks, John. I'll admit being, or having been, at least, biased in favor of analog, then I realized that basically I had shed my analog mixer long ago and worked mostly in sonar, i.e., all digital. Then I started checking out the studio live board and was impressed with its capabilities along with ease of use and integration. So really at this point it's the other pros and cons of each of those two that are driving me, not really the analog or digital factor.
But tell me, why your preference for digital? I can see more flexibility in an extended setup with it without having to keep going through the converters, I think. But I have a vivid imagination...
_______________________________________________ X1c, p35 6600 Quad OC@3Ghz, FF400, Saffire 6, IBM T42, UAD-1, Superior 2.0
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: Upgrade Time, interface question...
2014/03/26 01:34:55
(permalink)
Digital is less noisy. Because it will end up as digital audio why not be digital throughout the signal flow once past the converters. I believe you get higher quality for less money with a digital mixer. If you compare an analog mixer to a digital mixer of about the same price range the specs for the digital mixer will leave the analog mixer in the dust.
Practically no crosstalk no hum no harmonic distortion no intermodulation distortion and so on even with an inexpensive digital mixer. To get anywhere near the specs of a digital mixer the cost of an analog mixer would be prohibitive. And it is never going to match a digital mixer's specs. With an analog mixer one will still have to convert to digital in order to bring the audio into the computer. Therefore why not go digital all the way?
|
robert_e_bone
Moderator
- Total Posts : 8968
- Joined: 2007/12/26 22:09:28
- Location: Palatine, IL
- Status: offline
Re: Upgrade Time, interface question...
2014/03/26 05:50:02
(permalink)
Keep it digital. It will give you a cleaner sound.
Bob Bone
Wisdom is a giant accumulation of "DOH!" Sonar: Platinum (x64), X3 (x64) Audio Interfaces: AudioBox 1818VSL, Steinberg UR-22 Computers: 1) i7-2600 k, 32 GB RAM, Windows 8.1 Pro x64 & 2) AMD A-10 7850 32 GB RAM Windows 10 Pro x64 Soft Synths: NI Komplete 8 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, many others MIDI Controllers: M-Audio Axiom Pro 61, Keystation 88es Settings: 24-Bit, Sample Rate 48k, ASIO Buffer Size 128, Total Round Trip Latency 9.7 ms
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: Upgrade Time, interface question...
2014/03/26 17:15:54
(permalink)
robert_e_bone
Keep it digital. It will give you a cleaner sound.
Bob Bone
That is not fair Bob. I wrote a ton of stuff and here in three words + you said it better. At least write a paragraph for Pete's sake! 
|
robert_e_bone
Moderator
- Total Posts : 8968
- Joined: 2007/12/26 22:09:28
- Location: Palatine, IL
- Status: offline
Re: Upgrade Time, interface question...
2014/03/26 17:49:54
(permalink)
Well, you inspired me, and THAT counts for something..... :)
Bob Bone
Wisdom is a giant accumulation of "DOH!" Sonar: Platinum (x64), X3 (x64) Audio Interfaces: AudioBox 1818VSL, Steinberg UR-22 Computers: 1) i7-2600 k, 32 GB RAM, Windows 8.1 Pro x64 & 2) AMD A-10 7850 32 GB RAM Windows 10 Pro x64 Soft Synths: NI Komplete 8 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, many others MIDI Controllers: M-Audio Axiom Pro 61, Keystation 88es Settings: 24-Bit, Sample Rate 48k, ASIO Buffer Size 128, Total Round Trip Latency 9.7 ms
|
Michael Five
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 366
- Joined: 2008/01/18 00:43:06
- Status: offline
Re: Upgrade Time, interface question...
2014/03/27 22:25:42
(permalink)
Yeah, me too, John. Great comment, great perspective. I think I've been pawing my way to a less articulate version of that same conclusion. But I was inspired to clarity there, so much that I went to snag a studiolive and x3 to go with, only to find that the 16 channel board had only a Sunday of the features and can't be extended via adat, daisy chaining, or anything else. So now I'm back to the digital drawing board. Looked at 01v96 but the usb2 interface is a clear afterthought, so I'm stymied for now. Any suggestions for digital options? Whaddayou use?
_______________________________________________ X1c, p35 6600 Quad OC@3Ghz, FF400, Saffire 6, IBM T42, UAD-1, Superior 2.0
|