Alesis mixers with Firewire

lamarcph · Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject:

I'll wait a bit, then i'll probably go for something like the Motu 828 or the
Mackie 400F. This last one seems nice.

I'll have to collect some more pennies first.

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject:

I know this is not what you want to hear... but.. why not collect more money and get a secondhand M-Audio 1010.. NOT the LT version. It is quite good still.

lamarcph · Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject:

It's seems that the m-audio delta 1010 is less expensive than the Mackie 400f.

What would be the advantage of the 1010 over the 400f?

Also, unless there is an adapter, my laptop doesn't have a pci interface.

I had a bad experience with m-audio, with the Audiophile. I know it's the low line, but my driver was really unstable. I tried it with 3 differents computer.

Maybe I am looking at the wrong m-audio 1010.

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject:

Well, if you have a laptop, then forget about the 1010.
It is a PCI card with a breakout box. It isn´t really "better" that the 400F in any way, but it isn´t bad either. It has no microphone preamps though.

I am sorry that you have had problems with the drivers for the Audiophile 2496 PCI card. The card itself is quite good. The audio quality is absolutely OK.

Another option is the M-Audio 1814. This is a very capable interface. The drivers are quite decent on OS X. I know nothing about how the 1814 PC drivers perform. I have been told they are excellent. I reckon you can get this for 40-50% less than the 400F. The 1814 has ADAT input which is a great way to add more channels. the 400F doesn´t have that, but it does on the other hand allow daisychaining. My guess is however that if you need twice the numbet of inputs then 2 400F interfaces won´t be your first choice anyway.

Re drivers, keep in mind that almost none of the pro/semipro audiointerfaces will work well with games and stuff like that. If you need sound for games then any of the better games oriented consumer sound cards will be a far better choice. This "problem" is however a PC thing. This is never a problem on OS X.

If we are talking just about audio quality, then I would suggest the Echo Firewire interface. It isn´t insanely better than the 1814 or the 400F.. but.. there is really something about that one. I would choose the Echo FW device for acoustic recordings and stuff like that.

Anyways, in your case I would consider the M-Audio 1814.

lamarcph · Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject:

The big advantage I saw with the 400F is the ability to use it as a mixer when the computer isn't around. from what I can read on the manual, the m-audio 1814 doesn't seems to offer that possibility. Does all those units (m-audio 1814 and echo audiofire) offer that possibility?

On paper, for 100$ more the 400f offer the 192khz all around, and 4 mic preamp. they are apparently good. (Craig Anderton raved about them on a 20 pages review)

My drivers problems is with the Audiophile usb. At some point it just stop. My first midi keyboard was also a m-audio. a radium61... and it wasn't love at first site. ok ok, I am not that young but I was "born" on an acoustic piano. I tend to think about m-audio as gray plastic things... i may be wrong.

elektro80, I really appreciate your help. Last year you gave me some monitor and suggested Yamaha mp5a that I still have and really like.

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:15 am Post subject:

It is very nice to hear you like your MSP5 monitors!

You made a good point re the mixer in the 400F. The M-Audio interfaces do have a software mixer, but it simply won´t work with the computer disconnected. It might very well be that the 400F is what you should get. It is a good product.

To me it seems that mac users have a whole different view on the M-Audio drivers. On OS X most M-Audio gear is quite good. They did a serious mess of some Firewire 410 drivers though, but those are solid now. At last.

seraph · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:37 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:59 am Post subject:

I have the MOTU 828MK2, something to consider too. I think the internal mixer is a BIG feature. Not only can you use it when you aren't connected to the computer, but it takes a big load off of the computer when you are connected. Also, you get virtually zero latency monitoring.

I'm not convinced that 192 KHz sampling is necessary. It uses a lot of computing resources.

The MOTU computer mixer application doesn't respond to MIDI, too bad. I just checked the Mackie manual - it dosen't either. Sad

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:17 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:20 am Post subject:

I remember when 16 bit 44.1 stereo interfaces for VAX computers costed $27,000 US. That was in the mid 80s. What a difference 25 years makes.

lamarcph · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:01 am Post subject:

I tried to record yesterday with my m-audio. My daw software was running the midi clock and I wasn't able to get a good midi clock from the Audiophile usb. It was worst than bad, sometime it would stop for a few second and then start again... I tried both on the G2 and on the Evolver, with different midi cable but it just didn't work. And if I would plug one synth in the other, it would be constant... like a clock...

It's true that for audio quality, the Audiophile USB is quite good. The latency is not bad either, but... for multiple take recording, it just won't work, every thing is always out of sync.

i know that computer have trouble sending a constant midi clock, but I hope that those higher grade sound device will be able to send a usable midi clock...

mosc · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:39 am Post subject:

Well, just to be clear, the interface doens't generate a clock, it just transports the clock from the synth to the computer. You should expect the computer sequencer to follow the G2's MIDI clock. Maybe there is a problem with the interface you have.

Make sure you have not other USB devices connected to the computer's USB ports. They may be sending signals that interrupt the device. Firewire is a point-to-point connection, so that is a bit less of a problem with those.

lamarcph · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:45 am Post subject:

I probably misled you. The synths were slave. The computer (the audiophile usb) was the master.

My daw software (tracktion 2), can't be a midi clock slave apparently. It can only follow midi timecode.

So my computer was the master and the synths were slave.

mosc · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject:

Oh, that's different - very different. Software devices are generally quite poor at sending out stable MIDI clocks. I guess it is possible, but I've only heard of people having problems with it. Even when you are using only hardware, it takes some experimentation to figure out what piece of gear to use as the master clock source. The computer is usually the least effective.

This was not always the case. In the early days of MIDI, there were smart MIDI interfaces made by Voyetra and others that contained their own clocks. With those, computers could generate very stable clocks. But those MPU 401s are unfortuantely long gone. You can use them with modern software, but not in "smart" mode.

If Tracktion 2 can't run is slave mode, you may consider getting something that can. I'm surprised to hear that though. You may want to check there user forum to verify.

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject:

OK.. this is midi. Shocked

I have been meddling some with midi. I even bought an MSQ 700 in 84.. or was it 85? I even have the MMT-8 ( 87? ). Anyways, I would trust mosc and Carlo and the lot for that MIDI troubleshooting... but not me..
But.. one thing.. some of the M-Audio drivers have had midi bugs. Check out M-Audio´s site. The FW-410 had some serious issues way back. I am mostly using a Steinberg Midex-8. I kinda gave up on the M-Audio built in midi interfaces in the FW and Audiophile products.

blue hell · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject:

The only theoretical reason to use 192 is if you want to do a lot of digital non-linear processing. You might get less noticable aliasing than if you did that at 44.1 KHz. But no, they use external analog processors. Shocked

Reminds me of story. A non-technical friend was buying an amplifier for his strereo. He asked me for a recommendation. I found something good and cheap. At the time it was a Dynaco, they were excellent. Anyway, he went to the store and came back with a rather expensive boutique brand. I asked him why.

He said he got a good deal. The Dynaco costed $200. It had 0.05% THD. The one he bought was $400 but it had 0.01% THD. He got an amp that was 5 times as good for only twice the money! Rolling Eyes

192 is four times better than 44.1, isn't it? Laughing

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:20 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:20 am Post subject: