Digi 002 vs. Digital Performer

[RLewis]

I desire to arrange recorded tracks that singers/players can use in live performance settings. Should I buy MOTU hardware and use Digital Performer, or should I go with the new Digi 002 from ProTools?

Tracks will include mostly midi keyboards and some recorded vocal/instrumental takes. I am used to working within both sequencing and multi-track tape formats, but prefer the multi-tracking environment. Does ProTools LE contain some sequencing abilities with moderate editing functions? Does DP offer enough to record from there?

What do you recommend? Please respond if you are using either of these two solutions.

[michaelhoddy]

If you're sequencing in any sort of more than basic way, you'll want Digital Performer. If you want the ability to transmit and receive sync flexibly and to add audio I/O, you'll want Digital Performer. The audio functions are as good as any native DAW out there, and the sequencing capabilities are powerful. An often underestimated benefit is the seamless integration with MOTU audio and MIDI interfaces. No third-party driver weirdness, as with some other native DAW/hardware combos.

If, on the other hand you want an easy-to-use all-in-one audio recording solution that comes with a control surface and doubles as a small digital mixer, the 002 is cool. It's a little easier to use than DP, but at the expense of a few features in the MIDI and edit departments. Only you will be able to judge the importance of those.

The Digi 002 and DP, a MOTU audio interface, MIDI interface, and control surface are within a few hundred dollars of each other. The DP rig is a little more expensive, but also expandable and easily sync'able with less of an audio track limit. Your choice.

By the way, I have an extensive DP rig with multiple audio and MIDI interfaces, and also a Digi 001.

[soundshaper]

Anyone have any quick tips or guids to using these programs together...
I need one to chase the other, is it even possible without running into problems? (oms vs. freemidi)

Please help!

[RLewis]

Michael,

Thanks for the reply and the great info. It sounds like down the road I might desire to have both DP and ProTools. if you were to buy only one at this time, which would you go for? I want to be able to send a finished recording to CD for playback on any system. My sequencing will probably not be as extensive as what a pro would do, but when I needed to, I could add DP and open up those options.

What do I lose in expandability with the 002 that might make me want to pursue DP first?

[michaelhoddy]

I had the Digi, but I sprung for DP principally because I needed to be able to make synchronized sample-accurate transfers back and forth between ADAT and HD24 and the DAW. The Digi 001 and 002 cannot do this, although you can transfer 16 synchronized tracks back and forth using the lightpipe and the 8 analog inputs, even though this means that there's an extra trip to be had through conversion. Being able to sync and transfer is a godsend you can't appreciate until you need it.

I also like the ability to expand I/O, use more than 8 channels of external conversion, and have fairly unlimited audio tracks.

If you have even the slightest inclination of expanding your studio or doing transfers back and forth between media such as digital multitracks, go for DP.

If, however, you'll be only using a few mics and using the rig solely for your personal projects, the Digi 002 is an elegant, one-box solution. You will be limited to 32 audio tracks.

If it were me? I'd get DP (I did!), but that's because sync and expandability are very important to what I do day in and day out.

[RLewis]

Thanks again, Michael. I had decided to get DP several months ago, but when Digi 002 came out, it threw a wrinkle into the decison process. Not being able to try each one out before buying is frustrating, hence my need for excellent commentary like yours. I appreciate your time in this.

[michaelhoddy]

No problem. I think you'll like the advances that have been made in DP 3.1. It seems less buggy and more efficient than 3.02 was, and the undo history options are finally integrated!

I don't want to appear as a DP partisan just because I own and use it, because the 002 is a very nice looking, well-integrated solution, and it has that Pro Tools name cachet. I do think that if you're even considering expansion, more than 32 audio tracks, extensive MIDI work, or trying to sync with multitracks, the 002 is probably not your best bet. There is an upgrade path to allow expansion from the 002, but it means that you'll have to jump all the way to TDM, buy new hardware, and upgrade plug-ins. Which will be a venture that'll land you south of $10,000 by the time you're done. I do wish that Digi would come out with a native platform without track count, I/O, and sync limits, but I guess that this would cut into TDM sales.

Having come from a Pro-Tools background, DP is a little harder to use, but not too bad, compared to say, Logic.

I don't see much in the way of info yet, but DP3 may be or may in the future be able to use the Digi 002 as an audio interface via DAE. I don't know if the control surface will integrate, and all this is conjecture on my part. But it might give you a future option.

[el-blanco]

Wondering which way you wnet and your thoughts?? I have been trying to decide between the two and am leanibng towards DP.

Thanks, JWhite

[RLewis]

I haven't purchased yet, but I too am leaning toward DP. More expandable and you can purchase as you go along...don't have to buy a control surface up front, but can add it later if I decide I need it.

[ChrisRoberts]

what are some awesome control surfaces out there to control DP3??
I also come from a school where pro tools reigns supreme (Berklee) but my boss tells me to take a look into MOTU products, even though they are pretty slow on releasing updates for the software...I think thats what he said! :)

[michaelhoddy]

Hey, we did get the DP 3.1 update finally. Only 8 months or so late. :)

The two primary contenders for control surfaces among most DP users are the Mackie Control and the Radikal SAC2.2. The Mackie is slick and pretty cool-looking, and fairly inexpensive. The SAC2.2 is more expensive, but unlike the Mackie, is USB-compatible, thus eliminating the need to tie up a pair of MIDI ports per unit (the SAC can also be used with MIDI). You need a MIDI interface with DP to run the Mackie Control.

The SAC2.2 can be assigned in multiple programs running simultaneously, which is convenient.