16 channel Digi002 w/ Apogee AD16x and Alesis Ai3

[thesedaze]

Hello,

I currently run an 8 channel Digi002r setup. I'm in desperate need of being able to run 16 channels, and am heavily interested in the Alesis Ai3 to add the other 8 channels. I'm not too please with the A/D converters on the Digi002. As of now, I mix digitally, and don't run all of the channels back to the board except for the stereo monitoring, so I'm not in desperate need for other D/A converters quite yet. I know that the Ai3 has a/d/a converters in the unit.

I'm really interested in the Apogee AD-16x which has the steller A/D conversion which includes the Big Ben word clocking hardware. I'd like to be able to use this unit but am confused on how I can effectively use this with my Digi002 and Alesis Ai3. I understand that I'm able to bypass the A/D converters in the Digi002, but don't know if it's possible to do so with the Alesis unit. For a true 16 channel recording WITH the Apogee AD16x, am I forced to buy another Digi002 just to be able to bypass the A/D converters and get another 8 channels, or can I do this with the Alesis?

Thank you kindly

[David Klausner]

The limitation of the Digi002 is that it has 8 analog inputs, 8 digital inputs on ADAT, and 2 digital inputs on SPDIF, and those are all fixed. While you can use an outboard converter to get 8 additional analog channels into the 002, the original 8 analog channels are going to go through the Digi converters - there's no way around that. Happily, the Digi converters can be improved when clocked to something like a nice Apogee converter. In your position, I would probably opt for the Rosetta80096 over the AD16X, as it will give you all the high quality converters you can use, plus the great D/A (even if you only need 2 channels for monitoring, those 2 channels will sound better and allow you to hear more of what's going on), and it will save you some money as well. The Ai3 won't help you at all if you have the Rosetta. BTW, you can't connect multiple Digi002's to a single computer.

[thesedaze]

I finally figured out how the AD16x and DA16x function, and how to use them with an analogboard/digital computer setup. I need a card such as the Lynx AES16 which is 16 channels of input and output via Dsub port, which is the port on the back of the AD16x and DA16x.

I'll most likely be going with the Lynx PCI card, as well as both the AD16x and DA16x. This seems like quite a solid setup that would rival any HD3 type setup (minus the ability to use PT) at less than half the cost.

[michaelhoddy]

You're comparing apples to oranges comparing any native rig with a TDM rig, regardless of what's on the front of it. The limiting factor will be the CPU, not the converters, and you'll still have throughput latency.

As far as the AD16x and DA16x, why not use the Apogee X-Firewire card when it comes out? You could eliminate the intermediate step of a digital (AES or whatever) computer interface.

You could also use any lightpipe card with the Apogees, including the RME cards.

[thesedaze]

I'm trying to understand how it's comparing apples to oranges? Both setups include a wordclock source, an i/o source, ad/da converters, a console source, and a computer. How different can it possibly be?

Even the Apogee folks have recommended the Lynx card for use with these. The firewire card is pretty untested, and the firewire800 feature won't even be supported right away, so one would have to rely on the 400. Why use firewire over PCI? I've got plenty of processor power, as well as memory, and the majority of my plugins will be coming from a UAD-1, so there shouldn't be much of bogging down my machine. Portability/transferrability of my recording rig isn't needed, so the mobility of firewire isn't really necessary in this situation.

I won't have to worry about any problems with having an external harddrive and sound interface plugged into the same firewire card.

[lvjazzman]

What he means by comparing apples to oranges is that you are comparing a ProTools TDM HD system to a host based system. TDM systems use the computer for just running the software. All processing is done in the HD hardware. A host based system no matter how powerful, is still limited by the host computer having to do all of the work. Even with the UAD1 the host will still be doing more work than it would with a TDM system. I think this is what he meant.

[thesedaze]

I see. With sufficient processing and memory, and having the computer solely for recording, I have yet to experience one difficulty in this type of setup. The end result must still be the same...It's not comparing apples to oranges based on the context of the post...The computers themselves weren't being discussed but rather the ad/da conversion and wordclocking in front of it, which is my basis of comparison to those items within the HD3 setup.

[michaelhoddy]

Originally posted by thesedaze
It's not comparing apples to oranges based on the context of the post...The computers themselves weren't being discussed but rather the ad/da conversion and wordclocking in front of it, which is my basis of comparison to those items within the HD3 setup.

Yes, but the thing that makes HD3 cost so much more than a native system really doesn't have much to do with the cost of the converters (Digi 192HD or 96HD or whatever). I don't think there's really anyone who would describe the Digi converters as a benchmark of absolute quality (anyone remember the 888?). They're fine, pretty good even, but no one's dumping their Lavrys or whatever to get a 192HD.

The cost of HD is wrapped up in the DSP cards, plain and simple. Qualitatively, the Apogee converters are several steps better. Which is why one can use the appropriate X-series card to interface the Apogees with an HD system. No one's arguing that.

One can get as good or far better conversion on the front of any native system OR any HD system. Conversion is not why people buy into PT HD. DSP is.

I realize that you were not comparing DSP processes, but I felt the basis for your cost comparison was misplaced, because AD/DA conversion does not an HD system make. That's all.

[thesedaze]

well said.

[sada10]

Originally posted by michaelhoddy

As far as the AD16x and DA16x, why not use the Apogee X-Firewire card when it comes out? You could eliminate the intermediate step of a digital (AES or whatever) computer interface.

You could also use any lightpipe card with the Apogees, including the RME cards.

O.k., I am trying to figure out if I purchase the AD16X how I am going to integrate it into my system; I had originally assumed that this unit functioned as a break-out box (the primary unit having some sort of analog inputs)which would connect to my DAW through some sort of extension that ran into my PC (say a PCI card, firewire, USB, etc.); but after reading this post, this does not appear to be the case. It appears that I am going to have to purchase a seperate Apogee card to facilatate the connection to the PC, correct? And the only input that is on the actual AD16X unit out of the box is a Dsub port, correct?

[thesedaze]

You can get a DSUB->XLR snake....so your analog inputs go right into the AD16 via one of these snakes....as for the computer connection, you don't need another card if you wish to use firewire. You can use Apogee's Firewire connections, which is a little expansion card you place in the expansion slot of the AD16x that connects to your computer's firewire card (assuming you have one).

[sada10]

Yeah, but I have another problem (or at least I just realized I am going to have to spend more money), I need to get signals back out of my pc and into my DM-24 mixer for mixdown! I guess I would have to get some other interface card to facilatate 24 channals of say lightpipe or TDIF transfer back into the DM-24! I would like to have really sweet converters going in and coming out though.

[thesedaze]

the DA16x gives you 16 channels from the PC back out.

That's another $3000.

Unless of course you mix on the PC, and only get 2 channels out, you could get a 2 channel DA.

[sada10]

You know, I think that I will be fine running the digital signal back out of the pc into the DM-24 via a interface card; I really don't want to mix it internally because I would like to be able to process the mix with my external outboard gear. I don't think that I will lose anything because it is a digital signal and I would gotten the best signal transfer possible on the front end going into the pc with the AD16X. What do you think?