This question, while still pretty long, was highly edited to save space. The gist of it still remains and we think it’s a very valid question that makes a good point, and is deserving of a response since we see many people suffering with the same dilemma.
“I own/operate/rent out a project recording studio and I have been fairly successful for about five years. Among other things I believe the basis of my success is tied to the studio’s ability to deliver a reliable, professional product. To this end I must credit my trusty old EMU Darwin (with its ADAT option). I’m sorry it never got the recognition and marketshare it deserved. It has never let me down, or crashed, or lost a session. I have a lot of other equipment that works well, but the Darwin has been a critical factor. My problem is this: While I love my Darwin and other 16 bit machines, it is time for me to upgrade. I can hear the difference in projects recorded at higher bit and sample rates and my customers hear the buzz and are requesting that capability. I have been trying to solidify a new consolidated DAW working environment and I am pulling my hair out (ok…so maybe some of it is falling out all by itself). I have a few PC’s and I am having a heck of a time getting anything to be stable on them. I have tried a myriad of motherboards, video cards, and SCSI cards. I am pretty good at tweaking machines and have tried a mix of PC hardware and software and I can’t get any combination to be stable enough for the ‘real world’. I keep messing with it and for the life of me it just doesn’t seem like this stuff really works. I have asked others and they have had the same experience. And trust me, I haven’t tried it just once. It is not just the system stability. It is latency, or full duplex problems, or SYNC!!!!!, or MIDI dropouts, or I’m having a bad hair day problems. I guess what this is all leading to is this: I want to have new integrated DAW setup that is as stable as my Darwin with the added bonus of full midi integration, DSP, mastering, and at 24 bit (96k?). Is this realistic right now for a project studio?”
First of all I agree with your feelings on the Darwin. This was a great product that never really took off like it should have. Part of the problem is customers continually send the message to manufacturers that what they want is more features for less money. We “say” we want reliability and stability, but when we (“we” because most of us are guilty in one way or another) pull out our wallets we buy on sizzle and what I like to call “knob per dollar” ratio. In many instances we get products that have astounding capabilities and potential, but often don’t completely live up to their hype in terms of actually getting billable work done. No sense whining about that because it isn’t likely to change. And besides, we really love all the features and low cost, don’t we?
Most of us have experienced what you are going through, but rest assured there are ways to build a stable system. Your e-mail went on about the permutations of what you’ve tried, showing you’ve done a lot of work. But not enough. People do meaningful work on these systems all the time so they can work. This is admittedly general and vague advice, but sometimes you have to work with a system over the course of weeks or even months to get all the kinks out of it. You can choose a good DAW system and talk to the manufacturer about the type of computer you should configure to operate it. We’ve found that starting with a computer and trying to get a particular DAW to work in it, as you have done, can be a recipe for disaster. This is one reason why we recommend customers let us configure the system for them. Our service department is used to dealing with these issues and can head many of them off before you ever see your system. You don’t even have to buy the computer from us. Just send one in and we’ll take care of the rest.
Many of the DAW products you mentioned (which were edited out, sorry) are in the mid to lower end of the scale. Given your mindset, experience, and expectations you simply may not have climbed high enough up the ladder yet. We’ve consistently observed that customers who are working in busy or high-pressure environments are much less tolerant of the “idiosyncrasies” that many of the lower priced systems have. For example, some of the specific problems you mention are solved by getting a system with its own dedicated processing that doesn’t rely on the CPU. Of course, climbing up that ladder usually means more $$, but if you’re growing a studio you may need to find a way to rationalize and support it. Also, I want to be clear that paying more money does not ensure reliability, but statistically speaking the higher end systems do tend to stand up under the daily rigors of a busy studio better.
You may also have to adjust your expectations somewhat. Reliability and stability are both relative terms. They don’t really have an objective meaning we can all agree with. It would be hard to argue that a DAW is as reliable as an old analog 24-track machine, but when you consider the fact that those old machines needed to be calibrated and tweaked on a near daily basis the question of reliability becomes less concrete. There are always some trade-offs when you move forward and it’s usually necessary to work within and around what a system is good at. Most people agree there are many more advantages than disadvantages to the newer systems.
Finally, you may decide you want to stay in the realm of hardware. Let’s face it, turning a computer into an audio workstation is always a bit of an exercise. There are hardware products that offer the out-of-the-box stability you are used to. Maybe they don’t do everything a computer DAW can do, but that’s the trade off. Akai makes some very nice multitrack machines that sound great, sync well, and are easy to use. Both Tascam and Mackie are coming out with very impressive new products this summer that are 24 track and don’t cost much more than your Darwin did. You should talk to your Sweetwater Sales Engineer about these and other options.
