The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 03-23-2017, 07:48 AM
MikeBmusic MikeBmusic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: On the Mass/NH border
Posts: 6,663
Default

One thing to consider is your A+H is not a control surface for your DAW - you'll still be using a mouse and clicking on the computer when you are using the DAW.
The A+H has stereo USB out - meaning if you want to record two separate things, separately, at the same time, you have to pan one of them left, the other right, then set your DAW's tracks to grab each one to its own mono track.
If you record the A+H FX with your tracks, you can't adjust them after, the way you can if you use plug-in FX in your DAW.
It's not clear in the A+H description on the monitoring capability of the mixer - can you listen to the already-recorded tracks from your computer while recording new tracks? I suspect you can by using the AUX output option for the USB, and making sure the USB-Return to Stereo2 channel's AUX control is zeroed.
It all seems complicated to use as a recording interface - compared to using an actual audio interface made for the job!
Mixers are for mixing ....
__________________
Mike

My music: https://mikebirchmusic.bandcamp.com

2020 Taylor 324ceBE
2017 Taylor 114ce-N
2012 Taylor 310ce
2011 Fender CD140SCE
Ibanez 12 string a/e
73(?) Epiphone 6830E 6 string

72 Fender Telecaster
Epiphone Dot Studio
Epiphone LP Jr
Chinese Strat clone

Kala baritone ukulele
Seagull 'Merlin'
Washburn Mandolin
Luna 'tatoo' a/e ukulele
antique banjolin
Squire J bass

Last edited by MikeBmusic; 03-24-2017 at 07:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-23-2017, 08:55 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFishn View Post
In looking at some options it looks like the Focusrite Scarlet 2i4/second gen has a lot more flexibility with outputs than the Solo or 2i2.

The mixer I'm looking at is the Allen & Heath ZED60-10FX.

As far as pricing goes - the 2i4 is already half the price of the mixer. I'd have twice the channel capacity, built in affects processor, analog adjustment for a stand-alone audio set up, and still 48KHz sampling rate to the computer. via USB.

So I guess what I need to figure is if the extra flexibility and options are necessary.

Any thoughts with my line of thinking here?
Quote:
Example - if a device has a max 48KHz rate can it be set/configured to 44.1, 24, or 16KHz also? Or will certain driver software limit it to, say, 48, 24, and 16?
Most DAW software can down convert both sample rate and bit depth

The above is a bit confusing with your mixing sample rates and bit depths. If you are clear on the difference just ignore the following and chalk it up the benefit of any reading the thread who are not clear on it

But the difference between "sample rate" (44.1 khz --48 khz-- 88 khz -- 96 khz-- 192 khz) and "bit depth" 16 or 24..... can be thought of as
a very simplistic analogy (of a very complex mathematical subject). BUT it will do for a very basic example.

Visualize the frequency range of human hearing 20 to 20k as being a swimming pool say 100 yards long .

The "sample rate" is the number of equally spaced cups of water samples, you take going from one end to the other. So starting with taking 44 .1 thousand cups of samples then on up to 192 thousand cups of samples.

Think of "bit depth" as water depth in the swimming pool, either 16 feet of depth, or 24 feet of depth, and the ability of stacking metal blocks from the bottom until you breach the surface ( with air above the surface being the digital clipping point) so obviously you can stack more blocks in the 24 ft depth before breaching the surface and clipping .


Next you need to differentiate the term channels/ or tracks from simultaneous inputs

Yes with the ZED you get 4 mic inputs and only 2 with 2i2 and the ZED can be used as a stand alone mixer for live use.
And that is about the extent of any advantage of the ZED over the 2i2 (and since you already have a the Behringer mixer standalone really is not an advantage per se)

With the ZED you have only 2 channels of already mixed audio going to the computer (which means you can't utilize about 95% to 99% of the advantage of using computer DAW software )

With the 2i2 your number of channels/tracks is limited only by the DAW software you run, the bundled software (PT First or Ableton lite) 16 tracks
With something like Reaper unlimited (or more correctly limited only by the computer's power)

With the ZED you are limited to 16 bit audio with the Focusrite you can use 24 bit ( which is reason alone IMO to skip the ZED)

With the Focusrite and a DAW you can then edit the audio on individual tracks/channels ( one of the biggest advantages of DAW software) with the ZED you can't ...... again another reason alone to forget the ZED

With the Focusrite you have access to literally thousands of possible plugins FX and tools that can be used in mixing. With the ability to use specific targeted tools and vast amount of adjustment to have the optimum target effect . Which you will not have with the ZED

With the Focusrite you have access to the possibility of using midi
With the ZED you don't

With the ZED you are limited to only the onboard FX
With the ZED you limited to the preset parameters of it's EQ with no ability adjust edit the either frequency being effected or the band with range or "Q"

If it were me (given the current goals and possible goals you have stated) going forward I would skip the ZED and put that money into a more versatile Focusrite Scarlet unit or similar like the 18i8 or the 18i20 rack unit with something like those, you will be able to record a solo guitar or even a small band

And lastly if you decide you really want fader control there are dedicated DAW control surfaces with faders that you could go to
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1

Last edited by KevWind; 03-23-2017 at 11:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-23-2017, 06:40 PM
FlyFishn FlyFishn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 47
Default

I don't want to skip Mike's post, good stuff, but I'll spin off of KevWind's for this round.. Spin cycle started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Most DAW software can down convert both sample rate and bit depth

The above is a bit confusing with your mixing sample rates and bit depths. If you are clear on the difference just ignore the following and chalk it up the benefit of any reading the thread who are not clear on it

But the difference between "sample rate" (44.1 khz --48 khz-- 88 khz -- 96 khz-- 192 khz) and "bit depth" 16 or 24..... can be thought of as
a very simplistic analogy (of a very complex mathematical subject). BUT it will do for a very basic example.

Visualize the frequency range of human hearing 20 to 20k as being a swimming pool say 100 yards long .

The "sample rate" is the number of equally spaced cups of water samples, you take going from one end to the other. So starting with taking 44 .1 thousand cups of samples then on up to 192 thousand cups of samples.

Think of "bit depth" as water depth in the swimming pool, either 16 feet of depth, or 24 feet of depth, and the ability of stacking metal blocks from the bottom until you breach the surface ( with air above the surface being the digital clipping point) so obviously you can stack more blocks in the 24 ft depth before breaching the surface and clipping .


Next you need to differentiate the term channels/ or tracks from simultaneous inputs
Very good explanation. Yes, I see I mixed up terms. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Yes with the ZED you get 4 mic inputs and only 2 with 2i2 and the ZED can be used as a stand alone mixer for live use.
And that is about the extent of any advantage of the ZED over the 2i2 (and since you already have a the Behringer mixer standalone really is not an advantage per se)
The Behringer has some issues, so I was also looking to upgrade that. I can make do for a while though. Lots of options here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
With the ZED you have only 2 channels of already mixed audio going to the computer (which means you can't utilize about 95% to 99% of the advantage of using computer DAW software )
If the EQ is neutral and there are no affects added in is that not the same as running a direct line through an audio interface?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
With the 2i2 your number of channels/tracks is limited only by the DAW software you run, the bundled software (PT First or Ableton lite) 16 tracks
With something like Reaper unlimited (or more correctly limited only by the computer's power)
The software is what you are detailing as being the limit here. If I run audio to the software from either the mixer or the interface how is the method that the audio gets there going to change the software functionality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
With the ZED you are limited to 16 bit audio with the Focusrite you can use 24 bit ( which is reason alone IMO to skip the ZED)
Fair point. So the difference between 16 and 24 bit is a big/noticeable difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
With the Focusrite and a DAW you can then edit the audio on individual tracks/channels ( one of the biggest advantages of DAW software) with the ZED you can't ...... again another reason alone to forget the ZED
If I record the tracks individually or in pairs how does the method of getting the audio to the computer going to change this ability in the software?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
With the Focusrite you have access to literally thousands of possible plugins FX and tools that can be used in mixing. With the ability to use specific targeted tools and vast amount of adjustment to have the optimum target effect . Which you will not have with the ZED
Same answer here - if the audio gets to the computer, regardless of the device used to do it, how does that affect what software tools are available?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
With the Focusrite you have access to the possibility of using midi
With the ZED you don't
The only device I have that uses MIDI is a Line 6 POD. What does MIDI control give me on an audio interface? Starting/stopping recording? Is there such a thing as software on a computer that can do amp modelling and affects where my MIDI floor board could be set up to to trigger the different presets or manual adjustments? Or is the audio interface MIDI capability locked to recording functions/adjustments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
With the ZED you are limited to only the onboard FX
With the ZED you limited to the preset parameters of it's EQ with no ability adjust edit the either frequency being effected or the band with range or "Q"
So if I turn the affects off for recording how does this affect what is possible in the DAW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
If it were me (given the current goals and possible goals you have stated) going forward I would skip the ZED and put that money into a more versatile Focusrite Scarlet unit or similar like the 18i8 or the 18i20 rack unit with something like those, you will be able to record a solo guitar or even a small band
I will look at those options also to see what they're all about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
And lastly if you decide you really want fader control there are dedicated DAW control surfaces with faders that you could go to
Good to note. I didn't realize that - MIDI devices I assume?

Sounds like to make this work I could use a whole other computer dedicated to recording...

This is all good stuff. You guys rock.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-23-2017, 10:03 PM
FlyFishn FlyFishn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeBmusic View Post
It's not clear in the A+H description on the monitoring capability of the mixer - can you listen to the already-recorded tracks from your computer while recording new tracks? I suspect you can by using the AUX output option for the USB, and making sure the USB-Return to Stereo2 channel's AUX control is zeroed.
I was just going back over things here. There are multiple ways to get the recording to work off the mixer to listen to a track/set of tracks while recording a fresh one independent of the playback. A couple are below:

Set the source for the headphone jack to "playback". Then use either the record buss or main mix to send back to USB

Set the record buss to send to USB and have the return to stereo channel 2. Take stereo channel 2 off the record loop and play back over any output - mains, aux, headphones.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-23-2017, 10:39 PM
sdelsolray sdelsolray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 6,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFishn View Post
I was just going back over things here. There are multiple ways to get the recording to work off the mixer to listen to a track/set of tracks while recording a fresh one independent of the playback. A couple are below:

Set the source for the headphone jack to "playback". Then use either the record buss or main mix to send back to USB

Set the record buss to send to USB and have the return to stereo channel 2. Take stereo channel 2 off the record loop and play back over any output - mains, aux, headphones.
Can the mixer receive a USB protocol signal? Does the mixer have DA converters in it to convert that digital signal being sent to it to an analog signal? What about latency?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-24-2017, 07:55 AM
MikeBmusic MikeBmusic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: On the Mass/NH border
Posts: 6,663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
Can the mixer receive a USB protocol signal? Does the mixer have DA converters in it to convert that digital signal being sent to it to an analog signal? What about latency?
yes, the mixer as ADA converter for USB in both directions. Latency is a factor dependent on the drivers - does A+H even have dedicated drivers for their equipment? I know some mixer manufacturers tell you to use 'standard' ASIO driers or ASIO4ALL

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFishn View Post
I was just going back over things here. There are multiple ways to get the recording to work off the mixer to listen to a track/set of tracks while recording a fresh one independent of the playback. A couple are below:

Set the source for the headphone jack to "playback". Then use either the record buss or main mix to send back to USB

Set the record buss to send to USB and have the return to stereo channel 2. Take stereo channel 2 off the record loop and play back over any output - mains, aux, headphones.
Ok, so the mixer does have the monitoring option, but if you want to use speakers to monitor, you'll have to be careful of how you set it up to avoid a feedback chain.

FlyFishn, you really seem insistent on going the mixer route, so its probably useless for everyone to keep advising you here.
I bought a Behringer USB mixer and it was noisy - not only were the mic preamps inadequate (had to turn the gain way up) - but the USB output had a high pitched whine that would only go away if the overall volume was reduced. There was no separate USB volume control on this mixer, the main volume sliders also controlled the USB output.
I returned the Behr mixer and bought a Mackie. My real reason for the mixer was so that I could have everything plugged in all the time to record to my Boss recorder, the USB was just extra. The Mackie has a separate volume control for the USB output, and if you turn it up too high, there is that whine again.
I later learned that this is common on the cheap 16 bit ADA converters found in USB mixers. I understand A+H have better components, but have not read of anyone really using one of these as their primary recording input device.
USB mixers are really made for sending the "live mix" from a performance to a computer, not for multitrack recording.
__________________
Mike

My music: https://mikebirchmusic.bandcamp.com

2020 Taylor 324ceBE
2017 Taylor 114ce-N
2012 Taylor 310ce
2011 Fender CD140SCE
Ibanez 12 string a/e
73(?) Epiphone 6830E 6 string

72 Fender Telecaster
Epiphone Dot Studio
Epiphone LP Jr
Chinese Strat clone

Kala baritone ukulele
Seagull 'Merlin'
Washburn Mandolin
Luna 'tatoo' a/e ukulele
antique banjolin
Squire J bass
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-24-2017, 08:01 AM
paulp1960 paulp1960 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,055
Default

There is a big difference in recording at 16 v 24 bits. With 16 bits you are always chasing a hot recording where your meters approach max levels to make the most of your bits, so to speak. 24 bit recording allows you to be more relaxed about recording levels and you can normally keep out of the danger zone (clipping) which can ruin a good take.

The mixer you seem to want is really designed for a small live band to provide a few channels of amplification.

I use Logic Pro X and an RME Babyface audio interface. For $199 Logic Pro X is amazing value and the effects available will blow that mixer right out of the water.

I use the mixer in Logic Pro X, why would I want to use an external mixer as well?
__________________
Yamaha AC3M Acoustic Guitar
Gretch G5220 Electromatic
Squier Classic Vibe 50s Telecaster
Squier Vintage Modified Telecaster Special
Yamaha BB414 Bass
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-24-2017, 08:11 AM
paulp1960 paulp1960 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,055
Default

I have also heard of loads of stories about badly implemented USB on cheap mixers and as Mike above pointed out a lot of people seem to experience noise when using USB on their mixers.

If you want more than 2 inputs you can buy a USB audio interface with more than 2 inputs.
__________________
Yamaha AC3M Acoustic Guitar
Gretch G5220 Electromatic
Squier Classic Vibe 50s Telecaster
Squier Vintage Modified Telecaster Special
Yamaha BB414 Bass
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-24-2017, 09:08 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFishn View Post
If the EQ is neutral and there are no affects added in is that not the same as running a direct line through an audio interface?
Well It could be the sort of same functionally but the problem is I believe on that mixer there are only two main summed outputs from the mixer via USB or the main analog outs and they summed to stereo also (which is because that is what you want for a live performance going into a stereo PA speaker system) but do want for multitrack recording for the studio (regardless of the sales hype for the mixer)

Now from a strict (can you do it) basis you certainly could record and output one mono track at a time (presumably on the left main output) and as you say not use the EQ or effects. Or you could even record two tracks at a time ( for example from a pair of mics recording an acoustic guitar rhythm part) and output them summed to a stereo track. Then record say a mono track bass line from your electric and then another mono electric lead part , and then a vocal and maybe a backing vocal etc. etc. and you could as you say, then deal with all the tracks separately in the DAW as if going through an interface BUT then you have defeated the reason and the money spent for the ZED in the place. i.e. multi track and onboard FX .


Quote:
The software is what you are detailing as being the limit here. If I run audio to the software from either the mixer or the interface how is the method that the audio gets there going to change the software functionality?
No that would be the same .

Quote:
Fair point. So the difference between 16 and 24 bit is a big/noticeable difference?
No there is not a big difference in the quality of the audio as such. BUT there is a fairly big difference in the dynamic range capability (soft to loud ) before clipping (as per the analogy)

Quote:
If I record the tracks individually or in pairs how does the method of getting the audio to the computer going to change this ability in the software?
Again in mono probably not but in pairs you will be getting summed audio with ZED that will have the same exact audio on the left and right, as opposed to separate audio with the interface. Is that a big deal ? possibly not if you have a pair of the same mics (But for example I have one LDC mic and one SDC) which when used as a pair I can record to two separate mono tracks of my acoustic guitar, then I have the option of EQing them to either sound slightly different for say a wider stereo sound in sparse session or EQ them sound more similar in session with a bunch of tracks.



Quote:
Same answer here - if the audio gets to the computer, regardless of the device used to do it, how does that affect what software tools are available?
As above in a mono channel it doesn't make much difference, with a 2 track recording it is summed with the ZED and cannot be changed, with the interface it is not summed and can be changed. But again the bigger question is , why spend the money on a multi track mixer and FX you are not going to use and won't be for it's designed purpose ?
Which a means you have paid for 4 pre amps of which you can only use 2 at a time because the ZED can only output 2 summed channels .
You have paid for onboard FX you are either not using (because you have way more and potentially better ones in the DAW plugin capability)
OR If you do use the FX reverb or EQ on the ZED (that you have paid for) they will be permanently printed to the audio and cannot later be changed or removed, where the DAW FX can be changed or removed.
And again The ability to do narrow "Q" EQ cuts (not possible with the ZED EQ's ) is a really good option in mixes with multiple tracks, so again you are paying for unneeded and less functional EQ


Quote:
The only device I have that uses MIDI is a Line 6 POD. What does MIDI control give me on an audio interface? Starting/stopping recording? Is there such a thing as software on a computer that can do amp modelling and affects where my MIDI floor board could be set up to to trigger the different presets or manual adjustments? Or is the audio interface MIDI capability locked to recording functions/adjustments?
I do not know about what control capability would be possible with the line 6 and your floor pedals
The midi I was talking is using is either just within the DAW via virtual instruments and mouse control or a midi keyboard which does have control function in the DAW and all the virtual instruments available (but that would be the same no matter how the audio gets to the DAW)


Quote:
So if I turn the affects off for recording how does this affect what is possible in the DAW?
It doesn't but same question applies why not put the money into a more capable interface as opposed to preamps you can't use and FX you do not need ??? That is the most important point I am trying to make








Quote:
Good to note. I didn't realize that - MIDI devices I assume?
Perhaps ,I do know the actual communication protocol. I do know I had an 8 fader control surface interface for 6 years, it was for me , simply an unused feature I did all volume riding in the box using automation, which IMO is much more precise than physically moving faders. So I sold it and put that money into an interface with better pres and converters (arguably the most important thing in digital audio recording)


Quote:
Sounds like to make this work I could use a whole other computer dedicated to recording...
certainly a dedicated studio computer is a good option, but not really necessary with today's USB interface options especially USB 3 but that's whole nother discussion
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1

Last edited by KevWind; 03-24-2017 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-24-2017, 07:29 PM
FlyFishn FlyFishn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 47
Default

All good stuff.

I got in to the manuals for the Scarlett 2i4 and 6i6. I think for what I am after right now with some expansion and future flexibility in mind the 6i6 will get me started for now. The 18i8 and beyond seem a bit too overkill.

I'll look in to upgrading the mixer next... I'll have the interface covered with the 6i6, so whether I end up with an analog or a USB-ready unit I'll have all my bases covered now.

Now lets see how long it takes to get my box in the mail...

Thanks for the input everyone. I wasn't trying to be difficult, just trying to see through the details. I guess that is coming from the perspective of never having used one of these audio interfaces before. If nothing else, I am about to find out a whole other world of audio gear. Wish me luck in diving in to the digital age...
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=