Avid Carbon interface brief review and 1st recording

[Trent in WA]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Part of me is wondering if I wouldn't have been better off getting the Carbon and pairing it with the Rosetta 800 rather than getting the X16, if for no other reason than to unburden myself of the Console software which is a pita at time.
On the other hand, I did well on the sale of both the X8p and the Rosetta. After buying the X16 and selling both of those units, I had an extra $400 in my pocket.

My sense is that UAD's Luna software integrates directly with Console, so if you want to bypass the separate Console layer, you might consider tracking in Luna even if you're going to export the tracks into another DAW. I've never used Luna, though, so I'm basing that suggestion from what I've gleaned in the UAD forums.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Trent in WA

My sense is that UAD's Luna software integrates directly with Console, so if you want to bypass the separate Console layer, you might consider tracking in Luna even if you're going to export the tracks into another DAW. I've never used Luna, though, so I'm basing that suggestion from what I've gleaned in the UAD forums.

I don't use any UAD products so also do know about using Luna ,but from strictly an objective workflow simplification/efficiency standpoint.

Unless you were going to abandon using another DAW altogether,,,, and simply do everything in Luna ,,, and arguably why UAD offers Luna as an alternative DAW .
Unless I missing something ...Seems to me there would little reason, maybe less, in recording in Luna then exporting, then booting another DAW and importing. You would simply be exchanging running the Console software layer slaved into another DAW and recording into that DAW directly. With going through a sequence of booting, recording and exporting from one DAW, and then booting and Importing into another DAW. Does not really seem like a net gain in workflow/simplification.

[Trent in WA]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I don't use any UAD products so also do know about using Luna ,but from strictly an objective workflow simplification/efficiency standpoint.

Unless you were going to abandon using another DAW altogether,,,, and simply do everything in Luna ,,, and arguably why UAD offers Luna as an alternative DAW .
Unless I missing something ...Seems to me there would little reason, maybe less, in recording in Luna then exporting, then booting another DAW and importing. You would simply be exchanging running the Console software layer slaved into another DAW and recording into that DAW directly. With going through a sequence of booting, recording and exporting from one DAW, and then booting and Importing into another DAW. Does not really seem like a net gain in workflow/simplification.

KevWind, sorry if that was unclear (and sorry to potentially hijack the discussion of Carbon)--I was responding to jim1960s' comment about Console. In UAD-land, Console is used solely when you're tracking in a non-Luna DAW. In Luna, it's integrated, so you don't have to deal with that layer of complexity and abstraction.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Trent in WA

My sense is that UAD's Luna software integrates directly with Console, so if you want to bypass the separate Console layer, you might consider tracking in Luna even if you're going to export the tracks into another DAW. I've never used Luna, though, so I'm basing that suggestion from what I've gleaned in the UAD forums.

That's never gonna happen for a few reasons...
1. Luna is an incomplete daw. It's missing too many features that are commonplace on other daws. UA is working to catchup, but the quick updates have resulted in odd issues (for example, a recent update has all Wave plugins GUIs showing upside) and I have no patience for any of that.
2. Bouncing tracks from one daw to import into another is time-consuming. There would have to be a really compelling reason to sign up for all that extra work. Luna does not look like a really compelling reason.
3. I have no desire to learn how to use a new daw. I can work pretty quickly in Pro Tools at this point. Luna can only slow me down.

Trading Console for Luna would be like trading the pain in my left butt cheek for a pain in my right butt cheek.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Trent in WA

KevWind, sorry if that was unclear (and sorry to potentially hijack the discussion of Carbon)--I was responding to jim1960s' comment about Console. In UAD-land, Console is used solely when you're tracking in a non-Luna DAW. In Luna, it's integrated, so you don't have to deal with that layer of complexity and abstraction.

No apology necessary and you did not hijack anything. I encourage and appreciate diverse perspectives. They often shed new light on the discussion.
That does not mean however I am not going to discus how those perspectives may objectively reflect into the discussion .

And on the contrary you were quite clear about Luna.
I was the one not being clear , I should have said
Even though I don't use UAD, I do understand the basics of how Luna works in the UAD environment and how Console works in slaving to other DAW's . For years I used Reason slaved to Pro Tools via Rewire, which like UAD Console, is a protocol for running one audio software within a different DAW. Which is also a two software layer situation, and what Jim was talking about .

My point was and is , when you "are" going to be using another DAW ,, I was simply observing that I can perceive no advantage of less, complexity or abstraction, in tracking to Luna and then mixing in Pro Tools as per your suggestion , over simply using Console and tracking directly to Pro tools . Either way you are still involving two layers of audio software , where as in Carbon you are using only one layer being Pro Tools (which seems to be Jims original point)

[KevWind]

Here is short video about DSP usage in Carbon and how the Hybrid DSP and Native processing together.
I create a blank 50 track session and start loading up to try and max out the system with Plugins in both DSP and Native plugins

[jim1960]

How much that box can handle is pretty impressive. Maybe you could call AVID and get them to do a 16 channel version.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jim1960

How much that box can handle is pretty impressive. Maybe you could call AVID and get them to do a 16 channel version.

I could try but I I think my fame and clout is legend only in my own mind

But I am thinking it could be a possible future product (maybe with 16 or the full 18 chips in the current HDX configurations) or and I/O with converters and ADAT or AVB Ethernet connection.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I could try but I I think my fame and clout is only legend in my own mind

But I am thinking it could be a possible future product (maybe with 16 or the full 18 chips in the current HDX configurations) or and I/O with converters and ADAT or AVB Ethernet connection.

I'll be first in line if that happens.

[KevWind]

So this is a Youtube video production of that first recording made with Carbon
I just uploaded it to the Show and Tell (herehttps://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=605334 )sub forum as an example of what was actually the first serious attempt at writing a song but just recently re recorded using the Carbon interface.


I thought I would post here in the recording sub forum for, how does it sound.

To repeat my OP, the thing that impressed with the Carbon, is how easy it was to make quick one pass recordings for the three different parts = rhythm guitar then overdubbing a lead/riff,,,, then overdubbing the vocal, even while recording with DSP plugins engaged and my outboard reverb and compressor (which I did not do with old HDNative system) units going and how right there it felt
So focusing on the sound here is the new video

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I thought I would post here in the recording sub forum for, how does it sound.

I'd have no complaints about what the Carbon is giving you there.
I missed this post somehow but I went looking for it because I was wondering how you feel about the Carbon now that you have some time with it.

Have you run into any situations where you've had to deal with latency?
Is there software to maneuver with the Carbon or is PT the only software?

I'm starting to rethink my setup. As much as I like the quality of the Apollo X16, the UA Console software is a pain in the buns. I have no desire at all to use Luna and that seems to be the direction they're going to push and while I don't think they'll ever make the hardware Luna exclusive, I just don't see the software situation for me as a non-Luna user getting better in the future.

The question I'm most curious about is about adding channels via a 2nd device but I don't know if you can help me on that front. I'm wondering if I add a 2nd device for an additional 8 or 16 channels, would I be doing the I/O mapping in PT or in some separate software? I'm seriously thinking about doing swapping out the X16 for the Carbon but I really do need the extra channels and I don't want to just trade my existing headache for a different headache.

Edit: I'm watching this Carbon video and I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting something I heard. Do you have to switch engines to listen to iTunes or YouTube?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I'd have no complaints about what the Carbon is giving you there.
I missed this post somehow but I went looking for it because I was wondering how you feel about the Carbon now that you have some time with it.

Have you run into any situations where you've had to deal with latency?
Is there software to maneuver with the Carbon or is PT the only software?

I'm starting to rethink my setup. As much as I like the quality of the Apollo X16, the UA Console software is a pain in the buns. I have no desire at all to use Luna and that seems to be the direction they're going to push and while I don't think they'll ever make the hardware Luna exclusive, I just don't see the software situation for me as a non-Luna user getting better in the future.

The question I'm most curious about is about adding channels via a 2nd device but I don't know if you can help me on that front. I'm wondering if I add a 2nd device for an additional 8 or 16 channels, would I be doing the I/O mapping in PT or in some separate software? I'm seriously thinking about doing swapping out the X16 for the Carbon but I really do need the extra channels and I don't want to just trade my existing headache for a different headache.

Edit: I'm watching this Carbon video and I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting something I heard. Do you have to switch engines to listen to iTunes or YouTube?

So a quick disclosure I have had some health issues that started in January and have only just in the last couple weeks been resolved. So honestly I have not used the Carbon to the extent that no doubt someone like you would have.
But I can say with confidence that for my use the Carbon has been all, and more than I expected. (more on that later)

OK so in reverse order As for "switching engines" ( I am guessing you're talking about the 2 different instances of Pro Tools Carbon that show up in the Mac "Audio Midi Setup" and the Mac "System Preferences Sound " window.

So far for what I have been doing I simply select "Pro Tools Carbon" I have not really explored the Pro Tool Only selection.

But in answer to your question
NO when I'm in a Pro Tools Session I do not have to switch engines or anything in order to play YouTube, SoundCloud etc. through my system sound. In fact it will even playback both at the same time


In other words I can have a Protools session open and I can also have Crome open for any Internet app like Youtube Because I have two displays I can have PT on one display and Youtube on the other and it will play either or both


Now as expansion of channels
So on the Carbon unit itself you can have a total 16 analog channels connected but you can only use 8 simultaneously at any one time.
SO for example you can have 8 channels of analog FXs connected via the DB 25's connectors and you can also connect up to 8 channels via the Carbons 8 Combi XLR- 1/4 " connectors BUT those Combi inputs will override the corresponding DB25 channels automatically
However one nice feature on the DB 25 connections you can select to either be controlled by the Carbons "Line in Gain" OR you can select to have any of the DB channels completely bypass the Carbon Line In gain and thus its pre's (So true bypass) which is how I have both my Bricasti M7 and my IGS Tubcore 3U so that the input levels to PT are controlled by the controls on those units themselves.

As for a 2nd or even a 3rd device ??? currently is only available through the 2 ADAT connections, each a bank or 8 channels so up to 16 channels of ADAT @ 44.1 or 48 samples or 8 channels @ 88 or 92 samples
Now there is a second AVB port on the Carbon and the the rumor or hope is that in the future that may be able to connect to some new Avid product for additional channels but that is only speculation at this point.

Now it is true that Avid has recently announced that HDX is getting the Hybrid DSP ability that Carbon has So that could mean that Avid sees the Hybrid DSP system as the future and perhaps the second AVB port may expand Carbons channel count ??????

[KevWind]

Yes I assume I/O mapping would be in Pro Tools because the additional channels are listed in my I/O as ADAT channels



And here are my Audio Midi Set Up and my System Preferences > Sound
And the Playback Engine in PT

[KevWind]

One final thought (for me personally) the Pre's are so good on the Carbon that I have not even used my A Designs MP2A mic pre, and may even consider selling it to help fund an analog EQ .
Also the 32 bit "end to end" architecture of Carbon I am guessing may well become the new "raised bar" for interface design

[jim1960]

Kev, sorry to hear about your health issues but glad to hear you’re on the mend. And thanks for the in-depth response.

If I decide to get the Carbon, I’ll probably use my X16 as the 2nd device. I’ve spent a bit of time looking at other options and I don’t see any that make me think selling the X16 right now makes sense. I think you’re right about some expansion unit for the Carbon being on the horizon at some time. In that video I linked, a guy from AVID seems to be hinting that the Carbon is the base of what will be a modular system.

That video also made it sound like all the I/O mapping would take place in PT. I’m unclear whether I’d need to use the UA software to get that set up. I don’t see why I’d need to but I’ll find that out. If it’s that simple, I’d be good until AVID releases a Carbon expansion unit at which point I’d probably sell the X16.

That the preamps sound good is welcome news. Maybe I could sell one of my pres to offset the cost at some point.

Have you run into any latency issues when using outboard gear?