Hi guys, I've been lurking a while but haven't posted till just now.

I'm looking at doing some major upgrades to my recording gear and builing a small garage studio - don't get me started on the studio acoustics, that's a whole other headache. I currently use a PC P4 with E-MU converters and Cubase SL3. Love Cubase, but the PC has serious issues and needs to go, has problems with CPU overhead, etc. Too many VST plugs / tracks give it fits and the hardware accelerated plugs don't work for anything recorded at 48k and over. I can record at the higher sampling rates, but the PC tends to introduce pops and clicks into the mix. I've tried every tweak in existence, shutting off all unnecessary services, rerouting virtual memory, etc., it's absolutley infuriating. I was always a PC guy, but I'm finally done with it.

What I've decided to do is to throw a little bit of money at this. I have a short laundry list of gear (below) I'm thinking of picking up and a brief explanation/defense of those choices. I've talked to probably a half dozen pro audio engineers via e-mail and phone (the two I know) to arrive at this list, but I'm wondering if any of you have experience or likes/dislikes with this list and what you would alternately suggest, add or discard. Thanks in advance!

The list:
Mac G5 Quad, OS X (highly recommended)
Apogee Ensemble - Converters and I/O

Either older salvagable Eventide effects (Harmonizer, Orville, etc.) and some sort of tube compression - Sebatron 2000e valve pre-amp, or similar.

or... Software, UAD VST with DSP card or similar? and for fun... a Studio Projects T3 Tube mic

Logic behind choices:
I'm told that Apogee makes the best A/D D/A converters period and that anything else isn't worth looking at. What I'm thinking is that if the Ensemble is good to go then I don't have to spend extra on a Rosetta and something again for I/O like a MOTU or some sort of breakout box?

Mac vs. PC -- I've had too many issues to list with the PC, plus everyone up the food chain a bit from me that I talk to says to switch.

Sticking with Cubase SL3 or upgrading to SX3: This was situation where I thought about doing what everyone else is doing and going with Pro Tools, until... 4 of the 6 pro guys I talked to told me that Cubase now uses the Nuendo engine, and a lot of them are using Nuendo or SX3 to master tracks pulled from Pro Tools. Plus 5 out of 6 told me that the Apogee converters are the most important thing and that the DAW software is not as important as it once was, and there is a lot of talk in the industry about switching to Cubase, with the recent purchase of Steinberg by Yamaha. Hmm.

As far as software vs. hardware. I can see the benefits of VST plugs over hardware, ability to swap them out with out damaging or permanently committing to a particular amp, reverb, etc.

I was told that the hardware barely maintains an edge over software and that it's debated pretty hotly right now. Quite a few of the engineers are jumping ship for VST plugs I guess.

Anyway... sorry this is so long. I'm just trying to figure out what is best to go with -- any suggestions??

There's a whole lot to suggest, and I'm sure that many people can put you in all kinds of good directions. But what are your requirements? If you don't match your purchase to your requirements you'll just be satisfying gear lust - which will surely solve part of your problem, but won't necessarilly be the best choice...

Essentially there are a few objectives here, I don't really suffer too badly from gear lust - although I've had moments and been accused of it periodically.

Objective 1) Near perfect or highest quality recordings possible from a project studio. The room acoustic treatments, bass traps etc., will hopefully be taken care of as well, but I suppose that's for a different forum thread.

Objective 2) At least 8 input channels for guests to the studio which happens now, minus a drummer. Essentially looking for scalability here as well... so the ability to firewire I/Os together if it ever becomes necessary, however 8 channels will do for most things. My dilemma here is the Apogee gear - Who has experience with Ensemble, since it's so new? Everyone raves about Rosetta... and supposedly it has the same converters as Ensemble, sooooo.... hopefully that's the way to go.

Objective 3) Not having to fight the PC every time I try to create something. Everyone I have talked to in the "Pro" realm says Mac G5 Quad and Apogee is the only way to fly at 96k and above.

Objective 4) And to sum up, get the biggest bang for the buck obvioulsy. The hardware vs. software debate is in this category. I think the forward looking Pros I've talked to are leaning toward software although some grudgingly. Why fork out money for an Eventide when you can get the plug cheaper, etc. The plugs are certainly easier to use but I suppose with SX you can treat offline rack gear as a plug now, so.... I don't know essentially on this one -- looking for input from anyone who cares to toss in 2 cents.

Welcome to StudioForums 1adam12,

You're username brings back a rush of childhood tv-watching memories...the favorite of which was the Hee Haw episode on which Adam 12 had a b'day and became Adam 13.

But on to serious matters....

You say you want to "fly" at 96k and above...cool, but that'll (obviously) strain your system. And I hear you with your frustrations with the PC. I don't know Macs, but perhaps someone who uses them here can comment on whether the Mac Quad you mention can fly that high. I presume this is not one of the new "intel" macs, because if is....I'd say, "bad call."

I've heard many people praise the Rosettas, but it seems to me that Rosettas wouldn't be the only way to go. What about Lucid? Davry? I remember Henry Robinett mentioned the Metric Halo interface. I'd check that out. I haven't listened to any of these converters, but I sense that people say they all are very, very good.

I presume you've read Jazzoo's thread about changing DAWs (and getting a mac)? If you haven't, I'd go find it and read it.

Regarding Plugins vs. hardware, well, that's a sensitive topic. It depends on what you need. If you're short on money now, why not do software, then add hardware later if you like/need. But there are many hardware enthusiasts on this board that might give a good plug for hardware.

There...that help!

Good luck to you!

quote:

Too many VST plugs / tracks give it fits and the hardware accelerated plugs don't work for anything recorded at 48k and over

The UAD1 does...you just get (roughly) half the plug count. No?

96k shouldn't introduce a plug in bottleneck...not on a modern fast, even PC.

...now, what it WILL choke is the already stressed drives that have to put out 2.2 times the data per track. You need multiple hard drives and software that has the ability to split a project's files over them. ProTools can. It's built to...I've never tried it with other apps. Of course, if you're running the Steiny software in 32bit float, it's closer to 4 times the amount of data as a standard 24/44.1 stream.

Hard drives are the slowest pieces of computers. Always have been. There's a reason PTHD requires SCSI drives with a Digi branded SCSI controller.

You can do 96k, now, right...it just glitches? Buy an extra hard drive. Split the project so that there are 10-12 track on each drive. See if it still glitches.

The Mac/Apogee I'm sure is a great solution, but I'd hate to see someone throw that kind of money at it and still have to learn that it's a drive bottleneck...I would imagine any HD you buy can be put in the Mac, too. Serial ATA or 133...so, you're not throwing money away trying it.

Thanks guys.

Fox, first I was going to go with "Squad 51", but I thought no one would quite remember back that far :P And since Adam is my actual name... well anyway, just trying to be clever.

Umm... On to the business at hand. I've actually heard good things about the Intel Macs, you're the first one I've heard say anything bad about them - so I will have to do some further research. I'm not sure when those will be available or which computers they will be on. So more research it is. I will try to find that thread on changing to Mac, my guess is that it's the old Chevy/Ford argument - you like what you like and screw the other. I'm a graphic designer in the real world here at work and I can tell you without a doubt that Macs still beat PCs all to hell when it comes to running Adobe's Creative Suite (Photoshop and Indesign, etc.) balls to the wall so to speak. They don't crash and they're nice and speedy. I use both at work - don't ask, it's a weird situation :P

Right-o on the 32-bit, etc., but like I said before, one of the objectives is to get the best recordings possible -- I've done my share of 24/44.1 recordings. I can get them to be in the "just ok" category, but it's never anything close to ADAT for example - so something needs to change. I have two internal 7200 RPM drives in a 2-year old Sony with a huge amount of RAM, etc. The depth of field isn't there on 44.1 recordings and I haven't heard anything like the Apogee converters either -- that puts you in a whole different ball game. I will check out the other converters you suggest though.

I've shut off all unnecessary services, done all the suggestions from the online gurus about "tuning" a PC for audio - and still it's marginal at best. When I get lucky, maybe only two "pops/clicks" per recording, usually they don't end up in the recording, but it can stagger the recording enough while tracking to where it will throw a singer off in headphones, etc. I can monitor the harddrives while recording - those seem fine, it's the CPU - in that as soon as you hit over 50%, you're screwed. So the reason for the Quad processor is that Cubase will utilize all 4, spread around the joy so-to-speak :P It will do this with a Dual Core Pentium as well -- I just don't know if I want to toss down cash for another PC. I mean I know there are places online building "Audio PCs" Rain, etc., but so far I don't see much of a difference between what they're building and what I have, other than a dual processor, which I know would help. The Sony motherboard I have BTW won't allow a new CPU - what I have was top of the line two years ago So there is another issue -- scalability.

The money issue is sort of like: I have the money right now to do it, but I need to do it correctly, etc., I mean I can't go undo it and buy stuff again if I mess it up.

Hardware / Software:
Popmann -- not sure on the UAD, from what I read it's good to 192k -- but maybe I'm thinking of one of the other ones? I've heard that hardware still just barely edges out their software counterparts. I suppose if SX3 treats the hardware pieces as VST plugs it might be worth picking up some older classic pieces, I still have a few older rackmount guitar effects around somewhere that could be put back in service I suppose.

A SCSI drive is an interesting thought, I actually have a controller card around somewhere - and if I could find a drive... probably wishful thinking, it's probably ancient by now.

Thanks for the welcome to the forum and you guys don't hesitate to keep throwing in ideas, I'm probably 3 or 4 months away from making a concrete decision on this stuff.

Thanks.

Adam

quote:

I've done my share of 24/44.1 recordings. I can get them to be in the "just ok" category, but it's never anything close to ADAT for example - so something needs to change.

Whoa...back that truck up...if you prefer the sound of your 16/20bit ADAT recordings to your 24/44.1 Cubase ones, I can tell you why: analog mixer. No one's going to prefer the sound of an ADAT to a 24/48 recorder. The difference is, you're now mixing and processing in the digital domain.

As to hardware barely outpacing software. If you mean digital hardware barely outpacing software...ehh...depends on the qualities you're measuring. It'll be reversed sometimes. You can show me a software reverb as sweet as my PCM91...I can't show you a hardware emulation of a Hammond as good as the $180 NI B4. BUT--If you mean digital software versus analog hardware...people who've told you that lack perspective, IMO.

That's true. And I was also thinking of some old Teac reel-to-reel recordings from back in the day -- a lot of that is the tape saturation properties I'm remembering, I think. Been too long now :P

But... What I'm told now is that these days, it's all in the converter. Spending the money on a pro converter gets you enough sonic soundscape/depth of field, whatever you want to call it that makes all the difference in the world. So i guess that's my main concern. I have the Digi/Emu converter now - but again, I'm told that's not going to cut it. So...

If it's converters you're after, why not upgrade there first, then see if that does what you want?

That's a possibility.

One of the other reasons for the PC swap out was to bring the existing PC back down to original spec and give it to the kid for school - but might be worth an experiment with just the converter. Has anyone on the boards used Apogee converters (particularly Ensemble, even though it's fairly new)? There must be some Rosetta or AD-16 users on here? I've heard, I think, two or three songs where the Apogee converters were used and I was blown completely out of my chair -- now, I'm sure there were other things involved, I'm not that naive to think that solves all problems... but it was (both were Rosetta's) in the mix. I don't know I think maybe I'm over analyzing this stuff too much, I know room acoustics and mic-ing techniques, etc. play a huge role too. I just want clean recordings dammit! :P

I suggest you start a thread asking exactly that question. That'll get more eyes on it. And do a search here (and elsewhere) to see what you dig up on Rosetta converters and on other converters.