Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Corey Scogin]

My point is simplistic. If you're recording is for the purpose of listening to the job after the night is done then this would be a useful tool. If you're goal is to mix down the performance at a later date then this may be a useful tool. However, 21ms of delay will make real time monitoring during the performance all but useless due to the delay, which could be as much as double 21ms depending on the OS, AISO drivers, and the software's design. Additionally the minimum requirements for the application state 8gb RAM and a 64bit OS. The performance of the DAW, any DAW, will be dependent on the available resources of the PC or MAC. Without the horsepower available for use by the DAW, recording quality will suffer from broken tracks, stutter, stops, and system lockup, even before you start the mix down and begin to add effects or other processes.
 
If you've been able to record 50+ channels using a basic laptop without issue, then I would like to own that laptop. I imagine that would have saved me a couple of grand on the recent upgrade I just performed to my own mini studio. Lastly, video performance is a key factor in the DAWs abilities where the OS native drivers and display options are seldom what they need to be, a critical point to consider as digital recording systems become more complex.

Bob, I'm confused why latency would be an issue unless you're using the computer as an effects processor insert. (I'm also not certain whether we're talking about Waves Tracks Live or Waves Multirack). Recording multitrack would almost exclusively be used for mixdown in post.  Any required live monitoring would be accomplished through the console, not the computer.  I know you know what you're talking about but I'm just not following you here.

When simply using a DAW to track without effects and what not, the processing speed and RAM are much less important than the hard disk throughput.  I have had no performance issues when recording 32 tracks on a 5 year old laptop (that has an SSD, granted) even when I'm recording in the FLAC format which requires some processing.  I don't know about 50 tracks as I don't have a hardware setup that will send me that many.

[Bob Leonard]

Corey,
In my world, and most of the recording world, each instrument, vocalist, etc. is recorded as a single individual track without effects or additional processing. During the studio recording process additional recording of parts are usually requested, or re-recording of parts is needed to make the recording or part what the artist/studio "thinks" is best for them and the project at hand. Not being able to monitor the existing tracks while recording the overwrite or added track(s) in real time without delay is a show stopper. Add effects, more tracks, etc. and the delay can become substantial, which is usually anything more than 8-9ms. If the system is used to record a session for playback only I see no issue, as long as the DAW is robust enough to support the project in real time if the artist, who usually pays for the service, isn't asking for changes after the gig using the same system.

[Ryan O John]

If you've been able to record 50+ channels using a basic laptop without issue, then I would like to own that laptop.

I record 64 channels of AVB via Ethernet (Ethernet-Thunderbolt Adapter) every day when on tour into my MacBook Pro 15" I have never had it fail.

60-90 minute shows.

 (S3L-X system, AVB record into Pro Tools)

[Corey Scogin]

Not being able to monitor the existing tracks while recording the overwrite or added track(s) in real time without delay is a show stopper. Add effects, more tracks, etc. and the delay can become substantial, which is usually anything more than 8-9ms.

Maybe this is where my confusion lies.  I use an X32 Rack as an audio interface for my tiny home studio (but I've used other interfaces in the past: MOTU, Presonus, etc).  The tracks being recorded are not monitored through the DAW.  The routing stays within the X32.  I create a mix for the performer using X32 Edit, the remote control software.  In this scenario, audio interface to computer latency is a non-issue.  It could be 1 second and not matter. 

I know that some systems like older ProTools LE (001,002) did not have an internal mixer in the interface so every monitored signal had to come through the software which caused more and more latency as effects were added.  In that instance, even a simple analog mixer would alleviate the issue by allowing you to monitor in real-time.

Maybe I'm just not familiar with the scenario that you are describing.

[Bob Leonard]

I record 64 channels of AVB via Ethernet (Ethernet-Thunderbolt Adapter) every day when on tour into my MacBook Pro 15" I have never had it fail.

60-90 minute shows.

 (S3L-X system, AVB record into Pro Tools)

And the point is?

[Tim McCulloch]

And the point is?

The point is that Waves Tracks is to make multi track recordings that can be edited later on another platform, or that can be used in situ for virtual sound check.

I don't think anyone considers this a serious DAW tool for post production using the live console and capture computer.

[Bob Leonard]

Corey,
It appears that we have comparisons going on between, Apples, oranges, and even some watermelons. In the end the processing power of the system as a whole will determine the capability of the DAW recording and monitoring functions. The goal will always be to relieve the CPU supporting the DAW of as many I/Os as possible, allowing the CPU to support the playback and recording functions with as much horsepower as is  left available.

In two (2) of the examples above, the MacBook and the S3L-X, there is, or should be, no doubt that those configurations should support Pro Tools or any other high level DAW recording software. That should include your X32 rack, which was designed with recording as a feature. What I'm referring back to are the statements concerning systems of a generic type used to perform recording functions either in a studio or live environment.

Critical to the performance of the DAW are disk I/O, video overhead, processor capability, memory type and amount, operating system, and DAW. All of these things make up a DAW, not just the laptop or desktop, not just the DAW software, not just the interface.

My own system, as simplistic as it is, utilizes new and old technology. I use the Soundcraft USB/MADI card, connected to a Dell PC, 16gb RAM, 6gb RAID 1 storage, NVidia 4 monitor video card, an ancient 16 channel analog board for the monitor and headphone mix, all running under the control of Cubase V8 Pro.  Latency is <6ms when recording 32 channels.

Any bottleneck which results in a latency of much more than 6ms will usually render a DAW useless for recording and mix down purposes. This is not rocket surgery, just fact. How would it be possible for anyone to put on the cans, sing or play to the recording, then hear their input later in time? Think of satellite TV. The actors lips are moving, but the words are getting to you late, or how about the delay in a cell phone. Same thing. So in the end a scaled down DAW may work for the occasional recording, but at 23ms, correcting tracks, inserting instruments and vocals, and final mix down are not practical.

[Bob Leonard]

The point is that Waves Tracks is to make multi track recordings that can be edited later on another platform, or that can be used in situ for virtual sound check.

I don't think anyone considers this a serious DAW tool for post production using the live console and capture computer.

I has said above that using the software for basic purposes may well be just fine.

My response was to Ryan whose implemented AVB (Audio Video Bridging) protocol, running against the S3L-X into Pro Tools. He illustrates my point perfectly. A top notch system, great software, and a protocol (802.1(BA, AS, Qat or Qav)specifically designed to support time sensitive audio. The system should be incredibly stable and capable of recording and monitoring 100's of channels in real time.

[Corey Scogin]

I agree with and understand everything you said up to this...

How would it be possible for anyone to put on the cans, sing or play to the recording, then hear their input later in time? Think of satellite TV. The actors lips are moving, but the words are getting to you late, or how about the delay in a cell phone. Same thing. So in the end a scaled down DAW may work for the occasional recording, but at 23ms, correcting tracks, inserting instruments and vocals, and final mix down are not practical.

Would they hear themselves later because you're routing the live input through the DAW then back out to their headphones?
If so, what are the advantages to this approach?

If the live signals stay in the analog world or only route through a digital mixer before being sent to the headphones then they should hear zero or 1-2 ms latency.

I use the Soundcraft USB/MADI card, connected to a Dell PC, 16gb RAM, 6gb RAID 1 storage, NVidia 4 monitor video card, an ancient 16 channel analog board for the monitor and headphone mix, all running under the control of Cubase V8 Pro.  Latency is <6ms when recording 32 channels.

Are you using your Expression console that has the USB/MADI card installed as your main console for recording?
If so, why do you need the analog console at all?


This may be worthy of its own topic.  Sorry for hijacking the thread here.

[Bob Leonard]

All good questions.

1. The band has laid down their tracks and now the vocalist has to work with those tracks and insert the vocals. The recording is played back, the vocalists track is armed and the recording begins. The vocalist hears his track through the cans. If there is a delay he'll hear the bands tracks, then as shown above, 23ms later he'll hear his voice. The DAW has to record his voice and he must monitor the recording in real time. The vocal track must go through the mic into the digital world to the DAW and back again.

2. The analog console is used to capture the stereo mix coming back to the main board from the DAW, and then route that now analog signal that to a 12 channel headphone amp, control room monitors, external speakers, or all of the above.

3. The Expression is my stage console and recording is less than secondary to me. However, there is a need for demo's and to support the requests I receive from other acts to either mix down or tweek a mix. I do this for people I know very well, don't advertise this as an available service, and don't charge the people I do it for. I have other methods that I use for recording the jobs I work as well. The system I've described here is a fixture deep in the bowels of my 100 year old house. The recording system itself only needs a single USB cable run from the Expression. I have a separate scene saved for the recording setup, so it's up and running in less than 5 minutes. The system will also support up to four (4) monitors. This allows me to put enough Cubase info on each 23" screen to make life more than easy for an old guy like me, and generally I don't use more than a pair of monitors anyway.

[ProSoundWeb Community]