Welcome to No Limit Sound Productions

Company Founded
2005
Overview

Our services include Sound Engineering, Audio Post-Production, System Upgrades and Equipment Consulting.
Mission
Our mission is to provide excellent quality and service to our customers. We do customized service.

Friday, January 31, 2020

Q. Are D‑sub cables interchangeable?

By Hugh Robjohns
Tascam TDIF connector pins.
Yamaha YDGAI connector pins.While other protocols such as T‑DIF and YGDAI use unique wiring protocols — and thus require special cables — the AES59 eight-channel digital format's wiring convention matches that of the analogue equivalent.While other protocols such as T‑DIF and YGDAI use unique wiring protocols — and thus require special cables — the AES59 eight-channel digital format's wiring convention matches that of the analogue equivalent.I've just replaced my RADAR II 24-channel multitrack recorder with a newer RADAR Studio model. The RADAR II was connected using three eight-channel T‑DIF ports, whereas the RADAR Studio uses three eight-channel AES3 ports. However, both interface formats are physically connected using cables terminated with 25-pin D‑sub connectors, so I wondered if I can reuse the three original D25‑D25 cables on the new machine?

SOS Forum post

SOS Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: The answer, unfortunately, is no — you can't use T‑DIF cables for AES3 connections. It's a common source of frustration that the 25-pin D‑sub connector has been employed by so many different manufacturers as a convenient multi-channel digital audio connector, because they all chose entirely different and incompatible pin allocations and wiring arrangements, even when they were actually passing the same AES3-formatted audio data. (I'm looking at you, Yamaha!)

However, in your case there's the added complication that the obsolete Tascam T‑DIF format is radically different from AES3 anyway. It passes eight channels of audio data in each direction in an unbalanced form, with their clocking and status information carried on separate wires. In contrast, the AES3 format carries embedded clocks and status information, and uses balanced connections, as indicated on the connector wiring diagrams on this page.

What this means is that the configuration of wires within the multicore T‑DIF cable is unsuited to conveying the AES format and, more importantly, the 'crossover' wiring between the connectors at each end of the cable (needed to route each output signal to its corresponding input connection) is also not compatible.

It's taken nearly 20 years, but we do now have a properly defined eight-channel AES3 interface standard which has been widely adopted and is known formally as AES59. It is based on Tascam's analogue multichannel interface format, and it uses exactly the same wiring layout. But instead of carrying eight channels in a single direction (as the analogue interface does), it carries four AES3 inputs and four outputs — so eight channels in both directions.



Published October 2019

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Q. Which DB25 cable do I need?

By Hugh Robjohns
Any cable with a  DB25 D-sub connector on one end and eight balanced jacks on the other should be fine for analogue interfacing.Any cable with a DB25 D-sub connector on one end and eight balanced jacks on the other should be fine for analogue interfacing.
I recently acquired a Focusrite Control 2802 analogue mixer/DAW controller. There are numerous connections on the back, including three female DB25 interfaces. These are labelled ‘DAW Inputs (1-8)’, ‘Direct Outputs (1-8)’ and ‘Summing Inputs (1-8)’. The manual says: “These interfaces are wired to the Tascam DA-88 25-pin D-sub standard”. To these, I am trying to connect to a Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 (first edition) USB audio interface which uses TRS jacks for both inputs and outputs. The next step is to obtain two DB25 (male) to eight TRS jack looms. This is proving more difficult than it looks, as ads for some of the cheaper brands specifically say “not suitable for TDIF”. And TDIF is Tascam, right? I seem to remember the Tascam DA-88 as being a distinctly digital recording device, so I don’t understand why Focusrite are using a digitally-inspired wiring convention to execute what seems to be conventional analogue in/out? There are more expensive ‘pro’ looms available, but they are about $35 more each, and they don’t say anything about Tascam one way or the other. Can I assume they will ‘just work’?

SOS Forum post

Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: I see the source of your confusion, but the answer really is simpler than you think — and the short answer is that if it has a DB25 D-sub connector on one end and eight TRS jacks on the other, then yes, it should work. I say that because while DB25 connectors are used for both analogue and digital audio interfacing, the digital ones won’t be terminated in TRS jacks!
TDIF was a Tascam digital interface — in fact, it stands for ‘Tascam Digital InterFace’! — but it used a proprietary digital format and is now largely obsolete.

Tascam also conceived an analogue interface using 25-way D-subs carrying eight balanced analogue channels, first used on the DA-88 (because even digital recording devices usually require analogue inputs and outputs!). This interface has become ubiquitous — it is used in the Focusrite Control 2802 and various other pro-audio devices with multiple channels (multitrack recorders, consoles, audio interfaces, 500-series chassis and so on). In fact, it’s such a common format that the AES have adopted it as an industry standard (AES59); it is now the only wiring format for eight channels of balanced analogue on a 25-pin D-sub.

For digital (AES3) connections on 25-pin D-sub connectors, there are two current formats: the Tascam/AES59 format and the Yamaha YGDAI format. But the digital connections will have either another D-Sub on the other end, or four male and four female XLRs. Hence my suggestion at the outset that any 25-pin D-sub to TRS loom will be suitable — because it will be wired according to the Tascam/AES59 format.




Published June 2017

Monday, January 27, 2020

Q. Can joining two mic cables together cause problems?

By Hugh Robjohns
It’s fine to join mic cables together, but it can place strain on the XLR connectors that could see them come unplugged! Knotting the cables as illustrated here should prevent problems.It’s fine to join mic cables together, but it can place strain on the XLR connectors that could see them come unplugged! Knotting the cables as illustrated here should prevent problems.
If a single mic cable isn’t long enough but two plugged together will reach, should I let that worry me or can I go ahead and sleep easier at nights? (Assuming the cables and plugs are good quality, and the context is studio recording rather than live sound.)

SOS Forum post

SOS Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: There are no real issues in extending mic cables with more mic cables when necessary — I’m sure we all do it frequently without any problems. For example, I routinely use thin, flexible, and short (eight-inch) cables from the mic (to avoid transmitting vibration across a shock-mount), connected to a heavy-duty mic cable (secured to the stand), and then that usually plugs into a snake back to the mixing position, with another short XLR tail from the snake into the recorder or DAW interface. And I sleep very well at night! However, there are a few pointers to bear in mind when linking multiple XLR cables...

The more connection points in a cable run, the greater the risk of failure, disconnection, distortion or interference. So it’s always best to run a single long cable if you can, rather than two or three short ones joined together.

Most commercial cables are made with the XLR shell wired to pin 1, to ensure the shell acts as part of the screen. This is helpful, as the core signal wires are inherently lacking the cable shield inside the XLR shell, and so by connecting the shell to pin 1 the risk of interference pickup is minimised. The downside of this construction practice, though, is that if the XLR shells touch something earthed (like a radiator, wet grass, etc) they will almost certainly create an unexpected ground loop with all the attendant hums and buzzes. So just be careful where you lay the XLR joint.

Most people making their own cables don’t bother to link the shell to pin 1; after all, there’s no real need, since the shell is automatically grounded to pin 1 anyway when plugged into any hardware device. And when cables made this way are joined together it doesn’t matter if the shell accidentally touches anything else, since it’s isolated from the cable screen ground circuit. However, the potential downside of this arrangement is that interference pickup could become a problem, as the cable wires inside the XLR plugs have no effective shielding. Thankfully, I can’t recall this ever causing a problem in practice, and I think it would only become a concern in extremely ‘hostile’ conditions where there’s powerful radio frequencies being radiated nearby.

A more practical concern is if the cable is likely to be trodden upon, tugged or has to support any weight (such as if strung between posts), since the latch on an XLR is not guaranteed to be reliable. So, it makes sense to try to keep the connectors well out of the way of anyone’s feet, and I habitually tie an overhand knot in the two cables [shown above] so that if someone trips over the cable and gives it a strong tug the knot takes the strain and not the XLR latches.



Published June 2017

Friday, January 24, 2020

Q. Must my cables be PAT tested?

By Hugh Robjohns
If your gear needs PAT testing, then your mains cables do too!If your gear needs PAT testing, then your mains cables do too!I’m looking to get some kit PAT tested at the moment and am getting some quotes, but everyone wants to know how many items there are to be tested? It’s not clear to me if a non-captive cable (eg. a standard IEC lead) and a mains-powered unit are tested separately or together? So if I have a power amp with an IEC mains lead, would that count as two tests or one?

SOS Forum post

SOS Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: As far as the PAT (Portable Appliance Testing) regulations are concerned, anything that can be connected to the mains, either directly or through a removable cable, must be tested (and the results logged), and that includes each separate mains lead and mains plug-boards.

If you think about it, it must be done that way because there’s no point in having a nice safe PAT-tested device powered from an untested and potentially broken and unsafe IEC mains lead! So if your electrician charges per item then you may well need to double your budget as testing will be needed for each electrical piece of gear and each individual removable mains lead.



Published December 2017

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Q. Which audio interface format is best for low latency?

By Various
I am about to set up a new rig for my friends. We're going to use Guitar Rig 3 and IK Amplitube Fender a lot, so we need an interface with very low latency. What hardware format do you suggest?
Via SOS web site

SOS contributor Martin Walker replies: Whether you have a Mac or PC, the best choice of interface depends on various factors. In general, the more tightly integrated the audio interface with the computer, the more likely you are to be able to run it at a lower latency, since there are fewer possibilities for interruption. If you're running a desktop computer, there may therefore be advantages to choosing a PCI or PCI Express (PCIe) soundcard, which may also give you tighter timing on its MIDI ports. If your computer has both types of slots available, PCIe is the more future‑proof option. If you want to take advantage of this closer integration with a laptop, nowadays your choice is limited to a few PCIe cards, since the older Cardbus slots are rarely found on recent models.

For many people, USB and Firewire audio interfaces are far more convenient alternatives, since you can quickly swap them between any desktop and laptop machine, but when your goal is really low latency be aware that some USB and Firewire models include small extra buffers to help smooth playback performance, which increases overall latency slightly. This may or may not be declared to your sequencer, which is why in my interface reviews I check the 'real world' latency to see if it's higher than expected.

You may also have to be careful about the make and model of controller chip found behind the Firewire ports on your computer, since some are not compatible with certain audio interfaces, and if you run into such problems you'll probably have to increase your buffer size (and hence latency) to avoid audio clicks and pops. Texas Instruments (TI) is the make most widely recommended by audio interface manufacturers, but you should consult the interface manufacturer's web site for specific chip‑set recommendations to avoid problems. If your computer has Firewire 800 ports, you have double the bandwidth compared with Firewire 400, but few musicians will actually need the extra unless they require more than about 56 simultaneous channels of 24‑bit/192kHz audio.

USB interfaces have traditionally been considered poor relations to their Firewire brethren, largely because earlier interfaces designed for USB 1.1 ports struggled for bandwidth when attempting stereo in/out at a 96kHz sample rate. However, today's Hi‑Speed USB interfaces can manage more simultaneous inputs and outputs than Firewire 400 devices, and have recently gained a new champion in RME, whose Fireface UC claims "revolutionary ultra‑low latencies”.USB 2.0 audio interfaces have lagged in popularity behind Firewire models, but this could change with the introduction of RME's new Fireface UC and its "revolutionary ultra‑low latencies”.USB 2.0 audio interfaces have lagged in popularity behind Firewire models, but this could change with the introduction of RME's new Fireface UC and its "revolutionary ultra‑low latencies”.

However, there are two other key factors to running any audio interface at lower latency settings: driver quality, and how well your computer has been set up for audio purposes. The first of these is largely out of your hands, and while some manufacturers have gained a particularly good reputation for low‑latency performance, the lowest latency you can manage may vary between models from a particular manufacturer, and sometimes even between driver revisions.

More critical to achieving low latency in many cases is your computer. Well‑chosen hardware components and implementing recommended operating system 'tweaks' for audio (such as those published in SOS) can often result in you being able to use smaller audio buffer sizes, since these minimise the chances of any non‑audio component or task interrupting the smooth flow of audio. Overall, over the last few years I've been able to run most review audio interfaces across all hardware formats at buffer sizes down to about 64 samples (1.5ms latency at 44.1kHz), but this is largely because my PC is properly set up for audio purposes.



Published December 2009

Monday, January 20, 2020

Q. How can I expand my Firewire connectivity?

By Various
I have several UAD1 DSP cards in my current PC, leaving just one spare PCI slot, and need to connect some extra devices via Firewire. If I buy a three‑port Firewire PCI expansion card, will this let me run three devices with each up to the full Firewire 400 bandwidth, or will this be shared between the three ports?

Via SOS web site

SOS contributor Martin Walker replies: It's safe to say that the world of Firewire connectivity is a bit of a minefield, as many musicians have found to their cost. Your PC motherboard will incorporate a 'southbridge' chip in charge of I/O operations, and its total bandwidth is shared among the SATA, USB, Firewire, PCI, PCI Express and other ports on the computer. Even if your computer already features several Firewire ports, the chances are that they will share the same bus, and therefore the 400 Megabits per second bandwidth.
Rather than buying a Firewire expansion card, you could free up a Firewire port by replacing your Firewire drive with an eSATA model. This measure allows the drive to take advantage of the higher eSATA bandwidth of 2400Mbps, as well as opening up a Firewire port for use by an audio interface or DSPprocessor. If you don't have an eSATA port, a low‑cost card such as this one can add it.Rather than buying a Firewire expansion card, you could free up a Firewire port by replacing your Firewire drive with an eSATA model. This measure allows the drive to take advantage of the higher eSATA bandwidth of 2400Mbps, as well as opening up a Firewire port for use by an audio interface or DSPprocessor. If you don't have an eSATA port, a low‑cost card such as this one can add it.

Each Firewire port expansion card you add should give you a further Firewire bus with its own 400 Mbps bandwidth. However, although the PCI or PCIe buss that the card connects to has sufficient bandwidth to run multiple ports, each with 400Mbps bandwidth, I've never seen a multi‑port Firewire card with independent controllers for each port. Instead, whatever combination of ports is offered by the card will share the 400Mbps bandwidth of its single Firewire controller.

You might think that buying an expansion card featuring Firewire 800 ports would provide twice the bandwidth to share between the ports, but as RME discovered (www.rme‑audio.com/english/techinfo/fw800alert.htm), some of these cards don't work properly at higher FW800 speeds, due to cost cutting or poor design. MOTU and PreSonus both also specifically advise against 'combo' cards featuring both Firewire 400 and 800 ports for various reasons, so I suspect that your safest bet is to stick to Firewire 400 expansion cards or a recommended FW800‑only card.

Many musicians are tempted to daisy‑chain multiple Firewire devices from a single Firewire port, but this will also mean they are sharing its finite bandwidth. To relieve the combined load, consider instead buying an eSATA‑equipped external hard drive, since this will leave the full FW bandwidth for a Firewire audio interface or DSP processor, while the external hard drive will be able to benefit from the higher bandwidth (2400 Mbps) of the External SATA port. If your PC already has an eSATA port, use that; otherwise buy a cheap eSATA card in PCI, PCIe or Express Card format as required.

Although you have a desktop PC, it is also worth noting here that many modern PC laptops do not work well with Firewire audio devices, even if they have the widely recommended Texas Instruments Firewire controller chip. Tracking down a suitable PCI Express Firewire expander card can also be difficult, with many users finding they get either constant digital noise from their FW audio interface, or that it isn't recognised at all. The latest Macs have also dispensed with Firewire ports altogether, and some musicians are transferring their affections to USB 2.0 devices to avoid all the aggro.

If you need to add more than one Firewire card, you'll need more PCI slots, and perhaps the simplest approach is to use a PCI expansion chassis (such as those by Magma and Virtua Via). Alternatively, you could connect a second PC via Ethernet and move some of your DSP cards to this machine, freeing up PCI slots on the main PC. You can still run the DSP plug-ins from the main machine using software such as FX Teleport (www.fx‑max.com). The additional audio delays will all be compensated for automatically during playback, but during recording you'd face extra latency for effects running on the remote PC.


Published September 2009

Friday, January 17, 2020

Q. How can I use multiple audio interfaces together?

By Various
Mackie Onyx audio interface.
I’m currently upgrading my project studio, which is based around a Focusrite Saffire LE and is fine when using Cubase or NI’s Traktor. However, I am looking to bring Pro Tools into the equation, and despite some hunting I’m still stumped. Would using an M Box affect the sound drivers for my Saffire, forcing me to disable one piece of hardware and restart my system? Despite all my reading in forums, I am still unsure about the feasibility of adding a second Mackie Onyx 400F to my Windows XP DAW system. I understand Mac OS has the ability to aggregate, but it is not clear to me if Windows XP can handle the two interfaces at once or not. Would the drivers do this for me, and will I effectively end up with a 20-in/20-out interface to use with the bundled Tracktion 2?

SOS contributor Martin Walker replies: When plug-and-play soundcards started appearing in 1998, the need to manually choose such arcana as IRQ numbers and DMA channels disappeared, and since then it’s been comparatively easy to physically install and run more than one audio interface in a computer. Occasionally a particular model of PCI soundcard might refuse to share the interrupt it had been given with that of another expansion card, which might result in you having to shuffle it to a different slot, but over the years I’ve regularly managed to install up to four soundcards in a single computer without things ending in tears. With modern Firewire and USB audio interfaces it’s even easier, since even if you run out of suitable ports on your computer, many Firewire audio interfaces can be daisy–chained, and you can add more USB ports using a (preferably powered) hub.

So, to answer the first question, adding an M Box wouldn’t cause any conflicts with an existing Saffire LE interface, and the two should both run happily when plugged into the same computer. To be compatible with Pro Tools software, an audio interface will either need to be from Digidesign or from M-Audio’s ‘Pro Tools M-Powered’ range, but all such interfaces additionally have both ASIO and Core Audio drivers, so that you can also use them with any other Mac or PC audio application. Therefore you could either replace the Saffire LE with a Pro Tools–compatible interface and use the latter either with Pro Tools or Traktor (but not both at once), or you could simultaneously run Pro Tools with an M Box and Traktor with the Saffire LE.

The second question covers slightly different ground. Combining two or more audio interfaces from the same manufacturer into a single ‘super interface’ with more inputs and outputs requires an ASIO ‘multi-device’ driver. Many audio interface manufacturers offer such drivers (typically supporting up to four devices), so that you can increase your I/O complement easily as your recording and playback requirements become more sophisticated. There’s no increase in latency, and as long as there’s a way to lock the clocks of all the devices together, they should stay locked permanently in sample-accurate sync (follow the manufacturer’s instructions on the best way to do this for your particular interface).
Without multi-device drivers, there’s no way to install and run two or more identical audio interfaces in a computer, since the operating system would have no way to differentiate between the various units. However, in this particular case there’s a happy ending, since from version 3.2.8 onwards Mackie’s Onyx drivers for Windows XP do support several devices, so you can create a single interface with 20 inputs and outputs.

Those with two or more different audio interfaces can try a different approach. On the PC you can try combining their functions using the freeware ASIO4ALL driver (www.asio4all.com), although this can result in increased latency, and on the Mac you can try creating an ‘Aggregate Device’. Once again, this can significantly increase latency.

By the way, MIDI and audio drivers are quite separate, and you can nearly always combine the MIDI ports from several different audio interfaces and use them within a single sequencer application, whichever interface is providing the audio I/O.



Published November 2008

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Q. Which comes first: Audio Interface or Mixer?

This is a basic gear connection question. Should I connect instruments and mics to mixer inputs and connect mixer outputs to audio interface inputs, or alternatively connect instruments and mics to audio interface inputs, connect audio interface outputs to mixer inputs, and connect mixer outputs back to audio interface inputs? I think both work, but is one 'better' than the other, and if it is, why?
SOS Forum post
The best way to connect up your mixer and audio interface may depend on factors such as relative quality of mic preamps. If your interface is mid-priced and upwards, such as this Presonus Firestudio, you'll probably find its mic preamps are better than those on the average mixer, so you'll be better off plugging your mics directly into the interface preamps rather than the mixer preamps.The best way to connect up your mixer and audio interface may depend on factors such as relative quality of mic preamps. If your interface is mid-priced and upwards, such as this Presonus Firestudio, you'll probably find its mic preamps are better than those on the average mixer, so you'll be better off plugging your mics directly into the interface preamps rather than the mixer preamps.SOS contributor Martin Walker replies: Both approaches do work, but which one you choose largely depends on the quality and features of both your audio interface and mixer and what other gear you have, as well as on how you prefer to work.

For recording mic signals, audio interfaces in the medium to higher price brackets (and by this I mean several hundred pounds upwards) often feature mic and instrument preamps that sound better than the ones you find on typical small mixing desks. So plugging your microphones directly into the interface mic inputs may well result in a higher-quality recording. Another attractive alternative for many musicians is to buy a few high-quality rackmount mic preamps for the particular sound they offer, and plug these direct into audio interface line-level inputs rather than patching them through a mixing desk.

Electric instruments with passive circuitry are best plugged into a high-impedance input to avoid high-frequency loss. You can either use one on a guitar amp and mic up the amp, use a suitable DI (Direct Injection) box to raise the input impedance and then plug its output into a mixer or interface mic input, or use a specialist guitar preamp, such as a Line 6 Pod or Behringer V-Amp, that you plug into any line-level input on a mixing desk or interface. While mixing desks very rarely have suitable high-impedance instrument inputs, many audio interfaces do provide dedicated 'instrument' inputs with a high impedance, often making them the cheapest and most convenient option for guitars.

Another big divide occurs in the effects department. Some musicians find it easier to get the best recordings by sending their signals through a mixing desk EQ and then adding analogue effects such as compression and reverb, which can be easily patched into the desk using its dedicated insert and send sockets. Alternatively, if your signals are sent direct to the audio interface, computer-based plug-in effects can be used, but these will normally only be heard after a slight delay (latency) of at least several milliseconds, which can sometimes be disconcerting (particularly for vocalists monitoring their performance). Many audio interfaces do provide 'zero latency' features to help monitor your sounds in real time during the recording phase, and a few audio interfaces (notably from Emu, Focusrite and TC Electronic) also feature built-in DSP effects that can help you during the recording process, even though the signal is still often recorded 'dry' into the computer so you can apply different effects afterwards.

Ultimately, your input choice depends on whether you like the 'sound' of your mixing desk and prefer the immediacy of having all its controls laid out in front of you for immediate tweaking during a recording. If you do, then that's the routing to adopt.

When it comes to output routing, there are, again, considerations to weigh up. Patching the outputs of your audio interface through the mixer lets you mix its sounds with other sources, and also gives you instant hands-on control over their relative levels, EQ and effects while mixing. Analogue mixers may also add that certain something to 'glue' the overall sound together, and you can then patch the output back into the audio interface inputs to record the final stereo mix. However, it's generally acknowledged that you need a high-quality (read expensive) analogue mixing desk to add 'fairy dust': cheaper models rarely cut the mustard in this department, so don't automatically expect an audible improvement simply from passing your recordings through an analogue mixer.

The opposite argument is that connecting the output of the audio interface directly to your monitoring system, with no recourse to an analogue mixing desk, results in a simpler signal path that can sound cleaner and more transparent, although you may lose some control over it, especially if the interface doesn't offer an analogue output level control to let you easily adjust the volume of the speakers (this is why so many musicians who abandon their analogue mixing desks require a monitor controller).
Your routing choices tend to determined by what gear you have available, which approach worked best for you in the past, and the audio quality of your gear. You could always try recording and mixing the same song using several approaches and see which proves most manageable, which you enjoy most, and which achieves the best overall sound quality. 



Published October 2008

Monday, January 13, 2020

Q. Can I feed my monitors from my audio interface’s headphone output?

By Hugh Robjohns
I want to add another set of monitors for A/B referencing, but my interface has only one set of monitor outputs. I don’t want to degrade the signal in any way. Is it possible to simply use a splitter adaptor to separate the stereo channels from the headphone output into a left and right output to the monitors (without any buzz or hum)? I don’t really need the switching facility as I’d use software for that.
Via SOS forum
Your interface’s headphone output can be used to feed audio to your monitor speakers, but it’s unlikely to be the best option.Your interface’s headphone output can be used to feed audio to your monitor speakers, but it’s unlikely to be the best option.

SOS Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: You can do that but it is an unbalanced signal, so the likelihood of ground-loop hums and buzzes is inevitably quite high. Headphone outputs also tend to be noisier and often suffer higher distortion than dedicated line outputs. (At the end of the day, it’s a small power-amp stage rather than a proper line driver.)

There are plenty of ready-made balanced line-level switch boxes on the market, though (try Coleman, ART or Radial, for example). However, most such products seem surprisingly expensive for such a simple device — so it might be worth considering investing in an affordable passive monitor controller, which can cost very little more. I know you said that you’d manage the selection via your software, but in the event of an error on your system resulting in full-scale digital noise being sent to the monitors, it’s handy to have a hardware volume control or mute button to hand!


Published March 2015

Friday, January 10, 2020

Q. Is ADAT format better than USB or Firewire?

Many modern USB and Firewire audio interfaces, including the Focusrite Saffire shown here, feature ADAT inputs and outputs. They can be used, along with additional A-D and D-A converters, to increase the number of analogue inputs and outputs that can be routed into and out of software, and allow the user to upgrade their setup (adding higher quality preamps, for example) at any time after purchase.Many modern USB and Firewire audio interfaces, including the Focusrite Saffire shown here, feature ADAT inputs and outputs. They can be used, along with additional A-D and D-A converters, to increase the number of analogue inputs and outputs that can be routed into and out of software, and allow the user to upgrade their setup (adding higher quality preamps, for example) at any time after purchase.
From what I understand, Firewire and USB seem to be the best formats for audio interface connection in the home studio. I have been looking at the Presonus Firepod, the M-Audio Project Mix and Focusrite's Saffire Pro, and I've noticed that most have an ADAT option for getting more tracks into a DAW. I was wondering how I would go about setting this up and if ADAT is better quality than Firewire or USB.
Mike Davies
Features Editor Sam Inglis replies: The answer to your question is, as you probably guessed, a bit complicated. First, in a setup that's working properly there should be no fundamental difference in sound quality between digital audio transmitted over ADAT and the same transmitted over Firewire or USB, with the exception that the basic ADAT protocol is limited to a 48kHz maximum sample rate. The main reason that lots of audio interfaces offer ADAT connections is that, for the manufacturer, it's a cheap way of offering a high number of inputs and outputs. Most of them reason, quite rightly, that not all buyers will need 16 or 24 channels of analogue I/O, and that analogue I/O is comparatively expensive to provide; so, instead, they provide eight or 10 channels of analogue connectivity plus ADAT ports as an affordable means of expanding this. Connecting two ADAT-equipped pieces of gear is really easy, you just need an optical cable. Things can get more complicated if you have multiple ADAT or other digital formats, because you can run into clocking issues, but I can't see that this will be a problem in your situation.
Alesis' Multimix Firewire 8 (right) and 12 (left) combine the convenience of a built-in Firewire interface with the layout and routing options offered by a conventional mixer.Alesis' Multimix Firewire 8 (right) and 12 (left) combine the convenience of a built-in Firewire interface with the layout and routing options offered by a conventional mixer.

The best way to go about specifying a system is probably to think about exactly what features you need, and only then look at the different ways of implementing them. For example, in your situation I think that there would be very good Firewire, USB and also PCI-based interfaces that would be suitable; it's really a question of thinking about how many channels of I/O you need, how many mic preamps you need, and what your preferred arrangement for monitoring is. Many people recording live bands still prefer to set up monitor mixes in the analogue domain, so those people would more likely be drawn to using an analogue mixer as a front end, with line outputs from the individual channels going to a multi-channel interface. Manufacturers such as Mackie and Alesis now make analogue mixers with built-in Firewire outputs so that you can connect them directly to your Mac or PC without having to buy a separate interface. 



Published May 2007

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Q. Will my Digi 001 work with my new PC?

By Chris Mayes-Wright
I have a Digidesign Digi 001 interface, which I have been using for some time. But I recently purchased a new PC with an Intel Pentium-D dual-core CPU, 4GB of RAM and loads of hard disk space, and I was wondering if my 001 card will work with my new machine, as it has heaps more processing power. It looks like it should fit in the PCI slot but I don't want to go too far until I know a few more details. I don't think Digidesign support the 001 systems any more, so any help will be appreciated.

Beau Bennett
The Digi 001 kick-started Digidesign's expansion into the project-studio market, with the cut-down Pro Tools LE software.The Digi 001 kick-started Digidesign's expansion into the project-studio market, with the cut-down Pro Tools LE software.

News Editor Chris Mayes-Wright replies: You're right in thinking that Digidesign don't support the 001 systems any more, but their web site still has some useful information, hidden away in the archive section, at archive.digidesign.com/support. Here, you'll find an 'answerbase archive', containing the answers to hundreds of frequently asked questions, and a downloads section, where you can get the latest drivers for your hardware and links to technical white papers and specifications.

On the hardware side of things, your motherboard will probably be the key. Some new motherboards only offer PCI Express (PCIe) slots, which won't work with the 001; others combine PCIe slots with an 'old-style' PCI socket or two. If yours is one of the latter, you should be OK.

However, you may run into problems with your operating system. As your new machine is based on a dual-core Pentium-D setup (which is a relatively new chip), I'm assuming that you're running Microsoft's most recent operating system (until Vista takes hold, that is): Windows XP SP2. On their web site, Digidesign state "although you may be able to use Service Pack 2 with Digi 001, it has not been tested and is therefore not officially qualified with Digi 001". Instead, they recommend that you use Service Pack 1.

This means that, in short, they probably didn't test it, but there's a good chance that it will work so, personally, I'd tentatively try the 001 with XP Service Pack 2 first, and only step down to Service Pack 1 if completely necessary.

You didn't state which operating system you have on your old machine, but if you are running Windows 98SE or Me, you will have been using no higher than version 5.1.1 of Pro Tools LE. For use with Windows XP, you'll need to upgrade to v5.3.1, which you can do from the archive web site, or, if you have a later version, you can go as far as v6.4 until Digi 001 support dries up.


Published February 2007