What interface are you going to move to for Pro Tools 9?

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

I checked the AlphaLink manual, and it states the following:

Viewing and Setting Routing
Pressing the OUTPUT button repeatedly will cycle through the available output groups, the currently selected output group being indicated by the corresponding LED. For each output group, the LEDs of the input column will indicate which input group(s) are connected to that output group. To set or change the input group(s) connected to a given output group:
• Use the OUTPUT button to select the required output.
• Press and hold the OUTPUT button.
• With the OUTPUT button held, each press of the INPUT button will step through each possible input group for that output.
• Once the required routing has been selected, releasing the OUTPUT button will store and activate your selection.

So, if I'd select ANALOG input for ADAT output, and then ADAT input for ANALOG output, this would work, right?

 

[jauernis]

Just wondering why no one is mentioning firewire devices? How about the fireface ufx? Or is the ssl supposed to be much better than that?

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

Just wondering why no one is mentioning firewire devices? How about the fireface ufx? Or is the ssl supposed to be much better than that?

Heh, I already said I'm kinda considering the FF800 and wondered if it can really provide 28 simultaneous I/O without the FW connection causing problems If the SSL unit works stand-alone, you could pair it with a FireFace, too.

 

[jipchen]

@Jarkko:
Sounds like it could work. Not shure if it's intended for that, though. To me it would be more logically to connect a MADI Interface (SSL MadiExtreme64 or RME hdspe MADI) to a - also MADI - breakout box and AD/DA converter like the Alphalink. You know what I mean? (Irrespective of it probably working the way you described it)
This SSL thing is melting my brain.

Just wondering why no one is mentioning firewire devices? How about the fireface ufx? Or is the ssl supposed to be much better than that?

I praised the UFX a few pages sooner, and I'm also considering that option. It's just that PCIe seem more professional and reliable to me, but most important they have a lower latency (at least in most cases).
The UFX has DSP, though.. so it's more a matter of taste.

Basically I have 4 options:
- RME hdspE RayDat + RME ADI 8 DS (PCIe)
- SSL Xlogic Alphalink AX + SSL MadiXtreme64 (PCIe)
- RME Fireface UFX (Firewire)
- Metric Halo Mobile I/O 2882 Exp. 2d (Firewire)

The new Fireface suits my current gear and also workflow most, it's also cheaper when upgrading because I have 8 A/Ds free, 4 pre's from the unit itself and 8 pre's from my OctaMicD. It's all too complicated

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

@Jarkko:
Sounds like it could work. Not shure if it's intended for that, though. To me it would be more logically to connect a MADI Interface (SSL MadiExtreme64 or RME hdspe MADI) to a - also MADI - breakout box and AD/DA converter like the Alphalink. You know what I mean? (Irrespective of it probably working the way you described it)
This SSL thing is melting my brain.

I absolutely understand your point, and it definitely is a valid one, but I've read some pretty bad things about the SSL's drivers :/ That's why I'm personally more interested in RME for the interface, since they're well-known for rock-solid drivers. The reason I'm curious about using the RME ADAT card instead of the MADI one is purely economical. After all, the MADI card is twice the ADAT card's price.

And if the AlphaLink works the way I described, it would open the possibility to use it with other devices, too, such as my FW-connected Profire 2626 for additional, high-quality conversion and I/O.

 

[jipchen]

Heh, I already said I'm kinda considering the FF800 and wondered if it can really provide 28 simultaneous I/O without the FW connection causing problems If the SSL unit works stand-alone, you could pair it with a FireFace, too.

You should stalk the RME forums for a while.
There are several threads of people asking if they could use a third ADAT unit with the fireface, so I guess their 10 analogue inputs on the FF itself +8 inputs from ADAT1 and another 8 inputs from ADAT2 did work (which are 26 channels, and they most probably used at least 2 output channels, too )
http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=9265
http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=9229

And if the AlphaLink works the way I described, it would open the possibility to use it with other devices, too, such as my FW-connected Profire 2626 for additional, high-quality conversion and I/O.

Aah now I get your idea. Sounds good actually. I just read a review on the german thomann site of a guy using (and loving) the Alphalink with the M-Audio Lightbridge, which has only ADAT In/Outs. So it obivously works "your way"

 

[AdamWathan]

I praised the UFX a few pages sooner, and I'm also considering that option. It's just that PCIe seem more professional and reliable to me, but most important they have a lower latency (at least in most cases).
The UFX has DSP, though.. so it's more a matter of taste.

The only bummer about using a UFX with PT9 is that the DSP effects via TotalMix are useless since PT9 doesn't really allow you to monitor through your interface only. Every armed track is monitored through the software and that can't be disabled without HD for the separate Input Monitoring option.

Not an issue for most people since it makes more sense to me to monitor through the DAW anyways and that's what I would do, but it does render that benefit of the UFX sort of useless unfortunately.

Still GASing hard for a UFX though, haha...

 

[jipchen]

The only bummer about using a UFX with PT9 is that the DSP effects via TotalMix are useless since PT9 doesn't really allow you to monitor through your interface only. Every armed track is monitored through the software and that can't be disabled without HD for the separate Input Monitoring option.

Not an issue for most people since it makes more sense to me to monitor through the DAW anyways and that's what I would do, but it does render that benefit of the UFX sort of useless unfortunately.

Still GASing hard for a UFX though, haha...

Oh, that's a bummer indeed. On the other hand, I often used both the TotalMix monitoring + Logic's software monitoring feature. The processed signal is most probably louder and so you'll hear more of the TotalMixFX than from PT.. I guess.

But it makes me anyways. In Logic you can even set the faders to be independent while recording, so you can create your monitor mix and when the track isn't armed anymore, the fader goes back to its original level.

 

[RichMinerva]

so i've confused myself readin too far into this but...dare i say it,

in Pro Tools 9 you're no longer just limited to an mbox or 003?

i have a profire 2626 does this now mean its a possibility to use that instead?

anyone?

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

You should stalk the RME forums for a while.
There are several threads of people asking if they could use a third ADAT unit with the fireface, so I guess their 10 analogue inputs on the FF itself +8 inputs from ADAT1 and another 8 inputs from ADAT2 did work (which are 26 channels, and they most probably used at least 2 output channels, too )
http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=9265
http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=9229

Thanks for the links! Sounds good, I suppose there won't be any trouble.

Aah now I get your idea. Sounds good actually. I just read a review on the german thomann site of a guy using (and loving) the Alphalink with the M-Audio Lightbridge, which has only ADAT In/Outs. So it obivously works "your way"

Hmm, considering the Lightbridge is only FW400, too, I might be fine with my good old Profire2626, after all!

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

anyone?

Yes, you can use the Profire. You could use the Profire with Pro Tools M-Powered even before they announced PT9. Nothing's changed there

 

[AdamWathan]

In Logic you can even set the faders to be independent while recording, so you can create your monitor mix and when the track isn't armed anymore, the fader goes back to its original level.

Can do that in Pro Tools as well, even LE.

 

[RichMinerva]

Yes, you can use the Profire. You could use the Profire with Pro Tools M-Powered even before they announced PT9. Nothing's changed there

aye but mpowered is very limited

 

[jipchen]

anyone?

You know, if you'd just read the Avid website, or some of the posts in the "Pro Tools 9" thread here in the forum, your question would be needless.

So: Yes, you can use any CoreAudio/ASIO interface. Which means all of them. You can even use ProTools9 with your built in crappy laptop soundcard.. the only requirement is the iLok with your PT9 license on it.

Can do that in Pro Tools as well, even LE.

Finally, the first time I thought "this would be nice in PT" and it exists
But then the bummer we're talking of wouldn't actually exist? Because you could just turn the fader to zero and the only thing you'd hear would be the TotalMixFX output with the dsp effects. Or did I get something wrong?

 

[Jaymz]

You know, if you'd just read the Avid website, or some of the posts in the "Pro Tools 9" thread here in the forum, your question would be needless.

To be fair I see why its been brought up....this thread sounds almost like "Right! What interface am I going to buy to be able to use PT9 "

With all the talk of different interfaces....can't people just keep what they had since it works with everyone?

 

[Mikaël-ange]

I checked the AlphaLink manual, and it states the following:



So, if I'd select ANALOG input for ADAT output, and then ADAT input for ANALOG output, this would work, right?

Yes, it's how alphalink work in stand alone mod. But backside is you can't use analog and digital at the same time so goodbye 24 I/O

 

[jipchen]

Can do that in Pro Tools as well, even LE.

But then the bummer we're talking of [= software monitoring can not be disabled] wouldn't actually exist? Because you could just turn the fader to zero and the only thing you'd hear would be the TotalMixFX output with the dsp effects. Or did I get something wrong?

Adam, could you confirm this? I'm really interested in the UFX and if I could just turn the ProTools Fader to zero on an armed track without changing the actual recorded volume, the FX from TotalMix could be used properly in PT, too.

 

[AdamWathan]

Adam, could you confirm this? I'm really interested in the UFX and if I could just turn the ProTools Fader to zero on an armed track without changing the actual recorded volume, the FX from TotalMix could be used properly in PT, too.

This is in fact a very clever work around! I read about someone else doing this today in fact and it never occurred to me because I always leave the faders linked, hehe...

So yes, you can definitely just have all your "record" faders down to -inf and monitor through your interface! It sort of annoys me because although it will work perfectly, it's not really disabling the monitoring, just a really ugly crafty workaround haha, but it's a workaround nontheless!

 

[jipchen]

This is in fact a very clever work around! I read about someone else doing this today in fact and it never occurred to me because I always leave the faders linked, hehe...

So yes, you can definitely just have all your "record" faders down to -inf and monitor through your interface! It sort of annoys me because although it will work perfectly, it's not really disabling the monitoring, just a really ugly crafty workaround haha, but it's a workaround nontheless!

Nice, thanks for the answer!
Oh and I just realized bringing the fader to zero wouldn't actually help, i meant -inf or just -A LOT, of course. Sorry.
The disadvantage is you won't immediately notice glitches or pops created by the DAW. But I guess one could live with that.


Yeah, it's an unconventional workaround, but then again it's just until I scratch together the $2000 to get an on/off switch for software monitoring

 

[::XeS::]

But what about PT Native? Can I use only avid HD interface with it?