New to computer based recording

[Damien Looney]

Hello all,

I'm going to be upgrading my computer soon to a new MacBook Pro (15"/2.66GHz Intel Core i7/8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB/500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm) and would like to be able to use it as a location recorder when the chance arises. I know at these specs that the computer should be up to almost any challenge (I'm buying at these specs because I do other work outside of sound that demand heavy work from a computer).

Boom recorder seems to be the right choice of software for the job at hand (only need the lite version for starters. 128 channels on a 3 crew doco won't be happening any time soon!) but I'm a plainly out of my depth when it comes to audio interfaces. From the looks of it, the SD USBPre would be all I need at times but for the price of it I know that there will be other options that would allow for more in/out options via fire wire that I may get to use in the future.

I know that the topic has been covered here before, but looking up things like Motu Traveller, Fireface, etc still leave me questioning what exactly I should be looking for.

Thanks,

Damien

• None
  

[RadoStefanov]

I do not use the boom recorder.

I own fireface800 which is a great piece of equipment.

It has LTC sync time code option.

Nuendo has an smtpe plugin that you can send out to one of the output channels.

Downside is you have to be the master.

I never had problems with it but to be honest I have never had longer shoots while using PC based recording.

I HAVE NOTHING BUT PRAISE FOR RME AUDIO

[greg sextro]

Damien,

Food for thought:  you might consider a smaller sized laptop - like a 13 inch.  I am actually switching my cart to no longer use my 15 inch macbook pro, and instead, a new mac mini.  The size of my laptop is not the main reason for my switchover, but it is a consideration.

The model you are thinking of would easily handle boom recorder - which is a great program for location based recording.  As far as interfaces, one thing to consider is the amount of I/O (no harm in future proofing IMO, consider something with a little more inputs than you need) and the host app that lets you bus and route or do other processing before you hit your recording application. 

Lastly, also consider the wordclock source.  Some of the less expensive interfaces do not have a stable enough clock if recording longer takes.

-Greg-

[graham]

(I'm buying at these specs because I do other work outside of sound that demand heavy work from a computer).

I'd be concerned about multitasking a computer and relying on it as my recorder.  I treat my computer as a recorder. I don't upgrade anything non sound related and keep the hard drive as empty as possible. I always record to an external drive. I am no computer expert and for all I know, a computer with tons of utilities and apps could work fine. I use a Macbook with 2.2ghz intel core 2 duo with 2gb od sdram. 20 channels in boomrecorder for long periods are no issue

Boom recorder seems to be the right choice of software for the job at hand (only need the lite version for starters. 128 channels on a 3 crew doco won't be happening any time soon!) but I'm a plainly out of my depth when it comes to audio interfaces. From the looks of it, the SD USBPre would be all I need at times but for the price of it I know that there will be other options that would allow for more in/out options via fire wire that I may get to use in the future.

If your doing long takes a reliable master clock is recommended or sound and picture drift apart. I never used the USBpre, and am not sure of its accuracy. Most interfaces do not clock to the standards we use on our recorders like a 744t, deva, cantar, etc.

You said "for the price" so I'm assuming you are looking in the $500 range. This means a used interface at this price. I would guess a RME fireface 400 or Motu Traveller would be in that range. They are both bus powered from the computer(or you can use a separate power supply).

You did not say if you are using anything before the interface. Many people have an analog mixer that then feeds the unit. I'm assuming you are going direct to the interface. Both units have individual phantom for a few channels. With the FF, its not as easy to manage control of the unit externally meaning, there is only one knob, you have to scroll to find menu item and then adjust(headphone balance, mic pre, etc). The Motu has easier access on the front panel. Both can easily be manipulated with their provided software. Personally, i think the motu would be best based on this alone as well as the dsp(limiters, eq, etc) that the FF lacks(although it has some unique operational features. read the manual). I have never used the Motu, however. I have used the FF and found it to be quite decent(I was using it in conjunction with an RME Octamic).

I am curious about your decision to use a computer based recording system in a doc environment. Why not a small portable like an edirol r9 or a Zoom H4?

[jon_tatooles]

I'd be concerned about multitasking a computer and relying on it as my recorder.  I treat my computer as a recorder. I don't upgrade anything non sound related and keep the hard drive as empty as possible. I always record to an external drive. I am no computer expert and for all I know, a computer with tons of utilities and apps could work fine.

From our experience with the USBPre, present-day machines perform much better than when the USBPre was first introduces (2001) mainly due to multiple processor cores. Yesterday I did a test of the USBPre 2 input with a machine that was simultaneously performing an OS update, virus scan, and streaming a video with no audible artifacts in the recorded material. A serious stress test. Not long ago, those processes would have polluted the audio, especially with USB interfaces which rely on the processor more than do FireWire interfaces. Modern machines make that possible. Thank you Intel and AMD.

That said, I agree that if you are using a computer for master recorder, it should have as few extra processes running on it as possible and enough RAM to NEVER hit disk swap space.

Jon Tatooles

Sound Devices, LLC

[RPSharman]

Max out the RAM and minimize other things the computer is doing, as others have said.

SD gear is great, and the USBpre should be no exception.  I used the RME FF800 when I used Boom Recorder.  RME stuff is top of the line for sure.  You just need to decide on how many inputs you need.

Perhaps an Onyx with the FW card might be sensible.

Robert

[Guest BobD]

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to record to computer with so many dedicated quality affordable recorders on the market... The list is long, and these machines although not $500 dollars, are affordable for any working professional....  Even a newbie can pony up the money for one of these... 

  Given the workmanship, quality, dependability, and complete package (TC generator and all) not to mention some sort of battery system, this is a no brainer...

  I have spoke to other more reputable mixers than myself and they agreed.... WTF...

  But as always to each their own....  I for one would never want to go that route...  Best of luck computer based guys and gals!!!!

[Philip Perkins]

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to record to computer with so many dedicated quality affordable recorders on the market... The list is long, and these machines although not $500 dollars, are affordable for any working professional....  Even a newbie can pony up the money for one of these... 

  Given the workmanship, quality, dependability, and complete package (TC generator and all) not to mention some sort of battery system, this is a no brainer...

  I have spoke to other more reputable mixers than myself and they agreed.... WTF...

  But as always to each their own....  I for one would never want to go that route...  Best of luck computer based guys and gals!!!!

Thanks Bob!

To the OP--getting a happening laptop is a great idea, but the real limit to recording a lot of tracks is the firewire bus of the computer, and how that works per model (at least w/ Apple) is a little murky.  RME is the only interface that has really tackled the FW800 issue very well, and that seems to make a diff.  For a smaller number of tracks (8-20) FW 400 is fine, as long as you make sure not to let your firewire chain get too long (ie cables-use good ones!).  The other major issue for sync sound work is clock stability--the interfaces available are not as stable as those in a pro-level file recorder--so many of us use those clocks (as in SD or Deva etc) to drive our computer interfaces--this makes them function as accurately as those recorders.  For an interface, I'd suggest a used Traveler Mk2 to start--very cheap, sounds good, very versatile, lots of inputs, can run on DC or bus power (I'd suggest NOT running on bus power), 1 rack space...  good luck--computer recording has enabled me to start a whole new business...

+1 for Boom Recorder.

phil p

[RadoStefanov]

I would not advise getting anything else but RME for PC based location recording.

Simple scenario that happened to me a few times.

I am recording with the ff800 in the asus laptop. Everything is controlled by Mackie MCU.  I have a minidisk connected to the spdif recording 48khz 16bit stereo mixdown.

My computer craps out "WINDOWS VISTA WAS A SHAME BEFORE THE FIRST SP"

MY minidisk keeps recording the backup.

RME has stand alone operation designed exactly for scenarios when your computer craps out.

Or if you just want to use the pres and the digital mixer, you make your setup on the PC and then use it with a location recorder.

Thanks Bob!

To the OP--getting a happening laptop is a great idea, but the real limit to recording a lot of tracks is the firewire bus of the computer, and how that works per model (at least w/ Apple) is a little murky.  RME is the only interface that has really tackled the FW800 issue very well, and that seems to make a diff.  For a smaller number of tracks (8-20) FW 400 is fine, as long as you make sure not to let your firewire chain get too long (ie cables-use good ones!).  The other major issue for sync sound work is clock stability--the interfaces available are not as stable as those in a pro-level file recorder--so many of us use those clocks (as in SD or Deva etc) to drive our computer interfaces--this makes them function as accurately as those recorders.  For an interface, I'd suggest a used Traveler Mk2 to start--very cheap, sounds good, very versatile, lots of inputs, can run on DC or bus power (I'd suggest NOT running on bus power), 1 rack space...  good luck--computer recording has enabled me to start a whole new business...

+1 for Boom Recorder.

phil p

[Philip Perkins]

I would not advise getting anything else but RME for PC based location recording.

Simple scenario that happened to me a few times.

I am recording with the ff800 in the asus laptop. Everything is controlled by Mackie MCU.  I have a minidisk connected to the spdif recording 48khz 16bit stereo mixdown.

My computer craps out "WINDOWS VISTA WAS A SHAME BEFORE THE FIRST SP"

MY minidisk keeps recording the backup.

RME has stand alone operation designed exactly for scenarios when your computer craps out.

Or if you just want to use the pres and the digital mixer, you make your setup on the PC and then use it with a location recorder.

I agree about RME being the way to go if you have A: the money B: AC power and particularly C: a PC type computer.  MOTU stuff is supposed to work fine on PCs but for location recording everyone I know using MOTU uses Macs too, they seem to have fewer problems.  And, Boom Recorder and Metacorder are Mac-only.  Over on the GS Remote Audio forum there are lots of happy RME/PC/Reaper folks.

phil p

[RadoStefanov]

With all due respect: You are wrong for everything except the price part.

RME FF400, FF UC and multiface are DC and always come with battery adapter.

RME always comes up with the newer OSX drivers long before the OS is released.

Everybody that knows RME knows that RME are the best interfaces for Apple computers.

And also do not forget:

APPLE IS A PC THAT RUNS SON OF UNIX PC OPERATION SYSTEM.

I agree about RME being the way to go if you have A: the money B: AC power and particularly C: a PC type computer.  MOTU stuff is supposed to work fine on PCs but for location recording everyone I know using MOTU uses Macs too, they seem to have fewer problems.  And, Boom Recorder and Metacorder are Mac-only.  Over on the GS Remote Audio forum there are lots of happy RME/PC/Reaper folks.

phil p

[RadoStefanov]

A few years ago RME came with the drivers 3 months before the OS release.

Protools could not get the the drivers together for 7 months.

[RadoStefanov]

STAND ALONE OPERATION RULES.

They came out with it in 2002

[Marc Wielage]

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to record to computer with so many dedicated quality affordable recorders on the market...

I can think of a couple of situations:

1) multi-track music, like live concerts, with dozens of tracks

2) multi-track reality shows (Survivor, etc.) with dozens of wireless receivers and/or booms.

This obviously only works if you're all in the same general location and/or building. But I agree, for straight dialog features, TV, commercials, and docs, a dedicated recorder makes more sense. Still, I know of shows where they recorded dialog with Devas (etc.) and then did a separate backup with a laptop-based system on a cart. Lost did this for several years, as one example, and we liked it in post because we got two sets of DVD-RAM disks every night, allowing us to use two simultaneous telecine bays for dailies.

I can see where people on tight budgets would invest in a system like this if they already had access to a firewire mixer and a laptop. If they own that already, then renting or buying a timecode source is trivial. It's not an ideal system, nor is it very portable, but I've seen it done inexpensively (under $1000), even with 4-8 tracks.

--Marc W.

[Philip Perkins]

With all due respect: You are wrong for everything except the price part.

RME FF400, FF UC and multiface are DC and always come with battery adapter.

RME always comes up with the newer OSX drivers long before the OS is released.

Everybody that knows RME knows that RME are the best interfaces for Apple computers.

And also do not forget:

APPLE IS A PC THAT RUNS SON OF UNIX PC OPERATION SYSTEM.

I was referring to the FF 800, which has the number of analog/mic pres I'd need, thanks. 

I appreciate your opinion that RME makes the best interfaces for Apple computers, perhaps you will appreciate that some expert sound people disagree with your assessment, esp re: Prism, Apogee, MH etc..

phil p

[Philip Perkins]

I can think of a couple of situations:

1) multi-track music, like live concerts, with dozens of tracks

2) multi-track reality shows (Survivor, etc.) with dozens of wireless receivers and/or booms.

This obviously only works if you're all in the same general location and/or building. But I agree, for straight dialog features, TV, commercials, and docs, a dedicated recorder makes more sense. Still, I know of shows where they recorded dialog with Devas (etc.) and then did a separate backup with a laptop-based system on a cart. Lost did this for several years, as one example, and we liked it in post because we got two sets of DVD-RAM disks every night, allowing us to use two simultaneous telecine bays for dailies.

I can see where people on tight budgets would invest in a system like this if they already had access to a firewire mixer and a laptop. If they own that already, then renting or buying a timecode source is trivial. It's not an ideal system, nor is it very portable, but I've seen it done inexpensively (under $1000), even with 4-8 tracks.

--Marc W.

My interest in using a computer+interface came about because  I realized that I needed more than a few tracks some of the time (not all that much really), and that I was going to have to have a computer with me on location anyhow (playback, reports, disk burning etc), so why not get some more use out of it. Until the 788 the footprint of a small (like 12") laptop and a 1RU interface wasn't much different than that of 8 track recorders (Deva, Fostex), and it worked out pretty darn well for my jobs for far less money.  Today, given the money (not a given in MY case) I think the 788 might be a better choice UNLESS you need more tracks or are doing a lot of playback etc (I often did recording in Metacorder and playback from QT at the same time from the same laptop).  I'm pretty used to the laptop recording thing from my other biz, so operationally I'm fine w/ it

phil p

[Jim Gilchrist]

STAND ALONE OPERATION RULES.

They came out with it in 2002

Some of the MOTU interfaces run stand-alone as well as do Metric Halo interfaces. I'm positive there are others.  It's not an exclusive feature of RME products.

And also do not forget:

APPLE IS A PC THAT RUNS SON OF UNIX PC OPERATION SYSTEM.

This is why OS X is so stable. I've been recording to Macs for a while now and the only time I've ever had a crash on a job was due to a Powerbook battery failure (one I should have replaced much earlier) and a power cord kick-out. Phil Perkins is much better qualified to address this, but I've found my Intel Macs extremely stable and my old G-4 Powerbook only slightly less so.

Best regards,

Jim

[RadoStefanov]

I do not know anything about MOTU. I have heard nothing but praises from Metric Halo users.

I have not seen a crash on windows since WinXP Service Pack 2.

Apple had a long problem with core audio drivers and latency which was fixed when they became PC.

I am very selective and careful in choosing compatible hardware.

Windows hardware democracy has its downsides.

But this is not a computer post.

Some of the MOTU interfaces run stand-alone as well as do Metric Halo interfaces. I'm positive there are others.  It's not an exclusive feature of RME products.

This is why OS X is so stable. I've been recording to Macs for a while now and the only time I've ever had a crash on a job was due to a Powerbook battery failure (one I should have replaced much earlier) and a power cord kick-out. Phil Perkins is much better qualified to address this, but I've found my Intel Macs extremely stable and my old G-4 Powerbook only slightly less so.

Best regards,

Jim

[Philip Perkins]

I still use old "expendable" G4 Apple laptops for MT recording (w/ MOTU stuff and Boom Recorder), and am pretty convinced after all this time that my major issues, when they occur, stem from app incompato (older MOTU drivers+ CueMix w/ newer Metacorder) and the inherent issues w/ FW 400 (which is what current MOTU boxes use, along w/ USB).  I've kind of given up on trying cram more than 24 channels of 24/48 down FW400 w/ 2 drives and a full-up Traveler for now, and have promised myself a FF800 for MT work whenever I can free up the $$ for that, a new computer, new drives and more outboard pres.  MOTU makes it very easy to be all-MOTU, but not so easy to mix and match interfaces of other brands re monitor mixing and clocking.  For 5-to-12 chan dialog cart work I'll probably stay w/ a Traveler Mk2 and a G4 for a long time--no reason to change it since it works so well for recording isos in BR.

phil p

[davidm]

I have been using Metric Halo 2882's with Metacorder for 5 years as my primary recorder. My newish Mac Mini Sever lost it's firewire port a few weeks ago so I pulled out my backup 1.33MHz G4 Mac Mini. You do need 1meg of ram in the G4's to do 8 tracks reliably. CPU usage in a G4 will be around 25 - 30%. Any Intel Mac will handle Metacorder or Boom Recorder withe ease.

The only thing to be aware of with Mac laptops is that the firewire port shouts down when you shut the lid and so you'll have to restart your audio software when you next open the lid.

David M

[RadoStefanov]

Try RME.

You will never look back.

I still use old "expendable" G4 Apple laptops for MT recording (w/ MOTU stuff and Boom Recorder), and am pretty convinced after all this time that my major issues, when they occur, stem from app incompato (older MOTU drivers+ CueMix w/ newer Metacorder) and the inherent issues w/ FW 400 (which is what current MOTU boxes use, along w/ USB).  I've kind of given up on trying cram more than 24 channels of 24/48 down FW400 w/ 2 drives and a full-up Traveler for now, and have promised myself a FF800 for MT work whenever I can free up the $$ for that, a new computer, new drives and more outboard pres.  MOTU makes it very easy to be all-MOTU, but not so easy to mix and match interfaces of other brands re monitor mixing and clocking.  For 5-to-12 chan dialog cart work I'll probably stay w/ a Traveler Mk2 and a G4 for a long time--no reason to change it since it works so well for recording isos in BR.

phil p

[RadoStefanov]

I use InsomniaX on my wifes MacPro.

Works fine.

overrides the hybrid sleep command.

Curently ussing with snow leopard but works all the way down to 10.4

I have been using Metric Halo 2882's with Metacorder for 5 years as my primary recorder. My newish Mac Mini Sever lost it's firewire port a few weeks ago so I pulled out my backup 1.33MHz G4 Mac Mini. You do need 1meg of ram in the G4's to do 8 tracks reliably. CPU usage in a G4 will be around 25 - 30%. Any Intel Mac will handle Metacorder or Boom Recorder withe ease.

The only thing to be aware of with Mac laptops is that the firewire port shouts down when you shut the lid and so you'll have to restart your audio software when you next open the lid.

David M

[Damien Looney]

Thanks for all the information that has been posted so far. Like I stated in the original question-I'm out of my depth at this stage, and am still asking questions of what I should do but I'm a little clearer on things now. To answer some of the question that were raised:

The reason I'm going for this laptop and not a smaller one is based solely on the work that I do outside of sound. I work with various photographers and graphic designers and so the computer is being purchased primarily for that work. As I'm buying it anyway, I'd like to be occasionally incorporate it into my sound kit. And as Philip said, "I was going to have to have a computer with me on location anyhow  (playback, reports, disk burning etc), so why not get some more use out  of it." I'm not looking to replace any kit that I have at the moment (I work out of a bag all of the time) but would like to have the option of using it when I get a chance. Hence why I don't want to spend a fortune on other software and hardware that may get very little use!

As for the interface to feed Boom Recorder. I've been looking at a few small analogue mixers that support a firewire output and are relatively inexpensive. I'd also happily engage the idea of a used unit and work from there. Before I do any of that though I'm going to test any gear that I can get my hands on and just see how comfortable I am with it all and really just see how it all works.

My thanks to you all,

Damien.