Alesis Masterlink versus Bounce (BTD)

[frenchfries]

Hi everyone,

I know there's a lot of debate about ProTools BTD (bounce to disk) as a way of outputting songs. I am planning to master my album with a pro mastering engineer, who feels that the Alesis Masterlink is a much better way of recording files (he suggests outputting the files via AES to the Masterlink, dumping to disk, and then bringing those files into the mastering studio). Conversely, my mixer thinks the Masterlink has a terrible converter, and says that internal BTD is as good if not better, and certainly a lot easier than renting a Masterlink and hooking it up for a day. So, mixer versus masterer, and I don't know who to believe since I can't afford to test it with my own ears.

Does anyone have taste-test experience Masterlink vs. BTD? Please say so!

[JFreak]

if you deliver the signal into the masterlink via AES (which is digital) then it doesn't matter if the masterlink converters suck (as there would be no conversion between digital-to-digital transfer).

but, you have to understand one thing: the BTD means "writing the output signal of selected output interface into a hard drive", and therefore the BTD would be just the same thing you would be doing with the masterlink (that has the output signal as its input, delivered digitally without conversion) only with a shorter "signal path" and therefore smaller possibility for errors.

to repeat myself; the masterlink digital input interface would have 100% the same signal than BTD would write to disk. ask yourself "how much different is writing a digital signal into a digital file within the masterlink externally than with BTD command internally?" the answer would be: if there is a difference, that is because of possible errors made during the transfer or within the masterlink.

the big deal with "external bounce" is with converters and recording media, in other words: going analog. if you want to record your mixdown into a 2" tape via a high-end converter, it would sound different than the BTD because the conversion and the tape will affect to the sound. for better or worse, that has to be judged case by case. you can have benefits, but it will cost you far more than the masterlink (which will not offer ANY benefits over btd).

[sleepingtiger]

Hey,

I own a Masterlink and have many years of professional recording experience in and out of my small project studio and I agree completely with everything that JFreak says. I hear absolutely no difference between outputting digitally to it and BTD in Protools. I also have not perceived any degredation in quality within PT through the bounce process.

My most recent clients brought in a precisely calibrated Otari 2-track yesterday and we ran some mixes onto some good ol'456 (sigh) and pleasant subtle changes occured. Real tape saturation and that gentle compression will always have value to me with certain types of music. Until I can afford top notch convertors and a Folcrom unit with a couple of channels of Avalon for make up gain (and maybe an Ampex mixdown deck) I have no problem at all with BTD. I find it to be a precise, uncolored representation of what's happening in the mix session.

Good luck!

[SimpleNatureSpirit]

Hey S'Tiger... I have a Masterlink also and use it mostly for simple CD burning. Not that I can even use the AES connection because my OO2 rig doesn't have it but I do have SPDIF.

Here is the real chalange...
Try a bounce to disk from PTLE (24bit session) in the following scenarios:
44.1@24, no dither
44.1@16bit with dither or powerdither

Now record the same material to the Masterlink:
Direct (D/D) 24 bit to 24bit
Direct (D/D) 16 bit from a 24bit dithered Digi session
indirect (A/A) 24bit PT to 16bit Masterlink

Export the 3 Masterlink files (backup as AIFF) and import them back into PT.
Import the Bounced files back into PT.

Now phase shift the imported files against the original session and see which one is most silent.

On my last project I ended up using the indirect A/A method above. I was after a softer analog touch, and that is exactly what I got (sometimes it is good to requantize all those digital bits through a D/A~A/D step).
Masterlink will burn CD's directs if they are in the final 44.1/16 format without applying any other processes.

The scenario tests can go into multiple directions, but the only other real test that would speak for itself is to compare Digi's dither to Masterlink's. Any bets on who'd sound better?

I'd be interested in what you hear

[sleepingtiger]

Hey SNS,

Thanks for this post. This is great. The idea of re-converting goes against the grain but I'm going to try it because I'm now very curious.

Have you ever A/B'ed the ML's D/A convertors with the 002's? When the Otari comes back to my place I'm planning on doing so (didn't have time before because of a deadline). I'm going to do this with bounced files but I'm also going to mult the outs in PT to sp/dif so that I can do a pass to tape through each unit's analog outs without bouncing just to cover all of the angles. Of course, this isn't terribly scientific since it's making a few assumptions about an analog mixdown deck that I'm not yet so personally familiar with but, it will be interesting to see which route leaves the nicest magnetic imprint. Unfortunately, the Otari has developed a mechanical transport problem so it might be a few days before this can occur. I'll post back here when I can get to all of this...

As far as dithering goes... I haven't done a lot of comparison. Anything that is for release goes straight to the mastering house at 24 bit, of course. Lately, for roughs and demos I've been burning discs straight out of DSP-Quattro just because it's so much faster (I suppose that I've grown weary of hearng my clients ask, "When will that disc be done?" as the Masterlink renders at the end of a long day) Actually, my gut feeling is that the ML probably dithers the best. I guess it's time to stop being lazy and do some comparison...


Thanks again,
+=G=+