Digi 002 vs. 001

[Punx]

I know this more a of a subject for the other forum, but i always get much better advice in here. The basic question is.....and i'll make it broad so everyone can asnswer however they want. Is they're any reason aside from the plug in package, and some new knobs i should buy the 002. Functionwise it's seems exactly the same as 001 to me. All comments are welcome. Thanks

[Bastiaan]

002 has 4 good preamps, 001 only has 2 and they are not as good as the preamps on the 002.
002 can operate at 96Khz, 001 only at 48Khz and below.
002 has motorized faders. They are very very handy
002 is firewire, so you can connect it to a laptop easily.

There are probably more advantages...

[jacko32]

the A/D converters are better on the 002

[Dean G]

Let's say the difference between the 001 and 002 is $2000.

96K?? who cares. When we start all mixing for DVD then we'll all buy the hat program for THAT when the prices come down. Say 10 years from now.

Mic pres ? buy some (I'm using a Mackie board now, very nice but I'm sure you could do better. Buy the equipment for what it's main job is, by people who make that stuff.)

Motorized faders. Let's see, so far I've used automated mix down to boost the lead vox during the verse when I wasn't doubling it. And change the volume on the electric guitar whan it took a solo. And something else, I forget. I'm sure you like to move all those faders like in the demo. it's so pretty.

Oh, lets see...ther's something I'm forgetting..hmmmm... Oh yea SPEND YOUR MONEY ON A/D CONVERSION!!SPEND YOUR MONEY ON A/D CONVERSION!!!SPEND YOUR MONEY ON A/D CONVERSION!!

Sorry, but I just finished a session where I bypassed the digi A/D conversion and guess what?? It's sounds like a million dollars, no kidding. You literally have to hear it to believe it. I don't have one but listen to a digi 001 plus (just read some threads, it is the most important potential let down around here if you buy before you know this) a Rosetta. Ignore the "clock" talk.
Bottom line the low end digi A/D conversion relies on the computers inter clock for it's A/D conversion, and this is just plain WRONG.

IF the digi 002 had a built in low jitter clock THEN it would be worth it.

Spend the difference between the 001 and 002 on "aftermarket" mic pres and A/D convert.

Old Timer images/icons/grin.gif

[Dean G]

To clarify I own a digi 001. I don't own a Rosetta.

I just used my trusty CD burner "Ol' Sparky" for A/D conversion and it sounds great. Only 16 bit into the S/PDIF!! Imagine 24 bits into the S/PDIF (although some say you can only put 20 bits through that hole.) OR there's the HHB (purple) burner out there, that probably would do a great A/D conversion job going in and (OH MY GOD) help you master from 24 bits (protools) to 16 bit (CD audio) coming out. For under $600.

OK, a little punchy now..must sleep, sle..ZZZZZ

Old Timer images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[Bastiaan]

Dean,

Although i wrote the first post, i have to agree with you.... images/icons/shocked.gif

Better preamps and a/d converters help a LOT...

But...i once had a chance to get a lesson on a tsm-system with a pro-control. Well...i tell you....there's that feeling back, you had with analog mixers. Being able to move more then one fader at a time, setting eq's while turning knobs etc. Maybe you couldnt care less, but this got me looking for a controller, and now i have the cs-10, wich is a nice box, but it should have moving faders....

But...the guy wanted to know the advantages of the 002 over the 001...

[Dean G]

Hey Bastiaan,

You're right also. Just wish the 002 had a clock, that's all.

Old Timer images/icons/smile.gif

[Jose A Lugo]

Hi

I was going to buy the DIGI002 but when I did the reach I found out you can't use control/24 with this system so I decided to buy the DIGI001 because it's compatible with the control/24.

Good luck
Jose

www.myjolin.net (http://www.myjolin.net)

[MidnightFlyer]

My advice is to get a 001, 2 Neve 1272 mic preamps, a Rosetta, some Mackie 624 monitors, and never look back. 2 Golden channels and you're set to go. Gee, I just described my situation.... images/icons/tongue.gif

[foy323]

Folks, lemme ask a newbie question (I think I know the answer), but just want to MAKE SURE...

Are you all saying that when recording my various drum machines and hardware synths using the digi001, I would get a better sound by using a rosetta for the a/d conversion?

Would the rosetta then feed into the Digi001 via s/pdif? (never used the s/pdif before...)

And it really is worth all that money?

just making sure...

thanks,
kfb

[foy323]

Oh, and just so you know where I'm coming from (or where I'm going, actually...)... it's the techno/trance stuff I'm dealing in... but with female vocals...

And I need that elusive "warmth" sound... someone should make a "warmth" plug-in... I bet it would be popular! :-)

kfb

[GORILLA]

www.McDsp.com (http://www.McDsp.com) (warmth plug-in)Analog Channel..pretty darn good!!!

[gracejames]

i would go with 001.
If not enough, bypass 002 and
go with TDM.

--james

[Dean G]

Imagine a 9 foot Yamaha grand piano recorded through a Radio Shack microphone.

Wouldn't do that, would you???

So foy323, what did you pay for all your techno stuff?? You bought that stuff for the sound, right??? You want us to hear them through two tin cans and a string???

There's at least one A/D converter for about $500 but I can't think of it, maybe made by Lexicon..no wait I think Apogee. Research A/D converters and buy any of them. THEY HAVE THIER OWN INTERNAL CLOCKS. The Digi 001 uses the computers clock to "time" the A/D conversion (literally the time between sampling voltages (amplitudes) of the analog signal. The computer's clock is very jittery (uneven) because of all the stuff going on in there and not designed for "hifi" applications.

Believe this and buy ANY A/D converter. You will thank me!! I am going to erase anything I did before converting(sic) to this idea. Don't waste months of your recording time.

Old Timer images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[Atana]

I don't think an AC/DC converter makes such a huge diffrence. The converter of the Digi002 should be fine. If you are more like an musician not an engineer. Buy a Digi002. Don't screw up with buying a 2 years old system.

[Dean G]

Atana,

Please describe how you tested out your "don't THINK an A/D converter " wait you typed "AC/DC converter"!?!?!? Is that a joke or are you really that out of it?

I'm sort of stunned into silence.

Old Timer images/icons/confused.gif

[foy323]

Thanks for the advice, Atana... but I already have the Digi001, and there is no way I'm going to spend two grand for motorized faders.

My plan has always been to record instrumental tracks at home, and then take the PT sessions into a proper studio for recording vocals, and getting help with mixdown/mastering. So it might make sense to get the best a/d converter for what I am doing at home.

And the comment about not wasting time on a system two years old is kinda funny... My favorite music was recorded on systems which are now decades old...

[foy323]

Oh yes... and thank you for your wisdom as well, Old Timer...! I finally understand all this "clock" and "jitter" talk!

[Atana]

I'm sorry Dean G, I didn't mean to blame your expensive converter. I just stand at a different than you.

I'm a pianist, and composer ( and being in the USA as an international student right now, haha)
I've got a Digi001 and it records what I paly just fine. Nothing wrong with it. The studio I go has a HD system, but that doesn't change what I paly at all. I mean the equipment should come very last. Of course, a better A/D converter (Sorry, I meant Analog Converter AC, Digital Converter DC , but I typed " Converter" again! images/icons/grin.gif ) makes diffrent, but that never can be as big as a good performance.
If I change one note of my pieces a little louder that could make bigger difference...
I mean.... there are lots of people who blame their gear for their awful performances...
I'd save the money for a new piano or to build a better sounding room instead of buying a $6000 A/C converter.

Since I just record what I play, my Digi001 is just fine, and looks like the Digi002 is finer (96K better pre amps etc. )!!

Just my 02 cents.

images/icons/wink.gif

[Kenn LeGault]

Dean G Wrote...

Bottom line the low end digi A/D conversion relies on the computers inter clock for it's A/D conversion, and this is just plain WRONG.

This is completely FALSE. There are NO Digidesign hardware products that get their A/D or D/A clocks from the host computer.

All of our products have on-board clocks built into the hardware (for "internal" sync). When locking to digital sources, we have PLLs which lock to the digital source's clock.

Regards,
Kenn LeGault
Director, System Software
Digidesign

[Dean G]

Finally,

The Gods answer!!!!!!!

So Kenn, why does your A/D conversion suck so much???

Anyone out there with ears knows this to be true. If you are so proud of your equipment, why not make your A/D conversion world class on all your products.

Lexus for example. You ride in their top of the line car and their entry level car and they HAVE THE SAME RIDE QUALITY!!!

I repeat, why does the A/D conversion on the digi 001 suck so much?? My Sessions 8 unit sounded so much better!! I bought from you AGAIN because of the SOUND. What if I bought a Lexus and the ride quality sucked??? What if someone told me then that I would have to buy new tires and shocks if I wanted it to ride the same way as my old Lexus??

Please respond, anyone in DIGI, and tell me you think the A/D conversion is OK in the digi001. I wanted to believe that "story" about the clock because otherwise why would my old CD burner from 8 years ago sound so much better (with regards to A/D conversion.)?? I will be posting my mp3's soon. Feel free to comment on them too.

Make you a deal. Give us the jitter specs on that clock and it's location (on the card I suspect so every thing I've said on the subject stands since the clock is interfered with by the computers clock, etc.) and I WILL SHUT UP!!!

Old Timer images/icons/mad.gif

[Mark Staples]

For $900 (when I bought it two years ago), I got a good system. Not because of the converters (because I was ignorant then - well more ignorant than now) but because of Pro Tools and the abilities that it provided to me.

Now, I recognize the need for better A/D conversion and have considered several options:

1) buy external converters (i.e. apogee, lucent, etc)

2) buy the HD system (for what I want, the cost is around $20,000)

3) Switch to the Nuendo system that comes with high end apogee A/D D/A converters (16 simultaneous channels in and out) for around $6 grand.

What I'm hoping for is a Digi 003 that replaces the 001. I have no interest in the 002 because I can't put it into my rack and I very rarely do location recording. If I need that I'll buy an M-Box. My hope in the 003 is that it is a rack mount unit with decent converters (Rosetta equivalent) and a good clock source. It can be card based or firewire, I don't care.

I'm starting to get fairly serious about this but most of my recording is for my daughter who is a singer/songwriter. I don't make money doing this, so like most of you, it comes out of my grocery money (I wish it would help me drop some weight, though).

We're finishing a project that was done with the Digi 001 and it sounds OK. I'm sure that it would sound better if I had higher quality pre's, better converters, and most importantly more experience. But it's pretty good, nonetheless.

We've got four more projects to work through now I'm seriously considering those three options. Options 1 and 3 are more suitable to my budget right now. If I knew that Digi had something in the works, I could wait a couple months and they can use some of my money to buy their own Lexus!

This one thing that I know for sure, I am investing in higher end pre's (they'll work no matter what you use), an outboard compressor or two, and a couple more good mic's.

Just some random thoughts on this topic... images/icons/smile.gif

[Dean G]

Mark,

Congrats on your project. Please don't misunderstand my anger. I've been using digidesign products for 10 years now. I only thought is was my inexperience with PTLE that kept my new material from sounding great for the first few months. I learned a lot then,, trying very hard to "polish the turd". I did not believe those who whined about the A/D converters, believing as many I'm sure believe about me that those whiners just did not have the talent to record and mix on PTLE. I doubted myself, but kept trying. I had tracked the drums first, of course, and had six songs in production. I thought I could overcome the "garbage can lid" cymbals by EQ, compression, back mixing them, etc. But I could still hear them. DUC members have suggested they must be cheap cymbals, hitting them too hard, bad mic placement, wrong mic choice, poor player, and/or bad room.

The problem is I have recorded the same drums, same drummer, same mics, same mic pres before on my session 8 and they all sounded great(before)!

So I finally got un-lazy and sent my overheads through my 8 year old CD burner (to do the A/D conversion), only 16 bits digital, into the S/PDIF input, recorded two new tunes, and it's like Jesus touched my ears and I can hear again. I am not being over dramatic, really. Try this yourself if you can. It works great on vocals too, if you use canned drums.

Now the two tunes I just finished can stand up to my old stuff. Recorded, mind you , with only 8 tracks, drums had to be submixed, and using an out board Alex, and a Quadraverb!!!

I'll just wait. Nothing more to say on this subject except now I'm actually excited about publishing my new work on the web, within the week.

Old Timer images/icons/grin.gif

[Mark Staples]

Dean,

I actually was siding with you on this. Though I don't have the extensive experience that most have on this list, conceptually I understand what the issues are.

My only point was that when I first got started, I was looking at doing a demo. I actually followed the progression someone in one of the many resources that I read, "You get your first gear and the bad acoustics and other "bad" things don't annoy you (sounds of the baby crying and the vacuum cleaner running in the background). However, as you "grow up" in this, you begin to realize that it COULD sound better. So you spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to make it "sound better." NOW I'm at the point where "better" isn't good enough. I want it to sound "professional."

Some of this will come with experience, but I also know that much of this comes with high quality gear and it all starts with the signal chain. Good room, good mic, good pre, good A/D converter, good plugins, etc.

That brings me to my earlier posting of one of three choices. What I'm hoping for is that Digi will not be like WordPerfect and think that they are invincible because they have the vast share of the professional market and sit back on their laurels and allow Microsoft to take over.

The digital age is not new any longer, it is commonplace. Prices for high end digital gear are coming down. I believe that it is possible for Digi to come out with an excellent "rack mounted" system with 48k sampling (96k is good, but not necessary), with a competitive clock and converter. If they do that, then they'll win the middle class engineers and maintain their lead in the professional market.

Much like computer software, young computer users grow up to be leaders in their field. Young home studio engineers become major producers, engineers, and studio owners. They'll pick the gear that they knew and were accustomed to when they were younger.

It's not always the best that wins the race, it is those that can win the little "feature" battles that win the hearts of the people. Ask Lotus and WordPerfect.

I drone on and on...

Digi, I'm confident that these are not new ideas and that you are working on them. A rack mounted upgrade/replacement for the 001 would go a long way with all of us.

[Dean G]

Mark, from your keyboard to Digi's inbox.

That said, because digi's #1 the have the best selection of plug ins, and the editing is the industry leader.

I am very pleased with my last 10 days of digi001. You will hear it soon, trust me (just looking for a free place to post that has enough bandwith for the DUC. I'm hoping enough people are waiting for me to fall on my face, that is if anyone will notice. That is most of the fun for me right now.) PTLE is awesome and unbelievably powerful in my opinion. It is Digi's probably non musician suit types that I am ranting about, I think.

Old Timer images/icons/tongue.gif

[AdamF]

Sorry to cut in here... but..

I've been using an AMIII card for a few years and was going to upgrade to an digi 001 mainly for more I/O. I do dance music and so far have been fairly satisfied with the sound quality of my A/D (ok, I can definitely notice the fidelity difference from my keyboards live vs after they've been recorded in, but its decent).

I myself would much rather have a rack mount interface and dont really have a place for the 002 in my studio. Is there any difference on the converters from the 001 and the 002 vs my AMIII?

Thanks!

Adam

[superdood]

I own both the digi 001 and an Apogee Trak 2. I hate to admit it, but I spent 3k on a ,claimed, excellent converter and I seriously do not hear the difference between the apogee's and the digi's a/d conversion. My sweet VHT guitar amp loses all life when recorded into pro tools through either box. I would say the 002 would be worth it just to have all those functions at your fingers. Come mix time, I think it would be worth it. I don't yet know if recording at 96k makes that big of a difference by the time it is back down to 44.1 on cd, but a control surface is nice.
QUESTION:I would love some expert advice on how to improve upon the loss of tone and precence that I seem to experience every time I record into pro tools. Honestly, I'm stumped. I hear these great sounding guitars that have been recorded in pro tools and all my tone just goes into the toilet when I try. Keep in mind, I've tried it using both the digi 001 converters and the apogee. thanks

[foy323]

Maybe you should try using an 8 year old CD burner in the signal chain, superdood... that is what I'm going to start experimenting with soon... (although my cd burner is only 4 years old).

As I think about it, I've been very pleased with the recordings I've done from vinyl into the burner. Old 80's dance music mostly, and it almost sounds better after it has been burned...

Quick question, if I may: My cd burner has a "digital out". Nowhere on the unit or in the manual does it specify s/pdif. But it seems to be the same type of jack. Are there two different types of digital in/out? Or should it work with the s/pdif on the digi001? (I've never used s/pdif before).

thanks!
Kurt

[Dean G]

if it's rca, it's s/pdif. I think s/pdif means "rca" in yiddish.

Old Timer images/icons/wink.gif

[mentalmusic]

If it is a "digital out" and looks like an RCA jack, it must be s/pdif. Check out my "S/PDIF Cable" topic going on right now in the Pro Tools LE for Mac forum for more info about that.

[soundboy69]

S/PDIF- Sony/Phillips Digital Interface...
superdood: Your best bet (considering the equipment you mentioned) would probably be- VHT mic'ed w/ the Royer in a nice room w/ meticulous placement straight into the Trak 2, digital out into the 001. Use a high quality cable. Trust me, it makes a difference. Also rent some Avalon or Summit pres (if your budget allows it) and come line out into the Apogee. Don't underestimate the importance of cabling or mic placement. Half an inch can be a world of difference. This is why it's better to have someone else (i.e. assistant) move the mic around while the performer plays and you monitor. Once out of the Trak 2 (digitally), the 001 will no longer influence the sound... images/icons/wink.gif

[Wnna]

Hello Dean G,
Please let me ask you something.
Do you have a good A/D converter on your Digi001 system? Not a D/A converter?
Are you recommending adding a good A/D converter on a Digi001 system (Not a D/A converter) ?

Thanks

[Dean G]

Winna,

As many will tell you here on the DUC, I actually know very little technical stuff. Ratfink0 does seem to know about this stuff though. Interesting that clock jitter may not be the culprit, hmmm...

As many have pointed out, there's a lot that goes on before the last stage, A/D conversion.

But, I'll tell you, stuff I put down with the stock converters were pure merde!! If the eq was somehow messed up (the worst I could expect from analog audio destruction) I would think I could EQ my way out of it.

Instead it seems something is just lost!!! Something just dosen't make it onto the disc.

And I know I can get it there if I use an alternate A/D conversion process, and pipe it in through S/PDIF.

Winna, as far a D/A conversion goes, I just don't need it. I mix in PTLE and burn to my stand alone CD recorder so I don't D/A convert at all, except to monitor. Some would say this is the most critical step for professional sounding mixes but I like my trial and error method, it's slow but I get there eventually. But if the good sound doesen't get on the disc in the first place, well you know, you're screwed.

Could one of the more technical types that owns a rosetta (a believer) record a high frequency sine wave (17K, 19K) through the Rosetta and through channel 3 in the blue box and compare them? Maybe ratfink0 could help us interpret the results.

Thanks in advance,

Old Timer images/icons/grin.gif

[ratfink0]

The reason the adc's 'suck' so bad probably has nothing to do with phase noise (aka clock jitter). If that were the case, you would be more likely to hear strange artifacts or clicking. Almost all consumer and professional level products have a decent enough clock to prevent this from happening. That being said, every clock source will have some jitter (edge-to-edge and long term...)

And yes, PLL synthesis IS one of the most accurate (non-jittery) clock sources (which is what the 001 uses). The reason the converters 'suck' is because of the design, although personally I think the 001 has pretty decent converters. If your going to bitch, at least be correct. images/icons/wink.gif

[ratfink0]

Don't get me wrong -- I totally belive the rosetta sounds better (although I haven't heard one). I mean, for $1000, it better sound good images/icons/smile.gif . If you want to test out different ADCs, try this:

Use a white noise generator as an input source. Record the input for a few seconds, and repeat with the other ADCs you would like to test. Save the samples and open them up in a spectral analyzer (cooledit has one, and it's free to try) to see what the difference is. You should notice some frequencies are slightly higher and lower with the different converters. You should also notice some differences between sampling rates.

Doing this isn't exactly real-world because most people don't listen to white noise images/icons/smile.gif . You can also do the same thing with a nice sine sweep (20hz - 20khz). If anyone has the time to do this, I would really like to see the results with some different converters.

[compblue]

I am buying a protools setup
and I am worrying about this
conversion problem you guys
are talking about.

How can i avoid it?
would something like the focusrite octopre work
as a solution for this conversion problem and give me a mic pre that sounds killer at the same time?

How do I avoid the bad conversion coming out of my setup?

Keep in mind I am only getting a g4 and a digi 001, so I need some conversion solutions that hopefully won't cost me some limbs..

[Bastiaan]

I suggest you first get the digi001. Afetr you got to know the system, you could consider getting some outboard preamps/adconverters...

The converters in the digi001 arent that bad...

[Nraki]

I agree with Bastiaan.

[bouncing balls]

I second the notion (Bastiaan's claim)
unless your doing really high end, I.E. top shelf
production, you will be fine in the 001, not to mention- many pro's use the 001 for a home workstation- and it's all what you squeeze out of the system- like many things regarding audio....
Bye for now...
P.S. We hear in analog! (with those little fleshy things on the sides of our heads called ears). Please forgive the sarcasm.

[gigi]

Can you give me a short mp3 example of sound (maybe just a few notes of acoustic guitar) recorded into the digi001 WITH and WITHOUT a good A/D converter?
After all the opinions read in this thread, I'd like to have e good converter and I'm really curious to hear the difference before spending a lot of money.
I think it's not hard for you to make two short examples recorded exactly in the same conditions (mic, mic positioning, etc.). One with the converter and one without it.
I'm not shure, but I think you can record both at the same time.
Thank you very much in advance.
Ciao
Gigi

[GORILLA]

002 vs. 001? Well I tell ya, I had a 001 and now have the 002 and the converters don't COMPARE!! My 002's converters sound waaaaay, and I mean waaay better than my 001's did. I know alot of guys are saying the 888's aren't that good,and I'm not saying the 002's are 888's, but, well they're better than the 001's! I've posted a few threads about it, just tired of reading posts of guys saying "who needs moving faders...just get the 001 better mic pre's and good converters..." What the HELL do you think the 002 is? Plus you have 96khz capability. By the time you buy the 001...decent converters...decent mic pre's....The 002 comes with FOUR. You've spent waaaaay more than $2000.00.
Let's see 002....hmm...$2000.oo...hmmm....converters equal to the 888's...hmm...A plug-in bundle with; Waves,Maxim,Amplitube,Sample Tank,Pro-52,Digi-over $2000 in plug-ins, fire wire...volume control for your monitors/(many lose this when using other A/D D/A's)...hmm...total hands on control(plug-in parameters).....hmm.....ALL balanced i/o's..(001's aren't ALL balanced).hmm...can also be used as a mixer for your bands practice....hmmm...I'm not even gonna mention how handy it is having faders in front of you..It's Digi's latest LE version, and sure us 002 owners won't get 6.0 before the 001 owners do, BUT.... I bet when the upgrade after 6.0 comes out it'll be the other way around.
The price may be steep for some of us, but if you can get it...GO BROKE!!!!!! I think you'll be glad you did! images/icons/grin.gif

[bouncing balls]

Hello Gorilla,
You have some valid points and I think Digidesign even claims that the 002 preamps are loosely based on the high end "PRE"- preamps, and the converters are better on the 002 than the 001 too. (I think?)
I also defend the 001 though because a person can do some great work on that also- and your right -depending on what you already have- you can get closer to the high end Digi equipment with the 002. I think that was there intention.
I have a 001 with a better front end going into it, and a controller with motorized faders and its working out great--so I think it depends on what equipment a person has stocked in their studio at any given time--but great points you have made- and if I had the extra jing-a-ling right now I'd be playing with 002 too!..Have a good one!
PS. For someone wanting a Pro Tools setup today- the 001 might better meet somebody's budget at any given time where they might not be ready for the 002 price point.

[GORILLA]

Thanks bouncing balls....man that name cracks me up!!!! images/icons/grin.gif images/icons/grin.gif
Either unit Kicks Butt, I just had a chance to move to the 002..and took it!
I'm happy & my wallets a lot lighter!! images/icons/grin.gif

[missilanious]

Dean theres one thing that bugs me about you saying you don't need good D/A converters on a digital system. That is true if your staying inside the digital and don't mind that your mix is bieng monitored by the same converters that you have problems with going in. But what happens if you have a piece of analog outboard gear you have to send signal out to, you have good conversion going in, so that would be precise to what being played and recorded, but then to send that prestine signal out of the 001 converters defeats the original purpose of getting good DAC's, cause your going to get a prestine recording of the 001's converters you seem like you hate so much. I think the bottom line on this topic is for $700 you get more than what you paid for, and is a very good value, if you have more money buy something better, have you ever heard the sound of a Roland digital recorder, now those DAC's sound like **** , and those cost more, theres to many people bitching about how bad the 001 sounds, think about this, your not exactlly shoveling money toward a BMW, your paying for a used Honda, they both drive just the BMW has more options a gives a smoother and better ride, but if you don't have that type of cash the used Honda is still going to get you to the same place but with a few more bumps in the road.

[missilanious]

And by the way Gorilla is right, they sound as good as an 888, but there a tad cheaper.

[Joz]

If you can't hear the differnece between the Rossetta and the 001, you probably don't have ears and your IQ is 60...ok, maybe 80.

[gargoyle]

Well,

I'm going to be recording live drums next Tuesday. I've only ever done that once before and I thought the results were great (with the 001 only, plus rad 10 pres) but yet...the cymbals didn't shimmer like on other recordings I've heard. After reading this thread, I thought I'd better rent an A/D thingy this time.

They don't rent the Rosetta, They do have a Lucid. Is it grreat as well? Or is there another A/D converter that is comparable?

Thanks
Sean

[gargoyle]

Right, I did a search on A/D converters and it dang near crashed me.

I'll rent the Lucid!

[Dean G]

Joz and Gargoyle,

Sort of jumping in late. Personal stuff and all taking me away from the DUC for awhile.

Cymbals sounding metalic, sort of like cymbals played in front of you. Remember that whole DIGITAL thing??

Recently heard an analog recording from Nashville, a sort of demo on very middle quality stuff (at least I hope). Very smooth but LIFELESS. Hmmmm. Grass is always greener, right?? Then some famous yo-yo mastered it and now it's almost too loud in my car when the volume knob is a 10:30 when my stuff is loud at 12:00 after I've brick wall limited it. (I guess rather than Wile E Coyoted it [that would be the Acme limiter]).

From what I could hear the DBX or whatever noise limiter those analog guys use just took the air out of the sound.

Well bad A/D does the same thing to the digital guys. You just can't record anything above 15 K accurately. SO cymbals sound like white noise with a cymbal attack and decay envelope on a DX7!!

And Missilaneous... You're right. You plug in your favorite outboard gear and you think "Oh my God!! The Digi 001 is so technologically advanced and has so much resolution I can't believe I put up with that piece of s*** reverb all these years!!! I better go out and buy a $2000 reverb to keep up with the Digi 001 (and I'm sure the 002)!!" Wrong. You just got double bad A/D ed and lagged!!

So I use nothing but plugins and if I run out of CPU I print the effects and if I run out of tracks I ...GASP..submix!! I mean with the import track thing so slick, what's the big deal? 24 bugless or 32 tracks can really be 100+ Just takes some time but sometimes concentrating on just the background vox and their own set of effects is helpful. If the submix is a little off just go back to the BKGRONDVOX session and re import the results.

What were we talking about again???

Old Timer images/icons/grin.gif

[gigi]

I live in Italy, in an island called Sardinia and it.s really hard to find shops with expensive A/D converter. I think it a matter of few minutes for some of you to post somewhere in the web or to email me ([email protected]) a short mp3 example of sound (maybe just a few notes of ACOUSTIC guitar) recorded into the digi001 WITH and WITHOUT a good A/D converter.
After all the opinions read in this thread, I'd like to have e good converter and I'm really curious to hear the difference before spending a lot of money.
I think it's not hard for you to make two short examples recorded exactly in the same conditions (mic, mic positioning, etc.). One with the converter and one without it.
I'm not shure, but I think you can record both at the same time.
Thank you very much in advance.
Ciao
Gigi

[Dean G]

Gigi,

Would love to help but I'm in the middle of the final touches on my first two "good" digi 001 songs. Those will be posted within a few days so look for it in this section.

I will probably be able to give you a snippet of cymbals from the same drumset with and without an external converter, but I have not bought an expensive converter either, just utilized my CD burner for that task. I'll post it as "Study in Cymbals", and put a little narration or something. Give me a week.

Old Timer images/icons/cool.gif

[gigi]

Thank you very much Dean, I wait for your example
Ciao
Gigi

[Bob Olhsson]

I think the D to A is the MOST important thing to get right after monitors because we make all of our choices based on what we hear.

If you don't have a great D to A, you are very likely to be fixing things that aren't broken, mudding up things that don't really need warming up and upgrading things that actually sound just fine.

[tchipman]

Hello Gentlemen and Ladies if there are any!
Great discussion.
My solution to the converters and pre's (not to mention a great eq, compressor, deesser, and limiter) was to purchase the Focusrite ISA220 with the optional card so I can run everything possible throught there and get the sound Dean is after. I'm might not be quite so fussy though. I released an album last spring that I did without the new $2500 box and have had good reviews. We've sold about 700. (300 to go)Mic'ing up the guitars though is really a must if you want it to sound real. It really doesn't take all that long to experiment with your mic placements to get a good fat sound, clean or dirty. Use three mics if necessary.
tim

[Dean G]

Ok folks.

This thread I know is going slow like pony express, but sometimes that can be a positive.

The band I have been recording is ten summers past, and the music, recorded on the digi001 is here (http://www.soundclick.com/tensummerspast)

Sorry about the soundclick thing, but I'm not quite ready for my own web page, but will have one within three months (est. march 2003)

I like the sound, but realize it may be too "grainy" for some. I think things will improve with a Masterlink, which will be my first addition along with a Rosetta (maybe) and a vocal mic to be named later (my friend has a blue bottle which I haven't tried yet, , but I'm thinking about that TCM 103 or something like that.)

Also, what about the finalizer? (obviously I'm looking into spending some money) For $2400 or so, I think it could help( I think the mac could use a little outboard help to polish the raw sound.)

Feedback please!!

Old Timer images/icons/smile.gif

[resonans]

I just came back to Digidesign (used Session 8 in the early 90's) after some years with Soundscape and Nuendo. Hi guys!

I have been very pleased with the Nuendo software and my RME Digi96 PST sound card. BUT, for a long time I have been looking for a nice integrated audio interface and controller. All Steinberg could provide was the toy Houston, only a USB controller. I had to use a separate audio interface. And other manufacturers...nothing.

So when I saw the release of Digi 002 I was really curious. I did't want to leave Nuendo, but after I tested Digi 002 in my local store a couple of times I was convinced. I was going for it, though I was concerned about changing platform once again.

After 2 weeks with my Digi 002 I'm totally in love. This is the ultimate solution for me as a radio commercial producer. Interface, controller, and monitoring - all in this slick packaging.

Sound quality? I imported some files from Nuendo into Pro Tools, and I was really surprised. I have been totally satisfied with the Nuendo/RME quality, but when I listened to the files in Pro Tools/Digi 002 they sounded much more clear. I can't explain how this happened, but I have tested several files with the same results.

I'm not a technical guy, but I do trust my ears. Digi 002 is an amazing tool that I will stick with for a long time. images/icons/smile.gif

[Jak]

I'm just about to buy a 002. Will the a/d, d/a converters affect my sound if I'm just sampling sample CDs and working with soft synths? Those converters are just for live recording, right? Sorry, if I sound like I know nothing at all.

[digi001user]

Originally posted by Dean G:
Ok folks.

This thread I know is going slow like pony express, but sometimes that can be a positive.

The band I have been recording is ten summers past, and the music, recorded on the digi001 is here (http://www.soundclick.com/tensummerspast)

Sorry about the soundclick thing, but I'm not quite ready for my own web page, but will have one within three months (est. march 2003)

I like the sound, but realize it may be too "grainy" for some. I think things will improve with a Masterlink, which will be my first addition along with a Rosetta (maybe) and a vocal mic to be named later (my friend has a blue bottle which I haven't tried yet, , but I'm thinking about that TCM 103 or something like that.)

Also, what about the finalizer? (obviously I'm looking into spending some money) For $2400 or so, I think it could help( I think the mac could use a little outboard help to polish the raw sound.)

Feedback please!!

Old Timer images/icons/smile.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hey Dean, Sounds really quite pollished.. I really think you have done well... I can hear the cymbals ticking away.. On the ride especially, the vocals sound great, not in your face or to close.. The guitar sounds are good,, The lead is not to out front.. The band sounds like Rush-- I don't know if that is the sound they are going for, but that is what it sounds like to me..IMHO -- no offense intened.. I think the overall production is GREAT.. I like Solomon's Sister the best Musicaly ... Keep going with what your doing.. I may not be a professional, but I WAS IMPRESSED..To say the least.

P.S. how did you set up the mic's for the bass I am real interested in the sound you achieved for that It is the best bass sound I have ever heard, even from the Corp. Lables - no kidding, I am not just blowing smoke up you dress either..

`Digi001user-

[LatinLovly]

Hello, I am new to this whole Pro Tools thing. I am currently looking for a computer to purchase so that I can hook pro tools up to it. What type of specifications should i be looking for in a computer and which version of pro tools would any of you recommend. Thanks a lot.

Michelle

[digi001user]

Originally posted by LatinLovly:
Hello, I am new to this whole Pro Tools thing. I am currently looking for a computer to purchase so that I can hook pro tools up to it. What type of specifications should i be looking for in a computer and which version of pro tools would any of you recommend. Thanks a lot.

Michelle<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Click this link below and read just the top post, it is updated frequently,, Hope this helps
Allan's spec's for building a good machine.. (http://duc.digidesign.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=004858)

~Digi001user-

[guiroo]

So did anyone ever do a specific A/B test with the 001 versus whatever?

I did one with the 001's pre's and a Focusrite VocalMaster (not the Pro) and I couldn't tell a bit of difference. (And I've been called a discriminative listener.) I did several different chain placement tests too. I really wanted to believe that it would knock my socks off cause that's what everyone seems to be saying but I just can't hear it, sorry.

I haven't created MP3s yet but I plan to tomorrow over the holiday so you can hear for yourself.

Everyone can say what they think but I wanna hear for myself as I try to get the most bang for the most buck - not to mention the DUC is a great tool that can make it possible.

[NorWestSnd]

I've been reading this topic and one thing needs to be said that hasn't been.

Most converters sound better with a more accurate clock. I owned an MBox (which sounded fine) but it's main problem is that THERE WAS NO WORD CLOCK INPUT so there was no way to improve the OVERALL SYSTEM CLOCKING with an outboard clock. Very important point that seems to be overlooked in this entire thread.

No matter what outboard converters you use, if the entire system won't lock to that "low jitter" clock, your entire digital signal will suffer somewhat.

With that said, I don't know if the 001 and 002 will sync to external word clock or not. Do they? The MBox certainly won't.

So, if they will sync to an external clock you may be better off simply buying a high quality clock source instead of outboard converters. You may find that the existing converters sound much better with more precise timing.

Just a thought.

Lawrence

[digi001user]

Originally posted by NorWestSnd:
I've been reading this topic and one thing needs to be said that hasn't been.

Most converters sound better with a more accurate clock. I owned an MBox (which sounded fine) but it's main problem is that THERE WAS NO WORD CLOCK INPUT so there was no way to improve the OVERALL SYSTEM CLOCKING with an outboard clock. Very important point that seems to be overlooked in this entire thread.

No matter what outboard converters you use, if the entire system won't lock to that "low jitter" clock, your entire digital signal will suffer somewhat.

With that said, I don't know if the 001 and 002 will sync to external word clock or not. Do they? The MBox certainly won't.

So, if they will sync to an external clock you may be better off simply buying a high quality clock source instead of outboard converters. You may find that the existing converters sound much better with more precise timing.

Just a thought.

Lawrence<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That is a good point Lawrence -- never really thought of it that way.. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[Chris Shaeffer]

Looks like an almost dead thread, but I'll add it here anyway.

The moving faders are a godsend when mixing more than 8 tracks. When you page the faders through the tracks they automatically slide to the correct position. After 2 years of mixing with Tascam's US-428 I *love* not haveing hunt for the right fader, have to readjust the levels, and getting lost in the banks of tracks.

Also a note to home recordists and ametures:

The convertors in the Digi 002 are fine. If you are in the pro business of cutting out every last bottleneck in your signal chain the 002's ADC's probably wouldn't stack up, but for most "prosumers" (which all the LE packages seem to be aimed at) the 002's ADC's are very good.

Take care,
Chris

[Duardo]

Since this thread was just "resurrected" I haven't had a chance to comment on anything...so I apologize in advance if I regress a bit...

I owned an MBox (which sounded fine) but it's main problem is that THERE WAS NO WORD CLOCK INPUT so there was no way to improve the OVERALL SYSTEM CLOCKING with an outboard clock. Very important point that seems to be overlooked in this entire thread.

No matter what outboard converters you use, if the entire system won't lock to that "low jitter" clock, your entire digital signal will suffer somewhat.

With that said, I don't know if the 001 and 002 will sync to external word clock or not. Do they? The MBox certainly won't <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">They don't have a dedicated word clock input, but they will sync to an external clock (as will the M Box) through their S/PDIF port. Most dedicated clocks have BNC outputs that won't work, but most dedicated clocks are also better than most converters. If you get something like a Rosetta it has a very low-jitter clock in it. Slaving the system clock to the Rosetta's clock will improve the sound of all of the converters in the system. Not much of an issue with the M Box (why would you want to use its converters if you have an Apogee? Your A/D will sound better though) but with the 001/002 it can be a big deal.

I'm just about to buy a 002. Will the a/d, d/a converters affect my sound if I'm just sampling sample CDs and working with soft synths? Those converters are just for live recording, right? Sorry, if I sound like I know nothing at all. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If you really are just working with sample CD's and soft synths you won't be using the A/D's at all. The D/A's are what you'll be listening through, so while they won't directly affect the end "product" having more accurate D/A conversion for monitoring will certainly help you make better judgments as you mix.

My solution to the converters and pre's (not to mention a great eq, compressor, deesser, and limiter) was to purchase the Focusrite ISA220 with the optional card so I can run everything possible throught there and get the sound Dean is after. I'm might not be quite so fussy though. I released an album last spring that I did without the new $2500 box and have had good reviews. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good to hear...both that you like the new box and that you were able to get great results without it. Much better to go after new hardware to improve an already good-sounding system than to try to fix something you're not happy with...

Well bad A/D does the same thing to the digital guys. You just can't record anything above 15 K accurately. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This isn't nearly the issue it was back in the early days of digital audio. With today's great anti-aliasing filters and oversampling designs you can get right up to 20kHz with total accuracy.

And by the way Gorilla is right, they sound as good as an 888, but there a tad cheaper. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think they sound better (the 002's converters).

You have some valid points and I think Digidesign even claims that the 002 preamps are loosely based on the high end "PRE"- preamps, and the converters are better on the 002 than the 001 too. (I think?) <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, and yes...the preamps in the 002 are derived from the Pre and the 002 converters are noticeably better (both by listening and glancing at the specs) than those in the 001.

I don't yet know if recording at 96k makes that big of a difference by the time it is back down to 44.1 on cd, <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It doesn't, and in most cases will make things sound worse because of the sample rate conversion process. If you must sample at a higher sampling rate and your eventual destination is CD, do it at 88.2. But listen first, you're not likely to hear a difference.

I own both the digi 001 and an Apogee Trak 2. I hate to admit it, but I spent 3k on a ,claimed, excellent converter and I seriously do not hear the difference between the apogee's and the digi's a/d conversion. My sweet VHT guitar amp loses all life when recorded into pro tools through either box. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What's the rest of your signal chain? The Trak 2 has some of the best converters and preamps available, but if your microphone and preamp are substandard all the Trak 2 will do is more accurately reproduce a substandard signal.

Is there any difference on the converters from the 001 and the 002 vs my AMIII <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes...the converters in the 002 are better than those in the 001, which are better than those in the AMIII (which if I remember correctly are 18-bit converters, and unbalanced to boot).

So Kenn, why does your A/D conversion suck so much??? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't think Digi could possibly provide a satisfactory answer to that question. Mainly because the 001's converters don't suck. They're not as good as a Rosetta, or a Lucid, or maybe your old CD burner, but that doesn't mean they suck. Compared to a lot of the other computer interfaces out there right now they're still quite good.

Anyone out there with ears knows this to be true. If you are so proud of your equipment, why not make your A/D conversion world class on all your products. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Better quality always comes at a price. Why do you think a Rosetta costs about a thousand dollars for two channels of A/D conversion alone and the Digi 001 costs about eight hundred for eight both ways plus preamps, MIDI, digital I/O, and software?

I've listened to Apogee converters against Digi's best (those in the 192) and, while I preferred the Apogee, the difference was amazingly close. The two converters actually sounded more similar to each other than either did to the original analog source.

Let's say the difference between the 001 and 002 is $2000. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We could do that, but in reality it's more like $1400 ($2200 vs $800)...but now finally back to the original question, which was what you get for that extra $1400...to review, you get:

-Better preamps, and more of them
-High-pass filters
-Separate microphone and line inputs, switchable
-Better converters
-All outputs are balanced
-Moving touch-sensitive faders
-Transport controls, knobs, channel strip etc
-Better integration than a third-party controller
-32 Channels of MIDI Out
-A bunch of plugins (and not the throwaway stuff
nobody wants)
-Dedicated monitor and headphone level controls
-Dedicated tape outs
-Dedicated alternate source input
-Mono button (more useful than you think)
-Standalone capability (seems to me like it was
thrown on as an afterthought, but it's there)
-Firewire
-Dedicated power supply (one of the important
factors for high-quality converters and preamps

I may have left something off...but look over the list, check off everything you think you'd use, and decide if it's worth the extra money to you.

-Duardo