Advantages to 003R vs Non Avid Interface

[Studio66]

Refining my interface choice for a new computer enroute and a fresh new install of PT12.
We have my trusty (but old) 003R and I have a newer (but old) Steinberg UR824 from a stint with Cubase.

Is there an advantage,in design, to keeping the 003R as my interface or will the UR824 be as good (or better) ?

I like the idea the 824 has a bit of Apollo like functionality...a bit but one to keep the best of the 2 for my new build.

Flirted with the idea of an Apollo but it's just overkill for my needs....as cool as it is.

So...003R or UR824 if it were you ?

[albee1952]

I lean toward the 003r. Most(and anyone that knows better, please correct me on this) 3rd party hardware will include some utility software that acts as a "go between" to control routing and such in PT. The 003 integrates without any "extra junk" in the way. I ran the 003(controller) with outboard preamps for years, using the full 18 inputs(@48K) and 16 outputs. I ran an i7 quad (950) with 12GB of RAM and tracked several bands using all 18 inputs, with 4 stereo headphone feeds at the 64 buffer. The rig served me very well(including handling 1 project that had 104 audio tracks). I never had to think about routing, worry about settings or scratch my head over why something didn't work

Having said that, I also bought a UA Quad card to use their plugins(which sound great) but got hit with latency caused by the round trip to the card, which made it impossible to track with any UAD plugins(very disappointing) My point here; don't drop Apollo just yet and do look at all the models(maybe a smaller model would cover your IO needs). Using an Apollo is the ONLY way I know of to actually use UAD plugins while tracking, and that may be well worth the "price of admission" The UA software looks to be maybe the best of all 3rd party options...

[Studio66]

Originally Posted by albee1952

I lean toward the 003r. Most(and anyone that knows better, please correct me on this) 3rd party hardware will include some utility software that acts as a "go between" to control routing and such in PT. The 003 integrates without any "extra junk" in the way. I ran the 003(controller) with outboard preamps for years, using the full 18 inputs(@48K) and 16 outputs. I ran an i7 quad (950) with 12GB of RAM and tracked several bands using all 18 inputs, with 4 stereo headphone feeds at the 64 buffer. The rig served me very well(including handling 1 project that had 104 audio tracks). I never had to think about routing, worry about settings or scratch my head over why something didn't work

Having said that, I also bought a UA Quad card to use their plugins(which sound great) but got hit with latency caused by the round trip to the card, which made it impossible to track with any UAD plugins(very disappointing) My point here; don't drop Apollo just yet and do look at all the models(maybe a smaller model would cover your IO needs). Using an Apollo is the ONLY way I know of to actually use UAD plugins while tracking, and that may be well worth the "price of admission" The UA software looks to be maybe the best of all 3rd party options...

Thanks for the great reply....
I love the idea of the Apollo and possibly a quad card....maybe a rethink is in order....
The UR824 has the ability to track with its own "on board" comp/eq/reverb but it's limited....integrated beautifully in Cubase Pro.
I don't mind spending :) the price of admission is substantial though...luv to compare those Marshall and Friedman amp sims to my Kemper
Thanks again!!!

[JFreak]

I have little experience with 3rd party interfaces, but 002/003 converters work pretty well at 96k and as such are comparable to HD interfaces at 48k -- so therefore I'd pick the interface that I know :)

[The Weed]

As I mentioned in another of your threads, I have the RME UFX. Converters are pristine, the pres useable and it has onboard DSP effects that can be recorded or just in the monitor feed(s). TotalMix has a steep learning curve, but is stellar for any kind of routing you can imagine and you can record to an approved USB stick without using a computer or as a backup. The drivers are rock solid and allow changing the Sample Rate from within Pro Tools, but not the Buffer Size. If you don't need the UAD plug-ins, it's worth a look.

[Studio66]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I have little experience with 3rd party interfaces, but 002/003 converters work pretty well at 96k and as such are comparable to HD interfaces at 48k -- so therefore I'd pick the interface that I know :)

Ya....my 003R has been rock solid with my PT10 set up.
Thanks!

[Studio66]

Originally Posted by The Weed

As I mentioned in another of your threads, I have the RME UFX. Converters are pristine, the pres useable and it has onboard DSP effects that can be recorded or just in the monitor feed(s). TotalMix has a steep learning curve, but is stellar for any kind of routing you can imagine and you can record to an approved USB stick without using a computer or as a backup. The drivers are rock solid and allow changing the Sample Rate from within Pro Tools, but not the Buffer Size. If you don't need the UAD plug-ins, it's worth a look.

I just read the review of thevUFX+ in SOS this month....serious gear.
I guess I was just looking to convince myself on the 824 but I haven't.
Will definitely take another look at the RME stuff....appreciate both replays.
My computer died...a horrible death...lol
So a new machine means new (or old) possibilities and it hasn't been as easy a choice as I thought....

[Carl Kolchak]

Probably not a consideration for most people, but I keep a laptop with PTLE7.3 handy, for location recordings with an 002r.
It's rock solid, but the main reason for keeping it LE is that the 002r acts as the software authorisation, without the need to ever take an iLok out in to the wild (as it's for tracking only, all but the stock plug-ins are removed).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Carl Kolchak

Probably not a consideration for most people, but I keep a laptop with PTLE7.3 handy, for location recordings with an 002r.
It's rock solid, but the main reason for keeping it LE is that the 002r acts as the software authorisation, without the need to ever take an iLok out in to the wild (as it's for tracking only, all but the stock plug-ins are removed).

Nice!

You're on Tiger then? Consider upgrading it to 7.4 if possible, as 7.3 was very buggy (first universal binary release, lots of random things).

[Carl Kolchak]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Nice!



You're on Tiger then? Consider upgrading it to 7.4 if possible, as 7.3 was very buggy (first universal binary release, lots of random things).

Actually the particular laptop in question is an old Windows XP machine - as far as I remember, the reason I kept it on 7.3.1, rather than 7.4 was that on Windows was the opposite way round vs Mac, in terms of the reliability issues you mentioned (I can't even remember if 7.3.1 had Elastic Audio, but I remember PT8 was sonically a step backwards compared to 7.4 with respect to EA, so that why it remains at 7.3.1).

Thanks for the version reminder re. Mac.

Unfortunately my MacBook from that era (slightly later actually) had the screen die, and the next one had the battery erupt, displacing the keyboard - the Windows machine is still reliable, and for these purposes, it just seems easier to put an old OS on a recent Windows machine, than on a recent Mac (especially as LE8 was not only the end of LE, but also the transition from PowerPC to Intel, so your Mac options are limited).

Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk