digi 001 vs digi 002

[zero8]

first of all my name is joe..and im new to duc..i hope you all welcome me with open arms....

i recenlty purchased the digi 002..to only realize that its nothing but a glorified 001 with extra bells and whistles...and it only works with os 9.2.2 which unless you have a g4 1.25 mac...you wont get much out of it but a headache...i have a g4 1 ghz 512 ram and 60 gig hd with dvd/cd rw combo...and i took the 002 back purchased a 001 and my whole point is you can get the same results from the 001 that you can get from 002..sample rates @ 24 bit 48k are the same
and unless you have a super g4 computer..you wont be able to utilize the 96k....save yourself $1400.00 and put it into a nice computer and mic pre........

[tele_player]

Some people like the control surface and motorized faders. And the 001 will never do 96k, even when you buy a faster computer.

[zero8]

your right some people do like the control surface...but all im saying is the 96k sample rate...unless you have a very high powered computer..you wont be able to really utilize it..you will limit yourself...and for $999.00 you can get mackie control which is way better than the 002 atleast mackie control has a master fader..and its expandable too..i know a few people also who have 002..and they not once have ever used the 96k rate..they are all using 24 bit 44.1 its like a ford mustang...you have the saleen which is top of the line then the cobra...well if you look at it from that prospective..both cars will give you high performance..but one is just a little better...but like pro tools le...both cars or ford mustangs...one just has a little more..

[Chris Cavell]

The digi 002 was definitely worth it for me. 'Nuff said.

[Chris Cavell]

I use the 96k frequently for classical DVD-audio. High powered computer? Mine's nice, but not a screamer and it works fine. I'll do a Davec at 96 and share the results with you. As for the master fader comparison, the 002 has a quick button to give you access to the master faders within a session. By assigning master faders w/ no output to mix/edit groups, you suddenly have a great "instant submixer" button. Expandable, why bother? It's so easy to switch banks, and with the master fader's feature......

Are you on the PC forum b/c you plan on getting one over the outdated G4 of yours that you keep referring to. My PC is running great with my 002 and it's quickly becoming out of date, yet it still runs well. With the 002's 96k, who knows what features we might see in the future, surround support perhaps for dvd-audio? One reason for my 002 purchase was to be prepared for what future computers will be capable of, and digi's upgrades to utilize said computers' ability.

Personally, I notice a difference in the pre's and the converter's. I'm sorry you don't. But just because your/Zero8's ears can't hear it doesn't mean it's not there.

Sorry bud if it seems like I'm going off on a rant here, but some of us really like our 002's and for good reasons, not just b/c they look good, like a mustang (if you actually like fords [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] ).

I'll post some davec results at 24/96 soon.

[Chris Cavell]

Davec at 24/96, buffer of 2048:

16 tracks even, enough for most tracking sesstions, but I don't use plugins when tracking generally:

W/ no plugs:

32 tracks, as many auxes as you can dream up! (way more than the # of ins)

I don't notice any difference in screen refreshes or disk access between 96 and 44 on my system.

If I'd only spent $20-$30 more on the cpu, I bet I'd be getting all the available in's on the davec.

One more major advantage to the 002 is access to the 64 buffer at the lower sample rates, dramatically reducing latency. No longer is there really a need for "low latency mode" w/ the 002 on your average session.

[zero8]

well for one my computer is not outdated...the new 1 ghz mac g4 powermac...it will blow any pent 4 out of the water..the only system that could possibly do what my mac does.is the xp 3000 other than that..not the 2.5 ghz or any athalon cpu will touch the 1ghz mac..and also they have the dual 1.42 mac ..macs are made for pro audio thats a fact..call any professional studio..ask them what they have..now as far as the digi 002..im not saying it sucks..im saying it recalls alot of attention...and for $2200.00 i would just spend an extra $3000.00 and get into a tdm system..im telling you i had the 002 and a g4 500 with all the required hardware..and it worked ok...but i have to say that with the right mic pre and the digi 001 with a good g4 mac..you cant go wrong..if you have a budget of $5000.00 like myself..then you have to weigh out the pros and cons..do i have a digi 002 with an ok computer or the digi 001 with a monster of a computer...put it this way...i dont have to worry much about using plugins...i have a mic pre its the art pro ch..and it will blow out the mic pre on the digi 002 so thin about that one..and also when you are mixing and mastering all the hard disk...the sample rate drops to 44.1k so unless your doing alot of film and movie audio..no need for the 96k unless you can afford the latency and cpu mem eatings....if your really that gung ho about the 002...get a hd1 and pro control...its only $10,000.00 and you will be fine..oh yea you need a 96 1/0 too..

[Chris Cavell]

Just for your info, I have three systems I use:

002 on a PC,
001 on a PC,
TDM 24 Mix plus on a brand new dual 1.42 ghz G4 with 1.5 GB DDR 333, one adat bridge, three 888/24's

Don't presume to know everything the other guy uses and that his use of a 002 or 001 makes him amateur. I've been using PT tdm systems over 6 years now, prior to that it was sound designer, adats, and studer 24's. If you want a full inventory, I'll give it....but it's long. This is my full time job, and niether my clients, my staff, or myself consider me anything less than professional.

Each of these three systems has it's merits, and imo, the 001 is currently at the bottom of the chain in this list. By the way, comparing the ART pro channel to the 002 pre's is ridiculous, the two aren't even remotely similar in sound characteristic, but if you want to get scientific, the 002 pre's have lower THD, greater freq response, and far less hiss at cranked gains (due to THD). For a "hi-fi" recording of an orchestra, I'd choose the api's or the 002 pres over any ART any day. For rock, it's another story, reach for what fits the source and achieves what you're trying to capture: sometimes the digi pre's suit something, and sometimes the ART's suit something, it changes from instrument to instrument, performer to performer, mic to mic, and song to song.

The great thing, as you will find, about the PC section of the DUC is just how open, friendly, helpful, and variously opinionated people are. Earlier, I was just voicing my opinion. There is nothing to say that yours is any better or worse. It's just that if someone is out there looking to buy a 002 comes along and reads you ripping on it, I'd like them to see a differing opinion about it from a VERY satisfied customer. Is there anything wrong with that?

the band "strawboss" shows a few pictures on their website of the place where I work during the day, if any "proof" of my claims earlier is needed: www.strawboss.com

[zero8]

well chris i think your missing my point...again i will say this..i never once said the digi 002 sucks...im saying that it is overrated..were talking $1400.00 difference in hardware...between the 001 and 002...and as far as the mic pres on the 001 vs the 002...my friend works for digidesign and hes in the tech support field...he knows that system better than you and myself..and wha i do know about it is that. #1 whatever you heard about the digi 002 having these great mic pre's yea its somewhat true..but they are generic..any real studio guru will tell you that..im in the san fran bay area and my other friend who is infact a record producer who does use the hd3 system ..will even vouch that...most people who run these big riggs use all types of diffeent mic pres...and i suppose your going to say that the avalon mic pre;s or neve 1073 arent that good either...your telling me your an mastering engineer and your using a pc for your 002 and 001..your the first one with your type of experience that i have actually heard say that they use pc for 001 and 002...i dont know what you use them for...but the best thing you have said so far is that you use thetdm 24 mix with the dual 1.42 gig....now thats what i expect you to say...now if you use the 002 or 001 just for pre production then thats fine too...i do dance music and techno...i have what i need for what i do...and i do have good ears ....you tell me what are the three most important things in a studio...
i would say #1 good mic pre's # 2 good converters (apogees)which will blow away the digi 002....and ofcourse monitors....i use only because my budget is limited is event 20/20 and krk v8...i dont think the digi 002 sucks man not at all.i just think its overpriced and overated...not much difference in 001 than 002...there really isnt...nothing wrong with having a control surface..but like i said the macie control is way better and also expandable and with the digi 001 you can expand too...with mic pre's and even a better converter..but to me..i could spend a little more than $1400.00 and get a apogees converter...you see where im getting at here..its getting what you pay for...i do all my work and mix it to hard disk..my work never leaves digital realm....i record at 24 bit 44.1k and it sounds great...and you dont need to prove yourself to me...because im not putting anybody down for anything...im trying to save people money....the advise im giving is advise i recieved from pro engineers...who use tdm systems...and my friend who works for digidesign...believe me i did my research and homework on both systems...when i first purchased the 002...my friend from digidesign had told me "hey you know your going to have to get a good g4 to run it.."i had a g4 500..and it did ok...but i thought..**** i can save $1400.00 and get a new computer and my a better mic pre..which i ended up doing..and at the end my friend from digidesign told me i did the right thing...for me..the next step up would be a tdm system and i have the computer to do it..and i would only be out $750.00 i got a bit of a discount..now if i upgraded from digi 002 to tdm ...im out $2200.00 and still stuck with a g4 500...

[zero8]

and one more thing i do have a pc..i have a gateway 850 ..i use it for everything else...and i at one time was running cubas vst with m-audio 24/96 it was horrific....and a nightmare...maybe because my pc would take it too well.so i went to logic..still not satisfied...then i downloaded pro tools free...it did ok..but there were latency issues all over the place..but thats when i knew that pro tools was my way of recording...my studio is nothing much but a typical home studio with a $5000.00 dollar budget behind it..i have upgraded a few things..but i am totally content with what i have...and when i see someone talking about getting a very expensive tool hence the digi 002...i just want to try to give advise according to their budget...