CD Recorder Advice

[Rosstapher]

I need to add a CD-R to the home studio. I want to take advantage of my D-Box's summing capability, so looking for a rack mountable CD-R/CD-RW recorder. Don't need duals or FX, just good solid unit to print mixes to. As inexpensive as possible (hate that part...). Anyone have a preference? Seems like the 3 main choices are: Marantz Professional CDR 632 (cheaper Denon?), Tascam CD-RW900SL or a Fostex CR500- all right around $500. I'm leaning toward the Marantz mainly because we have a Denon at the TuneRoom which has served well and seems to sound good. Do the converters in these puppies make much difference? The Fostex would let me print a master at 88.2 BWF, which is kind of interesting, since I have been running Nuendo at 88.2. I thought this might be cool for archiving mixes, but I'm a bit leary of Fostex in general. Tascam gear (in general) always sounded kind of "cloudy" to me - although it has usually been pretty rugged. If you move to the $800-$900 price point, do you get better sound, or just more useless bells and whistles I won't ever use? Most of the time this would just be used to run a murder mix off for a client before they leave, but I probably would use it as my "master 2-track". Thanks!:Confused:

[Tim Halligan]

Well, first of all...why don't you record back into your DAW from your D-Box and print from there? That way you can keep all of these interim and final mixes as part of the session...which is handy for archiving.

Yes...the convertors on these standalone boxes do make a difference. We have a Fostex, and an HHB. Both are reliable, but they do sound different...slightly. Maybe you could whack a quality A-D in front of it if you really want to go down that path.

Cheers,
Tm

[Rosstapher]

Well, first of all...why don't you record back into your DAW from your D-Box and print from there?

I was worried I couldn't do that doing a "real time" mix. Wouldn't I have to have another instance of Nuendo running on another 'puter. We always had a dedicated 2-track running (R2R or DAT) when we did a mix (other than murder mixes that were completely ITB). DAT SUCKED. And I don't have a R2R.

I have a sneaking suspicion that I need to re-think this tomorrow without the whisky. Hints appreciated, Tim.

Thank you!

[radeng9805]

The HHB 830 Burnit + has been a workhorse unit for me. I have installed many of them for my clients, only one has ever died. It is now discontinued, so you may be able to find a deal on one. The convertors in it are decent, although I prefer using the AES/EBU input with an outboard A/D. The replacement is a dual, haven't tried it yet. The Tascams are good too, but the HHB is a bit easier to use. If you don't need pro I/O, the consumer Sonys sound OK, I have one in my personal stereo set up and have been happy with it. The consumer units have copy protection, so beware if you want to dub CD's.

[otek]

I was worried I couldn't do that doing a "real time" mix.

There's no difference.... unless I am missing something?

What do you mean by a "real time mix" and how would that be different?


otek

[Rosstapher]

So Tim, if I understand you correctly, you're saying take my summing output from the D-Box (analogue) and just re-patch that into 2 inputs (which would be my A2D) and record those during a normal playback? Then knock those files down to 44.1 and transfer/burn the "mix" tracks to whatever via digital? I still see the need for getting a "master" cd-r, but I could see some merits from this. I don't really want to rely on the burners in my computers, plus isn't going back through the 2 mic pres (even API's) going to alter the sound of the mix (maybe for the better :) )? Seems like a few extra steps...

I belive the Fostex also lets me burn a mix to cd and still keep the master at 88.2 BWF - which is what I've been using lately. Seems like that downsamples to 44.1 a bit more gracefully. I guess for that I would just use the DAW output from the D-Box and monitor direct from the CD.
:Confused: as usual...

[MacGregor]

There's no difference.... unless I am missing something?

What do you mean by a "real time mix" and how would that be different?


otek

I think he'd like to do a real time mix with all that funny fader riding and whatnot and burning the CD/DVD at the same time.
I dunno nothing about that D-Box thingie, but normaly you should be able to sum to the D-Box and route the summed signal back to your DAW. But I don't think you could burn a disk at the same time, so you'd have to do this in a second step. But that second step will save you $500.

Mac
.

[Rosstapher]

I think he'd like to do a real time mix with all that funny fader riding and whatnot and burning the CD/DVD at the same time.
I dunno nothing about that D-Box thingie, but normaly you should be able to sum to the D-Box and route the summed signal back to your DAW. But I don't think you could burn a disk at the same time, so you'd have to do this in a second step. But that second step will save you $500.

Mac
.

Hi Mac/Otek - Yes, partially right - sometimes I need to print a quick "murder mix" and test a few things with the client present before setting up any automation, etc. So, the quicker the better sometimes (not that I'm sitting on any stacks of $). Plus, I still think I should have a "master recorder" of some sort. Don't I want to avoid as many AD/DA conversions as possible? Of course originally I was also still (erroneously) thinking "export audio mixdown" - ...brainfart. The summing thing is new territory for me - plus my home setup is still kind of a work-in-progress. Thanks!

[synthetic]

If I had a summing mixer I'd want to mix to something high-res, like the Tascam DV-RA1000HD. Mix down to DSD or 192k and then burn CD refs from that.

[Skwaidu]

I don't really understand the need for a dedicated master recorder in a DAW studio. If you think you need higher-fi than your regular converters just shell for 2 really high end channels... And use those for tracking too!

Me, I'm perfectly happy recording the mix from the summing amp back through my Apogee AD16X. It's *very* convenient to have the various mix versions in the same session as the tracks.

Oh, in this day and age I consider the 24 bit files as "master". Give out a data CDR or something and just burn audio CD's for reference. You don't need to "trust" the burner in your computer as it is doing nothing critical.

[otek]

Well, if you have a summing amplifier the idea is to come out of the box anyway, right? You'll still have to convert the signal once.

I guess where I am getting hazy is where a CD recorder will save you conversion steps, unless you go via digital from the computer, and then of course you aren't really summing.....? :Confused:


otek

[Rosstapher]

You don't need to "trust" the burner in your computer as it is doing nothing critical.

So a "burner is a burner"?

Well, I've got the 2 good channels (only 2!:grin: ) and plenty of generic burners, so I guess I'm all set.

And otek, you're correct about conversion steps. I should have just said "steps". But I guess it really won't even add any significant time. Do you feel the API 312's will add any significant (good or bad) "coloration" to the mixes or should I set my sights on a couple different pre's for the future? I already got about $500 saved up. :lol: Apparently, I still don't have my head completely wrapped around ITB yet. And I'll admit it - I miss racks of gear...:Sad:

Thanks everyone!:Thumbsup:

[otek]

Do you feel the API 312's will add any significant (good or bad) "coloration" to the mixes or should I set my sights on a couple different pre's for the future?

Why don't you go straight from the line outs of the D-box to the line inputs of your converter?

The D-box apparently sums internally (just read the page), so it will give you a balanced stereo output. Simply feed this output back into your AD and you should be good to go.

Far more pressing is the issue of converter quality.


otek



PS. FWIW the D-box manual suggests the above solution too (see pic)

[Rosstapher]

Why don't you go straight from the line outs of the D-box to the line inputs of your converter?

The D-box apparently sums internally (just read the page), so it will give you a balanced stereo output. Simply feed this output back into your AD and you should be good to go.

Far more pressing is the issue of converter quality.


otek



The API A2D is my converter (so I can bypass the Digi002R converters) going into the 002's digital in. The system clocks off the A2D also. I don't have much to compare to, but my system certainly sounds better than it did. I don't think I can bypass the mic pre section (direct input to converter?) in the A2D. I'll have to read/experiment a little later on. Thanks!

[otek]

I don't think I can bypass the mic pre section (direct input to converter?) in the A2D. I'll have to read/experiment a little later on. Thanks!

Do you have analog inserts on it?


otek

[Rosstapher]

Do you have analog inserts on it?


otek

By gar...it DOES...with a balanced 1/4" 'insert return' direct to the converters!


And I read that manual - cover to cover - I swear...



Is it obvious to you yet that my day job is interfering with my concentration (among other things...jeez)? :Roll eyes: Years ago, I would have probably been the one answering this kind of thing...well, in a 'live audio' situation anyway...:Redface:

Could this be onset of "Audio Alzheimer's"?

as usual, otek: :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup:

Ross