Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wavdoctor]

Hey All, new to this forum but not to the music world. my latest digital board to hit the dust is a tascam dm24..before that I had a d8b..too much fan noise, before that an O2r..too much squinting to read the little 6x6 tV. I am wondering, since I am now using nuendo and pretty much mixing ITB..why feed more money to have an impressive array of sliders and basically using it as a giant stereo playback unit. My goal is to locate a small..maybe 6-10 mic input Analog board with nice pre's, tight eq and predictable compression on the board itself? Am I out of my mind? do they make such an animal? I can put together a rack of API stuff for about 12,000. But there has to an small PRO board that has these specs!!   Any suggestions out there..Don't make me fork over more american dollars for a yamaha 01v96..a little history My dm24 is 1 1/2 years old, it has approx 20-30 hours on it, I turned it on one day and it said "very bad error!!" the repair shop said $1590.00!! I sait what! I called tascam they said out of warranty..so now it's sitting in a corner while I shop...sad.

WD

[fj]

I like the DM24 (I have 2 linked together) for all the digital connections and recallable monitoring combinations for various recording, mixing and mastering capacities. Also, if I want to stay all digital when I mix, I can. I guess it all depends how you work.

[Ronny]

I wouldn't dismiss the Yammy consoles so fast. With Studio Manager and Editor that comes with the boards now, you have most of your menu's on large monitor sceen. Also, Tascam has a spotty record at best with reliable digi console platforms, the 1000 and 4000 were unreliable, as was the D8B that was plagued with bugs from the get-go. The DM24 was an improvement, but still can't hold a candle to the reliability of the Yamaha build. The 96k yam converters have a noticeable improvement over the old 48k converters, especially the DAC's, IMHO, and I wouldn't judge a modern 96k Yam console with the 02r that came out 10 years ago.

Only you can answer if you'd rather mix with a mouse or real faders, but you aren't likely to find an analog console for under 30 grand that matches the spec's on a digi. Also if you are already recording to digital, it only makes sense to me, to keep the signal in the digital domain without running the signal through unnecessary D/A to A/D conversions and the degradation of a cheap analog mixers components. Don't buy down, buy up.

[Ryan Leigh Patterson]

You could spend your dollars on a good controller for Nuendo and an external summing unit like the Dangerous etc.  This leaves you with a bit of cash to spend on a few choice eqs and comps....

[wavdoctor]

Ronny- Are you saying that instead of the little mini screen you can now hook up a dedicated monitor to the yammy? for big screen enjoyment? KOOL, I did like the O2r for dependability..the menus were a maze though.
Thanks for the info.  WD

Ryan- I thought of the tascam 1884 controller? It feels kind of plastic? but if it works!! I already use some great river,distressors, tube pre's etc..Still decideing..thanks for weighing in though...WD

I opened up my dm24 last night and found a blown fuse? still have some other issues at hand though...
WD

[Jim Williams]

Ronny wrote on Mon, 29 August 2005 14:24

Only you can answer if you'd rather mix with a mouse or real faders, but you aren't likely to find an analog console for under 30 grand that matches the spec's on a digi. Also if you are already recording to digital, it only makes sense to me, to keep the signal in the digital domain without running the signal through unnecessary D/A to A/D conversions and the degradation of a cheap analog mixers components. Don't buy down, buy up.

Many would debate that. If digital mixing is the end all, why are so many that sold their analog consoles for peanuts trying to buy them back?

For example, my Soundcraft Delta console measures on my Audio Precision analyzer -90 db stereo crosstalk and .0005%THD+noise. CCIF IMD is at .0002%. Noise is -105 db. I paid $750 for it. Plus, it has depth and width, something I've never heard out of any digital mix.

Those "cheap analog mixers components" still occupy the analog sections of a commercial digital mixer's front and back end. Then you get to mess it all up with dsp.
In this situation, buying down actually was buying up.
One reporter's opinion.

[Ronny]

wavdoctor wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 07:01

Ronny- Are you saying that instead of the little mini screen you can now hook up a dedicated monitor to the yammy? for big screen enjoyment? KOOL, I did like the O2r for dependability..the menus were a maze though. Thanks for the info.  WD

Yes, exactly. Go to the Yamaha site and download Studio Manager version 2. You can install it on your PC and check out the interface and windows without having the console.

With console, it syncs via USB port, so any move that you make on the PC, will correspond to the hardware mixer, and vice versa if you tweak the mixer, SM will correspond. All libraries, routing matrix, eq, dyn and fx processors. All of it can be viewed and accessed in Studio Manager, on a much larger display. Check out the routing matrixes and how easy it is now, to change inputs to any insert or output path with just one click of the square that crosses the source and destination.

Jim Williams, you aren't taking into consideration digital to analog to digital conversions. Measuring the board spec's means nothing witout taking into consideration the extra conversions. Also, I'm talking about the sonic difference between say a Mackie VLZ 16 channel console and a 96k digi console and stated that you won't likely find better sonics until you get up into the 30,000 range with analog.

[Roland Storch]

When I monitor analog sources via DM1000 or DM2000 I always wonder how someone can say these mixers sound good. Even when monitoring digital sources via the anaolg CR output it sounds worde than with any outboard DA converter. How can you have a good mix if you can`t hear it?

On the other side I find the anaolg outputs of the old Tascam TM-D8000 sound better than on the DM1000/2000 and assume that the DM24 has at least the same quality.

Yamaha may be reliable and have a lot of features but soundwise  .....?

A small analog mixer is a good idea responding wavdocotors question. The Soundcraft Delta200 would not be my first thought - I worked with that for 5 years. Crostalk is bad and even that the preamps aren?t bad the mix always lacks a bit of detail and impulses have kind of smearing. Other small mixers like an old Studer 961 or a Sonosax or ADT or even small consoles originally designed for broadcast like the Amek BCIII sound better, more detailed and more open.

I would like to hear a Manley or GML 10x2 Mixer ....

[natpub]

You should check out the new Tonelux modular stuff. You could make exactly what you want and expand it as you need.

[Ronny]

Roland Storch wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 14:45

When I monitor analog sources via DM1000 or DM2000 I always wonder how someone can say these mixers sound good. Even when monitoring digital sources via the anaolg CR output it sounds worde than with any outboard DA converter. How can you have a good mix if you can`t hear it?

HUH! The DM2000 outputs +24dBu.

Quote:

On the other side I find the anaolg outputs of the old Tascam TM-D8000 sound better than on the DM1000/2000 and assume that the DM24 has at least the same quality. Yamaha may be reliable and have a lot of features but soundwise  .....?

Soundwise the Yam's have mixed 10 times the cd's that the Tascams have. People pay more for them and still out buy the Tasc consoles 10 to 1. Your observations aren't parallel to popular view. The old Tasc 1000 and 4000 were pieces of shit. The DM24 is better but the mic-pre's are low gain. The annie input pot tapers suck, you have 40% of the gain in the last 12% of the knob turning up. There is no comparison, to the build on a Yammy, IMHO. For 200 bucks you can send the unit back to Tasc and they put audio tapers in, but they are still low gain, so for 200 dollars plus 50 for shipping you get smoother knobs but no change in the dynamic range. Sonically when going digi in and out with the raw signal, I can hear no difference between the DM24 and the Yam's. I haven't worked on an 8000 and can't comment on those, but you are the first person that I've ever heard that said a DM1000/DM2000 didn't sound good and couldn't hear them. You won't hear any owners that get over the learning curve with them say that.

Quote:

A small analog mixer is a good idea responding wavdocotors question. The Soundcraft Delta200 would not be my first thought - I worked with that for 5 years. Crostalk is bad and even that the preamps aren?t bad the mix always lacks a bit of detail and impulses have kind of smearing. Other small mixers like an old Studer 961 or a Sonosax or ADT or even small consoles originally designed for broadcast like the Amek BCIII sound better, more detailed and more open. I would like to hear a Manley or GML 10x2 Mixer ....

For the small budget annies, the Allen & Heath's aren't bad.

[Podgorny]

Why not use a control surface and an outboard summing box.

There are a number of options that integrate well with Nuendo ranging from affordable to extravagent.

That would give you all the benefits of fully-recallable mixes, as well as the faders we all know and love.  AND, you get the sonic benefits of analog summing (and whatever outboard gear you may want to patch in).


Plus, depending upon the size of your control surface of choice you   don't miss out on the client-wow factor of a console.

[Ronny]

Podgorny wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 22:16

Why not use a control surface and an outboard summing box. There are a number of options that integrate well with Nuendo ranging from affordable to extravagent. That would give you all the benefits of fully-recallable mixes, as well as the faders we all know and love.  AND, you get the sonic benefits of analog summing (and whatever outboard gear you may want to patch in). Plus, depending upon the size of your control surface of choice you   don't miss out on the client-wow factor of a console.

BTW, Yamaha owns Steinberg now and have a Nuendo interface in the hardware 96k mixers. DAW setup sharing most parameters on the console and Nuendo are possible. They also have a Pro Tools layer, accessible in Studio Manager. Gee, I sound like a Yammy salesman. Not so though, I have nothing to gain monetarily by giving my opinions.

[massimo santantonio]

Has anyone ever used a summing box after a hardware digital mixer? Can levels and panpots be governed by the mixer?

I have a d2424 Fostex recorder and an old Yamaha 03d mixer. I track completely outboard, and feed the mixer digitally, so I do not use that mixer's micpres and converters, just use it for song repeatability of volume levels, panpots and digital routing. I monitor through benchmark dac1. I do not want to use a computer, I like working like this, though I might wish to upgrade to 96kHz operation.

I think this is similar to ITB mixing, so I am considering experimenting with an outboard multichannel DA converter and a summing box. However the manual of my 03d mixer says I can only output digitally (via lightpipe) the 1 to 8 or 9 to 16 tracks, which in that mixer are the analog tracks (the 17 to 24 tracks are the digital ones, those fed via lightpipe by my recorder).

So I have one general question and one more specific question about my mixer.
Can anyone help please?
Thank you
best regards
Massimo

[Jim Williams]

Ronny wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 10:20

wavdoctor wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 07:01 Ronny- Are you saying that instead of the little mini screen you can now hook up a dedicated monitor to the yammy? for big screen enjoyment? KOOL, I did like the O2r for dependability..the menus were a maze though. Thanks for the info.  WD Jim Williams, you aren't taking into consideration digital to analog to digital conversions. Measuring the board spec's means nothing witout taking into consideration the extra conversions. Also, I'm talking about the sonic difference between say a Mackie VLZ 16 channel console and a 96k digi console and stated that you won't likely find better sonics until you get up into the 30,000 range with analog.

Of course I am. This is why many Radar owners choose to go through an extra stage of conversion just to get that depth that comes only from an analog mix. This is also why so many are experimenting with outboard summing boxes. While some high enders choose to go all digital like Mutt Lange, the results just prove my point. The fact that analog consoles are going for around 10 cents on the dollar, a 3k investment will meet your criteria for good sonics by passing the 30k "list price" level. An examination of the components of say a $300 Spirit Folio and your $30,000 console will reveal the same parts inside.

So, just what are we paying for here? A new coat of paint?

[Jim Williams]

Roland Storch wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 11:45

The Soundcraft Delta200 would not be my first thought - I worked with that for 5 years. Crostalk is bad and even that the preamps aren?t bad the mix always lacks a bit of detail and impulses have kind of smearing. Other small mixers like an old Studer 961 or a Sonosax or ADT or even small consoles originally designed for broadcast like the Amek BCIII sound better, more detailed and more open. I would like to hear a Manley or GML 10x2 Mixer ....

You must have had some problems with it or the interface. Crosstalk is the best I've measured, -90 db at 10k hz. The other's you mentioned are limited to -60 db, or 30 db less wide. The Studer also adds some aural excitment (distortion) that hypes up the tops, maybe this is what you liked. Done plenty of Ameks, they sound small and narrow next to my Delta's.

One Reporter's Opinion.

[Han S.]

wavdoctor wrote on Mon, 29 August 2005 18:47

My dm24 is 1 1/2 years old, it has approx 20-30 hours on it, I turned it on one day and it said "very bad error!!" the repair shop said $1590.00!! I sait what! I called tascam they said out of warranty..so now it's sitting in a corner while I shop...sad. WD

A DM24 is supposed to serve you more than 30 hours, even if the warranty time is over you still have some warranty left. I would write a letter to Tascam and explain the situation.

[Glenn Bucci]

I personally don't see the need of a digital mixer anymore. Dedicated controllers work better with DAW's, especially when you consider the good ones have scribble strips so there is no guessing what fader is for what.

The pre's on the digital mixers are ok, but with GML, Manley, Pendlum, Cransong pres out there, I can't see using the pre's on most digital mixers. The converters are nothing to get excited about nor the effects. The UAD and Powercore effects are better than what's on the digital mixers, and they free up your CPU. Heck even Waves has their own box so you can run 6 IR1 reverbs without effecting your computer CPU.

If you use ADAT you cut the amount of tracks by half when going 88 or 96, or AES is limited to a certain amount of tracks.

Am I missing something with the exception of having everything in one box.

[wavdoctor]

Han S. wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 18:25

wavdoctor wrote on Mon, 29 August 2005 18:47 My dm24 is 1 1/2 years old, it has approx 20-30 hours on it, I turned it on one day and it said "very bad error!!" the repair shop said $1590.00!! I sait what! I called tascam they said out of warranty..so now it's sitting in a corner while I shop...sad. WD A DM24 is supposed to serve you more than 30 hours, even if the warranty time is over you still have some warranty left. I would write a letter to Tascam and explain the situation.

I called them and spoke to service,She explained that while she thought I was telling the truth they only go by sales receipt date or else everybody would bring their broken stuff back after warranty expiration. I am taking it to another authorized repair facility this weekend. I opened it up and found a blown fuse,replaced that and now it's working...sort of..I smell something cooking and the mains have no output? BUT..the error message on power up is gone.
geesh, It's like everything else..do it yourself if you want it right.
(lets see..pliers,screwdriver,ohm meter,HAMMER,should do it!!

I will write a letter after the problem is diagnosed.
Thanks...WD

[Ronny]

massimo santantonio wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 07:57

Has anyone ever used a summing box after a hardware digital mixer? Can levels and panpots be governed by the mixer? I have a d2424 Fostex recorder and an old Yamaha 03d mixer. I track completely outboard, and feed the mixer digitally, so I do not use that mixer's micpres and converters, just use it for song repeatability of volume levels, panpots and digital routing. I monitor through benchmark dac1. I do not want to use a computer, I like working like this, though I might wish to upgrade to 96kHz operation. I think this is similar to ITB mixing, so I am considering experimenting with an outboard multichannel DA converter and a summing box. However the manual of my 03d mixer says I can only output digitally (via lightpipe) the 1 to 8 or 9 to 16 tracks, which in that mixer are the analog tracks (the 17 to 24 tracks are the digital ones, those fed via lightpipe by my recorder). So I have one general question and one more specific question about my mixer. Can anyone help please? Thank you best regards Massimo

These aren't really tracks they are channels. Analog in on 1-16 and digital in on 17-24, correct. The ideal console for you, IMHO,if you want a hardware mixer and staying in the digital domain with a D2424, would be the Yammy 01v96V2 and get the MY16-AT ADAT card. You already know the basic architecture of a Yammy digi console with the 03d and although a learning curve with a few of the new features, you'll be able to mix very soon after it comes out of the box. The 96k consoles came out with the mini YGDAI's, so your CD-8 cards would not be compatible, however it has a stock 8 channel ADAT and with the card you can go 24 tracks full digi both ways at 44.1/48k. You have double channel function also on the v96 that allows 88.2/96k even going to an old ADAT 48k recorder, because it's like S/MUX or sample split, the 96k signal is split into two 48k channels, gets recorded to two 48k tracks, and than on mix down assembles the two tracks into one channel again at 96k. You can also do this with the D2424 in 48k mode. You won't be able to run 96k straight to the D2424 without going AES single wire. That would take an upgrade on the D2424 and you would only get 8 channels of 96k instead of 12 using sample split, however, before we get into a big debate over 48 and 96k, I've tested the 96k consoles at 44.1, 48k, 88.2k, 96k and no one has been able to tell the difference between all four sample rates. Blind tests involved accomplished musicians, a couple of producers and other engineers. It's this reason that I switched back to recording at 44.1k instead of 88.2 or 96k. I'm sure other peoples mileage will vary, but these are my findings on raw recorded tracks.

You've got an excellent recorder with the D2424, the FDMS3 linear format is second to none. No defragging, rock solid stable. I've been using the D's since 1996 and have never had one problem with them. I own 4 now including the D2424 (no LV)flagship model with the higher end converters. They aren't any better than the 96k Yams though and you will notice an immediate improvement over the 03d's 20 bit ADC's and DAC's, especially the DAC's have improved. I run 3 DAW's also and I simpley can not get the reliability of the FDMS3 format with Windows or Mac platforms. You probably know by now that the D Fos', do not crash. I still do live remotes to augment my mastering income and it's the most stable recording system that I have found, annie or digi for live remotes where you can't have something breaking and must get each song in one take or else.

As far as the all in one type recorders, I would stay away from them, no matter the brand, VS2480, AW4416 all of them aren't going to be as stable as dedicating the mixer to one unit and the recorder to a separate one. Great thing about the D2424/01v96V2 system is that you can keep everything out of the PC or Mac and process entirely between the console and the jog/shuttle editing on the D2424. Using Studio Manager for the big screen but no audio passes to the computer, the audio stays on the D2424 and you process on the v96 and in Studio Manager just like you would on the 03d with an added large monitor display. You also have the option of using the y56k Waves card, which has a host of Waves processors, such as the L1, L1+, L2, Ren eq and comp, Supertap, Truverb, C1 comp etc. so you can process with Waves without having to run the audio to a computer I suggest that you demo one of the 96k Yams next to the 03d, you'll hear the improvement.

If you'd like to hear some comments from people that are using the DM1000 or 01v96V2 and the D2424 check out the 01v96 group on Yahoo. You'll find many people that switched from ITB mixing to dedicated to audio only systems. Several D2424 owners that traded their Alesis HD24's in for D2424's and people that grew up on the 02r and 03d.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/01v96/

[massimo santantonio]

Ronny - thank you so much. Refreshing to meet another very happy D2424 user. I really love its interface and reliability (crossed fingers...) I have the AES/EBU option on it to go straight 96k into 8 tracks, but had not realized I could record twelve the smux way. Interesting.
Now, concerning the mixer, I do not know if I am really going to take advantage of the improved converters or micpres of the new Yamaha 01V96, because as I said I use my mixer as a "digital through" box only. So I am wondering about practical sonic benefits. Besides that, I notice that the 01V96 is inferior to my old 03D in the hardware connections department. No AES/EBU stereo in, for example, while I would like multiple digital stereo ins, e.g. for returns of digital reverbs. Seems to me there is currently no Yamaha model equivalent to the old 03D.

Besides all this, my original question remains, if anyone out there uses a summing box after a hardware digital mixer (via outboard DA converters), and if doing so preserves individual track levels and position in the stereo field as set in the mixer. And, obviously, if this improves the final mix. This might trigger a decision towards a newer mixer model, because as I explained in my earlier post, seems I cannot output the 17 to 24 channels digitally on my 03.
Thank you
best regards
Massimo

[Ronny]

massimo santantonio wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 20:15

Ronny - thank you so much. Refreshing to meet another very happy D2424 user. I really love its interface and reliability (crossed fingers...) I have the AES/EBU option on it to go straight 96k into 8 tracks, but had not realized I could record twelve the smux way. Interesting. Now, concerning the mixer, I do not know if I am really going to take advantage of the improved converters or micpres of the new Yamaha 01V96, because as I said I use my mixer as a "digital through" box only. So I am wondering about practical sonic benefits. Besides that, I notice that the 01V96 is inferior to my old 03D in the hardware connections department. No AES/EBU stereo in, for example, while I would like multiple digital stereo ins, e.g. for returns of digital reverbs. Seems to me there is currently no Yamaha model equivalent to the old 03D. Thank you best regards Massimo

Don't cramp your fingers keeping them crossed, my 4 D's have thousands of hours on them without any problems. Wish that I could say that about just one of my DAW's.

The 03d can't really compare with the new consoles in sonics,  architecture or routing possiblities. It has more XLR's on phantom than the 03d, not that you are concerned with XLR in's. 8 auxes instead of 4 and 8 busses. Insert/returns on 12 channels for outboard annie gear. Although it has the same aux outs, they are now called omni's and aren't dedicated to just the auxes, but can output auxes, busses, 32 channels (4 at a time), STereo bus, aux and buss inserts, casscade aux and bus, cascade aux and bus inserts and 32 internal channel inserts. On the digital side the way that Yam is doing it now is specific format cards, like the CD8's but improved, smaller and instead of 8 channel digi for example on the CD8 ADAT cards, the mini Y's can have 16 I/0's on one card, if you use optical and another 8 channels of ADAT on the stock port. With the D2424 you'd have 24 I/O's going to the stock D2424 optical ports and you would be able to use your channels 17-24,simultaneously with 1-16. You can also route any input to any output. Routing matrix leaves little to be desired and is much better than the 03d and 02r 48k's. People that want AES have the option of 3 cards. AES 48k, AES 96k and AES 96ksrc with sample rate converter on the AES card. I think it's a good idea as people can buy just the interfaces that they need and it's as easy as unscrewing two screws and swapping cards for different apps. What some people are doing that only need AES 2 channel and don't want to pay for the 8 channel card is using the SPdif I/O for AES/EBU. I've done it many times myself and with short cable runs just a XLR<>rca cable works fine with no format converter. SPdif on the 96k's and AES use the same audio format and are compatible, main difference is impedance 75 ohm versus 110 ohm but as I mentioned for short distance impedance is not a factor. For long distances a converter is adviseable.

Here's a link to interface options on the mini Y's (mini YGDAI) cards.

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/ContentDetail/ModelSerie sDetail/0,,CNTID%253D30407%2526CTID%253D228600%2526ATRID%253 D30%2526DETYP%253DATTRIBUTE,00.html

Damn that's a long url, hope it holds format. I have a 96 input annie console and use my digi consoles more often for the smaller projects. I like being able to stay in the sweet spot and move the fader banks with one button rather than having to slide out of my sweet spot when I'm mixing on the annie at the extreme channels. Good luck with your upgrade be it summing box or new console.

[Roland Storch]

Ronny wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 02:33

Roland Storch wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 14:45 When I monitor analog sources via DM1000 or DM2000 I always wonder how someone can say these mixers sound good. Even when monitoring digital sources via the anaolg CR output it sounds worde than with any outboard DA converter. How can you have a good mix if you can`t hear it? HUH! The DM2000 outputs +24dBu.

What does the maximum output voltage of +24dBu have to do with the sound (transparency, detail, stereo image, behaviour at micro and makro dynamics, ?)?

Just take the digital out of the DM2000 and take an outboard converter like a Benchmark and you easily hear the difference.
The analog out of the old Tascam TM-D8000 is also worse than the Benchmark but closer to the Benchmark than the Yamaha.
But if you only have digital inputs and stay in the digital domain than the converter quality is unimportant. In this case only the DA converter for the monitoring should have high quality - so that you hear what you are doing.

[Bill Mueller]

Roland Storch wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 14:45

When I monitor analog sources via DM1000 or DM2000 I always wonder how someone can say these mixers sound good. Even when monitoring digital sources via the anaolg CR output it sounds worde than with any outboard DA converter. How can you have a good mix if you can`t hear it? On the other side I find the anaolg outputs of the old Tascam TM-D8000 sound better than on the DM1000/2000 and assume that the DM24 has at least the same quality. Yamaha may be reliable and have a lot of features but soundwise  .....? ....

Roland,

You need to check your http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/images/message_icons/icon12.gif" target="_blank"> prescription.http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/images/message _icons/icon12.gif

I moved from an SSL/Neve/Sony facility to my own studio and bought a Tascam TM-D8000 console. I liked the ergonomics of that board and it could have been a successful start to a mid line of quite capable digital consoles. However the mic preamps were a bit noisy and I could not make it punch like the big boards. Tascam claimed lots of headroom in the busses, but I did not really find that. You have to be very careful when mixing to retain clarity. The clock on that board is a total POS. In fact it is a consumer CD player clock circuit. The jitter is unbelievable until you externally clock the damn thing. After about a year, I sold it.

I then bought a DM2000 and placed it in the same control room with the same monitors. The sonic improvement is astonishing. The DM has headroom, clarity and detail that surpasses almost every high end console I have ever used and that list is long. The mic preamps are sweet and clear and you can make the console punch. I have used an SSL Axiom MT and I very much prefer my DM2000. The converters on the DM kill the SSL and every other converter I have heard so far. I won't even get into the flexibility and patching capability as we are talking sonics.

I don't question your ears but I must believe that the testing conditions under which you experienced your preferrence for the Tascam TM-D8000 over the DM2000 must have been flawed.

Best Regards,

Bill

[Ronny]

Roland Storch wrote on Thu, 01 September 2005 05:27

Ronny wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 02:33 Roland Storch wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 14:45 When I monitor analog sources via DM1000 or DM2000 I always wonder how someone can say these mixers sound good. Even when monitoring digital sources via the anaolg CR output it sounds worde than with any outboard DA converter. How can you have a good mix if you can`t hear it? HUH! The DM2000 outputs +24dBu. What does the maximum output voltage of +24dBu have to do with the sound (transparency, detail, stereo image, behaviour at micro and makro dynamics, ?)? Just take the digital out of the DM2000 and take an outboard converter like a Benchmark and you easily hear the difference. The analog out of the old Tascam TM-D8000 is also worse than the Benchmark but closer to the Benchmark than the Yamaha. But if you only have digital inputs and stay in the digital domain than the converter quality is unimportant. In this case only the DA converter for the monitoring should have high quality - so that you hear what you are doing.

+24dBu was in response to you saying "How can you have a good mix if you can`t hear it". +24dBu is +20dB headroom above +4dBu. I don't hear any difference between the Yam 96k converters and the DAC-1. They both sound transparent to me.

I'm in Bill's camp and I can name you at least 10 people that have canned their Tasc digi consoles and went with Yam and don't know anyone that canned a Yam for a Tasc. There just isn't a comparison, IMHO.