Pro Audio, Music & Mac Blog

The debate rages on, timeless. Someone posts something about one platform being “professional” and the other being “outdated”. It even spawns the Mac versus PC demon sometimes. Well, guess what happened again recently… Somebody wanted to know more about switching to a Mac / DP rig and all hell breaks loose – AGAIN.

Like most of these arguments, this one is stupid for a couple of reasons but primarily because no one gets to be “RIGHT” about this. Everything depends on the particular user involved.

The case for linear hard disk recorders:

They are ultimately the modern replacement for the analog multitrack tape machine. Signal directly to “tape”. Rock solid, no head alignment or bias bullshit. No “erasing” the contacts on the cards in the old MCI machine with a pencil eraser. (Am I dating myself as a 2″ kinda guy?).

If you have lots of good outboard gear, you can mix right from a console “old-new school style”. If you want to edit or mix in a DAW, you’ll need to move that audio into the computer.

That takes extra steps and time but is by no means a “problem”. You’d have to fly tracks into ProTools from 2″ too. You can record tracks into the computer digitally in real time or you can import files much faster using a swappable drive system or some of the onboard networking capabilities of the current crop of recorders. Some even have firewire/USB2 for this purpose.

I don’t think this approach is necessarily yesterday’s technology as much as it is a modern equivalent of time-tested professional workflow paradigms. For example, Radar24 is a popular pro-tools haters compromise in LA because its analog section sounds good and it works just like a tape machine, only
no waiting for the transport.

When you’re on the clock spending someone else’s money, or doing live remotes where you can’t do a 2nd take, or when you just want to have a capture/archive collection method for the source audio, a linear HDR makes a lot of sense.

Now, have you noticed something? Most of the primary benefits and functionality of this type of rig is geared towards the needs and wants of the professional ENGINEER, PRODUCER, or STUDIO. From the perspective of any of these, an HDR is a clear advantage for a variety of reasons, namely rock-solid reliability and compatibility with established methodology.

The case for the computer-based DAW:

For the COMPOSER, PERFORMER, or ARTIST, there is much to be gained from using a computer based DAW as both a creative tool as well as an audio recording platform. In fact, the line blurs tremendously when incorporating virtual instruments, plug-ins and the powerful editing/mixing functionalities that simply don’t exist in a real-time, linear playback system. Many artists and engineers become spoiled (so do many records) by the ease of correcting performance problems, tuning a vocal, time-corrections, looping parts, replacing sounds, replacing parts, comping multiple takes, etc.

Then there are the utilitarian benefits for the chronically right-brain “artiste” who is frequently bad at left brain project and file management stuff. The DAW keeps everything together in one place that’s easy to back up to DVD and export out pieces and files.

Then there are the mixing benefits which are still mind-blowing to a kid that thought the installation of Dolby SR was the greatest achievement in audio history in 85 or 86. To have an infinitely expandable, wholly automated console that you make look the way you want and every possible type of audio plug in one click away definitely beats no hiss…

The old saw of this argument is reliability and what I would call “instant response”. There’s a good reason for that argument. Computers are really only in the last few years fast enough to deal with the large amount of number crunching involved in large track count audio. The advantage of a TDM based ProTools rig is that all of the audio processing is done of their own dedicated DSP cards – hence the home equity line price tag.

BUT… We really have reached the age where native, or host-computer only, DAW programs can and do kick reliable ass. I find it FUD like to say that you can’t “trust” a computer daw for reliable tracking. You can’t rely on a FUCKED UP COMPUTER DAW for reliable tracking.

I can rely on mine and anyone who cares to can as well. 9 times out of 10, problems with computer
recording are the result of individual, personal and subjective issues. Your computer with your particular interface with this set of circumstances doesn’t work = DAWs are unreliable. Bullshit.

Now it sucks for YOU if your computer DAW doesn’t work well but I can tell you that my formula is not
complex or difficult to duplicate.

A MOTU 828 with a modern Mac and DP5 works really fucking well.

Maybe a derivation from that formula will also work well, I don’t know and I don’t really give a shit because mine works. CAVEAT: OF COURSE there are bugs in DP and things occasionally do weird stuff. But even then, you can decide on what version of a program you want to run. With each version comes
new features and new issues. You pick and choose your battles. There is always a well documented sort of “status” of issues and new features. The idiotic audio drop out during bounce to disk bug that MOTU fixed in their last update to DP for example.

When something ISN’T working right, it can almost ALWAYS be attributable to lack of enough ram or horsepower. Something that I COULD do something about by buying more ram or a faster computer if I’m bumping the wall on track counts or available plug ins.

Remember, you haven’t bought a $20k ProTools rig, you spent a couple grand on a Mac and the Motu shit. More fast or more stuff equals faster computer with more memory. Do that and everything will work very happily for you in Mac/DP land.