Affordable Pro Tools setup

[OriginalJambo]

Hey guys, just considering my options for introducing Pro Tools into my setup. Any suggestions on what audio interface (be it M-Audio or Digidesign's own) that is really good bang for buck?

Older, second hand interfaces are fine too if they support the newest versions of Pro Tools of course.

[Stab Frenzy]

If you can get a 002 rack cheap second hand and then get the black lion mods done on it that's pretty good bang for buck. Or the M-Audio Lightbridge with a good couple of digital convertors. Or if you just need a couple of channels you could get an MBox 2 and good convertors like the Benchmark ones.

What's your budget and how many IO do you need?

[OriginalJambo]

I was really considering a second hand 002 rack but I have a funny feeling that Digidesign will be dropping support for it pretty soon. Also the ones I've seen second hand may only cost about $600 but they all seem to come equipped with Pro Tools 6. I'm assuming upgrading to 7 will be an overhead cost I'll have to consider.

I'm ideally not looking to spend more than say $800, although the 003 does look rather tasty. Regarding I/Os - a stereo interface would be acceptable but having a few extra inputs wouldn't hurt as my desk has four outputs and it'd be nice to make use of those. Also some extra outputs would be handy for hooking up the VCR as well as the monitors allowing me to record into tape.

The MBox 2 looks like a solid choice but it's only stereo if you don't count the digital I/Os. When I look at it this way it seems that the MBox 2 Mini would be more suited considering its even cheaper.

[Stab Frenzy]

What desk are you using? Chances are recording through your desk will be degrading the signal which defeats the point of getting the 003 over the 002. I recommend getting a patchbay and recording your synths direct to the interface unless you're using a nice desk.

Digidesign might drop 002 compatibility in the next year or two, but it'll still work with whatever software you'd be using before that. Upgrading to 7.4 costs AU$75, which is about 40 pounds. I'm still using 7.1 which works fine for me, I've no real need to upgrade. I was using 6.7 for ages after 7 came out, the only reason I went to 7.1 was when I got an intel mac I had to.

Look at your recording rig as one intergrated system like you would have back when it was a tape machine and mixing desk. Keep using a stable system until you decide to (and can afford to) upgrade the whole thing. Little upgrades are generally to be avoided, as they can introduce instabilities.

[OriginalJambo]

I'm using a Soundcraft 200B which I've been told is a good board, if a little long in the tooth. It definitely was considered a professional bit of gear back in the day - I'm sure it'll sound better than a modern budget Mackie at the very least. 16 inputs, 16 pre-amps, phantom power switchable on every channel, good ol' British 4 band EQ etc.

Whilst modern audio interfaces will obviously be much less noisy and won't suffer from grounding issues I fear they may be too transparent - I see the desk as a good way to colour my gear.

The reason I want to go Pro Tools is simply because it's the industry standard for audio so if I learn how to use it effectively it might be a valuable skill in the future. Also the fact that it's rather easy to use and apparently has a great mixing engine helps too.

[Stab Frenzy]

Nice desk.

Pro Tools is a nice piece of software, it's really powerful when it comes to editing and I find it works well with a hardware based studio, but the interfaces aren't really good value for money. If I hadn't learnt PT at school for two years I might use a different program, just to be able to use a better interface.

There are a few different ways you could set things up to work with that desk, all of which would work well.

Option 1
As your desk has inserts that are post-EQ and you can set up the aux send to be pre-insert, the insert point could be a good place to go to and from your interface.

Just say you got a 002 rack, you could set it up like this:
Synths go through patchbay to mixer line inputs 1-8
Inputs go through EQ to insert points and off to Tools
Set up low latency monitoring in Tools and monitor through the desk, 002 outs 1-2 patched into stereo return on the desk.
Use the pre-fade Aux sends to set up a headphone mix without any latency.

This way you could expand your system later to have each channel going to Tools and be able to do your summing through the desk if you wanted. A quick repatch and you could have 16 channels coming from Tools to the desk line ins to be able to use the EQs for mixdown.

Alternatively you could have your synths permanently patched into the desk and have the inserts going to the patch bay, from there you could patch whatever you wanted to the inputs of the 002. Which brings us to...

Option 2

Have each synth patched to a line in on a channel
Patch the outputs of the 4 busses to the line ins on the 002
To record a particular synth just hit the group button on its channel and it's going to the line in, via the pan pot and two faders.
Return from Tools comes in on Stereo Return like in the other example.

Could be a little noisier but if you're using the desk for colour that shouldn't be a problem. This would be the way to do it if you were planning to do all your mixing in the box and weren't planning on recording more than 6 tracks at a time.

Be aware that EQing on the way into Tools means you're stuck with it. This can be good cause it forces you to get good at envisioning the mix while you're still tracking, but if you're tracking each instrument seperately it can be hard to imagine how it'll all fit into the mix, and EQing each track to sound good on its own will not lead to a good sounding final mix.

Option 3

If you got something like the M-Audio lightbridge and a second-hand Creamware A-16 you could record each synth direct to Tools then mix down through the 16 outs of the A-16 through the desk. That way once you've tracked and edited everything in Tools you can mix down through the desk using the EQs and fx sends all in real time like in ye olde tymes. This is what I'm planning on doing when I get a Toft ATB.

You can do any compression and EQing you need in Tools, and automate you output level if you want, so you don't need a million hands on the desk at once if you don't want.

Option 2 is the easiest, but 1 and 3 could be really good if you're willing to put in the time. If you do decide to go the Pro Tools M-Powered route I'd only be looking at the Lightbridge, that way you can upgrade the convertors at a later date without having to worry about destabilising your system. Those Creamware convertors are good too, and can be found pretty cheap online.

[spookyman]

I can only second what Stab Frenzy said...

So you can use the colour of the preamps and EQs from your 200B Console

Another option would be to buy the new M-Audio ProFire (coming spring 2008). It's equiped with 8 Octane preamps (imho much better than the preamps in the 002 or MBoxes) and lightpipe. And the price is correct too. But only useable with M-Powered Pro Tools.

[nathanscribe]

Stabs, I wish you lived next door - I could do with someone to sort out my garbled, hotch-potch setup. I can't seem to get it how I want it, partly because I don't know what I really want from it. Do you think that as someone who sequences some things (bass, drums) and plays others (pads, chords, some leads etc) I would be better going with option 3 you outlined above? I'm finding that recording one thing at a time is tedious and lacks a certain immediacy or freedom, but I've much more gear than channels and don't know the best way to stick it all together.

Sorry for the thread hijack, Jambo - I'm getting useful info here. Been thinking about a change of software myself, as Cubase is seriously not my cup of tea. ProTools isn't hot on MIDI, from what I hear, but then I haven't heard much. Would that mean sequencing on another package, then running the audio into PT? And would that mean using a separate machine for sequencing?

BTW, nice mixer. I remember using something very similar (if not the very same) at college years ago.

[OriginalJambo]

Just read that post there.

Cheers - that's very, very helpful. I was gonna go for option 2 by default (the easy way out) as I'm only really going to be recording one or two parts at time. However if I pick up a patch bay I can clearly see the benefits of being able to use the Soundcraft's EQs without commiting the results to recording. Whilst options 1 and 3 are definitely worth looking as they offer more flexibity I'll have to take a few extra costs into account (i.e. a patch bay, more audio cables).

There's nothing stopping me from giving option 2 a spin and moving to 1/3 if it just isn't working.

Nathan - I've heard that the Pro Tool's MIDI spec has been drastically improved over the years and it is quite usable in the most recent versions.

[Stab Frenzy]

Nathan: As Jambo says Pro Tools has sorted out it's midi stuff with version 7. It was always pretty decent for sequencing hardware, it was just annoying the way it did softsynths in the past.

I'd recommend Pro Tools to someone who wanted a program to just work like a tape machine and mixing desk. That's pretty much what it does, and it does it well. There are a million little workflow shortcuts to learn as you go to get deep into it, but to begin with it's pretty simple. You make a track, assign an input to it, hit record. When you hit play it plays back.

If you want something that does more midi tricks and works more like an instrument then check out Live.

I think the third option or some varient on it is usually the best, whether you do your summing externally or in the box. Exactly how you'd set it up would depend on what you've got really, but I imagine running all you instruments to a patchbay and then using that to put them into the interface as needed could be the way to go if you don't have enough inputs for everything to be patched in at once.

[Stab Frenzy]

There's nothing stopping me from giving option 2 a spin and moving to 1/3 if it just isn't working.

Exactly. Even if you plan on using one of the others eventually this one will see you through until you get everything together.