Help with Apogee Rosetta 200 setup?

sensorium · Post by **sensorium** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:50 pm

Ok, so I am embarking into new territory, so please bear with my newbie questions.

A little history. I've been using a MOTU 828MKII for years. I have all the ins/outs plugged into a patchbay so that I have access from the front. I also have all of my synths/effects plugged into a patchbay as well. I have simply been using the patch bay to route the synths through effects then into 1 of the 8 inputs on the 828 for recording. No mixer.

I have recently decided to upgrade my ADA conversion and clock by investing in an Apogee Rosetta 200. The big issue is that the Rosetta only has 2 analog inputs. Although I typically only record 1 stereo pair at a time, I do like to audition experimental grooves with drums and other parts playing. I guess this means I will need a mixer now?

This is where I am unsure of what to do. I would love to have a DAW control (DP/mac) with analog inputs. I can then feed the main outs to the Apogee. How would I bypass the A/D in the console, so that it used the Apogee for this conversion?

Can I bypass the converters of my MOTU 828 and use it as an 8 channel mixer, then just buy a mackie control? Would routing the synths through the 828 negate the benefits of the Rosetta?

Hopefully you see where I'm coming from. Any help/product recommendations to get the best result/workflow would be greatly appreiated.

Post by **Stab Frenzy** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:16 am

What I would do with that setup:

Keep using the 828 inputs instead of a mixer for when you want to just try out stuff.
Clock the 828 from the Rosetta via Wordclock.
Use the Rosetta for when you know you're recording a keeper, or just whenever you can.
Mix in your DAW, get a Mackie Control if you want but use it to control the DAW rather than the 828.

sensorium · Post by **sensorium** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:38 am

Thanks. What you're saying makes sense, but it opens up a few more questions:

Why wordclock? Why not AES, SPDIF etc....I never quite understood why there were so many sync options and what the differences were.

In you're recommended setup, it seems I couldn't monitor out of the Apogee, I could only record....Unless I manually switched the monitor cables from the 828 to the Apogee....Could be a pain. Is there any other way? I really want to take advantage of the accurate monitoring that can come from the Apogee converters at all times.

Also, is it best to get all external effects processing done in the first pass? Sometime after recording a track, I send it out of one of the 828's outputs, through an outboard effect, then back in to a new track. Does this degrade the audio since it has to be converted a second time?

Post by **Stab Frenzy** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:00 am

sensorium wrote:Thanks. What you're saying makes sense, but it opens up a few more questions:

Why wordclock? Why not AES, SPDIF etc....I never quite understood why there were so many sync options and what the differences were.

Wordclock has less jitter than clocking via S/PDIF or AES/EBU, that's why it's recommended. It can be more accurate because it's designed for clocking and nothing else, whereas the other ones are designed to send audio data, and the clocking is secondary.

In you're recommended setup, it seems I couldn't monitor out of the Apogee, I could only record....Unless I manually switched the monitor cables from the 828 to the Apogee....Could be a pain. Is there any other way? I really want to take advantage of the accurate monitoring that can come from the Apogee converters at all times.

Yeah you could, just set your master output to the 828's S/PDIF outputs (IIRC 11&12) and monitor through them.

Also, is it best to get all external effects processing done in the first pass? Sometime after recording a track, I send it out of one of the 828's outputs, through an outboard effect, then back in to a new track. Does this degrade the audio since it has to be converted a second time?

That's really a workflow thing. If you know exactly what you want everything to sound like it can be good to track with effects, it forces you to make decisions and speeds up recording and mixing. It can also be bad though cause if you decide later that you want a different effect or a different wet/dry mix on the one you have you can't change it.

The motu has decent conversion, there's a lot worse out there so I wouldn't be that worried. People have made great sounding albums on more limited equipment so don't feel like running through an extra set of DAAD is going to ruin it.

sensorium · Post by **sensorium** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:53 am

Stab Frenzy wrote:Yeah you could, just set your master output to the 828's S/PDIF outputs (IIRC 11&12) and monitor through them.

My 828 only has 1 S/PDIF output, but let me make sure I'm clear on what you're saying. Send the 828 S/PDIF out to the Rosetta's S/PDIF in? Then have the main outs of the Rosetta going to my monitors?

So this way the 828 would be doing the AD, but the Rosetta would do the DA?

Feel free to take this to PM if necessary. Thanks for your input so far!

Post by **Stab Frenzy** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:24 am

sensorium wrote:
Stab Frenzy wrote:Yeah you could, just set your master output to the 828's S/PDIF outputs (IIRC 11&12) and monitor through them.
My 828 only has 1 S/PDIF output, but let me make sure I'm clear on what you're saying. Send the 828 S/PDIF out to the Rosetta's S/PDIF in? Then have the main outs of the Rosetta going to my monitors?

So this way the 828 would be doing the AD, but the Rosetta would do the DA?

Feel free to take this to PM if necessary. Thanks for your input so far!

???

The Rosetta is an AD/DA convertor. You plug it into the digital inputs and outputs of your 828 (S/PDIF) and use it as an extra pair of analogue ins and outs. The Rosetta does the conversion, you address the digital ins and outs of the 828 in the software.