Whichever way you go, you may want to consider using an indoor/outdoor
thermometer to keep an eye on actual in-the-box temps.

Agreed. Probably the best place to monitor the temp is the air flow into
the computer case.

Best,
Christopher

Christopher Glaeser wrote:
Whichever way you go, you may want to consider using an indoor/outdoor
thermometer to keep an eye on actual in-the-box temps.

Agreed. Probably the best place to monitor the temp is the air flow into
the computer case.

Best,
Christopher


Really? Wouldn't that measure the coolest reading?

I would think you would want to measure somewhere that gives the highest
reading, because you want to know how hot it is inside the box.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 2, 12:51*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Christopher Glaeser wrote:
Whichever way you go, you may want to consider using an indoor/outdoor
thermometer to keep an eye on actual in-the-box temps.

Agreed. *Probably the best place to monitor the temp is the air flow into
the computer case.

Best,
Christopher

Really? * Wouldn't that measure the coolest reading?

I would think you would want to measure somewhere that gives the highest
reading, because you want to know how hot it is inside the box.

I would tend to agree.

I don't know which of the components represents the Lowest Common
Denominator (by having the lowest upper operating range) in this
equation, but ... I'd think you'd want to locate a temp probe as near
to /that/ component as you could.

OTOH, if they're all within a fairly narrow operating temperature
band, then ... I'd pick a component and locate it as near to that
component as I could.

Really? Wouldn't that measure the coolest reading?

Yes, but I'm not sure what the reading at the computer case exhaust will
tell me. The exhaust is pretty warm now just sitting in a room. If the
input of the computer case has unrestricted air flow at a good operating
temp, isn't that sufficient? Of couser, that "unrestricted air flow" is
criticially important. If the temp at the input to the case was low but the
air flow into the case is restricted, that would be very bad indeed.

Best,
Christopher

Christopher Glaeser wrote:
Really? Wouldn't that measure the coolest reading?

Yes, but I'm not sure what the reading at the computer case exhaust will
tell me. The exhaust is pretty warm now just sitting in a room. If the
input of the computer case has unrestricted air flow at a good operating
temp, isn't that sufficient? Of couser, that "unrestricted air flow" is
criticially important. If the temp at the input to the case was low but the
air flow into the case is restricted, that would be very bad indeed.

Best,
Christopher


I guess the purpose isn't airflow, it's temperature drop, right?
Computer don't need airflow, they need lower temps.
It just so happens that airflow will lower the temp.

I'd say the probe (whatever) should be in the box, up high.
I would move it around the box to find the hottest spot and leave it
there.

You could always find a website or specs from a company that make those
boxes for studios and try to ascertain where they put theirs.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Have you considered putting the whole tower into a dorm type refrigerator
modified for cable exits?

The sled on my table saw won't support the weight of a dorm refrigerator.


Best,
Christopher

Neil Brooks wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:51 pm, -MIKE- wrote:
Christopher Glaeser wrote:
Whichever way you go, you may want to consider using an
indoor/outdoor thermometer to keep an eye on actual in-the-box
temps.

Agreed. Probably the best place to monitor the temp is the air flow
into the computer case.

Best,
Christopher

Really? Wouldn't that measure the coolest reading?

I would think you would want to measure somewhere that gives the
highest reading, because you want to know how hot it is inside the
box.

I would tend to agree.

I don't know which of the components represents the Lowest Common
Denominator (by having the lowest upper operating range) in this
equation, but ... I'd think you'd want to locate a temp probe as near
to /that/ component as you could.

OTOH, if they're all within a fairly narrow operating temperature
band, then ... I'd pick a component and locate it as near to that
component as I could.

www.aerocool.us has a bunch of different temperature monitors combined with
other functions--some of them will support four separate temperature sensors
and adjust fan speeds accordingly--they're designed to go in a computer case
but there's no reason they can't work externally as part of a separate
cabinet, and can be used to carry other functions outside the cabinet.

-MIKE- wrote:
Christopher Glaeser wrote:
Really? Wouldn't that measure the coolest reading?

Yes, but I'm not sure what the reading at the computer case exhaust
will tell me. The exhaust is pretty warm now just sitting in a room.
If the input of the computer case has unrestricted air flow at a good
operating temp, isn't that sufficient? Of couser, that "unrestricted
air flow" is criticially important. If the temp at the input to the
case was low but the air flow into the case is restricted, that would
be very bad indeed.

Best,
Christopher


I guess the purpose isn't airflow, it's temperature drop, right?
Computer don't need airflow, they need lower temps.
It just so happens that airflow will lower the temp.

I'd say the probe (whatever) should be in the box, up high.
I would move it around the box to find the hottest spot and leave it there.

You could always find a website or specs from a company that make those
boxes for studios and try to ascertain where they put theirs.

I would recommend getting some software that will monitor the CPU temps.
There is some free stuff out there that will do it. Depending upon how
quiet you get it, check out for fan monitors as well, want to make sure
they keep spinning.

Monitor it while the computer is outside the box, under heave usage.
When it goes inside the final box, make sure it doesn't get much, if
any, warmer.

--
Froz...

The track base consists of plywood and homasote, a pressed paper like
material. There are no nails from the track in to the plywood, and in
most cases the homasote is glued to the plywood.

This is extremely helpful. I found some excellent articles on Homasote 440
and STC (sound transmission coefficient). I'm reviewing them now.

What about pictures and plans for a shop vac enclosure? They'd seem to
have the same problems of heat and noise.

I'll search for them.

Best,
Christopher

I would recommend getting some software that will monitor the CPU temps.
There is some free stuff out there that will do it. Depending upon how
quiet you get it, check out for fan monitors as well, want to make sure
they keep spinning.

The computer case fan speed is controlled by the computer, so the temps
should be avialble to an app.

Monitor it while the computer is outside the box, under heave usage.

Will do.

Best,
Christopher

Christopher Glaeser wrote:
I would recommend getting some software that will monitor the CPU temps.
There is some free stuff out there that will do it. Depending upon how
quiet you get it, check out for fan monitors as well, want to make sure
they keep spinning.


The computer case fan speed is controlled by the computer, so the temps
should be avialble to an app.


Monitor it while the computer is outside the box, under heave usage.


Will do.

Best,
Christopher



Check the options on the BIOS set-up screen. On many of the higher end
system you can view the system temperatures.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 00:28:58 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:


"Christopher Glaeser" wrote in message
If the only requirement was a box, sure, the project would be trivial with
not much planning needed. However, a major design objective is to
significantly reduce noise while providing adequate air flow, which
requires
a bit more thought and planning.

If it helps you any, I built a padded box around my portable compress to
stifle the noise when I use it in my apartment. It's a simple 3/4" plywood
box, four rubber wheeled casters and lined with furnace air intake filters.
It reduces the noise over 50%. Air intake is sufficient by the use of an
interior 120v fan and the air to it is supplied through several layers of
speaker grill cloth. If it does that well on an 85 decibel compressor, it
should be sufficient for a computer box.

Just get a USB Docking station and put the CPU outside the room. One
USB cable brings keayboard,mouse,video and audio (in and out) into the
"studio" leaving all drive and fan noise outside.

wrote:

Just get a USB Docking station and put the CPU outside the room. One
USB cable brings keayboard,mouse,video and audio (in and out) into the
"studio" leaving all drive and fan noise outside.


USB can't handle multi track audio.

He can do the same with Firewire, but I assume he can't have them
in another room or he'd never had posted this in the first place.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:43:58 -0700, "Christopher Glaeser"
wrote:

Whichever way you go, you may want to consider using an indoor/outdoor
thermometer to keep an eye on actual in-the-box temps.

Agreed. Probably the best place to monitor the temp is the air flow into
the computer case.

Best,
Christopher

Best monitoring location is the heat sink of the processor. Measuring
either intake or exhaust air means NOTHING if air flow is restricted.
Air temperature INSIDE the case is a poor second to measuring actual
component temperature, but a giant leap forward from measuring either
intake or exhaust air.

-MIKE- wrote:
wrote:

Just get a USB Docking station and put the CPU outside the room. One
USB cable brings keayboard,mouse,video and audio (in and out) into
the "studio" leaving all drive and fan noise outside.


USB can't handle multi track audio.

Googling "USB multitrack audio" reveals a number of products. Do they not
work well?

He can do the same with Firewire, but I assume he can't have them
in another room or he'd never had posted this in the first place.

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
wrote:

Just get a USB Docking station and put the CPU outside the room. One
USB cable brings keayboard,mouse,video and audio (in and out) into
the "studio" leaving all drive and fan noise outside.

USB can't handle multi track audio.

Googling "USB multitrack audio" reveals a number of products. Do they not
work well?


I guess it depends on your working definition of "multitrack" is. :-)

I mean, stereo is multitrack, right? And yes, there are USB interfaces
that will handle stereo fine, or let's say vocal mic and and acoustic
guitar. Maybe even 4 channels.

But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like Protools
for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend the money to
build a box to hide it, are likely doing real multitrack recording, as
in entire bands or drums. We're talking a minimum 10 tracks just for
drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:00:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


www.aerocool.us has a bunch of different temperature monitors combined with

Agreed. I just bought myself an NZXT fan controller and temperature
gauge which does the same thing.
http://www.nzxt.com/products/sentry_lx

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:04:27 -0400, wrote:

Just get a USB Docking station and put the CPU outside the room. One
USB cable brings keayboard,mouse,video and audio (in and out) into the
"studio" leaving all drive and fan noise outside.

Considering the effort the OP is putting into this and the equipment
he has, I'm wondering why he hasn't converted some clothes closet into
a cold room.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:02:10 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
wrote:

Just get a USB Docking station and put the CPU outside the room. One
USB cable brings keayboard,mouse,video and audio (in and out) into
the "studio" leaving all drive and fan noise outside.

USB can't handle multi track audio.

Googling "USB multitrack audio" reveals a number of products. Do they not
work well?


I guess it depends on your working definition of "multitrack" is. :-)

I mean, stereo is multitrack, right? And yes, there are USB interfaces
that will handle stereo fine, or let's say vocal mic and and acoustic
guitar. Maybe even 4 channels.

But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like Protools
for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend the money to
build a box to hide it, are likely doing real multitrack recording, as
in entire bands or drums. We're talking a minimum 10 tracks just for
drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.
So bring the audio mixer cable in too. Not rocket science

-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
wrote:

Just get a USB Docking station and put the CPU outside the room.
One USB cable brings keayboard,mouse,video and audio (in and out)
into the "studio" leaving all drive and fan noise outside.

USB can't handle multi track audio.

Googling "USB multitrack audio" reveals a number of products. Do
they not work well?


I guess it depends on your working definition of "multitrack" is. :-)

I mean, stereo is multitrack, right? And yes, there are USB
interfaces that will handle stereo fine, or let's say vocal mic and
and acoustic guitar. Maybe even 4 channels.

But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like
Protools for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend
the money to build a box to hide it, are likely doing real multitrack
recording, as in entire bands or drums. We're talking a minimum 10
tracks just for drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.

I'm seeing devices with 20 channels.

J. Clarke wrote:
But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like
Protools for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend
the money to build a box to hide it, are likely doing real multitrack
recording, as in entire bands or drums. We're talking a minimum 10
tracks just for drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.

I'm seeing devices with 20 channels.

A link would help me talk apple/apples with you. Some of those things
are probably mixers that will send and receive a couple of track each
with the computer, but everything else is either on-board recording, or
just an analogue mixer, sending a stereo bus to the PC.

But I may be wrong. The most I've seen is 8 channels, but I wouldn't
trust it for anything I care about.

I can tell you this... I could ask 500 Nashville producers/engineers how
many of them use or would ever consider using USB over Firewire for
anything other than recording quick little scratch demo tracks, and my
junior high school shop teacher could count the number on one hand. :-)

It just was never meant for that purpose, while Firewire.... was,
specifically.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:02:10 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
wrote:

Just get a USB Docking station and put the CPU outside the room. One
USB cable brings keayboard,mouse,video and audio (in and out) into
the "studio" leaving all drive and fan noise outside.
USB can't handle multi track audio.
Googling "USB multitrack audio" reveals a number of products. Do they not
work well?

I guess it depends on your working definition of "multitrack" is. :-)

I mean, stereo is multitrack, right? And yes, there are USB interfaces
that will handle stereo fine, or let's say vocal mic and and acoustic
guitar. Maybe even 4 channels.

But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like Protools
for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend the money to
build a box to hide it, are likely doing real multitrack recording, as
in entire bands or drums. We're talking a minimum 10 tracks just for
drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.
So bring the audio mixer cable in too. Not rocket science


In where? The snake/cables run to the board, in and out of a rack of
pre-amps and processors, then into the interface, or they run straight
to the interface and the mixing/level setting is done with software (or
some combination like that), then to the computer. The only thing
making noise, besides the band :-), is the computer.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:24:09 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like
Protools for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend
the money to build a box to hide it, are likely doing real multitrack
recording, as in entire bands or drums. We're talking a minimum 10
tracks just for drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.

I'm seeing devices with 20 channels.

A link would help me talk apple/apples with you. Some of those things
are probably mixers that will send and receive a couple of track each
with the computer, but everything else is either on-board recording, or
just an analogue mixer, sending a stereo bus to the PC.

But I may be wrong. The most I've seen is 8 channels, but I wouldn't
trust it for anything I care about.

I can tell you this... I could ask 500 Nashville producers/engineers how
many of them use or would ever consider using USB over Firewire for
anything other than recording quick little scratch demo tracks, and my
junior high school shop teacher could count the number on one hand. :-)

It just was never meant for that purpose, while Firewire.... was,
specifically.
So run a firewire cable in with the USB cable that provides your
computer console connection.
Keep the noisy computer OUT of the studio. All you want inside is your
instruments and your controls. Nothing with a fan. Nothing with a
motor. Nothing with an escapement. They all make "noise" that is not
meant to be part of your "music".
I don't know what kind of music you play/record - and some people
might call "it" noise -

But whatever is NOT supposed to be part of YOUR music is noise.
Keeping it out of the studio is easier than keeping it out of the
recording.

wrote:
It just was never meant for that purpose, while Firewire.... was,
specifically.
So run a firewire cable in with the USB cable that provides your
computer console connection.
Keep the noisy computer OUT of the studio. All you want inside is your
instruments and your controls. Nothing with a fan. Nothing with a
motor. Nothing with an escapement. They all make "noise" that is not
meant to be part of your "music".
I don't know what kind of music you play/record - and some people
might call "it" noise -

But whatever is NOT supposed to be part of YOUR music is noise.
Keeping it out of the studio is easier than keeping it out of the
recording.


We understand all that. I was just pointing out, as a side note,
that it's Firewire and not USB, and that sort of took on a life of its own.

However, my point is still valid that I assume, for whatever reason, he
can't have them in another room or he'd never had posted this in the
first place.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

wrote:


But whatever is NOT supposed to be part of YOUR music is noise.
Keeping it out of the studio is easier than keeping it out of the
recording.

A computer used for actual recording of music in a professional
recording studio is rarely anywhere but in a "control room", or in close
proximity thereto, and very little "recording" is done in a control room
in a professional environment. Therefore it is extremely rare for the
noise generated by the computer itself to end up on the "music".

The perceived problem is that computer(s) generate noise that canl
possibly interfere with the critical listening necessary to either
recording, or mixing.

I say "perceived" and "possible", because, IME in 30 years of
professional studio work, it is rarely a problem, and, considering most
recording is done at an SPL of 60 to 80 db, and mixing an average of
90-105 db, then only a problem for those who delight in making a
mountain out of a molehill, of which this discussion is plainly guilty.

IOW, as in the "audiophile" business, the perceived problem is largely
an opportunity sell something expensive to the "perceiver".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
wrote:


But whatever is NOT supposed to be part of YOUR music is noise.
Keeping it out of the studio is easier than keeping it out of the
recording.

A computer used for actual recording of music in a professional recording
studio is rarely anywhere but in a "control room", or in close proximity
thereto, and very little "recording" is done in a control room in a
professional environment. Therefore it is extremely rare for the noise
generated by the computer itself to end up on the "music".


The difference being, lots of music is recorded in home studios and often by
one person doing the whole thing. If you have a professional studio, then
you'll have a separate sound room and control room (and the personnel to run
the equipment). A well built and maintained computer is not going to be a
problem. If you are in a typical home studio (very often a spare bedroom or
similar), the computer *can* be an issue. In a home studio environment,
building (or buying) a box to enclose the computer is more cost effective
than building a control room.

And, to touch on another point (which I snipped), if all your recording is
done at levels between 60 and 80 db, I'd suggest you go look up dynamics. I
guess if all you are recording is punk rock (or another genre that is all on
or all off), computer noise won't be a problem... or might even be
desirable.

My kids have a saying... "don't yuck my yum". They use it at meals to say,
if it's what I like, don't say how awful it is or how stupid I am for liking
it. The same could apply to this.

Ed

On 10/2/09 2:43 PM, "Christopher Glaeser" wrote:

Whichever way you go, you may want to consider using an indoor/outdoor
thermometer to keep an eye on actual in-the-box temps.

Agreed. Probably the best place to monitor the temp is the air flow into
the computer case.

I disagree. The best place is at the level of the computer components that
are of most concern - CPU chip, memory, etc. Some chips have built-in temp
sensing that can be monitored.

Ed Edelenbos wrote:

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
wrote:


But whatever is NOT supposed to be part of YOUR music is noise.
Keeping it out of the studio is easier than keeping it out of the
recording.

A computer used for actual recording of music in a professional
recording studio is rarely anywhere but in a "control room", or in
close proximity thereto, and very little "recording" is done in a
control room in a professional environment. Therefore it is extremely
rare for the noise generated by the computer itself to end up on the
"music".


The difference being, lots of music is recorded in home studios and
often by one person doing the whole thing.

What part of "professional" did you not understand in the above?

If you have a professional
studio, then you'll have a separate sound room and control room (and the
personnel to run the equipment). A well built and maintained computer
is not going to be a problem. If you are in a typical home studio (very
often a spare bedroom or similar), the computer *can* be an issue. In a
home studio environment, building (or buying) a box to enclose the
computer is more cost effective than building a control room.

Gee .. thanks for that highly informative information.

And, to touch on another point (which I snipped), if all your recording
is done at levels between 60 and 80 db, I'd suggest you go look up
dynamics.

I guess if all you are recording is punk rock (or another
genre that is all on or all off), computer noise won't be a problem...
or might even be desirable.

LOL ... so you conveniently snipped a part so that you could insert a
figment of your imagination?

I came NO where near saying at what SPL "my" recordings are done at ...
it's a trade secret.

My kids have a saying... "don't yuck my yum". They use it at meals to
say, if it's what I like, don't say how awful it is or how stupid I am
for liking it. The same could apply to this.

My kids learned to say if you have NO experience in what you're talking
about (in this case the world of professional recording), say nothing
.... which applies particularly to your reply.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote

a lot. Little of which was worth reading.

Have a nice day Swingman... you're a legend in your own mind.

Ed

-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like
Protools for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend
the money to build a box to hide it, are likely doing real
multitrack recording, as in entire bands or drums. We're talking a
minimum 10 tracks just for drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.

I'm seeing devices with 20 channels.

A link would help me talk apple/apples with you. Some of those things
are probably mixers that will send and receive a couple of track each
with the computer, but everything else is either on-board recording,
or just an analogue mixer, sending a stereo bus to the PC.

Roland has one that is expandable to 40 channels, for a Roland price. For
under 400 bucks you can get a 16 channel Tascom.


Googling "USB multitrack audio" gets 110,000 hits, and most of them point to
a device of one sort or another, most of which have mor than two channels.

But I may be wrong. The most I've seen is 8 channels, but I wouldn't
trust it for anything I care about.

I can tell you this... I could ask 500 Nashville producers/engineers
how many of them use or would ever consider using USB over Firewire
for anything other than recording quick little scratch demo tracks,
and my junior high school shop teacher could count the number on one
hand. :-)

And there was a time when if you asked them if they used Firewire they'd say
"fire_WHAT_?".

Time marches on.

In any case, everybody does't need the same equipment as a Nashville
producer.

It just was never meant for that purpose, while Firewire.... was,
specifically.

So what? All that either of them does is move bits across a wire. USB2
has enough real-world bandwidth to carry more than 1000 192kb streams.
There's nothing about Firewire bits that makes them sound different from USB
bits, although I'm sure that the same sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Haudiophiles who buy
Monster speaker cables for a ludicrous price will say otherwise.

With Apple dumping Firewire on the latest iBook the handwriting is on the
wall.

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 12:03:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like
Protools for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend
the money to build a box to hide it, are likely doing real
multitrack recording, as in entire bands or drums. We're talking a
minimum 10 tracks just for drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.

I'm seeing devices with 20 channels.

A link would help me talk apple/apples with you. Some of those things
are probably mixers that will send and receive a couple of track each
with the computer, but everything else is either on-board recording,
or just an analogue mixer, sending a stereo bus to the PC.

Roland has one that is expandable to 40 channels, for a Roland price. For
under 400 bucks you can get a 16 channel Tascom.


Googling "USB multitrack audio" gets 110,000 hits, and most of them point to
a device of one sort or another, most of which have mor than two channels.

But I may be wrong. The most I've seen is 8 channels, but I wouldn't
trust it for anything I care about.

I can tell you this... I could ask 500 Nashville producers/engineers
how many of them use or would ever consider using USB over Firewire
for anything other than recording quick little scratch demo tracks,
and my junior high school shop teacher could count the number on one
hand. :-)

And there was a time when if you asked them if they used Firewire they'd say
"fire_WHAT_?".

Time marches on.

In any case, everybody does't need the same equipment as a Nashville
producer.

It just was never meant for that purpose, while Firewire.... was,
specifically.

So what? All that either of them does is move bits across a wire. USB2
has enough real-world bandwidth to carry more than 1000 192kb streams.

USB also has Isochronous transfers, so that's not an issue. Firewire
is a little more flexible though. Any device can be a "master" and
talk to any other. USB is a bit more rigid. USB started out
brain-dead but had a miraculous recovery. It took time to notice. ;-)

There's nothing about Firewire bits that makes them sound different from USB
bits, although I'm sure that the same sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Haudiophiles who buy
Monster speaker cables for a ludicrous price will say otherwise.

The term is "Audiophools".

With Apple dumping Firewire on the latest iBook the handwriting is on the
wall.

Apple misplayed that card from day one.

Ed Edelenbos wrote:


"Swingman" wrote
a lot. Little of which was worth reading.
Have a nice day Swingman... you're a legend in your own mind.

LOL ... yeah right, Bubba! You're wise getting out of that particular
kitchen.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
Ed Edelenbos wrote:


"Swingman" wrote
a lot. Little of which was worth reading. Have a nice day Swingman...
you're a legend in your own mind.

LOL ... yeah right, Bubba! You're wise getting out of that particular
kitchen.



LOL... is right. I see no reason to talk to a dreamer. Very few clients,
I take it. That's why you fantasize about recording on a woodworking group?
That's why you can't even use a real name?

Rather comical if you ask me.

Best of luck to you.

Ed

Swingman wrote:
A computer used for actual recording of music in a professional
recording studio is rarely anywhere but in a "control room", or in close
proximity thereto, and very little "recording" is done in a control room
in a professional environment. Therefore it is extremely rare for the
noise generated by the computer itself to end up on the "music".

The perceived problem is that computer(s) generate noise that canl
possibly interfere with the critical listening necessary to either
recording, or mixing.

I say "perceived" and "possible", because, IME in 30 years of
professional studio work, it is rarely a problem, and, considering most
recording is done at an SPL of 60 to 80 db, and mixing an average of
90-105 db, then only a problem for those who delight in making a
mountain out of a molehill, of which this discussion is plainly guilty.

IOW, as in the "audiophile" business, the perceived problem is largely
an opportunity sell something expensive to the "perceiver".


I agree with everything you said, but just want to add that more and
more recordings, even stuff you hear on the radio and TV, are being done
in more of a home environment, in which you do have quite a few tracks
being laid down in the control room.

A lot of acoustic guitar and vocals are done in the control room, out in
the open. It just seems to free up the creative process to be there,
right next to one another, instead of locked in a little booth and
communicating through headphones.

But it is mostly that "critical listening" thing.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Ed Edelenbos wrote:
And, to touch on another point (which I snipped), if all your recording
is done at levels between 60 and 80 db, I'd suggest you go look up
dynamics.

That's not really very loud. Normal conversation is well over 60.
Instruments you'd never consider loud, like an alto sax, can get well
over 80db in a small room.
Classical music being played on a grand piano is at the upper end of
that scale.
Most of those players and very good with the dynamics. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

J. Clarke wrote:


Googling "USB multitrack audio" gets 110,000 hits, and most of them point to
a device of one sort or another, most of which have mor than two channels.

With current gear for the home recordist it has become, for all
practical purposes, a moot point ... and many are capable of both USB2
and Firewire operation. Mark Of The Unicorn (MOTU) sells some pretty
good gear for the home recordist with that in mind, as well as TasCam,
as you mentioned.

I would worry more about computer processor power, as audio glitches,
that really pop up (no pun intended) when a single processor comes close
to maximum utilization, are the achilles heel of home recording for most.

Hard to beat a minimum of dual processors and multi-threaded software ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

-MIKE- wrote:
Swingman wrote:
A computer used for actual recording of music in a professional
recording studio is rarely anywhere but in a "control room", or in
close proximity thereto, and very little "recording" is done in a
control room in a professional environment. Therefore it is extremely
rare for the noise generated by the computer itself to end up on the
"music".

The perceived problem is that computer(s) generate noise that canl
possibly interfere with the critical listening necessary to either
recording, or mixing.

I say "perceived" and "possible", because, IME in 30 years of
professional studio work, it is rarely a problem, and, considering
most recording is done at an SPL of 60 to 80 db, and mixing an average
of 90-105 db, then only a problem for those who delight in making a
mountain out of a molehill, of which this discussion is plainly guilty.

IOW, as in the "audiophile" business, the perceived problem is largely
an opportunity sell something expensive to the "perceiver".


I agree with everything you said, but just want to add that more and
more recordings, even stuff you hear on the radio and TV, are being done
in more of a home environment, in which you do have quite a few tracks
being laid down in the control room.

A lot of acoustic guitar and vocals are done in the control room, out in
the open. It just seems to free up the creative process to be there,
right next to one another, instead of locked in a little booth and
communicating through headphones.

But it is mostly that "critical listening" thing.

You got it ...

In my 30+ years in the business, that type of problem is generally used
as a convenient excuse by the perceiver for his inability/failure to get
the job done.

The idea that the average professional recording studio is somehow the
epitome of "sound proof" quiteness and a miracle of acoustic engineering
is nonsense.

I've worked in many well known studios in this country (in which you've
most assuredly have heard their product on the radio/bought the CD),
both in front of and behind the glass, where we routinely waited for the
subway to go by to start a take, or stop an otherwise good take for the
same reason (or decide to keep it anyway and use a filter during
mixing). Same with traffic going by on the street outside, bleed from
the next studio over, or a myriad of other noises, not part of the music
that may be in a recording, but are not heard by the average listener
for a myriad of reasons ... masking, muting, gating, filtering, et al.
As you know, you rarely hear the hiss of a mic'ed guitar amp when not
playing, or the room noise from the drum overheads when the drums quit,
because they're either gated during the take, or these days,
muted/erased on the audio work station software during mixdown.

Indeed, a large part of the job of mixing is attempting to remove noise
and artifacts that were not intended to be part of the music ... I say
attempt, because many can't be removed ... example: many
instrumentalists unconsciously "vocalize" (often out of tune) ... when
playing (Pablo Casals was well known for audibly grunting while playing)
.... you want their playing, you deal with the artifacts, or leave them
in and justify in some way, ie, as part of the charm.

All said and done, and in actual practice, _most_ of the studios built
with heavy investment in pursuit of the acoustic holy grail of "sound
proofing" are the result of rich men's investments and rarely, if ever,
have had a hit cut in them ... here today, gone tomorrow.

IOW, and as the sign says: "Just STFU and play!". ALL the best music
ever recorded transcended the available technology, and ALL the worst
was recorded in spite of the technology.



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

J. Clarke wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
But most people who are using a digital audio workstation, like
Protools for example, and are concerned with noise enough to spend
the money to build a box to hide it, are likely doing real
multitrack recording, as in entire bands or drums. We're talking a
minimum 10 tracks just for drums, and a minimum 24 for a band.
I'm seeing devices with 20 channels.
A link would help me talk apple/apples with you. Some of those things
are probably mixers that will send and receive a couple of track each
with the computer, but everything else is either on-board recording,
or just an analogue mixer, sending a stereo bus to the PC.

Roland has one that is expandable to 40 channels, for a Roland price. For
under 400 bucks you can get a 16 channel Tascom.


Googling "USB multitrack audio" gets 110,000 hits, and most of them point to
a device of one sort or another, most of which have mor than two channels.


So, you don't have a link, then. :-)


But I may be wrong. The most I've seen is 8 channels, but I wouldn't
trust it for anything I care about.

I can tell you this... I could ask 500 Nashville producers/engineers
how many of them use or would ever consider using USB over Firewire
for anything other than recording quick little scratch demo tracks,
and my junior high school shop teacher could count the number on one
hand. :-)

And there was a time when if you asked them if they used Firewire they'd say
"fire_WHAT_?".

Time marches on.

In any case, everybody does't need the same equipment as a Nashville
producer.

It just was never meant for that purpose, while Firewire.... was,
specifically.

So what? All that either of them does is move bits across a wire. USB2
has enough real-world bandwidth to carry more than 1000 192kb streams.
There's nothing about Firewire bits that makes them sound different from USB
bits, although I'm sure that the same sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Haudiophiles who buy
Monster speaker cables for a ludicrous price will say otherwise.

With Apple dumping Firewire on the latest iBook the handwriting is on the
wall.


And no one is using the iBook to record 24 tracks, either....
successfully.

You're giving me theory, and I'm giving you real experience.

The ****ing contests is this newsgroup crack me up.
You guys get on a tangent about a semantic, and just won't let go.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
And, to touch on another point (which I snipped), if all your recording
is done at levels between 60 and 80 db, I'd suggest you go look up
dynamics.

That's not really very loud. Normal conversation is well over 60.
Instruments you'd never consider loud, like an alto sax, can get well over
80db in a small room.
Classical music being played on a grand piano is at the upper end of that
scale.
Most of those players and very good with the dynamics. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

What he said was, "considering most recording is done at an SPL of 60 to 80
db, and mixing an average of
90-105 db, ". If this is his considered opinion, I think he would do well
to learn about dynamics. While those classical piano pieces can reach the
upper end, parts are well below that 60db mark also. Not everything is that
Phil Spector "Wall Of Sound". (grin)

Ed


The point I was trying to make is that

Swingman wrote:
Googling "USB multitrack audio" gets 110,000 hits, and most of them
point to a device of one sort or another, most of which have mor than
two channels.

With current gear for the home recordist it has become, for all
practical purposes, a moot point ... and many are capable of both USB2
and Firewire operation. Mark Of The Unicorn (MOTU) sells some pretty
good gear for the home recordist with that in mind, as well as TasCam,
as you mentioned.


If MOTU is doing it successfully, then it will catch on and succeed.

They are smart to take an already successful, cornerstone, interface,
and add the new technology to it. People will trust it more than
starting from scratch with a completely new box.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply