Hello Outlaws,
So I, like may others it seems, have been lusting after, and finaly have the opportunity to purchase the 950!
What I would like to do is use Paradigm Studio 60's for the right and left and instead of a center channel use two studio 20's (right and left). Can I split the signal from the 950 to two 200's for the 20's? Secondly should I use the 5 channel 755 amp or 200's all 'round ( I will be using Paradigm ADPs for the rear 4 speakers).

Thank you in advance for your replies and suggestions. This forum has been an amazing source of info for the last six months or so.

A few thoughts:

1) Nice speakers. I'm running version 2 Studio 60's, Studio CC, and Studio ADP's with an Outlaw 950/750 and have really liked the combination.

2) You can split the signal (pick up a splitter from Radio Shack) without much trouble, but the Studio center is a great speaker. What sort of video display are you working with? If it's a projection screen, a single Studio 60 might actually be better than the pair of 20's. I guess what I'm saying is that you can use a pair of 20's for the center but you may not need to -- a Studio CC or a single Studio 60 might work as well (or there may be a really compelling reason for the pair of centers that I don't know about).

3) if you go with a pair of speakers for the center, you'll need at least one 200 (eight speakers to drive). I'd lean toward driving the 60's with Model 200's and driving the rest with a 770 (with one unused channel) -- it seems like a good balance between cost, performance, and rack space. A Model 950 and eight Model 200's would cost about the same as that, but the benefits of monoblocks all the way around are likely to be only marginal.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

Thanks Gonk, I was hoping you would weigh in on this.
The reason I was thinking of two 20's was the fact that I have a 65" Sony RPT that in my new theater I want to put up on a riser so the center would be around 6' off the floor. In my current house I am using the studio CC on top of the tv and the center seems kind of "disjointed". I have calibrated with the AVIA disc and the trusty SPL but when watching DVD's with a lot of dialog (eg: Mona Lisa Smile - wifes choice!!)the voices seem to be coming from above the actors not from them. I have also tried to angle the CC toward the listening position this helps but still seems off. Due to the fact I have two very large dogs I can't really put the center in front of the tv (this is also the reason for the riser). So I thought two 20's on a shelf at ear level on either side of th tv as part of the entertainment unit would be a good option.
How would I use a single 60? I never thought of that.

I'm interested in where this thread goes as I have a new ML cinema that would get mounted 17" on the wall above the TV. Disjointed sound???

Hipgrncln

I've experienced what IDareYa's talking about -- locating the center too far away from the screen can cause the sound to separate from the action on the screen. I'm having a little trouble with that at the moment, since the new TV and my center won't both fit inside the entertainment center. Aiming the center toward the listening position can help, but it isn't always a cure. I've also got a friend with a Martin Logan Cinema sitting on top of a 50" Toshiba RPTV who is wrestling with the same problem. IDareYa's idea is definitely interesting, and I'd be interested in knowing how it works (even though my system wouldn't work with that sort of configuration).

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

The single 60 would probably not do much good in your case -- it would work if you had a front projection setup and an acoustically transparent screen (which would let you put the speaker behind the screen, much like theaters do for center channel speakers).

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

Gonk you nailed it the voices sound 'separated'. I appreciate the info my test will have to wait for a bit though. The installers are just putting in the wiring for the distributed audio today in the new house so I am about two months away from moving in. Time to get everything on order! I will soon be an OUTLAW!

dual centers is a bad idea, if you want the sound to come from below the tv, then put the center speaker into the "riser", on a shelf underneath it. however if the speaker seems to have a position now it will continue to do so.

two speakers for center is a bad idea, because voices come out of them. no 2 speakers are identical, so they will never be the same sound exactly. plus splitting the signal degrades it. the point of a center is to anchor the dialog to the image, if the centers are on the sides then they are really nothing more than mains in close proximity to the screen. plus two speakers will push the sound out in different places, with a void in the middle if they are perpendicular to tv or interfering with each other if they are angled toward seating area. i have my center on top of my 65 rptv, and have no problem with dialog seeming unnatural. the center is only slightly smaller than the width of my tv, so i presume that helps...
there are just a lot of negatives as far as having two centers, if that was ideal then that is what we would all have, 8.1. yeah they could be fine, etc., but just buy one that is twice as good as the two...

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Well that's a new twist. I guess I thought the two 20's would create a soundstage with the tv as the center point. Plus the sound would originate at the same height as the on screen dialog, like talking to someone across the room. I think I will have to convince the salesguy that's helping me with this to have an in home demo (good thing he's a friend). Certainly more food for thought.

I think it'll depend on the installation and the speakers in question. Not sure if it's so cut & dried to say yes it will or no it won't.

I think IDareYa's got the right idea -- test the arrangement out before committing; try the pair of Studio 20's and the lone Studio CC, see which does the best job of anchoring the dialog to the display.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

which one has more frequency response? i presume the studio cc... (edit: there is no big advantage from the cc, other than the array of its speakers which makes it a little better, so) that is the better one then. if they are the same quality then two would only suffer from what i said before.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited June 04, 2004).]

Any two points (or more) radiating the same frequencies at the same time in close proximity causes some amount of problem, more or less. No one has an ideal single point source for all frequencies yet, do they?

In any case, if you are going to experiment with a two speaker center scenario, besides trying one to the right and one to the left, also try one on top and one below.

stacking is a better idea than side by side. however, what is your desire to have 2 in the first place? you must already have them and just dont want to waste them. i.e. you had 6.1 and used one as a center and one as a rear center, and then moved to 7.1 and dont want an extra center speaker lying around... 1 better center channel is far superior to two centers that are less quality. im gonna go check out paradigms website.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

ok so, the center channels that paradigm offer in that line are nothing special over the mains. i dont know why companies insist on skimping on center channel speakers. the center is the most important speaker (sub is close, but if you had no dialog and only bass, you could never hear any movies...) and should be the best speaker in your system for ht. usually the fronts are the best because of music, however it doesnt take much to make a center at least as good as the best floor standing that your line offers. in the case of paradigm the studio 20s and cc570 are very similar in specs, etc. but im sure the cc costs more than 1 20. i would expect the cc570 to on par with the studio 100. and the lower cc470 designed for the other models.

enough of my rant about how companies should make center channel speakers that are better (should be the best in their line of speakers, period!). it is just perplexing and annoying that the fronts could be $50k quality and the center is $0.50 quality and they think this is fine. (exaggeration for the point...)

i know that two center speakers is a bad idea! no placement will fix this. even if the centers didnt contain tweeters (which they obviously always will), it would pose a few problems. however since they do contain tweeters you are never going to get them placed correctly to compensate.

if you had TWO center channels you can invert one on top of the other and get the sound as good as it will get seeing as the tweeters would usually sit right on top of one another. however still one center would be better.

so why do you want to use two studio 20s instead of one cc-570?

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I find it interesting that you use the Paradigm Reference line as an example to gripe about poor quality center channels, since the Studio CC v2 (predecessor to the new Studio CC-470 and CC-570 v3 speakers) was widely regarded as an excellent center channel. As I mention earlier in this thread, I've experienced the same separation that IDareYa's noticed with my StudioCCv2 -- but I had to move the speaker almost two feet away from the top of the TV to produce that effect (an obviously poor arrangement that was done due to furniture problems and a planned TV upgrade). With the new TV in place (reducing the gap to about 10"), I've been able to largely restore the proper anchoring of audio by tilting the speaker down a bit. In IDareYa's case, he doesn't want to leave the speaker on top of the TV and he's uncomfortable putting it on a stand in front. The top location for the single center and a little downward angling would be a good experiment and is what I would probably do in his case (assuming I was likewise unable to put the center on a stand in front, which would be my preference if I had a large RPTV). If those options don't work for him and he wants to experiment with a pair of speakers bracketing the TV, I still think it's an interesting experiment to pursue. Obviously it's not ideal, but that doesn't mean he can't get some loaner speakers and give it a whirl if he wants.



IDareYa has a pretty good explanation of his circumstances in his second post (third entry in this thread).

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

build the riser so it could contain the center speaker. surely if his dogs couldnt damage his tv, they couldnt get the center speaker contained/protected right below it.

i am unimpressed with pretty much any speaker channel, even mine which claims 30Hz low end frequency and has built in powered subwoofers could be better. it is a beast too, which leads me to my reason why they typically are not as good as they could be.

size, i think most companies are scared to build a center speaker that is big in fears that it will not work for most people because they couldnt put it anywhere. this is actually a pretty wise consideration, but some people can accomodate a center the size of a floor standing and really would like the increased performance it would offer. smaller size usually forces smaller drivers, which in turn forces a smaller frequency range. however, this can be compensated by having mids and woofers, albeit woofers that are powered for the added umph. it is odd to have powered subs in your center channel, but more and more common to have them in mains (or match a sub to the fronts for the bass that the fronts cant handle). the center channel is the most important speaker, but unfortunately it is often left lacking when considering the mains in its line. this rings true up and down the realm of speaker lines/manufacturers...

obviously there are other ways to increase the performance of center channels besides powering the woofers, and they should be done as well.

your point, gonk, of how the paradigms centers are well respected is exactly my point as well. the whole frame of reference as to what a good center channel is, needs to be slid several steps above what it is now. having the best that is available is great, but my point is that the greatest that there is right now, is not as good as it should be and could be.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited June 04, 2004).]

If you can return the extra speaker with no problems then I say definitely try it out. It won't hurt anything. I agree that the single center channel would be the best way to go, but that is just not working out in this case so a new approach is needed. Like I said before, depending on the install and speaker it may work quite well.

Is it possible to put the center underneath?

quit biting on my ideas you dog... lol. i have said twice now that he should try it directly below so his dogs couldnt get it, and so it could be more directly correlated to the screen.

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I'm not biting your ideas, so you heel. You had just blindly stated to put the center channel underneath without checking to see exactly what he is doing with the riser. It may not be possible.

Just to add, try the two speaker idea for the center channel but make sure the speakers are wired "in-phase" If they're not, it has no chance of working.

CG: Are you an adovcate of 6.1 or 7.1 surround sound? This issue of two center channels is exactly like taking a 6.1 system and making it a 7.1 system on most systems. You take a 6.1 system (mono rear surround) and split the signal to 7.1 (dual mono rear surrounds). IDareYa is just basically changing this from the back soundstage to the front soundstage.

the difference of the back soundstage (effects) and front soundstage (dialog), is THE difference. the front soundstage is exponentially more important than the rear. 6.1 has one rear mono channel, 7.1 has basically a stereo pair of rear channels, having 2 center speakers is not really the same, because they are not in stereo, they are producing the same sound. although so closely as to negatively impact each others sound.

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Jason J I hadn't really thought of this as a reverse 6.1 (+2) but you right that's what it would be. I can see how adding an additional speaker in the front would change the dynamics because it isn't in the audio mix but I am confused on why, if both speakers get the same info, you couldn't make adustments to compensate for this.
Just for arguments sake the tv that this all centers around is a Sony KP65WS510. The riser height would be around 8", putting the speaker at about 65" off the floor or about three feet plus/minus over the height of the seating. I currently own the Studio CC, I do not own the 20's. I may be able to take them for a test drive to work this out but before going through the motions I thought I would see what people with more experience thought. C.G. if the speaker seems off at the current height how could it sound better on the floor built into the riser? Or are you suggesting build it in, in front of the tv below the screen (because that is another interesting idea)? I appreciate all of your input - it makes spending or not spending easier. At least we can all agree on the 950/755/200 combo.

wow he's good!! - CG can answer qustions before I can even get them typed in!

[This message has been edited by IDareYa (edited June 04, 2004).]

Considering the minimal height of your platform, I definitely wouldn't put the speaker there (especially since the stand is shorter than the speaker). You could try curegeorg's idea of putting the speaker low by building a stand in front of the TV's base so the top edge of the speaker sat near the bottom of the screen. The stand could be integrated into the base since you're doing a base anyway.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

my thought was to build the speaker directly into the riser/stand that the tv sat on. so that it could be close to the tv, high enough for your seating, and out of reach of your hounds, plus it would look more professional (or custom).

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

You're right.

You're wrong, except, if not mistaken, in the case of DD Pro Logic IIx and Logic 7 or any other 7th channel matrix surround mode. Regular DD EX and DTS ES are just dual mono in the rear surrounds.

Umm...I don't quite understand what you're getting at with this. If you're talking about room effects on each of the individual speakers, ok, there might be some effect. Overall though, the difference between the two speakers would not be noticed on a normal basis.

IDareYa: The two speakers would act like one speaker and any adjustments you made to the center channel would effect both. It's just a matter of how you would power them. I don't know if you would want to connect them in series or in parallel.

Jason J makes some excellent points -- and I still feel that the potential for the "dual centers" to do what IDareYa is looking for is great enough to warrant an experiment. Multiple center speakers is not an unheard-of approach, after all. For a long time, Yamaha even went so far as to provide two center channel connections on their receivers.



Yes, but his riser is only going to be 8" tall, making it both impossible and acoustically undesirable to build a 9" tall center channel into it. Plus the fact that the pictures I've seen of his set (a Sony KP65WS510) show that putting a center channel below the TV would put it at least 2-1/2 feet away from the screen (it's a CRT RPTV, so there's a big chunk of space between floor and bottom edge of screen), and that is clearly too much distance between screen and center channel.



He was originally talking about powering each speaker separately, with either a pair of 200's or two channels of a 770 fed from the 950's single center channel pre-amp output with a splitter cable.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

under the tv would be better than beside it. i didnt realize it was gonna be such a small riser...

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Under the tv won't do any good if the tv crushes the speaker. Since you're protesting so strongly against the side mount setup, could you share your experiences with it? What did you do and how did any adjustments affect the sound?

i have never decided to put two speakers as my center channel because it is lunacy. you DO NOT want voices coming from two distinct points. if you dont take my word for it, then fine, but at least i tried to save you.

oh and build the damn riser bigger to contain the center.

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

Call me crazy but I have lots of experience using two speakers for the centre channel and in no case did the sound ever appear to come from two distinct points. In fact it appears to come from a point halfway between the two speakers (ie. centered on the screen.)

In one set-up I had two speakers, one velcroed to each side of an HDTV. The vocals appeared to come from the screen, and not from two different points.

I currently use two 60lb floor standing full range 33" speakers, aligned tweeter to tweeter, suspended above my HDTV, in a custom built frame, achored to the wall and tethered to the ceiling. Vocals appear to come from the centre line of the screen - and not as two point sources.

Take amy two speakers and make an equilateral triangle with them and yourself. Play a mono vocal source. What do you hear? Answer: sound coming from mid-way between the two speakers.

curegeorg: what is your personal experience with using two centre channel speakers?

Jeff Mackwood

like i said, i dont claim or pretend to claim that i have used two speakers as my center channel. it is a bad idea, thus i have not, nor will i ever do it (unless there are 2 outpus for center channel in the future, i.e. stereo center channel). having two speakers play the same signal does not make the sound sound like it is coming from between them, it makes it sound like the same sound is coming from both of them. i have done that, two speakers same sound (mono). voices, dialog, high frequency sounds, etc. all come from the tweeter (take off your grill and feel during a speaking scene of a movie). tweeters are not designed to be in close proximity to one another. as sound radiates out of any speaker it travels via sound waves in a vshaped path, these waves normally have no problem reaching the target without interference. in higher frequency sound especially, their can be interference if a wave of a frequency overlaps another wave of the same frequency. this does not yield 2x as much sound at that point, it changes the sound. who was it that said two particles cant occupy the same space at the same time? newton. the same can be applied to sound, however, the waves can occupy the same space, because they turn into a slightly different wave at that point and further will be distorted. i.e. the sound before the point where they overlap is sound x, the sound after the point of intersection is sound y. the sounds are similar but not the same. MAYBE you can get the sound y to be what you like, but it is not going to be accurate no matter what you do. low frequency sound behaves a little differently because of its longer wave lengths, sometimes these waves lengths can get near parallel to each other and cause a coupled effect. high frequency doesnt do this because the wave lengths are so short, it is nearly impossible to get them to be near parallel...

not to mention that high frequency sound is pretty localized, just as low frequency is not. so to say that two speakers have an effect of sound in the middle is absurd, your mains dont have that effect if you feed them a mono signal. other things have to be done to simulate a center from two mono signals fed to two seperated speakers.

you guys that say, give it a try and see what happens, just dont know. sometimes i dont know, and say give it a try. really the point is moot, because if you want to experiment and waste your time and money, then do it. as long as youre happy, im happy for you. however you will be losing clarity for your center channel, at the sacrifice of more sound. you could GAIN clarity and GAIN more sound by just buying a good quality center channel.

not to mention that center channels have a different axial alignment of speakers than do other speakers, and changing that axis throws of the dynamics of the sound designed for the center channel. i.e. instead of having a horizontal field targeted at (or at least encompassing) your seating position, you would get a vertical field slicing through your seating position.

also sound travels very quickly, but sometimes you can hear a slight delay coming from two seperated speakers playing the same sound (mono). this has to do with more than the sound traveling out from the speaker, but the effect is that the sound arrives at your ear at 2 different times.

there is a lot of things going on with the reproduction of sound... you cant forget that these physical properties exist and influence everything that comes out of your system.

that is ALL i am going to say about how having two center speakers in an ht is a dumb idea. suit yourselves. i prefer my sound as distortion free as possible though.

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

It is impossible to say if a sub is good or not based off of the right specs without listening to it, but you can sit there and write a thesis on how it is impossible to blend two speakers together without ever trying it.

This is sort of silly now. There are numerous people who actually choose not to have a center channel and instead use their left and right channels and a "phantom" center (I recall azryan speaking at great lengths about the benefits of this arrangement). We also have someone with firsthand experience successfully using this arrangement. From where I'm sitting, you seem to be taking basic principles and twisting them and hammering them into a shape that allows you to make a blanket statement that "two mono center speakers is absurd." (Sort of like the old contractor rule of thumb: "beat to fit, paint to match.") Yes, it is possible to set up two center speakers and have it sound terrible. It is also possible to set them up so that they would work.



Maybe this is true in some cases, but I've heard a mono signal from two speakers that appeared to come from a single point. It can work...

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

I hardly think there's one lonely center channel sitting behind the screen at your local megaplex.

Mike

Uhhhhh.....last time I checked, playing the same mono signal through two identical speakers produced a phantom image mid-way between those two speakers. If they do not, the speakers are out of polarity! Just about every stereo recording that contains a vocal has had that vocal reproduced as a phantom image midway between the two speakers. There's a little knob on mixing consoles called a "pan-pot" that allows this technological miracle

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 06, 2004).]

Actually there is just one center speaker in a movie theater. The left and right stage speakers do not routinely reproduce dialog, but rather just sound effects and music. If there is a problem with that speaker not producing enough outut for a particular auditorium, the solution is simply to specifiy a larger speaker rather than using multiple speakers reproducing the same signal.

For the home though, two speakers producing a phantom image is just fine - like I posted above, all stereo (and multi-channel as well) recordings have information panned equally to both speakers and all points in-between. In a home, dialog intelligibility is not nearly as great a problem as in a large movie theater.


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 07, 2004).]

Nice to know I was not imagining it, or worse: pretending that I knew what I was talking about even though I didn't really have a clue. I hate when that happens!

Jeff Mackwood

That vocal mixed in stereo is usually a mono signal. You can simply extract that vocal out by using an old Dolby-Pro Logic processor or anything that can generate center channel and put it with your regular phantom stereo along with slightly gain boost. You could have a very clear center image by using this method. I use three mono center (extracted) plus 4 regular stereo. (unextracted)

[This message has been edited by theendofday (edited June 08, 2004).]

Believe it or not, when using songs that were recorded in stereo for inclusion into a film mix, this is exactly how the engineers extract the lead vocal for mixing it into the center speaker. They use what is called the "Dolby 3" mode which does not attempt to extract surround information - the surrounds are created by delays and reverberation.

If I didn't remember it wrong, "Dolby 3 Stereo" is one of the three modes featured in Pro-Logic chip. The other two are called "Phantom" and "Normal" mode. People can get that now for very cheap.

Yes, Dolby 3 is very old but it just happens to do exactly what is required in this instance and no more. I think mixers just like the control of what is put into the surrounds, and the Lexicon reverbs used are unbelieveably good.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 08, 2004).]

What do you think about TC Electronic compared to Lexicon? I heard some of their FX processor and it sounds really good, but not cheap.

I really like stereo lead vocal plus reverb; it makes vocal sound extremely wide.

[This message has been edited by theendofday (edited June 08, 2004).]

Wow! I thought this was a simple question. Either you could or you couldn't.
The more I learn about this HT affliction the more I realize there is no yes or no, only various shades of maybe. The only sure thing is trust your eyes and ears and go with what the wife will accept, maybe
Thank you all for your help.
By the way, I am going to give it a try to see if it works.

To be honest, the only reverbs I use now are plug-ins to my ProTools digital audio workstation, and the one I end up using most is the one suppied by Digidesign. I've moved to completely "virtual", which is more and more the trend in film post production. I don't have any recent experience with TC Electronic reverbs (or any other of their products), but the Lexicon reverbs used on dubbing stages are simply amazing in their sound quality - and price.

"Virtual". You mean working directly from the computer, right?

Can you also connect your PC with outboard processors for further processing?

Which model of Lexi reverb you are currently using?

Nothing personal, I am just interested to know.

Virtual as in I do all mixing and processing with the mixing console and plug-ins inside the ProTools computer program (which also has hardware PCI cards and two 8 channel outboard interfaces). You can use these outboard interfaces (16 input-output channels) as auxillary sends and returns to route to outboard processing, and I usually do this with a vintage Collins compressor/limiter. I don't own any Lexicon plug-ins or outboard equipment now, but I did have a PCM-70 at one time. The type of work I do which is mostly editing does not call for heavy use of signal processing. Occasionally I need to create a reverb "tail" to conseal the end-edit of a piece of music.

As a matter of fact, I just retired my Soundcraft Spirit 24x8x2 analog mixing console (in like-new condition and only used by a little old lady to record church services on Sunday) and am going to list it on Ebay today or tomorrow, probably starting at $1,500.

Soundhound

I would like to create some music with my computer. Can you recommend some good quality PCI card with many input/output and softwares? How do I get started? what equipments do I need? I am not going to do the recording at this time, but probably will in the future. I just want to create music and playing some sample effects from computer.

Is it possible to take existing CD and remix, modify it with computer softwares?

Is it possible to connect my PC with a digital mixer and operate mixer directly from the computer?

Thanks

Probably the most flexible systems are the ProTools from Digidesign. These come in all levels of cost and performance from stereo up to 128 channels of 192/24 bit. You can essentially do anything you could possibly think of with these systems, and plug-ins for things like reverb and other processing are either included or can be bought. Every movie you will see these days has had it's dialog, music and sound effects created and edited with ProTools, and increasingly purely music recordings are being tracked and mixed completely within ProTools.

www.digidesign.com

As far as stricly consumer sound cards and software, well, I don't really deal with them in professional work, and the software I've tinkered around with has been very lame. You really get what you pay for, so don't expect ultimate performance from a "super magnum sound blaster supreme pro" card that costs $129.95.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 09, 2004).]

ok. I'll check Digidesign out. Do you know which model? The nice one.

For the sound card, do you want a gaming card that can do music or do you want a music card? I forget the more official name for the second. I've never heard the second, but have been told there is quite a difference despite how much better the gaming cards have become.

In recent history I have gone from a Sound Blaster Live! to an Audigy and then to an Audigy 2. Each one was a very nice improvement over the last.

Just go with what your budget allows. All their cards are offer far more real world (read: honest) performance than any consumer card will.

JT Clark

I am not really sure, but anything that close to pro level will do. I just started researching this computer recording recently. I am also looking for a program that able to modify original CD files. For example, I want replace the original vocal in the music with my own voice and add more effects. Is it possible?

Soundhound

I checked Pro Tools|HD Core Systems and they are too expensive. Are they really worth that much? A piece of IC card sells 10 thousand??

[This message has been edited by theendofday (edited June 09, 2004).]

There are two channel ProTools systems that are very inexpensive. The system you looked at was one of the full blown professional ones.

OK, soundhound. I will go to my local guitar center tomorrow to see what Digidesign products they have and check their performance. Thanks alot, man.

The entry level interface into Pro Tools is called the "mBox". It comes with a smaller version of Pro Tools called Pro Tools LE. The software offers the majority of the features that the full featured software comes with. It retails for $499 and is available for $449 from almost every music retailer imaginable.

I wouldn't recommend Pro Tools for regular consumer editing. There are plenty of other interfaces and programs available that offer just the same features and more for a lot less money. Pro Tools, as soundhound rightly states, is basically the industry standard. That doesn't mean there aren't other ways to do the same thing.

If you want more info, there are plenty of books out on the subject of home recording. As for websites, do a search for home computer recording. You'll probably get some insight there.

For starters:
www.homerecording.com
www.recordingmag.com
www.harmony-central.com

>>>There are plenty of other interfaces and programs available that offer just the same features and more for a lot less money<<<

What features would be available in a consumer system that would'nt be available in ProTools either natively or as a plug-in? Granted ProTools costs more, but I'm just curious what features you are referring to.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 10, 2004).]

I'm not talking about actual recording features as Pro Tools covers those for added cost. I'm was referring more to ease of use and cost than to anything else. From someone starting from a non-technical point of view, Pro Tools has a very intimidating interface. Also, to integrate most common plug-ins into non TDM Pro Tools systems can be very complicated. Pro Tools LE does not support VST or Audio Units right out of the box. I realize most plug-ins can be ported into Pro Tools but this adds steps and complications.

One more thing, running Pro Tools LE on a home computer is very taxing to that computers resources. While almost all audio editors recommend dedicating a complete computer to just audio, Pro Tools almost requires it. It's a system and memory hog. If you need proof, read Digi's requirements for their systems.

Everybody has their favorite audio editing software. Not every audio editing software is made for everybody. That's why there are so many programs out there.

I don't need that proof since I own a HD ProTools system - however I've never run into any memory problems. I have had other issues with ProTools, most of which are related to the Macintosh itself, but never memory related ones.

Don't get me wrong here, I have the greatest respect for you and your work and your technical ability. But If you're running that HD system on anything less than a maxed out, high-end computer, I'm amazed. That is not your typical home computer. There are some basic, note that, basic computer editing systems that can actually run on a less maxed out home computer. Steinberg Wavelab for the PC comes to mind for that.

That said, your defense of Pro Tools is becoming something like cg's defense of Velodyne subwoofers. While they may make the biggest and the "best" at the upper price points, there are many, many other options available especially at the lower price points.

Nope, I am not blindly defending ProTools or Digidesign. If fact since Avid bought them out, I despise the company and some of their business practices. I repeat, I was responding to a request for infomration for a program and interface that will do what I took to be project studio work - not home use. ProTools, for better or worse, is the system that is the standard in my industry, and if a project is to be taken to another studio or be worked on by another individual, standardization means everything. The film industry would grind to a halt without standardization and the ability to transport projects studio-to-studio and person-to-person transparently. If there was still a mish-mash of different systems in use as there was up until a few years ago, work would be very difficult and translations unreliable and time consuming in a time-critical industry.

My overriding concern is getting a job done, and I don't care whatsoever the brand of the system that is that "standard".

Of course none of this has anything to do with home use, and there are other programs and interfaces available that will suffice. I can only answer a question from my frame of reference, and if somebody asks me what to use for what I take as serious sound editing work in a professional or semi-professional environment (such as a home project studio), I can only recommend a system that has the largest installed base, has a good human interface and generally excellent performance.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited June 12, 2004).]

Hey, it is ok. I will make some comparisons between different brands and see which one will suit my needs best. Thank you very much Jason and Soundhound.