Has anyone ever got a MOTU 24 i/o working on OS9? SOS says its poss -24 outs

[Kola]

Anyone?   This would be great with something like VST/32.  Would make PT quite obsolete from my view point

Apparently according to Sound on Sound mag this is do'able.   So anyone ever done this?  Id like to know before I shell out for equipment. 

Article Here:-     ttps://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/motu-2408-mk3-24io-hd192

Quote from above

Compatibility

The PCI-424 system is compatible with Mac OS 9 and X, as well as Windows 98/ME/2000/XP. The Windows software and utilities provide most of the functionality available on the Mac, with the exception of the Audiodesk application. As well as the ASIO driver, MOTU also provide a GSIF driver for use with Tascam Gigastudio, and a WDM driver for use with compatible hosts such as Sonar.

[Kola]

Erm,  what card would I need for a PowerMac G4 1.25?    M8570

https://motu.com/techsupport/technotes/pci-424-compatibility

^^ Sorry I have dyslexia and there is a little too much similar words on there for me to work through.  Anyone bottom line for me please what card I would require?   Thanks

[IIO]

the 24IO came out when there was only OS9 and i have used it, so i can tell it works.

(if only it would support firewire, i still would use one at home.)

but i have no idea which PCI card you need - i think it had its own unique one.

[IIO]

no, according to motu it works with the 424.

[Astroman]

Anyone?   This would be great with something like VST/32.  Would make PT quite obsolete from my view point...

Depends on the details of yout pov - if it's about a lot of external channels: may be
If it's about processing power: no way (imho)

Any G4 will run out of juice sooner than the clockrate suggests.
Not only has it to process digital audio, but also keep the various sections in precise time context, while simulanously handling GUI.

PT (TDM and HD) has strictly synchronized audio independant from OS interaction on dedicated processing boards, which also allow to extend calculation power by adding more boards.

Optimized audio coding on a CPU is a tough challenge, let alone machine coding.
Hardware DSP is very close to machine code and the 'machine' is specialized in calculation.
(not 100% correct in technical terms, but sums it up with few words)

[Kola]

IIO   Yes my Q was what version of the PCI 424?  The PCIe424 or PCIex424 or vanilla PCI424

Good to know it works.  Im so very suprised its not mentioned anywhere here on this forum.   24 seperate quater inch jacks of input then another of 24 quater inch jacks of outputs?  It doesnt ever get a mention on the page that goes through all of the audio interfaces that are G4 compatible.   http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,282.0.html

Astroman   Isnt PT-LE CPU powered? 

[IIO]

the express for sure not, the "e" i dont know, the original PCI should be the one which is safe.

your best bet is to find an offer with both together.

[Astroman]

@Kola yes, LE is CPU based and retains the software's GUI operation mode and file handling, but not the processing.
Original Digidesign hardware was very expensive and also acted as a protection dongle.
(the software wouldn't even start without a Digidesign converter box attached)
When Avid took over, early version of LE did the same with more affordable M-Audio interfaces and eventually the branded gear bundles were given up and HD was released in a CPU native version.
It's a matter of taste but even HD on it's dedicated hardware lost a lot of 'character' in comparison to the (so called) outdated Motorola DSPs of TDM.
CPU demand of any PT native version is significant if a smooth workflow is crucial.

Bottomline: it's a marketing thing in the first place.
My own TDM Mix-24 on a G3/450 from the attic was $200 (aquired a couple of years ago).
It represented a value of $20k as a regular product around Y2K.

[IIO]

LE is RTAS (native processing) only (except for the eleven rack, which doesnt work in OS9)

if you really want to work with a PT LE or PT free today is another question, as it does not have any latency compensation.

[Kola]

Hi mate,  yeah I get what your saying. 

I have looked for PT equipment here in UK for OS9 but there is very little on Ebay and thats if I extend search to Europe and include sold items. 

In honesty I dont like mixing ITB.  I much prefer an analogue desk and outboard.  But this will allow me to replace my Alesis HD24 (24 track) with VST.

Each to their own.   

[IIO]

how important is PT for you?

logic/cubase/performer would support latency compensation at least on the first order channels, support instruments, and when you run out of processing power you can add an UAD or powercore PCI card for cheap - without loosing compatibility with the motu 24 IO, like you would with TDM.

[Kola]

I dont think I need PT.  But would explore if I could get the hardware chaep enough.

I simple use an ADAT HD24XR at the mo.   But I do have to do a lot of prep on a computer first.  Bands send me stems for remixing and they routinly are not normalized, dont start at the start of the stem, are in stereo when there is no need to be, etc. 

I could see me replacing the ADAT with VST on my G4 and using a MOTU 24 i/o.  But it still wont change my workflow.  I use hardware for everything.  Its a touch, feel, smell thing. Im certainly not saying superb mixes cannot be done totally 100% ITB, im just saying its not for me at all.  I grew up in the 90s when we had diff boxes for diff things. Not one device to take pictures, mix on, sell things on, run your romantic life on, bank with, socialise and on and on.   I just need something diffrent when I am being creative. 

Id be happy thought to be able too see the stems and be able to move them and such. But id still just run them  stems through my analogue mixer and outboard.  So, whatever I get is likely to take the place of my ADAT only.  Not my ADAT, mixer, outboard, synths, samplers aggggggg, the thought makesme wince. 

[IIO]

yeah, of course, i agree, you dont even have to replace it, a computerbased system will be a fine extension to it, and you need to keep the adat anyway if customers sends tapes.

however, when you play around with DAWs you might sooner or later find out that you might want to mix the techniques, for example run the adat source over the analog mixer for gain staging, then recording it with the computer to perform DC correction, denoising, M/S or add a little reverb on the sum, which is more expensive and harder or impossible to do with hardware only.

splitting channels (for parallel processing & co) is also much easier on a computer system compared to a mixer, where you are expected to use AUX channels - while in a DAW you would simply make a copy of the track.

if you mixer has "direct outs" or a "splint" design it is not too complicated to have a setup where you can either record 24 channels to cubase but also replay them - without patching anything.

[Kola]

No its not a tape mate.   HD24  is a 24 track in one unit version on a harddrive.  The harddrives pull out on caddies.  Its way better than waiting for 3 ADATs to lock and hopefully sync and such.  Used to get on my nerves that.  https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/alesis-hd24

Erm,  I can reverb a sum in hardware easily.  I would simply group channels together and then patch a reverb unit over its relivent group outs.  But more likely just use the desk sends to send an individual channel to a reverb unit. 

You can make a copy of the track with a few clicks on the HD24.  HD24 is a really great device. Its basically 3 x ADAT XTs (but with 4 more bits and no sync issues)  It has very rudimentry edit features but cut and paste and such are easy.  ButI like this limitation.  I honestly limitations arte what sparks creation.  In 2019 DAWs there are no limitations.  This suits some but im best when my back is agains the wall.  My workflow method usualy makes people laugh or scratch their heads but im seldomout of work.  Speaks volumes really. ha

[Kola]

....sorry hit reply by accident. 

....Your right thought I may mix techniques.  Thing is my curent workflow works really well. So I am a bit reluctant to change drastically. 

I have just bought a G4,  but that was more for the ability to use the Ak.sys editor for my Akai S5000.  Also VST as a HD24 upgrade. 

But I think I really need to keep it limited.    I know im the last man standing in this area.  Even my mix engineer who is awsome doesnt have a mixer haha

[IIO]

yeah i missed that it is a HD based system, and of course then it can copy and paste and things like that (probably similar to darwin, which i found impressive at the time, but have chosen e4 samplers instead)

what would be the tasks you miss most in your current setup? aligning tempo? pitching? real time automation?

yes, if you have a good hardware reverb you can add some reflections with it, too. but i bet you dont have a hardware for removing reverb or a rubberband EQ.^^.

or for encoding audio to mpeg or searching for files alphabetically, if you know what i mean... dr. computerov can have benefits.

but i totally understand that you dont want to change a running system without good reasons.

[Kola]

Yeah you raise good points.  Like I say it 'is' a limited system. 

The reason I curently use a computer is for prep only. 

* So basically I get a load of stems. (usually via net so I need a computer for that alone)  One lot of stems will have the FX included.  If I am lucky I may get the same again but dry but this is rare.
*  I oftern get 36 to 50 stems whats ludicrous.  So ITB I sum then down.  Often I get rid of what I hate.   Sometimes the opposite to stem overload happens!!  Ive been asked to work magic on a stereo master a few times  . 
* You can gaurentee, half the stems dont line up with each other and hence out of time with each other.
*  Some stems are stereo (KISS, mono rules unless it HAS to be stereo,  not talking about panning, talking less to go wrong with phase and such Fine if it needs to be stereo but stereo lead vocal is just asking for trouble!)
* Normalising.  Not such a big deal but handy.  Esspecially as I mix OTB and I dont want to overdrive the mixer. 
* And last is increasing BPM.  Recently working on a pop song thats only 111 BPM.  I need to shift that up 10 BPM. 

I use soundforge for all of these tasks.  It has a batch command where you can just tell it to do all the above,  throw a folder full of the above stems and I come back in 30 mins and job done.  Oftern I still have to tweak stem start times by hand though. But most the donkey works done. If im snowed under I out source this job to Giant Wafer (Studio I use)

Then I dump my new stems onto my HD24 via the excellent and free HD Tools. 

The the computer gets turned off and I start to do the acctual creative process. 

I guess a big huge and massive validiation to not needing a computer is the fact so much brilliant music exsisted before DAWs took over.  Yes big name studios had Fairlights that cost the same price as 15 terraced houses in London when released (Acctually) and Protools what was far from cheap in 1992.  So most of my old school techno and such was all done without a screen (other than an ST) 

I like the lure of a G4 mac and VST/32 as it can only do so much or it will choke.  This will force me to referain fromdoing everything music on a laptop what would make me feel more like an accountant and realy messs with my creative mojo. 

Of course of course,  and this is most important,. each to their own.  I accept I am last man standing.   

[IIO]

i know that it is the "professional" way of doing it (on a modern DAW), but i also hate sessions where stereo and mono is mixed.

this becomes a major issue when you need to convert from a retro protools to a retro cubase by hand or something like that.

back in the days i´ve recorded rock and rap in mono and techno and electro in stereo. and if there is a voice, it will be recorded onto a stereo strack if the rest of the session is already stereo, too.

i am not an autist or something but i like structured work. parallelism, tree structures, short and clear patching, not too much different techs at a time (using custom VSTs in an RTAS wrapper with a cracked protools driver synced by an adat clocked by a bigben, started by hand, mixed by a collegue who doesnt listen & obeyed by a cat is just too much.)

[IIO]

btw, "normalizing" is for most applications a total misconception.

i might not fully see your workflow, but (even with 24 bits) i would leave gain staging to the mixer. you dont win much with recomputing files which are sent to a mixer, but (depending on the tool) you might loose digital quality.

I guess a big huge and massive validiation to not needing a computer is the fact so much brilliant music exsisted before DAWs took over.

it is also quieter in the room when you turn it off. not the worst idea.