reaper and pro tools hd 192

[todd160]

has anyone ever tried to run reaper on a pro tools 192 interface using digidesign's core audio drivers ?
what are your experiences ?

cheers

[Eccentrica]

cant say we've had experiences using it with 192 ' we kinda went anti pro tools' so we scrapped the 192 for four firestudios firewired together and solely use reaper, we havent looked back just seemed a lot more cost effective than the actual use people get out of a pro tools rig.

[larrygates]

My last exp with my 192 and core drivers was pretty bad. This was when the HD rigs first came out though.

There was the whole 2 channel limit on the core audio drivers by Digi.

Pointless. And it wasn't rock solid, like say an RME driver.

It may be diff now, I'd say stay PT HD, or grab better boxes (Lynx etc . . .) and go native. A 8 core Mac, with a symphony card (apoggee) couldn't be BAD? Dunno though, since I ditched Mac altogether.

[labyrinth]

Does this mean that even when on a Mac with access to Core Audio drivers, ASIO out performs?

[todd160]

i guess he meant the core audio drivers by digidesign for the 192 interface. i will give this a test.. if it not works i just hook up another interface to the g5 i guess.

thanks

[larrygates]

I Really couldn't see Digi changing that driver much. As it'd be totally against what they do to let us use that over priced A/D D/A with all of it's capabilities. I'm sure it's probably still 2 channels of I/O. Or maybe ADAT now. Not sure, but I'm pretty positive you will not see your 192 show up in Reaper as 16 I/O.

I'd try to sell and get a Lynx card with the Digi interface, and I think you can have another interface in it at the same time. That way you have better conversion than 192 with more I/O for less money.

That's what I would do if I still had an HD rig. Wish I could just get the lynx box now. Only thing better to me may be a FF800.

[todd160]

well selling the 192 isn't even an option cause it ain't mine haha.. it's just that i want to use reaper at the studio i work at cause i'm at least 5x as faster with it compared to pro tools. i only hope reaper osx performance gets better, cause at this time it's nowhere near windows (on the same machine).

[larrygates]

well selling the 192 isn't even an option cause it ain't mine haha.. it's just that i want to use reaper at the studio i work at cause i'm at least 5x as faster with it compared to pro tools. i only hope reaper osx performance gets better, cause at this time it's nowhere near windows (on the same machine).

Damn! You're in trouble on the OSX side if all you can do is the 192. What I'd suggest to you is A) either get a FW interface. Just a good ADAT box or something, M-Audio ADAT firewire. I think that's like 200 bux or something. Pump ADAT into the 192. . . Never mind, no good on that one. You'd need a good FW box that does analog outs. . . Damn.

Sorry man, I tried hard. Short of getting another box, and bypassing the 192 altogether, you can get the 192 to monitor the box without even having PT up. You could pump SPDIF into the 192, it'll give you back Analog 1/2 outs standalone.

That's your best option for Reaper on a Mac. Or grab windows for your Mac (bootcamp) install and run that Reaper again you'd need another I/O box.

That's the best I could think of. Digi is hard about their Hardware.

Any of that last stuff make sense to you?

I totally hear you on being faster in Reaper though. Elastiq is much better in PT though, as far as integration with the system. But Reaper has it beat on a LOT of things. Not so much HD though.

[todd160]

yeah , that makes sense. that's acutally what i'm going to do , i guess a motu 828 will be enough as i only need a little midi and a halfway decent output quality.
just saw that you're the larry gates from sirocco's site. good stuff over there, those drums hit hard.

thanks

[larrygates]

Yes sir, that would be me!

Thanks a lot, hope all that work gets ironed out for you.

I'll let sirocco know what you said.

yeah , that makes sense. that's acutally what i'm going to do , i guess a motu 828 will be enough as i only need a little midi and a halfway decent output quality.
just saw that you're the larry gates from sirocco's site. good stuff over there, those drums hit hard.

thanks

[Amether]

What's the latest on this one? My studio is sadly turning to the dark side and installing an HD2 (uh... or 3) system in our main room.

So. Here's here's the situation, they're putting in an HD 192. However Apogee converters have been mentioned. How this works I don't know. Not sure if it's an either/or situation, as my PT experience is limited. Is this using the Apogee converters instead of the 192's?

Anyway. My question is whether I'm screwed. What's Reaper working like with the 192 these days? From this thread it sounded like I'll be limited to 2 channels?! Or is this ONLY using CoreAudio?

My confusion and ignorance appalls me. So used to our PC and digital desk. :(

[DAB]

has anyone ever tried to run reaper on a pro tools 192 interface using digidesign's core audio drivers ?
what are your experiences ?

cheers

I am running an HD2 Accel rig with ProTools 7.4.2 on Leopard 10.5.5 and using my 192I/O with no problems (with the 192 that is..). I haven't done a lot of stuff yet as I am just getting started playing around with Reaper but I have recorded a track and played back multiple tracks and I haven't had any problems.

This is using the Digi version of the Core Audio drivers.

Hope this helps.

[Amether]

Yeah, I'm actually using a 96 and so am limited to 8 ins, which means I have to track in PT. Oh well. But it works. Thankfully. Apart from my waves problem. Hm.

Cheers!

[Jae.Thomas]

the studio I do work at occaisionally has the HD192 series. What would be the best way to integrate reaper into this workflow?

Record into pro tools, export each track individually (it's pro tools 7, not sure how that is accomplished), and then throw that into reaper?

Just to get a workflow would be good.