SourceConnect in SawStudio

[Ian Alexander]

I found three threads that ended four years ago, so how about an update?

I have a weekly client who wants to move from ISDN to SourceConnect. What can I expect on a PC with SS as the only DAW? If I read the comparison chart correctly, the only option for me is the Standard VST version. The Pro version is RTAS only.

I realize that I need an iLok (looks like even for the demo), but my computer lives in a closet, so I'm not likely to break it off in the USB port.

Thanks.

[bcorkery]

Given the option, I ask, "Why lower the bar?".
I've not had good experience with Source Connect.
You're at the whim of the internet traffic.

[Dave Labrecque]

Given the option, I ask, "Why lower the bar?".
I've not had good experience with Source Connect.
You're at the whim of the internet traffic.

Do we even know that it works right in SAW? Bill?

I certainly want to know that before making the investment. Unless you're open to using other hosts, of course.

[Ian Alexander]

No choice. The client is moving on. I'm looking for advice/tricks to make it work in SS if possible. If it isn't, maybe there's another host that will work for SourceConnect, but I can continue to edit and mix in the DAW that I know how to fly pretty quickly.

[Dave Labrecque]

No choice. The client is moving on. I'm looking for advice/tricks to make it work in SS if possible. If it isn't, maybe there's another host that will work for SourceConnect, but I can continue to edit and mix in the DAW that I know how to fly pretty quickly.

True 'nuff. You can track in anything. Isn't there a stand-alone version, too? That with a bit of routing (virtual or otherwise) into SAW would be an option, no?

[Ian Alexander]

For Windows, the Pro version is RTAS only. The Standard version is RTAS and VST. No standalone for Windows - OSX only. Ergo, for me, in SS, there's only the Standard version.

I wonder if you can adjust the buffering. For VO, who cares about latency? Up to a certain point, of course. Would that ease the dropout issue?

[Carl G.]

There is a standalone version.
We are using it at work. Rumour we've heard is that they are not continuing the Pro Tools plugin. Too many issues with crashes. We had many crashes. Since we switched to the standalone, the only issues have been with the InterWebs.
I believe they will still have the VST plugin available. It's a great system. Except for heavy traffic days on the net. Sessions at 10am 11am and Noon when other time zones kick in can be a test of patience. Digital drop outs occur.
ISDN is still king, but this upstart system is starting to be a player. There are a lot of serious VO talents using it.

Interwebs
What I don't understand (just naive?) is how does ISDN stack up (in "Quality") to a full Wav or Aiff sent just minutes later? Everything I read - it's inferior (to even MP3 at 320kbps)
The supposed "Convenience" of ISDN seems more like a 'Power Play' thing of recording studios - because often the studio is only POTS "Phone patching" the Studio/ISDN VO down the line to the client (making it sound like the VO is in 'their' studio). So why can't the studio 'phone patch the Talent' then take the VO's high quality WAV after the patch and match-up the good takes & drop them in)? Seems the obvious reason is speed (money), at the cost of quality to the client. And if timing were so important... POTS beats ISDN (which has dome minor delay to it, right)?
But I seriously would like an answer to my question from those 'in the know' here on the forum. (thanks)

[Ian Alexander]

This particular ISDN client records four talent 30-60 minutes a week, each. So waiting for upload and download of uncompressed files would take a lot of the time they now spend editing. They don't have to import the files, they can drop markers while recording, and they don't have to ask me to stop and start. Etc. And the quality is good enough. Most of my ISDN sessions are mp2 at 128 kbps. Mp2 is supposed to be better than MP3, except at low bit rates, but yes, I'd expect a 320 kbps MP3 to sound better than a 128 kbps anything.

I think the key here is to keep the end use in mind. We're talking about messages on hold and radio or TV VOs. Not an archive recording of the symphony. Most of the spots you hear on air have at least one round of data compression in the studio transmitter link and many spots have more. It's not ideal in theory, but it works.

[Dave Labrecque]

It's not ideal in theory, but it works.

Considering how long it's been around and how far technology has come since then, I'd say it works quite well indeed. Nothing else yet can compete for stability and ubiquity.

[Demodave]

If you use L2 Mono 128 on your ISDN unit, the quality is superb...equaling a stereo mp3 at 256 kbps. For voiceover work, I challenge you to find any digital artifacts compared to an uncompressed WAV.