Sound quality between 2 different audio interface

J

jerberson12

mucis procedure
Hi guys,

Is there really a difference in sound quality between two different audio interfaces like M-audio Delta 44 and Presonus F10 with the same recording chain (mic -> Preamp -> etc) ?

Jerberson
 
Simply...yes. Different converters yield different qualities. AD, IMO, being a little more important that DA. That's part of the reason for the price difference in interfaces...the quality of the AD/DA.

I don't know about those two specific interfaces, though. I would say they are different but by how much, I don't know. They're both budget interfaces, aren't they?
 
Depends.

Do you have a really expensive acoustically-adjusted room with really expensive monitors and golden ears from decades of experience??? Then yes.

But I know people who cant tell the difference between a $5,000 setup and a low-quality mp3 on $20 headphones.

Moving from a $200 interface to a $2500 Apogee with a great room and monitors might be VERY noticeable to most of us here, but from a $200 to $500 box IN THE REAL WORLD???? Doubtfull....
 
TimOBrien said:
Depends.

Do you have a really expensive acoustically-adjusted room with really expensive monitors and golden ears from decades of experience??? Then yes.

But I know people who cant tell the difference between a $5,000 setup and a low-quality mp3 on $20 headphones.

Moving from a $200 interface to a $2500 Apogee with a great room and monitors might be VERY noticeable to most of us here, but from a $200 to $500 box IN THE REAL WORLD???? Doubtfull....
Click to expand...
True, but mixes will suffer because of all the things mentioned here. Then again, this is a home recording forum. However, I would hope someone could tell the difference between $200 converters vs a $2500 Apogee. If not, they could be deaf.
 
jerberson12 said:
Is there really a difference in sound quality between two different audio interfaces like M-audio Delta 44 and Presonus F10 with the same recording chain (mic -> Preamp -> etc) ?
Click to expand...

I'll be the odd man out and say No, at least not if both sound cards are working properly and the test is done properly. I once compared a $6,000 Apogee against a $25 SoundBlaster card and any differences were so small as to not matter. Full report (with some grumbling from the peanut gallery) here:

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=12836

--Ethan
 
Myriad_Rocker said:
However, I would hope someone could tell the difference between $200 converters vs a $2500 Apogee. If not, they could be deaf.
Click to expand...

Just to stray a tad off topic...

There was a that thread on GS a while back where everyone was invited to play 'guess the converter' with some audio samples, one being some high-end Lynx unit and the other our trusty friend the Behringer ADA8000 :)

Surprisingly a majority of people prefered the sound of the Behringer (or at least identified it as the 'more expensive' unit).

Of course once the results were revealed and people realised they'd been fooled, everyone wanted to save their dignity and come up with reasons (*cough* excuses) as to why :D

Turns out that the innacuries in high frequencies in the Behringer give it some faux top-end 'sparkle' to the sound. The expensive but more-accurate converters can sound bland in comparison, even though they're technically a lot better.

Of course this is fine when comparing single tracks, but the loss in sound quality probably comes once you start piling up tracks and the issues in the high-end are accentuated. Think of the problems you can sometimes run into if you try and layer loads of tracks recorded with the same mic - things can get quite muddy :) Been there and done that...
 
Last edited:
Hi guys,

thnx for the replies. I think i just noticed it. I had m_audio delta 44($150)
, single track sounds good, but everytime i add tracks, i had to do a lot of mixing, i mean tremendous mixing, before i can even get everything sits well together. I even EQ twice in a single track. Then i bought presonus fp10($400). Even though i dont use any EQ or comp, everything is perfect. It is so obvious. Im gonna like this baby :D
 
Personally I definitely noticed a huge difference in audio quality when I moved from a Terratec card to Aardvark Q-10. My monitors are the original Mackie HR824s and the room wasn't treated at all back then. I was startled at how much of a difference there was.
 
mattr said:
Turns out that the innacuries in high frequencies in the Behringer give it some faux top-end 'sparkle' to the sound.
Click to expand...

I can believe that. This happens all the time, and it's surprisingly easy to fool even pro engineers. A loudspeaker that has more sparkle sounds "better" unless there's too much of it. More common, many loudspeakers have an intentional dip in the "harshness" range around 2 to 4 KHz, so of course they sound smoother and less fatiguing. But that's not the same as being a better speaker!

the loss in sound quality probably comes once you start piling up tracks and the issues in the high-end are accentuated.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really work that way. If you record many tracks through a preamp or whatever that adds 1 dB at 1 KHz, then the sum of all tracks can be EQ'd to cut 1 dB and it will be flat again. This is called "stacking" and it doesn't really exist as many believe. This thread I started at Gearsluz dispels the myth of stacking errors:

Stacking Theory

--Ethan
 
How small does a difference have to be before it doesn't matter?

I have a motu 24io and a motu 2408. The 2408 has been modded by Black Lion. I can instantly tell the two apart on recordings that my intern did while I wasn't here.

Now I know that the mod didn't really affect the converters, just the analog path leading to and from them, but it makes a big difference.

'Better' is subjective, but as a system, there has to be a big difference between the apogee and the soundblaster. May be the apogee isn't 100 times better (as the price would suggest) but it has to be less noisy, have less jitter, etc...
 
Farview said:
as a system, there has to be a big difference between the apogee and the soundblaster.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point - any differences were so small as to not matter. Follow the link I posted above to Lynn Fuston's 3Daudio forum and you can download the files and judge for yourself. Now, the Apogee may be cleaner, which would show up after multiple passes. We didn't record multiple passes through the Apogee, but I did that with my SoundBlaster card:

Original
After 1 pass
After 5 passes
After 10 passes
After 20 passes

May be the apogee isn't 100 times better (as the price would suggest) but it has to be less noisy, have less jitter, etc...
Click to expand...

Jitter is irrelevant and inaudible. All that matters with converters (and indeed any gear) is noise, frequency response, and distortion. Jitter would have to be literally 1,000 times worse than the cheapest POS motherboard sound card before it was as bad as the flutter on the finest Studer tape recorder.

--Ethan
 
Reviving thread

This is an old thread and im reviving it. So as ive mention, i had an maudio delta 44 , went to presonus fp10 then i have the motu traveler. Indeed there is a big difference and i am just confirming. Based on my experience, its true that theres only a little difference in sound quality between a $1000 and $100. That if you just have one or two tracks and thats a $100 are design for. The big differ is when you start stacking five or more tracks. The pan space on each track using motu are narrower compare to the delta 44. So each time i add track, will just fit in the mix without using any eq or comp yet. Its like expensive converters does half of the mixing job for you automatically everytime you add track. So whats left is a little touch up. thanks for the motu experience.
 
I really hope no one reads this thread (or the other thread comparing an Apogee and a Soundblaster), and gets the impression that they can make professional recordings with non-professional interfaces.

You get what you pay for - this is partially true. I think there are true low priced gems out there, but the final result of a complex recording will be affected by the quality of your interface.

As for the Delta 44 and FP10 comparison, I doubt that anyone here could tell which was which simply by listening to recordings from each unit.

My first unit (besides a Soundblaster ;-) was an Aardvark Direct Pro 96. I didn't realize how great this unit was until I "upgraded" to a Presonus Firepod when Aardvark went out of business. I wanted 8 channels for recording drums.

In fact, the first well-paid job I got was using the Firepod. Using the Aardvark unit, I was always able to get great results, but I really had to fight to get any mixes to sound good with the Firepod. The DA was very noisy in comparison, as well, so it made it hard to really hear the mix.

I've since gone back to the Aardvark, mainly for the excellent DA, since I now use an Apogee Mini-Me for tracking anything up to two channels. I don't know what I'll do when I finally upgrade to Windows 7 (no drivers for the Aardvark).

So, don't let anyone tell you that the interface doesn't matter - it really does. Do the research and take advantage of any opportunities to try out gear before you buy.
 
But what defines a professional interface?
Having Pro in the name?
If a pro uses a soundblaster then surely it becomes a pro interface?

Personally I'd say there's a lot more to worry about before even thinking about converters, to name a few:

Room accoustics for both mixing and recording;
good, well arranged material, well rehersed and ready to go;
good instruments and performers to play and sing the material;
mic choice and positioning for good capture;
The right preamps chosen based on desired coloration, clarity or anything in between;
correct gain staging;
monitors that can acurately reproduce the recorded sound in an ideal listening environment;
and so on.

Once all of that is perfect and in place I might think about if there is a need to worry about the effect miniscule conversion errors/distortion could have on my recording.

and of course there is always the consideration that some of the more desired gear out there is so lusted after because of it's actual lack of perfect fidelity and the distortion it introduces although I doubt anyone is sitting with dreamy eyes reminiscing about "that soundblaster sound" :p
I have a long way to go yet :)
 
Lance135 said:
I
As for the Delta 44 and FP10 comparison, I doubt that anyone here could tell which was which simply by listening to recordings from each unit.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain I could, but only if I get to choose the material being recorded. Source material: drum kit. :D

Okay, that's really not fair since there's no way to post-mix a drum kit with a two-channel interface. Still, if you have an X/Y stereo pair for your overheads, you'll hear the difference in the perception of cymbal stereo separation plain as the nose on your face between those two interfaces.

For the Delta, imagine the problems you had getting a good mix with the FIREPOD (same as the FP10), only a thousand times worse. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top