The Interface Upgrade Thing:

[Eleanor Fudd]

I've been using a Presonus AudioBox. My understanding from rumour and innuendo is that to get a better interface - which basically means a better analog-to-digital converter - you have to go up to the RME Babyface or its competitors, for somewhere between $700 and $1000. That raises some questions in my mind:

1) Is that true?
2) What ARE the competitors?
3) Is the Babyface Pro replacing the Babyface?
4) What would you recommend for the job?
5) Are those converters "pro" quality, or would professional studios typically have converters of higher quality again?

Thanks for any wisdom.

 

[Bobbsy]

I've never used a Presonus Audiobox but is there anything you can identify in your recordings that you can put down to an inferior interface?

The A to D (and D to A) section of the interface probably has the smallest affect on the quality of the sound. What CAN make a difference is the quality of the microphone pre amp--and even on these you have to spend a lot of money for a subtle increase in quality. Or maybe I should say "subtle and subjective" because it's going to come down somewhat to your taste in audio.

Having said that, RME to make good converters--nice preamps and very reliable drivers. Another competitor you could look at is MOTU.

Pro quality? There's no formal definition and great music has been recorded with a couple of mics into a 2 track analogue recorder--or a 64 channel digital mixer. What I WOULD say is that the quality of your performance, the acoustics of your room and the microphone will likely make a far bigger difference than your interface. (Note that I'm assuming a specialist "proper" interface when I say this, not a built in Realtek or Creative Labs.)

 

[CoolCat]

yeah not sure what the converters will show, whats that test Ethan did? with running some pro-music through your converters and a highend converter and see if you can hear a difference. Really no other way to compare than side-by-side. get a return policy and do the homework.

i always thought it was the drivers and chipsets that worked for some companies interfaces more than others.
but I dont even read about too many driver problems these days. things have advanced and bugs and glitches exist less and less.

 

[ecc83]

There have been very few really well constructed comparisons between converters that I am aware of in the last 10 years or so.

The few that there have been were in Sound on Sound magazine and the reviewer was at great pains to get the levels matched to better than 0.5dB and to point out that the differences were small. So small that in some cases a change in the genre of the test music could sway the results.

We often read of an $X000 interface/converter has "lifted a veil" or produce "pin sharp" imaging but rarely anything more concrete than that mere opinion.

A really top line interface, one say 10x the price of a basic 2i2 say, might have a noise floor 10dB better and distortion in the third decimal place instead of the second at -0.1dBFS but where and how on earth would we HEAR such magnificence? Who has a source/room...MONITORS even to do justice to a -120dB noise floor?

Dave.

 

[garww]

You can judge each section of the interface, but you can't do that without the interface to test ; ) If the box is big enough, you might be able to get some discrete op-amps in there - like Burson, etc..

 

[Chili]

+1 to what everyone said. I used to have a Phonic firewire mixer and Lavry's. I could not tell the difference between the units. Others might be able to, but only the discerning ear could do it.

If you're looking to trade up and have a $1000 budget, look at the UAD Apollo.

Great units and their software mic pre plug-in can actually control the hardware mic pre's gain and impedance. Very cool.

 

[garww]

Outside of Marketing doublespeak, which may, or, may not have any bearing on sound quality, what converter of today sounds better than these old AK5389 ADC from around 1995 : )

 

[CoolCat]

I cant tell unless you post spec's......er... and brand name and cost..if it costs a bunch it will sound better.....ahaha

ok joking aside... well I probably spoke too soon, thats 18bit right?

Asahi Kasei....brand.

heres the datasheet
http://www.allpartsdata.com/show_allpartsdatasheet.php?status=true

I agree with Chili on the interface, those Apollo's are hard to beat and youre in a great upgrade space with "comps and preamps" onboard, its decent pricing considering all you get. Im not so shure Thunderbolt will last long as USB-c or whatever is coming around the mountain ahead of schedule.

 

[garww]

I cant tell unless you post spec's......er... and brand name and cost..if it costs a bunch it will sound better.....ahaha

ok joking aside... well I probably spoke too soon, thats 18bit right?

Asahi Kasei....brand.

heres the datasheet
http://www.allpartsdata.com/show_allpartsdatasheet.php?status=true

I agree with Chili on the interface, those Apollo's are hard to beat and youre in a great upgrade space with "comps and preamps" onboard, its decent pricing considering all you get. Im not so shure Thunderbolt will last long as USB-c or whatever is coming around the mountain ahead of schedule.

It's still 16/48 era, but they sound good. The front end isn't anything special, but I can use something else. I bought this for the PCM1702 DAC section, though.

With modern stuff, its still the basic circuit sections Line in, MIC preamp, clock circuits, converters, output sections - and the Feature stuff. In theory, some $1000 One Knob should sound better than a feature packed $1000 interface.

You know I bought that $25 pocket AD from China that I can plug any front end into.

 

[CoolCat]

Thats the point probably , they all sound good at some point in time..maybe it was the 1990's?
Maybe 16/44.1 was the line in the dirt. I just bought some preamp with 20bit or 24bit but 44/48.
WIki mentions 1950 converters started, gates and capacitors or something...so for some time the converters might have been pretty bad, maybe ok for machines not audio.
I guess using 16/44.1 CD's audio world as a comparison point...16/44.1 is ok? marketing aside of course.

the OP has this Presonus...24bit 48k, USB powered so 500ma max, USB-C is coming...I'd wait for that for an upgrade maybe. USB-C 1.5A & 3.0A....theres some juice for the preamps and headphone amps.

 

[snow lizard]

Are those converters "pro" quality, or would professional studios typically have converters of higher quality again?

RME has a good reputation. Lots of other competitors.

yeah not sure what the converters will show, whats that test Ethan did?

Rane something into the Mackie through "butthorns". I think the files may have gotten mixed up on that one.

There have been very few really well constructed comparisons between converters that I am aware of in the last 10 years or so.

Designing a proper test with the right controls and interpreting the results effectively is an art form itself. The results will always be subjective.

You can judge each section of the interface, but you can't do that without the interface to test ; ) If the box is big enough, you might be able to get some discrete op-amps in there - like Burson, etc..

I think the biggest difference between converters is going to come down to

- the clock with regard to stability and jitter

- the analog components of the converter

I'm not sure how much of an effect you can expect form clock performance. Even modest converters can perform well.

The analog components will make a difference in "character" (distortion) and phase coherence. It still remains subjective. Mastering grade converters are generally super expensive, clean and accurate with a lot of headroom at the expense of having any character at all. Probably not something you'd want to track and mix with, but very well suited to mastering. You'd be hearing the source, not the converter.

Tracking and mixing is more about the sound than how accurate it is. If you're using a Radar or Lynx or whatever you like, it might be imparting subtle amounts of colour (for lack of a better term like "euphonic distortion" or something) that makes things sound pleasing and easy to work with. The coloration is probably not something you'd want at mastering, so different converters for different processes.

On the "economy" end of the scale, the biggest difference is most likely the analog design of the converter. Similar to preamps. Less headroom. Likely to distort if pushed hard enough, but not likely to be "euphonic". You can still get decent results with these things if the gain staging is conservative enough to avoid distortion.

The thing is, the converter is one of the last things in the chain so any tiny, subjective differences you might expect are going to be influenced by everything else. You might get better results by changing guitar strings or experimenting with mic placement. Finding the weak link in the chain is key. It might be monitors, the room, mics, preamps or something else. If all that stuff is solid, it might be worth considering a converter upgrade. Until then, something else in the chain might yield a bigger improvement. If you don't have the monitoring chain to support it, you might not hear any difference between converters.

If you're looking to trade up and have a $1000 budget, look at the UAD Apollo.

I'm not familiar with these, but it seems that the big difference is with the ability to handle the UAD plugins and offload the DSP power to run them. Price point is still within reach given the added functions, but it goes up if you want to add more plugins.

 

[garww]

We still be hard pressed to get the quality of the Soundstream recorders. The spokesman engineer from that era suggests it took him quite awhile before off the shelf parts sounded good to him. Off the shelf in Custom 192k Converters, that is.

haha I can draw 2 amps on my front end and 100ma on the pocket converter and send up to 96k to the disk recorders, or any of six (?) different soundcards and a couple DAC.

Anyway, the higher end converters and interfaces are at the online stores for anyone to see. Where Pro "sounding" starts is subjective.

 

[CoolCat]

I think the biggest difference between converters is going to come down to

- the clock with regard to stability and jitter

- the analog components of the converter

I'm not sure how much of an effect you can expect form clock performance. Even modest converters can perform well.

yeah that seems to be the general thought, imo. they're all pretty well in 2017, I mean what was a folklore problem in 1986 is probably a strawman argument today because the problem doesnt exist much.

Im a believer in quality components but when you get into small current and 5v things, they can last a long time, nothing like the old tube 440v days and heat melting sockets with amps drawn etc...

Converters in a cheap CD player or Iphone are probably pretty decent as far as upgrading the Home Recording studio last 10yrs at least.

The real question might be "why the urge to upgrade?" whats the real issue? Maybe its the weak preamps due to USB power or the headphone amp is lethargic etc.... ?
Thats the problem person X buys the converters and its not HiFi Holy Grail, often cant even hear a difference...in 2000 to 2017 converters anyway. Or some maybe can hear it better than others? or at least "feel" the improvement.

Crane comes to mind, Im sure they build seriously engineered stuff but can it win a blindfold test over the PResonus Audio Box for most applications?

 

[TAE]

The real question might be "why the urge to upgrade?" whats the real issue?

I believe the most common cause is GAS Gear Acquisition Syndrome...We are limited to what we are as musicians, as recording engineers as marketing guru's. Most of us are musicians here that get into this "at home" recording to record our stuff. We can improve our skills in all arenas mentioned and in some cases may be better than pro's or people that have "made it". As we pump out our work and we are not completely satisfied with it or people aren't falling out of the chairs going OMG you're the cats pajamas! We start to look at the chinks in the armor... what we can do to improve with software and hardware etc. and we buy more "stuff" to make a better recording. Shit what we can do with an iPad and cheap microphone today pales what Leo Fender and Les Paul and the likes were working with and they put out some damn fine recordings.

I am trying VERY hard to minimize, getting rid of a lot of stuff not being used and just work with what I have. I have a dream studio if I look at it from the perspective of when I was a teen, Just gonna try to appreciate it for what it is and quit throwing money at it just cause I can. A decent current i5 laptop with some ram running win 10 (@$300) Reaper ($65), a cheap interface (@$200), a few decent mics (@$300) and a ton of plugins...Under a grand not counting instruments and amps and I'm golden..

Love the "if it's not happening in the room, it ain't gonna happen on tape" quote...garbage in, garbage out...try as you might you can not polish a turd...and it's a stinkin mess trying to do so!

 

[garww]

Depends on what sounds good. Right now, I'm listening to the first Doors LP in DSD64 format - which is 64 times the rate of CD. But, it had to be remastered by Doug Sax on tube gear : ) Am I gonna record something that sounds as good as the 1st Boston LP, probably not !

We should be comparing sonics to top end stuff, not iPod-type electronics

 

[gecko zzed]

If the OP's interface is performing as it should, then I see no real need to 'upgrade'. Not because you won't get an improvement if you upgrade, but more because in terms of the overall quality you end up with, an interface is probably the least of your concerns.

When you consider the whole system (the performance, the room in which the performance is recorded, the mike you use to record the performance, the interface, the monitoring system), and you decide you want to spend some money on improving the results, there are probably bigger gains in quality elsewhere (for example, room treatment, or better mikes).

 

[ecc83]

I really cannot agree that the analogue part of a converter is going to contribute to "character" if it is designed with even a smattering of intelligence.

The distortion produced by even the venerable NE5532/34 is at the limit of the best AP analysers to measure, in the fourth decimal place and there are now even better op amps such as the LM4562. Mixer and "strips" usually contain half a dozen such devices in cascade and even then the distortion remains very hard to detect. An A to D converter would have typically ONE such chip per input, maybe two and the D/A maybe up to 3 depending upon the converter topology. None of the devices are being used at more than 6dB of gain, most at unity gain and so a massive amount of gain is left for feedback. Noise from a 5532 is unlikely to bother the home tyro but if a more impressive specc is needed, lower noise chips are now available.

Capacitors stand watching, a bit. Polyprops produce no measurable distortion even at 10V rms. Polyesters do distort but even they are in the 3rd decimal place and can of course be avoided. Electrolytics are but comparison horrible but even then it is only an order worse (and way, WAY better than any triode or tape!) the distortion worsens as the voltage across the capacitor increases and is therefore inversely proportional to frequency but where we need electros' in a signal path distortion can be eliminated in the 20-20kHz band by simply making the value much larger than the required response would indicate, e.g. output DC blockers should be around 100mfd.

Dave.

 

[ecc83]

Can't edit but forgot...

Peeps bang on about "converters" and their giblets but totally forget the electronics in their monitors! I have only seen schematics for a couple of common active monitors but they were nothing special. Bog S 4558 op amps, chip power amps.

Dave.

 

[snow lizard]

I really cannot agree that the analogue part of a converter is going to contribute to "character" if it is designed with even a smattering of intelligence.

It's not unlike an amp in a lot of ways. Amps aren't all the same. What's the difference?

 

[ecc83]

It's not unlike an amp in a lot of ways. Amps aren't all the same. What's the difference?

You tell (and give peer reviewed data) me? Ever since the days of the Quad 303 progress in DETECTABLE audio problems have largely stalled for anything of a competent design and build and run within its ratings.

I am pretty sure nobody ever picked up Peter Walker's two Grand? Some people IMHO are walking close to the Russ Andrews line!

Dave.