Converter upgrade needed

[tmix]

I am starting our bands 5th CD soon and was wanting to take the sound to a higher level.
Previously I have been using 2 Delta 1010s. I have recently bought a Lucid Word clock which has helped some, so I was thinking that perhaps upgrading to at least a good stereo convertor (thinking Lavry / Mytek / Benchmark / Apogee Rosetta, possibly Lucid).

Has anyone here made that type of upgrade, and what was your impression?

If anyone has a good stereo to 8 channel a/d to sell I'd like to hear about it.

Right now, something with a spidf out would be the easiest to integrate, but I dont want that to be the sole criteria.

Any thoughts?

Tom

[SonicAlbert]

You might want to add the Universal Audio 2192 to that list of converters to consider.

Benchmark's new A to D converter isn't out yet.

Mytek is a very hard company to get hold of. I'd be hesitant to buy anything from them, although I have heard good things about their converters.

You'd do very well with the Lavry or Apogee. And if you get either of those you would probably want to ditch your Lucid clock and just go with the clock on the converter itself.

[Massive Master]

I'm a hardcore Lavry fan. The LE4496 is modular also - So you can add DA's and AD's (and Lavry's Mic preamps!) to the chassis later if you want.

[tmix]

I did some reading on the Universal Audio 2192.
It seems it is mostly for Rock and Roll sort of sound/ vibe. I mostly record Jazz / Folk / Acoustic oriented stuff.

I am very interested in looking into Lavry and Apogee.
Any suggestions on a good place to buy from?

Tom

[apl]

Wow! Cool that you're playing at that level.

How 'bout RME's ADI series?

[fraserhutch]

Originally Posted by tmix

I did some reading on the Universal Audio 2192.
It seems it is mostly for Rock and Roll sort of sound/ vibe. I mostly record Jazz / Folk / Acoustic oriented stuff.

I am very interested in looking into Lavry and Apogee.
Any suggestions on a good place to buy from?

Tom

I may be missing something here, but how do AD convertors have anything to do with them genre being recorded? I thought the idea was to be as transparent as possible? They shouldn';t influence the sound AT ALL, expecially at that price point... am I missing something here?

[HangDawg]

Originally Posted by tmix

I did some reading on the Universal Audio 2192.
It seems it is mostly for Rock and Roll sort of sound/ vibe.

I didn't know A/D/A converters had a preference in what style of music they worked on.

[HangDawg]

Originally Posted by fraserhutch

I may be missing something here, but how do AD convertors have anything to do with them genre being recorded? I thought the idea was to be as transparent as possible? They shouldn';t influence the sound AT ALL, expecially at that price point... am I missing something here?

Guess we were wondering the same thing eh!

[chessrock]

It's about time someone started marketing converters by music genre, I tell ya.


It's about damn time.

[HangDawg]

Originally Posted by chessrock

It's about time someone started marketing converters by music genre, I tell ya.


It's about damn time.

I can see it now. The new Behringer HipHop AD/DA Pro. When you need that extra touch of hotness.

[SonicAlbert]

Originally Posted by tmix

I did some reading on the Universal Audio 2192.
It seems it is mostly for Rock and Roll sort of sound/ vibe. I mostly record Jazz / Folk / Acoustic oriented stuff.

I am very interested in looking into Lavry and Apogee.
Any suggestions on a good place to buy from?

Tom

Where did you read that rock-n-roll thing about the 2192? Just curious to read it myself, although I believe that it could certainly be used on any musical style.

I buy most of my gear from Music Center Inc. Ask for Tom. He's always taken great care of me with both service and price. 800-697-9393

[XLR]

I've got the Lucid 9624 AD. Night and day difference compared to my older RME converters. The RME's were good but when I A/B'd with the Lucid it was like a veil was lifted from the sound.

Tim

[tmix]

Originally Posted by fraserhutch

I may be missing something here, but how do AD convertors have anything to do with them genre being recorded? I thought the idea was to be as transparent as possible? They shouldn';t influence the sound AT ALL, expecially at that price point... am I missing something here?

If you read up on them you will find that what makes a big part of the sound of the convertors is the analogue circuitry that accompanies them. Universal Audio uses certain analogue circuitry to try to lend a Vintage R&R sound that is fairly heavy in the mid range. The converters themselves may not impart a sound, but the analogue circuitry going in and out certainly does.

Tom

[tmix]

Originally Posted by SonicAlbert

Where did you read that rock-n-roll thing about the 2192? Just curious to read it myself, although I believe that it could certainly be used on any musical style.

I buy most of my gear from Music Center Inc. Ask for Tom. He's always taken great care of me with both service and price. 800-697-9393

I read it in this months Recording Magazine. (the one that used to be Home and Studio Recording) there was a pretty extensive article on it.

Tom

[Giganova]

I highly doubt that you'll hear ANY difference even if you'd get multi-thousand dollar converters. I recently upgraded from a very modest Roland VM3100 digital mixer to an Allen & Heath board, an RME lightpipe sound card and AD/DA converters. Its basically a step up from $300 to $1800 and you'd excpect to hear a difference, right? Well, my conclusion, and that of many other guys who listened to the samples I've posted here are: the difference in audio quality is almost inaudible!
High-end convertes are highly overrated!

I am absolutly convinced that if you'd get an Lucid/Apogee/etc converter you won't hear any difference, unless you have amazing monitors, an acoustically very well treated room and golden ears. One thing is for sure: somone listening to your final CD at 16/44.1 won't hear any difference even if you thought you might hear a difference in your studio environment.

If you wanna take the sound of your band to a new level, get new instruments for your band members, or go on a vacation with your band to raise their spirits! Music is done by people, not by audio gear.

[apl]

Hey, Giga, you posted that shootout, right?

I don't think you can make a good comparison of those two systems with synths. Some vocals or challenging acoustic sources would be more challenging for the equipment. Thus I have reservations about your conclusions.

I would like a vaction, though.



.

[tmix]

Guys, I know that on the surface it sounds stupid but I am not making that article up.
Yeesh! I am sorry I mentioned it...

I may be silly but hopefully not really stupid. (hangs head in shame)

Gig,
I kind of wondered that myself.
If what I need to be doing is concentrating more on getting better performances out of bandmates, and experimenting more with mic placement, then that just costs me time, not $2500 bucks.

The only cotradictory experiance I have is doing some work at a friends house who has a protools HD192 set up with some additional Apogee Rosettas, that I have to admit, the clarity and 3 dimensionality of the raw tracks is higher on the stuff tracked at his facility.

Is it worth the extra bucks?... Not if I can get 90% there through some physical effort on my part.

[Giganova]

Originally Posted by tmix

Is it worth the extra bucks?... Not if I can get 90% there through some physical effort on my part.

That's my point: you needed to invest a _serious_ amount of money to make small improvements in audio quality. Only you can decide whether that's worth your money or not. I just wanted to throw in a cautionary warning, because all the time you hear the hype about high-end gear, but in reality the differences are very subtle. Based on my experience I find HUGE differences between mics and pres, but converters and sound cards are highly overrated in my opinion.

Honestly, in your case with a friend who has a high-end PT rig, I'd probably get a Digi02 and a portable USB/Firewire drive so you can bring your recorded PT tracks to your friend's facility and mix & polish it there in PT.

apl: yes, the shotout was from me, and it had the caveat that I was using a song from a synthesizer. That sound was a high-quality analog synth sound (and 100% reproducable, that's why I chose it), so I don't see why this would not qualify as a "challanging acoutic source". Its a real life situation. I wasn't recording Bjork through an ELA M250 because I will never do that with my gear and in my studio, so what's the point of constructing a comparison that has nothing to do with our daily recording needs?

[fraserhutch]

I ab'd a bunch of stuff in a similar fashion and I found a HUGE difference in sonic quality.

To me, convertors DO make a significant difference. To each their own, eh?

[chessrock]

I have to agree with Gig, for the most part.

I have a really easy time hearing differences among microphones. And with instruments, it's night and day. Using a nicer guitar or amp, or using higher-quality cymbals, etc. ... makes for such a slicker, more refined and professional finished product.

Even after several tracks, converters just make such a miniscule difference in the big picture, to me. If given the choice, I'll take the nicer converters ... but I'm not going to spend more than 10 minutes of my life fretting over it. It's just not a make-or-break thing for me.

Just my opinions.

[SonicAlbert]

I agree and disagree, how's that?

I don't think synths make a very good test of a converter. A much better test is on acoustic sources like a piano, voice, acoustic guitar, strings, woodwinds, etc. In those cases you will certainly hear a major difference between a budget converter and one that costs a thousand or thousands more.

When doing converter comparisons I've found the better converters have a much higher level of detail, better stereo imaging, depth, and more evenness up and down the audible frequency range. They also sound less "digital" whatever that means, although I can hear it and I think you know what I mean. This is one reason why synths are such a bad test of a converter: they are digital themselves so it masks what the converter is doing.

I agree on the part about mics and preamps being easier to hear as far as differences between them. But it's also pretty easy in my opinion to hear the difference between a high quality converter and a budget unit.

[XLR]

As far as other things giving more bang for the buck than converter upgrade...

I've done a pretty big upgrade in my mics, preamps, converters and room over the last few years. For the improvement each has had on sound quality I'd put them in this order, (most to least):

1. room
2. mics
3. converters
4. pre's

I'm figuring from a baseline of the source getting a good sound, and the mic's being an OK match with the pre's.

Tim