Problem; monitoring, ADL600, and more...

M

moelar2

New member
I purchased an ADL600 several three weeks ago. I have several beefs, not particularly about the unit, but about how to integrate that unit with my existing setup.

Here's my (relevant) stuff:

Mackie 24-8
(2) Echo Laylas
Cubase SX
DBX 166

Problem 1: Monitoring.
My home studio has two iso rooms and a 12x12 drum or "live" room. Iso 1 is my vocal booth. So, in order to maximize my audio fidelity and minimize the variable/compromise, I tried going from mic (NT2) to ADL to Layla. Because I'm recording at 24 bit/48hz, in order to MONITOR from cubase, I have to turn my disk buffers all the way down in order to decrease latency. Well, what this causes in turn is stutter; there are sections of the song that the computer simply will not handle with next to no buffers. I know that clearly the first thing I should be looking at is my computer, and I have, but meanwhile, the only other alternative I've found is to place another mic right next to the NT2 and feed that to my mackie to monitor from there, along with the returns from Cubase.

Problem 2: Compression.
I recently purchased a DBX 166. Haven't really used it yet, so I can't provide feedback. I'm having an inner struggle with the signal chain. I'm going from NT2 to ADL to DBX to Layla. I think my main objection is that I reallyl wish the compression and pre were integrated because I feel guilty about my signal leaving the ADL without soft compression so that I maximize my gain structure without having to account for the occassional peaks.

Problem 3: TB101 Ghost
I have this pre. I pad $150 for it. I A/B it against my ADL last night, and to be honest, I feel like I'm really reaching to find a difference. If I listen closely enough, I suppose there's a little more "roundness" to the ADL. But when I "unsolo" the vocal track and bring it in to the mix that includes about 12 guitar tracks, 10 drum tracks, and 2-3 bass tracks, the "little more 'roundness'" is not worth $2000 to me!

Advice? Counseling? Support?
 
Also...

the exact date that I purchased the ADL from Guitar Center was 8/11/06. I still have a couple of days to return it if I (or we) decide that that's what needs to happen.

For some reason, I'm actually thinking the meek twinq is more what I need b/c it has everything integrated. I have a decent budget ($2k), but I absolutely cannot afford to pay 1 penny above that.

Lastly, I *do* notice a sizeable increase in sound quality. I'm recording a three song "demo"; the first song was recording using my mackie pres for drums and the TB101 for guitars, bass, and vocals. The last two songs have been recorded using the ADL on drum overheads, guitars, bass, and now vocals. But there's another variable that might be more responsible for the change in sound than the ADL: the first song was recorded at 16bit/44.1 while songs 2-3 were recorded at 24 bit/48!
 
In my opinion it doesn't matter whether the pre and the compressor are in the same unit or not. It's the same thing: preamp then compression. So I wouldn't think that there is something intrinsically better by having both in the same box. Not at all.

In your signal chain it is the compressor I would be more inclined to replace than the preamp. Your preamp is much better than your compressor, so that's not what to "fix".

I'd suggest a compressor a little more invisible, like perhaps the FMR RNC or a couple Aphex Expressor 651's. There are a ton of really nice compressors out there. Is the 166 a vintage 166 or a newer unit? I actually like the vintage 166 a lot, and have one myself. That said, if the sound isn't doing it for you, you might want to try another compressor.

As far as the TB101, I've read good things about it. But frankly I've found it a fairly common phenomenon that when I buy something expensive I don't fully appreciate it right away. It's only after a good deal of use that I finally go "aha!" and understand why it cost that much more. So one month with a new preamp is not really enough time to appreciate what it brings to the table. You need to really immerse yourself in using it, get totally used to its sound over a period of time, then go back to a cheaper preamp. I'm virtually certain the differences will be much more apparent at that point. That said, I have not compared those two pieces of gear myself.
 
Well, to clarify, i have not used the compressor yet because of my monitoring problem. Specifically, because I can't monitor the input signal from cubase without causing the decrease in buffer size to make my system stutter, I am not willing to apply "blind" compression. But you're right, and I did realize that the pre will come before the comp anyway (in integrated units).

The 166 is the vintage unit.

So you think the big difference was the jumpt to 24 bit, or the ADL? I KNOW both made a difference, but which one takes the cake?
 
The change from 16 to 24 bit will make a difference. It's hard to say whether what you are hearing is more that than the ADL.

I will say that if you are intending to use these recordings on a CD, using 48k is not necessary. It may not even sound as good as recording at 44.1k once you've sample rate converted it down to 44.1k later in the process. I use 48k for scoring to video because that is the standard final sample rate for that. I use 44.1k for music projects destined for CD because that is the final sample rate for that.

In other words, sample rate conversion can sound worse than just recording at the lower sample rate to begin with. There's very little difference between the sound of 44.1k versus 48k, certainly less difference than 16bit versus 24bit.

If you are trying to upgrade your front end, every step of the chain needs to be upgraded, it will only sound as good as the weakest link. So in a way, it's a bit counter-productive to try to figure out which upgrade to give up, because it will have an effect.

My opinion is that you should be recording at 24bit, period. So the question of which is making a bigger difference, 16bit versus 24bit or the preamp, doesn't really apply.

It seems like there should be a clever way to work around that monitoring problem with the Mackie 24/8.
 
moelar2 said:
I purchased an ADL600 several three weeks ago. I have several beefs, not particularly about the unit, but about how to integrate that unit with my existing setup.

Here's my (relevant) stuff:

Mackie 24-8
(2) Echo Laylas
Cubase SX
DBX 166

Problem 1: Monitoring.
My home studio has two iso rooms and a 12x12 drum or "live" room. Iso 1 is my vocal booth. So, in order to maximize my audio fidelity and minimize the variable/compromise, I tried going from mic (NT2) to ADL to Layla. Because I'm recording at 24 bit/48hz, in order to MONITOR from cubase, I have to turn my disk buffers all the way down in order to decrease latency. Well, what this causes in turn is stutter; there are sections of the song that the computer simply will not handle with next to no buffers. I know that clearly the first thing I should be looking at is my computer, and I have, but meanwhile, the only other alternative I've found is to place another mic right next to the NT2 and feed that to my mackie to monitor from there, along with the returns from Cubase.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm following here..

Are you talking about monitoring "during" tracking? Doesn't the ADL have two outputs? If so then feed one of the outputs to your mixer for real time monitoring while you are tracking.
 
You just need to split the signal after the compressor. So you'd do something like run the post-compressor signal into the Mackie and take the direct out to your Layla. You'd then monitor off the Mackie.
 
What's going on with your backing tracks that's keeping your computer from playing it back smoothly? Have you thought about rendering out the backing tracks to a new stereo track and recording vocals on top of that (while monitoring live in cubase), and then importing the recorded vocals back into your multitrack project?

FWIW, you can get an AMD X2 system for DIRT cheap right now if you are looking to upgrade...
 
The Rage -- the outputs are discrete, one output per input, so I can't use the second output to moniter unless it has a feed, which it doesn't.

Sonic -- I've tried that, but I believe you told me in another post of mine that the signal is only as good as your weakest link. In this case, adding the mackie would conceivably (although probably not by much), degrade my sound. You've advised me against this in the past (maybe three weeks ago).

mikedaul -- your suggestion involves too much work :) I suppose I could do that but I'd rather get this functioning the way it's suppose to. I get irritated easily; toggling back n' forth, importing, exporting...that would piss me off.

Interesting note: We recorded vocals last night and I wasn't very happy with the sound. It sounded too bright and "loose", as opposed to tight and controlled. I tried many things today, and finally, just as I had given up, realized that I was using a regular pop filter, which I never do, as opposed to the condom style that I always use. I put the condom back on and there it was! Nice, in yo' face, controlled, clear, transparent, ADL vocals.
 
moelar2 said:
Sonic -- I've tried that, but I believe you told me in another post of mine that the signal is only as good as your weakest link. In this case, adding the mackie would conceivably (although probably not by much), degrade my sound. You've advised me against this in the past (maybe three weeks ago).
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. But in your situation you need to split the signal in order to monitor properly. So you may have to make a compromise.

I would try a couple things:

1. Go from the ADL > 166 > insert jack on the Mackie. You'll only put the jack into the insert up to the first click. This bypasses the Mackie's onboard preamps, which you don't need or want since you are using the ADL. Then take the direct out to your Layla and monitor off the Mackie. This will be absolutely the cleanest signal you'll get from the Mackie.

2. You can also mult off a patchbay. So in this scenario you'd run the output of the ADL > 166 signal chain to a patchbay, mult it, then take one of the mults to the Layla and the other to the Mackie for monitoring.
 
patchbays and I don't get along very well. But it's a great idea, and I may just have to have a make-up session with patchbays.

the insert idea is awesome. I think that's what I'm gonna do. thanks albert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top