What is better? ADAT connection or analog line connection?

giopad65

New member
Hi everybody,
I currently own a Fireface 400 audio interface, which I connect via firewire to my laptop.
It has two mic pres, so I am thinking adding some more pres for multichannel takes.
I have two chances:
1) I get a standard mic pre (es RME Quadmic) with analog line output, and I plus those outputs to the line inputs of the FF 400;
2) I get a mic pre with A/D conversion and ADAT output, and I plug such an ADAT signal into the FF400.

Is there a general rule that says if an alternative is better than the other? Would there be any advantage in having a mic pre with ADAT output and choose - from time to time - to connect it either via analog line input (which is normally provided) or via ADAT?

Hope the question was understandable (I am sorry if my english is poor).
TIA
Giovanni
 
My rule of thumb is to keep the clock and converters in the same box if possible, which would make me lean towards an analog connection to the Fireface.
 
I can't be as definite as bouldersoundguy. I'd have to say "it depends".

First, bouldersoundguy mentioned clocking and this is important--you need a scheme to keep things synchronised. I use some ADAT interfaces and have the ability to distribute wordclock from a single source (in my case, my digital mixer). Done this way it's not an issue--and so long as your gear allows you to set up wordclock in some way, it shouldn't be for you either.

FYI, in any large digital setup, distributed wordclock is the norm--keeping clock and converters in the same box only works in a pretty small set up.

Second, the big difference will be the quality of the gear you're using with the choice of ADAT vs. analogue not making all that much difference. Top quality mic pre amps with ADAT out will outperform cheap and nasty mic pres with analogue out. Conversely, a nice analogue mic pre will probably out perform Behringer ADA8000 pre amps with ADAT out.
 
I can't be as definite as bouldersoundguy. I'd have to say "it depends".

First, bouldersoundguy mentioned clocking and this is important--you need a scheme to keep things synchronised. I use some ADAT interfaces and have the ability to distribute wordclock from a single source (in my case, my digital mixer). Done this way it's not an issue--and so long as your gear allows you to set up wordclock in some way, it shouldn't be for you either.

FYI, in any large digital setup, distributed wordclock is the norm--keeping clock and converters in the same box only works in a pretty small set up.

Second, the big difference will be the quality of the gear you're using with the choice of ADAT vs. analogue not making all that much difference. Top quality mic pre amps with ADAT out will outperform cheap and nasty mic pres with analogue out. Conversely, a nice analogue mic pre will probably out perform Behringer ADA8000 pre amps with ADAT out.
This makes sense, too.
I my case we're talking about a quite small setup (the digital core of it being my FF400).
As I wrote, a no-ADAT pre like the Quadmic could be an option (from what I read, RME pres are well ranked). On the other hand, I am wondering if something like the Audient Mico (with ADAT output) would be better.
I found a used Quadmic for 250 euros (about 320 dollars) which seems a good bargain...
 
Just on the merits of analog connection versus ADAT connection I would go with analog. It's far more likely that ADAT connection will add jitter (to the converters receiving external clock) than decrease it. But with any decent gear the effect is likely to be very small, so that pretty much leaves you with the sound of the preamplifiers as the main deciding factor.
 
Just on the merits of analog connection versus ADAT connection I would go with analog. It's far more likely that ADAT connection will add jitter (to the converters receiving external clock) than decrease it. But with any decent gear the effect is likely to be very small, so that pretty much leaves you with the sound of the preamplifiers as the main deciding factor.
Do you know the RME pres? Do you consider them clean and neutral (I happen to record only ancient music, so I think I'd better aim at this kind of non-colored sound)? Somebody makes me think that 100 euros per channel (here in Italy the Quadmic goes for about 400 euros) isn't that much if you look for quality...
 
I've used RME interfaces with built in pre amps and can confirm I'd call them "clean and neutral". It seems likely their stand alone pre amps would follow this trend--but I guess there's no guarantee.
 
So which is better?

I would like to point some things out regarding the question in the OP.

A preamp with a digital output, eg ADAT or AES/EBU, etc, will have digital conversion built into the box. In the case of the Audient Mico, it will utilize their proprietary converter technology (which is pretty good) so that is something to consider. A purely analog preamp will interface with the digital converters in your Fireface (via a normal cable), which are also pretty good, but the question is, how do they compare to the Audient's converters? How will the preamp sound plugged in both ways? If it doesn't matter to you and you merely need more channels, either option will do fine. I personally like Audient's stuff a lot so I would take a gander at the Mico. Their 2802 sounds fantastic.

Anyway.

Jitter isn't something to worry about if you know what you're doing. You'll simply have to clock the devices together. This can be done so many ways and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

My vote's on the Mico. The Audient guys really know what they're doing, imo.

Cheers :)
 
Back
Top