Is there a significant different between Recording Interfaces and sound quality?

[miroslav]

While it's true that you are adding a cable connection...it's usually a balanced line level connection, so unless there are issues with the gear, there will be no signal loss or noise added....especially at that short distance...
...but I agree with Armistice that at the low-budget level, everything is about "all-in-one".

IMO...what suffers most from all-in-one budget boxes isn't the conversion...but the preamp. Often they are budget (aka lower quality pres)...also, not sure of all the technical specifics, but I would think there is more work required to shield the pres inside from the converter electronics. There's a reason why pres are often kept away from other electronic gear, as they easily pick up all kinds of noise/interference.

 

[chuckduffy]

hey i wasn't saying it's a danger - just pointing out what the poster meant.

 

[ecc83]

It is often overlooked that an A/D.D/A cannot exist in isolation. It must have drive and output analogue amplifiers* and the design of these amplifiers is by no means trivial if noise and distortion is to be minimized. For instance the typical A/D input voltage might be just 1.06V rms (3V pk-pk) for 0dBFS and so for the drive amplifier not to worsen a 100dB noise level (say) said amplifier must have a noise output of less than 10microvolts.

Then the I/O amps need to be accurately constructed low pass filters (nothing to do with aliasing BTW) . It is likely then that the more expensive designs will do better at these tasks than lesser models, but! Such fine differences and low noise levels will only reveal themselves to THE most searching sources and monitoring equipment.

I have recently done a record/replay noise test on my NI Ka6 and was pleased to find both channels at -101dBFS at minimum gain. This worsened by 20dB with the mic amps at max gain but in practice an SM57 is much noisier even in a surburban bedroom at 2am! My venerable M-A 2496 cards regularly return -93dBFS, and that has always been more than good enough in conjuction with my A&H ZED10 mixer.
*D.Self. Small Signal Audio Design

Dave.

 

[Armistice]

It is often overlooked that an A/D.D/A cannot exist in isolation. It must have drive and output analogue amplifiers* and the design of these amplifiers is by no means trivial if noise and distortion is to be minimized. For instance the typical A/D input voltage might be just 1.06V rms (3V pk-pk) for 0dBFS and so for the drive amplifier not to worsen a 100dB noise level (say) said amplifier must have a noise output of less than 10microvolts.

Then the I/O amps need to be accurately constructed low pass filters (nothing to do with aliasing BTW) . It is likely then that the more expensive designs will do better at these tasks than lesser models, but! Such fine differences and low noise levels will only reveal themselves to THE most searching sources and monitoring equipment.

I have recently done a record/replay noise test on my NI Ka6 and was pleased to find both channels at -101dBFS at minimum gain. This worsened by 20dB with the mic amps at max gain but in practice an SM57 is much noisier even in a surburban bedroom at 2am! My venerable M-A 2496 cards regularly return -93dBFS, and that has always been more than good enough in conjuction with my A&H ZED10 mixer.
*D.Self. Small Signal Audio Design

Dave.

You do the audio tuning on the Tardis, doncha?

 

[ecc83]

You do the audio tuning on the Tardis, doncha?

Well, the current Dr Who IS a local!
Dave.

 

[dreib]

It is often overlooked that an A/D.D/A cannot exist in isolation. It must have drive and output analogue amplifiers* and the design of these amplifiers is by no means trivial if noise and distortion is to be minimized. For instance the typical A/D input voltage might be just 1.06V rms (3V pk-pk) for 0dBFS and so for the drive amplifier not to worsen a 100dB noise level (say) said amplifier must have a noise output of less than 10microvolts.

Then the I/O amps need to be accurately constructed low pass filters (nothing to do with aliasing BTW) . It is likely then that the more expensive designs will do better at these tasks than lesser models, but! Such fine differences and low noise levels will only reveal themselves to THE most searching sources and monitoring equipment.

I have recently done a record/replay noise test on my NI Ka6 and was pleased to find both channels at -101dBFS at minimum gain. This worsened by 20dB with the mic amps at max gain but in practice an SM57 is much noisier even in a surburban bedroom at 2am! My venerable M-A 2496 cards regularly return -93dBFS, and that has always been more than good enough in conjuction with my A&H ZED10 mixer.
*D.Self. Small Signal Audio Design

Dave.

So..........what are you trying to say?....Dumb it down. What I think you said is, to the average joe, your not gonna really be able to tell the diference between a cheap and expensive converter.

 

[ecc83]

So..........what are you trying to say?....Dumb it down. What I think you said is, to the average joe, your not gonna really be able to tell the diference between a cheap and expensive converter.

I leave dumbing down to the BBC science broadcasts. You don't HAVE to read me!

Dave.

 

[chuckduffy]

So..........what are you trying to say?....Dumb it down. What I think you said is, to the average joe, your not gonna really be able to tell the diference between a cheap and expensive converter.

I'm not speaking for him - but the typical low cost interface and pre isn't going to be your barrier to getting good recordings. I've used the presonus and focusrite stuff. The NI interface the guy is talking about is less than $250 bucks. You can always upgrade to better pres/converters later. Honestly the things that hamper my recordings are my playing ability, the room and over processing - mainly in that order. Most of the tunes I check out in the mp3 forum suffer from rampant gain related post processing problems (over plugin itis), 'mastering while mixing', basic instrument level problems, out of tune instruments, panning wierdness, phasing. I've never ever once listened to a tune here and thought 'dude could use better pres and converters'.

 

[miroslav]

I've never ever once listened to a tune here and thought 'dude could use better pres and converters'.

That's very true...it's hard to tell what the signal chain was with a finished recording.

The only thing one might consider though, is that the better the signals to start with...the better the chance of preserving them as you work your way through various stages of editing, mixing, processing and converting.

It really is up to each person to figure that out for their own scenario, as I think for many of us, budgets dicate a lot of those decisions, but yes, you can get a good end product without breaking the bank these days.

 

[chuckduffy]

If I could afford it I would always go for quality - don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing the difference - but pointing out that I hear many very basic problems with recordings, performances, mixes and mastering. Problems that more expensive gear will not solve. It's all about context for me. I've heard a few of your tracks and you obviously have a good handle on the basics, and more. Better pres, mics and converters obviously factor into your overall sound. I also know that they would make little to no difference in my hands, or many other peoples hands.

That's very true...it's hard to tell what the signal chain was with a finished recording.

The only thing one might consider though, is that the better the signals to start with...the better the chance of preserving them as you work your way through various stages of editing, mixing, processing and converting.

It really is up to each person to figure that out for their own scenario, as I think for many of us, budgets dicate a lot of those decisions, but yes, you can get a good end product without breaking the bank these days.

 

[miroslav]

... I hear many very basic problems with recordings, performances, mixes and mastering. Problems that more expensive gear will not solve. It's all about context for me.

True.
If you can get a solid performance and you have a good song and arrangement...it's not going to matter a lot of the rhythm guitar track had the mic a bit too close to the center of the speaker, and it's a touch edgy...etc.

We can get hung up on stuff like that during tracking...and I don't think it's bad to try and sort that out, to try and find the best mic position for the rhythm guitar tone....
...but you don't need to lose sleep over it.

I've recorded tracks that weren't that great sounding on their own...they had some anomaly that wasn't absolutely pleasing, that I might have initially not picked up on for whatever reason, so the track went down as-is...
...but I just rolled with it, and was able to "lose" the effect of the anomaly as the mix came together.
So it's the same with a less than stellar piece of gear...you just work with it, keep going, and most times it can still come together for you.
That's why I don't get so hung up on individual tones...it's really about the mix.
Yeah, you want good individual tones...but it's not always about that. Sometimes a great individual tone doesn't work in the mix...so it's no guarantee.
Same thing with gear....just listening the the sound of a preamp with a signal through it, you might think it's not as great as you would like it to be...but it can often work out just fine for you...in the mix.

 

[Bobbsy]

Once you cross a certain basic threshold of quality--and all the commonly-recommended interfaces are well above the threshold in terms of noise, frequency response and distortion--the differences are pretty subtle compared to lots of other things in the chain, starting with the performance and ending with the speakers you use.

Beyond that though, is the issue of money. The cost of getting a significant improvement is pretty substantial. Spending $200 instead of $150 isn't likely to be all that different. Spending $500 or $1000, on the other hand....

However, that's all about measurable quality. Changes to the character or tone that a pre amp gives to your recording is something different. In an expensive professional studio, pre amps are often chosen for the specific sound they might add to a particular track. Indeed, sometimes the "character" that's added could be argued to be lowering the quality because of a skewed frequency response or particular form of distortion--but a frequency response or distortion that's pleasing to the ear on certain material.

However, unless you can afford to have a rack full of different pre amps to haul out when you want a particular sound on a particular track, my personal advice is just stick to any decent interface with built in pre amps and use things like your performance, the choice of mic, the placement in the room--and ITB plug ins--to make the changes you want to your sound.

 

[dreib]

I leave dumbing down to the BBC science broadcasts. You don't HAVE to read me!

Dave.

I hope you realize I wasnt trying to be rude or dismissive. I really would like to better understand the overall point of your post, which I THINK I grasped?

 

[chuckduffy]

However, unless you can afford to have a rack full of different pre amps to haul out when you want a particular sound on a particular track, my personal advice is just stick to any decent interface with built in pre amps and use things like your performance, the choice of mic, the placement in the room--and ITB plug ins--to make the changes you want to your sound.

I think that is sound advice when starting. I went through a period of GAS buying more expensive mid-level mics (TLM103/KM184, Etc.) and mid range pres (ISA1) and found that given my room, my skills and what I was trying to acheive they amounted to nothing more than looking cool. I sold all that stuff and used it to purchase a decent guitar, a tamborine, re-do my bass, tuners, a couple corner traps - stuff that made a big difference.