Can I Expect To Retain Audio Quality By Doing This?

[Dr. Varney]

When we record in a DAW, we're recording data, not audio... therefore sound quality is dependant on the audio engine and it's processed output to the monitors... right?

My question is - can I expect any real significant drop in sound quality, by sending two channels of audio, out of my DAW computer which uses the E=MU 0404 card, through my Behringer UB120 mixer and then back out, into recording software on my old laptop, via its El-cheapo external interface?

At least... would you say it's worth a try or just not worth it, before I go and set this up?

Obviously, I'll be importing the resulting file back into the better machine, for audio playback and final processing. The one big problem with Mister El-Cheapo was always it's terrible latency while trying to overdub previously made tracks. In this case, I'm not doing that, rather, recording the incoming signal in just one pass (so latency is not an issue).

Dr. V

 

[G-Jay]

My question is - can I expect any real significant drop in sound quality, by sending two channels of audio, out of my DAW computer which uses the E=MU 0404 card, through my Behringer UB120 mixer and then back out, into recording software on my old laptop, via its El-cheapo external interface?

At least... would you say it's worth a try or just not worth it, before I go and set this up?

Arguably adding any processing to audio degrades its quality.

You are suggesting putting the audio through an additional d/a then a/d conversion and in between that running it through a Behringer mixer. I would expect a large degradation in quality.

However, if you are doing this because you LIKE the sound of the Behringer mixer and the 'el-cheapo' interface a/d then why not? If it sounds good, it is good.

 

[In Tune Audio]

Your opening sentence is not really correct. We are still recording audio. That audio is being stored in as digital data. There is a big difference.

As was mentioned above any extra processes will cause a lost in sound quality. That will be multiplied by using "el-cheapo".

Whether it's worth trying or not I'm not sure because I have no idea why you would do that. Please explain why you were thinking that and we might be able to help a little more.

Charlie
www.intuneaudio.ca

 

[tmix]

If you were able to stay in the digital realm you'd be fine but there is a chance the 2 passes through the analogue stuff may degrade it.
Is there any reason you just can't offload the files from one computer onto a disk or usb drive and import it direct to the laptop?

 

[Massive Master]

You are suggesting putting the audio through an additional d/a then a/d conversion and in between that running it through a Behringer mixer. I would expect a large degradation in quality.

I'm with that. Don't get me wrong - I run digital out through analog almost constantly. But the chain should be 'worth' running through. That one, I'd avoid.

That said, you can always try it.

 

[TimOBrien]

In the first place, WHY are you sending audio from one computer to another using an analog connection?

 

[Dr. Varney]

Luckily, I made a FAQ before we started.

Your opening sentence is not really correct. We are still recording audio. That audio is being stored in as digital data. There is a big difference.

Yes, it's audio. I'm aware of the difference and aware that patching a cable from one audio output to another audio input, is just audio.

The reason I said that was because it's still a computer that's receiving and writing the signal to wave. I'm assuming that one computer is as good as another, if they're both capable of dealing with 32bit float, even though one is a cranky old laptop, while the other is a big stable Athlon desktop. That's kind of more what I meant, if you'll excuse my innacuracy.

If I could magic up two identical systems, with identical sound cards, then part of the question would be eliminated, leaving only audio degradation in the cables to address. The question would then be more whether it's going to be very noticable.

Is there any reason you just can't offload the files from one computer onto a disk or usb drive and import it direct to the laptop?

Yes there is. The mixer in between gives the biggest clue. I want to utilize the controls on the mixer, in real time, whilst recording. I don't have a recorder but I do have a laptop (which has recording software). If I can get this right by salvaging an old laptop, then it might save me buying a dedicated hardware recorder.

Since I've learned how to route out of the mixer and back in to the same computer, buying anything new at all will seem superflous, but for the fact the physical wiring seems less complicated to me than attempting it inside one computer.

You are suggesting putting the audio through an additional d/a then a/d conversion and in between that running it through a Behringer mixer. I would expect a large degradation in quality.

Granted with the d/a but there is nothing wrong with the Behringer mixer. It has a better, smoother reverb on it than the internal VSTs can offer.

The El-Cheapo was bought to over ride the standard IO on the laptop's crummy inbuilt sound, so we could trigger music and sound effects, into the pro-desk we hired and the big performance speakers. It's a big improvement on sound out but absolutely no use for dubbbing because of it's latency problems. That said, I did get an improvement on that score, when I updated Audacity to the beta version.

I'm trying to remember what the problem was and recalling now, that I was using a very rubbish mic into the input of El-Cheapo... Of course, the E=MU removes all the variables and just delivers on all fronts.

I'm with that. Don't get me wrong - I run digital out through analog almost constantly. But the chain should be 'worth' running through. That one, I'd avoid.

That said, you can always try it.

Well, yes. I'm surprised no one's asked why bother asking, when all you have to do to get your answer is to experiment. The laptop needs salvaging out of the loft and this stray thought of mine ended up as a lazy question to the more experienced. Just thought I'd run it past you, to save any dissapointments and in the hope you might have some better suggestions.

In the first place, WHY are you sending audio from one computer to another using an analog connection?

As said, the mixer is the clue. If I were gonna process the sound digitally, then I wouldn't bother sending it out as audio - but I want the physical qualities of the mixer and the only way to get those is to feed audio in and re-record it. I think it's a perfectly respectable method - it's just that the equipment, I'm attempting to do it with, may be suspect.

Basically, I just want to change the way I mix, using the best of both worlds. By employing the better sound quality of the digital and combining it with the physical real-world feel of the analogue. If we got rid of the computers, then we'd be down to using those little Boss/Tascam recorders that write straight to CD-R and they are digital anyway. All they've done is replaced tape - and I really don't want to go there. Since I have computers and a lot of post-production takes place in the computer, I thought I might as well use the computers like I would use hardware players and recorders.

I'm sorry if this all sounds a bit stupid... I'm learning and experimenting.

Dr. V

 

[bouldersoundguy]

...but I want the physical qualities of the mixer and the only way to get those is to feed audio in and re-record it.

You could use a hardware controller for your software to get the physical feel without going through converters and suspect analog gear. That may not be in the budget and you may not want to deal with the learning curve, which I would understand, but it's an option. As for effects quality, I think you just need to work on your settings or get better effects plugins. Try chaining an eq before or after a reverb to fine tune the tone.

 

[Dr. Varney]

You could use a hardware controller for your software to get the physical feel without going through converters and suspect analog gear. That may not be in the budget and you may not want to deal with the learning curve, which I would understand, but it's an option. As for effects quality, I think you just need to work on your settings or get better effects plugins. Try chaining an eq before or after a reverb to fine tune the tone.

No, it's right within budget... I'm actually in the market for a control surface and got my eye on one right now. The only problem I can see with that is that I think you can only manipulate one virtual knob/slider at a time...? Or have I got that wrong?

You know, I could just use automation but, if we minus the time I spend in the forum and the time I spend setting it up, the future result is just quicker and easier for me to move sliders while the piece is playing out than moving little bits of graphic around to automate. I'm just more comfortable recording that sort of thing in real time.

Anyway - thanks for the sugestion about chaining an EQ with the reverb. I tried that actually - it was just very fiddly and my ears kind of lost track of what sounded right and wrong. But yes, in principle, I think you're right to suggest that.

The outboard mixing does really give me a much more spontaneous feel. The MAIN problem I'm encountering is my computer's ability to play a .wav from beginning to end, without garbling, as the CPU drags it's heels, so obviously, that's a big consideration here.

Thanks

Dr. V

 

[bouldersoundguy]

No, it's right within budget... I'm actually in the market for a control surface and got my eye on one right now. The only problem I can see with that is that I think you can only manipulate one virtual knob/slider at a time...? Or have I got that wrong?

They are often MIDI based. You can play more than one note at a time on a MIDI keyboard so I would imagine you can move more than one knob on a controller at a time. Those that connect via Firewire or USB ought to be able to send lots of control data simultaneously.

Anyway - thanks for the sugestion about chaining an EQ with the reverb. I tried that actually - it was just very fiddly and my ears kind of lost track of what sounded right and wrong. But yes, in principle, I think you're right to suggest that.

What I do is bring up the reverb until it blends, listening for any frequency range that is too prominent. Then I solo the 'verb return and eq that spot out, checking it back in the mix. It may take two or three rounds of mix/tweak/check, and I don't even start with that until I've chosen a reverb I think is a good candidate and fiddled with the parameters to get as close as possible. I guess that is pretty fiddly, and you do have to keep focus.

 

[miroslav]

The D/A and A/D process isn't going to *seriously* degrade the audio…well a teeny, tiny bit...maybe...I doubt most people will hear it unless their entire system is Hi-Q.
If you have real crappy converters…that’s a different issue.

The real key as Massive pointed out is what happens to the audio in-between the D/A and A/D.
The stuff you run it through should either not degrade it further or it should actually improve it…for it all to be worth doing.

I go A/D, D/A, A/D...it’s not a big deal, no real signal degradation that’s obvious...and in my case, the second D/A hits a nice 2-track tape deck before going A/D again, which gives my final mix a cohesive vibe…so that makes it worth it for me.

You really just gotta try it and do some comparisons…you’ll find out for yourself if it’s worth it.

 

[Dr. Varney]

Please help!

I've tried and it exceeds my worst nightmares. An absolute crock of shit.

Please can anyone advise me what I should be doing and what (if anything) I need to buy, in order to achieve what I am trying to do?

Thanks

Dr. V

 

[Chibi Nappa]

If you want to mix out of the box, get yourself an analog mixer that can handle the job (at least 24 channels, 4-band parametric EQ on all channels, inserts, at least 2 aux sends) and enough digital outputs to send the whole shebang at once on individual tracks.

In other words, you're going to need real money to do it right. That's why the world went digital. Analog is expensive.

If you can remain in the box, seriously consider getting a hardware control surface. I know I'd go nuts if I mixed on a mouse.

 

[noisewreck]

If I could magic up two identical systems, with identical sound cards, then part of the question would be eliminated, leaving only audio degradation in the cables to address. The question would then be more whether it's going to be very noticable.

Even in this scenario you wouldn't end up with identical bit-for-bit copy of your audio. This wouldn't just be caused due to the cables, but also by the AD/DA process itself. Add to this a behringer and a really terrible built-in soundcard with all it's subpar components, added jitter, ringing filter, the fact that you'd probably be using an 1/8" plug, you're just asking for a ton of compromises in your chain.

BTW, you can connect two computers (or two different digital recorders) and transfer audio from one to the other and get bit-for-bit copies. But you'll need to use digital connections for this, either S/PDIF or AES-EBU.

But again, in the case of the computers, why would you do this? Why can't you just take your audio file, copy onto a USB thumbdrive, and transfer your audio to the other computer?

 

[noisewreck]

Sorry, just read the rest of your posts, and realised that you want to put your audio through the Behringer.

In that case, I would still not bother with th laptop. Simply route the outputs from your e-mu to the ins of your mixer, and mixer's outputs into e-mu's inputs. Now all you need to do is carefuly assign the routing in your audio application.

 

[Bristol Posse]

I'd go the control surface route (infact I do use a control surface) that uses Midi to control the virtual faders and so on
Mackie make expensive expandable ones, Behringer make cheap ones that do most of what the makcie ones do for about 1/7th the price. Since it doesn't touch the sound though it really doesn't matter.
I use 2 Behringer BCF 2000 controlers that attach via USB and give me 16 faders, pan pots, mutes and transport controls plus various assignable buttons


Also there is nothing to stop you from mixing OTB (if you have a need or a sound that your ot board gear imparts that is desireable)) on the same computer. You just send out of the DAW to the outboard gear nad then record the result to a new track in the same DAW. There is no need for the two computers.

 

[Armistice]

I've always recorded on SIAB things - the latest (and I use the term advisedly) being the Yamaha AW4416 - so I can do all the funky things with faders and auxes etc. in the box...

Unfortunately it's a pre-USB device and that limits its usefulness in terms of complex editing and processing, but I do simple stuff anyway, so it hasn't proved too much of a hassle.

It's just a personal preference, I could never see myself mixing with a mouse either - I just like have a slider for each channel - I just wish someone made a 24/32 channel version with a slider for each channel, no pairing, and I'd consider upgrading... or perhaps they do and I missed it...

So easy to set up, and automate, a mix on. But burning data to CD to transfer is a real pain, so, basically, I don't...

 

[Dr. Varney]

I've always recorded on SIAB things

Please, I'm still new to recording. I dont know all the acronyms. SIAB?

Thanks

Dr. V

 

[Dr. Varney]

To be honest, I've simply lost my way with this mix.

I set out not to have too many FX in the chain to keep it simple and true to life but I've ended up with so many different VSTs all playing off each other and it's now hard to keep track of what's doing what and whether what's there is actually improving or distorting.

I need to post up some MP3s. Would anyone be willing to listen to the raw thing and advise me on how best to mix it? For a start, there is noise in there, which sounds worse for my fubbled attempts at gating it and the whole thing feels like it's getting worse and worse, with every knob tweak I make to try and compensate. I feel quite lost with it.

Thanks

Dr. V

 

[oretez]

is this mix that you say you are lost in still primarily spoken word? or from other threads did I misunderstand what you were working on?

short answer is I'd be willing to listen (do not think MP3s are best format for any critical listen to might need to changed in the mix but they will do in a pinch)

I would also need to contrast some processed files with raw files . . . just listening to the mix does little to be able to do more then make general recommendations, no specific diagnosis (except in certain particularly egregious cases) . . . deconstructing a mix without access to raw audio is, in my experience always problematic

additionally willing to do this as I have more free time then usual . . . which can change at any instant so only commit to as detailed a critique as I have time

final caveat is that my guess is that you are unlikely to appreciate most of what I might say. You say you've piled VST on VST and 'it' doesn't get better . . . so don't do that . . . go back to initial capture of the audio and start again enforcing a less is more . . . apply 'fixes' only to portions of audio the require them . . . work on gain staging . . . then simplest forms of mixing, i.e. make everything quieter then everything else, search for specific frequencies that are obviously in conflict, analyze critically for phase conflicts . . . but all with the doing less tends to be better then doing something you don't yet understand (and I'm sorry but while for certain specific FX a digital reverb on a behringer board might be just the ticket to say that it is 'better' then what's readily available via reputable DAWs and VSTs is not something I agree with under any circumstances . . . but that might be a corollary issue (or maybe not as a spoken word recording, tracked in a reasonably sized room would not seem to need much in the way of artificial verb and would not benefit from average digital verb in any case and a mono source morphed via a stereo FX is guaranteed to introduce timing phase issues that simply complicate things while doing little to 'sweeten' the sound))

but if you are interested I will listen . . . then probably suggest you locate an FTP site so you can upload files as WAVs