Digital to analog

  • Thread starter Thread starter EizingerIsGod
  • Start date Start date
E

EizingerIsGod

New member
My band is in the process of recording our album. We're doing it digitally, but we're thinking ahead to how to send it out to be mastered. We know its easier for the person mastering to do so analog (or so we've read), but we dont have any equipment to convert it. We do know some people with analog equipment. What would we need to run from the computer out into the ______? We're running through a firepod so could we just go from the main outs there into it? Or back through our mixer?
 
If your mastering engineer is going to master it analog let he or she transfer it from digital to analog. Period. There's no way (in all likelyhood) that any convertors you have available will even come close to what the mastering house has.

My guess is that you're mastering engineer will want it in digital anyway, since its in digital now. Just my guess. I'd definately start talking to whoever is mastering your album NOW before you start trying to anticipate what they'll want. If they decide to convert it, they'll know exactly how to do it and why- and that's what you're paying them to know and do.

You might be surprised. I can't remember which one it was, but I think I was checking out the website of one of the mastering guys who hangs out here and he said he's open to listening to mixs in progress from his clients so there is a better chance that a) you'll have a better mix for him and b) get more bang for buck for your mastering expenses.

Good luck!
Chris
 
Sorry- to answer your question: (I got distracted)

If you are mixing analog at all, just take the stereo outs of your mixer to the tape deck.

If you're mixing in the box, take the stereo out of the firepod to the tape deck.

The idea, pretty much, is to take the highest quality signal you can and get it to the tape while going through as little other stuff as possible. If you are actually mixing with your mixer (i.e. shipping your tracks individually out the firepod and using the mixer to...well, mix) then DON'T put it back into the computer if you are delivering it on analog tape to the mastering house. That puts it through another A/D conversion that you don't need.

If you are mixing in the box, there is no need to run it through your mixer again on the way to the tape deck. Unless you *really* like the sound of your mix through the electronics of your mixer.

Take care,
Chris
 
I'm not sure where you read that converting to analog for the ME thing, but it sounds silly to me. First off, any good ME should be able to work without hinderance in digital. Secondly, converting to analog for mastering and then back to digital for CD pressing is just putting you signal through two extra stages of A <--> D conversion that will - no matter how good the converters are - just add further distortion to the signal.

Keep it digital. If the ME wants to convert to analog first (which I would seriously doubt) that's his business, but - like Chris said - his converters will be able to eat your converters for breakfast. Also, unless you have access to a 2" Studer or something like that, any analog deck he has will also be of superior quality to consumer-level stuff.

G.
 
Thanks for the advice guys. I was confused because I had heard that analog is easier or better to master on, but maybe that was if you had the choice of recording digital or analog. Right now we're recording at 16 bit and 44.1kHz because thats what the computer can handle. I would much rather do the work at 24 bit but the computer seems to get iffy when we do that. I know the less conversions you do the better, but is there conversion process that would enhance our recordings, since we're recording at the lower bit rate?

Edit: Is it better to record at 16 bit since its going on cd? Ive read that you want the highest bit rate possible, but the manual is saying that if youre going to be mastering on cd then its better to record at 16 bit to avoid conversion processes.
 
It is much better to record at 24 bit.

There is no convesion process that will "make it better". It's only as good as it's lowest conversion. However, the ME will upsample it, because he can make it better by mastering, and the mastering will come out better at the higher rate.

I hope that made sense.
 
Keep your mixes as close to the original as possible when sending them out. Do not upsample (because "96K is better than 48K"), normalize, send mixes as audio CDs when you already have 24 bit data files, convert to analog from a digital mix, etc.

In fact to kinda paraphrase Spinal Tap, once you made your mixes on the final media, create a second version (or copy) and don't even look at them! Just put them in the CD case without getting any scratches, fingerprints, or smears, and send them out. Oh yeah, and don't try compressing or limiting them up to 11!
 
I think EIG is simply confused about the process - Many (Most?) M.E.'s (including myself) process through an analog chain from whatever the mix media is. It's my personal preference, as I've found most digital processing lacking in what I want it to do - at least at the mastering stage.

There is a technique ("Layback") which runs the digital media to analog tape, but it's not used too much anymore. In certain cases, yes. In most cases, just a schveet analog chain will do.

In short, it's not mastering from analog as much as in or through analog.
 
Last edited:
You mean you don't just use a Finalizer, John?








:D
 
I have one holding a window open somewhere around here... :eek:

If you get a broom handle with an XLR connector attached to one end, it makes a handy shovel for those light, snowy mornings in January also. :cool:
 
Oh no, not more gear snobbery ...

While certainly not my first choice, you can get decent results from a Finalizer (and inexpensive plugins) if you use them correctly. Check out WIMP on Brad Blackwood's forum when you have the chance.
 
I'm kidding... I'm kidding... :D

But I really didn't like it. Had one, e-bayed it, don't miss it. And of course, it'll do the job if need be.
 
That's cool John, you are certainly entitled to your opinion!

Gear bashing is just a pet peeve of mine. There's a lot that goes into engineering a unit like the Finalizer and in many plug-ins. Due to economics there are certain compromises that have to be made, however tc electronic puts out a good share of great gear (pro mastering quality). I have to assume that their engineering department has quite a bit of digital audio engineering knowledge (I respect this), and to dismiss it as nothing better than a snow shovel is a bit harsh. Since it's a multi-processor box at least give it enough credit to be called a snow shovel, de-icer, hand warmer, and toaster! :)
 
Odd job available...

Hey guys, I'm looking for someone to Finalize my driveway for me this winter if anybody's interested...

;)

G.
 
You're right, Tom - I just make some harsh jokes once in a while for a good laugh... But you've got to admit, that snow-shovel attachment would be a great gag-gift for the gearslut... :D
 
masteringhouse said:
Gear bashing is just a pet peeve of mine. There's a lot that goes into engineering a unit like the Finalizer and in many plug-ins.
Click to expand...

Um, so being PC includes not hurting the gear's feelings?

Uhoh... I'm in deep trouble now. Gear bashing is a hobby of mine.

(Above comment is a joke--don't get bent outta shape.)
 
For me it's not an issue of being PC.

The Finalizer was designed to be a prosumer piece for mastering. It's fufilled it's purpose very well. tc electronic could have produced something that was 10 times the price and did the job to pro levels, but it's not the market that they wanted for this product. Does that make it a piece of crap? Not in my opinion, it's just a product that was meant to fill that need.

The same for ADATS. There were some great (Grammy winning) albums that used them. Are they the best thing to record on? No, they were/are a convenience for guys like Glen Ballard to be able to produce in a small space I suppose. To expect an ADAT to sound like a good 2" tape machine or comparing it's sound to one is where the idiocy is.

I'm not bent out of shape, just a bit annoyed because it's much easier to slam something than create it. This goes not only for products, but art. My personal philosophy that I try to adhere to (but not always succeed) is that if I can't produce a better product I don't feel that I have the right to criticize it. At any rate, it certainly doesn't make me a better engineer saying the xyz box is junk unless I can give legitimate technical reasons why and how it might be improved.

OTOH stating that xyz has a particular characteristic that in your opinion is inappropriate for a given application is something different. For example, a Neumann U87 microphone, while a great choice for some vocalists may not work for others. Does it make it a piece of crap? No, just the wrong choice.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of my opinions on some gear is along the same lines, but reversed... I've heard far more horrible jobs come from inexperienced engineers using Finalizers than great sounding ones.

It was quickly hyped as a "cure all" for mastering - It even had a "Wizard" built in to make the settings for you. Good Lord...

But yes, in the hands of someone who knows how to handle it without getting MBC fever, it's a decent unit to have.

That's a cool picture, though!
 
Massive Master said:
I think a lot of my opinions on some gear is along the same lines, but reversed... I've heard far more horrible jobs come from inexperienced engineers using Finalizers than great sounding ones.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not disagreeing with that John. We've both heard some horrible jobs coming from inexperienced engineers not using anything on their mixes at all! :)

The same can be said (or even more so) about the L2, in fact even in the hands of some pros there have been some jobs that were horribly done with it. But the L2 isn't a bad or evil piece hardware/software plug, it does what it's suppossed to do. Just as with something as simple as an EQ, you can turn a good mix into crap or use it correctly to enhance.

There seems to be a lot of blanket statements in pro audio, like analog is always better than digital, 192K is better than 96K, Mackie sucks, and so forth. Some of this is marketing hype, sometimes macho postering to try to build a reputation, or other self-serving interests. The truth lies in the results no matter how you got there. If an ME told me that he mastered my CD with a Mackie 8 bus EQ and an Alesis 3630 compressor, and it sounded great, I would bow to his genius not dismiss him for not using pro gear.

Anyway, this thread has gotten way off track. I'll get off my gear snob rant and start talking about how much better Whitbread Ale is better than Budweiser :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top