gear to warm up my digital recordings?

[NL5]

Dude i dont even know what kind of converters i own??!!
I have a digi002 and a Focusrite octopre...
Am i gonna hear a big difference when i hook that apogee up?
Or does my stuff cut the warmth mustard??

It bothers me to think i could have just bought better converters in the first place.

I am curious as well. As most "home recorders" can't try out all the converters out there, I'm curious how they all stack up. Is there a site with comparison's somewhere? I read somewhere that the newer converters from digi and Motu would not benifit very much from a better clock, but how do they stack up against the "high-end" converters.

WIll a jump from a digi002 or MOTU 828mkII to something higher end sound noticeably better?

 

[xfinsterx]

I am curious as well. As most "home recorders" can't try out all the converters out there, I'm curious how they all stack up. Is there a site with comparison's somewhere? I read somewhere that the newer converters from digi and Motu would not benifit very much from a better clock, but how do they stack up against the "high-end" converters.

WIll a jump from a digi002 or MOTU 828mkII to something higher end sound noticeably better?

I too would like to know.
Someone around here knows.....

 

[marquardt]

Thanks for all the heated debate, it definitely shows both sides of the picture. That being said, I think I'm going to rent a mid-price-range pre-amp, and if that doesn't help, I'll probably upgrade to one of the project studios pro-tools units (which would have been the wiser choice to begin with). I'm beginning to believe more and more that it's the aardvark q10 itself thats imparting the undesireable sound on to my tracks. Once again, I have no experience with other recording units, so I have no basis for comparison.

Thanks again.

 

[acorec]

I too would like to know.
Someone around here knows.....

This is a question for Fletcher or Blue Bear.....................They use the modern stuff.

Either way, you will have to call the "Bears" out.

 

[Teacher]

Check out www.mercenary.com

They have the 3d audio A/D CD shoot out.

It compares delta 1010 all the way up to weiss

With that said if your not planning on paying 3K and up on multiple channels on converters get a Lynxtwo unless you need an external A/D box.

FWIW when I upgraded from delta 66 to lynxtwo, my overall recordings jumped in quality, when I was tracking some familiar people with the lynx they were amazed by the difference. Even my mixes that were tracked thru the 66 sounded better because I was able to hear better what was REALLY going on in the mix. YMMV

 

[chessrock]

I'm going to throw another interesting twist in to this debate.

Of all the components in your signal chain, the converters are probably where you're least likely to hear a big difference between the various models available.

I think the importance of the a/d converter is highly over-rated.

Don't get me wrong, here -- I'm not saying it isn't important, because it is. Just not as much as you might think. For most home / hobbyist recordings, the major shortcomings, 99% of the time, are bad accoustics, inadequate monitoring, and lack of knowlege/experience. That's where I generally advise people to direct their attention to first.

 

[marquardt]

Don't get me wrong, here -- I'm not saying it isn't important, because it is. Just not as much as you might think. For most home / hobbyist recordings, the major shortcomings, 99% of the time, are bad accoustics, inadequate monitoring, and lack of knowlege/experience. That's where I generally advise people to direct their attention to first.


My rooms are treated and I've got a good pair of studio montitors. My problem is that the recordings don't sound bad, but they seem to have a totally different sonic quality than what I'm used to hearing. There's a link to a lot of 'em at the beginning of the post, but I'll post it again ...

www.purevolume.com/fredsfear/music

 

[SonicAlbert]

I think I'm going to rent a mid-price-range pre-amp, and if that doesn't help, I'll probably upgrade to one of the project studios pro-tools units (which would have been the wiser choice to begin with). I'm beginning to believe more and more that it's the aardvark q10 itself thats imparting the undesireable sound on to my tracks. Once again, I have no experience with other recording units, so I have no basis for comparison.

You may see some improvement, but it's still sort of a sideways move for you. ProTools compatible is a good thing, so that's going to work for you, but the sound of the converters will probably not be dramatically different. Improvement, but not to the level you may want.

I'm not sure I agree with the comment about the difference converters make being over-rated. While I agree that all the other elements like acoustics/monitoring/experience have to be in place too, the fact remains that if you have great acoustics and great monitoring, you'll still sound bad through poor converters.

One approach would be to get a couple channels of great converters, and track through those. In that scenario the importance of your sound card is lessened, since you're using the external box for the actual conversion. I do that, using a DAC-1 for DA conversion and currently a Waves L2 for AD (but will be upgrading that soon).

 

[Farview]

Maybe a good mastering is all you need. I listened to one of the songs and it sounded fine. It was a little clinical sounding (to me) but that is just the lack of reverb and such (could just be the mp3)
I think if you got this mastered properly it would be just great.

 

[chessrock]

My rooms are treated and I've got a good pair of studio montitors. My problem is that the recordings don't sound bad, but they seem to have a totally different sonic quality than what I'm used to hearing. There's a link to a lot of 'em at the beginning of the post, but I'll post it again ...

I guess that kinda' begs the inevitable questions . . .

In what way (s) are they different than what you're used to hearing?

And what exactly are you "used to hearing?"

I mean without more detail, all you can really expect is a bunch of random guesses. It's going to be tough to really narrow down the root of your dissatisfaction, and you'll basically be taking stabs in the dark for the most part.

Listening to your examples doesn't help much due to poor MP-3 resolution.

 

[chessparov]

Hmm...
Surprised by the apparent hostility.
It's actually pretty easy to score high end analog.

If you don't believe me about the reel to reel idea, ask a top pro AE like Walter Sear or Al Schmitt what they think about it. Although the guys here are right also about improving your A/D convertor too.

Although I won't be listening to your link (ever), hopefully the music is better than your attitude-for the listener's sake.

Chris

 

[Dot]

Thanks for all the heated debate, it definitely shows both sides of the picture. That being said, I think I'm going to rent a mid-price-range pre-amp, and if that doesn't help, I'll probably upgrade to one of the project studios pro-tools units (which would have been the wiser choice to begin with). I'm beginning to believe more and more that it's the aardvark q10 itself thats imparting the undesireable sound on to my tracks. Once again, I have no experience with other recording units, so I have no basis for comparison.

Thanks again.

FWIW, I can tell by listening to some of your recordings that your room doesn't sound very good.

 

[Bowisc]

Don't get me wrong, here -- I'm not saying it isn't important, because it is. Just not as much as you might think. For most home / hobbyist recordings, the major shortcomings, 99% of the time, are bad accoustics, inadequate monitoring, and lack of knowlege/experience. That's where I generally advise people to direct their attention to first.


My rooms are treated and I've got a good pair of studio montitors. My problem is that the recordings don't sound bad, but they seem to have a totally different sonic quality than what I'm used to hearing. There's a link to a lot of 'em at the beginning of the post, but I'll post it again ...

www.purevolume.com/fredsfear/music

You're looking for a sound that resembles the characteristics of tape saturation,then there are tools that will get you close, if you're willing to experiment.

PSP Vintage Warmer plug-in is pretty decent if you want an inexpensive shot at it.

 

[Big Kenny]

I use a Kurzweil Rumour for effects and conversion. If you can afford $500, it might be the way to go for you. I also am very careful on room acoustics and clean BIG signal coming in with little processing

 

[xfinsterx]

I'm going to throw another interesting twist in to this debate.

Of all the components in your signal chain, the converters are probably where you're least likely to hear a big difference between the various models available.

I think the importance of the a/d converter is highly over-rated.

Don't get me wrong, here -- I'm not saying it isn't important, because it is. Just not as much as you might think. For most home / hobbyist recordings, the major shortcomings, 99% of the time, are bad accoustics, inadequate monitoring, and lack of knowlege/experience. That's where I generally advise people to direct their attention to first.

This is what i was trying to say earlier to acorec.

He said...

""Lack of warmth is ALWAYS due to bad converters""

Which im sure is a "lions share" of the debate aspect.
But from my expierience it sounded too absolute, i feel like he generalized it too much.
Reason i feel that way is because i have some above average but not spectacualar converters. Yet i still get good "warm sounds" wich i think are at least partially due to the pre amp/environment/mic/performer aspects, as opposed to always blaming my converters. With that being said, i still dont feel right in my stomach about swallowing the above quote.
I need to go check out that converter shootout.
That sounds like fun.

 

[Warhead]

A cheap mic plugged into a cheap pre shot through a cheap converter will not sound great when compaired to a great mic plugged into a great pre shot through a great converter.

But good music wins every time if it's at least communicated well. I don't think a lot of this stuff matters as much when the music is ON.

War

 

[SonicAlbert]

But good music wins every time if it's at least communicated well. I don't think a lot of this stuff matters as much when the music is ON.

But why handicap yourself, you know? I look at the technical stuff being right as the minimum required for a professional recording. If it's good music, then that's all the more reason to make sure the audio chain is the best possible. Otherwise, you are just short-changing yourself and your audience.

 

[Warhead]

SonicAlbert, I do agree with you. I'm not saying people should limit themselves. I'm saying if someone here has a good song and the skills, they can convey their message with what they have in most cases. What I said was in the context of this being HomeRecording.com and many folks here probably have good songs but not the cash to upgrade their converters.

Good music does still win if the equipment can at least capture the sound the way the artist intends it to be heard. Good equipment always helps for sure.

War

 

[SonicAlbert]

Good music does still win if the equipment can at least capture the sound the way the artist intends it to be heard.

I think then what you have are good demos.

For myself, being a composer primarily, I can mix decent sounding demos myself. But I know that when my music will be heard by the public, in a film, on the radio or wherever, that I need to bring in a real deal pro mix engineer. My gear is good enough now, but I need that level of expertise to take the music all the way.

So the stuff with the compromised sonics, compromised mix, or compromised whatever: if the music is good then what you have is essentially a good demo. Take that same music and do it right and you have a finished product that can travel anywhere. That's basically all I'm saying.

 

[Warhead]

http://www.taxi.com/transmitter/0305/headlineA0305.html

I'm just trying to prove a point here.

These guys recorded their album in their house with an AKG C3000B (not a great mic by anyone's standards), triggers and an Alesis D5, Pods, and Cakewalk. They didn't use any special converters etc. They didn't have a high end preamp either.

And they've got a record deal with Columbia.

Now, to illustrate your point, they did pay Randy Staub about $65,000 to mix the album for them for major label release.

I am still in agreement with you, in that you can severely limit yourself in some cases by using bottom of the barrel gear. But, the music always wins. These guys have what the label considers to be good songs and that was all they needed. Besides...think of how much money Columbia saved by not having to pay for a full production!

It can happen, that's really all I'm trying to say. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just know there are thousands of people looking at these sites thinking that their music doesn't have a chance because they don't have a $3,000 preamp or a $6,000 Neumann mic.

BUT, when we start moving beyond the Behringer and Mackie mixers you can clearly hear the difference. My life is SO much easier with several high end mics to choose from and better mic pres etc. and it makes a real difference. But you and I are fortunate enough to be able to afford this stuff also!

By the way, Crossfade are really nice guys who are in their 30's, married with kids, and they STILL made it in rock n' roll! I assisted on an album they did in the early 90's when they were called "The Nothing" (that Taxi writeup erroneously calls them "The Nothingness").

War