High End vs Prosumer A/D Question

[Bob's Mods]

MP3 to listen to.

Here is a demo of something I recorded through my LynxOne card. I extensively used my favorite plugs by Stillwell in addition to a few others.

The LynxOne is the low end of the high end ITB cards. The Stillwell plugs really make it come alive. With a better A/D I expect it would sound abit better but I think is sounds decent as is for something recorded in a spare bedroom and minimal amount of gear.

http://www.lightningmp3.com/live/file.php?id=15999


Stillwell is doing some great stuff for the price. They simply cannot be beat.

http://www.stillwellaudio.com/?page_id=28

They ARE worth the time to investigate.

Bob the Mod Guy

 

[SonicAlbert]

The quality of what is recorded on the medium is not connected in any way to the technology that records it. Both are separate and distinct. Great technology will not make a shit song any more enjoyable to the listener. A great tune however will still sound good on lesser gear down to certain limits.

Great tunes tend to be recorded on great gear by great bands with great engineers. It all is part of the same thing. Greatness is not easy, and anyone striving for greatness is not going to put all that effort into creating a great song and then record it on lousy gear.

It's all how you approach your craft. Saying a great song will still sound great on lesser gear really kind of misses the point of what it actually takes to create a great song.

 

[jmorris]

It is better...15xs more, if you can use it correctly and appreciate it.
Think of this scenario; you get the upper end product, you put it thru its' paces and past the limits of your previous product, you're recognized for doing so, and consequently, make 150xs what you'd ever thought you could do. In other words, how would selling 200,000 of your CDs thru your own label shake up your finances?

Tom Sellec (sp?) just wouldn't have cut it driving a Mustang instead of his Ferrarri....eh?

Now...if you're Luke and Bo Duke

I disagree. I have posted samples here before with a recording I did where one track I used V72a pre's.No one could tell me which one.All other tracks where octopres. I could do the same again. I could record an acoustic guitar. One with say LANGEVIN AM16 or v72a, the other with an onyx.No one can identify the difference.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Saying a great song will still sound great on lesser gear really kind of misses the point of what it actually takes to create a great song.

My meaning in that statement was to convey {not that the song would SOUND great on lesser gear....but....that although the fidelity may be somewhat less....the FEEL and MAGIC of the great tune would come across}.

Its the FEEL of a good tune that is captured either way....the sonics are another matter. We have two separate camps, one is the tune itself and magic of the artist playing it. The other is the sonic quality of the recording itself (where engineering and mixing has been optimized by a true pro). For example, I enjoy listening to Jimi Hendrix's Crosstown Traffic just as much on AM radio or as an MP3 as I do on FM radio or CD which is the standard of sonic fidelity.

A real pro can compensate for lesser gear and still make a great artist shine. The opposite is not true however. The song and artist are separate and distinct from the technical side of the equation for the purpose of this A/D question. Its strickly a comparison of apples to apples.

Bob

 

[Farview]

Tom Sellec (sp?) just wouldn't have cut it driving a Mustang instead of his Ferrarri....eh?

I thought he was actually driving a replica. I know that they were using a replica in Miami Vice for most of it's run.

 

[Farview]

Great tunes tend to be recorded on great gear by great bands with great engineers. It all is part of the same thing. Greatness is not easy, and anyone striving for greatness is not going to put all that effort into creating a great song and then record it on lousy gear.

It's all how you approach your craft. Saying a great song will still sound great on lesser gear really kind of misses the point of what it actually takes to create a great song.

I could give you a list of hit songs that sound like crap, but were still hits. It's the song and the vibe, as long as you have enough gear to not get in the way of the song, it will do just fine.

The general public doesn't know the difference and isn't impressed by mic preamps, converters, microphones (unless they are really big and shiny, but that's only if they actually see it), analog tape, monitors, etc... So, it doesn't matter.

 

[mixmkr]

It is better...15xs more, if you can use it correctly and appreciate it.
Think of this scenario; you get the upper end product, you put it thru its' paces and past the limits of your previous product, you're recognized for doing so, and consequently, make 150xs what you'd ever thought you could do. In other words, how would selling 200,000 of your CDs thru your own label shake up your finances?

Tom Sellec (sp?) just wouldn't have cut it driving a Mustang instead of his Ferrarri....eh?

Now...if you're Luke and Bo Duke

I disagree. I have posted samples here before with a recording I did where one track I used V72a pre's.No one could tell me which one.All other tracks where octopres. I could do the same again. I could record an acoustic guitar. One with say LANGEVIN AM16 or v72a, the other with an onyx.No one can identify the difference.

I think you may have missed the point that you actually highlighted in red.

a couple points...

1. you used the pre on single sample...not multiplied over many tracks..and area that sometimes brings out the different qualities
2. you used the pre in an isolated context and really nothing tangible to compare it to...just an a/b with another pre... kinda like walking in/out of a room and asking, which speaker sounds "best".
3. the pre potentially wasn't matched to the mic
4. the pre wasn't matched to the performer
5. the mic positioning might not have been optimized to give the comparision credibility
6. the acoustic guitar didn't have the nuances to be "emphasized" by the pre
7. the comparision files were not correctly done...ie MP3, etc or thru sub par A/D converters... (see #8)
8. There were other items in the chain besides the pre, in making the final comparison sound files to skew the results
9. There were items not perceived during recording, that were not brought out and used for its' benefit...such as a "bright" pre used on a dull sound source.
10. The pres were not up to optimum speck.
11. Problems on the listening end...

I could go on and on, and I am not trying to make you not disagree. I am only pointing out some scenarios where these SUBTLE differences would/could make a difference, in which I think got overlooked.

I won't diagree that you could just post a file and say..."hey, there aint no difference, or nothing to notice". But there are too many factors involved.

Honestly, I think your results would be quite different if the equipment/tests were done by someone who KNEW the differences VS someone trying to HEAR the differences. And the KNEW by experience.

All this said, I'll bet I could put up a sample, not regarding some of the above, and you couldn't tell the difference between a Beyer m160, MXL 990, and a Shure 58. But, I bet I could use those mics to their advantage and you would hear the difference.

 

[mixmkr]

The general public doesn't know the difference and isn't impressed by mic preamps, converters, microphones (unless they are really big and shiny, but that's only if they actually see it), analog tape, monitors, etc... So, it doesn't matter.

A lot of that statement is true, but don't forget the factor that you don't have to understand why you like something.

In other words, the "qualities" of a particular piece of equipment may not be known to the uneducated listener, but they can appreciate a quality signal chain over one of lesser quality.

Here's a perfect example I witness all the time. In live "band" situations, sometimes the audience will say; "it's TOO loud". When in fact, it is mixed poorly bringing out harsh or shrill, or boomy, muddy, etc... elements.
The next performance, the mix is MUCH better and 10dB louder. The audience says..."much better and not so loud".
They haven't a clue, but appreciate something "better" and it is perceived incorectly, but never the less, viewed as better. The increased volume may have even added to the overall positive "impact" too. The listener didn't know why, but just what they like, and in this case, a better mix, all other things not affecting.

 

[jmorris]

MIXMKR
My point really is, 15x's better? If they were,even an average Joe on the street could tell the difference.

 

[mixmkr]

I understand in that context, and you're right.

I did state earlier, that it may give you 100 x the END result ....in other words, that extra "icing" gets your demo generating huge interest, and you make $1/2 mil. as a result. I think that's why most home reccors are so wrapped up in getting the bang for the buck and wonder about that "high end" stuff.

 

[jmorris]

I think you may have missed the point that you actually highlighted in red.

a couple points...

1. you used the pre on single sample...not multiplied over many tracks..and area that sometimes brings out the different qualities
2. you used the pre in an isolated context and really nothing tangible to compare it to...just an a/b with another pre... kinda like walking in/out of a room and asking, which speaker sounds "best".
3. the pre potentially wasn't matched to the mic
4. the pre wasn't matched to the performer
5. the mic positioning might not have been optimized to give the comparision credibility
6. the acoustic guitar didn't have the nuances to be "emphasized" by the pre
7. the comparision files were not correctly done...ie MP3, etc or thru sub par A/D converters... (see #8)
8. There were other items in the chain besides the pre, in making the final comparison sound files to skew the results
9. There were items not perceived during recording, that were not brought out and used for its' benefit...such as a "bright" pre used on a dull sound source.
10. The pres were not up to optimum speck.
11. Problems on the listening end...

I could go on and on, and I am not trying to make you not disagree. I am only pointing out some scenarios where these SUBTLE differences would/could make a difference, in which I think got overlooked.

I won't diagree that you could just post a file and say..."hey, there aint no difference, or nothing to notice". But there are too many factors involved.

Honestly, I think your results would be quite different if the equipment/tests were done by someone who KNEW the differences VS someone trying to HEAR the differences. And the KNEW by experience.

All this said, I'll bet I could put up a sample, not regarding some of the above, and you couldn't tell the difference between a Beyer m160, MXL 990, and a Shure 58. But, I bet I could use those mics to their advantage and you would hear the difference.

Oh Yeah, I sure do agree with this statement. The mic selection and placement will have, at least to me have much more of an impact on the end result than some mic pre's. I hope that made sense? Mic pre are VERY subtle with their differences. I dont believe the high ends are worth the extra bucks they get comparatively from prosumer ones. Are they better yes.Like I said before 15 timnes better...hell no. Now, if a guy really knows how to use his gear.Were taling Mic selection and placement, signal chain,processing etc, then I can see the end result being 5, 10 or 15 times better than the guy that just slaps up a mic wherever for the most part....you know, like a lot of live sound guys! The average Joe I believe could the difference between the two guys end results. If certain channels had neve 1073 pre's and some octopre's then I dont believe the average Joe could tell.

 

[Farview]

A lot of that statement is true, but don't forget the factor that you don't have to understand why you like something.

In other words, the "qualities" of a particular piece of equipment may not be known to the uneducated listener, but they can appreciate a quality signal chain over one of lesser quality.

Here's a perfect example I witness all the time. In live "band" situations, sometimes the audience will say; "it's TOO loud". When in fact, it is mixed poorly bringing out harsh or shrill, or boomy, muddy, etc... elements.
The next performance, the mix is MUCH better and 10dB louder. The audience says..."much better and not so loud".
They haven't a clue, but appreciate something "better" and it is perceived incorectly, but never the less, viewed as better. The increased volume may have even added to the overall positive "impact" too. The listener didn't know why, but just what they like, and in this case, a better mix, all other things not affecting.

The statement you quoted was meant to be put in context with the sentence that you didn't quote.

There are tons of hit songs that sound like complete ass. Most of the Hendrix catalog, the Beatles early stuff, etc... Sure, everyone is really impressed with the production, but they always point out how little they had to work with. In other words, "this sounds great for what they had to work with"...there is always the disclaimer.

The first Zeppelin album, The first Sabbath album, Blizzard of Ozz, Holy Diver... White Lions album with 'When the Children Cry' on it sounded like complete and total shit. There was no low end at all, it sold millions.

All you have to do is convey the feeling. If the song and the performance are there, you would really have to go out of your way to screw that up with your choice of converters.

Might I also point out that Metallica's black album was mastered from a DAT tape that was recorded through the internal 16 bit converters in the DAT machine. 14 million albums sold after being funneled through crap converters.

 

[NYMorningstar]

. It makes me wonder how Lynx stacks up with high end externally mounted convertor boxes. Lynx stuff is all ITB. ITB appears to be a tough environment for the conversion to take place. A dedicated box for conversion alone, based on my experience, appears to be the way to go.

I have a Lynx Two C and I think it's the best thing going. I also have a Tascam 2488neo for portability and it's right up there too. I've been doing this for only about 8 years now and it'll be a long time before either of those become the weak link of my recording chain.

 

[Seafroggys]

There are tons of hit songs that sound like complete ass. Most of the Hendrix catalog, the Beatles early stuff, etc... Sure, everyone is really impressed with the production, but they always point out how little they had to work with. In other words, "this sounds great for what they had to work with"...there is always the disclaimer.

The first Zeppelin album, The first Sabbath album, Blizzard of Ozz, Holy Diver... White Lions album with 'When the Children Cry' on it sounded like complete and total shit. There was no low end at all, it sold millions.

Yeah, I think the Hendrix catalog is the worst sounding of my discography, almost as bad as The Beatles' debut album. Still kicks ass though. But in Jimi's case, they had the technology to make decent sounding recordings by that point in time, but didn't. The Beatles in 1963 was forgivable....Hendrix in 1967 was almost not.

I actually think Zep's debut sounds fine. A little too 'open' sounding, and Page really shouldn't have used a telecaster (way too harsh sounding) but it sounds alright. Add that to the fact it was like the last 4 track album ever made

 

[mixmkr]

The statement you quoted was meant to be put in context with the sentence that you didn't quote.

oops

at the time of their release, I never thought the Beatles, Hendrix, Cream, Led Zep... sonically had problems. I was a pup and was pretty much impressed with their stuff. All along the Watchtower..... phew... some good stuff.

 

[jmorris]

With the Beatles it is case and point to knowing how to use the gear. up until the Abbey Road album in '69 studio 2 used the redd37 tube console,studer 4 tracks and a lot of Neumann u47,u48 and u67 mic's. It all changed when Geoff Emerick came along.Same gear, different guy/way of using it.Yeah ,the early Beatles did not sound that good.But still loved it.

 

[Farview]

All of that proves my point. It's the songs and performance that matter, not really the actual sound of the recording.

at the time of their release, I never thought the Beatles, Hendrix, Cream, Led Zep... sonically had problems.

I'm not sure they did, but if you made you latest CD sound like any of those, people would ask you what went wrong.

 

[jmorris]

Take for example the Amy Whinehouse cd. What is it called back to black? With the rehab tune. Really a pretty damn good cd as far as writting and vocals but it sounds like shit. Tried to go fro some retro sound I guess and missed bad. The music carried it....sure as hell not the engineering....

 

[Bob's Mods]

Kurzweil Rumour

Would anyone know if the converters on the Rumour are considered on par with the converters of Apogee or Lucid?