Need advice on outboard gear purchase

[LarryF]

Guys that's great information. I've concluded from all this that the A/D converter is probably the right starting point to get my sound better. I just want to make sure I understand the signal path. Do I:

(a) get an A/D converter, then run synths and such through my 1402VLZ and the outs from the 1402 into analog inputs on the A/D converter, with the a/d outs going directly into the computer via, say, USB or firewire or something, or

(b) is the out from an A/D converter going into a digital input on my audio interface (MOTU 828 or Delta 1010, I have both).

Also is there any advantage/use for D/A converter too if I'm going straight from DAW to CD, or is A/D by itself the right solution?

thanks,
Larry

 

[atlas]

I've concluded from all this that the A/D converter is probably the right starting point to get my sound better.

(a) get an A/D converter, then run synths and such through my 1402VLZ

I disagree...lose the Mackie first and use higher quality instrument level inputs, then get a higher quality ADC at a later time. IMO, this will create a much larger impact on the quality of your sound.

Best Regards
Nathan Eldred
atlasproaudio.com

 

[tigerbomb]

I disagree...lose the Mackie first and use higher quality instrument level inputs, then get a higher quality ADC at a later time.

I concur with Nathan.

I have both Delta and Apogee for AD. A better AD does sound better albeit by a smaller margin than say, Mackie vs. no Mackie. But a better AD doesn't do much for 'warming up' any sound.

From my experience, if you aren't happy with the original synth patch, it's an indication that there's something missing from it. You can't add back what you are missing at the source. I'd look at that first.

DI or EQ or comp will emphasize and enhance certain quality in a tone. But you gotta have that certain quality there first.

 

[littledog]

Because you are not mic'ing any real instruments, and because the sound boxes you listed have excellent sounding instrument samples, I would tend to agree that buying expensive mic pre/di boxes is not an efficient way to inmprove your finished product.

You could buy a couple of Avalon U5's as a pair of DI's for a lot less than most decent stereo mic preamps, and because they can output at line level and have a volume pot they should be all you need to get an appropriately hot level into your converters. This has the added advantage of bypassing your cheap mixer circuitry.

Yes, converters and clocks can also make a big difference.

But I suspect that those differences would fall more in the realm of fine-tuning - mere percentage points of the overall sound. If you are hearing more macro-level differences between your stuff and the commercial CD's of the same style, then i would agree with those who are saying this is probably more a reflection of your skills as an arranger, mixer, and masterer.

From a pure gear standpoint, a great compressor can probably make more of a difference than any other piece of gear for making your mixes punchy and vibrant. But you have to know how to use it.

It would be a worthwhile experiment to make a deal with a real mastering engineer to take just one of your songs and see how good they can make it. You might be surprised - and maybe you'd also have the answer to your original question about why the commercial CD's sound better than yours.

Following from that, on an even more basic level, you might want to hook up with an experienced mixing engineer to give you a mix lesson using one of your recorded pieces. You'd be sure to not only learn a lot about mixing, but get some clues as to what kinds of gear (or plug-ins) will give you the results you are looking for. Perhaps if there was a locally produced smooth jazz CD you really liked, you could find out who mixed it and contact them.