Question About Digital Audio Quality

[leddy]

Something happened that confused me:

I normally record my small jazz combo with a Tascam 788 (6 tracks at once), then export the 24-bit Wavs via the 788's CD burner, then mix them in Cubase. Any additional editing if needed can be done in Wavelab. The quality has been good, but not great which I attributed to modest mics and pres (mostly Okatava & Shure mics, Yamaha MG Board and S.P. VTB-1 Pres).

To save time on a non-critical recording, I tried taking the stereo outs of the 788 into my Delta 44 and recording directly into Wavlab at 16-bits, just using the faders on the 788 to mix levels. Everything else was the same as I had done many times.

The result was a staggering increase in sound quality. Everything was suddenly hi-fi and pro sounding. This surprised me since I thought converting to analog and back to digital would degrade the sound.

Does the additional step in Cubase degrade the sound? What could cause this?

Thanks for your time!

 

[chessrock]

That's really interesting. Either the summing on your 788 is just stellar, or maybe there's something you're doing wrong while mixing in Cubase that's degrading the sound quality.

Did you try exporting the wave files on the same project so you can compare the two methods directly?

 

[Teacher]

Your probably over mixing in cubase. Since you have so many tools you try and use them all and pass the threshold of beneficial. Just a hunch though...maybe cubase SX just sucks ass too.

 

[leddy]

That's really interesting. Either the summing on your 788 is just stellar, or maybe there's something you're doing wrong while mixing in Cubase that's degrading the sound quality.

Did you try exporting the wave files on the same project so you can compare the two methods directly?

Not the exct same files yet, but that's a good starting point, so I will try. It is an older version of Cubase, 3.5 I think, but the difference was huge.

Teacher - I had the same thought on over-mixing. I went back to some older files and removed all EQ and effects and listened, and it still seemed like the 788 direct into Wavlab made for much better sound.

I'm thinking now of just getting an RNC between the 788 and the soundcard and avoiding Cubase. The RNC may allow me to avoid any processing at all on the PC and get the best possible sound quality i can. That 788 has surprised me since the first time I turned it on.

 

[mixsit]

...To save time on a non-critical recording, I tried taking the stereo outs of the 788 into my Delta 44 and recording directly into Wavlab at 16-bits, just using the faders on the 788 to mix levels. Everything else was the same as I had done many times.

Another difference being besides doing an analog mix in the Tascam, you switched from those converters to the Delta's?
Wayne

 

[leddy]

Another difference being besides doing an analog mix in the Tascam, you switched from those converters to the Delta's?
Wayne

Not sure what you mean, I never mix down inside the 788. I was exporting the individual wavs into Cubase before, so Cubase was summing the tracks. It never left being digital that way, so there were no converters involoved. Now I convert to analog via the 788's output, and back to digital via the Delta. I thought that would degrade the sound, but it's become much better.

Cubase is probably the issue. I should either try a newer version, or forget about it all together. Anyone else have an opinion on Cubase?

 

[mixsit]

Not sure what you mean, I never mix down inside the 788. I was exporting the individual wavs into Cubase before, so Cubase was summing the tracks. It never left being digital that way, so there were no converters involoved. Now I convert to analog via the 788's output, and back to digital via the Delta. I thought that would degrade the sound, but it's become much better.

Cubase is probably the issue. I should either try a newer version, or forget about it all together. Anyone else have an opinion on Cubase?

I see now. Two conversion though. I wonder if that could be a prominent factor.
Wayne

 

[xstatic]

Older Cubase VST versions were failry primitive to what is available now. Starting with SX, the audio engine has been reworked twice to the current version. I would be willing to bet that the newer versions of Cubase would sound much much better than the older 5.5 and down. I personally run Cubase SL now in a pro studio and clients have been nothing short of amazed. Of course my front end is rocking as well and that helps a lot. I certainly don't feel like CUbase SL/SX or Nuendo is the weak link.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

Older Cubase VST versions were failry primitive to what is available now. Starting with SX, the audio engine has been reworked twice to the current version. I would be willing to bet that the newer versions of Cubase would sound much much better than the older 5.5 and down. I personally run Cubase SL now in a pro studio and clients have been nothing short of amazed. Of course my front end is rocking as well and that helps a lot. I certainly don't feel like CUbase SL/SX or Nuendo is the weak link.

I agree 100%... there was a huge difference in quality between Cubase VST 5 and SX.... Cubase SX definitely does NOT sound bad!!

 

[leddy]

I agree 100%... there was a huge difference in quality between Cubase VST 5 and SX.... Cubase SX definitely does NOT sound bad!!

Thanks Xtatic & Blue Bear for answering the Cubase question. I'd like to have it available if I need it, but I did not realize how bad it was affecting the sound quality.

Will SE have the same audio engine? That way I'm only out $100 if I don't use it, and I can upgrade if I do.

Thanks again!

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

SE is SX with less features... sound quality should be the same...