Some advice about moving on with 002/twinq pres/AD!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marlmanch
  • Start date Start date
M

Marlmanch

New member
Ok, this is my first post and maybe long winded so excuse me! I'm just looking for some advice.

1. Im using a 002r and the new Twinq and in the short term im looking to get half decent pres for my four line ins in the 002R. (Up till now ive used some nasty desk pres that id rather not mention!). I was thinking RNP's which seem to be roughly my price range.

Wondered if this is wise?! anyone has any better ideas?


2. When tracking drums (kick, snare top, sn bttm, T1, T2, T3, hats, OH L, OH R, room) Im thinking OH's through maybe the RNP , kick and snare through the twinq (for the compression... works nicely fattening the snare and sounds nicer to me than my UAD-1 software comps). This would mean the kick and snare using the Twinq A-D converter however, thats not quite up to the 002 A-D.

Does this sound like the best way round?


3. Finally, is the A-D on the 002R bad enough to justify something like the Apogee even though it would mean dropping down to 44khz when i always usually record at 96khz?

Questions questions!! I hope someone can shed a few oppinions on these points. I try to read all i can but could just do with a little direct help!

Cheers,

Mark


Oh, and one final thing... Can anyone familiar with a UAD1 ultra tell me their favourite comp for the snare... cant decide whether to use the Meek or software comp on it.
 
Last edited:
Good bit of questions, there- all good ones, too.

Welcome aboard!

My thoughts:
1) I have an RNP and I love it. You simply cannot go wrong with it. Period.

2) Hmmm... don't forget the ADAT I/O on the 002. If you are concidering dropping down to 44/48K you jump from 10 to 18 I/O. If you do need 96K (which I tend to doubt, but that's just my experience) then you're probably OK using the A/D on the TwinQ- does it sound good? It is good, then! :)

3) I have a 002 (clocked off a TC Finalizer) and it sounds better than a Mix 24+ that I use at work which is clocked to an Apogee. So that means the AD on the 002 is superior to the Mix 24, FWIW. I use an ADAT XT-20 for the additional I/O (slaved, via the 002, to the Finalizer as well). The 4-bit difference is lost in the noise floor of the studio and analog mixing desk. I've never found any use for recording higher than 48k, except to make me feel like I want a more powerful computer.

So if you sprang for the Apogee, its clock would *greatly* improve the onboard conversion of the 002 while dropping to 48k would open up the remain 8 channels of I/O availible. Unless you *really* need 96K, that would (IMO) give you the best system you could get with the 002.

Not familiar with the UAD1 so I can't say for certain, but I like the 1176 plugs for drums. Having a release control is critical for getting the compression in time with the music. I have a ThreeQ and I'm not all that fond of its compressor- very characteristic. Great for some things... horrible for others. You'd better *really* like the sound you are getting if you are compressing on the way in!! But if you do, you're saving the processing space later on.

Take care,
Chris
 
Just respond to a portion of your post:

I wouldn't call the converters in the 002R bad at all, these are perfectly usable converters. I have a two channel premium converter, the UA 2192, and the rest I use is what's on whatever is on my digital mixer or audio interfaces.

If you usually record at 96k, then whatever additional conversion you get should allow you to work at that sampling rate. I personally still record at 44.1 or 48k. But the gear should accomodate you, not the other way around.

As far as the preamps, if you get four of them I'd suggest getting a pair of preamps and then a couple others, or two pairs of preamps that are not the same. So for example, an RNP and a couple Groove Tube BRICK's. It's an opportunity for you to get a variety of tones, and that is extremely important.
 
Hi Chris, Albert.

Thanks for the replys. Greatly appreciated. So an RNP sounds like a must for some of my extra pres, and a valid point about considering some different ones for the others.

So if i understand correctly, dropping down to 48k will be a negligable difference? Really i should test this out for myself and not be so idle i suppose! But if thats the case, it's great for me... numberous more instances of plug ins, extra ins/outs etc.

Excuse my ignorance about the clocking thing... im a little unsure about what it means.

So to briely summise, if i went for something like an apogee, even down at 48k id get an audibly better results because of the clock improving the covertion process?

Does that mean, for the sake of arguement, i could get something like the Apogee mini me. Use it via spidif, and set the spidif as the clock giving me better convertion not just on the pres on the apogee, but across all the channels on the 002? I know im reitterating but i like to be sure!

Many thanks again,

Mark
 
Last edited:
Hi again, Mark.

The clock tells the system when to take samples. If there are *any* irregularities in the clock, even very small ones, they will cause inaccurate A/D/A, particularly in the critical higher frequencies. This is because low quality clocks will read values at the wrong times and the reconstructed signal (D/A) will be inaccurate.

Since a decent clock can cost at least as much as the 002r, one can assume the clock in the 002r isn't top of the line. Useable, for sure, but not state of the art. Adding a rock solid clock is possibly one of the most effective and dramatic ways to increase the quality of a digital recording system.

When I switched to clocking off the the Finalizer even stuff that I had recorded previously seemed to sound better. Could have been my imagination, but... I'm still happier.

So, yes: a Mini Me could act as the master clock for the 002r via S/PDIF and increase the quality of your conversion across the board. The same holds true for a 96K convertor, by the way. If you got a 96K device with a kickin' clock and S/PDIF you could have your cake and eat it to. More expensive, but still one of the most effective ways to upgrade a digital system.

And I'd definately use your ears to see if you can live with a 48k system- you're talking about dropping a lot of money and it would suck to lock yourself into a samplerate you aren't happy with. Maybe you could rent an Apogee for a day and play around with it at 48K to see?

Take care,
Chris
 
Chris, thanks so much... very subsinct explaination! I think im with it now. I'm definately going to look at this as my next purchase.

I know Apogee is a name i hear mentioned a lot when AD comes up, and looking at the prices im not suprised concidering generally you get what you pay for. You mention you run your clock from the finalizer, are there any other makes/units you'd recommend for their particularly stable clocks? Apogee gear new is just pushing it a little too much price wise and doesnt seem to come round second hand all that often!

Oh, and one more daft question! (and incidentally im very greatful for your time on this post!!) Hypothetically if i use an outboard AD via spifif for the clock, is it still possible to use the same spidif as inputs via the outboard converter? The path isnt take up entirely by the clock?

Cheers, Mark
 
Yep, you still get to use the inputs. I have the Apogee MiniMe and use it with my 002R. Everything (including my ADAT interface) gets clocked to the MiniMe via the S/PDIF input. The S/PDIF signal carries a clocking signal. The Minime can be setup to just output a clock signal, or a converted signal. It also operates up to 96K; though lately I've been recording everything at 44.1k as all my work eventually ends up on CD regardless.
 
Oy...

I don't really have any ideas what makes for a good clock other than the obvious names one associates with good clocks: Apogee, Lucid, etc. I just use the Finalizer's clock because I figured a low-end mastering machine designed for A/D conversion and samplerate conversion would have a better time piece that Digi's home studio targeted 002. I tried it and liked what I heard.

-C
 
Hi, thanks Alex, Chris.

Out of interest, how did you find the conversion difference of your 002 with the apogee clock alex?

The Apogee would certainly put my mind at rest knowing it was as good as its going to get, but the the Lucid 9624 seems a much more sensible price. Do either of you have any ideas about the stability of the clock in this unit?

I'll try to make this my last question on the matter, and thank you both dearly.

Cheers,

Mark
 
I was working with an Mbox when I got the Mini-Me. I noticed a definite improvement with the Mbox clocked to the Mini-me; even on existing mixes recorded on the Mbox as well as a Korg hard disc recorder (at 16-bit). I upgraded to the 002R around the same time and have always operated it clocked to the Mini-me so I can't really say what the difference there is, but I suspect it's converters are similar to the Mbox. The differences to me come down to increased definition/resolution of recordings; especially in the mid and upper mid-range. I don't have any experience with the Lucid so I can't comment specifically on it; but just about any external unit I've heard clocking the 002R seems to improve things. I really think one of the weakest links in the 002R is the internal clock.
 
Hi Alex,

Thanks for that. Its always re assuring to here peoples experiences before taking a financial plunge! My only concern is it seems difficult to get hold of a lot of the AD units talked about on these forums here in the uk. But then we are a bit behind when it comes to music procuction.... among other things!

Thanks for taking your time on this post,

Cheers, Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top