The best way to transfer the analog signal from my 244 to my computer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Illsidgus
  • Start date Start date
jimmys69 said:
I could agree there, but there is the issue of the inputs still running through the preamps. Even my UR824's still run through the preamp section, but there is also a -26dB pad for line inputs. Plus the preamps are very clean.

I would not wish to recommend a interface that could lead to further noise from a analog source.
Click to expand...
Are you sure the Line Inputs go through the preamp? Just because they plug in to the same jack doesn't necessarily mean they go through the mic preamp. I've tried searching online for an answer, but didn't find anything definitive.
 
Chili said:
Are you sure the Line Inputs go through the preamp? Just because they plug in to the same jack doesn't necessarily mean they go through the mic preamp. I've tried searching online for an answer, but didn't find anything definitive.
Click to expand...

With the US800 and US1800, I am absolutely sure the combo jacks go through the preamps. No doubt that the US 600 does the same. Most interfaces with combo jacks do. Not the worst thing in the world, but it creates another level of preamp noise (depending on the quality of said preamp) in combination of what is presented before it.

My point is more that to get the best out of something not ideal (like dumping down a 4 track cassette recording) is to not add low end preamps to the end result.
 
jimmys69 said:
is to not add low end preamps to the end result.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't want to add any color or noise from a crappy preamp. I just need something that takes 4 line signals without adding anything to them, but it seems difficult to find a unit that does this seemingly simple task.
 
jimmys69 said:
Good question. The unit only has 16-bit possibility, though for tape transfer, that isn't really an issue. Whether the inserts allow for direct line level input is not clear in the specs.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw it only had 16-bit capability. Say I set cubase to 24 bit for this transfer project. Would the EIE at 16 bit limit me to 16 bit projects in cubase?
 
Knuckle47 said:
I have read the 10 pages of this thread with a good solid interest. Great pieces of information that could have been laid out with just some information about what he needed to do for the tape transfer

Please forgive this criticism! I've seen similar events over at the Steinberg forums and a vintage motorcycle group years and years ago and it can become intimidating for someone asking questions. Telling someone to go read the manual or research the question is not solving any problems they have.

Everyone has an expertise. Because it is not in recording is not a reason to lambast them. Some day we may need to know something they have an answer to. Is that the answer we would want? Answer the question and move on. Ok, I'm done... Oh , peace and love...peace and love
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone telling the OP to read a manual. It turned into a discussion about methods and suggestions of interface, but keep in mind, this was in the ANALOG forum. Not many digital recording guys even merge into this forum. The question was bound to create some opinions. Most of which seemed to come from the tape guys...

And I meant no offense with that comment. I just don't see an issue with discussion in this post.

Oh, and screw the similar events at the Steinberg forums. I have never had good experience there. I get way better advice from members here.
 
jimmys69 said:
With the US800 and US1800, I am absolutely sure the combo jacks go through the preamps.
Click to expand...

What are we talking about??? :confused: I finally turned the lights on in my studio here, look over at the US-1800 and it doesn't even have combo jacks. LOL. :laughings: Too funny.

But images of the US-600 does show combo jacks.
 
4tracker said:
Yeah I saw it only had 16-bit capability. Say I set cubase to 24 bit for this transfer project. Would the EIE at 16 bit limit me to 16 bit projects in cubase?
Click to expand...

Yes. Well, the quality of your instruments recorded through the 16-bit interface will never be any better. You cannot increase headroom if your converters cannot supply it. 16 bit analog to digital will always be 16bit quality within the DAW. You could add VSTi instruments in Cubase that would be recorded at 32-bit float, but that is not the point here.

I must say that I am even sure if you could run a Cubase project at a higher bit rate than the interface is capable of. I never had the need nor care to find out.


Do I need to buy you an interface to prove a point?
 
Chili said:
What are we talking about??? :confused: I finally turned the lights on in my studio here, look over at the US-1800 and it doesn't even have combo jacks. LOL. :laughings: Too funny.

But images of the US-600 does show combo jacks.
Click to expand...

LOL! You are right. I meant US 600 and 800. They were almost identical units.

Actually, now I must admit I was wrong... It has been quite a while since I used the 1800, that I had assumed they had the combo jacks.

The 600 and 800 had the combo jacks. I tested the US 800 as it was being discontinued and bought 5 of them to sell to members here. The preamps were definitely inline with line inputs. The US 1641 and US 1800 inputs 11-14 are true line inputs. Inputs 9/10 (considered guitar/line inputs) also go through the same preamp-the same as the combo jack 'line' input on the 600 and 800 interfaces. From what I gathered in my testing of the US 800, they were the same preamps. This done by a comparison recording of SM7b with equal preamp settings into Cubase at same input level. I couldn't tell the difference in input level or noise.
 
jimmys69 said:
Yes. Well, the quality of your instruments recorded through the 16-bit interface will never be any better. You cannot increase headroom if your converters cannot supply it. 16 bit analog to digital will always be 16bit quality within the DAW. You could add VSTi instruments in Cubase that would be recorded at 32-bit float, but that is not the point here.

I must say that I am even sure if you could run a Cubase project at a higher bit rate than the interface is capable of. I never had the need nor care to find out.


Do I need to buy you an interface to prove a point?
Click to expand...

But say I never recorded anything through the EIE and only used it to transfer 4 tracks at one time (from analog tape machine). Would the 16bits on the EIE limit me to a 16 bit project in Cubase?

And yes, I would gladly have you buy me a unit if you have that kind of money to throw around. 8)
 
4tracker said:
Would the 16bits on the EIE limit me to a 16 bit project in Cubase?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. You can set your project to a higher bit depth, like 24 bit, in Cubase, but the extra bits will be empty or zero. All the data will be in the 16 bits you recorded with. So, you gain nothing when setting a project bit depth higher than the recorded bit depth.
 
4tracker said:
Yeah I saw it only had 16-bit capability. Say I set cubase to 24 bit for this transfer project. Would the EIE at 16 bit limit me to 16 bit projects in cubase?
Click to expand...
The converters determine the possible number of bits. If the converters are limited to 16 bit, that is all you would get, because that is all it is capable of putting out.

If you set cubase to 24 bit with that interface, it would simply store the 16 bits on information from the interface in a 24 bit box. It would simply take up more hard drive space for no reason.

I have no experience with the Akai, but I am suspicious of any interface in this day and age that is only 16 bit. 24 bit budget interfaces have been around for a decade, so it has to be some sort of cost cutting compromise.
 
4tracker said:
But say I never recorded anything through the EIE and only used it to transfer 4 tracks at one time (from analog tape machine). Would the 16bits on the EIE limit me to a 16 bit project in Cubase?

And yes, I would gladly have you buy me a unit if you have that kind of money to throw around. 8)
Click to expand...
You are getting lost in semantics. When we say 'record through the akai', we are talking about recording the outputs of your 4-track through the akai, into the computer.

That is what you would be doing, recording the output of the 4-track into the computer. That is how you transfer it.
 
jimmys69 said:
Oh, and screw the similar events at the Steinberg forums. I have never had good experience there. I get way better advice from members here.
Click to expand...

Well good to know this Jimmys69, actually that line does come from the Cubase forum. "RTFM". You know that one, you've seen it there. I'll need to spend more time here on your suggestion with better advice from members here.
Maybe it's just out of the same context which just wreaks of negativity.

In the intent of the post. I had several hours of RTR from the early 1970's that went direct to the MOTU 896hd. A bit of editing in Cubase and they are very acceptable I was 20 at the time those tapes were recorded. Glad to be able to save them 40 years later
 
First time I heard RTFM was the early 80's. I'm sure it existed long before that. I always assumed it was a military acronym, like FUBAR.
 
Farview said:
The converters determine the possible number of bits. If the converters are limited to 16 bit, that is all you would get, because that is all it is capable of putting out.

If you set cubase to 24 bit with that interface, it would simply store the 16 bits on information from the interface in a 24 bit box. It would simply take up more hard drive space for no reason.

I have no experience with the Akai, but I am suspicious of any interface in this day and age that is only 16 bit. 24 bit budget interfaces have been around for a decade, so it has to be some sort of cost cutting compromise.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
My instinct is that 16bit would be limiting, and you confirmed that.

The Tascam US-600 seems to be my best choice since it's small and fairly cheap. I don't love the 2input on front and back design, so if anyone can think of some good alternatives to it I am all ears.
 
Farview said:
First time I heard RTFM was the early 80's. I'm sure it existed long before that. I always assumed it was a military acronym, like FUBAR.
Click to expand...

It was!! On a submarine, there are a lot of manuals to read. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top