UFX ad/da converters

[jarl]

Hi folks,

I'm a newbie here, so hope you'll excuse my lack of some elementary knowledge.
Anyway, I record acoustic string instruments like guitars, fiddles, lutes etc. My gear is: Shoeps CMC6 stereo pair and Fireface UFX hooked up to iMac (logic). Recently, I decided to bypass UFX's pres as sound quality is not what I'm looking for. Still considering some options (but this is not what I'd like to ask about). My impression is that bypassing preamps wouldn't suffice, so the question is how good are UFX ad/da converters, can I get something significantly better and if so, can I bypass UFX's converters. Or maybe it's better to sell UFX and hook up everything (pre+conv) another way to my iMac (then how?)?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Chili]

The short answer is Yes, you can skip the UFX and get better converters. The real answer is: You won't notice a difference.

D/A and A/D is about the least thing that is going to affect sound quality. Unless you're comparing your computer's onboard soundcard to Lavrys, you won't see much difference.


Mic pres do make a noticeable difference as do the mics, which begs the question: What don't you like about the RME? It's not a cheap consumer grade unit. Maybe the Schoeps aren't the right choice for your application. How is the room you're recording in? How is the room you're listening in? Your monitors?

You've got some serious coinage invested in your equipment, if you can't make it work for you then you should be looking at a whole lot of other aspects before zero'ing in on the converter process.

Hey man, welcome to the site!!

 

[mixsit]

.. Mic pres do make a noticeable difference as do the mics, which begs the question: What don't you like about the RME? ..

Subcribing.. :>)

 

[jarl]

The short answer is Yes, you can skip the UFX and get better converters. The real answer is: You won't notice a difference.

D/A and A/D is about the least thing that is going to affect sound quality. Unless you're comparing your computer's onboard soundcard to Lavrys, you won't see much difference.


Mic pres do make a noticeable difference as do the mics, which begs the question: What don't you like about the RME? It's not a cheap consumer grade unit. Maybe the Schoeps aren't the right choice for your application. How is the room you're recording in? How is the room you're listening in? Your monitors?

You've got some serious coinage invested in your equipment, if you can't make it work for you then you should be looking at a whole lot of other aspects before zero'ing in on the converter process.

Hey man, welcome to the site!!

Thanks a lot for your reply!! Well, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with UFX, but it sounds a little bit…constrained, artificial…don't know how to describe it best. I'm looking for a natural sound. Instruments that I already recorded sound different in reality (fuller and warmer). I tried several mic setups and venues. It makes a difference, but can't get rid of some stuff that's always there. Someone advised that UFX pres were designed with most popular instruments in mind, not necessarily acoustic, folk etc which makes the unit work at its limits. So bypassing pres could be one of the solutions. I'm not sure if Shoeps is the best choice. Again, I read a lot about various mics and some folks confirmed that it's one of the most transparent mics ever built. Another would be DPA (4003 or 4006), but they are even more pricey, besides some say they have a little HF bump around 10kHz (dunno). As for listening environment, I have Spirit Absolute zero monitors, Spirit amp and mixer, and AKG K240 headphones. There are some bass traps on the walls.
All in all it's great to hear I don't need to invest in AD/DA converter. Then my guess is either mics are to blame or pres.
Anyway I'll try some pres first as there is a big probability they don't cooperate with MK2s well enough.
If you have any other ideas, please let me know. It's quite difficult to find a culprit unless one has a lot of stuff for trial at hand. I don't, so your suggestions are of great importance to me.
Thanks a lot!!!

 

[Armistice]

Mic position and controlling room reflections will get you further, faster than gear.

People are usually used to hearing acoustic instruments from a reasonable distance - if you're listening to someone playing acoustic guitar, or lute or violin, chances are you don't have your ears 6 inches from the wood, because they'd probably punch you and tell you to get further away... like 6 feet, at least, where it sounds good.

Yet that's what we tend to do with our microphones - close mic - and the sound is different there, harsher, louder. I'd be exploring not just where, in terms of microphone orientation, but how far away (always assuming you haven't done this yet) - and a UFX, being a high quality interface with lots of gain, is a good choice to do that.

Your room also plays a part - again, you might have all this under control, you might not, you haven't said. But I wouldn't be worried about the quality of your converters at this point. Preamps are a different matter, but you can blow a lot of money for not much improvement, unless you know exactly what you want and which machine makes that sound.

 

[jarl]

Mic position and controlling room reflections will get you further, faster than gear.

People are usually used to hearing acoustic instruments from a reasonable distance - if you're listening to someone playing acoustic guitar, or lute or violin, chances are you don't have your ears 6 inches from the wood, because they'd probably punch you and tell you to get further away... like 6 feet, at least, where it sounds good.

Yet that's what we tend to do with our microphones - close mic - and the sound is different there, harsher, louder. I'd be exploring not just where, in terms of microphone orientation, but how far away (always assuming you haven't done this yet) - and a UFX, being a high quality interface with lots of gain, is a good choice to do that.

Your room also plays a part - again, you might have all this under control, you might not, you haven't said. But I wouldn't be worried about the quality of your converters at this point. Preamps are a different matter, but you can blow a lot of money for not much improvement, unless you know exactly what you want and which machine makes that sound.

Well, I've already tried several mic settings. Closer, further away (like 2 or 3 feet, maybe even more). My room is acoustically treated with some bass traps and diffusers. I agree that early reflections could alter sound quite a lot, so I tried to record in a big hall (high celling, big volume). It was different, but in a way the thing that I dislike most was still there, slightly covered by a natural reverb. For this kind of money I'd expect something better. I don't blame the gear. Just have a feeling that maybe configuration isn't optimal for this job.
As for preamps, I'm trying to figure out what would work best in this situation. It has to be clear, but full and warm. Tube pres are rather out of question as a sound source is not loud enough IMO.

 

[Armistice]

I stepped away from stereo pair mics - I struggled to get good acoustic guitar sounds and only cracked it to my satisfaction when I stopped using matched mics. I still use two mics and the second one is a Neumann stage vocal condenser (I always forget it's model so I won't quote it...) running almost parallel (yup) to the fretboard...

Who'd have thunk that would work?

 

[jarl]

Wow, very surprising! In theory matched pair should work much better, but….
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of mics around to experiment with.

 

[ecc83]

On pre amps I would say the very area where they CAN make a difference is not the one that obtains here!

Using pres that give a "character" to the sound only really works if they are being pushed and I should think that the "genteel" nature of the OP's chosen genre is not going to drive pre amps anything like hard enough? Yes, there are pre amps with "dirtying" controls but they tend to be at the gimmick end of the market.

Valves do not "warm" up sources of themselves, they have to be "made" to do it. Same goes for transformers, just putting in some iron doesn't make it "rock"! I agree, getting VERY low noise with valves is hard and expensive. Doing so with transformers is not. One of the most famous, quietest pres of all time was basically a nice traff and an NE5534! (there's a thought! Roll you own!) .

I also agree with whoever said the RME converters were not absolutely top drawer. I also agree that you would never tell!

I would suggest it is time to hire in some gear. Ribbon mics for a start. Many top men dislike CO-I cardiods and go for figure 8s . Benchmark or Lavry converters?

Lastly, can you find some commercial recordings that have (or lack!) the qualities you desire (or hate!) ? If you can then go bother the buggery out of the producer!

Dave

 

[jarl]

On pre amps I would say the very area where they CAN make a difference is not the one that obtains here!
Using pres that give a "character" to the sound only really works if they are being pushed and I should think that the "genteel" nature of the OP's chosen genre is not going to drive pre amps anything like hard enough? Yes, there are pre amps with "dirtying" controls but they tend to be at the gimmick end of the market.
I also agree with whoever said the RME converters were not absolutely top drawer. I also agree that you would never tell!
I would suggest it is time to hire in some gear. Ribbon mics for a start. Many top men dislike CO-I cardiods and go for figure 8s . Benchmark or Lavry converters?
Dave

Thanks for some ideas! I must say I'm really confused thou. Some say pres and converters do change a lot, others claim that modern technology allows to built a prof ad/da for a fraction of top gear's price and no one would notice any difference in sound quality at all. I've listened to some audio samples in the net comparing various preamps . There are some on hearthegear.com especially Ivo Sedlacek's monochord recording (which is delicate acoustic string instrument). The sound differences between Cranesong Flamingo, Lavry, DAV, Forssell and Pacific are quite obvious. Another matter is how reliable such a test can be.
In my case there will be always only solo instrument to record, so there are only 3 places were something may go wrong - mic, pre, converter. I know that many sound engineers use MK2s for recording classical instruments. On the other hand my impression is that RME is just a tad above consumer level, so I'd look for a suspect in there. I might sell it (it's almost brand new, so there shouldn't be any problem), and look for another rig to suit my purposes better. BTW, could you advice the best gear chain from mic to iMac if I was to buy stand alone boxes only?

 

[ecc83]

"The sound differences between Cranesong Flamingo, Lavry, DAV, Forssell and Pacific are quite obvious. Another matter is how reliable such a test can be."

If the differences are "obvious" I strongly suspect a problem with the methodology, but I shall come back to that.

This debate about converters takes me back some decades to a similar cow about power amplifiers.
One camp maintained that in a properly conducted test with a statistically valid number of listeners and test "events" two PAs of comparable power and specification would score near 50/50 in an A/B double blind test. A famous amp manufacturer put up 2 grand (I think) to anyone who could disprove the claim. IIRC no one ever did. Now! Whatever you think of that, bring yourself up to present day..

Almost everyone here that has decent, maybe VERY decent monitors will have ACTIVE monitors? The amps are hidden away inside the box. Now, equally so, many here will have read dozens of reviews of active monitors. Can anyone recall ANY reviewer criticising the power amps? I must have read scores of such reviews in the last 8 years or so and I certainly can't! So, are amplifiers now "perfect"? No, but they ARE subjectively so and have been for at least two decades. This is the problem, what we don't actually SEE to worry about we forget about. (of course the Audiophool tweaks in their ridiculous magazines continue their inane prattle!).

*There are VERY very few sources of audio information I trust to talk sense. Rane Electronics, Jensen Transformers and Sound on Sound magazine (and not ALL of them!). SoS did a test of 1/2 doz' mic pre amps a year or so ago. I suggest you find the series and read it most carefully!
They have also done individual, (not D/Blind but very careful) tests over the years on soundcards (not many) AIs and stand alone A to Ds and D to As. In all these tests the greatest care was taken to match levels, even 0.1dB can it seems "throw" a result. In all cases the tester reported no differences or very minor ones that changed with music type. Where a definite preference was expressed it was only after "living with" a specific converter for some days then switching back. But note. These were very slight PERSONAL preferences, had there been the time and money for a "panel" I would bet none of the units would do better than chance!

Dave.

 

[citizen77]

Jarl,

I've got the exact same equipment. I have 4 CMC62s, 2 CMC64s and 2 CMC64xts. I really like the pres on the UFX. Are they the best in the world? No, but they contend very well against the topshelf names - and way outperform any budget gear. The closest I can compare them to is the FMR RNP (which I also own and happily use with no frustration, but they add a negligible amount of noise, which the UFX does not have). I also have 12 channels of Millennias that I usually run through before the UFX. I prefer the MK2's over the MK4's, but the room is really going to influence what's happening with the MK2's. Like everyone else is saying, get your room in order first and mic placement. The gear you have is not the problem (which should be a relief since you've invested so much into it).

In my case there will be always only solo instrument to record, so there are only 3 places were something may go wrong - mic, pre, converter. I know that many sound engineers use MK2s for recording classical instruments. On the other hand my impression is that RME is just a tad above consumer level, so I'd look for a suspect in there.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. It is not just "3 places were something may go wrong." Your signal chain is Musician, Instrument, Room, Mic placement, Mic, Pre, Converter (this can be argued from different points of view). And you have to have accurate headphones and monitors to evaluate the variables.

Like I said, your gear is fine. Purchase a Millennia or a Grace if you like for your pres. I also use John Hardy's too. They do add a little "color" to the sound, so I don't like using them on choirs (maybe non-classical voices would be good though - it all depends).

 

[citizen77]

"The sound differences between Cranesong Flamingo, Lavry, DAV, Forssell and Pacific are quite obvious. Another matter is how reliable such a test can be."

If the differences are "obvious" I strongly suspect a problem with the methodology, but I shall come back to that.

Dave.

+1 on this.


I forgot to mention: with the UFX, you get TotalMix which is a great piece of monitor management software and so much more. I also used Logic for years (which I spent $500 on), but now I use Reaper (which is 1/2 the cost or $60 or free if you are still developing integrity). I do like the surround feature of Logic better than Reaper though (but that's probably not an issue for most users).

 

[jarl]

I forgot to mention: with the UFX, you get TotalMix which is a great piece of monitor management software and so much more.

Yes, TotalMix is great, especially with more complex projects which I may do occasionally. In general I was thinking along these lines initially (before buying any gear), but it may be that I underestimated gear's sonic differences when recording acoustic instruments. It doesn't sound bad, it just sounds too clinical with trebles too dry (a reverb doesn't cover this impression). I'd love to humanize the sound a little bit (make it more musical), but this doesn't seem to be an easy task. I know you say it's not the gear, but rather my lack of knowledge how to use it, but I really tried hard in several configurations and acoustics. Could you give me some tips how to record such a delicate instrument? Maybe I overlooked something important. With MK2s which are omnis I use AB. First I try to find the place (a sweet spot) where an instrument seems to sound best. Then I look for a proper distance - mic-> sound source. And finally angle or/and spread mics while listening what sounds best. Most of the takes that I did were acceptable, but I definitely wouldn't make a CD from them in spite neither the player nor the instrument was to blame.
Maybe as Dave suggested it's time to try some additional gear. A preamp with some kind of sound warmer/distortion like Cranesong (or something cheaper of this sort) could do the trick…dunno.

 

[citizen77]

jarl,

I didn't mean to come across as if you had a lack of knowledge of the gear. I probably came off a little insulting! Well, in my experience, I've noticed that even with my Millennia's it can sound sterile (clinical), but it really depends on the room. The same goes with running the MK2's straight into the UFX. I completed some recordings and completely thought it was horrible from the sterileness - it could have been my playing or whatever....

I just remembered what also influences a recording.... Humidity! I live in Minnesota and it has such a dramatic change in humidity levels throughout the year. I record in a lot of churches and the relative humidity will drastically change reverb time and room resonance. Even in all stone or cement buildings, the humidity drastically changes the sound. What is worse is having two sessions on different days and the humidity and temperature level changed between those times - it completely changes the sound of the musicians. I always have them break up the pieces in a way that avoids using takes from different days on the same piece. Also, I've gotten to the point where I make sure my clients let me know if they know the space enough for sound changes from the climate condition. It helps decide what season to record in to get the best sound.

Almost everything I do is classical (and jazz), so it's mostly acoustic instruments. I wish I could hear what's going on with your gear. I think my UFX is the first generation (2010ish), so maybe they've made some other changes since then (which they have with the external controller).

I've been really unhappy with most reverbs - especially with the "trebles being to dry" too. This is a relatively inexpensive, but decent reverb that I've been using: ValhallaRoom: $50 – ValhallaDSP Is it perfect? No, but I can get some realistic rooms out of it (which is so important to classical). Maybe it would help with your trebles? But than again, reverb shouldn't be used to fix a "bad" recording problem or as something normally done on every session.

I just did a recording of the Associate Concert Master of the Minnesota Orchestra doing the complete Bach violin partitas and sonatas. Every time I record a violin, it always has that initial screechiness going on until I find the right mic placement - even with a world-class musician. After a couple days, his wife came in a I let her listen through a different set of headphones (Beyerdynamic 770s) and she hated the sound - lack of warmth and too much treble. That made me think of how important good monitoring is. I use the 770s for isolation, but my 880s are much more transparent and warmer. At the same time, I've gotten used to all the different flaws of my gear and know how to work around it or to my advantage. Maybe it's your monitoring system. I haven't used the AKGs or the Spirit Absolute Zeros before, so it just an idea.

I also used firewood spread across the marble floor to warm up the sound. There was too much delay from the violin to the floor to the microphones causing a slight amount of phasing. Using the wood to diffuse the sound more helped - and it absorbed the high frequencies a little.

I feel badly since it seems like we do basically the same thing and I wish I could tell you exactly what to do to get the sound you want out of your gear.

Maybe additional gear with a different sound would be good as Dave suggested. I really like the John Hardy's - he even designed them with Schoeps in mind. The John Hardy Co. Home It may have "the preamp with some kind of sound warmer/distortion" tone you want. I haven't used anything by Cranesong.

Maybe this gave some ideas?

 

[ecc83]

Arghh!!!
NEVER! Ask WOMEN to judge sound qualities!!!!!

Dave.

 

[citizen77]

Arghh!!!
NEVER! Ask WOMEN to judge sound qualities!!!!!

Dave.

HA! Well played. Unless, of course, that woman is the principle flautist of the Minnesota Opera (and Grammy nominated!). She's is a very amazing woman - and has some great ears. I'd take her over any of my interns any day (even the one that interned with Bob Katz before me).

 

[jarl]

Thanks for this,

I didn't mean to come across as if you had a lack of knowledge of the gear. I probably came off a little insulting! Well, in my experience, I've noticed that even with my Millennia's it can sound sterile (clinical), but it really depends on the room. The same goes with running the MK2's straight into the UFX. I completed some recordings and completely thought it was horrible from the sterileness - it could have been my playing or whatever....

No problem at all. We learn all our live, and this is probably most interesting IMHO.
It looks like you had similar problems with UFX+MK2. You managed to cope with it somehow, but it raises a question: is this the common issue with any interface+mic combination or specifically this one when recording acoustic instruments? Schoeps and RME have quite flat characteristics (are pretty transparent), but in spite similar things could be said about couple of other mics and interfaces, each one of them sounds different. This is because different electronics were used to achieve a similar result. Similar not identical! This is my point, that maybe this combination (UFX+MK2) tends to sound dry and clinical when recording quiet string instruments. I really don't know, it's just my supposition.

I've been really unhappy with most reverbs - especially with the "trebles being to dry" too. This is a relatively inexpensive, but decent reverb that I've been using ValhallaRoom. Maybe it would help with your trebles? But than again, reverb shouldn't be used to fix a "bad" recording problem or as something normally done on every session.

I have Spaces Convultion reverb. It's simple (not many knobs to turn), but sounding really good and natural. However as you rightly pointed out, it shouldn't be used to fix a bad recording.

Every time I record a violin, it always has that initial screechiness going on until I find the right mic placement - even with a world-class musician. After a couple days, his wife came in a I let her listen through a different set of headphones (Beyerdynamic 770s) and she hated the sound - lack of warmth and too much treble. That made me think of how important good monitoring is. Maybe it's your monitoring system. I haven't used the AKGs or the Spirit Absolute Zeros before, so it just an idea.

Both AKG K240 and Spirit Absolute Zeros are pretty transparent. I used them on many occasions and they never boosted neither bass nor treble. They are really flat.

I feel badly since it seems like we do basically the same thing and I wish I could tell you exactly what to do to get the sound you want out of your gear.
Maybe additional gear with a different sound would be good as Dave suggested. I really like the John Hardy's - he even designed them with Schoeps in mind. It may have "the preamp with some kind of sound warmer/distortion" tone you want. I haven't used anything by Cranesong. Maybe this gave some ideas?

I wonder what difference in sound you noticed after hooking up your Hardys? I presume you too weren't absolutely satisfied with just UFX+MK2, no?
Thanks for some interesting ideas.

 

[ecc83]

HA! Well played. Unless, of course, that woman is the principle flautist of the Minnesota Opera (and Grammy nominated!). She's is a very amazing woman - and has some great ears. I'd take her over any of my interns any day (even the one that interned with Bob Katz before me).

Ha! I meant no disrespect! Just that the ladies, from about 12 onward have half an octave and about 6dB on us blokes and therefore tend, in my experience, to hear things differently. My wife is certainly less tolerant of loud music than I ! (even when I was in my 20's and not deaf!).

I have just realized that the Conservatives have nothing on the audio industry when it comes to male domination! I know of only one studio owner, Enlightened Hand from the ill fated Studio-Central.com. Any lady mastering engineers? Fader jockeys?

I am pleased to find more gals posting in HR than I recall in any other audio forum.

Dave.

 

[Chili]

Aren't Schoeps designed to be flat and neutral sounding? They don't have the typical 2k-6k rise that other condensers might have. Perhaps they aren't the best mic for your recordings or you have to EQ out the mids and lower mids to get an artificial rise.

Maybe they are capsule dependent and you aren't using the right ones. What else do you have in your mic locker?? Price doesn't matter, my go-to vocal mic can be found on eBay for $25.

I'm surprised you can't get a good capture with your equipment list.