Muff's Modules & More

[Setherian]

Im considering "high end" ADCs like the Burl B2 for my setup, but I almost only work with synthesizers, mostly analog modular, will that AD change my life or ??

(currently i just send my stufff directly to a RME FF800)


Seth

[Morley]

I see any AD as a necessary evil. If I compare a mix where I go live on the desk to one where I go via an AD, it's no contest.
SO, get the best you can but I doubt it will be a night and day thing.

[dogoftears]

the answer is yes, it will sound different and better. you will also have more headroom and less S/N. it is a very good idea if you exclusively record hardware synths. it's entirely necessary if you want to accurately record any processing/mixing/mastering through high-end outboard gear like tube compressors, 500 series rack, channel strips, etc.

you don't need it, but it will sound good. the RME is a good choice for "prosumer" quality for the mean time. a high end ADC is definitely on my list of desired gear, but it's fairly low down on the priority list considering how much you have to spend for 4-8 quality channels. it's an issue that always bugs me, though, when im pricing out some of the outboard gear i want. its like "okay... i could get this tube comp, this eq, and this pre amp for x thousand dollars... but oh wait all of that will be pointless unless i get this 2-3000 dollar ADC to record it all with!" so yeah... might be better to take the dive sooner then later.

[Babaluma]

yeah agree with the above, you don't actually need it, but it probably will make a positive difference. you'll need great monitoring to be able to make the most of it though.

main things i noticed when going from prosumer to pro:

the high end sounded like it was extended forever

i could hit the ADC as hard as i liked (even inaudibly clip it a little), and it didn't start to sound shit. (this was something i really noticed with my old echo converters, if i went much past -18dB RMS they started to sound "pinched"). of course, as i'm using them for mastering mainly, this meant i could get a much higher level to digital using the analogue gear, and so i didn't have to use as much digital processing for loudness. always a good thing!

[dogoftears]

[Morley]

Just to add, I use SSL converters which are midrange in price. I could hear a very big difference over MOTU 896 and when compared to RME less so but still the low end was MUCH better and the high end transparent and clear.

I still prefer going straight to tape!

[numan7]

isn't recording to tape kind of like strapping on outboard eq and compression in some ways?

i would just like accurate and precise sampling, throughout the audible range, of the signal being recorded.... no booming bass, crispy mids, sizzingly highs (or other Apogee et al marketing bs)!

cheers

[Morley]

I don't know. Look at speakers. We like some and don't like others. They have a sound and whatever we put through them will have that sound. No way around it. Tape does this too but for most people it does seem to be a limitation with musical side effects (slight rolled off high end, slight compression etc) as opposed to digital which has negative side effects. The better you get, the less there are but they are still present.
Purely analytical speakers will not be pleasant to listen too. That is the trick with monitors. To make them listenable AND accurate. I guess that goes for converters too.
And good quality tape is actually remarkably transparent. Not the exaggerated lo fi tape sound many think is tape.
BTW, I meant mixing straight to 2 track, not multi tracking.
Cost issues make digital a clear winner though. Cheap tape sound sucks as does cheap analogue, but high quality analogue still wins out in my book over high end digital..

[Setherian]

Hey Morley, what tape recorder do u use or recommend?

...

I will get something new in the next few days, it will either be a good AD converter or a lunchbox with 2 pres and a stereo comp (Vandergraph?).
And perhaps a Elysia Nvelope on the top..

So I wonder whats a priority here, Pres, Compression or ADC?

[numan7]

thanks for a very cogent and concise explanation, morley!

cheers

[Entrainer]

Why Burl B2? It has a "sound". Personally, that's the last thing I want
my ADC to have. Especially for a modular synthesizer.

If you want transformers to use as coloration, get a nice preamp/DI.
Then you can choose multiple colors with different pres.

I'd recommend the Black Lion Sparrow MKIIs (Red or White). Use it as the
clock into your RME.

And when those pros say "this is the first time what I record sounds EXACTLY
like what's is coming from the board"... it's true (MKII white).

Analog SOUNDS analog. I know you folks know what I'm talking about...
the sound of live analog modular, captured.

[Fnord]

I like the B2's "sound", but I also use crazy pre's and a tube mixer...

[NV]

I'll be the asshole that says if you're not sure whether or not you need a $2,500 2-channel ADC, then you probably don't need it. What does the rest of your studio look like? Do you have professional outboard pres, compressors, and EQs? Or is the RME your only outboard? Do you only record your synthesizers, or do you use microphones or DI guitars?

The difference between a cheap converter and a "good" converter can be pretty noticeable, but less so in the difference between good and "pro." Investing in a high-end converter to me is a last step audio engineer sort of thing to do, with room treatment, outboard, instruments, and technique coming way before. You'll hear a difference between the B2 and your RME, but realistically it won't be the amount of difference you would hear or experience investing that $2,500 elsewhere or in an overall better multi-channel interface. In short (and in my subjective opinion), if you're engineering albums for others as a career and primary source of income then absolutely a high-end 2-channel converter is a good idea. If not, a "good enough" multi-track interface is certainly good enough.

[Morley]

[evs]

why dont sell the rme stuff and buy a metric halo device?
very very good AD / DA converters and an audio interface, too.

or just try to record (if you don´t have done it allready) in 192kHz.
the difference from this to 44,1 is immense. even with a low cost AD converter.

[Babaluma]

lots of people believe 192 is a complete waste of time. can actually sound worse as the clock has to be of even higher quality. try and track down dan lavry's AES papers called "Sampling Theory", and the more recent one, "The Optimal Sample Rate For Quality Audio".

on the other hand, i heard roger foote say he really prefers 192 and can totally hear the diference, so as you say evs, best to try it for yourself!

[evs]

!
thanks, did not know this paper!

however, i find that 192 is sounding better than 44,1.
but i never made an blind test with that..

however, i think the only way to tell if you hear a difference between different ad converters or sampling rates is to make a blind test.
so regardless of what the internet says:-), make a blind test and decide whats important for you. thats all what it is about!


by the way, is anyone using here anything from metric halo?

[Babaluma]

nope. never tried the MH stuff, but there's a good buzz about it all over the place recently. rocking the crookwoods here!

[evs]

heres the link you´ve been talking about:

http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf

[ndkent]