I hate digital sound...Should I spend big money for expensive converters?

[sound_forward]

I have no experience with very expensive AD-DA converters and I do not have any chance to audition it before buying.

The best converters I have experience with are Protools HD 192 and RME ADI-8 and I also have RME multiface at my project studio.

The problem is that I do not like digital sound at all. Vinly sounds better to me than CD, I like tape, I like analog synths and fx...The only digital equipment I really like are some older effects and samplers (lexicon pcm70, lxp1, roland SDE3000, korg SDD3000, older akai and emu samplers etc.)

I make electronic music (similar production as Rap/hiphop) and I use a lot of vintage analog equipment and mix with analog deck. Sometimes I do everything at my little project studio and sometimes I go to big studio.

The problem is that everytime I get into digital recording I miss the fat tone and warmth and punchyness of analog.

Once we tried recording every track to protools and mix in the box but the result was really bad. Than we went out from PT to analog deck but something was still missing. The best result we found is to keep everything strictly analog and than record final mix to protools.

The funniest thing happened when we tried to record some reverb sounds coming from my little old LXP1 to protools. The result was just funny. Reverb lost its fatness and 3D dissapears. I paid something like 100 EUR for that little box, and it produce superior tone that protools can not reproduce...

My goal is to eliminate the need for big studio because I find better results mixing at my project studio than doing it in a hurry in big one.

The only problem is final conversion because I find RME multiface bad sounding.

Is there a AD-DA converter that can fully record and reproduce analog sound?

I am not looking for superior imaging and amazing signal/noise ratio. I just want a converter that sounds analog but without further coloring.

For example, If I spend big money for 2ch converters like apogee-mytek-lavry...will I get a closer tone to analog or I just pay for lower noise and better imaging?

I really do not need super specs because my production is full of noises and it is nothing like hi-fi production. I just want that analog tone.

Thanks

[jim demetri]

thats why there is still analog equipment for sale . the best solution that is to use a good quality analog desk and if you have the budget and the energy to go onto 2inch 16 or 24 track tape then transfer to digital .i have work this way with vocals and to be honest i havent heard a plugin or converter to beat it .

[iziphonics]

I belive nobody will promise you that you'll get analog sound from any AD/DA. But what I find using Myteks is that they are close. I really like them.. The sound is very natural and I'd claim not colored at all

[mltamisin]

AD/DA converters will certainly help. You will certainly need a great analog board or something with alot of DI's and EQ's since most of your gear will be DI.

[logichead]

The best you can hope for is to "approach" analog sound. To do this, you will need better converters. I use Apogee Rosetta 800's and a Big Ben clock - they make quite a difference. The details you are losing with your current setup will be better represented with a converter upgrade. Use you ears when you choose a new converter, find a vendor who will let you try a few different ones for more than a day or two.

Analog summing is another area to consider. Either a console or summing box will be a nice step. Each one will have advantages. One of my clients has the Manley 16x2 tube mixer - sounds great, but might not be the best for an aggressive rock recording.

Part of the "analog sound" is distortion - pleasant distortion. The best digital sound is (to my ears) clean, accurate, and musical - indefineably pleasing. To get analog-style distortion you have to do some work. I find the Phoenix plug-ins very interesting. I have been putting them across each of my 8 stereo outputs before going to a Dangerous 2 BussLT. This is the closest I get to analog sound. It helps to have them inserted early in the recording process.

Ribbon and dynamic mics are other things to consider. Slowing down the transients that condenser mics into digital are capable of seems to be a way to get more analog sounding.

Still, we are only "approaching" analog sound.

Best....H

[SoZo]

I must say... I think my 16x converters get you as close to that analog palapable cohesive sound as I have heard; next to that sony SCAD (its been a long while though since I heard SCAD). I recorded some vocals a couple weeks ago and was listening to them last night. It is the first time I said... I dont need eq on that. It was so live sounding, and natural. I am very very happy with these converters and believe I can get GREAT recordings.

[themaidsroom]

Originally Posted by sound_forward

I have no experience with very expensive AD-DA converters and I do not have any chance to audition it before buying.

The best converters I have experience with are Protools HD 192 and RME ADI-8 and I also have RME multiface at my project studio.

The problem is that I do not like digital sound at all. Vinly sounds better to me than CD, I like tape, I like analog synths and fx...The only digital equipment I really like are some older effects and samplers (lexicon pcm70, lxp1, roland SDE3000, korg SDD3000, older akai and emu samplers etc.)

I make electronic music (similar production as Rap/hiphop) and I use a lot of vintage analog equipment and mix with analog deck. Sometimes I do everything at my little project studio and sometimes I go to big studio.

The problem is that everytime I get into digital recording I miss the fat tone and warmth and punchyness of analog.

Once we tried recording every track to protools and mix in the box but the result was really bad. Than we went out from PT to analog deck but something was still missing. The best result we found is to keep everything strictly analog and than record final mix to protools.

The funniest thing happened when we tried to record some reverb sounds coming from my little old LXP1 to protools. The result was just funny. Reverb lost its fatness and 3D dissapears. I paid something like 100 EUR for that little box, and it produce superior tone that protools can not reproduce...

My goal is to eliminate the need for big studio because I find better results mixing at my project studio than doing it in a hurry in big one.

The only problem is final conversion because I find RME multiface bad sounding.

Is there a AD-DA converter that can fully record and reproduce analog sound?

I am not looking for superior imaging and amazing signal/noise ratio. I just want a converter that sounds analog but without further coloring.

For example, If I spend big money for 2ch converters like apogee-mytek-lavry...will I get a closer tone to analog or I just pay for lower noise and better imaging?

I really do not need super specs because my production is full of noises and it is nothing like hi-fi production. I just want that analog tone.

Thanks

buy a used studer A827, get some 16 track heads, mix it to 1/2" tape..........
unless the emm labs converters get much, much better, and much, much cheaper,
the studer will still be extremely viable 10 years from now.........
the other stuff doesn't sound very good......


be well

- jack

[Gomez]

Manley Massive Passive in the Stereo buss, 18K Filter enabled... helps!

[bpatural]

better converters aren't going to blow you away if you don't like the 192 converters....anyway, you already seem to like analog gear and funky old digital samplers and such. tape machines are cheaper than ever and all the new digital stuff will give you no additional coloring if thats what you're looking for. crane song phoenix is the only plugin i might recommend if you're trying to fatten up protools.
-brian

[Mrs. Fairman]

Originally Posted by sound_forward

I have no experience with very expensive AD-DA converters and I do not have any chance to audition it before buying.

The best converters I have experience with are Protools HD 192 and RME ADI-8 and I also have RME multiface at my project studio.

The problem is that I do not like digital sound at all. Vinly sounds better to me than CD, I like tape, I like analog synths and fx...The only digital equipment I really like are some older effects and samplers (lexicon pcm70, lxp1, roland SDE3000, korg SDD3000, older akai and emu samplers etc.)

I make electronic music (similar production as Rap/hiphop) and I use a lot of vintage analog equipment and mix with analog deck. Sometimes I do everything at my little project studio and sometimes I go to big studio.

The problem is that everytime I get into digital recording I miss the fat tone and warmth and punchyness of analog.

Once we tried recording every track to protools and mix in the box but the result was really bad. Than we went out from PT to analog deck but something was still missing. The best result we found is to keep everything strictly analog and than record final mix to protools.

The funniest thing happened when we tried to record some reverb sounds coming from my little old LXP1 to protools. The result was just funny. Reverb lost its fatness and 3D dissapears. I paid something like 100 EUR for that little box, and it produce superior tone that protools can not reproduce...

My goal is to eliminate the need for big studio because I find better results mixing at my project studio than doing it in a hurry in big one.

The only problem is final conversion because I find RME multiface bad sounding.

Is there a AD-DA converter that can fully record and reproduce analog sound?

I am not looking for superior imaging and amazing signal/noise ratio. I just want a converter that sounds analog but without further coloring.

For example, If I spend big money for 2ch converters like apogee-mytek-lavry...will I get a closer tone to analog or I just pay for lower noise and better imaging?

I really do not need super specs because my production is full of noises and it is nothing like hi-fi production. I just want that analog tone.

Thanks

Lavry Gold or Blue AD/DA and Tape 1/2 Tape


http://www.truetrackrec.com/MasterbandEU.htm

[Jamz]

If you hate the sound of digital why buy more digital gear!?
Go out and buy an analog tape setup that suits your budget and taste.

[Knox]

I'm with you . . . . that's why I am still analog. Front to back as well as left to right depth is only percieved in digital, to me. I hate the high end without really good converters. And the low end is still not right. Not long ago, a client brought in a big rig to do a transfer. As it was being transferred, I walked out in the tracking room to stretch my legs. I heard him switch from source / back to the transfer a few times . . . man it was like night and day, even though I was 50 feet away. The digital sounded tiny with no balls next to tape. You could even hear the expansion of depth and dimension from the distance I was from the speakers. Why anyone would make rock records on digital is beyond me. Jingles, Britney Spears style pop . . . sure. Classic jazz / rock . . no way. I have a nice old plate here . . I can put a lexicon verb on something in the mix . . sounds nice, but it sounds like a paint or stain across the track and on TOP of the track compared to the plate falling down IN the mix. I am getting to the point where I can't even listen to new records since ProTools / digital has taking over. Given the fact that new engineers have no experience with analog AND new producer / engineers wanting to 'correct' everything . . . plus, the fact that many people have accepted mp3s as good enough, it's a sad time for recording music to me.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by SoZo

I must say... I think my 16x converters get you as close to that analog palapable cohesive sound as I have heard; next to that sony SCAD (its been a long while though since I heard SCAD). I recorded some vocals a couple weeks ago and was listening to them last night. It is the first time I said... I dont need eq on that. It was so live sounding, and natural. I am very very happy with these converters and believe I can get GREAT recordings.

thumbsup
Same here... I was listening back to a drum recording I did the other day with scratch gtr and bass and it sounded SO good. The effects of a really good converter are not going to be seen with one or two tracks in my eyes. You will really start to notice a difference in converters when you start stacking many tracks, everything is clearer and has more depth. The 16X makes me VERY happy.. highly recommended!

[themaidsroom]

Originally Posted by Knox

I'm with you . . . . that's why I am still analog. Front to back as well as left to right depth is only percieved in digital, to me. I hate the high end without really good converters. And the low end is still not right. Not long ago, a client brought in a big rig to do a transfer. As it was being transferred, I walked out in the tracking room to stretch my legs. I heard him switch from source / back to the transfer a few times . . . man it was like night and day, even though I was 50 feet away. The digital sounded tiny with no balls next to tape. You could even hear the expansion of depth and dimension from the distance I was from the speakers. How anyone could make rock records on digital is beyond me. Jingles, Britney Spears style pop . . . sure. Classic jazz / rock . . no way. I have a nice old plate here . . I can put a lexicon verb on something in the mix . . sounds nice, but it sounds like a paint or stain across the track and on TOP of the track compared to the plate falling down IN the mix. I am getting to the point where I can't even listen to new records since ProTools / digital has taking over. Given the fact that new engineers have no experience with analog AND new producer / engineers wanting to 'correct' everything . . . plus, the fact that many people have accepted mp3s as good enough, it's a sad time for recording music to me.

i'm with you.......

get a 2" machine
get a board
get a 1/2" machine
hang out with people
who can really play and sing
you're in great shape
no one in this position
needs a daw


- jack

[MBishopSFX]

For me, the best solution has been in using the Sonoma 24/32-track DSD workstation w/ EMM Labs converters. It's an expensive (the converters) way to go, but more practical and versatile than tracking to 2". I imagine if you add up tape machine maintenance and tape costs per project, even the EMM Labs converters start to look affordable.

I use the Sonoma for tracking, editing, etc - I don't have any use for the usual PT pitch manipulation, etc. so the Sonoma is the perfect tracking system for me. I run the source tracks out to analog for mixdown (most often 8068) and right back into the DSD workstation. All mastering is performed on a SADiE DSD/pcm workstation.

[RainbowStorm]

sound_forward, I'm exactly like you, since I bought my RME Fireface 800 I have missed my simple and cheap analog noisy tape recorder. But let me tell you about my view on this.

I first thought it was my Fireface that was killing all the tone, but I was wrong. The Fireface is just fine, an excellent peace of gear. The problem with it is that it translates the tone so close the original that you get dissapointed by the fact that you are used to warm sounding recordings and all of a sudden it's just 100% exact and lifeless. I learned that I should not blame my converter for this, it does exactly what it is supposed to, it might not be the best for great imaging and dynamics, but it doesn't kill any warmth and it is good sounding. Now you go, AND... get to the point...! I will. First of all there has to be warmth in the tone in the first place, that means your sound source must be rather soft sounding. You can try to make harsh sounding instruments soft sounding, but it will be a little noisy anyway because the modifying frequencies are adding noise, the sum of this is lost overall gain on the recording and when compensated with a limiter the softness that once was there will be gone. So the first step is to select soft sounding sound sources. If you don't have that opportunity the best thing you can do is to do what you can do with your gear. First of all choose a soft sounding combination of pre amplifier and microphone(s). Forget that if you can't afford it. BUT here comes my point: Softness comes from compressors. It doesn't come from reverbs, it doesn't come from chorus etc. It comes from compressors! Focus on the compressors when you want warmth, no matter what converter you use you will want to get as much softness as possible in the end and the single most effective effect that adds warmth in a recording is the compressor effect.

To compete with the professional recordings of today is hard, the reason is not only the quality of the sound sources and converters, it's the sum of the quality of the compressors used in the recording as well. You might think, but I have a bunch of compressors and it doesn't work at all. Two things: Choose a warm sounding compressor, set it up correctly! Have you tried increasing the output of the compressor to a surprisingly high value? Try that, if you are not satisfied with the softness in your current compressor. Record as low as you need for the compressor to add as much warmth as you need, also use the attack. Tweak a little. When you get that softness, increase some mids and highs too (after the compressor) so that the listener doesn't end up with a headache. Don't leave the mastering engineer with too much power. If he doesn't have a warm sounding limiter, choose another mastering engineer. Mastering engineers are typically good at increasing the loudness, but often the result is even less warm. A good mastering engineer should be able to increase the amplitude without killing warmth, it is not possible with a harsh sounding compressor/limiter and it's the mastering engineer's responsibility to have knowledge about what limiter to use. For instance, you might be familiar with the Waves L2 limiter. It's a warmth killer! Leave it alone! Try increasing the volume instead of limiting hard and then compare that with a hard limited L2 version and you will notice that one is soft and the other is hard sounding. This is a very typical mistake, the sound source is soft, the pres and mics are soft, even the compressors during the production are soft and then comes a dead cold limiter in the end that also is over-applied, ruining the whole recording!

So I recommend that you study compressors a little more. Some people are so excited about their compressor that they even sleep with it...!

Best regards,
Andy

[Dave Peck]

My technique is to use the most accurate, neutral A/D/A conversion I can get, and use various other gear to get & keep the analog color. Like you, I use analog synths and an analog console, and I often process through tube compressors. When tracking, I convert all tracks through a Pacific Microsonics converter going into the DAW, and if I'm doing an analog OTB mix later, I'll convert through the PM converter again to record the final mix onto a Masterlink at 24/88.2kHz.

Of course, if you want the sound of tape, there's nothing better for the job than tape. But at some point you'll need to get the final product into the digital domain, right? So at that point, your options are to deliver analog reels to a mastering studio and let them use their high-end converters, or buy a high-end converter yourself. And if you buy one for yourself, you now have the option to use it when tracking & mixing to digital, which is why I chose that route.

One more option would be something like a Crane Song HEDD, which is a high-quality A/D/A converter that includes some "analogish" signal processing.

Dave Peck

[cdog]

I think the difference between the AD16X and the HD192s is substantial, so I would recommend going that route before you throw in the towel and get a Studer.

But, the AD16X doesn't sound like tape, only tape does.

Once you learn what tape is doing to your signal when its recorded, its possible to emulate some of these characteristics in the digital realm or with various hardware processors (HEDD, Fatso).

Also, although there are many advantages to digital editing, this can be a trap that tape saves you from ever entering into.

But I think everyone have to agree, nothing sounds exactly like tape running through a fat Neve or API with a bunch of tasty outboard.

Remember, the stone age didn't end because people ran out of stone.

[lucey]

Hearing is more than "subjective" it's in strata. In other words, some people think that today's digital sounds great, some live with it, and some are turned off. This is similar to how people hear music, some hear through composition, some hear through vibration, some hear both in a balance that still favors composition or vibration ever so slightly.

A chart might be:

Composition ------------ balance ------------ Vibration

The (theoretical) people on the right listen through vibe and enjoy amp tone/new age/ emo/languidity while the (theoretical) people on the left primarily listen to structure, and thus enjoy songwriters/classical/pop. In reality we all fall in between but favor one side.

So if analog harmonics are your thing and you use tape and a desk and outboard ... then there you are, at home. And if you're George Massenberg, clean pres with digital is your home.

You sound like a tape guy. thumbsup

There's nothing like the sound of a CD that was well recorded to great analog, mixed through analog to tape, mastered with great outboard ... and ONLY gets converted at the last stage of mastering.

There is nothing like the sound of a well recorded ITB recording either.

There is nothing like the sound of a well made Radar -> Console recording either.

Take your pick ...

[Rep]

Originally Posted by lucey

Hearing is more than "subjective" it's in strata. In other words, some people think that today's digital sounds great, some live with it, and some are tuned off. This is similar to how people hear music, some hear through composition, some hear through vibration, some hear both in a balance that still favors composition or vibration ever so slightly.

A chart might be:

Composition ------------ balance ------------ Vibration

The (theoretical) people on the right listen through vibe and enjoy amp tone/new age/ emo/languidity the (theoretical) people on the left primarily listen to structure, and thus enjoy songwriters/classical/pop. In reality we all fall in between but favor one side.

So if analog harmonics are your thing and you use tape and a desk and outboard ... then there you are, at home. And if you're George Massenberg, clean pres with digital is your home.

You sound like a tape guy. thumbsup

There's nothing like the sound of a CD that was well recorded to great analog, mixed through analog to tape, mastered with great outboard ... and ONLY gets converted at the last stage of mastering.

There is nothing like the sound of a well recorded ITB recording either.

There is nothing like the sound of a well made Radar -> Console recording either.

Take your pick ...

Great Post Lucey....

As always , I seam to learn something every time you explain stuff.

I guess that I am 3/4 to the Left structure /Composition side.
....Yet I am a composer that likes Vibe more then lyrics....go figure!!

[Soldier777c]

You might want to take a look at the UA 2192. Very un-digital sounding for a A/D D/A stereo channel converter.

[klaukholm]

I think you have two good choices:
Go to DSD with a Prism, EMM or DcS converter
or
get a Lavry gold
I know one for sale used from DMT rentals for 2900
and another from another LA company for 2500

The gold at this price is a relatively cheap way to get the best of both worlds.

kjetil

[RainbowStorm]

I have tried a bunch of Tape Emulation digital plugins and I think there's a huge difference in quality between them. I use PSP Mix Saturation that I have tweaked to my own taste and I am still pretty impressed by that plugin! It makes the kick drum and bass guitar much softer and it reminds me pretty much of the analog tape feel. So give it a try...

[George Necola]

another vote for the massive passive with the 18k filter trick..

pendulum ES-8 helps too

[sound_forward]

thanks everyone. so many interesting comments.

just to clarify...

I do not need any sound enhancement.

I am PERFECTLY satisfied with sound coming from my deck while mixing. It is just a disappointment factor after recording it to digital and playing back from digital media. It never sounds so good as my original mix. PT HD 192 sounds better than RME multiface but still not very good.

To be honest, tape is not an option for me. I have no experience whatsoever with tape and I am afraid that handling/maintainance will be to much for me and that it will slow down my creative process. Even if I get a tape, I will still have to get a converter to get this tape sound to digital media. Sending tape to mastering is not really practical these days.

But, on the other side, I really like what tape did to my mix when mastering. I will leave a tape option for mastering process.



My goal is to get good ADDA converter to eliminate the need for big studio. I would like to record my final mix at my project studio and I would not like to do it with RME multiface because it sounds like shit.


I need ADDA just for my final mix, not for any enhancement.


The big question left is if better converters mean that the sound quality is closer to analog tone or it just enhances digital sound in comparison with cheap converters?

When I speak about analog quality I do not mean tape/vinly coloration and compression.

Some people say that digital media is perfect and that it does not sound warm/fat because what you get in - goes out. I disagree.

Make a simple test. Take your favorite vinly and record it to digital media. Than playback the same record from protools and from vinly. After A/B test you will notice that original still sounds better, fuller, warmer etc. It is not about the coloration of analog media , it is about a bad quality of digital. If digital is really "what goes in - that goes out", recorded sound would sound the same as from vinly - but it does not!

I have some of my releases both on CD and vinly. I sent the same mix to mastering (it was recorded with Tascam DA-20 mk2 DAT) and when I got both vinly and CD, vinly still sounded superior but different. Pleasant vinly artifacts I guess! It sounded better than my original DAT mix.


People here recommended following converters - mytek, apogee rosseta/16x, lavry, EMM labs, HEDD, UA 2192, PRISM, DCS...

Some of them wrote that if I do not like HD 192 converters than better converters will not help me to reproduce analog quality sound. just better digital...

What is true???

Does anyone remember old panasonic DAT recorder...I think it was 3700? I remeber it sounding very "analog". Much better than Protools. And it was 16bit, 44.1...

At the end, one question is still unansewered.

Why does some older digital equipment sound so good? Take for example a EMU SP1200 sampling drum machine, or LXP1 reverb or roland SDE3000 delay...Sure, it does color the sound heavily. But when recorded back to protools...magic is lost!!!

Maybe it is not so much about 192KHz and 24bit and specs. Something else is missing. Most of those early digital equipment is +-30KHz and 12bit and sound VERY analog.
Maybe it is all about backside analog architecture.

[Knox]

You have lost me regarding your "analog" comparisons . . . especially when you talk about a 3700 sounding "analog". That thing sounds terrible next to a real analog machine. I have one here that hasn't been used in two years.

Originally Posted by sound_forward

Does anyone remember old panasonic DAT recorder...I think it was 3700? I remeber it sounding very "analog". Much better than Protools. And it was 16bit, 44.1...

At the end, one question is still unansewered.

[sound_forward]

Sorry about that 3700 Knox.

This is just from my memory 5-6 years ago. I never owned that machine.

I brought my DAT tape to mastering studio and there was a panasonic machine that played back this DAT much better than protools at that time. I think that converters were stock 888 or something. I just remeber that we discussed the sound with mastering guy and we agreed that panasonic sounded better and more "analog" than PT with 888.

But it was long ago so. ...sorry about that. My hearing memory is probably not so good.

Anyway, I still stand by my statement that some older digital machines that I use every day sound really really good. (From my experience...SP1200, PCM70, LXP1, EMU EMULATOR III etc...)

[Ace of Dubs]

Digital will never sound like analog. It can emulate it and get pretty darn close but a well-trained ear will always hear the difference. Best advice is to make friends with someone at your local music shop and do some sound tests. Let your ears be the judge!

[PHILANDDON]

If you like the sound of that old DAT recorder and think it sounds more analog; you might try more EQ. Roll-Off some or a lot of Bass at any where around 20HZ or 160Hz and Roll-Off some or a lot of Treble anywhere from 8 to 12Khz.

I've been fooling around with rooling off highs on my masterlink and then normalizing to make up for the lost dbs. I find it smooths out the sound some. It's tricky though you can also wind-up deadening the sound.

[MR5D]

Sound_Forward, You sound just like me! I have a Multiface and also RME ADI-8. The last couple of days i've been mixing through my desk and back into the computer via the Multiface. I've been flicking between the mix straight out of my desk and the mix coming back through the Multiface and I just hate what it's doing - Pretty horrible degridation IMO.

I'm thinking of trying out the Tascam DV-RA1000. Have a look here: http://www.tascam.com/Products/dvra1000.html

It can record in DSD format which is what SACD uses. I love analog too and whenever I work in a big studio I always print mixes to analog and digi. Come mastering time, the ME has never chosen the digi version over the analog. However.... A good analog 2 track isn't cheap, requires maintainence and alignment and if you wanna do multipul versions of mixes, takes up lots of tape.

Maybe the Tascam will be a good compromise? That's just a guess though at this stage.

Good luck.