Cranesong HEDD question

[ziegenh5]

Hello, I was wondering what the differences were between the original HEDD and the HEDD 192. I'm just looking to mix things down to 44.1 16 bit. So my question is if the two units sound the same at 44.1 and 48k. I don't see myself using 96k or 192k EVER.
Thanks,
Sean

[kosi]

I guess, they sound the same, never heard an old Hedd...
The older version has only 441/48, 16 bit and no "tape saturation" knob.(which I love)
Dare I say, that it's a lil bit risky to have only 16 bits thesedays imo

cheers, kosi

[Fletcher]

The original version was 24 bit... but only did 44.1/48k sampling rates... the "192" version, in addition to having the 'tape emulation' feature also does 88.2/96k conversion and I think I heard that 192k conversion was right around the corner... but don't quote me on that...

[Steve Smith]

hee, hee... he said " EVER"

would you like any added salt with those words when you are eating them in a couple years? Not trying to be a prick, but CS gear will last a LOOOONNNGGGG time, you may want to at least keep it useable should you ever need to upgradde to higher sample rates. It would be ultra shitty to have it grow obsolite in 5-7 years should the world fully adopt a higher sample rate..

[heinz]

The world can continue to adopt higher sample rates... but the question will remain. Is it really necessary?

[ziegenh5]

hee, hee... he said " EVER"

Well........here's the story. I record to 2" exclusively. It's my private studio so I don't have to deal with clients who demand Pro Stools. I like working on analog, not only for the sound, but the way in which it makes you work. You use your ears, not your eyes. You have to make arrangement decisions as you go. You have to be a good musician to record at my studio. I hate cutting and pasting, autotune, plugins, the whole lot. I'd rather hear the mistakes on analog. I'm only looking for a better way of getting into the Masterlink as I mix down for a reference CD. So, the converter need only be 16 bit 44.1 K.

Now, if the world adopted 96K or higher for standard CD players, then I would need a higher sampling rate for my purposes. I don't see this happening anytime soon, but you are right, I should never say EVER.

Sean


BTW - I asked the boys at Cranesong what the differences were and they said the original HEDD was warmer sounding and the HEDD 192 was more transparent and that it also has the tape emulation which adds a bit of the "magic"

I know someone out there has tried both. What do you think?

[Jules]

I have owned both and have a Hedd 192 unit in constant use.

Put this in your pipe and smoke it.

1) The sound of an analog mix captured at 24 bit 96k is stunning.

(digital thinness can be smoothed out & enriched into a tape like 'glow' or 'bloom' using the processes - but this may not interest you if these are reference CD's - QUESTION - are your final masters analog or digital?)

2) The Masterlink does a great job of SRC from 24/96 to 16/44.1. The record at 96k - burn CD at 44.1 - IS WORTH IT (!!) from a sound quality point of view IMHO.

IT sum up, sounds like you are willing to spend if you get a perceived quality jump. The newer Hedd ROCKS at 96k and that cool sound definitely survives the SRC on the Masterlink very well.

However! The 96 - 44.1 SRC takes AGES!

[ziegenh5]

Jules, thanks for the informative post. Just to be clear that I understand what you are saying. SRC means "sample rate conversion"? And you think it is beneficial, when using an external A/D converter, to go into the Masterlink at a higher bit rate and sampling rate than 16/44.1, when the final destination is CD?
Again, thank you so much. I am absolutely ignorant when it comes to digital audio. I love computers, but not in the studio.

Sean

[ziegenh5]

QUESTION - are your final masters analog or digital?)

I'm still trying to figure this out. I have an Otari 5050 1/4 inch deck I mix down to. Mainly for archiving. I think my best bet, for the time being, is mixing down to the Masterlink via a high quality A/D. Just trying to find the right one.

The reason I asked the original question is because i keep seeing the original HEDD unit popping up for sale for pretty cheap. Since you have used both, Jules, did you notice a significant jump in quality between the HEDD 192 and the original HEDD unit?
Thanks,
Sean

[Riccardo]

Originally posted by ziegenh5
Jules, thanks for the informative post. Just to be clear that I understand what you are saying. SRC means "sample rate conversion"? And you think it is beneficial, when using an external A/D converter, to go into the Masterlink at a higher bit rate and sampling rate than 16/44.1, when the final destination is CD?
Again, thank you so much. I am absolutely ignorant when it comes to digital audio. I love computers, but not in the studio.

Sean

Please record, mixdown and deliver masters at the highest possible resolution and make all the "glorified tape copy boys" happy!

[Jules]

"Just to be clear that I understand what you are saying. SRC means "sample rate conversion"? "


YES!

"And you think it is beneficial, when using an external A/D converter, to go into the Masterlink at a higher bit rate and sampling rate than 16/44.1, when the final destination is CD?"

ABSOLUTELY YES!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION - are your final masters analog or digital?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm still trying to figure this out. I have an Otari 5050 1/4 inch deck I mix down to. Mainly for archiving. I think my best bet, for the time being, is mixing down to the Masterlink via a high quality A/D. Just trying to find the right one."

In that case and in the absence of a quality 1/2 inch machine, archiving 24/96 masters & burning listening copy CDR's - is your best bet IMHO. (I do this btw) However I must add I dont know that Otari model and it's been about 5 years since I've been near a tape mixdown deck...

"The reason I asked the original question is because i keep seeing the original HEDD unit popping up for sale for pretty cheap. Since you have used both, Jules, did you notice a significant jump in quality between the HEDD 192 and the original HEDD unit?"

I found recording my mixes & adding the process' (tape/pentode) was a marked improvement at 96k, everything just seemes far better sounding. (OK I think it sounds 'stunning'!)

Riccardo above is right, any mastering engineer worth his salt will appreciate the higher sample rate....

[ziegenh5]

OK......It's all starting to come together for me. The light bulb just went off. Thanks everybody for all the help.

Sean

[Ted Nightshade]

"1) The sound of an analog mix captured at 24 bit 96k is stunning.

(digital thinness can be smoothed out & enriched into a tape like 'glow' or 'bloom' using the processes - but this may not interest you if these are reference CD's - QUESTION - are your final masters analog or digital?)

2) The Masterlink does a great job of SRC from 24/96 to 16/44.1. The record at 96k - burn CD at 44.1 - IS WORTH IT (!!) from a sound quality point of view IMHO."

I'm not as sure about the Masterlink SRC. I don't like it- artifacts and all that, cloudy sound. I can understand how if the real work is done at 24/96, SRC to 16/44.1 would be *serviceable* as a reference, if you keep in mind the original sounds far better, which for me is confusing for a reference... 'cause usually I'm trying to figure out how it sounds...

on the other hand, the dither in the Masterlink is really good, most times I prefer it to the Cranesong dither, which is more a specialty thing but really sweet in the right situation.

But I'd *definitely* be considering the 24/96 to be the master! And the SRC to 16/44.1 would be just for convenient reference.

I'm coming from analog tape, and I'm not using the Process these days, although it is *killer*, just because it's not as high definition as the non-Process sound, and I usually don't need it. It is very good at 96k! But not using it, I often prefer 44.1k for mixdown, as 96k non-Process can sound a bit thin. But Mr. Mastering does want hi-res, so I'll be doing the final mixes at 96k.

I personally can't wait to hear what 192 sounds like on the HEDD... I have a hunch it will be "definitive" in some way... highly optomized.. something anyway...

[Jules]

In a quick A/B comparison I found the SRC of the Masterlink to be nicer than the TC Finalizer 96k model (with the Up Down upgrade)

IMHO

I didnt hear any artifacts myself...

[Ted Nightshade]

Originally posted by Jules
In a quick A/B comparison I found the SRC of the Masterlink to be nicer than the TC Finalizer 96k model (with the Up Down upgrade)

IMHO

I didnt hear any artifacts myself...

Well, I gotta take another close look at this. I'm comparing no SRC (mix to 44.1) to SRC (mix at 96, SRC to 44.1), which is not as fair as the test you did just now.

But if I can use the ML this way, which I had given up on, that will be most convenient... I'll let you know how it goes this time around...

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Jules


2) The Masterlink does a great job of SRC from 24/96 to 16/44.1. The record at 96k - burn CD at 44.1 - IS WORTH IT (!!) from a sound quality point of view IMHO.

Hi Jules,

Be careful on this piece of advice.

The Masterlink does not dither(has none built in), it only truncates the last 8 zeroes.

In some cases you don't notice, in others its very noticeable(your mixes ends up sounding a little edgy).

If you mix to it at high resolutions(24/88.2 or 24/96), you will still need to dither in a computer program.

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Hi Jules,

Be careful on this piece of advice.

The Masterlink does not dither(has none built in), it only truncates the last 8 zeroes.

Interesting - I've seen this mentioned a few places on the web and curiosity got the best of me. I don't own a Masterlinque, but got his from the ML FAQ:

(quote)
Does the ML9600 do sample rate and word length conversion?

Yes. If you burn a Red Book CD from a playlist containing tracks burned at sample rates other than 44.1 kHz or word lengths higher than 16-bit, it will automatically convert them using a proprietary high-quality dithered process that results in tracks that sound almost identical to the high-resolution originals.
(end quote)

(Italics mine)

Sounds like noise-shaped dither to me...

[Ted Nightshade]

It "sounds" (as in, my earbones told me so) like dither to me too. It's more
"transparent" than the Cranesong dither, but that Cranesong dither is divine in the right context.

I have sent 24 bit info to the ML before with the ML set to 16 bit- that must have truncated it, anyway it sounded awful. Like awful.

But printing 24 bit files as Red Book CD's sounds very decent indeed to me. The SRC, I have to respect what Jules has experienced, I need to do some more tests. Hoping for the best.

[Jules]

I will step back and the mastering engineers comment....

I am not 'high end' enough to be authorative on this (now) side issue (however interesting)