Focusrite Saffire Pro Vs. Focusrite Red.. Crazy huh?

[drakewire]

Being a long time contributor to Focusrite and their mission (but not working for them), I get a lot of beta gear from them. I have the only Saffire Pro currently in the United States (not bragging)...
I have the complete series of Focusrite Products from the very top Red Series to the ISA to Liquid Channel and (I just recieved the beta of Liquid Mix... Have not plugged it in yet).
So as I plugged in the Saffire Pro to place it in on the chopping block to tear it down given the Street Price of 699.99 with all the options that it had, I figured it would be a cheap knock off of it Saffire Range. I know what the press had said, but contrary to popular belief the Pre-Amps are *NOT* Green Pre's. They are a new derivative of them. In fact, I dont think they sound anything like a Green. In fact, they are closer to a Red Pre-Amp than Green.
Platinum was always a red headed step child (no pun intended), so I didnt expect much from Focusrite on this series. But you judge for yourself. I plugged in a bass line in to Channel one which has a super high definition channel. This was recorded at 24 bit 96khz. Although, it has the ability to record at a full 192, it was not necessary for this A|B test. Mind you no effects were used here, just line in from a Fender Jazz Bass to channel 1 with Instrument Button Depressed. The Second one is plugged into a Focusrite Red 7 Pre-Amp.. I will upload Guitar and Vocal Examples as well as Drums today, but figured I would start with the Bass...
(Forgive the playing, I just wanted to demonstrate the quality...)
699.99 versus 2799.99... Can you Tell Which one is Which?

[drakewire]

Both of these are 320Kbs Rate Mp3, I think thats about as close as you can get to CD quality

[Snatchman]

I think (A) Red ( top end sounds a little rolled off, probably due to transformers
(B) Saffire ( sounds more articulate in the mid-hi end, probably hi-speed op-amps....Just me tho'...

[mr jkn]

I did like A the most, felt like more controlled overall tone. I didn´t think the hi´s were rolled off all that much in comparison to B. B, though, had some resonances to it that I didn´t like. But still useable in a recording situtation imo.

..which is which? I don´t have a freakin clue.

[drakewire]

A was actually the Red 7 and B is the new Saffire Pro....

[Windtaken]

i find it hard to judge the quality of a bass (since i'm not a bassist) but once you get to the other recordings i'll play too

i've also wondered though...that since low frequency waves are a simpler (by visual) that it's not as difficult for an A/D converter to translate (as opposed to high frequency crazypants waves :P) and then related to this, I would think that preamps (going for clean) for bass wouldn't make as much of a substantial difference as compared to preamps for, say, vox or acoustic.

My logic isn't technical but it's my ears. I find that it's really easy to tell 128 to 192 to 256 etc just by listening to the high frequency sounds as a result of all the high frequency interpolations going on in digital land. I guess it's like the avalon/liquid comparison that was around a week ago. I could tell easily based on the brittleness of the digital processing even on $20 computer speakers at low volume.

Anyways, I'm a recording noob with lots of questions...not really sharing insight so teaching would be nice...as opposed to bashing

shoooot covered way too many topics at once, lol. responses on any of the above would be greatly appreciated =]

[drakewire]

Background on these tracks... Taylor 610 using a Mojave MA 200 Mic and a Shure SM57 and in a treated Acoustic Guitar Room here at the Studio. Results may vary with different mic placement and or room... But here is the A&B comparison of Focusrite Red 7 using (by the way LOL an Apogee Rosetta for AD/DA I forgot to mention that the last time) and the Focusrite Saffire Pro I/O 26 all in one....

This one is a little bit more obvious...at least to me.

[drakewire]

in a few minutes I have to Mic the Kit....

[dlmorley]

looking forwards to more!

[Arthur]

There are other pres in the $700 range that will sound better than A (this harshness in the upper mids...).
Generally speaking, one should never forget that a piece of gear 3 times more expensive than another one will not sound 3 times better. Only 10% maybe...

[huarez]

Originally Posted by Arthur

There are other pres in the $700 range that will sound better than A (this harshness in the upper mids...).
Generally speaking, one should never forget that a piece of gear 3 times more expensive than another one will not sound 3 times better. Only 10% maybe...

By all due to respect, but I think judging over "harsh upper mids" at a pre amp without compareation and without knowing the mic and source is BS.

[Arthur]

Originally Posted by huarez

By all due to respect, but I think judging over "harsh upper mids" at a pre amp without compareation and without knowing the mic and source is BS.

Without comparison?
We have the B sample to compare to: same guitar, same player, same mics, same room...

Not knowing the mic and source?:
"Background on these tracks... Taylor 610 using a Mojave MA 200 Mic and a Shure SM57 ". This is post#7.

[ofsaints]

Originally Posted by drakewire

Being a long time contributor to Focusrite and their mission (but not working for them), I get a lot of beta gear from them. I have the only Saffire Pro currently in the United States (not bragging)...
I have the complete series of Focusrite Products from the very top Red Series to the ISA to Liquid Channel and (I just recieved the beta of Liquid Mix... Have not plugged it in yet).

Hi Drake,

Having as much experience and history with Focusrite, What are your thoughts on the newer ISA series stuff. I am a long time user of the ISA 110 & ISA 215. I wish they still made the 215, I'd buy it in a minute. Is the ISA 220 mic pre & eq the same?

Thanks,
Charlie

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by drakewire

Both of these are 320Kbs Rate Mp3, I think thats about as close as you can get to CD quality

Hey, just an FYI. You can upload WAV or AIFF here.

Listen, I'm not trying to be a hater or anything, but those acoustic guitar tracks are just downright hard to listen to.

Sure, they both sound different, but jeez, man, they both sound pretty 'not so good' to me.

Or am I crazy? I'm just wondering what went wrong. At first, I thought they were recorded with a piezo pickup until I read what the gear was.

I just thought we could address this.

[Faderjockey]

I find it sort of funny when guys judge preamps...And say they were plugging a bass or gtr into the line in....That would not be the mic pre.

It's fine if your testing D/I or just line level to here the difference...But if you mic some gtr's and did the test then I'd say it's a mic pre test.

[ofsaints]

Originally Posted by Faderjockey

I find it sort of funny when guys judge preamps...And say they were plugging a bass or gtr into the line in....That would not be the mic pre.

It's fine if your testing D/I or just line level to here the difference...But if you mic some gtr's and did the test then I'd say it's a mic pre test.

I think it is a valid test. D/I and line inputs generally have the same sonic signature of the mic pre. Granted you need to hear the mic pre input as well but I was under the impression the whole unit was being tested NOT just the mic pre.

Charlie

[Snatchman]

Originally Posted by ofsaints

I think it is a valid test. D/I and line inputs generally have the same sonic signature of the mic pre. Granted you need to hear the mic pre input as well but I was under the impression the whole unit was being tested NOT just the mic pre.

Charlie

I think there will be a difference in sonics between the mic pre and DI/line inputs if the DI/line signal passes or not, thru transformers. Some pres with on board DI's sometimes by-passes the input transformers and just goes thru input op-amps. Of course I'm no tech, so just my .02....

[u b k]

i'm 100% with max on this one: that guitar tone is tough to listen to, it sounds like an ovation plugged in to a DI and strummed down at the bridge. it's all bridge and pick sound, no body or tone.

if those were my tracks, and assuming the guitar doesn't actually sound like that in the room, i'd worry less about which pre is superior and i'd focus on getting a better mic into a better position, and having the player work that pick closer to the soundhole. as it stands, it doesn't sound like an acoustic instrument, it sounds like a bad recording of one.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[sonic dogg]

"B" has no extended top and "A" is just a boring replication of an outoftune guitar.

Yes, there is a definate difference, but as was said, is it a 'good' difference.

There is no 'body' on either track....I know its a test and I certainly get the point of it...I use a Focusrite Red pre for acoustic guitars every now and then and I dont remember it ever sounding quite like either of these samples..Taylor guitar also..Its an older unit....could that be a difference???

[Arthur]

Originally Posted by sonic dogg

... I use a Focusrite Red pre for acoustic guitars every now and then and I dont remember it ever sounding quite like either of these samples..Taylor guitar also..Its an older unit....could that be a difference???

I didn't want to get into this , but after all, readers who never heard a RED pre deserve to know, otherwise these samples might confuse them.

I've been recording acoustic guitars in stereo using a RED8 for years. None of these samples is close to what I used to get (of course, using different mics). it's only the fact that A is harsher which leads me to believe B is the RED...

[Windtaken]

Originally Posted by max cooper

Hey, just an FYI. You can upload WAV or AIFF here.

Listen, I'm not trying to be a hater or anything, but those acoustic guitar tracks are just downright hard to listen to.

Sure, they both sound different, but jeez, man, they both sound pretty 'not so good' to me.

Or am I crazy? I'm just wondering what went wrong. At first, I thought they were recorded with a piezo pickup until I read what the gear was.

I just thought we could address this.

sounds like poor Taylor is being abused with a thin pick and strummed near the bridge

what is the RED supposed to sound like? Warm? round? big? airy? intimate?

the highs on A are clean...just not very pleasant so I'd guess it's the RED...though I have no idea what it's supposed to sound like :P

[drakewire]

Ummmm I made these samples in ten seconds. This is Line in on the Shure and Mic-Pre on the MA 200. Now mind you I didnt eq this for crap, and didnt use the necessary compression ratio or Eq for Harmonic Balance. Just a simple little test. Now, if you'd like I can do all of that for you so that the test is easier to listen to. But then again, this would be beyond the point. Personally, I think both of the Units sound alright on my Near Field and Far Field Monitors. Of course in a real track, the guitar would most likely be turned down to leave the headroom for a Vocal Track. So, when I ran this through the Finis plug just to make it louder perhaps thats why you dont like the tone.
The guitar actually needs some work too, its got some strange buzzing around the 6th fret which I have tried to adjust. However, Focusrite is well known to be a broadcast sounding unit. Which is very different than say UA, Neve, SSL, or the like. So even the highest of highest end like the Red Series sounds a little hot. Which is funny because it really doesnt add that much coloration to the sound. However, when we are talking about the price here on the unit of 699.99 street. Versus the Red, with a little eq and compression it sounds very similar.
Mind you, I am also a person who believes that the SSL plugz sound just as good as a real SSL 4000 channel, so maybe I am the one who should be flogged.
However, with the advent of cheaper technologies and more and more sonic innovation in IR impulses, convolution technology, etc. I really dont think its long now before a 250,000 dollar Neve Console will be replaced by a software version of one.
To those Learned people who understand, sound is just a basic form of mathmatics. Optical and or Electronical circuitry can be replace by digital. If you dont believe that, when was the last time you plugged into an analog TV, or are you accessing this site from an analog line?
Sure somewhere on the chain analog must exist, but at what level I really dont know. Having been a software developer for years in the vein of VST and ASIO standards, I can tell you now. Within the next couple of years, the recording business is going to take a big hit from the consumer market of home studios. Given the fact that it has become so cheap to record a record at home and the ultimate medium is an MP3, the fact that it doesnt sound prisitine is irrelevant. Especially since the finalized medium for distribution now days is an MP3 format with its own form of compression.
So, if you spend that 200 K on an amazing Neve or SSL console, what is the point?
The simple fact, I will repeat it. It doesnt really matter anymore what type of system you work on. It doesnt really matter that you have the best toys. At the end of the day in this business, if people are listening to it thats all that matters. At least to me anyway... But what do I know.....

[sabin hicks]

Originally Posted by Windtaken

i've also wondered though...that since low frequency waves are a simpler (by visual) that it's not as difficult for an A/D converter to translate (as opposed to high frequency crazypants waves :P) and then related to this, I would think that preamps (going for clean) for bass wouldn't make as much of a substantial difference as compared to preamps for, say, vox or acoustic.

Yeah they're simpler, but bass tones can still lose accuracy if sampled at... 6000hz for example, instead of at least 32000.

So um, I have a hard time conveying this verbally, lol. Say you generate 240Hz sine for example. As the bass waves curve around and are segmented by samples... N amount of times per second... from sample to sample the angle is different - that means different rate of climb from one point to another. So it's like each sample of a low freq sine is a miniscule amount of high frequencies.

Starting with a rolloff slope at 160Hz and boost slope at 400Hz with respective 20dbs maxed out at other frequencies after them, the start/end of the wave immediately messed up. Repeated five times, the waves became very noticeably distorted.

Of course that's an extreme example, but actual bass notes generated by instruments are more complex than test sines.

[max cooper]

Originally Posted by drakewire

Ummmm I made these samples in ten seconds. This is Line in on the Shure and Mic-Pre on the MA 200. Now mind you I didnt eq this for crap, and didnt use the necessary compression ratio or Eq for Harmonic Balance. Just a simple little test. Now, if you'd like I can do all of that for you so that the test is easier to listen to. But then again, this would be beyond the point.

Hey, that wasn't my point. And please don't take offense.

My point is that even with just a 57 somewhere near a half decent guitar, you should be getting a lot better sound than that before EQ or anything.

My point is that something's causing both files to be awful in the same kind of way, and it totally overshadows any differences in the preamps. It's like you're working on the triglyph and metope when you might want to think about shoring up the foundation.

In fact, here's my beater Gibson thru an SM57 into a Digi 002 rack preamp. Real shitty. Boomy, harsh in the highs with a weird dip and totally noisy. And to be fair, I didn't tune my guitar either and the strings haven't been changed since the Nixon Administration. But how does it compare to the Focusrite files?

I may have spent almost a minute on this. Maybe that's it?

[Windtaken]

Originally Posted by sabin hicks

Starting with a rolloff slope at 160Hz and boost slope at 400Hz with respective 20dbs maxed out at other frequencies after them, the start/end of the wave immediately messed up. Repeated five times, the waves became very noticeably distorted.

Of course that's an extreme example, but actual bass notes generated by instruments are more complex than test sines.

thanks for responding =]

wow, i was sitting here for 5 minutes trying to understand what you were saying but i finally get it. Hard to explain without showing huh? Interesting stuff though. The sampling idea is making more sense to me now. Since sample rate is # of slices per second, high frequencies would end up being chopped up more. Is there a picture of a wave that can explain the frequencies being generated inside of it? Cause in the end, we hear a bunch of frequencies as a reult of a positive/negative wave into a speaker moving in or out right?

[treymonfauntre]

yea i would actually be kind of worried about that acoustic sound. i don't know what "harmonic balance" means, but i do know that it sounds like you put a computer mic 1 inch away from the bridge and played it with a rusty nail.

[huarez]

Originally Posted by Arthur

Without comparison?
We have the B sample to compare to: same guitar, same player, same mics, same room...

Not knowing the mic and source?:
"Background on these tracks... Taylor 610 using a Mojave MA 200 Mic and a Shure SM57 ". This is post#7.

O.K., right , I did´nt read this. But infact you´re talking about other pre´s which are not in this compareation, or I`m missing a point? I mean, upper mids ARE harsh...
a good mic pre should translate this .

[Arthur]

Originally Posted by huarez

O.K., right , I did´nt read this. But infact you´re talking about other pre´s which are not in this compareation, or I`m missing a point? I mean, upper mids ARE harsh...
a good mic pre should translate this .

I'll let sounds answer to this. This was recorded yesterday. OK, no guitar here but a harp, and no SM57 or Mojave mic, but a Schoeps omni stereo pair into a DAV BG1, then straight into an AD-16X. The BG1 is in the Focusrite Saffire Pro price range, so I believe this might be of some interest for people being in the market for a not too expensive "Pro" pre...

[drakewire]

really good actually... I think the Saffire kicks ass... Im still trying to figure out the features of this here Pro version... I figured out what I did wrong earlier... But I do admit the sound files work quick to say the least

[sabin hicks]

Originally Posted by Windtaken

thanks for responding =]

wow, i was sitting here for 5 minutes trying to understand what you were saying but i finally get it. Hard to explain without showing huh? Interesting stuff though. The sampling idea is making more sense to me now. Since sample rate is # of slices per second, high frequencies would end up being chopped up more. Is there a picture of a wave that can explain the frequencies being generated inside of it? Cause in the end, we hear a bunch of frequencies as a reult of a positive/negative wave into a speaker moving in or out right?

Before and after screenshots of (a).mp3, the latter having +20db from 500Hz and above.