Question. Is it worth it to use high quality A/D in 24/48khz Hip Hop production?

[Blues]

I debating if, down the road, should I use a lavry or benchmark 2 channel A/D with my EMU 1820m interface. I track at 24/48khz

The dillemna is this....

*do you even hear much improvement at the 48khz setting? At 96 and 192k I can see where there'd be a noticeable difference with acoustic instruments but 48khz?

*I use software modules like spectrasonics stylus, trilogy and BFD for the bulk of my drum/rhythm compositions. But since these drum/bass sounds were sampled at44/48k by the sofware company anyway, with THEIR own converters and THIER own studio gear....is my quality going to improve even at this point? Isn't that kinda like taking a video taped movie and transposing it for digital video? The quality's not going to improve much in the conversion unless you use software to manually clean it up.

* The only audio I record is Vox, some percussion and acoustic guitar. But I am layering that over the aforementioned drum/bass sounds so I am really benefitting?

* All this is going to be eventually dithered to 16/44..then alot of my hiphop audience is going to listening on such formats as car speakers, pc speakers and boom boxes. Not exactly THX audiophile listening enviroments, feel me? So what's the point.


I am striving for a new sound in hiphop....where the production are crisp,punchy and CLEAN not mushy and boomy like most of the genre. I thought that buying high quality converters would get me closer to that sound...but now that i really think about this..not so sure.

[Bob Olhsson]

Dr. Dre's records sound crisp,punchy and CLEAN!

Better A to D converters give you a lot more signal processing latitude before the sound becomes crunchy. Better D to A converters help your mix balances translate better. I personally think converters are WAY more important than most people suspect.

[Exmun]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
I personally think converters are WAY more important than most people suspect.

I second that emotion.

[MASSIVE Master]

Third.

[Les Reverb]

No

[Exmun]

Les,

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but I fail to see why any genre isn't made better by higher resolution. Hip Hop is just a style of music and recording it well requires the same high quality gear and engineering talent (& artist talent) as any other style. I've never understood how some folks see genre of music as dictating the level of skill needed for recording.

At it's essence Hip Hop is a girl or guy with a mic. Improve the signal chain with better gear, converters, etc. and you improve the sound of the recording.

Blues, if you've got the money your recordings will sound better with better A/D and D/A's. So, I say go for it.

[TonyBelmont]

Having a good quality converter is essential regardless of the sample rate you are recording at, or style of music. You may want to look at something like a Rosetta 200, or another good 2 channel unit, as you probably won't need more than 2 channels. Also, invest in a good 2 channel mic preamp! something like an Aurora GTQ2 or 2 x API 512's in a lunchbox.

[max cooper]

First of all I don't know if you mean; are high quality A/D converters worth using because it's just 24/48khz or because it's just Hip Hop or both.

1. yes no matter what.
2. yes, especially at 24 bits, no matter what the samplerate is.
3. yes, regardless of the genre.

If you think about it, that's like a cinematographer asking "Is it worth is to use high quality lenses if I'm just shooting a detective mystery in 16mm?"

At what point in the chain do you stop. Next it's "I'm only recording hip hop, it's only 24/48, AND i'm using inferior quality converters, so is it worth it to use good mic preamps, or will the ones in the Mackie 8-buss be ok?" and THEN it's an MXL over a Neumann, an ADAT over a RADAR. etc.

I'd say what Bob Olhsson said, plus it's so much easier and faster to get a mix that works if you've recorded through better converters. On top of that, vocals and acoustic guitar are the first places you'll hear better converters, IMHO. As far as your other sound sources, listen to some of the sounds Tom Waits uses. There's some lo-fi stuff in there, but that doesn't mean those records are made on cheap gear. The videotape analogy isn't quite right if you're only asking about A/D. What you put on top of the existing digital sounds always makes a diff. If you mean D/A, it's more like will a better surround receiver make an existing DVD sound better? Always. Drop tha ducats on tha converters!



BTW...Gearslutz are generally people who want a reason to buy gear that's better than they'll ever need. Not the other way around.




If this thread were on most other forums, it would quickly devolve into a flame war about hip hop is/isn't a lesser genre than the rest. Fortunately, this is Gearslutz. Whew!

[AnthonyV]

IMHO - you should think about your monitoring situation first and foremost. I do mostly hip-hop and started out by upgrading pres and converters.. and while that was huge sonic leap for me.. I struggled (and still do) with my mixes. In my studio they always sound great, outside it they fall apart. There's always some weird anomoly that jumps out that I missed in the studio (even once you've identified it, its a bitch to fix cause you can't really narrow in on it ) I've learned my monitors and room to a point and get better results through experience, but it ain't easy.

If you can't REALLY hear what you're doing, you're pissing in the wind.. especially if you want "crisp,punchy and CLEAN". How will you know if its clean if your monitors aren't revealing the distortion that's there in the samples, or softsynth patches or vocals??

If I could go back I would spend that first $10Gs on the ends of the chain, Mics and Monitors and work my way in from there. You can kill 2 birds with one stone with good AD/DA, add a couple nice pres and your there... ok not really.. but..

With hip-hop its great because you don't need 16 channels of pres and AD. One stereo chain (or mono for that matter) will get you there, but that's fools gold in the big picture if you haven't either addressed your monitoring situation or spent the countless hours needed to master your current one.

Anyway, I'm ranting now but that's what I've learned in my limited experience.. and guys on here told me the exact thing.. of course I didn't listen.

[Blues]

Damn...you guys are so dope!


I can't tell you how many times i've tried to go on other forums, ask a sensible question only to get 2 sentence replies that dont really tell me anything which is followed by knuckleheaded flaming.....it's refreshing to see that doesn't really go on here...Jules must keep a tidy ship.


to AnthonyV,max cooper,Exmun, Bob Olhsson..

Thx for your comments...but if you would've read a lil closer...my opening sentence was debating on getting better AD's.... not DA's....i'm already aware of the importance for high quality DA for monitoring your mixes...that's why i'm getting a DAC-1 in the near future here...but i was just wondering if AD's were what I need as well...I can see from your comments...that it would be beneficial for me to go ahead and spring for those as well.

......now my only dillemna is which ones to get?...apogee, lucid (which is pretty cheap but good?), mytek(a lil better),benchmark ad-1 (when it comes out) or Lavry (damn...these are expensive..but everybody raves about em)

To Bob

Yes, I know Dre's mixes are everything you said....He's a living legend.....but my own ideal sound of 'crisp, clean and punchy' would be even 'cleaner' than his...alot more acoustic if anything...

peace
Blues
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/3/bluesmusic.htm

[AnthonyV]

The question is, is it the weakest link in your studio right now?? I suspect not. Think of it this way.. AD will get you inches closer to the sound you want.. pres will get you feet, mics will get yards and IMO your monitoring chain (including room) will get you miles closer and experience will get you all the way.

If you're already completely happy with your monitoring situation (or don't know any better, like i didn't), then start with a nice mic.. if you have that.. get a nice pre.. if you're happy with that.. get AD.

Good luck with it!

[Exmun]

Blues,

Bob O's point... and I couldn't agree more that quality A/D's are far more important that many folks think. Nothing personal, but AnthonyV's comment that "AD will get you inches closer to the sound you want.. pres will get you feet, mics will get yards and IMO your monitoring chain (including room) will get you miles closer" is the very type of thinking that I disagree with.

It's good advice to tell someone who is a bit inexperienced and underfinanced to just make do with their Echo Layla converters... because all in all they've got more experience to gain and probably more money to spend buying other critical stuff... instruments, a basic assortment of mics, ... stuff they don't yet have but need just to make a basic record. BUT, when a guy already has a bit of experience and had a basic cache of gear to record (a mic, pre(s), instruments), A/D means a whole lot more to the equation than "inches." At your stage and your desired level of quality, quality A/D is probably going to take your recordings leaps and bounds.

The real question, IMO, is how much of a quality difference are the Lavry & Benchmark A/D's is there compared to the Emu A/Ds that you have. Though, I've not used the Emu's... I suspect a dramatic difference that will have you saying... "how in the world did I ever live recording with those Emus?" Take the plunge if you've got the cash and start a new thread about how happy and slutty you feel after getting both a quality A/D and D/A.

[DanV]

Originally posted by Blues

*do you even hear much improvement at the 48khz setting? At 96 and 192k I can see where there'd be a noticeable difference with acoustic instruments but 48khz?

To me 48khz has a noticeable difference from 44.1 - at the same time the level of change I notice with 96khz is only a tiny bit more different from 48khz. Everyone has their own way of hearing things and their own listening environment/set up --- and different converters, well they behave differently. I think the best way for you to answer this question is by recording some loops yourself at different sample rates -- then load these into a double blind test software like pcabx and go crazy!


*I use software modules like spectrasonics stylus, trilogy and BFD for the bulk of my drum/rhythm compositions. But since these drum/bass sounds were sampled at44/48k by the software company anyway, with THEIR own converters and THEIR own studio gear....is my quality going to improve even at this point? Isn't that kinda like taking a video taped movie and transposing it for digital video? The quality's not going to improve much in the conversion unless you use software to manually clean it up.

It's not supposed to improve theoretically -- but the way your d/a translates things differently at different sample rates may create the impression that it is a big step. I have noticed that i like most of the native instruments synths a TON better when they are functioning at 96khz - now this could be partially due to how my rme multiface just does a better job at converting on 96 - but it also can mean that the synth's themeselves just rock harder at this rate. I think it's a little of both --- so to go back to your question regarding the spectrasonics stylus, bfd, etc -- there could be an enhanced performance inside the plugin - for instance Stylus's filters could sound better (they already sound pretty good though) or the aliasing from transposing samples may sound better when kicked into a higher mode. Once again I suggest checking things out with a PCABX type test program - man, it's the real way to see if it makes enough of a difference to bother with!


* The only audio I record is Vox, some percussion and acoustic guitar. But I am layering that over the aforementioned drum/bass sounds so I am really benefiting?

I have looked at the a/d specs on the 1820m and they are not terrible --- there is such a thing as clean converters - and sure there are ones that really kick ass and capture audio with a minimum of undesirable funk. At the same time - clean is a production standard too - it's not just your converters that decide how hifi and sparkly your mixes sound. Listening to some Xenakis or Bernard Parmegiani from the mid 70's (when noise floors were somewhere around 30/40db more what basic midlevel soundcards achieve these days) just goes to show that perceived cleanliness is not only factored in by the medium to which you are recording to. At the same time , when I upgraded to an RME multiface from a delta 1010 I really felt some weight lifted off my back - bass was finally not fuzzy mush - highs were less smeared etc.....

Try this --- take a cd you think is really clean and perfect sounding -- even when it's played out of a discman or something - plug it into your 1820m and try to get an idea of what the converters do to it - then ask yourself --- is it substantial enough to warrant an upgrade at this point in time??? Is it making this track sound like ass?? Or is it not so bad? Better? so on and so forth.....


* All this is going to be eventually dithered to 16/44..then alot of my hiphop audience is going to listening on such formats as car speakers, pc speakers and boom boxes. Not exactly THX audiophile listening environments, feel me? So what's the point.

The point is -- it will still sound better if tracked better --- perhaps barely, but who wants to mix with only the listener in mind?? If everyone was following that rule many would be tracking and bouncing straight to 128mp3!!!


I am striving for a new sound in hiphop....where the production are crisp,punchy and CLEAN not mushy and boomy like most of the genre. I thought that buying high quality converters would get me closer to that sound...but now that i really think about this..not so sure.

Try some experimenting (pcabx) -- maybe you could benefit more from some improved outboard, monitoring, or room tuning. Everything in your chain counts --- you need to decide what is the most limiting factor --- and also decide if maybe you just need a new perspective in your mixing/arranging. ~EZ~

[AnthonyV]

Originally posted by Exmun


It's good advice to tell someone who is a bit inexperienced and underfinanced to just make do with their Echo Layla converters... because all in all they've got more experience to gain and probably more money to spend buying other critical stuff... instruments, a basic assortment of mics, ... stuff they don't yet have but need just to make a basic record. BUT, when a guy already has a bit of experience and had a basic cache of gear to record (a mic, pre(s), instruments), A/D means a whole lot more to the equation than "inches." At your stage and your desired level of quality, quality A/D is probably going to take your recordings leaps and bounds.

I totally agree. If Blues is at that level of experience and the rest of his gear is up to par.. then you are abolutely right. If he's just getting started then its another story. We're all guessing at this point.

I've made some great "sounding" stuff through great gear that really sucked because I couldn't hear all the problems in my mixes. I sank 10k into great pre's, converters and when I went in and heard my stuff on the mastering guys system I almost puked. Looking back I would have rather had great monitoring and been able to "hear" what my crappy converters and pre's were doing to my sound (and the crappy sounding so called "quality" samples) I could at least do things to try and fix it or hide it than think everything sounds great and be surprised later.

Anyway, everyone starts at a different place and chooses a different path.. and we all learn from our mistakes... people helped me out and now I thought I'd share what I've learned so far to hopefully give the man perhaps a different perspective.. even though it may not be the popular one. Of course, you need to upgrade everything first!!!

peace,
Ants

[genericperson]

what makes you think the either the lavry or the benchmark will be better than the 1820m?

the 1820m has the best akm converters available, the very same 192khz ones in the top of the line digidesign boxes that cost somewhere around $5000-7000.

so it comes down to things like the clock, peripheral circuity and the implementation of the converters. i think emu got this part right too. simply put, the 1820m sounds *killer*.

some people have needs for insane amounts of d-a...like 72 channels out to an ssl console. in that circumstance, it may prove difficult to get that many 1820m's all working together. probably impossible at this point. also, i don't think emu has got all the wdm drivers finished. but the asio is kicking butt, at least in my world, so i haven't bothered to keep up with wdm develpment.

so if you just need 2 to 8 outs and you are using asio, the 1820m rocks hard right now. and my guess, many linked i/o's and wdm will be there too before too long.

lavry has a huge name-buzz around here. many people will just automatically spout off the top of their head that the lavry is better. but did they do a real shootout between the 1820m and the lavry in a legitimate envionment?

not saying the lavry isn't pro. just trying to ward off any "religion" that will dogmatically say the lavry or the benchmark is better without having gone through the rigors of definitive shootouts. there will also be boutique vendors here who carry benchmark and lavry but not the emu 1820m. take any comments they make under the understanding that they have a specific economic interest to sell products they represent.

i have the 1820m system and *love* it. top of the line converters. converters in a separate box, not the pci card. elegant cat5 cable implementation. stunning sound, great layout it's simply a gift to the audio community that emu has given us so much quality for so little money. a lot of it has to do with the size of creative labs...they can put so much effort behind it, and then sell it at such a great price.

this ain't your geek friend's soundblaster.

the only thing peculiar i find about the emu product line is the 1820 without the "m" designation. everybody in their right mind will spend the extra $100 to get the ultimate ad-da converters that the 1820m have. so i'm not sure why they bother with the 1820 idea. the 1820m is such a great deal, that to get the 1820 just to save $100 would be unexplainable cheapness on the part of the purchaser. but maybe saving that $100 serves some segment of the market that i can't quite fathom.

[catfish11]

the 1820m converters are pretty darn good
this is what i own for conversion-
1820m
benchmark dac
digidesign 192
cranesong spider

as far as i am concerned the emu are better than the digi
not as good as cranesong
not as good as the benchmark for dac
but the difference is small, these are very usable converters
as opposed to my old delta converters audiophile 24/96
which were supposed to be pretty good- they sucked
they sounded like cardboard
bad converters sound like cardboard to me
remember it is the filters that make quite a bit of difference in conversion
and emu filters are very good, they are known for their filtering in their samplers and boards, they also were behind the paris DAW
i use them in a seperate machine for softsynths and stuff
i run my other synths into them
someone around here or somewhere was talking that they made certain instruments pretty fat- i think this is true
that is such a good little box i use it in my monitoring chain it
allows me to switch speakers and various outs
i use the the dac between my 192 and the spider to add a little analog (api 2500, 2 pendulum quartets) sweetning when mixing
i bring the spider buss out into samplitude
this works very well
i monitor from the emu 1820m
i would not be using it if it didn't cut it
conversion is very important, until you get to really good converters then its 6 of this, half dozen of that
my opinion is that the emu box is one of the best audio deals available
the specs are remarkable, but that doesn't tell what the ears hear
and these ears thinks they be sound'n pretty good there.....

[primomusic]

WELL WHAT ABOUT MYTEK!!!!!???? arent they right there next to each other

[Gregg Sartiano]

Mics, pres, A-to-D's...

That's what I always say.

[primomusic]

well does mytek sound bad that nobody wants to post anything on them.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by genericperson
what makes you think the either the lavry or the benchmark will be better than the 1820m?

the 1820m has the best akm converters available, the very same 192khz ones in the top of the line digidesign boxes that cost somewhere around $5000-7000.....

What makes you think Lavry or Benchmark use an 1820m or the filters built into ANY D/A chip? This is like talking about an engine but ignoring the fuel, the carb, the plugs and the cooling system.

[Jules]

Welcome to August 2005!

[Tibbon]

Originally Posted by Exmun

Les,

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but I fail to see why any genre isn't made better by higher resolution.

Punk music my friend. Punk music. I've heard quite a few bands that if they were recorded a'La Steely Dan would be aweful.

[sane54]

I don't understand something. Forgive this newbie question. How come the M-audio firewire 410 is so cheap in comparison to the Lavry unit? It supposedly does 24/96.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by sane54

I don't understand something. Forgive this newbie question. How come the M-audio firewire 410 is so cheap in comparison to the Lavry unit? It supposedly does 24/96.

Quality.

To use an analogy.. It's like the difference between a Chevy and a BMW... They both will get you where you need to go, but the BMW is more refined.

I currently use a rosetta 800 (96k) feeding Ptools HD. Guys I recently visited a mastering spot and though I didnt do a straight comparison or test. I think I loved the Lavry Gold when I heard them. Am I chasing that which does not have to be chased. Should I spend dough on other areas?? My rosetta is not the worst converter in the world, but unfortuonately I'm alwasy searching for better. Should I audition the AD16x an dA 16x along with the Lavry Gold stuff? If I do is it gonna make me spend more money???? Should I just buy outboard gear? Or should I shut up, and record some more tunes with the gear I have?


Does it ever end/?????

[sane54]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

Quality.

To use an analogy.. It's like the difference between a Chevy and a BMW... They both will get you where you need to go, but the BMW is more refined.

Hmmm. I have a pair of Mackie H824s and I have worked pretty hard to deaden my room. Would the M-audio be the weak link here? i.e. is it going to decieve me where a higher end unit would not? OR are you just talking about quality in the sense of stability?

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by sane54

Hmmm. I have a pair of Mackie H824s and I have worked pretty hard to deaden my room. Would the M-audio be the weak link here? i.e. is it going to decieve me where a higher end unit would not? OR are you just talking about quality in the sense of stability?

I think even a 002 would have better converters than the M Audio.... I think the monitors are also not giving you the most accurate representation of what you are mixing (HR824's aren't the most accurate). Do you need to buy a new converter? Probably not. An Apogee would sound better. But, not knowing the rest of your setup it's hard to tell what would be the weakest link....

[moeses]

now i have the emu M series card, i use it just for simple stuff
but it's converters in my opinion are worse the the Digi 002...everything sounds SMUDGED coming out of the DA

[XHipHop]

I'm rocking Motu HD192s for the past year and 1/2 or so and I would never go lower than that in quality...eventually I want to add a big ben and then possibly a nice 2-channel A/D D/A.

[heathen]

I just bought an Apoggee psx 100se its reasonably old but wow did it make a difference over my motu 828 mk2,good converters are essential.44.1 24 bit is still the best format to take to mastering unless you plan on going through analog outboard gear at mastering and record back in at 44,1 16 or 24 bit (then dither down)in which case I'd use 96k