Major studio upgrades...

[urobo[l]us]

Please skip to the bottom....

[slick0]

Your first post? Well right here is mine!

I haven't had experience to recommend one thing over another (though I have a few Delta 1010's myself, that I am pleased with), but I may be able to answer a few things..

A preamp and AD/DA are rather different things, although occasionally thrown into the same box. The preamp takes a signal, from a mic for example, and converts this to line level, for use by a console, processor, etc.. the AD/DA takes a line level signal and converts to a digital signal, or the other way around. Many AD/DA's also come with preamps, so I can see how this may cause a touch of confusion.

Also, while 24/48 isn't horrible to record at, I would disagree that there isn't a point at going higher.. The way I see it, while a single recorded part may not sound much different at 48 than say at 96, using any effects on the daw, or in simply combining all the parts, may loose some accuracy with lower sample rates.. Once a track is finished, the final product is what gets dithered down to CD, DVD, etc.. but the final product will likely sound different if tracked and mixed at 48 instead of 96.

Hope this helps

[urobo[l]us]

Originally Posted by slick0

Your first post? Well right here is mine!

I haven't had experience to recommend one thing over another (though I have a few Delta 1010's myself, that I am pleased with), but I may be able to answer a few things..

A preamp and AD/DA are rather different things, although occasionally thrown into the same box. The preamp takes a signal, from a mic for example, and converts this to line level, for use by a console, processor, etc.. the AD/DA takes a line level signal and converts to a digital signal, or the other way around. Many AD/DA's also come with preamps, so I can see how this may cause a touch of confusion.

Also, while 24/48 isn't horrible to record at, I would disagree that there isn't a point at going higher.. The way I see it, while a single recorded part may not sound much different at 48 than say at 96, using any effects on the daw, or in simply combining all the parts, may loose some accuracy with lower sample rates.. Once a track is finished, the final product is what gets dithered down to CD, DVD, etc.. but the final product will likely sound different if tracked and mixed at 48 instead of 96.

Hope this helps

Thanks a million.

I have a couple of the Liquid loops programs (sax and horns) and GUitar Rig, and have noticed the phenominal difference in quality at 96 rather than 48 or 44. It's definetaly more "grainy" at lower. I've only briefly read this guys' theory (I can't remember his name) on the recording at higher sample rates as opposed to bit-rates, so I'm not too versed in it. If I come up with his name I'll ask you about it because basically what he says is that at higher sample rates the difference is inaudible when dithered from 96+ to 48 or 44, but it is the bit rate that makes the hugest difference like 24 or 32, to 16, and that is what holds the audio integrity (?).

Thanks again for explaining AD/DA and preamps to me. My only question now is how do you get a signal to line level to go through an AD/DA converter without a preamp to bring it up to line level without already that signal being AD converted? It seems most preamps already do the AD conversion, but maybe I need to look into that more. But now to think of it, most preamps do have analog outs so I guess that would bypass the D conversion to go to an AD converter, but if you were to transfer that via optical to the AD converter wouldn't it have to have been D converter in the first place to be sent optical?

Sorry for so many newb questions, but I guess the only dumb question is the one that isn't asked... supposibly...

Thanks again a whole bunch!


I just had to use this thing...

[urobo[l]us]

Would anyone care to elaborate on this more?

Am I correct in thinking that the chain would be something like this:

instrument/mic > Preamp > analog out > analog in of AD converter > optical out > optical in of sound card or interface + synchronizer to sync everything?

Sorry again for naivety, but I can probably answer the bulk of my post having an understanding of this.

Edit:

In addition to that I have a question about DA converters too. I was looking at this:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/DAC1/

and from what I can gather it just converts the digital signal back to analog (obviously) to go to the monitors, but how wouldn't this only make playback sound better through the monitors? How would this improve the final mix down if it isn't being mixed down to analog gear (in my case, I'm mixing down in Sonar)?

Thanks again.

[urobo[l]us]

bump.... thanks.

[over-man]

Originally Posted by urobo[l]us

and from what I can gather it just converts the digital signal back to analog (obviously) to go to the monitors, but how wouldn't this only make playback sound better through the monitors? How would this improve the final mix down if it isn't being mixed down to analog gear (in my case, I'm mixing down in Sonar)?

Thanks again.

Your final mixdown will improve with better DA convertors because you are making adjustments to a mix (eq, etc.) based on what you hear; better convertors mean a more accurate reproduction of what you've already recorded, you should be able to hear fine details more accurately and make better adjustments. In addition, when you reference professional CDs, you may also hear details you've never heard before, which can also improve your mixes in the long run.

[urobo[l]us]

Originally Posted by over-man

Your final mixdown will improve with better DA convertors because you are making adjustments to a mix (eq, etc.) based on what you hear; better convertors mean a more accurate reproduction of what you've already recorded, you should be able to hear fine details more accurately and make better adjustments. In addition, when you reference professional CDs, you may also hear details you've never heard before, which can also improve your mixes in the long run.

Makes perfect since now, thanks for the help!

Do you have anything to add to this?

Am I correct in thinking that the chain would be something like this:

instrument/mic > Preamp > analog out > analog in of AD converter > optical out > optical in of sound card or interface + synchronizer to sync everything?

I probably won't go the route of a seperate preamp and converter given the cost of converters, but this info would be good to know. Thanks!

[over-man]

Originally Posted by urobo[l]us

I probably won't go the route of a seperate preamp and converter given the cost of converters, but this info would be good to know. Thanks!

No problem. I bought my first interface a year ago, the Presonus Firepod, which has 8 pre-amps and convertors. The information is relayed to the computer via firewire, which ended up being not-so-reliable with two firepods and a fw hd. My new setup is more like you described above.

I use 3 Firepods for 24 pre-amps, analog outs sent to an ADAT hd24XR for A/D conversion. The XR writes directly to its own hd, while at the same time streaming all 24 channels digitally via Lightbridge into my DAW. Two copies at the same time, both using the XR's great A/D convertors.

I mix by sending the signal out of Logic to the XR via lightbridge, using the XR's DA convertors for monitoring. I hope this helps.

[urobo[l]us]

Got it, thanks again for the help.

What kind of soundcard are using to send the 24-channels from the hd24XR via optical into Logic? Also, isn't it 8-channels @48, 4-channels at @96, 2-channels @ +96 that can be sent at a time through lightpipe?

Thanks!

[over-man]

The XR has 4 ADAT outs and ins, I have 4 SPDIF cables running out of the XR and one back in. The M-Audio Lightbridge provides the connection between XR and Mac, all of the SPDIF cables run into it, and it sends the audio via FW to the computer, or vice-versa. A nice little box for $400, it really expanded the capability of my XR, making overdubs and other things much easier.