Upgrading massively -- need converter guidance

[bort99]

Hi everyone,

I'm massively upgrading my studio and I need some advice on converters. Here's what I'm getting:

-iMac (2ghz model, which I assume is plenty fast to run Logic. Anyone have experience with this machine? I'm not going to be doing much other than tracking in the box, so I may just go with Logic Express.)
-Several nice pres (Chandler Germ, GR ME-1NV, something 2-channel yet to be determined)
-Some solid outboard stuff

Here's my converter dilemma:
I'm going to need to track more than two tracks at once, but no more than four. I don't need onboard pres. I'd prefer an all-in-one A/D/A solution, and I assume I'm limited to Firewire devices (or can/should I use the optical digital in/out on the iMac?).

Is my best bet an Apogee Ensemble? It seems like overkill since I won't need its built-in pres, but I'm having a hard time finding an appropriate device from a maker that has a reputation for great conversion. I'm willing to spend up to the cost of the Ensemble, but if there's a cheaper, high-quality solution where I wouldn't be paying for useless pres, I'd be happier. Ideas?

Thanks,
Bort

[bort99]

Gotcha -- it's looking like an Ensemble might actually be my best bet as far as a simple, all-in-one solution that doesn't spill over $2k.

Anyone recommend the Fireface 800 instead?

[u b k]

no question in my mind, the metric halo 2882 is the cleanest, most open sounding set of converters to be had for anything remotely in that price range.

fwiw, apogee converters are highly colored, so make sure it's a color you love before committing to having it on every track. ime, the upper-mid bump and zingy highs make for aggressive and modern sounding recordings no matter what the music itself sounds like.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Roc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by u b k

no question in my mind, the metric halo 2882 is the cleanest, most open sounding set of converters to be had for anything remotely in that price range.

fwiw, apogee converters are highly colored, so make sure it's a color you love before committing to having it on every track. ime, the upper-mid bump and zingy highs make for aggressive and modern sounding recordings no matter what the music itself sounds like.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

I would disagree that Apogee converters are "highly" colored. Yes they sound very analogue, but they are also accurate and absolutely maintain the source with the utmost concern. And I would also add that [to my ears] the Ensemble has very little color, as its more of an open and detailed response similar to the pristine texture of the Rosetta, as they share the same dual stage clock-Intelliclock.

If the Ensemble has "an upper mid bump" and "zingy high end",

How would you consider the response of the Metric Halo?

I know A LOT of people using the Ensemble for very smooth, intimate, more laid back styles of music, [even lo-fi] and I assure you [in listening to their mixes], there was nothing "zingy" about the highs or forward midrange fighting the cause for smoother tones.

[thermos]

Have to disagree with UBK too actually. I'd say my Duet sounds much better than the 2882 I had in here for a while. Not really in a colored way either, just in a quality way,

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

If the Ensemble has "an upper mid bump" and "zingy high end", How would you consider the response of the Metric Halo?

the MH is flatter, by a longshot. the primary shortcoming of mh's is that they don't have a tremendous amount of depth, but tonally they're smooth, no hype.

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

I know A LOT of people using the Ensemble for very smooth, intimate, more laid back styles of music, [even lo-fi] and I assure you [in listening to their mixes], there was nothing "zingy" about the highs or forward midrange fighting the cause for smoother tones.

if every track were also multed thru the mh's, and you compared the two resulting mixes, i'd lay good money that's exactly how most people would characterize the sonic differences in the mixes. when i did exactly that with rosettas vs. burls, that's pretty much how it went down.

apogee has a sound, every single unit they make has the same basic signature. you call it analog, i call it hyped.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[peeder]

I vote for the 003 so you also get a copy of Pro Tools LE, which you will want sooner or later.

I vote for another computer than the IMac which has no ability to run UAD nothing. Either Mac Pro or Macbook Pro for audio.

[George Necola]

Apogee has sound. if you like it, it's cool.

metrichalo is a neat package but in my opinion the converters are not topnotch. it's maybe the best solution for a mac-based projectstudio. their plugin rock, their routing is very cool but converterwise I would go with an aurora (READ: GEORGE MATTER OF TASTE).

as for pres and comps, you have to try them out.

cheers

[Roc Mixwell]

the MH is flatter, by a longshot. the primary shortcoming of mh's is that they don't have a tremendous amount of depth, but tonally they're smooth, no hype.

With all due respect, if its doesn't have the greatest depth of frequency response, than its smaller sounding and offers limited bandwidth, no?

I think we are all looking for more depth of frequency response in a converter [as well as ALL devices, [especially in a converter], unless your doing LO-FI, or just prefer the response of X device for your music. [I think George put it best......]

So my understanding of your post; is that the MH it flatter in ranges it doesn't roll off??

if every track were also multed thru the mh's, and you compared the two resulting mixes, i'd lay good money that's exactly how most people would characterize the sonic differences in the mixes. when i did exactly that with rosettas vs. burls, that's pretty much how it went down.

Ok, well we were not talking about the Rosetta or the Burl, so how does this help the argument for the MH? Are you saying that the Burl compares to the MH?

Call me crazy, [and I am sure you will] but I seem to be reading into the fact you describe the MH as being "open" sounding, yet it doesn't have a "tremendous amount of depth"?? I understand what your saying, by the frequency response being flatter in certain ranges, but if its not as deep as others, why should we consider it transparent to the source?