Simple setup sounds as good as high-end stuff to me...

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by gearaddict

dumb question but...how do you use different converters with a mbox 1?

via spdif...

[KEYBEEETSSS]

Originally Posted by gearaddict

dumb question but...how do you use different converters with a mbox 1?

Not a dumb question either bud-deee...

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by u b k

o.p., truly, you're reading me wrong. i'm not challenging you, calling you out, or congratulating myself because everyone else is a 'tech-newb', these are stories you are projecting onto me for reasons that only you know and are none of my business.

what *is* my business is good sound, and i know it when i hear it. so i asked for a mix done on your simple rig, so i could offer my opinion of whether it stands up to what i know good front-ends to be capable of. i've got $5k invested in 4 channels of a/d conversion over here, so i've clearly got my own ideas as to what role they play in sound.

you asked for what you wanted, i responded with what i needed to help. you can make it about more than that, but i won't be joining you in that place.





your analysis is telling. 50% are agreeing, which means 50% are disagreeing. to take that as evidence that you're not too far off indicates that you are favoring opinions that confirm your belief and ignoring those that do not.

here's what i believe, you can take it it the bank and they'll tell you what it's worth: your a/d/a is marginal at best. if you find that tracks done on a more expensive rig do not sound significantly better, then one or more of these is true:


1) the expensive studio rig is not, in fact, that good.

2) the expensive studio rig operator is not, in fact, that good.

3) the expensive studio used the wrong mic for your voice (see #2).

3) your monitoring rig (d/a + speakers + room) is not capable of revealing the differences. think about this one; by definition, a compromised rig can't reveal the improvements of a better rig.

4) your ears are not yet attuned to the differences, so you can't hear them.


keep in mind that none of the above, including #1, preclude the reality that there is in fact a solution out there which will yield dramatic improvements for you, the kind you would notice right away.

the last thing i'll add before getting out of your hair is that imho the most important thing is that you be creating music and enjoying the challenges of the process. the quest to improve sonics can be endless, expensive, and a source of tremendous perpetual dissatisfaction. if you're liking the results you get, if you feel confident in your ability to capture and reproduce the *vibe and emotion* of the music you play, then you want for nothing.

good sound is nice, but the feeling behind the music is everything. keep your focus on that, and let everything else be of service to that end.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

I hear you Gregoire, and thanks for qualifying. Its easy to get the wrong impression from a single sentence, especially when other folks are referring to it in their own way. I have little doubt that you are right about the potential for greater sound quality than my humble setup affords, but it is difficult to discover how essential that difference in sound is to me personally. After all, I listen to these recordings on far better equipment than hardly anyone else ever will, so if it sounds good to me now (as you wisely mentioned) then searching for poor quality issues that will only frustrate me is a bad road to take.

I will still post sound samples eventually, if anyone is still looking at this thread, and you will probably be able to hear quality differences that I cannot, though perhaps you will be able to tell me if I am doing a fairly decent job with what I have. Please understand I do appreciate your input and would welcome comments or suggestions. Sorry I took you the wrong way, I guess I mistakenly detected a tone of sarcasm that was not intended. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers.

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by Peacock

35 years ago was 1975 and almost all music was recorded with high end superb gear. You would need to go back further to hear lower fi recordings.

Hahaha, yes of course...but the point I was making was that even low end recording these days is more clear and present than any of those live recordings of Hendrix or Janis...even though I'm sure someone will scream at me now for suggesting that cheap digital recording can ever be "better" than the "old analog stuff" or whatever...but I think you will know what I mean.

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by mdjice

Ok, there is definitely a difference in sound quality between tracks recorded thru a sm57/RNP/m box and tracks recorded with a u87/neve/aurora or apogee conv.

Ok, I guess you are referring to the Bon Iver thing, but I am using better equipment than that...

Originally Posted by mdjice

It's crazy how "little" the difference is in sound on a SOLO vocal track for example compaired to how much money you have to invest to get a high end vocal chain....BUT it all comes to down to the final product.
If you record an entire song (vocals plus stacks, bass, drums, guitars, synth, piano etc...) thru a low end setup with low end converters (EG Mbox) once it's time to put it all together and mix it ...you will hear a HUGE difference!! I can guarantee it!!
High end gear will give you that pro sound even when stacked and if it was recorded properlly will make mixing MUCH easier as you don't really have to "FIX" anything but more make everything fit with eachother.

Well, my whole setup is not trash, the only real questionable thing is the Mbox converters. So do you think even good equipment with Mbox converters will garner a "HUGE" difference in quality, or are you still referring to the idea of using a SM57 for the whole thing?

[mdjice]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

Ok, I guess you are referring to the Bon Iver thing, but I am using better equipment than that...



Well, my whole setup is not trash, the only real questionable thing is the Mbox converters. So do you think even good equipment with Mbox converters will garner a "HUGE" difference in quality, or are you still referring to the idea of using a SM57 for the whole thing?

You Definitely need better converters. The M Box is NOT a pro Audio piece and it will bring everything else down in your chain by being your weakest link.
You could have a u47 into a Neve, pluging it into a M box would mean the same thing as using a ferrari on a highway limited to 45 miles per hour.
The digi003 converters seam to be more usable. I had an apogee but when I heard the aurora it was a no brainer, I sold my rosetta and got a lynx.
the difference is not going to come from only the converters but if you record a guitar voice with your setup and mix it then record the same song with High end pres, mics, converters, comp etc... you will definitely hear a difference towards the end.
for example When I started I use to plug my C 414 uls into my M box pre. I now plug the same mic into my Neve 1084. a month ago I found some vocal recordings I did years ago on an old compueter using the M box pre and conv....you would not beleive the difference between the old and new take even though it's the same singer and same mic.

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by mdjice

You Definitely need better converters. The M Box is NOT a pro Audio piece and it will bring everything else down in your chain by being your weakest link.
You could have a u47 into a Neve, pluging it into a M box would mean the same thing as using a ferrari on a highway limited to 45 miles per hour.
The digi003 converters seam to be more usable.

My piano player also has an 002, have you had any experience with those converters and deemed them "more usable"? Cause I have the option of using that most of the time.

I get what you are saying about the Neves and all that, but the real question to me is what equipment has the capability of sounding decent. I have used all the high end stuff, and I'm often not very happy with it for various reasons. I learned quickly that what really matters is the technique and performance. If I can use merely decent equipment and get the takes the way I want them, rather than use stellar equipment and not be satisfied with the way the takes are done, then thats what I want to do. I've been to a recording studio and used a Neumann through a $6K Neve pre and didn't like the sound that we got very much.

Plus, I always have a few tracks that have to be done in the high end studio, or that are MIDI, so those minimize the cumulative effect of low end converters that you mentioned.

But, as you say, the Mbox is not exactly pro audio, hence my purchase of the RNP (ok its not a Neve, but its pretty damn close to some pro stuff out there.) My problem now is that DACs are so bloody expensive. Question for anyone- would any stand alone converter be much better than the Mbox as a converter, or are you saying that it has to be an Apogee to really get pro sound?

[numberforty1]

Can anyone recommend the RME ADI-2 as a good A/D alternative to the Mbox or 002?

Cheers

[mdjice]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

My piano player also has an 002, have you had any experience with those converters and deemed them "more usable"? Cause I have the option of using that most of the time.

I get what you are saying about the Neves and all that, but the real question to me is what equipment has the capability of sounding decent. I have used all the high end stuff, and I'm often not very happy with it for various reasons. I learned quickly that what really matters is the technique and performance. If I can use merely decent equipment and get the takes the way I want them, rather than use stellar equipment and not be satisfied with the way the takes are done, then thats what I want to do. I've been to a recording studio and used a Neumann through a $6K Neve pre and didn't like the sound that we got very much.

Plus, I always have a few tracks that have to be done in the high end studio, or that are MIDI, so those minimize the cumulative effect of low end converters that you mentioned.

But, as you say, the Mbox is not exactly pro audio, hence my purchase of the RNP (ok its not a Neve, but its pretty damn close to some pro stuff out there.) My problem now is that DACs are so bloody expensive. Question for anyone- would any stand alone converter be much better than the Mbox as a converter, or are you saying that it has to be an Apogee to really get pro sound?

lots of questions... I'll try and answer a few:
first of all YES it is about the technic AND the source BEFORE the gear.
you will get a better result with someone using a digi 002 using great recording techniques and mic placement on a talented guitar player for example then someone using a million dollars worth of equipment but who records too hot or compressed with wrong mic choice/placement on a newbie guitar player. that said you will still get better result if the same talented engineer records a talented guitar player with high end gear.
if the person recording doesn't have the skills, no High end gear will make up for that.
about your experience with the neve pre and neumann mic. even in High end every mic/pre combination will work differently on a certain person, a certain instrument or in a certain room.
I have quit a few mics and pres and the most expensive one doesn't work on everybody. for example My 1084 into a 737 fro comp and a AKG c414 works great on me but for a femal singer I work with, the UA 610 with a VTB works better.
In my case the VTB sounds harsh. The U87IA sounds horrible on my voice so high end or not it's never perfect everytime whoch explains why big recording studios have a variety of pres, mic, comp etc...
Yes an outboard converter will work better then your m box. somehing like a aurora 8 is pretty decently priced for the result you get.
The digi 002 is far inferior then the 003 my guess would be that it's the same as far as the quality of the converters but don't take my word for it and try it out yourself
hope it helps
M.

[Unclenny]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

Can anyone recommend the RME ADI-2 as a good A/D alternative to the Mbox or 002?

Cheers

I use it with MBox 1.

Made a difference.

[numberforty1]

Ok folks, if any of you are still subscribed, here is the challenge. One of these vocals takes was done with a Neumann u87, Avalon pre, and Apogee converter - the other with a mere AT4003, RNP, and those crappy Digi002 converters. You tell me which is which. Then I can figure out whether or not to buy that damn RME ADI-2.

I converted them at as high a quality as I could to make it fit. Good luck.

[Beauarts]

I'd reach for a better guitar before another mic or converter.

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by Beauarts

I'd reach for a better guitar before another mic or converter.

I take it you couldn't tell then. Its actually a fairly nice guitar, you're just listening to really raw tracks.

[Beauarts]

No, it's clearly #2 that's the better recording chain. I can hear that thru my laptop alone. I just think the guitar (or the way it's miced, or ...) is not happening for me. I'm hearing strings but no resonance.

[imloggedin]

::gets popcorn out:: the elusive blind test. i love this on gearslutz it always goes afoul. its like follow the leader. but you really should have put it in wav format, cause the mp3 card will be an easy way out.

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by imloggedin

::gets popcorn out:: the elusive blind test. i love this on gearslutz it always goes afoul. its like follow the leader. but you really should have put it in wav format, cause the mp3 card will be an easy way out.

Its 9MB in WAV, only allowed to upload 6MB. Its a 320 VBR mp3, shouldn't be too bad. We'll see. What did you think?

[imloggedin]

I didnt listen because i choose not to participate in most blind tests.

My opinion is that you do lose imaging and.... accuracy? with lower end D/A's. Ive hear it on my B&Ws. I havent heard it on lower end speakers as much. Also this forum puts too much emphasis on GEAR and not enough on MUSIC... but then again it is GEARslutz and provides alot of good info on SOME things. If you like what you hear from it, no need for an upgrade.

[malaclypse]

the second one sounds better. sounds thicker, smoother and the low end is tighter on the vox.
listening on crappy logitech computer speakers, though.
if the 2nd one is the low end setup then... stick with what you got!

[buzzjoe]

Originally Posted by malaclypse

the second one sounds better. sounds thicker, smoother and the low end is tighter on the vox.
listening on crappy logitech computer speakers, though.
if the 2nd one is the low end setup then... stick with what you got!

+1 (listening on Adam P11A) #2 sounds much better to me.

[Sword in Hand]

These kinds of tests are terrible really. I have done similar tests, with various pieces of gear, at my home studio. I've found that the difference between two takes, using the same gear, can make a HUGE difference. Also, level plays an incredible part in differentiating what sounds "better". So unless you're recording your performance into these systems, at the same time, with .1 dB level match, this can't be a complete test.

If you really want to do this right, play a pink noise signal from where you would be performing. Then, level match the mic levels into the DAW. Now arm both tracks and record the take. Make sure that the mics are positioned the same distance from you. You would probably be suprised what you learn.

I did a similar test with different DIs (REDDI, GR ME-1NV, Phoenix DRS 2) and when level matched, and recorded at the same time, the differences were REALLY slight. I mean the tracks practically nulled in the DAW. I couldn't believe it, I was shocked!

Bottom line: Don't worry about the gear, worry about the song. Arrangement and performance (again this goes with my different take theory.) are the keys to a great production. Gear is a distant 3rd to those. Certain tools do make life easier, though. And if there's something that's not functioning as well as it could or is making recording difficult, then consider an upgrade. Instruments do make a much bigger difference. I would put money into those first.

Hope this helps

[Greg Curtis]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

Mmmm, I've been using a couple different studios with Genelec monitors and such for a couple years now...and I'm always amazed at what I hear in the headphones, not the speakers. The speakers always color things much more than headphones. What is it you are hearing in speakers that you don't think you hear through a good pair of audiophile cans?

Headphones are the most coloring of any device to listen through. Even how they sit on your head affects their frequency response, not to mention the binaural vs. true stereo aspect.

Here's a freq response graph of AT's flagship heaphones:



Here's a frequency response graph of Genelec's 1032a:




Which one is more colored?

(more headphone graphs at: Headroom

Headphones are nice for quiet monitoring or checking a mix, but not reliable.

Greg

.

[vernier]

For a third example, sing and strum into tape recorder.
'

[baikonour]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

Herein lies the problem. If your monitors are so untrustworthy that you prefer headphones, you don't have an evaluation tool of sufficient resolution to allow you to distinguish between the highend and lowend equipment. Headphones will fool you time after time. They're worth listening to in order to detect mix problems and to see what your mix sounds like on phones. But if you really want to know what's going on with the rest of your equipment, you need some kind of serious monitor speakers. Trust me, you'll be amazed at what you hear on good speakers.

I don't agree with this if you have some good headphones there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to spot a difference which can be revealed by monitors.
Some superior headphones like the Sony 6509HD or similar will give an extended freq range superior to most monitoring system. You might prefer monitors for other reasons (and there's some good arguement for that) but not for the one you have highlighted.

[āvetechnation]

Originally Posted by u b k

proof's in the pudding: let's hear a mix made with the simple setup.

+1, let's hear something.

[AmongstTheLiving]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

Ok folks, if any of you are still subscribed, here is the challenge. One of these vocals takes was done with a Neumann u87, Avalon pre, and Apogee converter - the other with a mere AT4003, RNP, and those crappy Digi002 converters. You tell me which is which. Then I can figure out whether or not to buy that damn RME ADI-2.

I converted them at as high a quality as I could to make it fit. Good luck.

Listening on Sennheiser HD 280 pro's out of my stock computer sound card I can here a rather drastic difference. 1 doesn't have as much detail in the low, low mids and everything kind of sounds a little more distant and flat than in 2. The mic probably doesn't have as much to do with it as the converters (especially if its a new u87, I really like AT mics), and the converters probably don't have as much of an effect as the tube pre (and possibly the opto compressor if used) vs. the rnp. But like someone else already said, once you start stacking up tons of drum tracks, vocal/guitar harmonies, good converters really start to shine.

I'd look at it this way if I were you. If you're a recording artist and you spend thousands of dollars on top of the line converters will you sell thousands of more records? Is it worth it? Is anyone that matters going to care?

It really is like splitting hairs, but when you split 32 hairs into 64 you're dealing with a lot more hair. Er something. I don't know. Now if you carry the 1, multiply by pi...

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

audiophile cans?

oxymoron.

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

I get what you are saying about the Neves and all that, but the real question to me is what equipment has the capability of sounding decent.

well that's a problem with gs. you've got some guys on here who are trying to literally compete with every radio hit tracked in $1m studios, and you've got guys just making demos and recording for fun.

if you fall in the second group an mbox will sound decent for sure. if you're in the first group, every tiny bit counts, so probably not at all.

from what i can tell, i'd say keep your mbox and upgrade your acoustics/monitors/compressors/eqs/etc. instead.

[ricfoxx]

Most people dont really want good advice, they want you to pad what they already think they know. Whether he is right or wrong but honestly I am with UBK, the Mbox conversion is really muffled. Alot of newb's will pick a muffled sound because it sounds gushy!

Originally Posted by u b k

o.p., truly, you're reading me wrong. i'm not challenging you, calling you out, or congratulating myself because everyone else is a 'tech-newb', these are stories you are projecting onto me for reasons that only you know and are none of my business.

what *is* my business is good sound, and i know it when i hear it. so i asked for a mix done on your simple rig, so i could offer my opinion of whether it stands up to what i know good front-ends to be capable of. i've got $5k invested in 4 channels of a/d conversion over here, so i've clearly got my own ideas as to what role they play in sound.

you asked for what you wanted, i responded with what i needed to help. you can make it about more than that, but i won't be joining you in that place.





your analysis is telling. 50% are agreeing, which means 50% are disagreeing. to take that as evidence that you're not too far off indicates that you are favoring opinions that confirm your belief and ignoring those that do not.

here's what i believe, you can take it it the bank and they'll tell you what it's worth: your a/d/a is marginal at best. if you find that tracks done on a more expensive rig do not sound significantly better, then one or more of these is true:


1) the expensive studio rig is not, in fact, that good.

2) the expensive studio rig operator is not, in fact, that good.

3) the expensive studio used the wrong mic for your voice (see #2).

3) your monitoring rig (d/a + speakers + room) is not capable of revealing the differences. think about this one; by definition, a compromised rig can't reveal the improvements of a better rig.

4) your ears are not yet attuned to the differences, so you can't hear them.


keep in mind that none of the above, including #1, preclude the reality that there is in fact a solution out there which will yield dramatic improvements for you, the kind you would notice right away.

the last thing i'll add before getting out of your hair is that imho the most important thing is that you be creating music and enjoying the challenges of the process. the quest to improve sonics can be endless, expensive, and a source of tremendous perpetual dissatisfaction. if you're liking the results you get, if you feel confident in your ability to capture and reproduce the *vibe and emotion* of the music you play, then you want for nothing.

good sound is nice, but the feeling behind the music is everything. keep your focus on that, and let everything else be of service to that end.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[ricfoxx]

Forgot to say cool song. Tighten up the vocal delivery because the vibe is there. And there is a difference of going into the Mbox 1 with a SM57 than going into the Digi 002-RNP-AT4033. You should definately get a useable tone with that setup.

I could mix using files of that quality. Hell yould could send me the vox and the guitars and I could send your song back to you ready to roll...for a small fee of course!!!

[imloggedin]

Originally Posted by Greg Curtis

Headphones are the most coloring of any device to listen through. Even how they sit on your head affects their frequency response, not to mention the binaural vs. true stereo aspect.

I dont think this is quite correct. AKG 240's sound pretty flat to me, the frequency response says something different, but IMO you should monitor through headphones some of the time on every session. A good set of cans reveal much more minor things than speakers do usually. I can mix in my AKG 240s and then switch to the B&Ws and be pretty close.