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

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by āvetechnation

+1, let's hear something.

Did you not realize I already posted them?

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by AmongstTheLiving

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.

Yes, I forgot to mention this. The track with the high end stuff was run through a compressor, and the low-end track was not, and I think that this is the biggest giveaway. If I had run the low-end take through a compressor and not the high-end take, I wonder what people would have thought. Maybe I'll try that eventually.

But I don't see how take 1 sounds more distant, I think it sounds much more upfront. You can hear way more of the room in take 2, I guess because the Neumann is more sensitive to it, and the vocal track in it is way more withdrawn, which really isn't a good or bad thing to me, just a matter of taste. As for the detail in low end, I guess I'll take your word for it. Don't hear it.

[KEYBEEETSSS]

i THINK 1 IS THE 87-737 COMBO...

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by Unclenny

My setup is something like this.......

You'll need a small mixer..........

Preamp out to ADI-2 for input to PTLE via s/pdif.
Preamp out to mixer for monitoring while tracking.
ADI-2 out to mixer for monitoring while tracking.

So if you have both the preamp and ADI going to the mixer, aren't you getting the same track twice in your monitoring mix, one that was run through the ADI and one that wasn't? I don't understand that...why can't you monitor everything through the ADI outs?

Thanks

[Unclenny]

I have always sidestepped the MBox latency issue by muting the tracks that I'm recording to and cranking that handy dandy MBox 1 mix knob all the way down. Once I bypassed the MBox with ADI-2 I no longer had that option.

The addition of a monitor mixer to the chain solved that problem.

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by Unclenny

I have always sidestepped the MBox latency issue by muting the tracks that I'm recording to and cranking that handy dandy MBox 1 mix knob all the way down. Once I bypassed the MBox with ADI-2 I no longer had that option.

The addition of a monitor mixer to the chain solved that problem.

Ahh, great. So going in spdif to the Mbox1 disables the mute track feature? That seems really strange, can LE not mute a digital source, only an analog? Oy...I don't want to purchase a mixer just for this...does anyone else have this problem and know another work around?

[Unclenny]

I use a cheap Behringer product that was kicking around for this duty......very cheap.

[MattmaN]

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.

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

.

True, but let's face it the ath-m50's are not the best example of a flat frequency response.

Check out the Grado sr60.

Much more linear, and since the room does not come into play, the low end must have that upward tilt to give a more realistic bass response.

Another factor is your room is probably much less linear that your speakers.
Combine the two, and what you really hear may well be less linear that those Audio technia's.

I'm not suggesting doing all your mixing on cans, but for those in less that perfect rooms, headphones can be an important factor in tightening up a mix.

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

I'm running an AT4033 through a RNP into Mbox1 inserts, and I'm getting pretty much the same quality that I got in the studio with a Neumann U87 into an Avalon pre and Apogee converter. I was thinking of getting a separate and hopefully better converter than that in the Mbox1, but it seems to me that it would hardly make a difference, given the minimal difference in results from these two chains. Yes there is a difference, but it is one of kind rather than degree of quality. I have a good ear for recording, and I'm monitoring through good audiophile phones too.

Anyone using the same equipment want to convince me that a better converter would still be worth getting? The biggest pain about it seems to be that using the s/pdif on the Mbox would give me no way to monitor what I was recording, which seems to make it useless in the first place...

I happen to like the 4033 and it can sound better than the u87, it depends on the voice/source. You did not mention what Avalon you were using ? 737 vs 2022 is a HUGE difference in itself as well. What you are saying could very well be close if you are recording just vocal or guitar, try some drums, electric guitars and a full band mix and then report back and tell me its the same.

[Greg Curtis]

Originally Posted by MattmaN

Check out the Grado sr60.

Much more linear, and since the room does not come into play, the low end must have that upward tilt to give a more realistic bass response.

Another factor is your room is probably much less linear that your speakers.
Combine the two, and what you really hear may well be less linear that those Audio technia's.

I'm not suggesting doing all your mixing on cans, but for those in less that perfect rooms, headphones can be an important factor in tightening up a mix.

I dunno... up +5dB @80Hz and down 15dB @ 12kHz isn't anywhere near flat in my book. But it's hard to accurately measure headphone performance, so you have to take these measurements with a grain of salt. My point was to expose the OP's misguided premise that headphones are inherently more trustworthy than a good pair of monitors in a good room.

I agree that cans could be an important tool for mix fixing. And I love my AKG 701s!

(but not as much as my 1032a's)

Greg

.

[MattmaN]

Originally Posted by Greg Curtis

I dunno... up +5dB @80Hz and down 15dB @ 12kHz isn't anywhere near flat in my book. But it's hard to accurately measure headphone performance, so you have to take these measurements with a grain of salt. My point was to expose the OP's misguided premise that headphones are inherently more trustworthy than a good pair of monitors in a good room.

I agree that cans could be an important tool for mix fixing. And I love my AKG 701s!

(but not as much as my 1032a's)

Greg

.

Agreed. My point was for those in a less than suitable room.

[u b k]

just wanted to let the o.p. know that i do intend to listen to these and offer my dos centavos when i get back to manhattan next week; i've been at namm plugging my new toy but i was the one who originally requested samples so it's only fair i put my money where my mouth is.

meantime, kudos for putting the clips up!


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[u b k]

well better late than never i suppose. i make no claims as to which chain is which, these are just my observations:

the vocal in 1 is wiry and has a sibilance i don't dig, it's not harsh, just wispy and overly excited. it's an unnatural tone.

the vocal in 2 sounds great, the tone is better but it's also got more space around it. mic placement is better here, it's got some room in it and that makes for a less 'disembodied' quality.

my feelings on the guitar are similar, #2 is rounder and vibes better.

mostly, though, the performance on #2 is more engaging. you sound more relaxed, more confident, less self-conscious, everything breathes. in #1 you're a little pinched, and sound like you're in a closet.

so overall #2 is the winner for me, but truthfully if you pushed the sonics of 1 onto the performance of 2 i would still go with 2 because of the better performance. if you recorded #2 at home, you're kicking ass on all fronts, keep doing what you're doing. if #1 was at home, you need to get back into the studio, it serves your music better.


gregory scott - ubk
.