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

[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...

[Unknown soldier]

have you listened through monitors or only the headphones?

While the mics and mic pre's are generally good quality for both chains, I'm wondering how the mbox conversion would even come close to the apogee. The original Mbox conversion is muffled, to say the least.

What sources are you using for recording? Vocals, instruments?

[RiF]

I record (home studio only) by using equipment in the same price range (M-Audio Delta, cheapo Tube Condenser Mic running through my Sountracs console's pres) and I doubt that I will hear a big difference between my Delta's (or you MBox) converters and some more expensive stuff. This has (at least) three reasons: 1. my ears are not trained enough, 3. my monitors are not good enough, 3. (this will be my main point) the Delta (and so is the MBox) is not bad at all. They are actually quite good.
Regarding your monitoring problem: Unfortunately, I never quite understood how monitoring works when recording with a channel strip or pre without using a mixing/recording-console.

[u b k]

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


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Unclenny]

I'm using MBox 1 through RME converters. The difference when I made the change was noticeable. There are ways to ahieve monitoring success.

With regard to your general premise......I've been checking out some hot tracks done through a Toft board and high end converters and the difference between that stuff and mine is.....somewhat more than noticeable.

[numberforty1]

I have listened through monitors too, but the headphones are much better so I trust them more.

I'm just doing vocals and guitar right now...what is it about the Mbox converters that makes them "muffled"?

I don't even know how to upload a mix at a high enough quality that you would even be able to tell the difference...

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by Unclenny

I'm using MBox 1 through RME converters. The difference when I made the change was noticeable. There are ways to ahieve monitoring success.

With regard to your general premise......I've been checking out some hot tracks done through a Toft board and high end converters and the difference between that stuff and mine is.....somewhat more than noticeable.

How do you achieve monitoring success with that setup?

[stuntbutt]

Originally Posted by Unclenny

.....I've been checking out some hot tracks done through a Toft board and high end converters and the difference between that stuff and mine is.....somewhat more than noticeable.

So you recorded some tracks through a Toft board and high end converters and at the same time through a lesser rig and then compared?

[Unclenny]

Originally Posted by stuntbutt

So you recorded some tracks through a Toft board and high end converters and at the same time through a lesser rig and then compared?

I wish I could say that. Not only would it make my comparison a bit more scientific but it would have been a greatly satisfying experience. I was only making a very general statement about quality components.

Originally Posted by numberforty1

How do you achieve monitoring success with that setup?

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.

[Peacock]

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...

My brother has one of the newer stand alone mixer recorder digital 24 tracks made by Tascam. He is a finger style guitarist. He recorded his last project on that thing and the only high end he used were the scheops mics he borrowed from me.

I kid you not, his sound was almost as good as we could have done in the studio recording with a higher end pre and Radar.

The cheap stuff is getting better.

Bon Iver recorded his remarkable CD with an old PTLE setup and a sm57. Its not necessarily equipment these days.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Peacock

Bon Iver recorded his remarkable CD with an old PTLE setup and a sm57.

it's remarkable for the music, but not (imo) for the sonics, which are pretty lo-fi.

i do agree that budget gear has come a long way, and much of it is quite good. the mbox, however, sounds like utter crap to me, especially the d/a.

tascam's converters, otoh, are among the best in their league. so while it's not so easy to judge a book by its cover these days, there is still a lot of bad sounding gear in budgetville.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[thenoiseflower]

Originally Posted by u b k

i do agree that budget gear has come a long way, and much of it is quite good. the mbox, however, sounds like utter crap to me, especially the d/a.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

No joke, the A/D is workable crap but the D/A is totall crap

I now use an Mbox2pro at home and I picked up a Benchmark DAC1 which is a well priced unit too. Pretty happy with the Benchmark overall, But had to make a cable for the BNC s/pdif in.

[Newcleardaze]

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...

AWESOME!!! It doesn't matter what anyone else has to say... if you love the sound you're getting, then run with it and ignore anyone who tries to tell you otherwise.
The only reason I always buy more crap is because I'm never really satisfied... I'm beginning to realize that it will never change for me.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

I don't even know how to upload a mix at a high enough quality that you would even be able to tell the difference...

then it would seem to be true that, for you, there is no need to upgrade your setup.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Soulbrother]

There's hardly any meaningful difference between low-end and high-end gear these days, and convertors are far less important than some audio geeks like to think.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by u b k

then it would seem to be true that, for you, there is no need to upgrade your setup.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

+1 on that.

If you can't TELL the difference, why would you want to upgrade?

Once you reach the level where you know there's a difference, and that it's down to a piece of gear, that's when you'll upgrade.

It may just be that the 4033 suits you better than the Neumann...if that's the case, then that would most likely mean that the fact the Mbox's conversion is not so significant. I'd be willing to bet that the AT4033-RNP-Apogee would sound significantly "better" to you than using the Mbox conversion - and that effect would be magnified if you were to significantly stack a section with harmonies etc.

I'm normally the first person to poo-poo converter improvements, but in your case (and listening through headphones too, which takes the room out of the equation) I do think there would be a significant difference, with little doubt as to which is "better" sounding.

Soulbrother - if that's what you think, then fine. I think you might change your mind if you were to use some serious "quality" gear though. I do agree that low end gear is much better than it once was.

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by u b k

then it would seem to be true that, for you, there is no need to upgrade your setup.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

Actually, that doesn't make any sense at all, because it only means I haven't bothered to look into the file attachment capabilities of this forum. If I really wanted to I could. But if it makes you feel better to think that everyone else here is a techie-newb, then go ahead and congratulate yourself all you like. I wasn't bragging about any sound I was getting, and therefore have no desire to prove it to anyone. I just want to know if other people feel the same way so that I can have a better idea of the worth of a new converter. And since half the people that have posted here more or less agree with me, I guess I'm not too far off.

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

No joke, the A/D is workable crap but the D/A is totall crap

I now use an Mbox2pro at home and I picked up a Benchmark DAC1 which is a well priced unit too. Pretty happy with the Benchmark overall, But had to make a cable for the BNC s/pdif in.

Thanks for the suggestion...let me ask though - if you think the A/D is workable then it would follow that the actual recording you get is decent as well, correct? The lousy D/A would only affect the sound you get when monitoring with the Mbox, right? Cause after I bounce it down and everything I won't be playing it back through the Mbox anymore anyway...

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

+1 on that.

If you can't TELL the difference, why would you want to upgrade?

Once you reach the level where you know there's a difference, and that it's down to a piece of gear, that's when you'll upgrade.

It may just be that the 4033 suits you better than the Neumann...if that's the case, then that would most likely mean that the fact the Mbox's conversion is not so significant. I'd be willing to bet that the AT4033-RNP-Apogee would sound significantly "better" to you than using the Mbox conversion - and that effect would be magnified if you were to significantly stack a section with harmonies etc.

I'm normally the first person to poo-poo converter improvements, but in your case (and listening through headphones too, which takes the room out of the equation) I do think there would be a significant difference, with little doubt as to which is "better" sounding.

Soulbrother - if that's what you think, then fine. I think you might change your mind if you were to use some serious "quality" gear though. I do agree that low end gear is much better than it once was.

I would only upgrade if someone could explain to me something I was missing that I hadn't thought of...your suggestion of listening to stacked harmonies, for example, is a good one - I'm going to try that next and see if there is any cumulative effect.

From what I have heard here and in my recordings, however, I don't think it will be drastic enough to warrant another $500+ purchase. I mean, I love pristine quality and exceptional technique as much as the next guy, but I also love some pretty lo-fi recordings from 35+ years ago...

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

I have listened through monitors too, but the headphones are much better so I trust them more.

I'm just doing vocals and guitar right now...what is it about the Mbox converters that makes them "muffled"?

I don't even know how to upload a mix at a high enough quality that you would even be able to tell the difference...

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.

[KEYBEEETSSS]

I'm with UBK, letz hear it #41...

[numberforty1]

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.

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?

[numberforty1]

Originally Posted by KEYBEEETSSS

I'm with UBK, letz hear it #41...

What do you people do - have competitions? I appreciate everyone's input here, but I'm not looking for more work to do for other people, geez...I don't have anything bounced down yet, next time I work on a session I'll upload two tracks, one with the high and one with the low stuff. Then I'll let you see if you can tell which is which. I'd like to hear it played back through something other than the Mbox anyway. There may still be something to find in all this, but like I said before it may require recording more tracks than I have done yet and playing them back together.

[jbsg02]

The vocals I record at my house sound better than the vocals we recorded at a $600 a day studio. The vocals from the high end studio were very harsh sounding.

[moracspace]

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?

WHATS REALLY GOING ON WITH YOUR MIX.Headphones candy coat everything.

[KEYBEEETSSS]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

What do you people do - have competitions?

U didn't know???...YEAHHHH...This is GearSlutz

[swafford]

Originally Posted by numberforty1

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 do mostly 2 channel at a time stuff. I started with the MBox1. I moved to a Metric Halo ULN and thought the combination of pres and A/D/A converters made a big difference in the quality of my sonics. It was like someone took a blanket of my recording. There was so much more there, there. The rest of the MH stuff that comes with the ULN made it that much more rewarding.

[Randall]

I know of at least 1 #1 done entirely on a digi 001.. The cheap stuff is getting better all the time... not just the cheap stuff.. digital as a whole... converter tech has taken leaps and bounds ahead in just the last couple of years it seems to me.

Of course we have one idiot around here who will argue with you till you want to slap him in the mouth that the best sounding digital rig of all time was and still is Sonic Solutions
Of course this idiot thinks that anything he has.. whether he earned it or not is the best of the best and everything else is shit. Remind you of anybody?

[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.

Originally Posted by numberforty1

And since half the people that have posted here more or less agree with me, I guess I'm not too far off.

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
.

[Randall]

Good advice UBK