|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 20, 2015 10:22:41 GMT -6
Until somebody told me. That's an article I got in my inbox from The Recording Revolution. Wow, I couldn't disagree more. While I do think that the mic is 80% of the sound on the AD side, converters most certainly make a difference. I've heard it myself. This is not a subjective thing. Will using an mbox stop you from making a good record? Of course not - talent is talent - but I would argue that it would e sounded better if you had used better conversion. DA's absolutely sound different. Can you mix a record with a cheap DA? Sure - but it would have been a hundred less trips to the car with better DA.
Anyway, here's the article.
Nothing irritates me more in the audio world than seeing impressionable home studio owners being led down pointless rabbit trails in the name of “getting better recordings.”
There is a gospel of “better gear” being preached day and night on popular internet forums and all around the inter-webs that not only doesn’t help get people the results their after, it leaves them more confused and disenchanted than ever.
Why are we obsessed with converters?! If can’t tell by now, the title of this email is chock full of sarcasm.
But the sad thing is, this statement is being made all the time. Many of you even have been “convinced” by someone online that your converters are bad and you need to upgrade.
You might not have even known what converters were, let alone that the ones you already own in your audio interface aren’t “good enough” to do serious audio work.
I’ve read all the articles, watched all the video interviews, and of course taken part in many internet debates about the “blanket theory.”
You might know what I’m referring to.
People will say something like, “Once I upgraded to [insert more expensive converters here] I immediately noticed a difference in the sound. It was like someone had pulled a blanket off of my speakers!”
You know what else sounds like a blanket coming off of your speakers?
A high shelf boost of 2db on the mix buss.
Back in the days when Pro Tools users had to have Pro Tools hardware connected at all times, there were only a handful of audio interfaces I could use.
After upgrading from the original 2 channel Mbox to the multichannel 002 Rack interface, I was set.
I could now record full bands and drum kits. And that’s exactly what I did.
I had that thing for 7 years and used it on countless albums and live recordings.
Well, it became a well known “fact” that the converters in the 002 were “awful” and “unusable.”
That was news to me.
In fact, I was making a decent living in my studio and my portable rig helping people make great recordings, all with the 002 as the centerpiece of my rig.
It wasn’t until people told me that the 002 converters weren’t good enough that I ever even noticed.
I became paranoid instantly.
Just like anybody else I want my recordings to sound their absolute best, so of course I immediately began looking for ways to “upgrade” my converters.
But I could never justify the cost of either a mod, or an ADAT converter of some kind. It just seemed like a total waste.
So instead I decided to keep my money in my wallet and put all my focus on something that would actually improve sound quality: improving myself.
I worked on mic placement, gain staging, better arranging, strategic use of EQ and compression, and constant referencing of pro mixes.
All of these things have made major improvements in the final result of my recordings and mixes.
No new gear necessary.
And that’s what I’m getting at people. I have no doubt that audio to digital conversion technology gets better and better as the years go on.
Shoot, we used to only have 16 bit converters and people were still making Grammy award winning records on them (Frank Filipetti and James Taylor for example).
That’s the thing. Technology keeps getting better, but that has no bearing on your ability to make pro sounding tracks on your current gear.
The hard truth is, we all are desperately looking for an excuse to spend money on gear.
That’s what drives all of this in the end. The converters issue is no different from the new preamp, microphone, or plugin issue.
We’d rather buy our way to better recordings than practice our way.
The latter is far more effective and cost efficient my friends.
------
Thanks again for being a subscriber! Here's to making better music now!
Graham Cochrane TheRecordingRevolution.com Copyright © 2015 The Recording Revolution, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you signed up at TheRecordingRevolution.com and downloaded my free Insiders Kit.
Our mailing address is: The Recording Revolution 1936 Bruce B Downs Blvd #311Wesley Chapel, FL 33543
Add us to your address book
unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 20, 2015 11:16:21 GMT -6
Yeah. I did my first converter upgrade in 8 years last summer, it was not subtle. Heck, 16 bit ADAT's didn't keep me from making releasable records way back when, but I sure don't want to go back. The new converter here has a noise floor that goes down so much further than I've ever had access to before, blackest of black. I can hear obviously when I need to move a mic a centimeter whereas I could not necessarily make that call with the previous. The noise floor of all the other equipment defines the bottom, which was not previously true. Mixing is easier, with less guesswork.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 20, 2015 11:20:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 20, 2015 11:21:12 GMT -6
Thanks! Glad to be here.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Apr 20, 2015 14:26:34 GMT -6
^^^^ great post.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Apr 20, 2015 14:42:37 GMT -6
I picture John reading Graham's article and when he gets to the part about gear and online forums, "Killing Me Softly" plays in John's head.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,953
|
Post by ericn on Apr 20, 2015 15:17:15 GMT -6
I have never had a moment where changing the convert was an eye opening none ment except for the first time I plugged an early Wadia in place of the Conversion built into my first generation Toshiba CD player. That was the first instance of me hearing a quality DA. I do think I noticed an improvement the first time I demoed a UA2192, but I also remember the transformer color just not fitting on some things. Great conversion is a must, but honestly the differeance between a Lavry mastering converter and a first gen ADAT is less than that between an API 312 and a Broadhurst Gardens! The other thing is when talking Conversion we have to separate the Digital Side from the Analogue side and Time and Time again we find the analogue section and its power supply to be sub par! I have used The Panasonic/ Ramsas that were once a favorite of Doug Sax for close to 6 years, and honestly with 32 ch of I/O I have no real desire to re enter the world of Conversion. I can see some finding the a sudden change in their monitoring system as a wow moment, only to find it less earth shattering in the long run. This is where we have to look at ego how many of us rush to tell the world of our new discovery, and yet have the guts to admit we fell for the newness not the reality?
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Apr 20, 2015 16:25:04 GMT -6
Kids.
Bedroom prooshas.
Converters don't matter if you just want a "good sound".....they matter a heap lot if you want "input to sound like output". But, he like so many of his generation are all about plug ins and digitally manipulating everything. Multiband this....notch filter automate that....widen this unnaturally....tune and time stretch that....not my bag.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 20, 2015 16:47:55 GMT -6
I picture John reading Graham's article and when he gets to the part about gear and online forums, "Killing Me Softly" plays in John's head. Yeah he's taking money out of my hand...wait...I don't make anything doing this...
|
|
|
Post by ben on Apr 20, 2015 16:48:33 GMT -6
Yeah. I did my first converter upgrade in 8 years last summer, it was not subtle. Heck, 16 bit ADAT's didn't keep me from making releasable records way back when, but I sure don't want to go back. Alanis Morisette, Jagged Little Pill was recorded on ADAT. XT's I believe.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 20, 2015 17:05:55 GMT -6
I do rember my upgrade from a cheap Tascam US 122 interface to RME. That was audible in DA and AD..... In the meantime I tested more expensive ones special for printing the mix, but I was not able to justify to pay 1200 Euro for a single stage of AD. I learned, as an so called hobyist, that the most important thing is what goes in first. The biggest audible diffrence, if someone wants to worry about gear, was my first channel strip by SPL..... On the other
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 20, 2015 17:33:58 GMT -6
Of course the analog side is huge. Plenty of ancient high quality converters still sound much better than modern cheepo's.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 20, 2015 17:51:22 GMT -6
I am not a native speaker but I think the main message in the article is, that we all should not worry too much about gear..... Sometimes I do feel the way companies make marketing today as a true pain, it gets anoying. Gear has to accomplish a prupose..... If I read GS today I do get the feeling that some users have a love affair with thier latest buy.... Its the same with the guitar players, every year I have some students who buy gear instead of practicing....
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Apr 20, 2015 17:59:50 GMT -6
i think it's important not to confuse composition with capture.
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Apr 20, 2015 18:11:45 GMT -6
It's hard for anyone with a keen ear to accept the "converters don't matter" thing. If they have ever heard a great converter. My guess is that some who write on internet forums about converters haven't. Anyway, I like John believe that other things matter more than the converter used, but I also liken converters to the foundation of a house. When we look at a big fine home, few would take time to notice the foundation. We see the big nice windows and doors, the siding, shingles etc, but pay little attention to whats underneath holding up the whole house. Conversion is like that foundation. If it's the good stuff, it will carry a production all the way to the end handling as much weight as we choose to put on it. Weaker conversion may start to show cracks here and there as we build on top of it.
It's true that the difference is slight sometimes A/Bing converters one track at a time, but start stacking the bricks and that's when you really know what you've got.
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Apr 20, 2015 18:38:28 GMT -6
I do rember my upgrade from a cheap Tascam US 122 interface to RME. That was audible in DA and AD..... In the meantime I tested more expensive ones special for printing the mix, but I was not able to justify to pay 1200 Euro for a single stage of AD. I learned, as an so called hobyist, that the most important thing is what goes in first. The biggest audible diffrence, if someone wants to worry about gear, was my first channel strip by SPL..... On the other I went from a Tascam US 1641 to an RME Fireface UC and I agree that there was a large difference. Haven't upgraded converters since, I've been very happy with the RME and added outboard gear. I used to be one of those people who thought the U87 was hyped - until I didn't have access to one anymore. I really took that mic for granted. Would love to own one now.
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Apr 20, 2015 18:49:36 GMT -6
The only key things that stick out to me really with converters are headroom and tone after tracking...along with the stereo image height (center image), depth, and width.
When I first heard the Lynx Hilo recently the DA width and height upon playbacks really impressed me for example.
But these things are wars of inches in the long run and there are a ton of quality converter designs out there.
Great mics are of course crucial...but I also feel personally that all DAW's contribute a unique sound just like brands of tape; since Everything in your chain interacts to create the end result. Sometimes the subtleties matter...sometimes not so much. There are badly designed cheap converters I wouldn't use unless I had no other option though.
Decent AD will do you fine when tracking...there's a few different flavors, but ultimately I dug Burl the best (just wish I could afford it.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 18:59:50 GMT -6
On the DA side, i find the statements of the article a bit strange. How could listening to an inferior output audio chain not be an issue? On the input chain, it might be discussable, that you can manage to sculpture sound on the analogue side while listening thru your ADCs until you are happy. But definitely harder. You cannot record clean contured bass transients or complex mids or glass clean highs if your ADC simply doesn't get them right. For me, the difference between say a Behringer ADA8000 and the Swissonics or Mytek or Kronauer i used is *not* galaxies away. And i am sure there were top 40 productions made with the cheap Behringer converters. Nothing wrong with that. But well, many of you guys have excellent mics and pres, record acoustic tracks, and why the hell shouldn't one get the best i.e. truest conversion you can get for the budget you have... And on the monitoring DAC i don't get the message "converters are not important" at all. You can't mix what you can't hear, and for my taste, money spent in monitoring is money well spent, converters, amps and speakers. I use "vintage" i.e. old Klein&Hummels 3-way nearfielders most of the time, and switch to esoteric amp and mains for the last control, and the difference from the old Swissonics converters to the new below 200 bucks (excl. tax and transportation) RM1794 is huge already on the K&H ones. And the K&Hs are revealing. damn boring flat speakers. If something sounds ok, it is good, if it has a problem, you hear it. IF your converter is not cheating. Didn't know the previous converters cheated so much until i heard it. And it is not snobby or a money thing. The converter was dead cheap in comparison to what you can pay for a monitoring DAC. And while a bit more expensive the Superbeast was still a very, very good bang for the buck. And now, the Motus can get you todays top conversion quality for around 40 or 50 bucks per channel and gets you the interface for these as well. Not expensive at all for pro audio gear IMO. Or get a cheap evaluation board for the TI pcm4222 and get input conversion quality that is definitely true enough for anything incl. mastering, may be 200-250 bucks for parts and everything, plus a bit soldering and case building action..... To me, this is not about hyping single manufacturers or high priced stuff, but just getting best i.e. truest conversion at a given budget. And there are some amazing things out there that are NOT expensive and can improve things alot. It may not be the limiting factor in your productions. But for me, it makes a huge difference. Especially in the monitoring chain. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 20, 2015 19:21:16 GMT -6
It's hard for anyone with a keen ear to accept the "converters don't matter" thing. If they have ever heard a great converter. My guess is that some who write on internet forums about converters haven't. Anyway, I like John believe that other things matter more than the converter used, but I also liken converters to the foundation of a house. When we look at a big fine home, few would take time to notice the foundation. We see the big nice windows and doors, the siding, shingles etc, but pay little attention to whats underneath holding up the whole house. Conversion is like that foundation. If it's the good stuff, it will carry a production all the way to the end handling as much weight as we choose to put on it. Weaker conversion may start to show cracks here and there as we build on top of it. It's true that the difference is slight sometimes A/Bing converters one track at a time, but start stacking the bricks and that's when you really know what you've got. I am just saying, and said in the past on GS as well, that you do not have to buy very expensive converters to get your house build. RME is a good example for a company which did research how to build good conversion but still payable for the averege joe. We have good gear today, and much more comfort in HR than 30 years ago..... But do we hear more great songs..... I think NO.... I agree as a muscian with the writer in the way that all musicians should worry more about other topics than the gear. "Everybody can make a professional record on a laptop today". This way of thinking puts preassure on composers, and is responsible for the closing of famous recording studios. And its not true, there are many things to learn before you know how to make a record. I had to learn it the hard way....mistakes.... just my rant on the topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 19:32:26 GMT -6
This said, i have the impression, that todays conversion quality is hard to beat in future. The pcm4222, the pcm1794a or the ESS Sabre chips sound damn fine and have excellent specs for anything audio. And the TI chips are not *that* new. My older converters are around 10 yrs or older. So it was a huge difference to me. But the point "technology will always produce better and better specs" may have reached a reasonable end now. If you can't hear improvement, specs are meaningless. Nowadays actual conversion quality is as good as it gets IMO...
|
|
|
Post by watchtower on Apr 20, 2015 19:36:22 GMT -6
I think everybody should buy the best they can afford, and then just make some awesome music, and stop worrying about it. As has been stated, you can make great sounding stuff with cheap gear, and it's sort of cool to make do with what you have and to constantly improve your skills despite any gear limitations. There may be differences between converters, but moving the mic an inch will have an even bigger effect (on the AD side) on what you're capturing than which converter you use (that was the best point of the article, IMO). The DA side is very important, as you need to hear what's going on to make the best choices possible, but even so, I think even relatively cheap converter will be good enough to let you do that. But of course, buy the best you can afford, because that will make your life easier, and likely raise the bar of the quality you can achieve.
My old audio professor once said (regarding converter chips and analog noise, etc.): "Even God doesn't get 24-bit" haha
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 20, 2015 19:43:24 GMT -6
Do we get better sound quality than 40 years ago? No we don't. The gear today is not better than back then, all the most coveted pieces are from back then, u can have everything I own in exchange for Wally Heiders studio 8)
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 20, 2015 19:47:08 GMT -6
I think all the records I love have been made more than 25 years ago. So if it does not come close to the sound I hear on them..... I would not blame my 10 year old converters.....
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 20, 2015 19:49:34 GMT -6
Do we get better sound quality than 40 years ago? No we don't. The gear today is not better than back then, all the most coveted pieces are from back then, u can have everything I own in exchange for Wally Heiders studio 8) I still can hear great records made today....? Can you elaborate this to me?
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 20, 2015 19:57:15 GMT -6
Do we get better sound quality than 40 years ago? No we don't. The gear today is not better than back then, all the most coveted pieces are from back then, u can have everything I own in exchange for Wally Heiders studio 8) I still can hear great records made today....? Can you elaborate this to me? Most of the great sounding records coming out today are made on that 40+ year old gear, is my point, there is a brutal edge to an awful lot of today's releases.
|
|