Interfaces

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mulletchuck

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
1,132
Location
Midwood, Brooklyn, NYC
Howdy folks.    I haven't built anything yet, but am hoping to be able to soon.  In the meantime, I am wondering what kind of interfaces you guys use alongside your analog gear to get it in the box.      I use a MOTU Traveler.   

i saw someone post a pic of their studio somewhere, and they had M_Audio MX4's, an MBox, and an Avalon 737.  I couldn't stop laughing at how backwards that looked.  super expensive preamp with ultra cheap speakers and interface...
 
Insert Quote
I have no magic word.

please
edit relavant:
sm57 into 1/2 DLA2A w A10 & A24 into macbook soundcard with custom fxlr to 1/8" cord

edit edit
"person with dukes up" is only Greg 'The Hammer' Valentine
 
George Carlin used to wear faded Hawaiian shirts, worn out sandals, and a $30,000 Rolex.  He also only washed his hands in the bathroom when he got shit on them (once or twice a week).
 
Chuck Norris doesn't need audio interfaces. All he has to do is stare at the computer and the song is suddenly done.

The relevant bit:

I'm in-between interfaces at the moment, as I've had problems with both an Emu 1212 and an Echo MiaMIDI. I'm looking to Firewire interfaces, with my most serious look at the TC Electronic Impact Twin.
 
I use a digi002 rack with prism orpheus. 002 is basically just an interface for protools...

the drivers on the orpheus suck a little. on the other hand, clocking the 002 to the orpheus sucks more than the orpheus drivers.


sounds pretty darn good though.
 
not that much g7, gssl, pultec, 1176 mainly. it's a small shop, mainly production and vocal tracking.
 
I use an RME Fireface 800, it's a decent "mid priced" unit and works very well.
I would have to spend 6 x what it cost to hear any improvement and that's not where my work is at.

I get into that via SSL 9K / Green pre for mics and just Balanced Behringer rack for hardware keyboards.

I use a small Mackie desk just for monitoring and I can patch into the RME with an 1176 / Pico comp / GSSL or D-AOC

It's much more simplified that what I used to run but I'm very happy with the results.

Marty.
 
I run Metric Halo ULN2 and 2882s - so far listening tests with M-Audio, Motu and Apogee, so far nothing better
wrt soundfield and definition. Halo are some of the few guys who actually hack out their proprietary engine
in assembly and end up with some pretty solid gear that you just plug in and stop worrying about converters.
Even clocked them to Antelope, doesn't make a difference because the internal clock is super. ULN8
supposedly kicks the bajesus out of most of what's out there, but I've only seen the proto.

What I had trouble with though was getting a 4-box cascade to work with my (1st gen) Macpro - real biatch that
was (is) but supposedly it isn't normal - puzzled the heck out of the Halo guys themselves.
 
I would soon take awsome analog + standard converters over standard analog and awsome converters.

You can't polish a turd.

Also  - think of the converters that some of your favourite 80's and 90's albums were recorded on. By today's standards, they are more or less standard.
What makes them sound so good is the front end analog (and the good mixing and mastering).

/R
 
Rochey said:
I would soon take awsome analog + standard converters over standard analog and awsome converters.

You can't polish a turd.

Also  - think of the converters that some of your favourite 80's and 90's albums were recorded on. By today's standards, they are more or less standard.
What makes them sound so good is the front end analog (and the good mixing and mastering).

/R

Good point - even today's "project" stuff sounds fantastic when you record well into them in the first place.
MM
 
I have a friend of mine that recorded an amazing acoustic album using a focusrite saffire box

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep05/images/saffire1header.l.jpg

oh, and linky for the artist...
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/simonmread
(By the way, it really is worth buying the album... it's really relaxing music)
 
Rochey said:
Also  - think of the converters that some of your favourite 80's and 90's albums were recorded on. By today's standards, they are more or less standard.
What makes them sound so good is the front end analog (and the good mixing and mastering).

/R

Go back a bit.

Ry Cooder's Bop Till You Drop was released in 1979. The CD (I also have the vinyl) cover states that it was recorded on 3M multitrack digital recorder. Great sound.
 
Rochey said:
You can't polish a turd.


/R

Yes you can but it is real messy and the end result is a polished turd...


As far as converters go,  Back in the day I  did a lot of sessions on the Sony 3348 and 3348 HR systems, Those converters sounded real good to me. As for now,I think one of the top reasons some converters sound fair superior is their analog I/O design before and after the conversion to digital.  I think that is more important when using converters that are clocked with the internal word clock after all their are really not that many converter chips on the market.
 
mulletchuck said:
I'm not trying to turn this into gearslutz by any means.    Merely tried to point out that garbage converters + awesome analog gear = awesome garbage sound.

You raise a point we are all all-too-familiar with. That is, when upgrading one component of your signal chain, to what extent are other components limiting the potential performance. Furthermore, when is it worth upgrading another component to realize the full potential of another. Weakest link to weakest link.

It is an exercise in infinite regress.

Step 1. If I get a better microphone do I need a better preamp?

Step 2. If I get a better preamp do I need a better compressor, equalizer, mixer, monitors, room treatments, headphones, and car stereo?
 
pucho812 said:
I think one of the top reasons some converters sound fair superior is their analog I/O design before and after the conversion to digital. 


Exactly true I believe!

Why is it so many people seem to miss this point?
 
deuce42 said:
pucho812 said:
I think one of the top reasons some converters sound fair superior is their analog I/O design before and after the conversion to digital. 


Exactly true I believe!

Why is it so many people seem to miss this point?


because features and price point is what the common user is looking for. They usually will buy more product. this is who most manufactures have to cater too. IMO

most buying public are happy with good enough when it comes to audio...


I have been to the converter shoot outs before, to be honest there was never a moment of ewww that one sounds like shit. it was more of they all sound different and they all have their pro and cons. But what was funny is in a room full of audio engineers, not one person really talked sound they all talked features like sample rate and number of I/O.


I know a few people around here have the SSL alpha link and possible delta link. Care to comment on the alpha link... I like the 24 I/O in a 2 unit space.... now just need to see how that interfaces with the delta link  for pro tools. Maybe a trip to SSL is in order.





 

Latest posts

Back
Top