SPDIF or analog???

Just curious what you cats preference is when it comes to recording audio into your piece.....and why. I myself believe in utilizing good A/D conversion from the source to the MPC so I ususally go SPDIF in. If the application is less critical, I rough it with the analog ins. However, I do have an Apogee Rosetta in my audio chain, so there is some benefit to my particular method when going SPDIF. Good audio conversion is very underrated considering we are talking about digital audio recording and tech., but anyway, what's the word???

L. Tombstone wrote: I myself believe in utilizing good A/D conversion from the source to the MPC so I ususally go SPDIF in.

Same thoughts here when the situation allows or requires.

Like... From my CDPLAYER directly into the MPC3000 via SPDIF.

Or.

My Apogee AD8000SE into the MPC3000 via SPDIF. Where the AD8000SE is fed from a mic-pre or the bus outputs of the mixer.

L. Tombstone wrote:If the application is less critical, I rough it with the analog ins.

Don't under estimate the performance of an MPC3000 A/D stage. The A/D circuitry inside the beast is top class for it's type. By no means is it Apogee, but by no means is it "rough" either.

L. Tombstone wrote: However, I do have an Apogee Rosetta in my audio chain, so there is some benefit to my particular method when going SPDIF.

I agree. Sonic disruptors from the Apogee class of weapons are never to be under estimated.

Whilst the MPC3000 ( and many other samplers ) A/D stages are not up to the quality of certain mega dollar external units it doesn't mean that they are bad either.

If you have a high spec Apogee, Lucid, Benchmark or what ever type of A/D convertor box then you would be silly not to take advantage of the sonic performance increase that it would provide your MPC3000 ( or other sampler ) with.

L. Tombstone wrote: Good audio conversion is very underrated considering we are talking about digital audio recording and tech., but anyway, what's the word???

In my situation I take advantage of what ever hi-spec stuff is within reach.

Rohan.

Yeah, I've been tryin to confirm a few suspicions I had about the 2000 vs. 3000, stand-alone, etc. Been kinda elusive gettin comprehensive information on this forum. Anyway, you rockin a AD8000 huh? If you get a chance to get back I'd be curious to know the sonic quality of that piece. Yeah, I got the old Rosetta. I've been thinkin about buyin a Rosetta 200, but I think the Big Ben might be a better investment. Although I really do need a good D/A so I can work on avoiding the Protools summing bus. You up on jitter rate an all that?? With the amount of digital gear being rocked, it surprises me that digital converters are not taken more serious. But hey, if cats ain't interested, I'll keep that sh** under wraps.

I'd love to hear more about it. I'm pretty much recording analog and summing in nuendo, but once my rack gets here and I hook up the patchbays a few external summing experiemnts might be good.

School me on Jitter rates kid!

some one school me on summing !!!

Skala Skala!!

What up man!

Summing is just combining all the tracks of a multitrack mix. Most pro's with PT have D/A converters and take the separate tracks out, or stems (basically subgroups) out to an analog board (SSL in most pro cases) and let the board do all the actual mixing / summing of the audio. The math involved is very complex and can really sound like shyt, like PT does, hence the route the pros use. Summing is better on other platforms, but can't compete with analog. They even make these passive summing boxes where you just plug in multiple sources and get a stereo out for people who don't need the board for anything else or can't afford them.

Summing in higher resoluton helps, but there is no higher resolution than analog.

ELMACACO:
I'll break this down for you as much as possible cause I ain't totally an expert. So we'll call it my 2 cents vs. any kind of schooling. But here goes. Now we all know that samplers and computer interfaces have A/D's and D/A's that convert the audio from the source and then of course back out the machine. As it goes, most of the converters on the machines that come as is are so so. Some add a perceived 'warmth' or 'punch' but it's really just a by-product of how that converter processes the signal, etc. Like the infamous sound you get from a 12-bit SP1200 or MPC60 or 60II(which is great for kicks).

Anyway, if you want to preserve the quality of the audio of the source it is good to use some sort of external converter. I myself use an Apogee Rosetta (the old one not the 200). I basically go from my turntable mixer to the converter and then SPDIF in on the 3000. So I am boosting the quality of the digital signal by bypassing the 3000's A/D. This is only so good though because the jitter rate of the Rosetta as-is is only so good. How it works is the more stable the jitter rate, the better resolution you get from your digital sound. Now I agree up to a point that it doesn't matter. Like with drums, since the actual duration of time doesn't normally exceed one actual second, it goes by so fast it doesn't matter. Plus you can layer and fatten and all that after-the-fact. But, with vocal recording, long samples (especially in stereo), or recorded live instruments jitter rate is very important.

Now there's actually better converters than the Apogee stuff. Lavry and Weiss make much better converters but to the tune of $3,500 to $5,000 per channel either A/D or D/A. That's a pricy stereo pair, so I roll with Apogee. I look to improve the jitter rate of my setup my copping the Apogee 'Big Ben'. It is a digital clock that locks in the sample rate and keeps it as jitter free as possible. See, what most people don't take into consideration or think about is that the sample rate on stand alone samplers is not as stable as people think. It can jump from like (in 44.1K for example) from 43.8 to 44.0 to 43.6, etc. Same for all other sample rates, it's like MIDI not holding a locked in BPM, people just don't think about it. But this is one of the primary things that accounts for the actual quality of the digital audio you are generating. Basically make your rig jitter free, you'll have the best digital audio possible, and you will actually hear it!!! This is what contributes to sought after qualities like loudness, punch, etc. Good conversion providing for jitter free digital recording is very important if you're rockin digital. Look into the Big Ben and other Apogee products for more specific info, but I speak the truth. It is important to note that I as well, am an analog head, so I like the playback from the 3000 and I run my Protools mixes through a mixing board and record SPDIF to an external burner. The sound of 'bouncing to disk' from a DAW lacks a certain 'life' I like in my recordings. I think balance is an important approach to incorporating the best both digital and analog have to offer.

elmacaco wrote:Skala Skala!!

What up man!

Summing is just combining all the tracks of a multitrack mix. Most pro's with PT have D/A converters and take the separate tracks out, or stems (basically subgroups) out to an analog board (SSL in most pro cases) and let the board do all the actual mixing / summing of the audio. The math involved is very complex and can really sound like shyt, like PT does, hence the route the pros use. Summing is better on other platforms, but can't compete with analog. They even make these passive summing boxes where you just plug in multiple sources and get a stereo out for people who don't need the board for anything else or can't afford them.

Summing in higher resoluton helps, but there is no higher resolution than analog.

yo thanks man.
you learn something everyday,
the funny thing, tht was my set up all along, run all signals from my maudio 8 out, into my soundcraft 16, and every one used to say damn, how does your mix sound so , punchy, cause every one i know mix in the box. all those tracks u hear was done like tht

Thanks, that did the trick.

I won't be getting any converters anytime soon, but I recognize the value of it.

Someone should put the SP converters in a box, along with a bunch of other classic sounds and make it selectable by a switch, maybe combining as well. That would be cool if the A/D conversion is really a big secret of it's sound. Would be cheaper than the apogees I bet!!

L. Tombstone wrote:Yeah, I've been tryin to confirm a few suspicions I had about the 2000 vs. 3000, stand-alone, etc. Been kinda elusive gettin comprehensive information on this forum.

Or on any other forum.
As the long since departed "Joe Meek" once said.
"If it sounds good then it probably is good".
Doesn't matter if it's one thing or another. If it's good then so be it.

L. Tombstone wrote: Anyway, you rockin a AD8000 huh? If you get a chance to get back I'd be curious to know the sonic quality of that piece. Yeah, I got the old Rosetta.

It sounds great and has many features/connectivity functions that I find of use in my work.

My criticism of the unit 48kHz limit

L. Tombstone wrote:I've been thinkin about buyin a Rosetta 200, but I think the Big Ben might be a better investment..

The BIGBEN would be a good investment if you have many pieces of gear that need to be wordclocked.

L. Tombstone wrote:Although I really do need a good D/A so I can work on avoiding the Protools summing bus. You up on jitter rate an all that??.

Yes ... Jitter... the killer.

A perceived "bad" A/D or D/A conversion stage can often be improved by being re-clocked from a lower jitter clock source.

L. Tombstone wrote: With the amount of digital gear being rocked, it surprises me that digital converters are not taken more serious. But hey, if cats ain't interested, I'll keep that sh** under wraps.

I guess for a lot of folks the reality of spending $$$ - $$$$ on purchasing a device that makes, in some cases a "perceived minimal improvement to the over all scheme of things" is reason enough to lower the interest level.

Rohan.

without meaning to hijack the thread maybe you could advise me on my current technique...

eqp: Mackie 1604 VLZPro
Motu 828 Mk2

Currently I track into Digital performer, and add a few effects and necessary compression, gating etc. Then when I come to mix down I send subgroups (which I now know are called "stems" -cheers ) out of the motu back to my mackie for "mixing" or summing. The stereo result then goes back into motu.

The mix is then, as best I can, mastered.

I like the way my mixes are sounding doing things this way rather than summing inside the mac (and it's a lot more fun). But my question is really about the multiple layers of converting that this entails. I know a stereo A/D stage like an apogee might be "better", but is there inherently anything wrong with doing it the way I currently do...?

What are your thoughts?

im lost....

Nothing inherently wrong with your technique Arctec, You gain the analog summing, the only concern would be added noise from the additional D/A A/D conversion, but you get better mixing, so you have more to gain. Trust your ears.

All this aversion to additional A/D D/A conversion is a bit geeky to me, sometimes it happens, but it is rarely as bad as people think it is, when you think of all the bouncing someone does on a 4 track cassette recorder, now that's noise!

Everything I've hear coming only from a computer with one D/A converion sounds very sterile to me.

Yeah - I have to not be so sucked in by all the "geekiness" I guess. I do trust my ears though - I definately prefer the mixes I've done this way... they somehow seem to have more depth compared to my "once in, stay in the computer mixes"

subjective, of course, but like I said-it's also way more fun

I gotta try that, my computer only has 4 outs though.