• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

anyone here use a digital mixer?

Isosceles_CAT

TRIBE Promoter
This whole thing is starting to remind me of the mhz myth.

A high end 16/44 sampling device will produce far better results than a cheap 24/96 device. The quality of the converters has a huge impact. There are definitly advantages to larger sample width/res, but lets try to keep things in perspective.

ALSO: Most people listen to music in MP3 format.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Deus
I'm not talking about you hearing the difference in your own music, I'm talking about 99 percent of the people who will listen to your track. They don't care if it is 16bit 44kHz or a gigabit and a zillion kHz, because it's not THAT much of a difference only to the HIGHLY trained ear. And if you're here to tell us how highly trained your ear is then that's good for you, but the overwhelming majority don't give a shit about some extra little frequencies.

I think there is defn some truth to that but should that suggest we just put out less of a product instead? Personally I think that is what perpetuates a bad thing.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Isosceles_CAT
This whole thing is starting to remind me of the mhz myth.

A high end 16/44 sampling device will produce far better results than a cheap 24/96 device. The quality of the converters has a huge impact. There are definitly advantages to larger sample width/res, but lets try to keep things in perspective.

ALSO: Most people listen to music in MP3 format.

And of course I agree with that to a point. Now both examples are hi end i know but I was listening to the new Krell SACD player and the Mark Levinson CD refrence front end. One costs 4K the Krell and the other the levinson is closer to 40K. THe Krell hands down kills the levinson on CD sound. Of course it reconverts it to 24/192Khz (not sure if thats what makes it matter) but its just a point. And yes I would rather have a nice say 16/44 system over a sound blaster hi resolution.
 

Mike Goodwin

TRIBE Member
Well I just spent about 6 hours with a yamaha 01v. So I thought I would pop in and tell ya what I think.

The thing sounds rely good. I know what a mackie sounds like and no I have not spent hours on a 4000$+ tube board.

I was listening through a pair of Beyerdynimac 911 headphones. These are headphones I have been using for many years to get my mixes right so I know very well what they sound like. And just for the record I was not listening to them cranked up from across the room. Yes believe it or not when someone spends 500$ on a pair of phones in 1995 they put them over there ears. When I get up I will take a listen to the mix on my Kef 104a/b's and see how it sounds on them.

In the end I am left with the impression that my days of mixing on Mackies and other mixers of the like are over. This board provides me with what I need to get a good mix. With 22 very able (comparing to TC triple c) compressors and two usable fx units. As well as four fully routable oust for my other fx………. As well as full lightpipe optical outs and ins (that’s 8 ins and outs) for getting things recorded right. With all this at hand there is no reason a capable engineer would not be able to produce a recording well worth listening to with this mixer.

As for me I think I have found what works for me and it is digital.
 

Mike Goodwin

TRIBE Member
Thought this was interesting.

"None of us could discern any difference between the extracted reference file and the files recorded through either the SB Live or the AWE 64 Gold. Initially I couldn't hear any difference with the CardD recording either, but Ed Dzubak did. Once he showed me what to listen for I was then able to hear it too. It was a subtle change in character of the cymbals on the jazz recording, and Ed was able to identify the CardD every time. When we auditioned The Nightfly, however, even Ed was unable to hear any difference between the extracted reference and any of the sound cards."

I will post the hole thing if people are intrested but it is 3 pages.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

why not

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Mike Goodwin
Thought this was interesting.

"None of us could discern any difference between the extracted reference file and the files recorded through either the SB Live or the AWE 64 Gold. Initially I couldn't hear any difference with the CardD recording either, but Ed Dzubak did. Once he showed me what to listen for I was then able to hear it too. It was a subtle change in character of the cymbals on the jazz recording, and Ed was able to identify the CardD every time. When we auditioned The Nightfly, however, even Ed was unable to hear any difference between the extracted reference and any of the sound cards."

I will post the hole thing if people are intrested but it is 3 pages.

how about a link?

on the subject of sound quality issues, i still believe there are very good arguements for upgrading to a better standard than CD audio.
the point about the quality of the converters is a very good one, but the reason is because of the inherent flaws and limitations of PCM. that's why people like humanjava are so excited about SACDs and DSD audio.
if you listen to the early CDs, and then listen to the same recording on vinyl, you will hear a difference. the technology has improved greatly, but a plateau seems to have been reached. 24/96 sounds better, but not that much better considering the cost and the amount of memory it needs.
a lot of sound engineers believe that the problems with CD audio are percieved on a more subliminal level - yes it sounds clean, but there's something a bit unmusical and harsh about digital audio that over time grates on the listener in subtle ways.
you might not be able to tell the difference in an A/B comparison, but you may enjoy an analogue or DSD recording more.

that's the theory at least.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by sputnik
You do realize that 3 micro seconds is 3 millionths of a second?

Let's see the same pulse, but 3 tenths of a second (100 000 x longer). And, while we're at it, why don't we use non-professional speakers in a non-sound deadend (is that a word?) room, and record the pulse with a $200 mic.

Feh!

paul

it's not all about accuracy - if you look at how PCM distorts the pulse, you'll notice that it has an echo before the actual pulse due to the filtering necessary in that kind of system. true, we probably can't hear that, but that kind of effect happening constantly on a recording is one of the reasons many people still feel a true analogue recording sounds more real, despite noise and the deadened high end that we can actually hear. if you look at pictures of what CD audio does to a high pitched square wave, the inaccuracies are even more evident, and i'll bet anybody can hear that. granted, a high pitched square wave is a pretty ugly sound, but the fact that CD audio will change it into a sine wave is pretty significant.
you have to remember that when PCM was developed, it was hard for engineers to imagine the how cheap huge amounts of memory would become. it's time for an upgrade, and i'll bet that once it happens, people will start hating how their MP3s sound.

of course, i might be wrong.
 

pkthedj

New Member
copy and paste


By Tom Jung

As higher-resolution digital audio becomes more common, the marketing claims of new converter products grow out of proportion with the actual performance. Granted, it is less of a challenge to make a 16-bit converter come closer to its theoretical maximum spec than a 20- or 24-bit converter, but as the word length increases so does the gap between implied and real performance.

In PCM recording I bit equals 6 dB of dynamic range. Where 16 bits equals 96 dB of dynamic range, 20 bits equals 120 dB, 24 bits equals 144 dB and so on. Where I start to have a problem is when the latest and greatest 24-bit (marketing bits) converter has a dynamic range slightly more than 16 bits of real performance. The actual converter chips used today may only have a dynamic range spec approaching 20 bits but there is no excuse for a so called 24 bit converter to miss the mark that grossly.

Analog limitations

There arc analog limitations here too, with the theoretical noise door and thermal noise being solid limiting factors. In the analog world we have to live with the fact that 130 dB or so of FIN (equivalent input noise) sets the bar, so to speak, on how quiet we can really make equipment plug some gain into the equation and you reduce the dynamic range at least by the amount of that gain.

It is well-known that a real 20-bit digital audio signal sounds hater or more true to its source than a 16-bit signal. This is so because more zeros and ones arc used to represent the analog source. As a matter of fact, each additional hit doubles the number of values recorded. Whereas 16 bits divide the audio spectrum into 65,536 values for a single sample, 2() bits divides the audio spectrum into 1,048,576 or 16 times that of a 16-bit setup.

I believe the biggest advantage of a 24bit converter over a 2()-bit converter is the ability to resolve noise accurately. Say what? Noise is noise. Not quite. One of the reasons the sound of analog can be more appealing to some people is that the noise has more resolution. It is not simply defined by a single bit toggling between a one and a zero. When the noise floor is represented by more bits, it starts to approach the smoothness of an analog noise door. As an example, a 24-bit converter with a noise spec of -114 dB uses the lower 5 bits or 30 dB below the noise (-1 14 to -144), to define the actual noise floor.

Even though today's 24-bit converters do not come close to the theoretical limit of 144 dB dynamic range, the "dancing" bits that actually make up and define the noise floor at least help to give us some sonic benefits.

So how does audio benefit from nice noise`? Instruments with high harmonic content sound smoother without the added edge we have all learned to hate. I've also heard this phenomenon described as "blacker blacks" or "quieter pianissimos." Redundant, huh?

Another big plus for 20- or 24-bit converters is linearity. With 16-bit converters, as you approach the LSB linearity can get pretty scary in terms of accuracy. Now, with a 24-bit converter, as we approach 16 bits linearity can be almost perfect because we are not even close to the bottom or LSB. Some people go as far so to say linearity is the most important specification with converters.

As long as we arc talking nitty-gritty audio, let's take a look at the destruction caused by poor analog design. The audio circuitry surrounding an A/D or D/A converter can be as important as the conversion process itself. Pro audio is plagued by the all-too-frequent use of some pretty crummy op-amps, with the NE5534 right up there at the top of the list.

Here is a part that measures great. is cheap (bean counters love it, but they can't hear) but does not sound very good. The best digital converter technology in the world can be seriously compromised with shoddy analog parts and design. More often than not, digital design engineers do not have the feel or passion to do premiere analog designs. And oftentimes the other way around is also the case. It is rare for a designer to possesses knowledge and talents in both arenas. 1 know of at least one and will be reporting on him and a new product right here in PAR soon.
 

Kid Epic

TRIBE Member
i currently rock a Yamaha 01v and it's great as a low cost beginner board (i paid $2600 @ Steve's with ADAT card). but after 1.5 years experienceing other studios my ears have become sensitive to the differences between Analog desks and my humble digital board. To me, the key factor in identifying my 01v's digital sound lies in the EQs. Especially in the high frequency range. you can pretty much count the 1's and 0's going by. It's EQ's are very clean, pristine, has no character (colourization), and is too "perfect" which most account for as "tinny". This isn't necessarily a bad thing as i feel it's great for the melodic Trance that i make (where the goal is to have that perfectly clean sound).

However, if you are to record through the 01v and utilize a more "analog" sounding plugin EQ (such as the UAD-1 Sony oxford eq plugin), or run your hardware through outboard analog eq you would better acheive the desired "analog" sound. This way you can get the best of both worlds (Total Mix Automation and Recall rocks!!!)

but yeah, the dead giveaway is in the EQ section...crank the highs on an Allen and Heath GS series board or old Soundcraft console , Soundtracs etc. and you'll hear the digital diff.

in a perfect world the way around this would be to purchase an analog desk that is fitted with full automation. unfortunately, these desks are in the crazy $ling $ling price range.


(p.s. Deus makes really good Trance)
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
I think Pthkdj said some really important parts, as with why not...

Of course analog is just as important of a stage for the capture of sounds if not the most important part of the chain. Yes different parts of the digital chain can also limit sound quality with bottlenecks, distortions, truncations, etc. As good as DSD is it also has some of the disadvantages of analog, including: when multi bouncing or copying unmanagable digital noise can be introduced. PCM is actually a very good technology but to achieve the same results as a DSD source you have to use 32 bit/356KHz. The advantage of PCM is of course you can munipulate it, and in theory have better sound. Of course the data rates will be absoulutly massive, and currently not much can process that. Most DSD is brought in RAW form on say a Mergings audio, or SADIE system and then converted to PCM at the above mentioned sample rate for manipulations only to be renederd back to DSD for final mastering. The problems often to with analog if not built of good quality with say bad op amps (non is better in many cases) abd bad signal paths, low rise times, odd order distortions, etc is such an important factor and why many ppl have actually moved away from the so called name brand systems. How many time have I heard ppl saying that the Delta 1010 cards sound better than full on protools rigs or something like a soundblaster running at 24/96 sounding not as good as a pyramix system running at 16/44.1.. You can even take systems like the new Protools HD system against the Delta 1010 cards. Both use KMS chips for there DACS but there is defn sonic difference.

So all this being said I have to say that all things being equal then yes the DSD to my ears has some massive advantages, even over analog. Of course the use of either technology, even CD can yield acceptable sound. Hey I just upgraded to a new SACD player and even my CD's sound better than I could have expected, but not analog or DSD good.....:D

One other note is that DSD actually holds the most promise for affordable super hi end converters. a 1 bit converter running at really high sample rates is actually easy to make and produce. YOu are almost listening to a raw stream.


Oh and I think the original point was what is more affordable for the same sound on a board? I think good analog is relatively where as a o2r I think last time I checked was close to 10G? excuse me if I am misinformed.
 

sputnik

TRIBE Member
The original post was asking for a recommendation. I have assumed that if one posts to the tribe board for this, they are a hobbyist, not a professional.

Thus, my strong recommendations for something affordable and acceptable.

I accept most of your arguments regarding sound quality and, frankly, I too am looking forward to a better sounding medium than cd's.

In the meantime, I just came across an ad for a Roland Studio Pack for US$375. This includes everything I described in my original post (Roland VM-3100 Pro mixer, RPC-1 card (identical to Delta R-Bus, which is basically the same as the Delta 1010, but uses R-Bus for I/O)).

The ad is posted in the Yahoo group: rolandstudiopack.

You can save your money and buy more gear!

Cheers,
Paul
 

Mike Richards

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by sputnik

Roland Studio Pack for US$375. This includes everything I described in my original post (Roland VM-3100 Pro mixer, RPC-1 card (identical to Delta R-Bus, which is basically the same as the Delta 1010, but uses R-Bus for I/O)).


You can save your money and buy more gear!
 

Mike Richards

TRIBE Member
Roland just introduced a crap load of VS compatible plug-ins at NAMM!! These include all the Universal Audio Plug ins and T-Rax!!
 
Top