#432723 - 09/28/03 04:06 PM
Question for TED re: RME
|
edmann
Senior Member
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 314
Loc: MA
|
Offline
|
|
Hello Ted Nightenshade -
and anyone else who may want to chime in.
I have seen various posts by you re: the Nuendo/RME AD converters. It seemed to me that at first you liked the unit - and then grew to dislike it - perhaps because of differences in quality w/regard to SRC.
Would you care to elaborate on that? Just curious.
I need new converters badly. Tuff decision. Life was simple when everything went thru an Apogee AD1000... but I have not found the 24 bit solution yet.
thanks very much!
Ed Mann
_________________________
Ed Mann
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#432724 - 09/28/03 04:48 PM
Re: Question for TED re: RME
|
Tedly Nightshade
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 4649
Loc: applegate,OR,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
What I found using the RME ADI-8 DS, was that I could get results at 96k that had a lot of dimension and detail. I'm a big fan of dimension and fine detail, so I was thrilled at first. After a while, on comparing my best results to examples of what I wanted to achieve, I realized that yes, there was dimension and detail when I recorded at 96k, but the overall sound was rather thin. I wanted something more full bodied, that sounded more like the instruments and voices I was recording.
The RME converters did not sound good at 44.1 or 48- specifically, the high frequencies were screwed up. I thought that was because 96k sounded much better than 44.1/48, in general- what I learned, from conversations with Nika and others: this problem with 44.1/48 had to do with cheap and poor ways of implementing the filters, and was only a problem with poorly designed converters. Good quality converters sound very good at the 44.1 sampling rate.
I was able to demo a RADAR and found out that yes, the converters sounded much better at 44.1 than the RME converters did at 96! Now I'm using a Cranesong HEDD, and the converters sound really good at 44.1.
When you consider how much it costs to work at 96 instead of 44.1, in terms of equipment, software, data storage, track counts, etc., it is a false economy to buy less expensive converters that only sound right at 96. Converters that sound good at 44.1 allow you to work at 44.1 the whole time, and avoid any sample rate conversion.
I thought I might be able to work around the RME only sounding good at 96 by means of sample rate conversion, but I found that the SRC really damaged the sound, and that to do it well required the kind of very expensive specialized gear that only some of the better mastering engineers can afford to buy- for instance the dB Technologies sample rate converter.
Now I am working primarily in with analog tape, and have basically given up on computer recording- some people can get great results with the computer, but I have not been able to and am reluctant to invest more in that direction. I use the Cranesong HEDD for mixdown, and also for tracking ambient sounds and nature sounds where the level is very low and the analog tape hiss is unworkable for that reason. Usually I work at 44.1, which sounds great, but some mastering engineers, for instance Bob Katz, prefer to receive mixes at 96, for reasons of high resolution processing. So I will be doing some mixes to 96, even though I actually prefer the sound of 44.1 for most things, using the HEDD.
I hope this helps you make sense of my RME saga! I certainly have learned a lot, and am grateful to all those on these forums who have helped me learn to make better decisions about how to best pursue this craft that I just do not seem to be able to leave alone.
One thing I will say, making the most of computer recording with the RME converters taught me to be extremely conscious and careful with mic technique, mic placement, and getting the sounds right in the room to begin with. Those hard-won skills have made my recordings with tape and with better converters much better than they would have been without having to overcome so many obstacles.
_________________________
A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!
"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#432725 - 09/28/03 10:28 PM
Re: Question for TED re: RME
|
edmann
Senior Member
Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 314
Loc: MA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Thanks Ted -
I get what you are saying and I have had a similar experience in that my Apogee AD1000 44.1/16 bit recordings sound better than my (recently unloaded box) 96k 24 bit recordings.
One difference I think re: SR is that for those working in a DAW and doing any DSP the higher sample rates are beneficial - but it requires careful engineering. And then if it is a Digital Bounce - which hopefully it will soon not be - the higher SR's may make more sense.
I think that is a whole nother thread.
Anyway thanks for your posts Ted and I understand what you are saying re: RME.
Ed
_________________________
Ed Mann
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#432726 - 09/29/03 02:08 PM
Re: Question for TED re: RME
|
Tedly Nightshade
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/03/02
Posts: 4649
Loc: applegate,OR,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Cool, Ed.
You may be interested in what Ethan Winer has to say about 16 bit and 24 bit. He has a bunch of interesting stuff on his website- find a post of his somewhere and you'll get the link.
24 bit may be better for digital processing, but 16 bit can sound just as good or better sometimes.
Good luck with the SRC!
_________________________
A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!
"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
