You think the swirling in your music is the result of mic placement, nothing to do with your clock, right? This might be an even better test, I don't know.

Track 8 at a time as we already discussed, 2 minutes or more.
Also, I'm thinking to overdub these same tracks as a second test. The idea is to see if the clock keeps your lanes in line regardless of how many times you track. If they start to sound swirly, I guess we know the importance of clocking :)

Really> UAD makes better plug-ins than your DAW? It may be the case, I don't no. I know most people don't care for Pro Tools plug-ins and their bad clocks and converters.
UAD is a good choice because they have the PCIe cards that seem to work. You can keep adding more and more plug-in without stalling your CP. Its a great marketing system and everyone is welcome. Like adding big graphic cards to host pretty looking pictures of gear. The plugs are coded/ modeled with preset to match the pictures. Nothing like having 20 different EQ's or compressors loaded in to move or hold a db here or there. ;)

I don't subscribe to the hype or have the need to buy into the UAD formula because I have a DAW that has the basics already.
I would rather invest in better front end and conversion over plugs that consume and contribute to accumulative aliasing distortion. There is a reason your music is swirly and small sounding. All the UAD in the world will not improve this. What will improve this is better front end and a better clock for absolute certainty. I'm sure you could improve mic placement but thats not what I'm hearing in your larger track counts. I'm hearing bad clocking.

hang in there,

Cheers.

So re record the original 8 to 8 more?

try and trip up the clocking. It shouldn't miss a beat after 2 minute. You should be able to track over the exact same tone over and over punching in and out without ever loosing a sample. By running one track all the way through for a minute and then tracking 7 more in various ways, they should all null at the end of two minute.
We buy expensive converters and interfacing for the clock and stability. There are other aspects but thats the big one.

Clock equals: think of tuning an instrument. Think of your cymbals being hit and both left and right lining up exact so you hear everything vibrating in time with the clock. Smooth sweet sampling all the way through to the end. If this is dead on. Everything falls into place. This should also translate in the other nics including bleed plus headphone bleed
If it's all lining up, your mix will be huge with little effort.

Once you have a tight clock and an interface that can handle the flow you feed into yoy DAW, providing your computer is up to it and not over taxed on plug-ins, you start to hear your gear work and understand changes better. You learn really fast.

to add, All DAWs are considered equal until numbers start crunching.

Its been thought, just saying... the more CPU you require, (plug-ins and processing) the more unstable your DAW becomes. Remember, stability is not crashing, it also means clocking and the ability to keep it all in order into the billions of bits. If you have a clock that is having issues to begin with, compounded by layers of plugins and automation, including USB bus' used to transfer clock and addition use ... Have software images that are so cpu hungry and expect it all to line up at the end of the day, we need our heads examined.

The reason hybrid audio is growing and people are now leaving the plug-in craze, is because music sounds better with less clock issues. So, UAD plug-ins may sound great but they are still taxing your CP and displaying pictures that use up audio requirements. When you understand this better, and learn to make music sound better in the front end, use less digital steps in the middle, your end result is always bigger and more true to the original. The end result is less EQ needs, less compression and simply put, way more fun getting there faster and bigger.

You may think Pros are using what you are being spoon fed, but I'm not alone. The cream is rising and it doesn't involve 20 different EQs to do the simple task of notching or wide band sculpting. Its not near as complicated as its made out to me. Its business.

Acoustic musics requires a different approach.
VSTi and EM, thats a different story.

The mix with Josh was more to help show we can do a lot more using very little. And to later discuss it openly without insult. Seeing how this is evolving, I'll pass on Donny's tracks but may revisit this again down the road.
To the OP
Converters and clocking is a big part of the music chain to me. Plug-ins are the least.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.youtube…"]View: http://www.youtube…]="http://www.youtube…"]View: http://www.youtube…]

I have to ROTF over the Dangerous BAX now available. WAFJ . The best part of the BAX is the analog filters which are there to ease the conversion sampling above 20k . Converters AD capture nicely when you don't feed them all that extra stuff above 28k

Now its a plug-in ROTF! This industry is so stupid, spoon feeding the blind leading the blind, its hard to keep doing it much longer.

http://www.antelopeaudio.com/blog/critical-aspects-of-high-end-audio-ad-and-da-converters-and-master-clocks-design/

Don't quit the mix off on my account. I promise I won't say anything about anything I'd just like to hear the results. .

I don't use all of Uad plug ins.. the vog thng to me is stupid.I demoed it and passed. The last really good thing they made that I liked and bought was the room emulator. . Most of the new stuff is cool but another eq or comp when I have so many already is redundant. . I check them all put when they arrive. . And If they do something unique the others don't I consider it.

The video above is so accurate to whats happening, I'm glad its finally being exposed. Its basically what I was going to do in a mix. Expose UAD, for being pretty redundant. Questionable at least. To me its a complete facade. I can mix ITB with no worries. I hate it with a passion, but I don't need UAD to tweak a VOX, center drums, repair bleed and harsh.. Stock plugs are good enough.

Losing interest is nothing to do with you, other than you calling me arrogant, you've been fun. I've continued here because its good information for those wanting to improve. I want people to learn more about better conversion because , better sound makes mixing more fun for me. its a win win. I'm to old to be bragging. I had my day a long time ago. I'm not here to BS anyone. I'm hear to get it right and to dump the rest in the garbage.

Its takes a lot of time to try and fix crud audio captured with bad clocks, over use of plug-ins and poor gear. Which is very common to what I do all the time. I'm getting pretty burnt out on it. It really isn't a fun way to make a buck, especially when I'm really a musician who loves beautiful sounding music. The client spends all their time pluging in and killing it, I spend most of my time unpluging what they did back to salvageable. You really never do get it right and you always have people in the background thinking you tracked it too. The odd mix is fun, most of them are painful and very frustrating.

Maybe later. Donny sounds like he needs a break from this and I'm not looking for trouble lol. :ROFLMAO: kidding .

I don't believe anyone is attacking you, Chris... perhaps disagreeing with you, but I don't think that this is the same thing as "attacking".

I was merely pointing out that working on a mix and not being able to add the things that you want or that you feel the song needs is very limiting.

It's one thing to record a song where the source is organic - bass, drums, guitar... as in jazz, maybe blues or something... but things get a little different when you hear a mix in your head that involves more than just a 2-bus compression and a slight amount of EQ on each track.

As far as my idea of a "best" mix, this varies, and is dependent on the song.

Here are a few mixes that I really dig, none of which are the same style(s):

[="

[/]

[[url=http://="

[/]

[="

[/]

[[url=http://="

[/]

[[url=http://[/URL]="

[/]

well, I'm not gonna take the time needed to export and then upload all these discreet tracks in 24 bit .wav format, if no one is gonna do anything with them.

You guys decide amongst yourselves what you want to do. I'll stay out of it other than supplying the tracks. I don't have UAD-anything, so it's impossible for me to be able to compare. I'll leave that to you guys.

Let me know what you guys want to do.

FWIW, here's a mix (not really a "mix" per se') with all processing and effects removed from all tracks, buses and master. Any effect heard is because it was printed that way (as on guitars) or because it's part of the original sound (as in synth patches) There was a bit of GR on the front end going into the DAW to tame transients on things like Kick, Snare, Bass, and Vocals.

Here it is. You guys decide whether or not these tracks are enough of an acceptable standard from which to run your tests.

[MEDIA=soundcloud]donnythompson/still-see-you-stripdown-2-july-21-mp3
[[url=http://[/URL]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]

HOLY %$#%$,
These tracks are REALLY GOOD !!
I love this song.

Your original ruff mix was distorted and boomy by comparison.
This raw mix already places it into the ballpark of some of your target mixes.
In terms of drums:
My .02 is that (while I love Stealy Dan, Alan Parsons, those mixes might be a tad too dated.)
I do like "No Myth" and "Milky Way" and, if it was my choice, I would shoot for a blend between those 2. (maybe more of a slant toward "No Myth" for this particular song.)
But I think you are moving in the right direction now.

We need you to keep the reigns on this project, otherwise, (oh geez, In My Opinion) it could get out of control.

Upon further comparison between your 2 mixes.
The rest of the band was clear enough in the original ruff mix, so I was glad to hear the drums up front for inspection in this Raw mix, because, for me, that was one of the questionable areas from the ruff mix.
I believe the drums are completely workable to get close to matching the slightly retro target mix.

I forget who played what- Did you play both drums and bass? (nice work)

LOL... I know they're dated... but your post didn't specify "current"... you asked me what types of mixes I like... those posted are the ones I dig.

I'm not much of a fan for much current music, anyway... beyond the fact there are very few songs I like (there are a few now and then), I find most current mixing trends to be too bright, and at times even harsh.

The "rest of the band" was me. I played everything on the tracks except B3, synth and lead vox. I did backing vox and everything else.

Yes, exactly. That's fine. What you like is what I'm shooting for.
I suggested

Just post a commercial release or two that you're hoping to emulate

and what you posted is perfect.
There is a range there though- I usually end up shooting for a happy medium.

I don't think you would have too much trouble fine tuning what you have there.
I guess, if you post the tracks, you'll get some different points of view to compare against your next effort.

I'll do a mix. if you take the time.. I'm back on Thursday. I'll do a converter test.. Who knows,.... I might be humbled and crushed

Looks like we are back on track, sort of ;).
I can only imagine how great your music would sound if you moved into something like the Lavry Blacks, Donny. Simple yet exactly what you need. If I need it, so do you.

[[url=http://[/URL]="

[/]

"...If I need it, so do you."

LOLOL. I trust your judgement. However, at present, my bank account would have to disagree with you. ;)

I share the pain. Its something, (or similar) to shoot for, that's all.

It took me 57 years to get what I have, and a few bad months and a house full of talented kids needing more doe than I can earn to loose it.

Buy/sell, easily under a grand. ;)

Your mixes future / vocals/ drums/ guitars/ bass / would go from metallic to sweet and warm instantly.

Tracks sound good. Are those Vdrums?

Nope. Real Yamaha's, real mics. Snare is a Ludwig Black Beauty.

Nice..

The drums are nice. The recording method was not.

http://www.recording.org/index.php?threads/need-fresh-ears.57371/page-3

There is something to recording a full drum set for vibe. Individual tracks are cleaner and easier to place, but have no cross mic vibe.

I remember there was a Scorpions album that was done that way. I think Queens Of The Stone Age was done something like that as well cymbals separate from drums.

Ok so I did the 1 mic into 8 channels test played hihat for 3 mins. Samples didn't move across 8 channels, they are perfectly locked.

Selecting 4 of the 8 channels and putting them out of phaze they cancel completely the entire time.

I did and x/y of the hihat at the same time. Put the x in 1 ada and the y in the other. Both recording 8 channels at a time. Neither one has movement as far as I can see waveform wise.

The 2 mics sound different as they are different shades of the same thing, they won't phaze cancel. When switching the phaze between them they get phazy..

I did screen shots from 4 different spots... Also there's the waves.... here's the folder

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/v7l33vft9svxt/converter_test

Any other suggestions for testing converters?

The only thing I can think of Chris, is to maybe record multiple passes of the same signal/track... that is, to take a track you have recorded, and patch it back in to your device, and then record it again...and again, and again, and see what happens to the signal with each pass... beyond phasing/timing, you're also going to be listening for degradation of the signal on the whole.

I would think that most good conversion systems would probably sound the same after one or two passes...

The downside to this test is that past an additional pass or two, it isn't a "real" situation, because we usually don't record that way, unless we are re-amping or something - like sending a recorded track out through an aux, into a tube pre and back into the DAW - we generally only track a keeper part one time/one pass through the converters.

But I'm not an expert on converters. I'd wait for Bos or one of our other conversion gurus to either support or invalidate this test.

DonnyThompson, post: 417655, member: 46114 wrote: The only thing I can think of Chris, is to maybe record multiple passes of the same signal/track... that is, to take a track you have recorded, and patch it back in to your device, and then record it again...and again, and again, and see what happens to the signal with each pass... beyond phasing/timing, you're also going to be listening for degradation of the signal on the whole.

I would think that most good conversion systems would probably sound the same after one or two passes...

If this is done through a single audio interface, I can't see it being a test of the converter clock stability as the same clock is used for the D-A and A-D. What you would need to do is use two separate DAWs with no connection between them other than analog cables and then ping-pong the tracks.

My guess is that it would get pretty unpleasant after not many passes. How you would interpret the result in a useful way is a much trickier question.

I'm not sure I get the converter argument thing. The research I did years ago when I thought about upgrading led me to believe that it was all about the quality of quartz crystal running the clocking. Bob Katz did a big thing on jitter etc stating that getting a fancy word clock controller won't help because it's the crystal in your unit that will be the weak link. It will either work or it won't.

audiokid's issue with the FF800 was that it was the tracks were out of sync with them selves. I'm not sure if that's a converter issue or a daw/computer issue.
The converters don't line tracks up , the daw does.

I have a feeling it was the firewire or daw/pc that was the issue. Lag like that shouldn't be because of converters as the converter is just sending 1 channel of info. Then the daw routes it to the channels. and the pc has to record them. If they don't line up its not likely that it's the converter as it's only sending 1 signal, there's nothing for it to be out of sync with.

Could have been a driver issue integrating with the daw as well.

I'm using a pci card attached through regular firewire to a digiset. The digiset is attached to 2 Behringer ada 8000's via lightpipe.
I'm not sure if the Rme is the converter or the Behringer is.. I asume the Behringer is.

Ping-ponging tracks from 1 daw to another is something I'd never do. Not sure what that would show in results of a normal workflow. I imagine you'd get some degradation happening after a few passes.

The other thing is is that unless you quantize the crap out of everything. Tracks not exactly lining up will happen no matter what. If you overdub you aren't exactly in time with what was recorded previously to the exact sample. If you punch in you're not going to be able to punch in to the exact sample.

I dunno when I look at the converters suggested I notice that they all have preamps built in like the Lavry blacks. They are more than likely better than the Behringers.
It's hard to separate the preamp from the converter when they are built in..

I have no idea how to check jitter on a converter,..... not when you do stuff in the box. If you were doing a hybrid it would make more sense to have something that had less degradation going in and out. I don't do that so it's a non issue.

Chris Perra, post: 417680, member: 48232 wrote: I'm not sure I get the converter argument thing. The research I did years ago when I thought about upgrading led me to believe that it was all about the quality of quartz crystal running the clocking. Bob Katz did a big thing on jitter etc stating that getting a fancy word clock controller won't help because it's the crystal in your unit that will be the weak link. It will either work or it won't.

audiokid's issue with the FF800 was that it was the tracks were out of sync with them selves. I'm not sure if that's a converter issue or a daw/computer issue.
The converters don't line tracks up , the daw does.

I have a feeling it was the firewire or daw/pc that was the issue. Lag like that shouldn't be because of converters as the converter is just sending 1 channel of info. Then the daw routes it to the channels. and the pc has to record them. If they don't line up its not likely that it's the converter as it's only sending 1 signal, there's nothing for it to be out of sync with.

Could have been a driver issue integrating with the daw as well.

I'm using a pci card attached through regular firewire to a digiset. The digiset is attached to 2 Behringer ada 8000's via lightpipe.
I'm not sure if the Rme is the converter or the Behringer is.. I asume the Behringer is.

Ping-ponging tracks from 1 daw to another is something I'd never do. Not sure what that would show in results of a normal workflow. I imagine you'd get some degradation happening after a few passes.

The other thing is is that unless you quantize the crap out of everything. Tracks not exactly lining up will happen no matter what. If you overdub you aren't exactly in time with what was recorded previously to the exact sample. If you punch in you're not going to be able to punch in to the exact sample.

I dunno when I look at the converters suggested I notice that they all have preamps built in like the Lavry blacks. They are more than likely better than the Behringers.
It's hard to separate the preamp from the converter when they are built in..

I have no idea how to check jitter on a converter,..... not when you do stuff in the box. If you were doing a hybrid it would make more sense to have something that had less degradation going in and out. I don't do that so it's a non issue.

You raise a lot of good points.
My first question is, where did this test come from regarding the alignment and nulling of tracks?
I assume if it's a standard type test, then it must be that some converters have failed the test. (that's what makes it a good test right?)
So, I would need to know what brand and what models fail this test in order for us to consider it to be a valid test in the first place.
My reason for wanting to know is that I am in the market for a very cheap but reliable converter for portable use- So weeding out some undesirable brands and models would be helpful. - where's the list?

In my former life, our first converter was (this was 20 years ago BTW) the Digidesign 882. (20 bit besides) This is before we really knew anything about converters.
But when we were hooking it up and calibrating it for the first time, we discovered that the first 2 tracks were 180 out of phase. So we immediately started checking all the other channels and found them all to be perfectly in phase and nulled when expected. We then discovered that the cable going to channel 1 was wired backwards. After fixing that, all was right with the world. The reason I mention it, is because that was a pretty bad converter in terms of latency and noise. But all the tracks nulled when asked.

From there we went to the 888 then the Apogee and beyond. After that, it became apparent that if you want to be on the bleeding edge, there's always something better coming around the corner, and you're hooked in just to keep up with your competition. It is a game and your clients get caught in the middle of it.
I have the FF800. I don't use the pre's, so I can't speak for them. But the clock is well done and respected, and it balances with the rest of our equipment.
I mean a Ferrari is a very fine car, but I don't need one to get around town.

Also - as for the DAW to DAW thing. That's if your session is at 96k or better, and you need to get it back down to 44.1K - going from Daw to Daw can make a subtle improvement vs going through an onboard algorithm to do the conversion.
Yes, it introduces more noise, but the benefits are said to outweigh the negatives.
Results are said to vary depending on the source material.
As usual, it's best to at least try it if you have the ability, or if you're unhappy with your other methods of conversion.

Ok... I did an X/Y test Using 2 sets of crash cymbals as the ones I was using in my videos have a slightly more phazy sound naturally.. They are the second take of X/Y. Nothing on the tracks except for the room simulator on the room mics. I've put them here..

Hang on I just realized my ohs are backwards...
K new ones uploaded

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/no0hncfxhez1g/drum_oh_tests

I also included the original drums from the free falling video using the modified Glyn Johns method.

Chris Perra, post: 417680, member: 48232 wrote: I'm not sure I get the converter argument thing. The research I did years ago when I thought about upgrading led me to believe that it was all about the quality of quartz crystal running the clocking. Bob Katz did a big thing on jitter etc stating that getting a fancy word clock controller won't help because it's the crystal in your unit that will be the weak link. It will either work or it won't.

audiokid's issue with the FF800 was that it was the tracks were out of sync with them selves. I'm not sure if that's a converter issue or a daw/computer issue.
The converters don't line tracks up , the daw does.

Actually, the FF800 was a "good enough" ADDA, the preamps however were weak. Which is why I mentioned the Behringer combo you have may be contributing to the swirly sound. The FF800 are tinny and have a bit of that compared to better.
The converters on the FF800 were fine enough until I starting using them for round trip processing. I notice inconsistencies that lead me to invest in a better of everything over time. Good ADDA, better I hear cause and effect. I upgraded my interface as well, which made a huge difference in performance for hybrid, not so much for more simple tracking.
Which is why some say all this expense is not noticeable, I say say its really important.
Expectations and requirements are subjective to workflow. I would never try and tell a newbie they need $3000 converters.
I would however suggest better everything for those interested in a good hybrid system.
I've done comparisons with many converters and interfaces thus, learned through hands on there are big difference that lead me here to share some of what I have noticed.
PCIe is superior to FW. Same goes for USB in comparison to MADI. But again, my investment and workflow demands better for certain parts of my chain. I have a Prism Atlas, with is a USB interface and I just love this for Remote and capture work. Its stellar. But, I would never use it in a hybrid rig that I was tracking with too. I prefer Madi. But if they incorporate a Madi interface, wow. That would be even better.

Point is, converters and the interface is just as important as pre-amp and mics for me. I wouldn't try and convince my peers or clients that a $3000 mic is doing just fine with a $100 ADDA pre combo.
If its all you got, then thats another topic.

The question is.. does a 500 dollar mic with a 500 dollar preamp and a ada 8000 or something cheap. It's like 250 for 8 channels.. No way to get to a computer though,..sound better than a 200 mic with a 100 dollar pre and a 1000 dollar set of converters.. Or adjust to your budget to the range you like...

The actual cost of my Rme was more like 1000 for the breakout box and the pci card.. Does anybody know what would be doing the conversion? the Berhinger or the Rme?. Or both?

I'm just using adat sync I think the clock on the 1st behringer is the master.. As my Ada 8000's don't have the slave thing lit up. They are both locked in the rme control panel window thing.

The original poster has good mics and pres... he might be ready to pay big bucks to get something a bit better..

audiokid do you hear a difference in the x/y or do you still hear swirlys?

This is why I moved this thread to the affordable recording forum. The thread is going in circles. Anyone experienced in Pro Audio, knows the importance of transparency and clocking.
My requirements are overkill to you. Most people do just fine with the basics. It would make no sense to invest in $3000 converters if you are never interested in hybrid or expanding towards higher end sound.
In fact, if you are only into music for fun or demos at best, I wouldn't even invest in anything expensive. I mean, why would you? Who cares about sound quality.

This thread has gone from Pro to novice. Its idiotic for me to keep discussing this.

Cheers

So is that a yes or no on the swirlys?

I dunno. I did the tests you suggested. Posted them.... there's discussion about it.. how is this idiotic?..

Sorry, I should clarify my use of the the word idiotic. It wasn't meant to be personal, its business. I've underlined the wording here and above so its clearer for you to see.

Are we recording, mixing, mastering or stem mixing/hybrid processing? UPGRADING?

It would be idiotic for me to say or suggest anyone should invest in expensive converters without qualification. Just like it would be idiotic to suggest (as you are doing over and over) cheap is good enough (in the pro audio category forum). The question then becomes, what is the goal for the OP? The OP asked about upgrading. A $200 8 channel Behringer ADDA Pre combo is just fine for your goals but its not an upgrade by any stretch and this is why:

Qualifying before suggestions is what lacks on forums. I am continuously directing my opinions towards improvement and specifically to the hybrid and mastering users. I start out with the basics and end where I have arrived today.

So, are you ever thinking some people here actually invest thousands in gear for a reason? Are we as stupid as you are suggesting or are you missing the memo?
A $200 8 channel ADDA is not an upgrade.Its the bottom.

You are engaging someone (me) who mixes and masters, in a Pro Audio Forum who invests in mastering quality gear which I have explained many times. You are calling me arrogant for telling you that you are feeding the forums a bunch of unconfirmed hearsay when it comes to mastering quality while constantly pushing the level back down to the cheap seat. Why is this?
IF, people are interested in hybrid and mastering, the clock and converters are essential . This is why we spend a lot of money there. People in that circle know this. They also hear the difference.

So, I'm simply pointing out why Mastering Engineers and hybrid processing chains require great conversion and the steady clock. I have described what a bad clock sounds like to me. I use the swirly reference. Something you aren't comprehending here and are taking offense to?
Bad clocks create phase.

Regarding UAD vs the real deal, again, I'm a believer that less is more. I think people can get great mixes on a simple DAW. You don't need to invest thousands on redundant software. We simply need to learn less is more. Plug-ins should be used sparingly. I think I can mix good enough on a simple daw without much of anything. I would like to see our reader try and work with less and try hard to avoid wasting so much time and money on UAD software. I happen to be in the camp that doesn't buy into all that.

I also think most people would be better off buying a PreSonus Studio Live console. The pre's and converters in there are better than most of the crap being fed to the populous.

The debate on converters and clocking continues to exhaustion. Its subjective.
It would be idiotic for me to try and convince a Mixing or Mastering Engineer converters don't matter as much as pre-amps. Our entire world is based around transparency and phase precision. Its how you get that Big Sound.
We are in different worlds here. I'm not saying I'm better than you. I am saying there is a reason I need upgraded gear over the prosumer stuff.
Which is why I am trying to leave this topic over and over without being rude, while at the same time sharing some personal hands on experience into the high end hybrid world. I know no one else with such a system as I have.

Don't take it personal. Its the music business.

Hope that helps. ;)

We can only climb the step we are ready for and even if we cannot reach the top of the shelf it doesn't meen there isn't something better on it !!
Some will never be ready for the top shelf and some may never get the ressources ($) to get there even tho they deserve it !

Recording.org helped me greatly over the years and even if I can't comprehend everything because I'm not ready, please keep challenging my misconsceptions !

I never one said a $200 ada is as good as a $1000 dollar one. I just said that should be that last thing in the chain to upgrade.. Based on the fact that the OP already has an Rme. Which a myriad of professionals use on a professional level.

The problem with converters and clocks is that the results you get depends on your workflow. If you are doing a so called "less is more" approach where you need 2 daws and a bunch of outboard gear. If you are analog summing etc better quality converters should give you better results. If you are mastering you can usually drive them harder and get a bit more volume before distortion and artifacts.

To me that isn't less is more. That's more is more.. A high quality analog summing box,..2 sets of high end converters and computers plus outboard gear is the best way to gt the biggest sound absolutely... But what good is that if you have a crappy room, speakers mics, and preamps.. You have a huge sounding big pile of crap. It's like watching an Imax movie shot with a low res video camera at 280.

My contention is that the difference between 2 converters in the Rme/Apogge range. Which is better than the $150 dollar Tascam/Edirol cheapo units. When compared to a high end set of converters is alot smaller than Mics and Preamps. If you have maxed out everything in your chain. Your Room, Speakers, Daw, Mics and Pre's. At that point in time converters would be a good way to upgrade.

Furthermore if you are only in the box. The difference you might see would be smaller than if you are analog summing.

For someone who hasn't used Uad ever, how can you know if its not worth it?. Who knows maybe with the best converters an at 192 Uad is exactly like the original.
I've never done that as I don't use 192 or really expensive converters.

I hope to hear the results of the Uad vs SAW plug ins mixoff. I'll throw a mix in as well. As the plug ins are expensive I'm sure Josh and I have different sets of plug ins.
I'd like to test the theory of less is more rather than speculate.

As I did with the converter sync test and the X/Y test. I think the X/Y is centered better and has more punch than the modified Glen Johns. Less stereo spread though. It's a tradeoff.

As far as taking things personal... ha ha.. I'm not the one wanting to leave the conversation... You do have a slight attitude that comes across as.

"You just don't understand, unless you have all the gear I do and do everything the way I do it.. You just don't get it.. You must be an amateur.. why am I bothering talking to an amateur about things you can't possibly understand?....."

I'm for seeing other opinions and testing them against my own. I don't take criticism personally, but I will state my convictions and test them.
As I have.

I'd like to hear more of your mixes and mastering as I can't find much on your website than the live stuff which seems like a 2 track recording, as well as the sample you provided earlier.
It's hard for me to convert you your way of thinking with just those 2 examples. All of the samples have a serious amount of reverb on them which creates great depth however I'm not hearing anything that makes me go wow I need better converters. Just that a $4000 reverb sounds amazing.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here. Reading some of your other posts on the forum you like to be blunt and honest. I'm doing the same.

If anybody has some other ideas of how to test converters from a perspective of in the box.. Let er rip.. I'll try anything..

Wow, it continues. Less is more as in "less plug-ins" is more . Its a common term we use here.

Chris Perra, post: 417703, member: 48232 wrote:
If you are mastering you can usually drive them harder and get a bit more volume before distortion and artifacts.

Okay, it appears I should be asking you the question(s).
Why would you push converters harder for any amount of track count?

To get more volume, really? How so?

I'm not sure what you mean by track count. .

Mastering engineers often say they like these high end converters or that one because they can get another dB or 2 vs cheaper ones when coming back in from outboard gear.

If you need compression eq or effects and you don't have it in outboard gear.Just a mic and a pre. I think a uad plug in is a good idea vs nothing.

audiokid,

you're arguing with a drummer ... lol. think about that.

Chris. great mics / outboard / room / monitors is of course essential if you are serious. but so is great conversion on both ends. using cheap conversion is like recording to a 1/4" 8 track ... the front end and room treatments are going to be wasted. you will never understand the benifits of anything (converters or anything else) until you've used it ..... you can't tell me if you had the wherewithal you wouldn't be using the best conversion you could, can you? of course not.