D followed by B. Both of these handled the high transients better than the others and seemed to have less of a 'veil' over the low sections. My letter choices are the highlighted ones linking the samples not the list order letters. So it would be the last two in the list.

A and B sounded best to me. I can hear your converter more on the others. D was very distorted (clipping ZZ) Crazy how we are hearing so much difference Dave?

But you have your lettering all goofy here. My vote or critique is the actual track not the "order" you have posted above the list.

To clarify : To my ears these two sound better:

[="http://soundcloud.com/dickiefunk/a-105/s-dGD73"]A by dickiefunk on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]="http://soundcloud.c…"]A by dickiefunk on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]
[[url=http://="http://soundcloud.c…"]B by dickiefunk on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]="http://soundcloud.c…"]B by dickiefunk on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]

This one [[url=http://[/URL]="http://soundcloud.c…"]D by dickiefunk on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/]="http://soundcloud.c…"]D by dickiefunk on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free[/] sounds terrible and where I hear your converters. Converters might be a better investment.

Another pass and I hear what you're saying Chris but it seemed like it was just at first and when she hit the mic hard it held up well. So maybe those converters need a bit more push. Gain staging perhaps? I do like B though, on that we agree. It seemed like A had this midrange thing going on with it. Her voice sounded 'older' for lack of a better description.

I hear the converters in all of them, but A and B are tolerable. After using Lavry and these high end RME QS', I hear zzz going on in 90% of the music I listen to these days. PT is plagued with it and nobody notices it.
Not trying to be a thorn all the time but its the truth.

If I was this chap, I'd step up those before I do anything else. You'll be no better off IMHO until you get better pre's.

Ever try and get a deal on good converters ( new or used), good luck. Anyone that knows the secret to digital audio knows it starts and ends there. All the best mics dickiefunk buys, won't get passed my ears without me complaining about the zzzzzzz. It will only become more evident.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the replies so far guys :smile:

I'm actually using the converters in my Focusrite ISA One Digital which are said to be better than those found in mid priced interfaces??

I had stacks of headroom left when I tracked these vocals. They were peaking at around -18db!!

dickiefunk, post: 376911 wrote: Thanks for the replies so far guys :smile:

I'm actually using the converters in my Focusrite ISA One Digital which are said to be better than those found in mid priced interfaces??

I had stacks of headroom left when I tracked these vocals. They were peaking at around -18db!!

So much misinformation out there and why so many are buying more and more to patch the crap, and it gets no better. The only people making money is ebay.

Do yourself a big favor and save your dollars until you can upgrade that ISA (converters at min). Whether or not you are -18 its still zzzing. No way that is able to deal with a good mic and a strong singer(s).

I know its depressing but there really is no way around it at the final hour. Quality converters takes so much mystery out of this game.
FWIW, If I said jump up and down but gave you a straw to breath through... Mic< straw < DAW

I think B is the best.

Hope it helps.

Yeah to the Focusrite converters. They are supposed to be getting in the Lavry level. The specs are incredible so I dont know.

Chris, and all others interested here is a link to some interesting reading material.

Audio Interface, Mic Preamplifier, Small-format Consoles, Channel Strips, EQ & Compressor from Focusrite Then to the Digital Conversion.pdf.

Theres a lot of good companies building great gear and some of them are the larger ones. I dont think you have to be boutique to have quality as your bylaw.

edit: my link was converted to this address above. Somewhere in all of this is a pdf on their converters in detail and specs. Go to the ISA One Digital and the pdf is there.

Ok here are the mics :-

A - SE2200T
B - Audio Technica 4047
C - NEUMANN TLM102
D - CAD E100S
E - STUDIO PROJECTS B1
F - RODE NT1A
X2 - AUDIO TECHNICA 4040

At any rate it's a mistake to judge anything as subtle as converter differences based on Soundcloud samples. Those are not raw .wav files we are hearing. Here's a comment from a Soundcloud admin...

we re-encode all tracks in 128kbs for streaming on the web. this is done to gain performance for the streams. so yes, the sound quality of the streams is degraded. but we use the best possible mp3 encoding algoritms so the quality should be far better than e.g. myspace.
in the future we might consider to stream in 320kbs mp3 or (more likely) 128-256kbs AAC. this should improve the sound quality to be almost on par with CD. but as of now we're using 128kbs mp3 as it is a good trade-off between quality/performance (and also since AAC streaming is only available since the flash 9 moviestar release, which has about 90% penetration as of now, we need it to be ~95 before we move).

UPDATE: Sorry, that's a few years old, but there are still complaints more recently. I would hesitate judge any file from a streaming service very critically in terms of finer points of recording quality.

BobRogers, post: 376941 wrote: At any rate it's a mistake to judge anything as subtle as converter differences based on Soundcloud samples. Those are not raw .wav files we are hearing. Here's a comment from a Soundcloud admin...

UPDATE: Sorry, that's a few years old, but there are still complaints more recently. I would hesitate judge any file from a streaming service very critically in terms of finer points of recording quality.

Good argument on streaming but I don't buy it in this case. I heard the zzz in these clips at -18 no problemo and never read what he was using until after the OP.

The obvious, not everyone has endless wads of cash to fork out in this economy. I guess we should ask ourselves then, is his existing mic good enough or, will a $800 mic into this lunchbox sound like it was designed to do with those converters with 'lavry specs and impressive tube circuity"?

Here's the deal and why I'm passionate. My guess is he, and John Todd who is also in the predicament are both going to be part of the ebay crowd down the road looking to get, yet another microphone, pre amp because something just doesn't sound right, or its too hard to mix the stuff. Good chance they'll add 50 more post on GS saying they didn't like that mic because it sounds to harsh, muddy, poor low mids etc :)

Once you are past being a newbie, fix the converters first and your choices you make improve in all direction. Out of all the money I have spent and wasted, this is my best advise to everyone beyond newbie level.

I actually prefer her on your first listed. I preferred a little of the mellower qualities of some of the other examples but they also lacked a certain sparkle. It really depends what kind of sound you want for her? Try a small diaphragm condenser and see how ***y you can make her sound for a gospel singer? Don't like the sibilance? Put her on a ribbon, any ribbon. And hey, you won't have to worry about overload with those (provided they are not active ribbons).

Yolanda Adams on a wireless condenser got me a Soul Train Music Award nomination so that was a small capsule. No strings attached.

I don't really listen to A2D Converters because they all sound like PCM (That's because they are). I don't care what color you make fluorescent lights they all still flash at 60 Hz US, 50 Hz Europe. So when everything goes DSD and LED, I'll feel better.

First example is my choice
Mx. Remy Ann David