Thunderbolt provides a significantly higher data-transer rate than the firewire 400 on your Saffire (roughly 4x faster). The Saffire supports sample-rates up to 96kHz, while the Clarett series can do up to 192kHz. The question of whether that equates to "any significant benefit in sound quality", is much harder to say. Technically 192kHz is clearly better on paper, how much of that is audible is larger up to your ears, your monitors, your audiologist, etc. I've never heard anyone complaining about having converters that were too good.

And don't forget that the higher sample-rate will multiply the read/write burden on your hard drive or SSD. The limitations of the hard drive will determine how many tracks you can record and playback at any give time.

I think Focusrite redesigned the preamps for the new clarett series and they are supposed to model the ISA preamps.. Unfortunatly, I didn't compare them side by side which I'd like to do very much.
I do have an old 8i8 and a few ISA preamps.. anyone want to send me a clarett ?

Seriously, the preamps of the saffire are ok, far from wow. (I also have a Safire 56)
If the Clarett have better preamps, it's a good reason to prefer them. But how better, that's the question.
If it's all the preamps you have, you could benefit the clarett series with the Clarett octopre and keep your saffire.
Or keep your money and invest in a highend pre, like the ISA, Grace audio or a Millennia.

The clarett pre has an 'air' boost which is a boost in the high end frequency. High end is alluring at first and can then become fatiguing if used with 'more is better' on everything.

I wouldn't expect the clarett to be a whole lot better than the Safire or the scarlett mk2 (which does 192k), as a standalone converter.

I asked a sweetwater salesperson who's job it is to convince me to spend more money, what they thought of the clarett when they (the staff) demo'd it vs others. Particularly the antelope stuff. They said out of 3-4 units nobody picked the clarett as best. When they engaged the 'air' boost several people picked it. It was a blind test. You've got to make a good first impression to sell a unit, and I've been fooled myself by hyped gear. Then down line realized it was an illusion. It's like photoshop or make-up for gear.

If you ask me TB is the claretts main feature and this is an unproven connection type for audio, since it's relatively new.

When speaking of connection type it's important to know if it's catered more towards burst data like a hard drive vs whatever audio streaming uses. Maybe someone else knows more technical aspects of that, since my knowledge tapers off sharply. So more bandwidth doesn't mean better quality or even better audio performance necessarily.

Since 0 high end interfaces are using TB I tend to think pcie base madi, or Ethernet would be what to shoot for.

Since the pre amp circuits themselves in any of the focusrite interfaces (except the red series) are cousins it's fair to say they're all 'decent' and none are special. They're just workhorse pres with nohing particularly good or bad.

I used the Octopre mk2 for several years on drum kit/room (not kick snare or OH tho) with ok results. It's quiet, and better than the price point suggests. It is limited in performance relative to many other standalone pres, which are usually much more $ and fewer channels per unit.

Imho your better off using your Scarlett for its pres, using the line outs into a dedicated converter only unit.

That way as you upgrade your pres for flavor and performance your not throwing out your converter too, or remaining stuck with lesser converters.

There's no reason to believe one mid level interface is gonna be better than another, and the cost of a clarett is eeks into the realm where you can get a noticeable improvement.

For my money RME or Antelope offerings are the line where you'll get a true improvement over anything below it in a cost vs performance perspective.

Then there's driver maturity. USB and FireWire is mature technology and TB isn't, so in general more hiccups could be expected, although not guaranteed.

If in fact the clarett was significantly better, it would be significantly more money, due to more R&D and tighter quality control of manufacturing.

Now if you didn't already own an interface the clarett would be a decent choice in that price/performance range. But as an
Upgrade, not so much. Incremental upgrades are extremely expensive in cost vs performance, as opposed to significant upgrades which are perhaps 2x more, but with a quality that's otherwise unnatainable. This unnattainability is what justifies the high cost of entry.

dvdhawk, post: 452019, member: 36047 wrote: Thunderbolt provides a significantly higher data-transer rate than the firewire 400 on your Saffire (roughly 4x faster). The Saffire supports sample-rates up to 96kHz, while the Clarett series can do up to 192kHz. The question of whether that equates to "any significant benefit in sound quality", is much harder to say. Technically 192kHz is clearly better on paper, how much of that is audible is larger up to your ears, your monitors, your audiologist, etc. I've never heard anyone complaining about having converters that were too good.

And don't forget that the higher sample-rate will multiply the read/write burden on your hard drive or SSD. The limitations of the hard drive will determine how many tracks you can record and playback at any give time.

Thanks

kmetal, post: 452025, member: 37533 wrote: The clarett pre has an 'air' boost which is a boost in the high end frequency. High end is alluring at first and can then become fatiguing if used with 'more is better' on everything.

I wouldn't expect the clarett to be a whole lot better than the Safire or the scarlett mk2 (which does 192k), as a standalone converter.

I asked a sweetwater salesperson who's job it is to convince me to spend more money, what they thought of the clarett when they (the staff) demo'd it vs others. Particularly the antelope stuff. They said out of 3-4 units nobody picked the clarett as best. When they engaged the 'air' boost several people picked it. It was a blind test. You've got to make a good first impression to sell a unit, and I've been fooled myself by hyped gear. Then down line realized it was an illusion. It's like photoshop or make-up for gear.

If you ask me TB is the claretts main feature and this is an unproven connection type for audio, since it's relatively new.

When speaking of connection type it's important to know if it's catered more towards burst data like a hard drive vs whatever audio streaming uses. Maybe someone else knows more technical aspects of that, since my knowledge tapers off sharply. So more bandwidth doesn't mean better quality or even better audio performance necessarily.

Since 0 high end interfaces are using TB I tend to think pcie base madi, or Ethernet would be what to shoot for.

Since the pre amp circuits themselves in any of the focusrite interfaces (except the red series) are cousins it's fair to say they're all 'decent' and none are special. They're just workhorse pres with nohing particularly good or bad.

I used the Octopre mk2 for several years on drum kit/room (not kick snare or OH tho) with ok results. It's quiet, and better than the price point suggests. It is limited in performance relative to many other standalone pres, which are usually much more $ and fewer channels per unit.

Imho your better off using your Scarlett for its pres, using the line outs into a dedicated converter only unit.

That way as you upgrade your pres for flavor and performance your not throwing out your converter too, or remaining stuck with lesser converters.

There's no reason to believe one mid level interface is gonna be better than another, and the cost of a clarett is eeks into the realm where you can get a noticeable improvement.

For my money RME or Antelope offerings are the line where you'll get a true improvement over anything below it in a cost vs performance perspective.

Then there's driver maturity. USB and FireWire is mature technology and TB isn't, so in general more hiccups could be expected, although not guaranteed.

If in fact the clarett was significantly better, it would be significantly more money, due to more R&D and tighter quality control of manufacturing.

Now if you didn't already own an interface the clarett would be a decent choice in that price/performance range. But as an
Upgrade, not so much. Incremental upgrades are extremely expensive in cost vs performance, as opposed to significant upgrades which are perhaps 2x more, but with a quality that's otherwise unnatainable. This unnattainability is what justifies the high cost of entry.

Thanks

I don't know about The statement
That TB is new and as such is not "mature" technology yet... it doesn't take any new device to become "mature" these days, considering that in many cases, something that is 4 years old is considered to be "obsolete". Lol
It seems to me- based on what I've heard from colleagues - that TB seems to be working fine with those devices that use it ... with UA Apollos and such.
I think that like anything else, it will likely evolve as time goes by and technology dictates.
But I haven't heard anyone complaining about it being unstable or anything. It's certainly being used in more than just a few devices out there.
IMHO. ;)
-d.

kmetal, post: 452025, member: 37533 wrote: The clarett pre has an 'air' boost which is a boost in the high end frequency.

So focusrite went to impress those who know nothing about recording... Da.. ! (n)

Since I got my RME Fireface 800, I use my Safire 56 as an headphone amp (I send adat signals to it). lol
If I ever change, it's gonna be either RME or Antelope.

OK, I wanted to say thanks on a personal level to each of the four responses I have received so far. It appears, in doing so, such a reply only creates more redundancy in that the entire post for which I'm thanking you is completely reprinted. I think that makes for a waste of space and time for any other readers of this thread. Can I presume that a "like" is sufficient enough etiquette to say, "Thank You" ? It seems so. Yet, I wish to make it clear how much even the four responses I have had to my original question has had an impact on decision making. You guys are all awesome ! I'm really glad I joined RO. I think I should save a generalized and collective praise of RO for its own conversation.

Moving on and back to the topic at hand. I had originally bought the Focusrite Safire Pro 40 with the number one reason being I wanted to upgrade from Logic 9 to Logic X. My previous interface was an M-Audio Project mix I/O. With the M-Audio, my OS was forever stuck at 10.7.5 (Mac) and Logic X required a much later OS. BTW, I have written several nasty letters to M-Audio / Avid Technologies for their lack of software support after their merger. I had bought a 1000$ piece of gear that I can't hardly give away now. AND, support for that unit stopped a year after I bought it. I was and still am pissed off about that. Within a year, 1000$ bought me a really big paperweight. However, it still works great, looks brand new and if anyone has a legacy system and wants it I would sell it on eBay one day. I won't ever buy anything Avid or M-Audio simply because they are money hungry *#%^*+ who keep switching the rules every day in order to screw their customers out of money. That is precisely why I don't use PT ! Rant Over !

I bought the Safire model for 250$. They are selling almost everywhere for that price now. Even NOS ! They must have made way too many of those things. Anyway, ....when I plugged it up and tested it, the literal sound quality of the unit blew the M-Audio's pres out of the water ! Now that I've gotten used to the Pro 40, well,.... I'm just used to it. It's OK and sounds pretty decent to me. In fact, I'm pretty satisfied. But, I would like to have an additional 8 channels. That's why I started this conversation to begin with. Cost vs benefit vs all other things, I think I'll just buy another Pro40. I've done some research and it does seem that two of these can be run in "Dual" mode. The computer won't blend them as one recognizable unit as if I bought an 8pre. Because my Pro 40 has only one ADAT IN, I would be limited to 48K with an 8pre. I personally do recognize (on my system) a difference between 48 and 96. I like 96k. But, in "dual mode" the two units will "act" in tandem without a bunch of weird restarting and shut down stuff (so I've read). Yes, I could use a claret as number 1 and adat the pro40 out. That would work at a price difference of 450+$. Later, if and when I can afford a "true" upgrade, I'll have to be prepared to spend some big bucks. 250$ to keep my near obsolete (technically) system up and running is reasonable. Plus, with the 450$ left over, I can buy that SM7B that's on my wish list !
Thanks !!!!!!!
MPBWY

Raymond, post: 452044, member: 50745 wrote: personally do recognize (on my system) a difference between 48 and 96. I like 96k.

Can I ask in what way(s)?
I'm not doubting you Raymond... just curious as to what differences you notice. Is it an audible fidelity difference? Or better performance from plug ins? Latency?
Just wanted clarification. ;)
-d.

Raymond, post: 452044, member: 50745 wrote: OK, I wanted to say thanks on a personal level to each of the four responses I have received so far. It appears, in doing so, such a reply only creates more redundancy in that the entire post for which I'm thanking you is completely reprinted. I think that makes for a waste of space and time for any other readers of this thread. Can I presume that a "like" is sufficient enough etiquette to say, "Thank You" ? It seems so. Yet, I wish to make it clear how much even the four responses I have had to my original question has had an impact on decision making. You guys are all awesome ! I'm really glad I joined RO. I think I should save a generalized and collective praise of RO for its own conversation.

Moving on and back to the topic at hand. I had originally bought the Focusrite Safire Pro 40 with the number one reason being I wanted to upgrade from Logic 9 to Logic X. My previous interface was an M-Audio Project mix I/O. With the M-Audio, my OS was forever stuck at 10.7.5 (Mac) and Logic X required a much later OS. BTW, I have written several nasty letters to M-Audio / Avid Technologies for their lack of software support after their merger. I had bought a 1000$ piece of gear that I can't hardly give away now. AND, support for that unit stopped a year after I bought it. I was and still am pissed off about that. Within a year, 1000$ bought me a really big paperweight. However, it still works great, looks brand new and if anyone has a legacy system and wants it I would sell it on eBay one day. I won't ever buy anything Avid or M-Audio simply because they are money hungry *#%^*+ who keep switching the rules every day in order to screw their customers out of money. That is precisely why I don't use PT ! Rant Over !

I bought the Safire model for 250$. They are selling almost everywhere for that price now. Even NOS ! They must have made way too many of those things. Anyway, ....when I plugged it up and tested it, the literal sound quality of the unit blew the M-Audio's pres out of the water ! Now that I've gotten used to the Pro 40, well,.... I'm just used to it. It's OK and sounds pretty decent to me. In fact, I'm pretty satisfied. But, I would like to have an additional 8 channels. That's why I started this conversation to begin with. Cost vs benefit vs all other things, I think I'll just buy another Pro40. I've done some research and it does seem that two of these can be run in "Dual" mode. The computer won't blend them as one recognizable unit as if I bought an 8pre. Because my Pro 40 has only one ADAT IN, I would be limited to 48K with an 8pre. I personally do recognize (on my system) a difference between 48 and 96. I like 96k. But, in "dual mode" the two units will "act" in tandem without a bunch of weird restarting and shut down stuff (so I've read). Yes, I could use a claret as number 1 and adat the pro40 out. That would work at a price difference of 450+$. Later, if and when I can afford a "true" upgrade, I'll have to be prepared to spend some big bucks. 250$ to keep my near obsolete (technically) system up and running is reasonable. Plus, with the 450$ left over, I can buy that SM7B that's on my wish list !
Thanks !!!!!!!
MPBWY

I just recently sold my m-audio 1814 for 50 bucks after paying 400 for it new in '07. I felt I got my money's worth.

Besides superior quality, this obsolescence is exactly why I don't employ any of this all in one units for anything serious. It's what i was alluding to as far as upgrades.

In the digital and computing world it's a 3-5 year life span to stay current, ten of your boutique level. Intel is slowly moving away from Moores law so we can expect our stuff to stay relavent longer, or possibly the upgrades will be so significant as to make things even more obsolete with each gen. Only time will tell.

Analog won't become obsolete although digitally controlled analog will likely take over.

The best thing to do is plan on the obsolescence just like the designers and manufacturers do, so you can employ these things as they age.

For example you could have not upgraded to logic 10, or perhaps run dual boot on your computer, or even better just left the old system working as is and upgraded everything. Then you could have a mobile rig, or mixdown rig. You could also have bought a used Mac for relativy low cash outlay to run the m-audio rig.

Lower cost gear is going to become obsolete faster in general. Although there are no guarantees as many Digidesign owners found out.

All in all, it all works out the same. Whether you upgrade digital periodically or your using a tape machine that you keep going, there's just a cost of doing buisness.

Besides planning your obsoloence, getting an accountant or financial adviser involved can help you balance the cost of your gear. The lack of formal buisness knowledge in the music biz is simply astounding, considering everyone knows it's one of the more difficult out there to turn profit.

My friend's Apollo 16 works just fine on Thunderbolt.

I've chuckled at gear I've seen advertised as "future proof".
While it's true you can make good choices, and try to hedge your bets against obsolescence as much as possible, based on knowledge and experience, "Future Proof" is (to me) just a new advertising term.
There's no such thing - in any technology based market, certainly not in computer technology.
Unless they are tightening the definition of "future" to mean "1 year". Lol
I think TB will probably be around for awhile, it seems to working and is stable for those devices that use it for data Tx/Rx ...but trying to define the word "Awhile" in anything computer technology based is at best only a guess. ;)

One advantage to TB's bandwidth over FireWire in the appolo interfaces is you get more dsp out of the unit w TB.

It still seems TB is relagated to mid level gear, hard drives, and video displays. It seems the current crop of higher end stuff is still USB or PCI. Perhaps this will change with time.

With TB1/2 and USB 3/3.1 all being 'current' I find it both confusing and unsettling. I've not really heard many negatives about TB it just doesn't seem like the dust has settled yet, and it's not coming stock on everything like USB is or FireWire was for a while.

Barring the apollo's dsp I'm not really seeing what the advantage is to TB for the average 2-8 ch interface. Perhaps daisy chaining? Or if your squeaking 18 I/o.

To me it seems like marketing hype and a reason to introduce a new (higher) price point on mid level stuff with nothing advantageous. Maybe I'm skeptical for no reason? Maybe I'm paranoid since FireWire was considered 'superior' for its higher theoretical bandwidth and track counts, and is now close to extinction?

DonnyThompson, post: 452046, member: 46114 wrote: Can I ask in what way(s)?
I'm not doubting you Raymond... just curious as to what differences you notice. Is it an audible fidelity difference? Or better performance from plug ins? Latency?
Just wanted clarification. ;)
-d.

My answer to your question is definitely; an improvement of audio fidelity. My ears are 54 y/o and I am absolutely sure they are not as good as they were in 1985 when I was (honorably) discharged from the Army. I have zero doubt that six yrs of abuse to my ears has had its toll. Call that a disclaimer in that I freely admit, my hearing is not perfect. In fact, my hearing is certainly beyond its prime.
My claim of "liking 96 vs 48" is actually based on intentional experimentation. As with all "experiments", variables must posses stasis. That claim really only applies to the specific equipment which I now posses. I've had the Safire Pro 40 for less than a year now. Before that interface, I used the M-Audio I/O. I've made mention of this earlier. So pardon the redundancy, please. It is relevant to the conversation that I have made The reiteration. Back to variables: I've been using the same monitors (Yamaha HS8 incl the Sub), the same mic compliment of one each Rode K2 and a (non matched) pair of Shure SM81's. The computer is a MBP which has been upgraded in RAM and SSD. Note that I did claim the Safire "sounds" much better than the M-Audio. That was noticed immediately upon the exchange. Maybe the Safire has better pres (?). Maybe the conversion process is better (?). I cannot explain why the Safire sounds better...It just does.
When the M-Audio was in the chain, I did the same experiment of recording at 48 and 96. It turns out that I preferred 48 with the M-Audio. My only (subjective) explanation is that perhaps the higher sample rate was more revealing of the units limitations. I can't really say "why". That's just my guess. The Safire on the other hand sounds better to me at its full sample rate capability of 96. This difference to me is not as plain as night and day, though. It's only with "fresh and rested" ears that I can tell a difference. As a matter of full disclosure, I have yet to follow up the ultimate end of that experiment by burning a disc which has its origins of different bit depth and sample rates. I need to do that at some point. I do have a high end Tascam CD-R which I think would offer a good answer to THAT question.
Would an even higher 192 sound better to me ? I'm actually wondering about that. I suspect that going that high is likely to quickly surpass my ears ability to hear. It's an experiment that I'd like to try. But, a sample rate that high may be beyond the capabilities of my computer and its physical limitations, also. IDK. I've been a critical listener of music and different formats for as long as I've been listening. It must also be said that because I'm a high school dropout and have zero formal training in the recording biz, my opinions are strictly subjective. As such, they are as well debatable. I make no claim to have any high or superior knowledge. I think it was very fair of you to ask. I hope my answer offers the clarification for which you asked.
I also wish to offer another clarification. We all have that friend who claims that their particular Martin guitar or their particular 65 Super Reverb is the best sound they have ever heard. I'm not that guy. I have a friend like that and he irritates the crap out of me with his "ownership arrogance" (as I like to call that).
Thanks. MPBWY

DonnyThompson, post: 452050, member: 46114 wrote: I've chuckled at gear I've seen advertised as "future proof".
While it's true you can make good choices, and try to hedge your bets against obsolescence as much as possible, based on knowledge and experience, "Future Proof" is (to me) just a new advertising term.
There's no such thing - in any technology based market, certainly not in computer technology.
Unless they are tightening the definition of "future" to mean "1 year". Lol
I think TB will probably be around for awhile, it seems to working and is stable for those devices that use it for data Tx/Rx ...but trying to define the word "Awhile" in anything computer technology based is at best only a guess. ;)

Several years ago, I took an interest in a Midas 32R digital mixer which claimed it to be future proof in that an update would allow it to work at a higher sample rate than with which it was released. Midas, has yet to make good on that promise.

kmetal, post: 452048, member: 37533 wrote: I just recently sold my m-audio 1814 for 50 bucks after paying 400 for it new in '07. I felt I got my money's worth.

Besides superior quality, this obsolescence is exactly why I don't employ any of this all in one units for anything serious. It's what i was alluding to as far as upgrades.

In the digital and computing world it's a 3-5 year life span to stay current, ten of your boutique level. Intel is slowly moving away from Moores law so we can expect our stuff to stay relavent longer, or possibly the upgrades will be so significant as to make things even more obsolete with each gen. Only time will tell.

Analog won't become obsolete although digitally controlled analog will likely take over.

The best thing to do is plan on the obsolescence just like the designers and manufacturers do, so you can employ these things as they age.

For example you could have not upgraded to logic 10, or perhaps run dual boot on your computer, or even better just left the old system working as is and upgraded everything. Then you could have a mobile rig, or mixdown rig. You could also have bought a used Mac for relativy low cash outlay to run the m-audio rig.

Lower cost gear is going to become obsolete faster in general. Although there are no guarantees as many Digidesign owners found out.

All in all, it all works out the same. Whether you upgrade digital periodically or your using a tape machine that you keep going, there's just a cost of doing buisness.

Besides planning your obsoloence, getting an accountant or financial adviser involved can help you balance the cost of your gear. The lack of formal buisness knowledge in the music biz is simply astounding, considering everyone knows it's one of the more difficult out there to turn profit.

I still have the M-Audio and it functions perfectly. I also have the Hard Drive which was replaced with an SSD. The original hard drive still has Logic 9 and 10.7.5 installed. Ive actually considered buying a Mac Mini (used) in order to create a mobile setup. Logic 9 can be easily used for simple recording in the field and I can convert it easily to Logic X on my home/ studio setup. All of this COULD be done. But, the main reason I upped Logic from 9 to X is because X allows use of a very good iPad App for Remote control.
As far as trying to turn a profit... not really my main goal. Soon, my body will fail to keep climbing ladders and crawling on the floor with a paint brush. My main goal is to keep active, enjoy what I'm doing, and make a little bit of money in the meantime. I'm one of those people who doesn't take all of this music biz too seriously, yet... I do take my fun seriously. I approach music performance the same way. And yes, when I really want to listen to high fidelity in my own home, I still record vinyl to tape. Nothing sounds better to my ears than a brand new album recorded to reel to reel through DBX noise reduction !
MPBWY

Raymond, post: 452059, member: 50745 wrote: I still have the M-Audio and it functions perfectly. I also have the Hard Drive which was replaced with an SSD. The original hard drive still has Logic 9 and 10.7.5 installed. Ive actually considered buying a Mac Mini (used) in order to create a mobile setup. Logic 9 can be easily used for simple recording in the field and I can convert it easily to Logic X on my home/ studio setup. All of this COULD be done. But, the main reason I upped Logic from 9 to X is because X allows use of a very good iPad App for Remote control.
As far as trying to turn a profit... not really my main goal. Soon, my body will fail to keep climbing ladders and crawling on the floor with a paint brush. My main goal is to keep active, enjoy what I'm doing, and make a little bit of money in the meantime. I'm one of those people who doesn't take all of this music biz too seriously, yet... I do take my fun seriously. I approach music performance the same way. And yes, when I really want to listen to high fidelity in my own home, I still record vinyl to tape. Nothing sounds better to my ears than a brand new album recorded to reel to reel through DBX noise reduction !
MPBWY

Sounds like you've made some smart moves as far as your gear goes.

As far as finance goes, sounds like your the perfect candidate for a DBA. You can write off a few bucks, and earn a couple bucks, and save some cash, or maybe afford something a little more expensive than otherwise possible. It's nothing more than a single page 'schedule C' paper you include in your regular tax forms.

(Sorry not trying to pry, i majored in finance in college)

Lmao this came up on my FB, had to post it here.

kmetal, post: 452064, member: 37533 wrote: Lmao this came up on my FB, had to post it here.

❤️

kmetal, post: 452061, member: 37533 wrote: Sounds like you've made some smart moves as far as your gear goes.

As far as finance goes, sounds like your the perfect candidate for a DBA. You can write off a few bucks, and earn a couple bucks, and save some cash, or maybe afford something a little more expensive than otherwise possible. It's nothing more than a single page 'schedule C' paper you include in your regular tax forms.

(Sorry not trying to pry, i majored in finance in college)

I appreciate the qualification to your statement. It does give me the perspective that you are not prying. I'm always grateful for good advice. Especially, when the intent is sincerely for my benefit. You've offered a good idea. I used to run my own paint business so I'm somewhat familiar with your approach and why you would say such. Thanks for a suggestion which I haven't really thought about. You would think that should have occurred to me somewhere along the road.
MPBWY

Raymond, post: 452066, member: 50745 wrote: I appreciate the qualification to your statement. It does give me the perspective that you are not prying. I'm always grateful for good advice. Especially, when the intent is sincerely for my benefit. You've offered a good idea. I used to run my own paint business so I'm somewhat familiar with your approach and why you would say such. Thanks for a suggestion which I haven't really thought about. You would think that should have occurred to me somewhere along the road.
MPBWY

Cheers buddy!

pcrecord, post: 452043, member: 46460 wrote: So focusrite went to impress those who know nothing about recording... Da.. ! (n)

Since I got my RME Fireface 800, I use my Safire 56 as an headphone amp (I send adat signals to it). lol
If I ever change, it's gonna be either RME or Antelope.

There are several pres out there that offer "hyped" top end - it's not just Focusrite - even Neve has something similar with a couple pres they have released within the last couple years.... that offered "silk" bands ( Red and Blue, but I don't know the significance or frequency range of either).
I think a good bit of this is in response to the hyped frequencies we commonly hear on newer pop releases. There seems to be an exaggeration of various hi frequencies as a "trend" of sorts. I've heard quite a few contemporary female pop singers doing what is known as "stress" singing, which is an intentional "breaking" of the voice. When done well (Merry Clayton on The Stones' Gimme Shelter is a classic example of tasteful "stress" singing), it can have a sexy kind of edge... when used sparingly it's very effective. But what I'm hearing these days are vocalists that are doing it on nearly every line of a vocal track - and there is such a thing as "too much of a good thing". The top end hype we are hearing a lot of these days in pop production is perhaps meant to focus - or support - on that kind of vocal technique. "Warm" is not a term I would use to describe current pop vocals. Most the time - at least to my ears - it comes off sounding harsh and brittle ... and my suspicion is that both the vocalists and the gear are responsible. It's a trend, at some point it will likely pass (I hope) much like production trends of the past - heavy reverbs, synth driven songs, drum machines, delays and echos ... all the way to ultra dry and "in your face" vocals.
Right now there are trends like any other era.
These days, its ukulele and dry drums, and, that forced stress vocal thing. Tomorrow it might be tuba and harmonica. Lol.
Anyway... these added "air" and "silk" controls are just a reflection of the time. Not unlike surf guitars, or horn sections, or whammy bar heavy shredding ... or a Yamaha DX7 "Rhodes"...
what comes around goes around. Personally, there are a few things that I wish would go around and never come around again.... like vocal frequencies that can bore a hole in your forehead. ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 452076, member: 46114 wrote: Yamaha DX7 "Rhodes"...

I remember this one and it makes me feel old ! lol
The juno 105 is one of those classic synth that could be used today as well !! ;)