DPA mics are awesome. The 2006 are essentials , nice choice. The 4011 is another good one to have on your radar.

To chime in on advice with the interface. I wouldn't even look at those for this level of sound but I'm spoiled and also have never used the two you are considering. If it were me, (classical / acoustic music) "personally"... I would only be looking at top level converters and that choice would start with Prism.
For two channels, I'd look at Lyra, next the Orpheus and Atlas. I've owned the Orpheus and now have the Atlas. I need another two channel and Prism would be my first choice. Lyra..(y)
Antelope are also excellent, they are sweet transparent and USB stable, excellent resale.
Lavry Blacks are really nice but they have stopped production. Love the Blacks.
RME are excellent as well but I'm not big on RME preamps. The Converters and interfaces are excellent but not quite the same level as the others I mention.
I think these are all better choices than the two you are considering.
Being said, you should try as much as you can out before buying.

You can find used Lyras and Orpheus within your budget ( and sell them for close to what you buy them for. Used hold their value. I sold my Orpheus for $2200. The pre's in all these Prism products are excellent and the interfacing is flawless. Not sure how the pre's compare with Grace but the converters are something you do not want to compromise on.

I'd drop the idea of Grace for now and put that money into Prism ADDA because your get really solid SS pre's in those that will get you going excellent. Its a very good mobile combo. You can add additional external pre's after.
Sound Device portable recorder are something I'm considering but its more for outdoor field work. But, again, another great choice!

Hope that helps.

Welcome to RO. :)

To be honest, I'm not certain that the sorts of audio differences Chris is talking about will be obvious to a fledging recordist, as nowadays, we just don't have horrible sounding equipment any longer, and we are talking levels of subtlety. The art (not science) of mic placement has such a huge impact on the recording sound that throwing money on really nice mics and kit might not be the way to go ...... Yet. Trying some modest kit first, and training your ears to hear the things it just doesn't quite do well is a necessary stage. It's like hearing a good piano after playing a less good one, but then hearing smaller differences on an even better one. These are tiny differences, totally missed by the casual listener, but heard by the experienced pianists. You need the trained ears to progress. Very often , beginners hear differences, but can't identify them. Is a certain microphone better, or just has a different frequency response? It might sound dull on a certain sound source but really shine on another. I play sax, and use a mic setup and choice that I like, and have used for years, but a friend loaned me a VERY expensive sax he can't play, but bought as an investment. My technique with my tried and tested mic is rubbish. Clearly nothing wrong with the mic or instrument, just the combination.

If you have your budget and have time, buy a pair of cheaper mics. I'd suggest any of the common sdc types and maybe the Scarlett you mentioned and spend a month or two experimenting with your chosen monitors, and really study the results then you have a base line to compare your future purchases against. They're never wasted, you will use them again. If your recording space sounds excellent, you have so much choice. I suspect I might consider a pair of multi pattern mics myself, maybe AKG 414s? You'd then have many even more interesting recording options open to you? A pair of really nice fixed pattern mics is in my view, less useful than something switchable. They will be excellent, but to me, a bit restrictive if your needs are a little vague at your present stage?

First of all, thanks Audiokid for bringing me to the site, and thanks for bringing me to this particular discussion b/c it is exactly what i'm interested in. I want to learn how to record and mix symphonic bands and brass ensembles. I watched a YouTube clip that PureStudios (in Durham North Carolina) posted of the Millennia Origin Channel Strip. In the clip they recorded some type of band with sax, brass instruments, and drums and it sounded wonderful. Does anyone have any suggestions on what gear to buy to get this type of recording?
To the OP, soondae, I am simply a hobbyist so i can't give you the sound advice that maybe Audiokid, Paulears, and some of the others can give you but in my opinion, you should get high end converters (mastering grade if you can) b/c they make a huge difference when making mix decisions and even gear decisions b/c you'll actually be able to hear how everything in the chain is affecting the sound. For years I used Focusrite, and other low end equipment, then i graduated to the RME UFX and the difference was noticeable. I recently acquired the Prism Lyra, i was shocked at the difference in sound quality. The UFX in comparison sounded hazy, or cloudy...just not clear. The stereo image in the Lyra is very defined and the entire spectrum is detailed, not harsh in the high end...not wooly and out of control in the low end. I tested the ADC and the available mic pre on the Lyra and it was super. I'm noticing that with the Prism, mixing and EQing is way easier and you even get less artifacts when using plugins. Again, go for the high end converters, when you're trying to train your ear and trying to implement advice from experienced engineers you will have a very capable converter to tell you what's happening as you manipulate or capture the audio... if nothing else get a high end DAC, maybe even a used Mytek Stereo 192, they go for around $650/700...I even saw a used Benchmark DAC 1 for 399.

While I agree with my esteemed colleague Paul that you will develop critical listening skills over time, and that it does help to be able to hear the difference between lo -mid -hi grade gear; in this situation, I think I'd be trying to get as good of a sonic signature as I could right out of the gate.

Pop, Rock, and other contemporary music is different than Classical. With the former, "smearing" isn't as noticeable as it is with classical, where there is a definitive and required sense of space and definition - in short, there's nothing to "hide behind", no distortion, no synths or other instruments that present "less than pure" sonics. With classical, You either capture those instruments in the most natural way possible - along with the space in which they inhabit - or you don't. I'm not saying that those other forms of popular music wouldn't sound better with better conversion and pre-amplification, but a lack of quality is more noticeable with Classical/Orchestral styles.

I would be looking at the best conversion and SS ( non-transformer) preamp/i-o that I could afford; and I would do the same thing with the mics as well. DPA makes very nice microphones, as does AKG, Neumann, ADK, etc...

The Grace is a wonderful preamp, more transparent than most in its price range, very clean and pure sounding, but, it lacks any i-o, so you would also need to add some kind of conversion device.

At that point, I think I'd follow Chris's recommendation and be looking at all-in-one models.

IMHO of course.

d.

I use a Tascam 1800 (replaced by the US16X08) for portable tracking. It is a low end interface to be sure. It does a good job, but I would not put it up against the higher end interfaces. That being said, I agree with a few of the comments that, being new, the higher end will get you marginally better results. If funding is an issue, I would start with the lower end and when ready, upgrade. Plus the Tascam is so inexpensive that if something happens to it, you don't have a melt down (under $300). Plus, you get 16 channel of inputs, which really gives lots of options for the price. I am just of the opinion when someone is starting out, start with decent low cost equipment until you understand what you are buying when you start getting into the $2000+ range.

Tracking is as much of an art as mixing. The better you track, the easier the mix. I think the portastudios are harder to use. A low end laptop for tracking ($250ish, Reaper $60, and $300 for the interface) you are ready to record and have more options, then a better computer in the mixing studio for final, seems to be a good combination to me.

You have had a lot of good advice here. Maybe the most valuable of what's been said is not to start out shooting for what you perceive to be a top-of-the-range set of gear, only to find that it's excellent quality but not the best suited for what you want to do. A more modest rig might well be a better starting point, allowing you to refine your trade and gain an experienced feel of what you should aim for, if or when you decide you need to expand or upgrade.

Roughly half my location recordings are of classical performances, varying from full orchestral down to a single instrument (flute, guitar, piano etc). I rarely take the same recording rig to each gig, particularly if I am already familiar with the acoustics of the location and whether it's a public concert, recording with an invited audience or recording with no audience. It's not usually acceptable from a visual perspective to set up a full recording set of microphones when there's a paying audience present.

That said, because I often get called out at short notice, I also keep a "grab and go" classical recording set to hand consisting of a pair of [="http://www.mbho.de/t1.htm"]MBHO microphones[/]="http://www.mbho.de/…"]MBHO microphones[/], an [[url=http://="http://audient.com/…"]Audient Mico[/]="http://audient.com/…"]Audient Mico[/] pre-amp and a (pre-Retina) Macbook Pro laptop, along with appropriate leads, stands and an optical cable. I recommend that you have a look at the Mico, as it is a really good dual-channel pre-amp with its own internal converters. It has both analog outputs and a digital optical output, which in my case can feed into the optical input jack present on the pre-Retina Macbook Pros, which even many of the highly-knowledgeable staff in Apple stores don't know is there. This rig produces recordings that are usually limited by the constraints of available microphone positions rather than any deficiences in the quality of the gear.

If you are willing to invest for Grace preamps, it make no sens to me to send their signals to the cheap preamp inputs of a cheap interface.
We have to keep in mind that nearly all affordable audio interface line ins circuits go throught its own preamp and not directly to the converters.
A good way to know is if the gain knob affects the line level input... But some don't and still pass through the preamps circuits and therefor colors the sound. (not always in a good way)

Our sound is as good as the weakest point of the signal path...

Boswell have a good point, starting small would give a better Learning curve and help you make better decisions ;)

The OP mentions DPA 2006A and Grace. This sounds like higher expectations. I don't think he's thinking budget here?

Just thinking as I'm reading into all this, while qualifying the OP targeted tracking chain.... the people I know who use DPA aren't even remotely in the camp of budget or mid level. If I was expecting DPA sweetness, I wouldn't put those through anything but a stellar front end.

Those mics are so accurate and sound absolutely delightful when they are in a chain worthy of them. And so it goes with all this top level gear.

FYI, 'My 2 DPA 4011A / 2006 caps plus shocks and bar cost me over $6000 USD lol. In Canadian that would be close to $9000 now.
Put those through a $150 converter interface, pre/combo... not me lol. The OP conversion seems like a serious miss match.

If the OP said he had the standard low to mid level mics in his radar and was searching for a good middle of the road sound, then I share the rest of your opinions on starting out with the run of the mill.

I've heard excellent reviews on the the Mico. Grace is probably the best 'out of the box' solutions out there for 2ch transparency. The True Precision 8 always comes to mind in this type of recording scenario. It's at them upper end of the OP budget, but leaves plenty of room for more mics, which are inevitable is the OP perues recording further. But this unit also, has no conversion, just pres.

Perhaps some nice but simple, like the apogee duet, would do the conversion trick decently. Other than that, it's close to 1k per channel, for high end pres, and fairly close to that per channel in high end conversion.

It's tough because the details in classical take good solid gear, and solid know how. So it's to me, really a question of whether you OP, would rather grow into the gear, or out of it. Good gear holds its value better, and the performance it offers usually cannot be simulated. It's just a matter of dealing w the wtf did I dos, for a while, until it clicks.

The advantage you have is good. Your trained at music, classical performers are usually quite good, and the classical performances are usually in good rooms. This is huge. Good rooms, good players, and good gear, make good or great recordings. Your job becomes, 'don't screw it up ' which for better or worse, leaves most of the responsibility on your knowledge of some basic things like mic placement, and phase related issues.

Millennia, grace, and GML are the most recognizable well established 'transparent' pres. And the true precision 8 has an excellent reputation. I don't do classical, so my opinion is based on research and conversation.

My friend recorded the Boston symphony with some senheissers a TLM Neumann, and either a sound devices box, or a motu traveler, and i still barely believe it was he who recorded it. The equipment your thinking is truly professional and suited for the cause, as long as you can be patient during the learning curve, you'll be putting out some killer stuff.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to my post! I have been reading forums and magazines for the better part of a year and finally decided to get into the recording art. And yes I fully understand the idea of growing out of cheaper equipment and Gear Addiction Syndrome. Before this recording project I ventured into camera work a while back with consumer/pro equipment and have grown with my equipment. There was a huge learning curve.. and months before I gained a real confidence in my art, and it is my idea this will translate into this next project. Reasons being I myself and my colleagues desperately need high quality recordings for competitions in the near future.. and financially I'm hoping to take the market at the university this year which is currently nonexistent surprisingly.

At the moment I am looking for 2ch and in a year or so reinvest into 8ch, variety of mics, mixing chamber music, etc. but for now this I believe this would be the initial setup for now. I should have mentioned my budget for a converter on top of mics, preamps, stands, wires, etc. would ideally be less than 2k as this entire project is funded from my extra earnings as a pianist. I also understand mic placement, DAW work, mixing etc. is just as important as buying expensive equipment. I wanted to hear my suspicions about a cheap conversion (could not directly find any information on this before), feedback, and really appreciate your thoughts. I will definitely look into the Prism Lyre, Tascam 1800, Mytek Stereo 192, etc. before acting on anything. Thanks so much again! Feel free to add any more thoughts or converter ideas.

Boswell, post: 431829, member: 29034 wrote: That said, because I often get called out at short notice, I also keep a "grab and go" classical recording set to hand consisting of a pair of [="http://www.mbho.de/t1.htm"]MBHO microphones[/]="http://www.mbho.de/…"]MBHO microphones[/], an [[url=http://="http://audient.com/…"]Audient Mico[/]="http://audient.com/…"]Audient Mico[/] pre-amp and a (pre-Retina) Macbook Pro laptop, along with appropriate leads, stands and an optical cable. I recommend that you have a look at the Mico, as it is a really good dual-channel pre-amp with its own internal converters. It has both analog outputs and a digital optical output, which in my case can feed into the optical input jack present on the pre-Retina Macbook Pros, which even many of the highly-knowledgeable staff in Apple stores don't know is there. This rig produces recordings that are usually limited by the constraints of available microphone positions rather than any deficiences in the quality of the gear.

This looks cool, reminds me of the Lavry Blacks half rack but a bit more colored maybe. Looks practical/ versatile.
I tried looking it up via Sweetwater for a price comparison buts its been dropped. Lavry dropped their Blacks too.
I suspect people have a hard time getting past the half rack designs. I know I did up until I actually used them and quickly realized they were simply just compact gems in a small package.
Nice suggestion Bos, I suspect these are really good for the price.

fwiw.
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Mico

soondae, post: 431842, member: 49410 wrote: At the moment I am looking for 2ch and in a year or so reinvest into 8ch, variety of mics, mixing chamber music, etc. but for now this I believe this would be the initial setup for now.

The Zen might be the ticket.
http://www.antelopeaudio.com/en/products/zen-studio-portable-audio-interface

I've used a Mytek AD96 for the past 2 years with 2 x UA LA-610 and the AD has been a fantastic converter.
I've been checking out the Zen too.. If it wasn't for the budget that I don't have, I'd be using one of those babies ;)

The Zen looks to be a very nice piece of equipment. That would be a unit one could easily grow into, high end enough to get good sound, expandable enough to cover 99% of most recording needs. Price range is high for a starter unit, but if someone already has invested in high end mics, then as stated before, high end interface should be considered.

The Zen looks like a great interface.

I dunno I always got the feel of a prosumer peice from the zen. It doesn't pair well on my mind to a pair of DPAs.

The only limitation of the Zen is that it has only 4 zero latency mixes, compared to RME which has a mix for every output...

kmetal, post: 431853, member: 37533 wrote: I dunno I always got the feel of a prosumer peice from the zen. It doesn't pair well on my mind to a pair of DPAs.

Of course I get you K, I would prefer having 16 millennia preamps and prism converters/interface if I had the money ! ;)
Then will come the usual Customer saying : 'I don't want go to your studio because you don't have Art MPA preamps and I don't know Mellenias...''

I guess the zen could be a transitionnal interface for the OP because it has good enough converters to serve the Grace preamps or other Hi-end pre (compared to a Scarlett 2i2) and if the day comes in a rush where he needs more preamps, those included in the zen could help those occasionnal needs.
For exemple, I already have 10 somewhat high-end pre and I don't use them all at the time very often. So adding 12 average preamps would make me band friendly in one move...
But I don't have the 3k (CAD) for it. So I'm considering cheaping out of it with the long awaited Audient ASP800 and keep my RME ff800 as interface.
Anyway, at this point I'm asking myself that even if I had 3k, getting a Precision 8 might be a better choice than switching to the Zen.
Well now, my head hurts, too many choices and not enough money !!! :confused:

Something like the apogee duet or UA Apollo twin, would get the conversion tasks done just as well, at a bit more cost per channel, than the zen. The twin having adapt inputs. I think because the channel counts are relatively low a kinda rock band style all in one interface is money spent on unnecessary fat, in the form of un need medium grade channel inputs.

http://www.fullcompass.com/prod/159566-Grace-Design-m101

Two of these and a duet or twin is the same price point as a zen. Paired with a pair of DPAs one is full out pro, the other is not gonna deliver full performance of the mics capability. Resale value, is better, as the disposable part is the interface, in most cases. Out growing a duet cost $600, outgrowing the zen costs $2200. While the grace preamps will probably retain at least half of their value for quite some time. It seems like way more bang for the buck, especially considering there's very small channel counts. imho

kmetal, post: 431853, member: 37533 wrote: I dunno I always got the feel of a prosumer peice from the zen. It doesn't pair well on my mind to a pair of DPAs.

Interesting to read your response, Kyle. I totally agree, btw.

pcrecord, post: 431855, member: 46460 wrote: The only limitation of the Zen is that it has only 4 zero latency mixes, compared to RME which has a mix for every output...

Of course I get you K, I would prefer having 16 millennia preamps and prism converters/interface if I had the money ! ;)
Then will come the usual Customer saying : 'I don't want go to your studio because you don't have Art MPA preamps and I don't know Mellenias...''

I guess the zen could be a transitionnal interface for the OP because it has good enough converters to serve the Grace preamps or other Hi-end pre (compared to a Scarlett 2i2) and if the day comes in a rush where he needs more preamps, those included in the zen could help those occasionnal needs.
For exemple, I already have 10 somewhat high-end pre and I don't use them all at the time very often. So adding 12 average preamps would make me band friendly in one move...
But I don't have the 3k (CAD) for it. So I'm considering cheaping out of it with the long awaited Audient ASP800 and keep my RME ff800 as interface.
Anyway, at this point I'm asking myself that even if I had 3k, getting a Precision 8 might be a better choice than switching to the Zen.
Well now, my head hurts, too many choices and not enough money !!! :confused:

Totally agree as well!

my two cents. The OP is clearly above prosumer and just learning or quizing about interfacing. I'm pretty sure he is reading between the lines on this one.

The way I think, I always approach my personal effort at a pro mindset. Even if I don't earn a living at something, I still want to do it the best I can. My painting business is no different than Pro Audio. I earn more than the average painter because I am better than the average painter. Its a win win if you are able to be who you say you are. People that pay for excellence tell others. Birds of a feature flock together. You will never catch me doing something that is inferior at a job where other peers are circling. Classical people that have money expect pristine, everything. If they don't know it now, they will later. Sure you can tell them that a Prism is no better than a $150 product some of the time. But, the one time you try that with someone that knows better (who counts), you are done.
The OP say's, he want to attract a better client. You do not do that on budget gear, even if it works good enough. People who hire excellence do their research. They can read posers so I make sure I never BS them or myself.
If my clients want budget, they would do it themselves and those people are the clients I never want.
To my ears, DPA requires excellent preamps to be worthy of their stellar craftsmanship. Otherwise they sound more like brittle condensers. At least that's how I hear it.
I doubt the Zen is worthy of them but its definitely a worth while mobile candidate for a lot of what we are suggesting for the less serious.

Although I like the Orion32 and bet most of their gear is above average, the 10M is the biggest ripoff out there today so I don't really trust their videos anymore. They all seem to target users that think the 10M is special which also spells a user that isn't up to todays standards.But, even if its a BS product, just the fact of having it will most likely get a few more to your door.

Gear does matter but most of the time, simple is really all we need to get it done. This business is a lot of hype, a big money pit.

imho

It's funny how our expectations and what we consider the top changes when we actually try them or discuss with those who have experience with them.
If I was to built it all from scratch It would be very different.
2 or 3 Grace m801 with an Orion 32 and madi card seems like a good plan that I wouldn't have consider 3 years ago...
The OP is in an exiting step of the recording world ; gearing up is fun !! (if you still have hair once you're done) ;)

pcrecord, post: 431858, member: 46460 wrote: If I was to built it all from scratch It would be very different.
2 or 3 Grace m801 with an Orion 32 and madi card seems like a good plan that I wouldn't have consider 3 years ago...

What has changed in your understanding towards 3 years ago to now?
If you were 3 years back, what would you be saying to someone then and why?

audiokid, post: 431865, member: 1 wrote: What has changed in your understanding towards 3 years ago to now?
If you were 3 years back, what would you be saying to someone then and why?

I think my best realisation in the past years was to discover the importance of preamps and get knowledge of different types and how they affect sound.
Knowing that warmth is not what people would expect and neither how to get it. And specially that Tube preamps is not necessary warm and that some are very bright.

Then a have better understanding about how converter chips are not so different and the quality of the conversion comes in great part from the analog circuit surrounding them.

I learn and confirm knowledge everyday, by visiting RO, reading articles and listening to pros on youtube, but also by actually doing it in my studio.
I didn't have a lot of customers this year so I had a lot of time to experiment and relearn the craft from mic placement to gain staging to mixing and approaching mastering.

I'd be saying that the most important tool is our ears and they NEED to be trained to perform...
Why ? How else could we recognise if it sound good or not ?

THANKS to all RO members ! ;)

I just have this internal issue with the notion of ultimate quality by spending more on preamps and equipment, when just a few inches and changes in angle and distance make (for me) a much more noticeable difference. When I was a music technology examiner, we'd have a candidate using the often complained about C1000 mics make a better recording than the one with a pair of U87s, and nice preamps, because they put the C1000s (and cheapish recorder) in the right place. Often, the photos would show the problem with side fire mics in an X/Y configuration, but the student unaware that they didn't pick up end on. The photos often made me chuckle. Seeing the expensive mics placed like that made the audio result very understandable!

Mic choice and mic placement make a great difference on sound that's for sure.
But, a cheap and Noisy preamp does it as well doesn't it ?

BTW send me that cheap recorder, I have 4 x C1000s that I don't use very often !! :ROFLMAO:

I really don't agree - I've not heard a bad preamp for a long time. Sure, some are noisier than others, but even the modest ones are quiet if you don't need lots of gain. I firmly believe mic placement produces better results than poorer placement and better preamps. Quiet sound sources and distance would no doubt show the differences off of course - but I very rarely need bags of gain for what I do.

paulears, post: 431877, member: 47782 wrote: I just have this internal issue with the notion of ultimate quality by spending more on preamps and equipment, when just a few inches and changes in angle and distance make (for me) a much more noticeable difference. When I was a music technology examiner, we'd have a candidate using the often complained about C1000 mics make a better recording than the one with a pair of U87s, and nice preamps, because they put the C1000s (and cheapish recorder) in the right place. Often, the photos would show the problem with side fire mics in an X/Y configuration, but the student unaware that they didn't pick up end on. The photos often made me chuckle. Seeing the expensive mics placed like that made the audio result very understandable!

The topic of debate, is when you aim both the expensive and cheapest mics properly, can the cheap one sound as expensive as the other. Or subjectively 'as good as'. I'm saying that there is a point, yes with diminishing returns, where a certain level of quality is unattainable otherwise.

A warm audio neve clone and a BAE neve clone are two completely different animals, and price points. This doesn't mean expensive is always better, it's saying that no, not all mid level stuff keeps up with the best. And there are some places like classical and jazz, where the best means detailed responsive and clear. High precision enginering is required for this type of equipment, and the price reflects it.

paulears, post: 431881, member: 47782 wrote: I really don't agree - I've not heard a bad preamp for a long time. Sure, some are noisier than others, but even the modest ones are quiet if you don't need lots of gain. I firmly believe mic placement produces better results than poorer placement and better preamps. Quiet sound sources and distance would no doubt show the differences off of course - but I very rarely need bags of gain for what I do.

I totally respect your opinion and share it to a certain extent. Poor placement, won't sound good. I think nobody is saying otherwise.

My ISA preamps, that are the bottom of what I would consider high-end, they sound a lot better the Saffire I had and the FF800 I now have.
They are quieter, more dynamic, faster with transients and produce a fuller sound. Put an SM57 on ISA and Saffire without changing anything else, the tones are very different. At least to me and I doubt anyone wouldn't here the difference with a minimum of ear training.

But of course, is it better or just different ? I can only engage myself by saying they sound better. If only for the noise ratio and gain available. (the Saffire preamps have something like 40 usable db compared to 60-70 of the ISA)
I admit that if I put up some overhead mics on a loud drum the difference is smaller, But make me record an acoustic or classic guitar and you'll cut me an arm before I'd use the saffire's over the ISA.
I was recording with a Soundcraft LX7 4 years ago and one tube preamp the DBX silver combo and M-audio delta cards... I can't say my recordings from this time are bad... But when I compare them to today's, they just sound amateur...

Thing is, if I had a 30k mixer, I wouldn't talk about boutique preamps like the ISAs (which design were originally created for a mixer). I'm sure the onboard preamps would be more than enough for my Home studio work. But if I'm rational, I won't ever have that kind of money.

I'm just plain happy when I get a signer in front of a KSM44 and LA-610 and he/she goes WOW I never heard myself like that !!
Isn't it the best goal for a recordist, being happy of what we can do with the tools we have (whatever they are) ?? ..

PS. Paul if you can't hear the diffence or the difference is not appealing to you, YOU ARE BLESSED !! ;)

On thing I should add. When getting my first High-end mic preamp, the first thing that surprised me was how less I needed to EQ my tracks when mixing.
I did use some pretty drastic EQ settings but I now sometime use very subtle ones. It's very rare that I do cuts more than 3db while with the preamps of my saffire interface, I often went for 5-6 db or more.

My last recording was a lady who needed a demo for an audition for a big live production. I was very surprised that just cuting 2db around 300-400hz was all I needed to make her sound amazing !!

'Better' pres, take eq better as well, especially when talking digital itb eq. There's just more sound there in the first place. Less phase related artifacts from the better circuit design and components. Eq is really trying to compensate with phase adjustments. So when your adjusting phase, time/frequency stuff, with an eq, the less artifacts, the less eq and the better it will sound off the bat.

I think the presonus eureka is a great pre amp. Put it up against the calrec and it's not too close. The eureka with its eq does still not sound full or defined as the calrec, with no eq.

That said, everyone knows I think you get way more 'tone' out of an eq than a preamp any day. But the idea for the OP I belive is transparency. Good transparent aka expensive transparent, doesn't suffer the clinical, or thin sounds that it has a connotation for. It's vibe is about 'there ness' and there's nothing thin about the Boston symphony. I hope I get to do some classical recording work before I retire.! Jealous of the OP. Lol

One off the topic consideration, is what are the headphones/monitors the OP is using. Ugh, I had to say it lol.

paulears, post: 431881, member: 47782 wrote: I really don't agree - I've not heard a bad preamp for a long time. Sure, some are noisier than others, but even the modest ones are quiet if you don't need lots of gain. I firmly believe mic placement produces better results than poorer placement and better preamps.

That could be at a certain level of sonic expectation and business approach. The ability to hear and expect good, better, best is subjective. Try telling these people.
http://www.mil-media.com/clients.html

If this was true we would be using the cheapest SS and be done with all this nonsense.

From my own experiences (which is how I judge everything I talk about here) ... The Millennia lineup, specifically the M-2b (because thats what I use) is all I personally need and ever want now. Yes this particular product is expensive but worth every penny to me. I have minuscule interest in having a pallet of preamp flavours today. My DAW tools allow me to get a lot more done ITB so it really simplifies my choices of front end now.

This is where subjective comes in.
I personally prefer (big rail) transformerless pre's and summing consoles and if I need "colour" I get it other ways now.
As an example: The SPL Neos , a 120 rail summing console is unnoticeable in an analog path that also includes a comparable ADC. I don't want to hear my analog gear on, I don't want to hear my converters either. I only want to hear the real world. The real world is what I am shooting for.
What are we all shooting for?

This is true with Millennial preamps too. My tracking source is like hooking a human up to a wire and it travels through to the DAW.
That would never happen with example, an WA12 Warm Audio wall wart pre that can be had for $250. Or, the pre's found in a lot of low to mid level ADC .

Gear doesn't replace a great song. But a great song and performance sounds better if you are using the gear that suits the style.

I did an A/B of live choral work a few years ago (it wasn't clinical).
Lavry Black ADC /preamp combo . vs FF800 ADC /preamp combo. The difference was not subtle.
I can post it. Its two different days and songs but anyone with some sense of hearing can hear the difference.

The mic was a Royer SF24 directly into these ADC into Sequoia. Nothing added.

Of course,I'd like to hear that !! ;)

Same Choir,
Both of these products have their own ADC and mic pre's. In this very non clinical comparison (be sure to adjust the volumes),
Which one do you prefer or does it even matter?

Choir-Lavry-AD11-Royer-SF24
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Choir-Fireface800-Royers-SF24

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

Attached files WhiteSpruce-clipFF800.mp3 (1.3 MB)  WhiteSpruceMasterClip2Lavry.mp3 (718.3 KB) 

I thought I'd give it a go with my system that I'm familiar with. Without any doubt at all, the second track with the fireface800 is cleaner, more real, less artificial and the only real thing that matters, sounds better to me. I've never actually heard of this device or the Lavry, so I am now off to Google them and see if my opinion makes sense. Good test - thanks.

EDIT

Oh - that wasn't what I expected at all? one thousand pounds for the one I liked and fifteen hundred for the one I didn't. I'm really not quite sure how to quantify that, or maybe I simply shouldn't?

I've been searching about for some recording I've made on much, much cheaper equipment for some kind of comparison (and squashed to mp3 format, as this is the download medium)

I know the equipment that was used for these two, but I'm not sure if the difference is that clear. The microphone was a custom built multi-pattern stereo mic - two capsules one on top of the other that can be rotated through 90 degrees with respect to each other. Set to cardioid, 90 degree angle to each other. Quite close in, as the requirement here was for clarity, rather than concert style realism.

http://www.earsmediastore.com/allegro-samples/excerptsmp3/27excerpt.mp3
This is recorded with a Lexicon Omega in the music room of the pianist's house, with Yamaha C3 piano. There is some added reverb on this clip - which messes with it a bit, but I can't find the clean version, sorry.

[="http://www.granthorsley.com/catching%20butterflies.mp3"]http://www.granthorsley.com/catching butterflies.mp3[/]="http://www.granthor…"]http://www.granthor… butterflies.mp3[/]
This one using the same microphone in almost the same position, but recorded using an HHB MD recorder's preamps.
[[url=http://="http://www.dolphinm…"]4809-hhb-mdp500-professional-portable-minidisc-recorder-large.jpg[/]="http://www.dolphinm…"]4809-hhb-mdp500-professional-portable-minidisc-recorder-large.jpg[/]
The live USB output went to the Macbook Pro - with the MD recording needed by the pianist - seemed a sensible thing to do, and I rather like the sound of this device anyway.

So this is MUCH cheaper equipment than Chris's excellent setup.

I couldn't get either file to play...

Can you provide the samples using the "upload file" feature?

paulears, post: 431927, member: 47782 wrote: Oh - that wasn't what I expected at all? one thousand pounds for the one I liked and fifteen hundred for the one I didn't. I'm really not quite sure how to quantify that, or maybe I simply shouldn't?

I'm not saying the price has anything to do with sonics on my two files. Just posting it and curious what we all think.

At the time of this test, the FF800 was about $400 more than the AD11. Both used on ebay, the FF800 will still cost more ;)

Here is something interesting as well. What are these guys doing that RME or SPL can't or aren't doing? They want a minimum of $400 more to upgrade these.
http://blacklionaudio.com/product/rme-fireface-800-mods/

PS, I've uploaded the files to RO server so you can set the volumes or download them for that matter.

I recorded about 10 choirs for a festival competition and some of them could really belt it out. Here was my observation between my two tracks.

At the time of this session, what I noticed most between the two products :
the FF800 lacked headroom and was challenging to keep it under control with dynamic vocals. I wanted to use a compressor but it was against the rules to use any electronic processors.
1 Royer SF24 and the recording device is what we are hearing. The Mic placement was above the conductor, but not exact between the sessions, but close.

@ the 16 sec mark, I hear the FF800 converter/preamps breaking up. Lavry never does this. It was more stable and consistent of the two products.
I hear a smoother, more open sound to the Lavry.

The FF800 is the better bang for the buck. Lavry is better sounding to me. Especially the mic pres. Lavry converters are also exceptional.

Thats my two cents.

Lavry sounds more like what it sounds like in a room w the choir the RME is much more upfront. It's shocking how much of a difference the AD makes. Honestly I wouldn't pick either one as ideal. RME had a bit too much bite, and the Lavry was warm at the expense of detail. Thanx for the post Chris. Just reinforces how important it is to lay ears on this stuff.

paulears, post: 431927, member: 47782 wrote: I thought I'd give it a go with my system that I'm familiar with. Without any doubt at all, the second track with the fireface800 is cleaner,

It's intriguing that you picked the FF800 Paulear. I hope it ain't nothing to do with the fact that the ff800 file is louder at the begining. I went for a quiter part and compared the two files at the most similar vocal content and I find the AD11 fuller with a more complete spectrum representation. What those that meen to me clear HF and deeper LF.
This is intriguing me even more by the fact that I deeply respect your opinion and more skilled and experienced engineer than I am.

paulears, post: 431928, member: 47782 wrote: http://www.earsmediastore.com/allegro-samples/excerptsmp3/27excerpt.mp3
This is recorded with a Lexicon Omega in the music room of the pianist's house, with Yamaha C3 piano. There is some added reverb on this clip - which messes with it a bit, but I can't find the clean version, sorry.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.granthor…"]http://www.granthor… butterflies.mp3[/]="http://www.granthor…"]http://www.granthor… butterflies.mp3[/]
This one using the same microphone in almost the same position, but recorded using an HHB MD recorder's preamps

Both pianos sound very good but a bit nazal to me.. Just my taste and I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the preamps used. There is so many other variables that the only valid comparaisons are when only the preamp changes.

pcrecord, post: 431936, member: 46460 wrote: It's intriguing that you picked the FF800 Paulear. I hope it ain't nothing to do with the fact that the ff800 file is louder at the begining. I went for a quiter part and compared the two files at the most similar vocal content and I find the AD11 fuller with a more complete spectrum representation. What those that meen to me clear HF and deeper LF.

No disrespect intended. This is shop talk.

I was thinking the same. The volume is fooling and/or, his hearing or monitoring is pron to a more mid freq appreciation.

I'll add a bit more to this discussion which is most interesting.

(in another test)The FF800 converters sounded closer to the Lavry when it was tracked at 88.2 and 96k. But once I bounced the FF800 down to 44.1, the FF800 sounded mid heavy and lost the open sound that the Lavry retained at 44.1.
The Lavry sounds better at 44.1 to a FF800 at 88.2. This was the beginning of my appreciation to better converters.

Better converters sound better at lower SR. Cheaper converters need to sample much higher to compete. Prism is the same, stellar and rock solid. Both Lavry and Prism make excellent mobile converters . They are excellent for mastering which are my go-to for capturing mixdowns. They serve two purposes , mobile and capture ADC for the two DAW system. a win win.

Better converters capture audio at 44.1 which means, you do not need to bounce down and your mobile or mastering rig CPU is more proficient.
Lavry and Prism both sound more in phase as well.
Thus, a more stable mobile system. Definitely a better choice for classical music.

From what I've been looking into lately, Lavry is one of the big proponents of lower SR. In fact that was one of my main concerns with them, simply because others go higher up in that realm.

Audible in the audio playback or not, I think higher sample rates play into latency related performance don't they? Or no? Not sure on this. I know with reason 4 if you increased the sample rate, the latency went down, as far as the VSTi engine in reason. I think if you take enough samples it's eventually 'pseudo linear' or continuous, maybe allowing instantaneous continual streams of audio? this stuff is all kinda foggy to me still.

When put in the context of mobile tracking, and SRC the Lavry s 'limitataions' are worked around. Seems like you found a great application for this. The prices are not roof crushing either.