audiokid, post: 431942, member: 1 wrote: The FF800 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. This was the beginning of my appreciation to better converters.
---
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.

It's not the first time that we discuss this. Better converters sounds better at low res. I record and mix at 96k for that exact reason. I don't want to take any chances about quality and until now, I didn't get any problems with computer ressources... I must admit that with better tracking results (coming from better gear and know how), I turned toward simpler mixing with a lot less plugins.

kmetal, post: 431943, member: 37533 wrote: 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.

Lavry sounds steller at 96k but I find I don't really care if I go that high with them anyway. They are always better sounding than the crop of ADC out there.

1. Higher SR means more data space,

2. 44.1 is my capture rate on the two DAW system.
   class="xf-ul">
   
   

   kmetal, post: 431943, member: 37533 wrote: Audible in the audio playback or not, I think higher sample rates play into latency related performance don't they? Or no?

   No idea, I usually only use a few plug-ins. This is why I invest in excellent gear in the first place. The better the gear, the less you need to fix it.

   pcrecord, post: 431944, member: 46460 wrote: It's not the first time that we discuss this. Better converters sounds better at low res. I record and mix at 96k for that exact reason. I don't want to take any chances about quality and until now, I didn't get any problems with computer ressources... I must admit that with better tracking results (coming from better gear and know how), I turned toward simpler mixing with a lot less plugins.

   Without question.

   The weaker the gear, seems to drive people with acute hearing nuts. Its hard to mix something you know you "should be able to fix". Cheap converters have an ugly upper mid sound (that accumulates and compounds) that creates an over use of EQ. When you EQ the ugly upper freq, you need to reduce bass freq and all that does is make smaller sounding music. And so it goes... Weak sounding music that just sounds loud.

   So, (a good or bad attribute) I have no choice in a lot of my decisions. ( I guess this is also subjective) I simply can't live with something I know can be fixed. I'm not one to live with a problem, once I know what is causing it.
   I'm sure we can relate to this one... I go crazy trying to find a better way and all that does is put the problem somewhere else in the song. erk.

   Conversion can effect everything in a great chain. I mean, everything goes through it.
   Which was why I mentioned to the OP about using DPA mics with a cheap converter. That's like running bad fuel in a Race car. Why even bother buying good anything. You might as well keep it simple and follow the norm which is all about budget and too many plug-ins and/or rack crap that smears more than improves..

   Mixing is definitely easier when the music sounds more natural.

audiokid, post: 431942, member: 1 wrote: But once I bounced the FF800 down to 44.1...

What method did you use for this? Did you actually bounce or just re-sample?

I bounced down in Sequoia. Why do you ask? :)

Shortly after this session, I bought the Lavry and started using it for the two DAW system and have never needed to bounce again.
As you are aware, a 2 DAW capture sounds better to my ears over bouncing. I may have some examples for us to hear what the capture sounds like in comparison to a bounce. I'll post them if I find them.

Generally speaking: I do these tests to confirm concepts or processes for my own growth, not to fuel any promoting of something.
I've done numerous tests comparing a few RME products to other converters. The FF800 are a great product, but even tracked at higher SR, example: RME FF800 96k to Lavry and Prism 44.1 both of those always sound better. When I track Lavry or Prism at 96k, they sound like silk. (a sweeter top end, deeper lows and more spacious (better mids that don't sound as aggressive). Closer to natural experience.

The preamps are why I originally moved away from them. When I realized my better pres were also compromised by their weaker conversion, it was the end of those. Thus, you are hostage to your weakest link. A Millennia M-2b through FF800 conversion was instant drop in sound quality. And so it goes. You are only as good as your weakest link.

audiokid, post: 431948, member: 1 wrote: I bounced down in Sequoia. Why do you ask? :)

I really thought you compared recording at 96 and 44 not converting the files. I'm sure Sequoia does it very well, but it's not the same to me...
Anyway, I trust you all the way for those observations about converter quality. ;)

Thanks.

Note: In the above (and below now) example of the choir, both were tracked at 44.1 . In other examples, which I haven't posted, I have explained how even the FF800 tracked at 96 doesn't compare to Lavry at 44.1. That's what I meant early on in this discussion. For some reason, this choir has been confused with additional discussion about how lower SR sounds better with better converters.

Does that make better sense now?

I loaded these into Sequoia and normalized them so they are easier to compare. I should have done this before.
Again, both were tracked at 44.1/24 with a Royer SF-24 above the conductor. Different days and slightly different mic position so its not clinical. (other than normalizing just now) No additional processing.

Lavry
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
FF800
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

I retried my listening on the two choral pieces, but this time with my in-ears and the second one on the lower price unit still would be the choice for me. This suggests we are all listening to different things - or maybe the source material favours certain monitoring conditions? It kind of generates more questions than answers. Very interesting.

audiokid, post: 431948, member: 1 wrote: I bounced down in Sequoia. Why do you ask?

I was trying to figure out when you did this in relation to your move to a 2-box setup.

Any difference when doing it via the uncoupled DAW?

Some pics of the stereo mic I like to use.

Boswell, post: 431959, member: 29034 wrote: I was trying to figure out when you did this in relation to your move to a 2-box setup.

Any difference when doing it via the uncoupled DAW?

I had a few ff800's and sold then after learning this.
. I believe I did a few more comparison with them against prism Orpheus, RME ADI-8 QS and may have the files still. I don't know if I compared them in a two daw step. If I find them, I'd be happy to post them as well.
Bottom line, the Ff800 still sounds squished in comparison to the others I own or owned.
The comparison above is about as real as it gets. Anything more I did is just a conformation of what we hear, here.

PS
I know I never used ff800 for the capture daw
Is that what you are wondering?

No, it was purely about the SRC. I thought you might have been re-sampling at the destination rate, but you clarified that you used the SRC in Sequoia.

Man, timbre aside, there's a depth and width in tha lavrys. It really sounds like there's stereo width pluggin. Again, at the expense of a little detail and sheen. I feel like it'd be easier to mix some detail into the lavrys, vs mixing depth and fullness into the rme.

Wouldn't it be funny if you tricked us and one was the other?! This is so revealing. In two ways. One its seems true that a lot of the conversion in mid level stuff is after the same type of thing, and performs about equally. And converters really do have their own sound. This is far less subtle than some other abs I've listened to on these same speakers and setup.

Boswell, post: 431978, member: 29034 wrote: No, it was purely about the SRC. I thought you might have been re-sampling at the destination rate, but you clarified that you used the SRC in Sequoia.

Sorry Bos, I'm still confused by your question and response. The only src I did to these 2 examples were MP3. Again, they were both tracked at 44.1 /24 into a laptop.

kmetal, post: 431979, member: 37533 wrote: Man, timbre aside, there's a depth and width in tha lavrys. It really sounds like there's stereo width pluggin. Again, at the expense of a little detail and sheen. I feel like it'd be easier to mix some detail into the lavrys, vs mixing depth and fullness into the rme.

Wouldn't it be funny if you tricked us and one was the other?! This is so revealing. In two ways. One its seems true that a lot of the conversion in mid level stuff is after the same type of thing, and performs about equally. And converters really do have their own sound. This is far less subtle than some other abs I've listened to on these same speakers and setup.

I was going to post a bunch more info on all this but I know you get it Kyle, so I won't bore us but, there is a reason I spend money on converters.I used to own RME ADI-8 QS and they sound amazing too. I needed 4 of them which came in at $12,000.00

When I listen to a lot of people mixes this first thing I always notice is that crammed sound. Its the sound of average conversion and lower end pre's.
Do you notice how the FF800 sound louder and more mid?
The lavry's don't have that hot mid sound because they are more natural sounding. You can mix music easier when your mids aren't in your face like that.
Pulse Technique MEQ-5 EQ's are like this too. They are a mid eq but they don't push that middy yuck that we all hate.High end gear has a more open and even sound to it.
Prism converters are like this too. Just beautiful capture ADDA.

But, why is it that Paul can't hear this or prefers the opposite? I think that is very interesting indeed. Obviously mids and volume effect some of us in different ways. Some people love the sound of the 50's music. To me that music all sounds mid heavy and crammed. But to others, its the sound of fun and memories.

The moment I heard what FF800 sounded like (including the preamps), I new they didn't belong in my rack. My mics all sounded middy. My SPL Mixdream (before the Neos) sounded middy, My Dangerous Master sounded middy, all my monitors sounded middy and so on. Everything sounded mid heavy and crammed. Everything sounded like mid level converters, yet ironically I am using high end gear. How could I ever really know what a $3800 mic pre sounded like? I couldn't because everything sound like the conversion.

Don't take my word on it though,its always best to try things out for yourself.

To my ears, the Lavry sounds fuller, more encompassing. The FF800 still sounds pretty good to me, but mids seem more prevalent, and at times seem to be a bit too much.... to my ears, anyway.

That doesn't mean that I find the FF800 to sound bad, but A/B'd as they are, I prefer the Lavry for its fuller and more tonally balanced sound.

Now... that's with me monitoring through a pair of Alesis M1 passives, powered by a Hafler Transnova, and, in an untreated space ( I've temporarily moved my DAW rig to a different room in my house - which is as of yet acoustically untreated - to gain more room in which to record several different players at once.)

Perhaps the differences would become even more apparent to me, if I were listening in a treated space, using NF's of a higher caliber.

FWIW
d.

audiokid, post: 431981, member: 1 wrote: Sorry Bos, I'm still confused by your question and response. The only src I did to these 2 examples were MP3. Again, they were both tracked at 44.1 /24 into a laptop.

Apologies - it's almost certainly my confusion then. I was thinking that these were examples of 96KHz recordings SRC'd to 44.1KHz.

audiokid, post: 431982, member: 1 wrote: Do you notice how the FF800 sound louder and more mid?

Yes, it's the sign of budget mics and interfaces. Mid range is the most complex I believe for digital to handle. It's got too and bottom for days. But the complex harmonics in the mids are where we are most sensitive to hear (differences and similarities), and I think he are a naturally tuned to using the mids as a bit part of our aurel recognition. In other words tone on the voice ect. So I think naturally the mids are gonna make or break things.

With tape, you got Imo a very smooth 'easy on the ears' mid range, but lows and highs (to some extent) leave something to be desired. I've never heard an ab of two tape Mack es like tascam vs studer, but I can say that the cheaper tale machines as well, lack a fullness, and headroom, and can be relatively spikes inthe mids.

I can't speak for Paul, but I belive that that's just what he likes. After years of reading his posts, I think he enjoys the sound of mid level things. From the lower teir akg mics, to some of the other peices we ve discussed.

I think in general at least 50% of the general listeners would probably like the FF800 better. It brings the instantaneous illusions of clarity. Upon deeper listening that 'clarity' is to me just masking and filtering vs the Lavry.

I don't know why 'audiophiles' and 'film' guys seems to be working with better fidelity gear in general than audio engineers. I'm starting to bridge the gap between entertainment and engineering tools. Pure accuracy is very expensive from the room to the equipment, and even if you achieve +- 3 db from 50hz-20k, your one of the only places around that had those conditions.

Rick Rubin, one of my role model producers, has an amazing steppes system at his house, and admittedly limited recording chops. I've read interviews with many artists saying 'oh everything sounds killer at ricks house' or 'when you hear your mixes thru ricks system it's incredible.'

Never have I heard an artist, say , wow the acoustics were super flat. Lol.

Obviously I like acoustic design... And I'm off on a tangent, but I think there's a fine line between what will do the best for the job, what we want, and what the client wants.

Boswell, post: 431989, member: 29034 wrote: Apologies - it's almost certainly my confusion then. I was thinking that these were examples of 96KHz recordings SRC'd to 44.1KHz.

Sorry Bos, I see where you misread my poor notes. (my bad, I'm terrible at explaining audio in writing). I've corrected that in the post making note, this SRC was in another test.

audiokid, post: 431942, member: 1 wrote: (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.