Pro gear = digital nirvana

[cfmsp]

deleted due to not adding any value

 

[fahadm]

@cfmsp:

 

Indeed, I've looked at other studios' gear (e.g. Air, Strongroom, Toshiba/EMI, others) and mostly observed that:

 

a) Pro gear is being used with converters in the $1,000 to $8,500 range

 

b) This is not exhaustive, but I'm seeing a lot of Apogee, Prism, dCS, Benchmark DACs

 

c) Not a single audiophile-only DAC encountered so far (I'm not implying inferiority of audiophile DACs, just can't spot one yet in a studio)

 

d) More money is being spent on amplification and speakers (than DACs). See Abbey Road for examples

 

e) Linear power supplies not a 'must-have' in very expensive set-ups

 

I encourage others to contribute to this high-level 'research' and share results/opinions.

 

[barrows]

I find that your continued use of studios as evidence questionable. What makes you think that studios have the best sound playback systems? And, why would a studio use an audiophile DAC at all? I think if you search a little more you will find plenty of Weiss and even the mythical Pacific Microsonics Model Two converters among the gear at the best studios. Hopefully, you will also find some very special tape decks for recording.

Studios are not neccessarily the model for the best sound playback possible. For instance, I have heard the Classe/B&W pairing shown in this photo from Abbey Road, and while it is a very revealing set up (which might make it ideal for monitoring duties), it is not one I would care to listen to for pleasure. I like the B&Ws, but find they sound a lot better when paired with an amp that offers a little more natural warmth (like Pass).

In any case, I agree that there are some very good pro converters out there-I personally love the sound of the Weiss DAC 1 Mk II (AKA Medea in the audiophile line).

 

[Purite Audio]

I owned B&W800d's the pass 350 I had didn't control the bass, all a bit soft and woolly, you need something with plenty of current.

Keith.

 

[bdiament]

Hi fahadm,

 

The question you might want to ask is:

Are studios necessarily good things to emulate in terms of getting the sound you want from your system?

 

If you seek as neutral a sound as possible, to get as close as you can to the truth of the input signal, I would say the answer is most definitely not.

Consider how far from convincing most recordings sound and then consider how they were made: the microphone choices, the placement of those mics (care to listen to a grand piano from under the lid with your head right above the hammers?) and ultimately, the abysmal monitoring in most studios. Even if an audiophile manufacturer shows a photo of the studio in their ads, look at how they are placed. (Would you want a large glass surface just behind your speakers? Or would you like smaller monitors placed atop a large horizontally oriented reflecting surface, to ensure a midrange dip at your ears during critical listening?)

 

Ever try to do critical listening in a studio's control room? If that is a sound you'd like, then emulating their gear selection (and placement and implementation) would be a good idea. Otherwise, I'd say "Run!"

 

The DACs on the list you mentioned cover the range from "etched" to "silky smooth". That is, some will "add detail" to everything (which is not present on the source) and some will "smooth over" everything, obscuring differences between originals to make everything sound "nice". Any of these paths is fine of course, provided this is the listener's goal. However, if you don't want to "add detail" to everything and don't want to "smooth over" everything, perhaps looking at what studios use isn't going to get you the best answer for you.

 

Neither will arguments about power supply design or the type of components a designer selects to implement their ideas. There is no substitute for a personal audition, ideally in your own system.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[f1eng]

The most realistic recordings I have heard are simply miked recordings of live (classical) performances. The balance adjustment was done during rehearsal by moving the microphone pair relative to the performers.

IMHO once you have used multiple microphones, chosen, mixed and modified to suit the skill and taste of the recording engineer the recording can, and often does sound great but any "realism" has been created rather than recorded.

Certainly anybody who believes phase coherence is crucial should leave the room now ;-)

I am lucky enough to own a few master tapes of simple recordings done thus.

Frank

 

[bdiament]

Hi Frank,

 

"The most realistic recordings I have heard are simply miked recordings of live (classical) performances. The balance adjustment was done during rehearsal by moving the microphone pair relative to the performers..."

 

Simple mic'ing can be done for recording anything, not just classical performances. When the mics are properly placed vis-a-vis the ensemble and the room, balance adjustment is done not by moving the mic array but by moving the players. (At least that is how I do it.)

 

I even have a few rock projects on the burners to be recorded the same way I do all Soundkeeper projects: in just the right space for the particular set of instruments and music, using my matched pair of QTC-1s, separated by an absorbent baffle of my own design, direct to stereo (now at 24/192 with my ULN-8).

 

I fully agree that having a single "time" signal per playback channel yields a coherence that is not achieved any other way.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[f1eng]

Excellent. I was not purposely implying that only classical recordings could be made in this way, only pointing out that I have a tiny amount of experience of this type of recording. Sorry if it read otherwise.

I have never seen a recording studio and have no knowledge of how they normally function.

I go to plenty of live concerts and have recorded a few of my wife's performances, but a long time ago.

Sounds great that you can do your recordings with 1 mic pair.

Thanks for educating me some more.

Frank

 

[barrows]

Thanks for that observation. I am aware that the B&Ws are current hogs, perhaps a bigger Pass was in order? Pass offers the X 600.5 and X 1000.5 with more power and current.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Frank,

 

"...I have never seen a recording studio and have no knowledge of how they normally function..."

 

In my experience, the best recordings are made outside of studios, in performance spaces suited to the music and instrumentation of the performance.

 

While there were some long ago, there are few studios today that are large enough (and with acoustics of sufficient quality) to create a convincing recording made in purist fashion. Nowadays in studios, recorded "acoustics" are electronically generated. The astute ear has no difficulty in discerning the difference between an undifferentiated "space" and a real, "in focus" acoustic.

 

I spend a great deal of my time visiting potential recording sites and maintain a small catalog in my mind, of suitable spaces and the types of music for which they would be suited. My last recording was made in a beautiful auditorium built in 1908, in of all places, what is now an assisted living facility. The stage is unique in my experience. Rather than being a hollow, wooden construct (a good, resonant, absorber of bass), the central floor of the stage appears to be made of stone.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[fahadm]

Hello Barry

 

It seems that you touched upon a very important aspect about how music is captured and recorded. I fully agree with you and Frank that 'live' (i.e. single-take) recording have qualities such as coherence and 'truthfulness' that could be somewhat 'lost' in a 'layered' mix (where each performer/band member records on his/her own later to be mixed). Thats why many listeners prefer a "live and flawed" recording over a studio version. FWIW, I mean by flawed little quirks by performers that are retaken individually.

 

Another important aspect that you're hinting is the 'minimalist' recording technique. It's true that many recording engineers record each instrument on its own track, sometimes, with 'unrealistic' mic placement (e.g. mic under piano lid). All this mixing via consoles introduce additional layers/veils between the listener and the performance.

 

I've had a look at your recording session for "Lift" and what you've is done is absolutely wonderful. That is, a faithful recording of a performance in a 'real' venue (rather than artificial, studio-mixed, overly-complex setup). I'm sure that this technique makes the experience far more involving for the listener.

 

One only hopes that more engineers, record labels and artists agree to record in the 'purist' fashion like what you're doing. Unfortunately, recording quality is deteriorating because 'many' record labels and artists are attempting to maximize sales through 'loud' and seemingly 'perfect' recordings, even if those recordings are mixed, compressed and auto-tuned to death.

 

While we have veered off-topic somewhat, but the posts contributed by everyone are extremely valuable and paint a fuller picture of both the (a) recording and (b) audio reproduction industries.

 

To conclude this thread, maybe there is a 'slight' majority that agrees that dollar for dollar, 'properly' recorded music will sound better on pro gear than audiophile gear. That is, with a budget of say $2,000, pro DACs will sound closer to the original performance than $2,000 audiophile DACs. I'm not insinuating that pro companies are better or worse engineers than audiophile-only companies, but the pro business model is more economically-efficient (i.e. distribution channels, economies of scale, home-trial, level of support, etc...).

 

Thanks to everyone who read, commented, contributed, shared their knowledge/experience. It was very informative for many of us.

 

Best,

 

Fahad

 

[bdiament]

Hi fahadm,

 

I would like to follow up on your post with a few additional points.

 

From my perspective, it isn’t the “single-take” that makes for the coherence and “truth”. It is the use of only one “time” signal per playback channel. It isn’t the “layered” mix that causes the losses. It is the multiplicity of time signals (and poor microphone technique in terms of mic selection and mic placement).

 

It is completely possible to still have overdubs and maintain the coherence and truth. In order to do this, the microphone pair (for stereo) must remain in the same position it was in for the initial recording. The mic feeds are simply fed to a new pair of tracks on a multitrack recorder, for each new overdub.

 

Further, since each mic in each stereo recording will feed its own channel (left and right, respectively) and no “panpots” (or console) are used, placement of the players for each overdub must be considered beforehand. I wouldn’t want say, an overdubbed saxophone player to occupy the same space the drums are in the previous recording.

 

I wrote about this in more detail in Part 2 of my “Recording in Stereo” article

www.barrydiamentaudio.com/recording2.htm

 

One example of a recording done in this fashion is the reggae album “Waves” by Work of Art. The whole album was recorded with a single pair of mics. The basic tracks (drums, bass, guitars) were done in one take, recorded in real stereo. Other parts were added later, using the techniques I described in Part 2. Though recorded in a studio (one I designed for Art), there was no processing (compression, etc.). Art and I did the mixes, using the Maggies in his studio and I mastered the CD in my own studio.

 

As to my own recordings, done with no overdubs or multitracking, there are photos from the most recent (“Equinox”) recording sessions at

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/equinox.htm

 

By the way, most folks might be shocked if they knew a good number of their “live” albums have had many of the parts replaced after the fact, in the studio.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

I didn't like "Lift" album (not my type of music) but I do like the tracks from "Equinox" and I will download the album this weekend.

 

Where can I find download tracks from the reggae album “Waves” by Work of Art?

 

[bdiament]

Hi audiozorro,

 

There are no downloads of Soundkeeper Recordings. But there *are* files-on-disc versions ("Equinox" in either 24/96 or 24/192, .aif or .wav) in addition to the other formats.

 

The only download versions of "Waves" of which I'm aware are on iTunes. For the CD, check http://www.workofartmusic.com/albums.html and click on the album cover.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[ferenc]

Would you be so kind to check this recording and let me know how do you feel about it? It is 96 kHz/24 bit original recording, no mastering or sweetening, not even gain chainging. Two tracks of an 8 mic setup.

 

http://pennamedia.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/recording-sample-96-khz24-bit/

 

[fredhammersmith2]

I personaly like the rackmount look of the pro products.

 

I just ran into a Roland ADA 7000 (DAC/DAC) for a very cheap price (375$). Run as a DAC in an audiophile set-up, do you think it offers good value and good sound?

 

http://www.roland.com/products/en/ADA-7000/specs.html

 

 

[manisandher]

I've not got any direct experience of this 2-channel AD/DA, but I know of one mastering engineer who I respect who thinks very highly of it - preferring it in some ways to his PM Model Two.

 

It looks like it retails for around $4500.

 

Mani.

 

[ted_b]

and will bring in his brand new MDAC-2 (the DAC portion of the MADA-2). The feedback on some pro sites is off the charts. It doesn't have a computer interface so I'll be using my Weiss DAC2 for fw-to-AES for the eval, but at $2900 maybe I can afford an fw box.

 

[fahadm]

I did a bit of research and found that Forssell makes digital boards for other manufacturers such as Manley.

 

This may well indicate that Forssell is very respected in the design of digital converters.

 

[SteveChicago]

I have an excellent modded Esoteric DAC but needed an interface. I found a pro audio device for $350 USD that works perfectly with my system and has improved the sound. Same price point as consumer converters that could not do the job. Just sayin'...

 

[ted_b]

or use one of the TRS outputs into an adapter?

 

[SteveChicago]

Ted,

 

I'm running SPDIF from the Profire into the DAC; firewire from the Mac Mini into the Profire.

 

Handshakes perfectly; DAC recognizes the Profire as a Word Clock.

 

Steve

 

[barrows]

while these lower level "pro" (M Audio, EMU, etc) converters can offer adequate conversions from Firewire-USB/SPDIF most have found that their performance suffers when compared to even something as simple and affordable as the M2 Tech hiFace.

My own experience in using a well regarded mid price pro converter (RME Fireface 400) strictly to convert Firewire-SPDIF was very dissapointing. Yes, it worked, and allowed me to playback up to 24/192 resolution files, but the sound was flat and veiled compared to a good CD transport playing into the same DAC. While these affordable pro market products will do the job, do not think that you are getting the same performance in terms of jitter as is possible with more expensive purpose built products (Weiss, Wavelength, Audiophilleo, M2 Tech, Metric Halo, Prism, etc).

 

[SteveChicago]

Hi Barrows,

 

I have no illusions and I am not suggesting that a lower priced pro device like the one I purchased is "digital nirvana;" however, in MY CASE, the HiFace sounded terrible (thin, crackles, etc.), the Stello U2 was simply incompatible and did not permit me to play Hi Rez, and the Profire works like a charm. Again, IN MY CASE, the Profire sounds BETTER than either of those consumer devices. I have no doubt that I could achieve better performance with more expensive devices, but hey ...

 

Steve

 

[Audio_ELF]

@Barrows

 

I wonder if your disappointment with the FireFace could be to do with it's lack of "real" clock - it uses a synthesised (PLL) clock which allows the clock to be prescicely controlled but maybe not very accurate.

 

Eloise