Getting better converters vs upping sampling rate/bit depth?

AT


Converters are one of the last places to look to upgrade.  Not that they ain't important, but in the great chain of sound I want them to faithfully reproduce what they are fed not "add" anything.  And I think it was Moto a few years ago that advertised they used the same converter chips that Apogge did, which was kinda silly since there were (are) only a few of these chip makers.  It is true that the other analog components that lead in and out of converters make a difference and that is what you pay for in higher cost converters, but in my opinion that money is better spent before (or after) the converters.
Most modern converters do a good job - even the low end.

A good rule of thumb is the closer to the source, the better your money is spent.  Song, performance, instruments, room, mic, preamp are all more important.  Even a low end integrated interface will do a good job on the preamp/converter aspect, as long as you don't stress the cheaper components much, ie. except 55 + dB preamp to capture a whispery voice or instrument without adding to the noise floor, or expect the same to capture dramatic volume change without crapping out.  High quality tools make an engineer's life easier and safer, besides whatever "sound' they add during capture.  And if you overdrive a converter, the digital hash it produces is on/off, obvious and nothing like the progression good analog provides going from saturation to distorition.  So I would prefer to spend money going into a converter getting whatever sound I need before.

You don't say what interface you currently have that gives you the cloudy sound.  I can say that I noticed a difference when I upgraded from a Presonus FirePod, one of the earliest 8 channel cheap integrated interfaces.  When I stepped up to a TC Konnekt I noticed a better, clearer high end.  Not night and day, as people often describe it, and in some ways the pod delivered a more "analog", rounded sound that worked better on some music.  I don't know whether this was because of the preamps in it or the converters in the pod, but it was there.  Maybe a new, even cheap interface would help if you are using an older converter?

But I wouldn't be too quick to spend $2000 on a lynx if I was recording vocals through a '57.  A mic would be a better place to put that money.  And before I'd chuck the interface I'd be tempted to get a better preamp.  And  montiors.  And room treatment.  Better recording (and techniques) makes mixing soo much easier, since you are starting w/ a more finished sound.

As others have said, higher rates might help and your interface might sound better at a higher rates.  But most of that controversy is old - most companies have figured out how to make decent filters for conversion.  Some softsynths (and effects) might sound better at 96, but most effects these days use upsampling anyway.  But try some experiments and see for yourself if upping the sample rate helps.  If so, then the money should go to a new computer.

Unless you have an older converter or one designed for gaming, you'll probably want to put the money toward the front end.

@

drewfx1

brconflict


This is analogous to sampling frequency. The higher the sampling frequency, the more accurate the digital conversion. However, a poor clock can make some rectangles overlap or leave complete gaps.   

No.

The only place a higher sampling frequency gives a more accurate conversion is just below the lower sampling rate's Nyquist frequency (due to the filtering not being perfect). 

But it's not like the filters are a real world problem when using decent modern technology, even at 44.1kHz, given human hearing limitations and the lack of enough signal level at those frequencies (in almost anything other than test tones) to be audible.