I am of the opinion that the voltage regulators and switching power supplies leave a nasty a^% grainy sound that the audio is then biased upon. You can't hear that grainy sound until the audio signal floats over it and then it's there making every thing sound like it was tracked through a Mackie. I hear the grain on the front end of every transient... it's a sound that has become institutionalized by its ubiquity.
 
The old timey 70 year audio engineering veterans that taught me a thing or two taught me to prioritize a great power supply when considering pre amps. If you spend the money on a great power supply then getting a great sounding preamp is pretty easy.
 
On a loosely related idea; My long time goal is too someday have the *fun* money to buy a balanced power system so that all my studio A.C. mains are balanced.
 
I've occasionally wondered about how it works in other countries. Here in USA our 115vAC is only half of our typical building feed... and ironically the 220vAC is balanced. We have to spend a small fortune to get balanced 110vAC. It occurs to me that some of the 220vAC countries may enjoy balanced power as a matter of course. Yes? No?
 
Anyways... just another opinion.
                                                 .
                                                  .
                                                   .
 
 
best regards,
mike

Balanced power is an interesting subject. They are not cheap from what I can see though.
 
Slightly off topic but important none the less is the differences between expensive Mic preamps (with hefty power supplies) and less expensive preamps with so called inferior power supplies.
 
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct12/articles/preamps.htm
 
And the wrap up here as well.
 
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec12/articles/preamp-results.htm
 
To be able to hear the effect of the power supply within a preamp for example may be only be possible in some circumstances but not so in many others. These articles go a long way to debunk a few myths. As one engineer said in the wrap up he would happily record a piano through a Mackie Preamp. (fiddling the gain pots might be another story as he mentions. I have produced a few very nice sounding acoustic albums using Mackie pres without any issue so it can be done!) Note we are not pushing into saturation here with any of these either. (differences may be more apparent when done so)
 
Modern power supplies are quite capable of doing a very good job. (not USB powered though ) They do not exhibit their sound into the audio in such a bad way at all. A very controlled blind A/B test would prove that and people who say they can hear so much in something would very likely fail under these conditions.
 
As quoted in the article:
We hope, though, that this test will have done something to restore a sense of perspective. Preamps are not the be-all and end-all of recording, and contrary to the advice that is sometimes dished out on Internet forums, those on a limited budget would often do better to spend their money on microphones or acoustic treatment, and to experiment with mic positioning, to achieve the sound they seek, than on expensive preamps. Don't be bullied into thinking that you can't make good recordings on affordable equipment. You can.

 
I agree with the idea that you can do good work with what ever you have. Yes. Absolutely.
 
You already know that I think, in my opinion, that the test and results you have linked to are a farce. But I'll go ahead and voice that opinion about that idea for the umpteenth time to provide balance to this discussion. :-)
 
I make money off my hardware so I don't skimp... I just go for it.
 
all the best,
mike

Aye, Mike, there's the rub.  You make money.  So it makes sense to spend it so you don't have to redo everything and you can be sure that the problem is not at your front end.  90% of the time a good ole mackie preamp will suffice.  But for the other 10% ....  If you don't want to spend 100% of your time on it and need the confidence that your tools won't betray you, spend some money.  If you are doing in the box stuff and only an acoutisc track at a time, you might not need the big studio tools (I'm in that category here at home but I do have some nice front end stuff and still ain't divorced) and the impact on your music can be minimal.  If you are making money or have disposable money it can be worth your while to have good stuff.  Besides, large power supplies and transformers are sexy :-)
 
@

Back when, one of these took care of the mains power in a studio where I worked:
 
http://www.emersonindustrial.com/en-US/egselectricalgroup/products/control-power-solutions/power-protection-conditioning/power-conditioning/cvs-hardwired/Pages/default.aspx
 
Iit was wall-mounted in another room, as it made loud noises! But we never had any problems with the power in that studio.
 
Today, a UPS can offer much the same functionality, plus backup power (and be quiet enough to use in the studio/CR).

As for phantom powered condensers, unless it's an (expensive oldy), current should be more like about 5ma per mic, about a tenth of what you're quoting.

 
You need to do the math correctly.  The current draw numbers on microphone stats are estimated for 48 volts, not 5 volts.  You need to draw a lot more current to step up the voltage.  
 
Not a lot of people realize that the power supply is probably the most important component of a high quality audio device.  A flat, clean, and ample DC source is crucial for the system's performance.  Yes most makers of multichannel interfaces do an adequate job of providing enough power for the system to be used without problems.  It is only when you push it with power hungry mics that you may hear problems.  A good 2 channel stand-alone preamp will have voltage rails of 18-24 volts and supply at least 1amp of current.  Arguably overkill, but the benefit is sharper transients, lower noise, and cleaner response.  

stevenjcasey
I'm looking to replace an old Firepod and have narrowed the search to either the Quad Capture or Octa Capture. I was told by a salesman that the reason I didn't like the sound of a little Scarlett unit I tried was the bus power wasn't sufficient to really push the pre's.  If this is accurate, wouldn't any bus powered unit have this issue, including the quad capture?  It seems like a dedicated power supply would be better, but then there's a lot of bus powered models out there so wouldn't seem to be a deal breaker.
 
Also, not sure I need all the inputs of the octa but I also like the DSP built in.  Any opinions on whether the built in DSP is that great?
 
thx

For all the talk about power supply here and some even mentioning the E-Mu 0404 which incidentally was the thing I ditched when moving to a Quad Capture most of it is irrelavent when choosing what is basically a 2 in X 2 out unit with digital I/O.
 
The Quads design is pretty much the same as the Octas WRT to Pre's, Converters and pretty much everything else the only reason you'll need an external PSU for the Octa is that you are running 4 times as many I/O channels.
 
The Quad runs just fine and dandy on bus power, so does the Scarlett for that matter.  Just keep it on a USB hub that isn't being used by anything else and put all your other USB stuff on another one.
 
My ears are clearly not as susceptible to 'fine grains' as McQ's are though so I'm probably more easily pleased, but like Firebird I'm quite happy with my bus powered version of the interface he uses.  Not only that it IS fantastically portable and will get you into places other interfaces just cannot... Besides if I want a boutique pre and mic setup I can still spend an arm and a leg indulging my fancy.
 
I must say though being as the built-in compressor is post converter I find there's little point in using it, I may as well choose something more suitable for what I'm working with post-capture.
 
People get all anal about this kind of minutiae but when it comes down to it if you had 30 quids worth of usb mic using Windows drivers and you had the latest 'Etta James' belting out in front of it you are still going to be putting all the audio fart-skinners to shame and they'll still be debating the odds while you pick up your latest grammy... ;-)
 
You'll hear more significant differences by moving the furniture around your room than by worrying about the differences presented to you by a using a well-designed bus powered interface rather than it's bigger brother running off a wall wart.

It is all interesting though and I am older like Mike and do appreciate a well designed power supply. I am just from that era too! (I still think big hefty power supplies sound good in power amps!) I just think the differences are less than we think at certain levels of music production. I would be interested Mike in what you did not like about the SOS test. I thought it was pretty reasonable.
 
For those who do have any DSP after the MIc pre but before the DAW I also have this feature in my Yamaha mixer but rarely use it as well. But the other day I was recording a very dynamic male singer. I did not know what to do (other than patch in an external device but there was no time for that)  so I found using the compressor built in to the mixer set for limiting (if you can do it that is) with a very high threshold, fast attack and release did a great job of catching very loud bits end preventing them from clipping the input to the DAW. There was no recorded distortion anywhere (shows how clean the Mic Pre was in the Yamha mixer too) and the vocal track was easier to edit later on for sure.
 
That is about the only DSP I have ever used on the way in. But you do have to be able to put any compressor into limiting mode and set it up accordingly. Can you do that with the Roland Pre?
 
 

 
I thought the disk clavier was a poor choice for a sound source (although I get the premise of repeat-ability as a supposed benefit).
 
I looked before and I just looked again (the Brauners) and I know that the level matched files aren't actually level matched. It's sloppy, and about what I expect from S.O.S.
 
I thought the selection of the "good" preamps was goofy for use with a piano even if it is played by a robot (even though I own, and am fairly aware of what 2 of the fancy models do). 
 
I applaud the choice to try the Royer (I've been using 2 R 121s as close mics on the Hamburg Steinway I've been recording this season) but I thought the near mid placement minimized a opportunity to inspect the details of transient response because the tiny little room mollified the end result.
 
I have written all this for you before when you asked the last time.
 
With the exception of the comment about the level matching I am only sharing a strongly felt, yet merely personal, opinion... nothing more.
 
 
 
I'll bet if I got picky I could come up with some more stuff but I have promised jonbouy that I'll try to behave better. :-)
 
FWIW, I don't even think I have good ears... I'm old and beat up... but I do think I hear stuff that seems obvious to me and when I do I respond by following up and learning what's behind my impression.
 
I am a big believer in plurality of experience and the validity of each persons experience, so I'd be pleased if folks don't think I am trying to persuade anyone to think any particular way. I lurked this thread for the past few days and then I blurted out a few ideas that float around my head.
 
Over and out.
 
:-)
 
all the best,
mike

One more thing... the mere mention of Etta James makes my knees buckle.
 
Off for a listen!!!