Sanderxpander
Your Quad Capture has D/A converters too, that's how you get sound. A large part of the sound of D/A converters is actually the clock, getting a different D/A converter to hook up to your Quad Capture makes very little sense if it has to follow your QC's clock. And if you get one with its own clock you're basically talking about a new soundcard. While it is true that you could probably improve on things by upgrading to an RME card or something in that range, you'd most likely get a vastly greater improvement by spending the same amount of money on room treatment, monitors, good plugins or books/courses on mixing. Forget D/A converters for now. They may be worth your money at some point but it'll be a long time before they're the weakest point in your setup.

Yes thanks...I was aware that the Quad had them, but somewhat inferior in comparison to higher cost products...like the RME cards, which I was actually contemplating but couldn't afford right now. I did read a review on a number of D/A converters and apparently if connected via sp/dif to the Quad, one could use the more superior converters...I don't yet understand how it works, but the reviewer stated such, which is why I was contemplating it. 


I'm mostly working with soft synths at this point, so room treatment is probably not important. I do however have a couple of Polk Audio speakers, which whilst a very good home theatre speaker, probably doesn't ultimately do audio any justice. I have no idea at this point how much better studio monitors will be. I have seen some 'xy' ones and they scared me off...need to know more before going down that road.
 
And yes, I've done a couple of the mixing tutorials on Sonar X1/X2 and they certainly helped me in my approaching to mixing...took it up a notch I think.

One of the early points made in the video (check from 2:50 to 3:18 on http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml) that I linked to in a previous post was that the specs on D-A conversion using "10 year old boring consumer grade audio devices" exceeds the range of human hearing.  Modern interfaces have much measurably better specs but that doesn't mean you can hear the difference.
 
Assuming it might make a difference you'd have to replace the D-A conversion everywhere it happens in the DAW. Just look at all the wave files in a projects audio folder. So out goes the Quad-Capture and in comes the ???
 
Edit:
I see the the Quad-Capture D-A topic has already been addressed in newer posts
 
 

Fabio Rubato

SanderxpanderYour Quad Capture has D/A converters too, that's how you get sound. A large part of the sound of D/A converters is actually the clock, getting a different D/A converter to hook up to your Quad Capture makes very little sense if it has to follow your QC's clock. And if you get one with its own clock you're basically talking about a new soundcard. While it is true that you could probably improve on things by upgrading to an RME card or something in that range, you'd most likely get a vastly greater improvement by spending the same amount of money on room treatment, monitors, good plugins or books/courses on mixing. Forget D/A converters for now. They may be worth your money at some point but it'll be a long time before they're the weakest point in your setup.

Yes thanks...I was aware that the Quad had them, but somewhat inferior in comparison to higher cost products...like the RME cards, which I was actually contemplating but couldn't afford right now. I did read a review on a number of D/A converters and apparently if connected via sp/dif to the Quad, one could use the more superior converters...I don't yet understand how it works, but the reviewer stated such, which is why I was contemplating it. 

I'm mostly working with soft synths at this point, so room treatment is probably not important. I do however have a couple of Polk Audio speakers, which whilst a very good home theatre speaker, probably doesn't ultimately do audio any justice. I have no idea at this point how much better studio monitors will be. I have seen some 'xy' ones and they scared me off...need to know more before going down that road. And yes, I've done a couple of the mixing tutorials on Sonar X1/X2 and they certainly helped me in my approaching to mixing...took it up a notch I think.

Room treatment is very important if you're doing any mixing. What you're mixing (softsynths or recorded stuff) is irrelevant. Also, about the external D/A converters, if you're hooking them up to your QC you have to use your QC's clock which means most likely you won't get any noticeable improvement at all. And yes, home theatre speakers are almost invariably terrible for mixing. If you were inspired by comments that said "it's like taking a blanket off your mix", in my not that humble opinion you should invest in basic room treatment and some serious monitor speakers. The improvement will be of a scale entirely incomparable to getting a different soundcard or D/A converter.

Fabio, with the system you have now you are 90% the way their, tech wise.  Although it is heresy to say so, most of the cheaper music equipment is perfectly acceptable.  The Quad, esp. the ADDA converters, will do the job.  Sure, you could get a benchmark for a "cleaner" conversion or a Burl for a "bigger" (ie. transfomer) version of the sound.  Many, if not most folk won't hear the difference.  Why, because there isn't that much.  Sure, switching between different hardware in real time in a good environment can show the difference, but an mp3 in your car going down an asphalt road ...
 
If you have a decent computer and interface you already have the basics of a good system.  It is best to worrry about techniques - recording and arranging - until you hear the flaws and bump up against the hardware.  Until that time it is very easy to spend money and not understand why.  The differences in hardware are real, but incredibly small until you know what you are hearing.  Hearing is a job and takes time to develop.
 
As sander sez, the best thing you can do is improve your listening/recording environment.  Big, neutral speakers.  Room tuning.  You don't need Barefoots and a $10,000 room to match, but everything you can do to improve the environment is good.  And when it gets good, take the time to learn it.  I've had the same yamaha speakers for 35 years.  I still use them at home.  I know how the sound, where they are strong and their weakness (every piece of hardware has those attributes) and how to work around them so even in my jeep on country roads a mix translates well.  Mixes don't offer up very many surprizes, even at the main studio w/ giant Adams for mains.
 
Next is a mic - or several of them if you do a lot of various acoustic recording.  But a large diameter Fet is de rigeur for vocals (a tube if you can afford it), small diameters for acoustic gutiars and strings, and a 57 and ribbon for amps.  Good preamps open up a different world of mic placement and techniques and a small bit of sound.  Outboard hardware adds more technique, allowing you to preshape a sound before it hits the converters and digital (which depends, of course, of knowing how you want to preshape and that only comes from experience).
 
The only downside of buying high-quality gear in the beginning is it is harder to make mistakes.  Which sounds like a good thing.  But until you actually record a guitar amp w/ a ribbon mic and the signal is too weak and you have to spend a ton of time "fixing it in the mix" you won't appreciate a preamp that delivers 80 dB of clean gain w/o crapping out w/ overs or in noise floor.  If Nietzche said that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger, then discovering what doesn't work on cheaper gear makes you a better engineer, song writer, performer.
@
 
@

Honestly the phrase "taking the blanket off" is the kind of thing that almost always indicates BS. 

It's misused a lot, but I would definitely use it to describe the difference between my current monitors and the generic hifi speakers I used before.

Lifted veil is a matter of perception.  There is a lot of placebo effect going on that amplifies.  A matter of inches can seem like feet, until one gets some distance.  That being said, I wouldn't go back to using my older harder (if I didn't have to).  An inch here, an inch there and you do talk about feet.
 
@

My current mic is a RODE NT2-A, which I feed into my Joe Meek Twin Q Dual Studio Channel. I mostly use it for vocals and some acoustic work.
 
Most of the well appreciated feedback seems to point towards more effective monitors and less re better hardware and/or sound cards. Some feedback on other posts though have stated that for example, RME 'sounds better' than say the Quad...so I guess that kind of statement continues to feed my curiosity.
 
Having said that, studio monitors is an area that I'm very uniformed about and it may be well worth further investigation and investment. Would anyone care to recommend some in say the $500-to $2000 range? Also, would you use a sub with say a couple of studio monitors to hear the bottom end? Or do you need a specific studio sub? 
 
I have seen some pretty expensive studio monitors, so I don't know whether the aforementioned budget will only attract a 'cheap' studio monitor sound?
 
Again, I thank you all for your wonderful knowledge.
 
PS ...'I wouldn't go back to using my older harder (if I didn't have to).' AT, not sure what you mean by 'older harder'?
 
PSS What does room treatment entail?

I have the same mic, it's quite sufficient for your purposes I'd say, especially with a decent preamp.
I use DynAudio BM5As that I'm quite happy with, I think I paid a little over 400e per speaker. They're not the largest speakers and lose a little accuracy in the low end even if they do go pretty low for smaller speakers. I have been thinking about adding a sub, the DynAudio matching one is like 900 euros. It would be nice but I fear my current room is too small to really make it useful. Bass frequencies need some space and especially in a "bad" room they can really screw up your mix image - some frequencies will resonate in the room while others will seem to cancel themselves, that kind of thing. So altogether I think those DynAudio's serve my room really well. They don't have the "wow" factor in the sense of making your stuff sound good. But once you get to work on your mix you'll appreciate them.
The mids and highs are very precise and so is the stereo image. I changed to them from old generic hifi speakers and suddenly it did matter if I put 1dB more mids in the snare.

I haven't really A/Bd a bunch of monitors though. DynAudio was recommended to me a few times, the price range and size seemed to fit me, and it turned out well. I believe they are one of the more serious brands in the sense that they don't really do the very cheap end such as Edirol or KRK.

Room treatment means treating the room so that it doesn't reflect too much, and especially that it doesn't reflect certain frequencies more than others. The highs and mids are not too difficult in this respect, a hanging rug or some carpet on the floor can do a lot. The bass frequencies are trickier cause they're not stopped by simple rugs, and depending on your speakers and the size of the room, the angles of the walls etc, they can create standing waves (they will resonate and amplify themselves) or seem to cancel themselves out. This is something you'll need to find out for your room (and listening position).

Before you spend a single Shekel on monitors/room treatment, it would be useful to know your current situation.
 
What size/shape of room?
Do you have near neighbours above/below/to the side?How is your gear setup in your room?