@brconflict:

Aardvark disappeared years ago which was why I ditched the Q10s. I really liked the Q10s though. My interest was peaked by your reply though and did a quick search to see if they were back and could not find anything. Using 2 Q10s back around 2000 gave me 16 channels in with preamps controlled from the software which was pretty sweet at the time. 

Thanks for all responses! i always learn a ton talking to you guys. gerber baby i didnt say i couldnt afford the computer, i said it wasnt in the cards for me right now, as i have been planning to use the money for something else. Not saying ive already decided 100% im gonna go with converters (which is why ask), this is just how i like to budget. Im sure i could find or build a great condenser for acoustics but hey, whats a great mic with average preamps and poor recording environment right? 
     Let me be clear about what the original issue is here for me: That sound that i hear when upping rate/depth? How it makes higher frequencies really crisp and sparkly? I want that sound. I dont care how i get it, the only reason i ask about converters is becuase i had been budgeting over time for some anyways, i had read that (like jim said bove) good converters will sound great at any sample rate, and i have not been budgeting for a new computer, nor would i know where to start as far as building a custom one.
     So as far as solutions, nothing is out of the question for me. I just brought up converters first because id heard they can sound great even at 44/16 and was wondering if this would be a valid way to get the result i want without having to get more processing power to support higher fidelity recording

Oh and im lovin that rule of thumb AT.

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.

@

 
 
 
I use the saffire 6 usb. focusrite. It doesnt sound bad or cloudy, i think it actually sounds good. just really transparent. which is good. im just saying that that almost harsh upper clarity i want, im not getting. I definitely need to invest in monitoring, but sometimes i just stick my adk headphones directy into the interface and hear something relatively similar,

"Converters are one of the lesser things to pay money for improvement."
- brconflict


"Converters are one of the last places to look to upgrade."
- AT


"I've never noticed a difference between the converters nor sample rate."
- WDI


"other factors are more important"
- Jim Roseberry


Seeing a trend here, ASG?


If you're unhappy with the quality of your recordings, there are a great many possible reasons for that. But it's a pretty sure bet that none of them is your audio interface.

If you've taken Calculus classes, you should be aware of how sampling works and how accurate it can be. If you mow a fenced-in lawn (with a curved fence, much like a sine wave) with back and forth strokes only, and even if you get most of it, there's still some places you need to weed-eat. However, the smaller the mower, the more you accurately cut and the less weed-eating you need to do. This is analogous to sampling frequencies (samples of an analog audio signal). 

If you look at a sine wave or simply, and audio signal, then draw exact non-overlapping vertically-standing equal-width rectangles underneath the waveform, with no corners crossing the waveform line, (much like the mower swipes in a yard with a curved fence), you can see that the larger the rectangles, the more space under the analog waveform is not covered by the rectangles. All the rectangles are "measurements" to figure out the waveform in digital conversion (for illustration). The more slender width the rectangles are, the more you have to draw to take up the space, but you get a more accurate measurement of the analog signal. 

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.   

Bit-depth (i.e. 16 or 24-bit) is a different measurement. It's more related to dynamics, and can apply more headroom from -infinity to 0db. I can't really get too technical here, but those two can be delved into and sold and bought separately. In other words, you can have 64-Bit 44.1Khz audio. Doesn't make sense to, but you can.

With that said, there are no A/D converters at 44.1Khz that are really accurate. It's the analog electronics and clock in the unit that make for a better unit. If those are bad in a 192Khz sampling A/D converter, it can sound smeared and lacking detail. However, a 44.1Khz A/D with a tight clock and great analog electronics might sound terrific, but it may not accurately sample the higher frequencies (Like trying to mow a yard with a more severely wavy or zig-zaggy fence using a 30" wide mower that may just have to skip some of those crevices). 

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.

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.

Are we talking about A/D or D/A? What you're describing sounds more like D/A.

brconflict

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.

Are we talking about A/D or D/A? What you're describing sounds more like D/A.

Either or. 

In terms of conversion, higher sampling rate = higher frequencies. It's "more accurate" only in the sense that the transition band near the Nyquist frequency is at a higher frequency. Nothing more to it than that.

ASG,

now you've done it.  We have another sample-rate war going on.  I can already hear my head hurting w/ all the math.

Let me get this straight - if you record at higher rates w/ the saffire you hear the upper register better?  If that is the problem, then the solution is a faster computer that can run your larger projects.  However, I'd be sure about that.  Get someone to help you do blind tests.  I've found that most of the change you hear is expectation, not reality.  a lot of gear gets bought because of this.  Most upgrades are subtle in nature and sound.  You really need to approach this scientifically or figure you have the need, and damn it, you are going to buy it (happens to me far too often, even if I don't have the cash at hand).  Nothing wrong w/ that but you can end up chasing your tail.

One of the things about buying great equipment is the surety you get from it.  It must be my bad mic positioning, not the mic or XYZ preamp or Lynx converters since they are top notch.  If you spend enough money you run out of excuses and have to look at yourself and your technique.

I wouldn't think a Saffire would sound that much different at 96.  If it does, and you want to buy some new converters, go for it.  The lynx are good - professional grade.  Goldfrappe uses them I know, and other people who mix/record for a living (and a good living for a couple of them) use them.  $2000 for an 8x8 ADDA Aurora.  It is modular - you can put in a card to let you hook up to ProTools, or AES, or FW but most likely USB, which is supposed to work well.  You won't be able to use the Saffire w/ it, even if that unit has digital in/out (unless you use the AES option and a pice card in your computer that has ADAT too.  And no preamps.  The Lynx Hilo is about the same price, but a stereo mastering unit w/ digital ADAT i/o.  The RME is used by many here as well as plenty of professional studios.  Good hardware, great drivers.  I use a TC Konnekt 48.  Good hardware, not so great drivers (tho they swear they are getting better).  And like Hilo and RME you should be able to use your saffire's digital connections.  Any of those will provide a "never having to say you are sorry" sound quality.  I've never heard the apollo, but it should be fine, tho the main draw seems to be the uad dsp that comes with it (and I know professionals who have given up their hardware for UAD dsp since it is "close enough."

Nothing wrong w/ buying good gear, just be sure ....  After a few weeks you might wonder if what you heard was the problem and you have only attenuated it, not killed it.

@