A-D & D-A converters, budget vs high-end

[Jack Ruston]

How do you measure how 'quality' <<improves (y)our work>> when the vast majority of consumers cant tell and dont care ?

I don't know how many more ways I can say it...The conversion changes the decisions I make - The eq points are different, the compression time constants, reverbs etc. The balance changes. Hugh has explained this too.

[hobbyist]

How do you measure how 'quality' <<improves (y)our work>> when the vast majority of consumers cant tell and dont care ?

I don't know how many more ways I can say it...The conversion changes the decisions I make - The eq points are different, the compression time constants, reverbs etc. The balance changes. Hugh has explained this too.

I understand it changes your decisions. But do the people buying the product care which decision you made ?

And like the response above yours noted - the venue would mask anything you did which was so subtle to fix what converters may have done.

[James Perrett]

The people who pay me care about the sound I get - and they can be amazingly fussy at times. So I have to use the tools that help me to deliver the best sound that I can. Artists and labels still generally care about the sound, even if the general public is currently happy with mp3s.

[Aural Reject]

How do you measure how 'quality' <<improves (y)our work>> when the vast majority of consumers cant tell and dont care ?

I don't know how many more ways I can say it...The conversion changes the decisions I make - The eq points are different, the compression time constants, reverbs etc. The balance changes. Hugh has explained this too.

I understand it changes your decisions. But do the people buying the product care which decision you made ?

And like the response above yours noted - the venue would mask anything you did which was so subtle to fix what converters may have done.

You’re still missing the point.

Jack has a huge body of work that backs up his assertions - aside from his own personal talent, he works in a controlled environment where these things can and do matter. The same can be said of many other contributors to this forum.

More often than not, I’m working in environments that are suboptimal...so I don’t use converters that cost potentially thousands of pounds per channel, as I find the money better invested in mics and preamps when focussed on gear.

However, if I were to be working in an acoustic space and with artists that warranted it, I’d up the ante and match the whole chain.

[Hugh Robjohns]

It seems obvious to me that high-end equipment isn't appropriate to all situations, for myriad practical reasons, some of which have been noted above. And I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

The really good news, though, is that current budget and mid-range equipment achieves a level of performance that is so much closer to that high-end now, compared to what could be achieved just a few decades ago. For a lot of amateurs working in personal project studios, that's a truly wonderful thing because they can easily afford equipment that more than meets their requirements.

But in the top professional circles, the expectations are still higher -- and that's true in all industries, not just pro-audio!

It's also self-evident -- and routinely repeated on these forums -- that 'The Things That Matter Most' are the music, the arrangement, the performance, the location, the mic placement, the mic choice, the mixing balance, the signal processing, and maybe then the mic preamps and the converters, the sample rate and the other technical trivia...

But in professional circles, these are all pretty much a given... They are working with brilliant music performed by extremely skilled musicians in great-sounding spaces, with lovely mics expertly places... Etc...

For these top-end studios and engineers/producers, equipment budgets are very unlikely to be a limiting factor, and neither are deadlines. Nor are studio or venue acoustics likely to be a problem. These facilities are not that rare, either! We see studios like this all over the world in the StudioFile articles in the magazine every month

Professionals strive to achieve the best possible results, not something that's only just 'good enough' to not sound completely crap on a low bit-rate MP3 player for the casual music-consuming masses! Moreover, professionals want and use tools that allow them to work to the highest possible standards, and deliver the best possible results efficiently, consistently, and predictably. These people appreciate and value the incremental benefits of high-end gear.

And yes, of course the consumer appreciates the decisions the professionals make... Even if they arent consciously aware of why those decisions matter in their enjoyment.

It's as simple as that.

Working in these kinds of facilities, with this kind of equipment really is a revelation which probably has to be experienced in person to truly appreciate the difference.

Perhaps a more relatable comparison would be the experience of preparing food using cheap mass-market kitchen knives, or professional high-end chef's knives... It's the same kind of difference -- they both dote same basic thing, but a professional chef can achieve so much more, better, quicker, with his pro knives than he could with the cheap ones, and way more than an amateur could do with the cheap knives!

[hobbyist]

The people who pay me care about the sound I get - and they can be amazingly fussy at times. So I have to use the tools that help me to deliver the best sound that I can. Artists and labels still generally care about the sound, even if the general public is currently happy with mp3s.

Now that is totally different. If you have a client who wants something then you need to give them what they want.

But if you are doing this for the public or some other group then do you really need to be so picky for them or are you being picky to boost your own ego.

This is a problem so many engineers have. They want perfection but management wants it done on time on budget while being good enough.

If they wish to keep working they adapt to management and what they say to do. If they ever quit and start their own company then they can strive for perfection until they realise that they are the only ones who prefer perfection in their product to its being available now at an affordable price.

[Aural Reject]

But if you are doing this for the public or some other group then do you really need to be so picky for them or are you being picky to boost your own ego.

This is a problem so many engineers have. They want perfection but management wants it done on time on budget while being good enough.

The second point answers the first.

Jack, using him as the constant example, knows his gear and that facilitates him delivering a high quality product within the parameters of the project commissioner. The people that pay him - and keep coming back for the next gig and pay him again - want the best possible product for their market / purposes.

I fall into a fairly grey area within the forum population...there are many more qualified than me but I’m quite successful in my chosen arena, I’ve won awards, had a CD in the Sunday Times Top 100 CDs of the year and similar...and as I said previously I didn’t use very high end converters for any of those projects...but I did point £25k of microphones at them...because I know where to put them...and the result was a CD that the public and the critics liked. We use the tools that work exactly as Hugh said.

Given that you understand the market so well, who’s the target for your output?

[Hugh Robjohns]

... do you really need to be so picky for them or are you being picky to boost your own ego.

...or perhaps some of us just have and maintain a high standard -- which isn't the same thing as 'perfection' (which we all know is impossible).

And maybe it's not 'being picky' but just doing a 'professional' job, working to the highest possible standards for both client and personal satisfaction -- and it's usually possible to achieve that on time and on budget in my experience.

It sounds like you've had bad experiences with poor management and incompetence -- that would certainly explain your very pessimistic and jaded outlook. Thankfully, some of us work in happier, more rewarding, and more skilfully-managed workplaces that genuinely value and support high professional standards.

H

[Bob Bickerton]

But if you are doing this for the public or some other group then do you really need to be so picky for them or are you being picky to boost your own ego.

Actually some members of the public do appreciate good sound, others don't care - so why cater for the lowest common denominator?

This is a problem so many engineers have. They want perfection but management wants it done on time on budget while being good enough.

I haven't worked for a client yet that simply wants a 'good enough' job - they have always wanted the best I could deliver.

And here's the rub - which you do not understand - when a professional has good tools at their disposal, they get the job done more efficiently and can more easily deliver on time, on budget and with excellent product. End of story.

Bob

[Studio Support Gnome]

I’ve won awards, had a CD in the Sunday Times Top 100 CDs of the year and similar...

Show off, I only managed Number 7 In the Telegraph's top ten list the other year



I was sure there was a grammy in that album.....

No effective label support

bastards

Neve 5088 Console, assorted portico EQ and dynamics processors, a few other toys, (hired in Fairchild, Pultec , etc etc ) some very nice secret weapon Mics... PT HD192 interfaces , SP Acoustics SP1 monitors.... Protools HD

And critically, a stunning space to work in, and a fabulous performer

Most of the time a Focusrite Saffire pro rig is entirely adequate as far as I'm concerned... I also quite like the UAD interfaces , and my portable 2 channel rig is a Focusrite Forte. Big guns only get used on higher end projects with budget and actual need....

I can waffle on all day about resolving harmonics, intermodulation distortion, and all sorts ...

But ultimately, for the vast majority of people , this level of kit is frippery , waste of money , and time....

Nothing wrong with the vast majority of budget to mid range interfaces these days.
20 years ago was a different matter..... the hunt for great sounding converters and pre-amps was very real....

you can thank me later for making mass market manufacturers up their game



honest it was all my doing....

[Hugh Robjohns]

We thank you, Max!

[Tim Gillett]

How do you measure how 'quality' <<improves (y)our work>> when the vast majority of consumers cant tell and dont care ?

I don't know how many more ways I can say it...The conversion changes the decisions I make - The eq points are different, the compression time constants, reverbs etc. The balance changes. Hugh has explained this too.

Jack, there must be reasons why the different converter changes the eq points, compression time constants, reverbs etc. What would they be? How does it relate to the performance specs of the respective converters?

[johnny h]

If you’re obsessively looking for better sound, nothing is “good enough”. No mic placement, no eq, no monitor, no ADDA converter. You work with the best possible options you can but you strive for more. That’s the only way you can push forward.

[hobbyist]

But if you are doing this for the public or some other group then do you really need to be so picky for them or are you being picky to boost your own ego.

This is a problem so many engineers have. They want perfection but management wants it done on time on budget while being good enough.

The second point answers the first.

Jack, using him as the constant example, knows his gear and that facilitates him delivering a high quality product within the parameters of the project commissioner. The people that pay him - and keep coming back for the next gig and pay him again - want the best possible product for their market / purposes.

I fall into a fairly grey area within the forum population...there are many more qualified than me but I’m quite successful in my chosen arena, I’ve won awards, had a CD in the Sunday Times Top 100 CDs of the year and similar...and as I said previously I didn’t use very high end converters for any of those projects...but I did point £25k of microphones at them...because I know where to put them...and the result was a CD that the public and the critics liked. We use the tools that work exactly as Hugh said.

Given that you understand the market so well, who’s the target for your output?

at my age the only audience for anything I might do would be me.

my time left is short, I sleep a lot, so I have no interest in working for anyone or putting in a big effort to make money.

[hobbyist]

But if you are doing this for the public or some other group then do you really need to be so picky for them or are you being picky to boost your own ego.

Actually some members of the public do appreciate good sound, others don't care - so why cater for the lowest common denominator?

This is a problem so many engineers have. They want perfection but management wants it done on time on budget while being good enough.

I haven't worked for a client yet that simply wants a 'good enough' job - they have always wanted the best I could deliver.

And here's the rub - which you do not understand - when a professional has good tools at their disposal, they get the job done more efficiently and can more easily deliver on time, on budget and with excellent product. End of story.

Bob

Most people cater to making the most money with the biggest market they can satisfy.

And good sound is TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE. Who is to say your sound is really any better. I admit that it may be different but there is no logical way to prove that it is better.

Of course clients want perfection. And for little or no cost too.
It is up to management to also manage their expectations. In the USA we use contracts that spell out what is to be down, how you can show it was done, along with deadlines, fees , and other items.

I understand quite well that a professional can do better faster and easier with great tools. But when you only have good tools that mangement provides then you use those or look for another job.

[Bob Bickerton]

at my age the only audience for anything I might do would be me.

my time left is short, I sleep a lot, so I have no interest in working for anyone or putting in a big effort to make money.

That's really sad, you have my sympathy - but I'm concerned you're placing your (unfortunate) world view on others.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I think it's fair to say that those of us who do subscribe to a more positive outlook find your negativity challenging.

Something to think about?

Bob

[Jack Ruston]

How do you measure how 'quality' <<improves (y)our work>> when the vast majority of consumers cant tell and dont care ?

I don't know how many more ways I can say it...The conversion changes the decisions I make - The eq points are different, the compression time constants, reverbs etc. The balance changes. Hugh has explained this too.

Jack, there must be reasons why the different converter changes the eq points, compression time constants, reverbs etc. What would they be? How does it relate to the performance specs of the respective converters?

That's the big question. I don't know. And I don't know if they know, but that they just can't do it at the price point, or if they don't know, and just continue to champion frequency response at 20k, and noise floor, as a way of saying 'look, it's perfect'.

[Jack Ruston]

As an aside, on the quality Vs consumer issue...Universal are now demanding that all material is tracked at 96k. You're not supposed to just upsample your deliverables, but to start all projects at 96k. That's their new spec. They're worried about future formats, and how standard rates might be found lacking in future. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether that's useful, practical, easy to get around etc. The point is that that is the requirement. Not quite the same issue as the quality of conversion at standard rates, but it indicates a market demand for higher fidelity.

J

[ef37a]

As an aside, on the quality Vs consumer issue...Universal are now demanding that all material is tracked at 96k. You're not supposed to just upsample your deliverables, but to start all projects at 96k. That's their new spec. They're worried about future formats, and how standard rates might be found lacking in future. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether that's useful, practical, easy to get around etc. The point is that that is the requirement. Not quite the same issue as the quality of conversion at standard rates, but it indicates a market demand for higher fidelity.

J

That makes some sense Jack. Back in the day the hobby recordists usually ran tape at 7.5ips and the quality was very high with a good machine. Professionals always ran at 15ips even though the difference in quality would have been hard to hear.

44.1kHz IS easily good enough for almost any musical task but there are situations where it might be found wanting and so it makes sense to go to 96kHz for safety? "Pros" will not be fazed by the size of the files just as they coped with the shorter running time of 15ips. (we will NOT mention 30ips!)

Dave

[Jack Ruston]

Well it's not that it can't be done, but it is actually a pain. Firstly, some sessions are huge, and you can wind up close to the limit in terms of horsepower, even with a big computer (there are workarounds of course), and secondly, it now makes sense to have cloud-based archival of everything, for long-term confidence in the integrity of the backups. When we're talking about many terabytes of material, even at standard rates, there's a cost involved. I pay a few hundred a year for online storage into multiple terabytes, and a few hundred more for the physical drives I keep here. This sort of requirement will push more users into the territory where they need to upgrade not only their machine, but also their online storage, to remove the quantity limits. It's a sensible requirement going forwards, but it will affect people a bit.

[ef37a]

Ah! I had not envisaged QUITE such large files Jack!

Yes, I can see the problem. On a related but piddling example, son in France wanted a chunk of stuff he had recorded over a couple of years whilst at home. Fortunately I never delete anything, dad just keeps buying hard drives! I found it on a NAS drive, 89G.
That would have taken ages to send at 9MBS upload even if I had the paid up version of We Transfer. I therefore bought a cheap 160G USB 3.0 drive and posted it to him on that.

Dave.

[Jack Ruston]

Yes, those little sticks can be so handy - but the reason the cloud storage is so crucial, aside from the relative reliability of that whole paradigm vs a box full of ancient hard drives, is that typically, these days, the scenario looks like this - I'm in a studio somewhere, or you know...on the school run...and a client texts or calls needing an instrumental of a track from three years ago for a sync pitch that's come their way, delivered within the hour, or they'll lose out. I can go into my Dropbox and access everything I've ever worked on, locate the relevant file, if it exists, and send them a link. I can send them the full stems, or even the whole project. Obviously, they sometimes need a 'custom' stem that we don't yet have, and that will require access to the studio, but that will come - sooner or later we won't be using our own CPU's...we will just outsource our processing and stream the material in real time from whatever device we have over 5g, 6g whatever. We'll just pay an annual fee for our processing use.

Anyway, needless to say, if I had to go up in the loft and find the right drive every time this happened, it would be touch and go, not to mention stressful, often damaging to the progress of whatever I was working on at the time.

J

[CS70]

Well it's not that it can't be done, but it is actually a pain.

It's a similar situation for video, only worse as there's a plethora of different formats and ever increasing data amounts due to current practice of heavy post. We were doing a job for a local broadcaster here and they have switched to X.AVC at 100Mpbs - had to buy a new disk just to make sure I had enough working space - my usual 6-7Gb of raw footage per minute of final sequence have tripled overnight! You can do beautiful things in post, however.

And yeah, thank goodness for Dropbox

[Drew Stephenson]

I'm just wondering how long it takes to back up a reasonable sized project to the cloud at that kind of sample rate? Especially if you're doing the whole project not just mixes and stems.

[Dave B]

you can thank me and DaveB later for making mass market manufacturers up their game



honest it was all mine and DaveB's doing....

FTFY.

Typical guitarist - wants all the glory himself ....