Hi, so here I is going to do some location recording in old London town (location as yet unknown). I've come across a guy who has some gear for such a purpose. Now, the converters this guy has on his Alesis HD24XR only have a dynamic range of about 103db. My Emu 1616m on the other hand has (supposedly) the same converters as the Pro Tools flagship H/D 3 setup with a dynamic range of 120db.

I've wondered about this for a while, and now seems a good time to ask. If I placed my Emu side by side with the Pro Tools 192 setup would I hear a difference in sound quality? You would think given the price difference that you would (obviously the extra dsp power etc accounts for the price amongst other things), however reading the article by the Cambridge Uni chappy in this months SOS, I'm not so sure because he seems to think that the quality of the converters are the main issue?

I'm not going to recording more than 4 trks at once so I don't need the extra inputs. Obviously the mic pre's aren't as good, but other than that is there any real noticeable difference?

Chris

Quote polecat:

---

other than that is there any real noticeable difference?

---

Well, I can't comment with 100% certainty because I've never heard the EMU, but in a word, yes... there will be a big difference. Many converters use identical chips, probably 'off-the-shelf' from companies like Texas Instruments. However, that's only a small part of both the quality and cost of a converter- the rest of the design plays a very large part, and that's where the difference will lie with these two. The analogue portion of a converter plays a pretty crucial role- and there's no getting around the fact that for top-notch performance, you'll have to spend a bit of cash.

Adam

Hard to say exactly. The digi design unit is now a tad long in the tooth. It was cutting edge at one time it was released, but time has caught up with it. You could equally suggest that, given the time to work out what was the best way to adapt said chip, that EMU simply stepped in and produced something that uses it to it's best ability.

--------------------
nibbled to death by an Okapi http://www.soundclick.com/tubilahdog

Hmmm. Thanks for that guys. In that context isn't it a little bit naughty for Emu to advertise their converters as essentially the same as Pro Tools, with 'mastering quality'?

http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?category=505&subcategory=491&produ ct=13552

There is an option to use an external converter. If I were to say hire in a better converter for the job would I then be able to get a high end sound or would the electronics of the Emu alter it somehow? Although, I suppose when I mix and then bounce down I'll be using the internal Emu converter so perhaps it would defeat the object of using a better converter in the first place?

A separate question. Can you use the 192 I/O with Pro Tools LE?

Hi

All I know is I use an 1820m and it sounds alot better when I go through a humble Joe Meek VC3. May be thats because of the compression and maybe because it adds noise/warmth.

I guess it is all about what your ears like and expect.

Quote polecat:

---

If I were to say hire in a better converter for the job would I then be able to get a high end sound...?

---

As you will be location recording in London, then the EMU 1616M is probably as good as you'll need. The level of ambient noise is likely to be quite high.

Perhaps you could mention a little more about the nature of the project - will you be outdoors? Will you have to be mobile? Will you have much time to set up and to re-take if you need to?

Personally I'd be happy with the 1616M and make sure I'm prepared in all other respects, such as microphones and, most importantly, techniques.

Matt

EMu are also naughty to suggest that their unit uses the same converters as tthe 192. Whilst the 192 isnt the best out there, it certainly is excellent - the only thing in common are the chips providing the calculations. The analogue stages and filters are not the same at all.

I'm not sure where I'm going to be recording yet, maybe a recital hall or some such. I'm going to make sure before I record that there won't be a noise problem.

I've learned that the converters on my Emu aren't as good as the Pro Tools ones despite what Emu says, however if I do hire in a better converter, do I not face the same problem (the Emu converters) when I bounce down to mix? Therefore perhaps hiring in a better all round system would make more sense...

Essentially, I have these options.

I'm thinking of going with this guy for the location recording:

www.aztec-studios.co.uk (mainly because of the sweet vintage gear that he has which is really the sound I'm after)

I could use his converters (Alesis HD24XR) which I'm now guessing are better than mine even though the dynamic range isn't as good because of the other elements. Or I could hire in a better converter, go through my Emu and then take the files to a Pro Tools 192 I/O system for editing (which I have access to). I'd rather not record at that particular studio because the live room isn't up to much and I want to capture the sounds in a really nice hall or some such.


Hmmm.

IMO you're probably getting hung up about the least critical thing in the recording chain. In my experience, the most important thing is the performer and performance and then the room...it's only then that you start getting down to the 'technical' aspects of how things are influenced...again my order would then be mic position, then type of mic, then preand only then does the converter become relevant (unless they're really pants). Other people place the mic type and mic pre the other way around.

FWIW, HD24XRs are used by several people on here - and in at least one instance they're used on fairly critical recordings as converters, and they hold their own when you consider the fact they're part of a 24 track recorder rather than a discrete device. Converter performance isn't all down to dynamic range or any other tech specs, it's how they sound in the real world that's important.

I'd probably use the HD24XR for tracking, then ask for copies of the wav files for mixing if you're doing it yourself. If you're mixing ITB the converters become irrelevant - it's only if you do any processing in the analogue domain that they need to be considered.

Cheers. I'll bear that in mind.

Very sensible reply from AR there - I'd agree that converters are only a part of the recording chain, and that the performance, choices of mic and their positioning tend to be far more important.

I have an Emu 1820M, and Emu's range has done incredibly well to retain my personal vote for 'best audio quality for audio interfaces under £500' for the last couple of years, but they have now been (to my ears) beaten by several other interfaces, such as Focusrite's Saffire range (although these in turn seem to attract their own controversy, with reports of instability in some computer systems). Nevertheless, they still offer very good audio quality for the price, and extremely good dynamic range, and the difference in audio quality between the Emu 1616M and the Saffire is subtle, and you might not even notice it unless you have good loudspeakers in a well-treated room.

Yes, it was perhaps naughty for Emu to imply that their budget range had similar audio quality to a Pro Tools HD192 system since it used the same converter chips. However, as others have said, dynamic range is only one part of the sound of any converter, whether A/D or D/A. Other factors include the analogue electronics preceeding the A/D converter, and following the D/A converter, but also of paramount importance is the quality of the clock circuitry. The amount and type of clock jitter largely determines the 'focus' of the sound - low-jitter clocks tighten up the stereo image making it easier to pick out where each instrument is between the speakers, as well as giving a wider and deeper soundstage.

For location recording I'd personally want to be using I knew and trusted to be reliable - after all, you only get one chance to capture a particular performance, and you don't want to be worrying about gear problems. I suspect many people here would prefer to use some form of hard disk recorder rather than trying to record on a computer (more things to go wrong), so that Alesis ADAT HD24XR 24-Track Digital Hard Disk Recorder begins to look like a better bet to me.


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic