[Julien BH]

Hi,

I have a question if I may. What would you recommend to tranfer my
analog stuff do digital since I have an aging edirol da-2496 and would
like to upgrade.

Also, does something without preamps (which would reduce cost and
bring higher quality conversion I suppose) and would still give me low
latency exist?

I'd need only 2 inputs since I record stereo. My budget would be about
500$ top. Am i better to go with good preamps and okay converter
instead?

Please help me

Julien

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:03:39 -0800 (PST), Julien BH
wrote:

Hi,

I have a question if I may. What would you recommend to tranfer my
analog stuff do digital since I have an aging edirol da-2496 and would
like to upgrade.

Also, does something without preamps (which would reduce cost and
bring higher quality conversion I suppose) and would still give me low
latency exist?

I'd need only 2 inputs since I record stereo. My budget would be about
500$ top. Am i better to go with good preamps and okay converter
instead?

Please help me

Julien

Presumably since you are transferring from analogue, you have a line
level signal available. That means you don't need a preamp. Further,
since there are no analogue sources that come close to a standard PC
sound card in quality, all you need to do is plug your source into the
LIne In socket on a PC and record.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Julien BH]

On Jan 21, 2:03 pm, Julien BH wrote:
Hi,

I have a question if I may. What would you recommend to tranfer my
analog stuff do digital since I have an aging edirol da-2496 and would
like to upgrade.

Also, does something without preamps (which would reduce cost and
bring higher quality conversion I suppose) and would still give me low
latency exist?

I'd need only 2 inputs since I record stereo. My budget would be about
500$ top. Am i better to go with good preamps and okay converter
instead?

Please help me

Julien

Is MOTU a good company if we think about drivers?
I'm looking at you 828MKII

[hank alrich]

Julien BH wrote:

I'd need only 2 inputs since I record stereo. My budget would be about
500$ top. Am i better to go with good preamps and okay converter
instead?

If you use Macs, watch for a used Metric Halo ULN-2, which might go for
about that money.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Richard Crowley]

"Julien BH" wrote...
I have a question if I may. What would you recommend to tranfer my
analog stuff do digital since I have an aging edirol da-2496 and would
like to upgrade.

Is there actually something broken (or deteriorating) on your
existing equipment? Of just free-floating anxiety because you
want something new and shiny? (If it ain't broke, don't attempt
to "fix" it.)

Also, does something without preamps (which would reduce cost and
bring higher quality conversion I suppose) and would still give me low
latency exist?

You would likely get more converter for the $$$ if some
of it weren't buying preamps. And, of course preamps
(and latency, for that matter) would appear to have
nothing to do with transferring analog stuff.

I'd need only 2 inputs since I record stereo. My budget
would be about 500$ top. Am i better to go with good
preamps and okay converter instead?

Sounds like you have a secondary requirement for recording
from mics while doing overlays, etc. But you didn't mention
any of those requirements?

Is the DA-2496 inadequate for the analog transfer project?
Perhaps not, and you only need annother mic preamp or
something for your $500.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 21, 6:47*pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Julien BH" *wrote...
I have a question if I may. What would you recommend to tranfer my
analog stuff do digital since I have an aging edirol da-2496 and would
like to upgrade.

Is there actually something broken (or deteriorating) on your
existing equipment? *Of just free-floating anxiety because you
want something new and shiny? *(If it ain't broke, don't attempt
to "fix" it.)

Also, does something without preamps (which would reduce cost and
bring higher quality conversion I suppose) and would still give me low
latency exist?

You would likely get more converter for the $$$ if some
of it weren't buying preamps. *And, of course preamps
(and latency, for that matter) would appear to have
nothing to do with transferring analog stuff.

I'd need only 2 inputs since I record stereo. My budget
would be about 500$ top. Am i better to go with good
preamps and okay converter instead?

Sounds like you have a secondary requirement for recording
from mics while doing overlays, etc. But you didn't mention
any of those requirements?

Is the DA-2496 inadequate for the analog transfer project?
Perhaps not, and you only need annother mic preamp or
something for your $500.

Just curious? What type of analog are you transfering? cassettes,
1/4"? Also what sample rate and bit size do you want to use? 16 bit
44k, 24bit 44k or 48 or 96k? I use 44k 24 bit.
I could go up to 192k but it goes down to a cd 16 bit 44k in the end.
atleast for multitrack projects I don't like the amount of disk space
it takes up. Two tracks is different. Would you ever have any use for
mic pre's? Two 2 channels or for $500 a used 8 in 8 out config might
be in the picture. I would not just look at 24/96. I bought a 24/96
that sounded terrible.
Glenn.

[jwvm]

On Jan 21, 6:47 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

snip


Is there actually something broken (or deteriorating) on your
existing equipment? Of just free-floating anxiety because you
want something new and shiny? (If it ain't broke, don't attempt
to "fix" it.)

If it ain't broke sounds like great advice.

Assuming that the op is transferring analog from LPs or consumer
tapes, it doesn't sound like anything spectacular is needed here.

[Laurence Payne]

I have a question if I may. What would you recommend to tranfer my
analog stuff do digital since I have an aging edirol da-2496 and would
like to upgrade.

Also, does something without preamps (which would reduce cost and
bring higher quality conversion I suppose) and would still give me low
latency exist?

I'd need only 2 inputs since I record stereo. My budget would be about
500$ top. Am i better to go with good preamps and okay converter
instead?

Why did you buy the Edirol with 8 channels and mic preamps if 2 line
inputs were all you needed?

I doubt you'll find anything that sounds in the slightest different to
your Edirol. Once you're out of the Soundblaster range, line inputs
and ADCs all sound the same these days. You could swap it for a
M-Audio 2496 and regain a bit of rack space I suppose!

If you need some retail therapy, buy a new microphone or add some
interesting distortion with a non-transparent preamp.

[Julien BH]

No OK I'll tell you all my deepest and greatest FEAR of all FEARS.
I have absolutely no complaints about the Edirol thingy.

What bothers me is it is a discontinued product and vista is coming
very fast as a standard OS (for a PC).
I have though of dual booting XP and Vista and that's my only
solution. That or upgrade my stuff to something compatible AND at the
same time, Better.( I don't think I could get much better imho
anyway... )

The only thing that is not great about this product are the preamps,
but they aren't bad either. So I could use a new Pre like the RNP ...
(much better option I suppose than change the Edirol DA)

[Julien BH]

Oh yeah, and just to say:
I'm not "transfering" anything. I just record directly (voice + guitar
+ Bass). The rest is synths for now.

[David Grant]

"Julien BH" wrote in message
...
No OK I'll tell you all my deepest and greatest FEAR of all FEARS.
I have absolutely no complaints about the Edirol thingy.

What bothers me is it is a discontinued product and vista is coming
very fast as a standard OS (for a PC).

Not as fast as you might think. There most likely won't be any really good
reason for you to upgrade to Vista any time soon (for recording purposes);
when there is, all the interfaces you're looking at right now for $500 will
cost a lot less, and there will be newer ones which may even be supported
under Vista's successor. I would wait until there's a REALLY good reason for
you to switch to Vista (e.g. much easier to use DAW software, or a plugin
that you can't run in XP), and THEN upgrade your hardware. No point in
jumping the gun.

The only thing that is not great about this product are the preamps,
but they aren't bad either. So I could use a new Pre like the RNP ...
(much better option I suppose than change the Edirol DA)

Room acoustics, mics, monitoring, and preamps: that's where I'd spend my
money, and in that order. Also education... consider putting that $500
towards a part-time recording course.

[Scott Dorsey]

Julien BH wrote:
No OK I'll tell you all my deepest and greatest FEAR of all FEARS.
I have absolutely no complaints about the Edirol thingy.

What bothers me is it is a discontinued product and vista is coming
very fast as a standard OS (for a PC).
I have though of dual booting XP and Vista and that's my only
solution. That or upgrade my stuff to something compatible AND at the
same time, Better.( I don't think I could get much better imho
anyway... )

Okay, then buy the Lavry 2-channel box. It appears as a standard USB
audio device, and consequently requires no drivers other than the standard
USB ones built into the system.

Only two analogue inputs, with no phantom power, but surprisingly good
converters for $200. Even the preamps aren't so bad.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Julien BH" wrote ...
Oh yeah, and just to say:
I'm not "transfering" anything. I just record directly (voice + guitar
+ Bass). The rest is synths for now.

Perhaps you can understand our confusion when you said...
"What would you recommend to tranfer my analog stuff do digital "

[Richard Crowley]

"Julien BH" wrote ...
No OK I'll tell you all my deepest and greatest FEAR of all FEARS.
I have absolutely no complaints about the Edirol thingy.

What bothers me is it is a discontinued product and vista
is coming very fast as a standard OS (for a PC).

Do you have some compelling reason to switch to Vista?
Yuck! People are avoiding it like the plague.

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 22, 3:22 pm, "David Grant" wrote:
"Julien BH" wrote in message
What bothers me is it is a discontinued product and vista is coming
very fast as a standard OS (for a PC).

Not as fast as you might think. There most likely won't be any really good
reason for you to upgrade to Vista any time soon

The problem is that he'll want to upgrade (or need to replace) his
computer at some point, and if he buys a new computer, it will have
Vista installed. If he builds one, he may still be able to buy XP, but
not for long, or not very conveniently. You might be able to order a
copy from something.com now, but what about two years from now?

There's a possibility that Edirol will eventually release Vista
drivers for even a discontinued interface, but there are no
guarantees.

[[email protected]]

Okay, then buy the Lavry 2-channel box. *It appears as a standard USB
audio device, and consequently requires no drivers other than the standard
USB ones built into the system.

Only two analogue inputs, with no phantom power, but surprisingly good
converters for $200. *Even the preamps aren't so bad.

Can one really get a USB driven 2-channel Lavry box for $200? I'd
love to have a dedicated 2-channel DA for monitoring only.....

Also, I've noticed that Laurence Payne has more than once mentioned
that these days converters all pretty much sound the same. I even
recall a preamp shootout in which LP seemed to reveal that many of the
regulars in this group couldn't hear the difference between a
Behringer pre and some higher-end - or at least far pricer - preamps.

Since the Motu 828mkII and the Metric Halo boxes were both mentioned
in this thread, I'll say that a friend and I once did an informal
comparison of the Metric Halo m/io and the Motu 828mkII. We ran a
Neumann KM184 and an Audio Technica AT4033 on a 1968 Fender Deluxe
Reverb with a PRS guitar. The mics, placement, room, guitar, amp
settings, cables, etc. all remained the same for each test. The
Metric Halo sounded vastly better - much to my chagrin, since I owned
the 828mkII. I'm not going to weigh in on the whys and hows, but I
can't be convinced that there wasn't a significant difference in the
sonic quality of the two boxes. To what degree it was the preamps and
to what degree it was the conversion, I don't know, but the difference
was striking.

Best of luck, Julien

Steve

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:36:40 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
wrote:

Not as fast as you might think. There most likely won't be any really good
reason for you to upgrade to Vista any time soon

The problem is that he'll want to upgrade (or need to replace) his
computer at some point, and if he buys a new computer, it will have
Vista installed. If he builds one, he may still be able to buy XP, but
not for long, or not very conveniently. You might be able to order a
copy from something.com now, but what about two years from now?


So that's the time to consider a new audio interface. Now, he'd just
be throwing money at a problem that doesn't need solving.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:04:48 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Also, I've noticed that Laurence Payne has more than once mentioned
that these days converters all pretty much sound the same. I even
recall a preamp shootout in which LP seemed to reveal that many of the
regulars in this group couldn't hear the difference between a
Behringer pre and some higher-end - or at least far pricer - preamps.

I certainly believe that you'll have a hard job hearing any difference
between Line In digital on different equipment, discounting the
ultra-cheap stuff.

If you bring a mic preamp into the picture, it gets more complicated.
If you restrict your choice to preamps that TRY to be transparent,
it's becoming harder to hear a difference, or to find a bad one. But
there are sometimes issues with microphone loading and, of course,
there are many preamps that DON'T attempt transparency.

Whoever organised or reported a preamp shootout, it wasn't me.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Can one really get a USB driven 2-channel Lavry box for $200? I'd
love to have a dedicated 2-channel DA for monitoring only.....

Yes, but the Lavry box is A/D only, no D/As. That's part of why it
is only $200.

Also, I've noticed that Laurence Payne has more than once mentioned
that these days converters all pretty much sound the same. I even
recall a preamp shootout in which LP seemed to reveal that many of the
regulars in this group couldn't hear the difference between a
Behringer pre and some higher-end - or at least far pricer - preamps.

I can design a shootout for you in which nobody will be able to tell the
difference between a Shure M67 and a Millennia Media. I also can design
a shootout for you in which everyone will be able to tell the difference
between two instances of the same preamp, too. I am suspicious of shootouts.

Since the Motu 828mkII and the Metric Halo boxes were both mentioned
in this thread, I'll say that a friend and I once did an informal
comparison of the Metric Halo m/io and the Motu 828mkII. We ran a
Neumann KM184 and an Audio Technica AT4033 on a 1968 Fender Deluxe
Reverb with a PRS guitar. The mics, placement, room, guitar, amp
settings, cables, etc. all remained the same for each test. The
Metric Halo sounded vastly better - much to my chagrin, since I owned
the 828mkII. I'm not going to weigh in on the whys and hows, but I
can't be convinced that there wasn't a significant difference in the
sonic quality of the two boxes. To what degree it was the preamps and
to what degree it was the conversion, I don't know, but the difference
was striking.

I'd be curious how the RME fared in comparison. The RME guys seem to know
what they are doing pretty well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Grant]

I'd be curious how the RME fared in comparison. The RME guys seem to know
what they are doing pretty well.
--scott

I have no idea how well their converters compare, because I've not done much
A/Bing, but their drivers are rock solid. I've been repeatedly blown away by
the software side of the HDSP.

[Tim Padrick]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Presumably since you are transferring from analogue, you have a line
level signal available. That means you don't need a preamp. Further,
since there are no analogue sources that come close to a standard PC
sound card in quality, all you need to do is plug your source into the
LIne In socket on a PC and record.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


Surely you jest. Otherwise, you've never heard even a modestly good record
player, let alone one of the better models.

[Arny Krueger]

"Tim Padrick" wrote in message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Presumably since you are transferring from analogue, you
have a line level signal available. That means you don't
need a preamp. Further, since there are no analogue
sources that come close to a standard PC sound card in
quality, all you need to do is plug your source into the
LIne In socket on a PC and record.

Surely you jest. Otherwise, you've never heard even a
modestly good record player, let alone one of the better
models.

Nothing like just starting right up with an insult, Tim.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:50:02 -0500, "Tim Padrick"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Presumably since you are transferring from analogue, you have a line
level signal available. That means you don't need a preamp. Further,
since there are no analogue sources that come close to a standard PC
sound card in quality, all you need to do is plug your source into the
LIne In socket on a PC and record.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


Surely you jest. Otherwise, you've never heard even a modestly good record
player, let alone one of the better models.


Do the sums Tim.
Look at the frequency response of the best vinyl player and compare it
with a middle of the road sound card.
Look at the distortion level off the best vinyl player and compare it
with a middle of the road sound card.
Look at the noise level of the best vinyl player and compare it with a
middle of the road sound card.

In every one of those cases, the performance of the sound card is
vastly, not slightly, better than the vinyl player. This is inevitably
so.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Julien BH]

On Jan 24, 6:50 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:50:02 -0500, "Tim Padrick"



wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


Presumably since you are transferring from analogue, you have a line
level signal available. That means you don't need a preamp. Further,
since there are no analogue sources that come close to a standard PC
sound card in quality, all you need to do is plug your source into the
LIne In socket on a PC and record.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Surely you jest. Otherwise, you've never heard even a modestly good record
player, let alone one of the better models.

Do the sums Tim.
Look at the frequency response of the best vinyl player and compare it
with a middle of the road sound card.
Look at the distortion level off the best vinyl player and compare it
with a middle of the road sound card.
Look at the noise level of the best vinyl player and compare it with a
middle of the road sound card.

In every one of those cases, the performance of the sound card is
vastly, not slightly, better than the vinyl player. This is inevitably
so.

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

Thanks everyone. I'll look into the Lavry if I make the jump on the
boat.
Are you sure it's under 200$ ?
I'm being skeptical.

[Scott Dorsey]

Julien BH wrote:

Thanks everyone. I'll look into the Lavry if I make the jump on the
boat.
Are you sure it's under 200$ ?
I'm being skeptical.

Hmm... looking at their website, the $200 PRS2 unit that they introduced
a couple years ago has been replaced recently with the LavryBlack AD10
and LavryBlack DA10.

This has to have happened since the AES show. Sheesh, this is what I miss
by not reading Mike's NAMM report.

They might still have an old PRS2 in stock, but I am betting that they
just couldn't compete with the marketing at the bottom end of the market.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 24, 10:13 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Hmm... looking at their website, the $200 PRS2 unit that they introduced
a couple years ago has been replaced recently with the LavryBlack AD10
and LavryBlack DA10.

Say! That's SOME "replacement." The PSR2 was a completely different
thing, but with virtually no marketing, probably confused nearly
everyone who heard about it and who may have been a potential
customer. I don't even think it used the Windows USB audio device
driver, it had a very simple, dedicated recording program, and it was
input-only. The idea was that you're make a recording, burn it to a
CD, and that would be it. Target market was for teachers to record a
lessen for a student rather than musicians who wanted to make home
recordings. And in its day, few people were thinking about copying
their records to CD or computer.

This has to have happened since the AES show. Sheesh, this is what I miss
by not reading Mike's NAMM report.

Actually, most of the above was in an AES report of mine from a few
years back.

[Richard Kuschel]

Tim Padrick wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Presumably since you are transferring from analogue, you have a line
level signal available. That means you don't need a preamp. Further,
since there are no analogue sources that come close to a standard PC
sound card in quality, all you need to do is plug your source into the
LIne In socket on a PC and record.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


Surely you jest. Otherwise, you've never heard even a
modestly good record player, let alone one of the better
models.

Records were a rather poor method of storing analogue informaton.

I heard some safety masters of some original recordings made in the
late 50's.
Tthese were presented by Al Schmitt at theAES convention in LA in 2000
at the exhibit "When Vinyl Ruled".

The funny thing about the title was that vinyl didn't have anything to
do with the presentation. The tapes were 1/2" three tracks (7.5IPS)
played back LCR on 1950's equipment.

Mancini's Peter Gunn, Sinatra, and other top performances of the era
were featured.
The sound was truly magnificent, and since I was very familiar with a
few of the pieces, it amazed me how much better the sound was from the
tapes rather than from the records.

Records were a poor rendition of the sound.

It wasn't until the advent of the compact disc that I heard truly
clear sound. Some of the early CD's were pretty poor as mastering and
playback hadn't evolved for the new medium, but the way of the future
had been presented.

Unfortunately with MP3's, sound is devolving to a distorted shallow
sounding skeleton of what could be.

RHK

[Bill Dukenfield]

Tim Padrick wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message



Presumably since you are transferring from analogue, you have a line
level signal available. That means you don't need a preamp. Further,
since there are no analogue sources that come close to a standard PC
sound card in quality, all you need to do is plug your source into the
LIne In socket on a PC and record.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


Surely you jest. Otherwise, you've never heard even a modestly good record
player, let alone one of the better models.

How about one of these?

http://www.artproaudio.com/products....&cat=13&id=128

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._and_Bias.html

JAM

[Geoff]

Richard Kuschel wrote:


The funny thing about the title was that vinyl didn't have anything to
do with the presentation. The tapes were 1/2" three tracks (7.5IPS)
played back LCR on 1950's equipment.

I guess it demonstrated the peak of possible quality of that era, before it
was further degraded by the vinyl stage.


geoff

[Arny Krueger]

"geoff" wrote in message

Richard Kuschel wrote:


The funny thing about the title was that vinyl didn't
have anything to do with the presentation. The tapes
were 1/2" three tracks (7.5IPS) played back LCR on
1950's equipment.

I guess it demonstrated the peak of possible quality of
that era, before it was further degraded by the vinyl
stage.

By most accounts, the peak of analog tape performance was more like 15 ips.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message


Richard Kuschel wrote:

The funny thing about the title was that vinyl didn't
have anything to do with the presentation. The tapes
were 1/2" three tracks (7.5IPS) played back LCR on
1950's equipment.

I guess it demonstrated the peak of possible quality of
that era, before it was further degraded by the vinyl
stage.

By most accounts, the peak of analog tape performance was more like
15 ips.

Depends on the context and the generation count, but in the 50'ties ... I'd
recheck the source because 1/2" three track almost certainly implies 38 cm/s
to me. All the old tapes I have digitized have been from consumer equipment,
but generally it appears to me that 1970's tapes and recorders recorded a
full octave more at whatever the speed was than 1950-ties and 60'ties tapes
and recorders. Based on that I doubt that a 1950's tape running at 19 cm/s
recorded any 20 kHz. I of course risk being told that some pro type recorder
did it ....


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Julien BH]

On Jan 24, 12:22 pm, Bill Dukenfield
wrote:
Tim Padrick wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


Presumably since you are transferring from analogue, you have a line
level signal available. That means you don't need a preamp. Further,
since there are no analogue sources that come close to a standard PC
sound card in quality, all you need to do is plug your source into the
LIne In socket on a PC and record.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Surely you jest. Otherwise, you've never heard even a modestly good record
player, let alone one of the better models.

How about one of these?

http://www.artproaudio.com/products....&cat=13&id=128

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...BPLUS_USBPhono...

JAM

Before buying this, I'll keep my edirol anytime. I'm not a fan of ART
products.

[David Grant]

How about one of these?

http://www.artproaudio.com/products....&cat=13&id=128

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...BPLUS_USBPhono...

JAM

Before buying this, I'll keep my edirol anytime. I'm not a fan of ART
products.

It used to be that you could buy any product from a reputable manufacturer,
and rest assured it was a quality product. Today you can buy from those same
manufacturers and, unless you do your research, end up with a piece of junk.

I think the converse is true - You CAN buy decent products from
manufacturers who are known for making poor quality ones. Not sure about ART
in particular, but I guess what I'm saying is: keep an open mind.