[chris ruth]

yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

thanks

[Charles Tomaras]

"chris ruth" wrote in message
...
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

http://www.sounddevices.com/products/usbpre2.htm

It's a "little" over your listed budget but the mic preamps sound great, the
headphone amp is great, the metering is great and you will not be
disappointed in any way.

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Nov 22, 7:41*pm, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

thanks

If your guitar has a built in pickup and a 1/4" jack, try the Stealth
Plug. Plugs directly into your USB port. The most direct way into the
computer via the USB port. I use it and it works great.
http://ikmultimedia.com/stealthplug/features/

[Sean Conolly]

"chris ruth" wrote in message
...
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.


This may be worth checking out for $150
http://www.mackie.com/products/onyxblackjack/

I haven't tried one myself, but people on here have said the Onyx preamps on
their mixers are good. It would put a little more money in your microphone
budget, too.

Sean

[hank alrich]

cedricl wrote:

On Nov 22, 7:41 pm, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

thanks

If your guitar has a built in pickup and a 1/4" jack, try the Stealth
Plug. Plugs directly into your USB port. The most direct way into the
computer via the USB port. I use it and it works great.
http://ikmultimedia.com/stealthplug/features/

Cool for some things, but not so much for classical guitar.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
cedricl wrote:

On Nov 22, 7:41*pm, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

thanks

If your guitar has a built in pickup and a 1/4" jack, try the Stealth
Plug. Plugs directly into your USB port. The most direct way into the
computer via the USB port. I use it and it works great.
http://ikmultimedia.com/stealthplug/features/

However, there is no acoustic guitar pickup that can hold a candle to a
good mic.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/22/2011 10:41 PM, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

Look at the Focusrite Scarlett 8i6. There's a review on my
web site (see below). It may be a little more than you want
now, but chances are you'll get inspired to grow into it.
The mic preamps sound excellent with a variety of mics, the
user interface is uncluttered, and if you just want a
straightforward stereo interface and don't want to fuss with
its internal DSP mixer (which is REALLY low latency, should
you choose to use it) you need not use the software control
panel. I tested it using Windows XP but it should work just
fine under Vista, Win7, or OS-x

Focusrite has a new 2-channel interface that's simpler and
less expensive, but I haven't checked it out yet. The
4-input one (the other 2 of the 6 are S/PDIF) doesn't cost
all that much more and gives me more opportunities to use it.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/23/2011 12:43 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:

This may be worth checking out for $150
mackie onyx blackjack

The Onyx preamps are indeed good, but people have had a lot
of trouble on the computer side getting these to work,
Windows for sure, maybe Mac as well. Mackie hasn't been very
good about their drivers when it comes to anything but their
mixers with the Firewire I/O. People are reporting that the
Blackjack is fairly stable, though with a large buffer,
using the ASIO4ALL driver rather than the Mackie driver, but
that's a bad foot to start on.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
cedricl wrote:
On Nov 22, 7:41=A0pm, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

If your guitar has a built in pickup and a 1/4" jack, try the Stealth
Plug. Plugs directly into your USB port. The most direct way into the
computer via the USB port. I use it and it works great.
http://ikmultimedia.com/stealthplug/features/

Sure, but then you're stuck with the pickup.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Nov 23, 6:53*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article ,

cedricl wrote:
On Nov 22, 7:41=A0pm, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

If your guitar has a built in pickup and a 1/4" jack, try the Stealth
Plug. Plugs directly into your USB port. The most direct way into the
computer via the USB port. I use it and it works great.
http://ikmultimedia.com/stealthplug/features/

Sure, but then you're stuck with the pickup.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I had to get rid of my beloved Sound Devices USBpre because it didn't
support 64-bit. I bought a Behringer Xenix X-1204 mixer and have been
using it for about three months now to record audiobooks. It has been
more than satisfactory, the best $150 I've ever spent. I know that
the Behringer-haters will jump on this, but all I can do is tell you
that the thing works great. It has plenty of gain and the pres sound
good.

[Tobiah]

On 11/22/2011 7:41 PM, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

thanks


I have a Tascam on eBay right now:

http://tinyurl.com/72kavk6

Right now the bid is ridiculously low. It
will go for something like $90 during the last
minute of the auction.

This thing has quiet pre's for a budget device,
but they totally hosed this device as compared
to the US-122 by trying to combine the monitor
and computer out volume into one knob. Most
all of Tascam's affordable gear now suffers from
this horrible design flaw.

Still, it's there, maybe for a good price if
you decide to get one.

[chris ruth]

On Nov 22, 11:56*pm, "Charles Tomaras" wrote:
"chris ruth" wrote in message

...

yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

http://www.sounddevices.com/products/usbpre2.htm

It's a "little" over your listed budget but the mic preamps sound great, the
headphone amp is great, the metering is great and you will not be
disappointed in any way.

thanks. yes i looked at that one and was a little confused about the
dip switch settings in the back, and the ' no need for divers'
comment.
Is this also a 'soundcard'? I need something that Sonar cakewalk can
interface with.

[chris ruth]

On Nov 23, 11:01*am, "videochas www.locoworks.com"
wrote:
On Nov 23, 6:53*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:





In article ,

cedricl wrote:
On Nov 22, 7:41=A0pm, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

If your guitar has a built in pickup and a 1/4" jack, try the Stealth
Plug. Plugs directly into your USB port. The most direct way into the
computer via the USB port. I use it and it works great.
http://ikmultimedia.com/stealthplug/features/

Sure, but then you're stuck with the pickup.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

*I had to get rid of my beloved Sound Devices USBpre because it didn't
support 64-bit. *I bought a Behringer Xenix X-1204 mixer and have been
using it for about three months now to record audiobooks. *It has been
more than satisfactory, the best $150 I've ever spent. *I know that
the Behringer-haters will jump on this, but all I can do is tell you
that the thing works great. *It has plenty of gain and the pres sound
good.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

thanks everyone! great feedback. A little more info on my side.
I have a pair of Octava MK-012a. I've been using a tascam us122 but
when i upgraded my laptop to
windows 7 i had trouble finding the driver. It worked then it didn't.
Anyway i've been using the us122 (with sonar cakewalk) for years and
thought maybe a change would be good. Also i want a digital out which
the us122 does not have.
Again it's maily for classical guitar, no pickup!
thanks

[nobody calls me this but annatar]

On Nov 23, 3:08*pm, chris ruth wrote:
On Nov 23, 11:01*am, "videochaswww.locoworks.com"
wrote:





On Nov 23, 6:53*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article ,

cedricl wrote:
On Nov 22, 7:41=A0pm, chris ruth wrote:
yes, yes i know i need good mics but does anyone have a recommendation
for a good usb preamp interface for recording mainly acoustic guitar?
Budget 0-$500. I onlly need 2 inputs and a digital out.

If your guitar has a built in pickup and a 1/4" jack, try the Stealth
Plug. Plugs directly into your USB port. The most direct way into the
computer via the USB port. I use it and it works great.
http://ikmultimedia.com/stealthplug/features/

Sure, but then you're stuck with the pickup.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

*I had to get rid of my beloved Sound Devices USBpre because it didn't
support 64-bit. *I bought a Behringer Xenix X-1204 mixer and have been
using it for about three months now to record audiobooks. *It has been
more than satisfactory, the best $150 I've ever spent. *I know that
the Behringer-haters will jump on this, but all I can do is tell you
that the thing works great. *It has plenty of gain and the pres sound
good.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

thanks everyone! great feedback. A little more info on my side.
I have a pair of Octava MK-012a. I've been using a tascam us122 but
when i upgraded my laptop to
windows 7 i had trouble finding the driver. It worked then it didn't.
Anyway i've been using the us122 (with sonar cakewalk) for years and
thought maybe a change would be good. Also i want a digital out which
the us122 does not have.
Again it's maily for classical guitar, no pickup!
thanks- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

are there any brands here i should stay away from?

MOTU
M-Audio
Focusrute
PreSonus
Mackie
Avid
Tascam
Roland

there's just way too much out there in my price range.
Remember it's gotta work with windows 7 and mainly using mic inputs.

[Scott Dorsey]

nobody calls me this but annatar wrote:
are there any brands here i should stay away from?

MOTU
M-Audio
Focusrute
PreSonus
Mackie
Avid
Tascam
Roland

there's just way too much out there in my price range.
Remember it's gotta work with windows 7 and mainly using mic inputs.

Buy a cheap S-PDIF interface or MADI interface for the computer.

Then spend a lot of money on a good A/D-preamp combination with an S-PDIF
or MADI interface.

You can keep using the A/D and preamp for the rest of your life... when
you run into driver issues the next time you only have to change the interface,
which is cheap and noncritical.

Spend money on stuff you can keep for a long time and don't have to replace.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/23/2011 11:01 AM, videochas www.locoworks.com wrote:

I had to get rid of my beloved Sound Devices USBpre because it didn't
support 64-bit.

You mean they didn't have a driver that would work with your
newfangled 64-bit operating system? Well, it's nice to know
that companies like Mackie aren't the only ones slow out of
the starting gate.

I bought a Behringer Xenix X-1204 mixer and have been
using it for about three months now to record audiobooks. It has been
more than satisfactory,

I'm sure it is more than satisfactory, and for your
application, the Sound Devices probably didn't do a better
job. But we're talking about someone who seems to be
planning to get a good mic and record a classical guitar.
That's a different kind of job than recording audio books.
Not to demean audio books, but everything about it is
different from recording a guitar.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/23/2011 4:41 PM, nobody calls me this but annatar wrote:

are there any brands here i should stay away from?

The ones that don't work well with your computer. Just
"Windows 7" isn't enough information. You really can't
provide enough information. There's only one way to tell
that. Get one and try it. That's the biggest trouble with
this stuff. This year, it seems that more things work with
less trouble with a Mac than with a PC but that surely can't
last.

I'd stay away from anything that connects to the computer
with FireWire. For one thing you may not have that
capability on your computer. For another, your next computer
surely won't have it. USB 2 audio drivers are still pretty
new to most manufacturers so there may be some bumps in the
road, but it has a fair chance of hanging on for a while yet.

There aren't any USB 3 audio devices yet, nor Thunderbolt.
But Firewire is pretty much on the way out.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/23/2011 2:58 PM, chris ruth wrote:

thanks. yes i looked at that one and was a little confused about the
dip switch settings in the back, and the ' no need for divers'
comment.

"Needs no drivers" means that it's a class compliant device.
Windows has a driver for it built in. It's USB 1.1 which is
fine for two channels up to 96 kHz sample rate. Though it
goes to 192 kHz, that's record only or play only.

Is this also a 'soundcard'? I need something that Sonar cakewalk can
interface with.

"Sound card" hardly exists any more, but yeah, it serves the
same function as the SoundBlaster that you'd buy to add
sound to your computer in 1988. There's no reason why Sonar
shouldn't work with it. In fact there's no reason why it
shouldn't work with 64-bit Windows 7 but there's always
somebody who will have a system that some audio device won't
work with.

Frankly, I don't think the Sound Devices USB Pre is really
the right device for you. Sure, it's a good preamp, but it's
really designed for field recording and you're paying for
features unique to that job that you aren't likely to use.
But to be honest, I wish every audio I/O box had meters as
useful as the Sound Devices. But that's one of the reasons
why it costs $200 more than several other units that will do
just as good a job at recording.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Charles Tomaras]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 11/23/2011 2:58 PM, chris ruth wrote:

thanks. yes i looked at that one and was a little confused about the
dip switch settings in the back, and the ' no need for divers'
comment.

"Needs no drivers" means that it's a class compliant device. Windows has a
driver for it built in. It's USB 1.1 which is fine for two channels up to
96 kHz sample rate. Though it goes to 192 kHz, that's record only or play
only.

Is this also a 'soundcard'? I need something that Sonar cakewalk can
interface with.

"Sound card" hardly exists any more, but yeah, it serves the same function
as the SoundBlaster that you'd buy to add sound to your computer in 1988.
There's no reason why Sonar shouldn't work with it. In fact there's no
reason why it shouldn't work with 64-bit Windows 7 but there's always
somebody who will have a system that some audio device won't work with.

Frankly, I don't think the Sound Devices USB Pre is really the right
device for you. Sure, it's a good preamp, but it's really designed for
field recording and you're paying for features unique to that job that you
aren't likely to use. But to be honest, I wish every audio I/O box had
meters as useful as the Sound Devices. But that's one of the reasons why
it costs $200 more than several other units that will do just as good a
job at recording.

I've plugged my USB Pre2 into many different computers both Windows and Mac
and have had zero issues with it being recognized and properly interfacing.
While in some ways it may be more than what is required for your needs you
will certainly be pleased with the results and it's versatility may pay off
big time for future uses you have yet to encounter. I will also add that the
resale value of almost all Sound Devices products holds up very favorably
compared to bargain boxes.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/23/2011 10:56 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:

I've plugged my USB Pre2 into many different computers both
Windows and Mac and have had zero issues with it being
recognized and properly interfacing.

That's because it uses USB 1.1 If all you need is two
channels and work at a sensible sample rate, there's no
reason to use anything else. But when people see the 8+
channel Firewire interfaces, they want THAT, not just a
piddly two channels. And they want it CHEAP!


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/23/2011 10:56 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:

I've plugged my USB Pre2 into many different computers both
Windows and Mac and have had zero issues with it being
recognized and properly interfacing.

That's because it uses USB 1.1 If all you need is two
channels and work at a sensible sample rate, there's no
reason to use anything else. But when people see the 8+
channel Firewire interfaces, they want THAT, not just a
piddly two channels. And they want it CHEAP!

And the issue is that there is an interface standard for the two-channel
devices... all the standard operating systems already have drivers that
can talk to that particular interface.

The problem comes in that there is no standard multitrack interface, so
every manufacturer needs a different set of drivers. And, sadly, a lot
of those drivers appear to be written by gorillas following a cookbook,
and so any time a change is made to the OS the drivers need to be changed
as well. Competent systems programmers have always been rare.

The solution may come in standardized multichannel devices, but don't
hold your breath.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mike wrote:
On 11/23/2011 10:56 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:

I've plugged my USB Pre2 into many different computers both
Windows and Mac and have had zero issues with it being
recognized and properly interfacing.

That's because it uses USB 1.1 If all you need is two
channels and work at a sensible sample rate, there's no
reason to use anything else. But when people see the 8+
channel Firewire interfaces, they want THAT, not just a
piddly two channels. And they want it CHEAP!

And the issue is that there is an interface standard for the two-channel
devices... all the standard operating systems already have drivers that
can talk to that particular interface.

The problem comes in that there is no standard multitrack interface, so
every manufacturer needs a different set of drivers.

There's an *anti-standard*. Manufacturers consider the hardware
interface the driver glues to to be proprietary or near to it.

And, sadly, a lot
of those drivers appear to be written by gorillas following a cookbook,
and so any time a change is made to the OS the drivers need to be changed
as well. Competent systems programmers have always been rare.


I'd be more inclined to think it is that the drivers get short shrift
in both time and money. I don't think that, for example, the Terratec
drivers are that bad; there is just a lot of stuff left out of them.
And what's left out varied from release to release. When I went to a 64
bit machine, I lost some stuff.

You learn where the rocks are under the water.

The solution may come in standardized multichannel devices, but don't
hold your breath.
--scott


For Windows, WDM drivers tended to be pretty complete, and you could
link up ASIO4ALL to that. That's worked out for lots of people.

--
Les Cargill

[Charles Tomaras]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 11/23/2011 10:56 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:

I've plugged my USB Pre2 into many different computers both
Windows and Mac and have had zero issues with it being
recognized and properly interfacing.

That's because it uses USB 1.1 If all you need is two channels and work at
a sensible sample rate, there's no reason to use anything else. But when
people see the 8+ channel Firewire interfaces, they want THAT, not just a
piddly two channels. And they want it CHEAP!

Actually on a Mac with the latest SD USB Pre2 firmware it uses USB 2.0 if
I'm not mistaken.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/26/2011 9:32 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:

Actually on a Mac with the latest SD USB Pre2 firmware it
uses USB 2.0 if I'm not mistaken.

The current Apple Core Audio system apparently supports USB2
audio devices, so it probably does plug-and-play and not
care about a special driver like what Windows requires. This
is why a few audio companies make computer interface
hardware only for the Mac - so they don't have to write a
driver. Still, they're in trouble if Apple changes something
that makes it not work.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[chris ruth]

On Nov 27, 7:54*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/26/2011 9:32 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:

Actually on a Mac with the latest SD USB Pre2 firmware it
uses USB 2.0 if I'm not mistaken.

The current Apple Core Audio system apparently supports USB2
audio devices, so it probably does plug-and-play and not
care about a special driver like what Windows requires. This
is why a few audio companies make computer interface
hardware only for the Mac - so they don't have to write a
driver. Still, they're in trouble if Apple changes something
that makes it not work.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and
interesting audio stuff

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.
I guess i should have mentioned from the beginning, I don't need to be
fully mobile. I can plug into into the wall.
The usbpre 2 does seem a bit overbuilt for my puposes and a bit out of
my budget.

So (don't kill me), any suggestion for preamp?

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Nov 29, 12:23*pm, chris ruth wrote:
On Nov 27, 7:54*am, Mike Rivers wrote:









On 11/26/2011 9:32 PM, Charles Tomaras wrote:

Actually on a Mac with the latest SD USB Pre2 firmware it
uses USB 2.0 if I'm not mistaken.

The current Apple Core Audio system apparently supports USB2
audio devices, so it probably does plug-and-play and not
care about a special driver like what Windows requires. This
is why a few audio companies make computer interface
hardware only for the Mac - so they don't have to write a
driver. Still, they're in trouble if Apple changes something
that makes it not work.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com-useful and
interesting audio stuff

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.
I guess i should have mentioned from the beginning, I don't need to be
fully mobile. I can plug into into the wall.
The usbpre 2 does seem a bit overbuilt for my puposes and a bit out of
my budget.

So (don't kill me), any suggestion for preamp?

Really good bang for the buck and really clean sounding (you don't
have to use the tube if you dont want to)
http://www.studioprojectsusa.com/vtb1.html

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/29/2011 3:23 PM, chris ruth wrote:

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.

Where are you going to find a cheap digital interface that
works with your laptop? Roland/Edirol/Cakewalk may have a
S/PDIF-USB interface that should work but there isn't much
call for this sort of device so they don't exactly grow on
trees, cheap or not.

You definitely don't want to connect the analog output of a
high quality preamp to the analog input of your laptop.
That's a perfect example of how to lose everything you're
put into the preamp (money as well as audio). So before you
go shopping for a preamp, consider how you can interface it
to your computer, then look for a preamp with the kind of
digital output that you can accommodate with what you can
find for your computer.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Charles Tomaras]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 11/29/2011 3:23 PM, chris ruth wrote:

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.

Where are you going to find a cheap digital interface that works with your
laptop? Roland/Edirol/Cakewalk may have a S/PDIF-USB interface that
should work but there isn't much call for this sort of device so they
don't exactly grow on trees, cheap or not.

You definitely don't want to connect the analog output of a high quality
preamp to the analog input of your laptop. That's a perfect example of how
to lose everything you're put into the preamp (money as well as audio). So
before you go shopping for a preamp, consider how you can interface it to
your computer, then look for a preamp with the kind of digital output that
you can accommodate with what you can find for your computer.

If you aren't concerned with running 64 bit Windows, I'd be happy to sell
you my first gen Sound Devices USB Pre for a fair price. I don't use it any
more since I have the USB Pre2 and it's just sitting on a shelf now. Here's
a link to the information on it: Works great with 32 bit Windows flavors and
as far as I can tell, all flavors of Mac OS.

http://sounddevices.com/products/usbpremaster.htm

If you have interest my reply to email address is valid and we can figure
out a fair price for both of us.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 10:15*am, "Charles Tomaras" wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

...









On 11/29/2011 3:23 PM, chris ruth wrote:

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.

Where are you going to find a cheap digital interface that works with your
laptop? *Roland/Edirol/Cakewalk may have a S/PDIF-USB interface that
should work but there isn't much call for this sort of device so they
don't exactly grow on trees, cheap or not.

You definitely don't want to connect the analog output of a high quality
preamp to the analog input of your laptop. That's a perfect example of how
to lose everything you're put into the preamp (money as well as audio). So
before you go shopping for a preamp, consider how you can interface it to
your computer, then look for a preamp with the kind of digital output that
you can accommodate with what you can find for your computer.

If you aren't concerned with running 64 bit Windows, I'd be happy to sell
you my first gen Sound Devices USB Pre for a fair price. I don't use it any
more since I have the USB Pre2 and it's just sitting on a shelf now. Here's
a link to the information on it: Works great with 32 bit Windows flavors and
as far as I can tell, all flavors of Mac OS.

http://sounddevices.com/products/usbpremaster.htm

If you have interest my reply to email address is valid and we can figure
out a fair price for both of us.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

The USBPre is a great tool. I've used one for about 8 years. The only
limitation on the Mac side is that 24/48K resolution is the highest it
goes. It was having some problems on playback (minor digital clicks)
just a few months ago. I sent it back to Sound Devices for their
standard $75 repair bill and they sent me a brand new one because they
couldn't figure out how to fix mine completely. Great company to deal
with. If not for the price, I'd have a USBPre 2 right now. I still
might get one.

[chris ruth]

On Nov 30, 7:31*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/29/2011 3:23 PM, chris ruth wrote:

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.

Where are you going to find a cheap digital interface that
works with your laptop? *Roland/Edirol/Cakewalk may have a
S/PDIF-USB interface that should work but there isn't much
call for this sort of device so they don't exactly grow on
trees, cheap or not.

You definitely don't want to connect the analog output of a
high quality preamp to the analog input of your laptop.
That's a perfect example of how to lose everything you're
put into the preamp (money as well as audio). So before you
go shopping for a preamp, consider how you can interface it
to your computer, then look for a preamp with the kind of
digital output that you can accommodate with what you can
find for your computer.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and
interesting audio stuff

i once borrowed a john hardy preamp from a friend and had the anaolog
output go into my Tascam (with the tascam pre off of course), then usb
out into computer.
It sounded a little better than the tascam by itself.
But i don't have $2000 to spare.

[chris ruth]

On Nov 30, 4:31*pm, cedricl wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:15*am, "Charles Tomaras" wrote:





"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

...

On 11/29/2011 3:23 PM, chris ruth wrote:

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.

Where are you going to find a cheap digital interface that works with your
laptop? *Roland/Edirol/Cakewalk may have a S/PDIF-USB interface that
should work but there isn't much call for this sort of device so they
don't exactly grow on trees, cheap or not.

You definitely don't want to connect the analog output of a high quality
preamp to the analog input of your laptop. That's a perfect example of how
to lose everything you're put into the preamp (money as well as audio). So
before you go shopping for a preamp, consider how you can interface it to
your computer, then look for a preamp with the kind of digital output that
you can accommodate with what you can find for your computer.

If you aren't concerned with running 64 bit Windows, I'd be happy to sell
you my first gen Sound Devices USB Pre for a fair price. I don't use it any
more since I have the USB Pre2 and it's just sitting on a shelf now. Here's
a link to the information on it: Works great with 32 bit Windows flavors and
as far as I can tell, all flavors of Mac OS.

http://sounddevices.com/products/usbpremaster.htm

If you have interest my reply to email address is valid and we can figure
out a fair price for both of us.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA

The USBPre is a great tool. I've used one for about 8 years. The only
limitation on the Mac side is that 24/48K resolution is the highest it
goes. It was having some problems on playback (minor digital clicks)
just a few months ago. I sent it back to Sound Devices for their
standard $75 repair bill and they sent me a brand new one because they
couldn't figure out how to fix mine completely. Great company to deal
with. If not for the price, I'd have a USBPre 2 right now. I still
might get one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i don't have a mac. Using a new Windows 7 laptop.

[PStamler]

On Nov 30, 3:51*pm, chris ruth wrote:
On Nov 30, 7:31*am, Mike Rivers wrote:



On 11/29/2011 3:23 PM, chris ruth wrote:

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.

Where are you going to find a cheap digital interface that
works with your laptop? *Roland/Edirol/Cakewalk may have a
S/PDIF-USB interface that should work but there isn't much
call for this sort of device so they don't exactly grow on
trees, cheap or not.

You definitely don't want to connect the analog output of a
high quality preamp to the analog input of your laptop.
That's a perfect example of how to lose everything you're
put into the preamp (money as well as audio). So before you
go shopping for a preamp, consider how you can interface it
to your computer, then look for a preamp with the kind of
digital output that you can accommodate with what you can
find for your computer.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com-useful and
interesting audio stuff

i once borrowed a john hardy preamp from a friend and had the anaolog
output go into my Tascam (with the tascam pre off of course), then usb
out into computer.
It sounded a little better than the tascam by itself.

Keep in mind that when you ran the output of the Hardy into the Tascam
you were actually going through the Tascam's mic preamp, via a pad. So
any misbehavior the Tascam's preamp introduced was automatically there
in both versions, with and without the Hardy.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

On Nov 30, 3:51*pm, chris ruth wrote:
On Nov 30, 7:31*am, Mike Rivers wrote:



On 11/29/2011 3:23 PM, chris ruth wrote:

How about Scotts suggestion to Get a separate preamp and any cheap
interface that will work with my laptop.

Where are you going to find a cheap digital interface that
works with your laptop? *Roland/Edirol/Cakewalk may have a
S/PDIF-USB interface that should work but there isn't much
call for this sort of device so they don't exactly grow on
trees, cheap or not.

You definitely don't want to connect the analog output of a
high quality preamp to the analog input of your laptop.
That's a perfect example of how to lose everything you're
put into the preamp (money as well as audio). So before you
go shopping for a preamp, consider how you can interface it
to your computer, then look for a preamp with the kind of
digital output that you can accommodate with what you can
find for your computer.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com-useful and
interesting audio stuff

i once borrowed a john hardy preamp from a friend and had the anaolog
output go into my Tascam (with the tascam pre off of course), then usb
out into computer.
It sounded a little better than the tascam by itself.

Keep in mind that any signal you send from the Hardy into the line
input of the Tascam almost certainly passes through the Tascam's mic
preamp, via a pad. So any misbehavior the Tascam pre introduces will
be present in both version, with and without the Hardy.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/1/2011 12:01 AM, PStamler wrote:

Keep in mind that when you ran the output of the Hardy into the Tascam
you were actually going through the Tascam's mic preamp, via a pad.

True, but it would have to be pretty bad to make a big
difference, and most aren't that bad these days.

It's important, if someone wants to hear differences that he
expects, that the system has to be pretty much uniform
quality throughout when substituting a component. Chances
are (not a known fact in this case of course) someone with a
TASCAM interface is likely to be monitoring through so-so to
fair-to-middlin' speakers or headphones, and in a so-so room.

I suppose that one could argue that if a small improvement
could be heard through those impediments, the difference
would be dramatic in a system that was, overall, up to the
quality of a high grade mic preamp. But one never knows.
People who have a high overall quality system rarely will
substitute a TASCAM interface to see how much worse it sounds.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[chris ruth]

On Dec 1, 7:21*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/1/2011 12:01 AM, PStamler wrote:

Keep in mind that when you ran the output of the Hardy into the Tascam
you were actually going through the Tascam's mic preamp, via a pad.

True, but it would have to be pretty bad to make a big
difference, and most aren't that bad these days.

It's important, if someone wants to hear differences that he
expects, that the system has to be pretty much uniform
quality throughout when substituting a component. Chances
are (not a known fact in this case of course) someone with a
TASCAM interface is likely to be monitoring through so-so to
fair-to-middlin' speakers or headphones, and in a so-so room.

I suppose that one could argue that if a small improvement
could be heard through those impediments, the difference
would be dramatic in a system that was, overall, up to the
quality of a high grade mic preamp. But one never knows.
People who have a high overall quality system rarely will
substitute a TASCAM interface to see how much worse it sounds.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and
interesting audio stuff

it was a controlled test, and i had 3 subjects, including myself,
listen blind. Speakers are psb, room treated but of course not
'great'. All preferred (although slightly) the hardy into the tascam
vs tascam alone. Anyway, it's not an option, just a comment

[chris ruth]

On Dec 1, 11:44*am, chris ruth wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:21*am, Mike Rivers wrote:





On 12/1/2011 12:01 AM, PStamler wrote:

Keep in mind that when you ran the output of the Hardy into the Tascam
you were actually going through the Tascam's mic preamp, via a pad.

True, but it would have to be pretty bad to make a big
difference, and most aren't that bad these days.

It's important, if someone wants to hear differences that he
expects, that the system has to be pretty much uniform
quality throughout when substituting a component. Chances
are (not a known fact in this case of course) someone with a
TASCAM interface is likely to be monitoring through so-so to
fair-to-middlin' speakers or headphones, and in a so-so room.

I suppose that one could argue that if a small improvement
could be heard through those impediments, the difference
would be dramatic in a system that was, overall, up to the
quality of a high grade mic preamp. But one never knows.
People who have a high overall quality system rarely will
substitute a TASCAM interface to see how much worse it sounds.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com-useful and
interesting audio stuff

it was a controlled test, and i had 3 subjects, including myself,
listen blind. Speakers are psb, room treated but of course not
'great'. All preferred (although slightly) the hardy into the tascam
vs tascam alone. Anyway, it's not an option, just a comment- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, forget all this nonesense! The best advice i got was one of the
first replies (i thing from mike) which basically said, 'in that price
range they're all the same so just get one that works with your
setup', i.e., windows 7.
So i got a focusrite scarlett 8i6. Have not tried it yet. Hope it
works
Thanks All for discussions!

[Steve King]

"chris ruth" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 11:44 am, chris ruth wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:21 am, Mike Rivers wrote:





On 12/1/2011 12:01 AM, PStamler wrote:

Keep in mind that when you ran the output of the Hardy into the Tascam
you were actually going through the Tascam's mic preamp, via a pad.

True, but it would have to be pretty bad to make a big
difference, and most aren't that bad these days.

It's important, if someone wants to hear differences that he
expects, that the system has to be pretty much uniform
quality throughout when substituting a component. Chances
are (not a known fact in this case of course) someone with a
TASCAM interface is likely to be monitoring through so-so to
fair-to-middlin' speakers or headphones, and in a so-so room.

I suppose that one could argue that if a small improvement
could be heard through those impediments, the difference
would be dramatic in a system that was, overall, up to the
quality of a high grade mic preamp. But one never knows.
People who have a high overall quality system rarely will
substitute a TASCAM interface to see how much worse it sounds.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com-useful and
interesting audio stuff

it was a controlled test, and i had 3 subjects, including myself,
listen blind. Speakers are psb, room treated but of course not
'great'. All preferred (although slightly) the hardy into the tascam
vs tascam alone. Anyway, it's not an option, just a comment- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, forget all this nonesense! The best advice i got was one of the
first replies (i thing from mike) which basically said, 'in that price
range they're all the same so just get one that works with your
setup', i.e., windows 7.
So i got a focusrite scarlett 8i6. Have not tried it yet. Hope it
works
Thanks All for discussions!

Glad you made a choice. Hope it works out for you. However, "all this
nonsense" is not really nonsense. It is the nature of newsgroups for topics
to wander from the original poster's specific question. IMO we all benefit
from that. Most questions in the neighborhood of, "What's the best....",
have multiple answers. You found an answer you liked. Others might choose
a different path. Neither would necessarily be wrong. And, we all had a
chance to think a bit about the issue and re-examine our convictions and
prejudices if we had any. All good.

Steve King

[chris ruth]

On Dec 2, 10:42*am, "Steve King"
wrote:
"chris ruth" wrote in message

...
On Dec 1, 11:44 am, chris ruth wrote:





On Dec 1, 7:21 am, Mike Rivers wrote:

On 12/1/2011 12:01 AM, PStamler wrote:

Keep in mind that when you ran the output of the Hardy into the Tascam
you were actually going through the Tascam's mic preamp, via a pad.

True, but it would have to be pretty bad to make a big
difference, and most aren't that bad these days.

It's important, if someone wants to hear differences that he
expects, that the system has to be pretty much uniform
quality throughout when substituting a component. Chances
are (not a known fact in this case of course) someone with a
TASCAM interface is likely to be monitoring through so-so to
fair-to-middlin' speakers or headphones, and in a so-so room.

I suppose that one could argue that if a small improvement
could be heard through those impediments, the difference
would be dramatic in a system that was, overall, up to the
quality of a high grade mic preamp. But one never knows.
People who have a high overall quality system rarely will
substitute a TASCAM interface to see how much worse it sounds.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com-usefuland
interesting audio stuff

it was a controlled test, and i had 3 subjects, including myself,
listen blind. Speakers are psb, room treated but of course not
'great'. All preferred (although slightly) the hardy into the tascam
vs tascam alone. Anyway, it's not an option, just a comment- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, forget all this *nonesense! The best advice i got was one of the
first replies (i thing from mike) which basically said, 'in that price
range they're all the same so just get one that works with your
setup', i.e., windows 7.
So i got a focusrite scarlett 8i6. Have not tried it yet. Hope it
works
Thanks All for discussions!

Glad you made a choice. *Hope it works out for you. *However, "all this
nonsense" is not really nonsense. *It is the nature of newsgroups for topics
to wander from the original poster's specific question. *IMO we all benefit
from that. *Most questions in the neighborhood of, "What's the best....",
have multiple answers. *You found an answer you liked. *Others might choose
a different path. *Neither would necessarily be wrong. *And, we all had a
chance to think a bit about the issue and re-examine our convictions and
prejudices if we had any. *All good.

Steve King- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sorry about the 'forget this nonsense',
I was sort of joking in an east coast crass kind of way.
I totally enjoy the discussions here, and apreciate the time people,
who know what they are talking about, take to help me
cheers!

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/2/2011 9:03 AM, chris ruth wrote:

So i got a focusrite scarlett 8i6. Have not tried it yet. Hope it
works

I had one that worked fine with Windows XP Since Windows 7
has been out for a few years now, I see no reason why it
shouldn't work fine with that. But start out slow. Start out
with a large buffer.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/2/2011 9:03 AM, chris ruth wrote:

So i got a focusrite scarlett 8i6. Have not tried it yet. Hope it
works

I had one that worked fine with Windows XP Since Windows 7 has been out
for a few years now, I see no reason why it shouldn't work fine with
that.

If you cross the 32 to 64 bit "barrier", there will be different
drivers. For example, I lost my second MIDI pair when I went from
32 bit drivers to 64 bit drivers for a Terratec ESW/88.

But start out slow. Start out with a large buffer.



--
Les Cargill