Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Since I have all of these things that I need, I don't keep very close
tabs on what's available and how they sound. So I need some experience here. The project - to digitize a zillion tapes. No, I'm not doing it, someone else is (hee, hee, hee) and he's gathering equipment. He'll probably get paid, so it's OK. He has a Nakamichi Dragon for the cassettes and an Otari MX-5050 for the reel-to-reel tapes, so he's OK there. He would prefer to use a Mac for his working computer, and I don't have any Mac experience (and he doesn't have a lot of hair left) so we're trying to find something that will work straight off without having to wait for "the next driver" to get it to work click-free. Since his Mac doesn't have a PCI slot, he's looking for a Firewire or USB connection to the computer. His budget is $350 (from the organization he's doing the job for) but that can be stretched if it makes sense. Requirements (this is ultimately going to the LIbrary of Congress) are for 24-bit 96 kHz - just about everything does that. Copying, once a reel is loaded, level set, and started playing, will be pretty much unattended. The tapes span about 40 years, recorded by several different people on several different machines. Quality is random, but he won't be doing anything to clean them up, just making digital archive-ready copies. He will be learning how to deal with all the associated problems with tape so don't waste your time telling me/him about head alignment and sticky shed if you don't have an interface to recommend. I'm thinking that something with better than garden variety noise performance would be an advantage so he can be safely conservative with record level. I was a bit surprised to find that useful specs for line inputs were conspicuous by their absence (or nonsense) on a number of interfaces that I looked at. It would be nice if the line inputs had enough input headroom (or padding ahead of the first active stage) so that he can use the full output level from the Otari tape deck, which would allow him to get full use of its VU meters. But it also needs enough gain on the line inputs to record from the Nakamichi Dragon which I assume, since it's a consumer deck, has the typical -10 dBV unbalanced outputs. Mic preamps, I guess, are unavoidable, but are of no consequence. My first suggestion, based on the manufacturer's reputation and the fact that it's Mac-only so it's bound to work out of the box, was the Apogee Duet, but as far as I can tell, the not-mic inputs are high impedance for instrument pickups, which makes me a bit suspicious. What I'm leaning toward now is the M-Audio ProFire 610 if he can get an extra $50 to spend, or PreSonus Firebox if he can't, and in a pinch, a TASCAM US-122L. The M-Audio, at least on paper, looks like it has nearly 10 dB less quiescent noise. Sort of in-the-running is the Edirol FA-66, but I've read some (not necessarily qualified) poor on-line reports about its Mac compatibility and noise level. Any thoughts, preferably based on personal experience? Maybe the newer t.c. or Focusrite stuff? I'd love to see him get into an RME Fireface 400 or Metric Halo ULN-2 but they're too far off budget. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Mike
I suggest the Metric Halo ULN 2, it has a lot going for it. 96/24 and there is a preset in the dsp eq for the riaa equalization for phonograph and you can plug most phono cartridges right into the analogue in's as it has the correct impedance for such interfacing. with metric halo's resent release of the uln8 and their 2d expansion, you can find older dsp legacy boxes at good prices. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Mike Rivers wrote:
I'm thinking that something with better than garden variety noise performance would be an advantage so he can be safely conservative with record level. I would look for a used Metric Halo ULN-2, legacy model. I've seen those go for around $500, but last I watched was a couple of years ago. Perhaps one could now be had for closer to his budget. That would give terrific conversion and reliability. They are Mac only. -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
Mike I suggest the Metric Halo ULN 2, it has a lot going for it. 96/24 and there is a preset in the dsp eq for the riaa equalization for phonograph and you can plug most phono cartridges right into the analogue in's as it has the correct impedance for such interfacing. with metric halo's resent release of the uln8 and their 2d expansion, you can find older dsp legacy boxes at good prices. Not sure one could get a ULN-2+DSP for his budget. If so, though, I say go for it. -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
I would go with the Presonus firebox, I use one in my smaller studio, and it
performs flawlessly. Marko. www.spielbergaudio.com "Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... Since I have all of these things that I need, I don't keep very close tabs on what's available and how they sound. So I need some experience here. The project - to digitize a zillion tapes. No, I'm not doing it, someone else is (hee, hee, hee) and he's gathering equipment. He'll probably get paid, so it's OK. He has a Nakamichi Dragon for the cassettes and an Otari MX-5050 for the reel-to-reel tapes, so he's OK there. He would prefer to use a Mac for his working computer, and I don't have any Mac experience (and he doesn't have a lot of hair left) so we're trying to find something that will work straight off without having to wait for "the next driver" to get it to work click-free. Since his Mac doesn't have a PCI slot, he's looking for a Firewire or USB connection to the computer. His budget is $350 (from the organization he's doing the job for) but that can be stretched if it makes sense. Requirements (this is ultimately going to the LIbrary of Congress) are for 24-bit 96 kHz - just about everything does that. Copying, once a reel is loaded, level set, and started playing, will be pretty much unattended. The tapes span about 40 years, recorded by several different people on several different machines. Quality is random, but he won't be doing anything to clean them up, just making digital archive-ready copies. He will be learning how to deal with all the associated problems with tape so don't waste your time telling me/him about head alignment and sticky shed if you don't have an interface to recommend. I'm thinking that something with better than garden variety noise performance would be an advantage so he can be safely conservative with record level. I was a bit surprised to find that useful specs for line inputs were conspicuous by their absence (or nonsense) on a number of interfaces that I looked at. It would be nice if the line inputs had enough input headroom (or padding ahead of the first active stage) so that he can use the full output level from the Otari tape deck, which would allow him to get full use of its VU meters. But it also needs enough gain on the line inputs to record from the Nakamichi Dragon which I assume, since it's a consumer deck, has the typical -10 dBV unbalanced outputs. Mic preamps, I guess, are unavoidable, but are of no consequence. My first suggestion, based on the manufacturer's reputation and the fact that it's Mac-only so it's bound to work out of the box, was the Apogee Duet, but as far as I can tell, the not-mic inputs are high impedance for instrument pickups, which makes me a bit suspicious. What I'm leaning toward now is the M-Audio ProFire 610 if he can get an extra $50 to spend, or PreSonus Firebox if he can't, and in a pinch, a TASCAM US-122L. The M-Audio, at least on paper, looks like it has nearly 10 dB less quiescent noise. Sort of in-the-running is the Edirol FA-66, but I've read some (not necessarily qualified) poor on-line reports about its Mac compatibility and noise level. Any thoughts, preferably based on personal experience? Maybe the newer t.c. or Focusrite stuff? I'd love to see him get into an RME Fireface 400 or Metric Halo ULN-2 but they're too far off budget. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Soundhaspriority wrote:
Mike, I am not a Mac user, but this is worth taking a look at: Echo AudioFire2 Thanks for reminding me of Echo. They've been in the business for a long time and have always made solid products. The AudioFire 2 seems to have a fixed input sensitivity (stated as the usual "+4dBu/-10dBV"). Is there a software control panel switch for basic gain/attenuation? -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
I suggest the Metric Halo ULN 2 I guess you stopped reading my post before you got to the end. Too expensive. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
Since I have all of these things that I need, I don't keep very close tabs on what's available and how they sound. So I need some experience here. Check out the eMu catalog. I just picked up a 0202 USB interface by them from GC for about $80 (refurb). It has balanced line inputs, goes up to 24/192, has about 100 dB dynamic range, analog input level controls, and a headphone jack with output level control. The driver disk in the box worked (with XP). Mac use is supported by the vendor. http://www.emu.com/products/product....roduct=1 5186 |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Arny Krueger wrote:
Check out the eMu catalog. I just picked up a 0202 USB interface by them from GC for about $80 (refurb). It has balanced line inputs Since the two line inputs are physically different (one part of a Combo-XLR, the other a TRS jack marked "Hi-Z/Line" I'm wondering how well matched electrically they are. Also, since the maximum input level is just under +10 dBu, it might need some padding to work with a real nominal +4 dBu source. Do the input level controls come ahead of the electronics? -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
On Aug 4, 8:06 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote: I suggest the Metric Halo ULN 2 I guess you stopped reading my post before you got to the end. Too expensive. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) Mike I read it, I did say "used" legacy model! |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Check out the eMu catalog. I just picked up a 0202 USB interface by them from GC for about $80 (refurb). It has balanced line inputs Since the two line inputs are physically different (one part of a Combo-XLR, the other a TRS jack marked "Hi-Z/Line" I'm wondering how well matched electrically they are. They are. Besides, there are separate level controls for both channels. Max CW on both, matches levels within a small fraction of a dB. Also, since the maximum input level is just under +10 dBu, it might need some padding to work with a real nominal +4 dBu source. Yes, but that is true for virtually every audio interface I've ever used. The lowest sensitivity I've ever seen on a +4 input netted out to be less than 7 volts. I've seen other +4 inputs that clipped at about +4. The old time +4 outputs could go up to +22, or more. Do the input level controls come ahead of the electronics? So it seems. No schematics possible. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
I read it, I did say "used" legacy model! But that means having to find one, and buying it from someone who will guarantee it, and as Hank pointed out, the current asking price is still over the budget. But if you have one you'd like to let go for $350 and will cheerfully take it back and give a refund if there's a problem, I'll be happy to pass along your contact information for him to consider. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
... | Dale A. Francis wrote: | | I read it, I did say "used" legacy model! | | But that means having to find one, and buying it from someone who will | guarantee | it, and as Hank pointed out, the current asking price is still over the | budget. But if | you have one you'd like to let go for $350 and will cheerfully take it | back and give | a refund if there's a problem, I'll be happy to pass along your contact | information | for him to consider. Why am I reminded of, "You want it good; you want it fast; you want it cheap--- pick two." Steve King |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
if they are doing this for the library of congress, why cheat the
process by buying a low-end convertors? If they are using a nak dragon, which will be a used expensive machine with no warranty, why browbeat a suggestion for some comparable quality? |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
I'd go for a CardDeluxe. Simple, clean, and should be available for
about the specified price. (If not, get a used one like I did.) Peace, Paul |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
if they are doing this for the library of congress, why cheat the process by buying a low-end convertors? Why do you think that a $300 interface has "low end" converters? What's the problem? If there's anything "low end" it would more likely be the analog circuitry. I'm realistic about this. The tapes are only so good and there just isn't all that much more than can be preserved with the greatest converters in the world. Honestly, the skill and care with which the transfers will be done is the weakest link in this project. One might say "why cheat the process by not hiring a professional tape archivist?" If they are using a nak dragon, which will be a used expensive machine with no warranty, why browbeat a suggestion for some comparable quality? The Dragon has already been purchased, It's in remarkably good shape, but it's on the way to Stephen Sank for a checkout and tuneup. I don't know about the origin or condition of the MX-5050 other than that it came from a known and reputable seller. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
PStamler wrote:
I'd go for a CardDeluxe. Simple, clean, and should be available for about the specified price. (If not, get a used one like I did.) He actually had a Lynx L22 on his list of possibilities figuring that he could get $600 approved, but since his Mac doesn't have a slot for it, he'd have to put together an Intel-based computer (or get an older Mac) which would be an additional expense. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
"PStamler" wrote in message
I'd go for a CardDeluxe. Simple, clean, and should be available for about the specified price. (If not, get a used one like I did.) The scary part would be that here maybe 6 years later the EMu 0202 outperforms and outfunctions it, for as little as $80 at Music123. http://www.music123.com/E-MU-0202-US...72061.Music123 It works on both PCs and Macs, and you don't have to open the PC case to install it. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message ... "Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... Soundhaspriority wrote: Mike, I am not a Mac user, but this is worth taking a look at: Echo AudioFire2 Thanks for reminding me of Echo. They've been in the business for a long time and have always made solid products. The AudioFire 2 seems to have a fixed input sensitivity (stated as the usual "+4dBu/-10dBV"). Is there a software control panel switch for basic gain/attenuation? No, sorry, I misunderstood. For that, the Audiofire4 would be required, which has two universal inputs: http://echoaudio.com/Products/FireWi...ire4/specs.php $300 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...terfac e.html Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 From the AudioFire 2 Specs on the Echo site: a.. Nominal Input Level: +4dBu or -10dBV (software configurable) - Fred |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Fred wrote:
From the AudioFire 2 Specs on the Echo site: a.. Nominal Input Level: +4dBu or -10dBV (software configurable) Yes, I saw that, but I wasn't sure what it actually meant in practice. I suppose there's some sort of software control panel or "console" that has a switch on it. But since it has no input level knobs, I'd like to know if it can accept a signal at, say, +18 dBu without clipping, either the analog input circuitry or the A/D converter. Easy to measure if you have one, hard to guess from the specs on the web. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
"PStamler" wrote in message
... | I'd go for a CardDeluxe. Simple, clean, and should be available for | about the specified price. (If not, get a used one like I did.) | | Peace, | Paul I second the CardDeluxe. I've got one that is now in its third computer. Still sounds great. Steve King |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
On Aug 4, 7:06 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote: if they are doing this for the library of congress, why cheat the process by buying a low-end convertors? Why do you think that a $300 interface has "low end" converters? What's the problem? If there's anything "low end" it would more likely be the analog circuitry. I'm realistic about this. The tapes are only so good and there just isn't all that much more than can be preserved with the greatest converters in the world. The Dragon has already been purchased, It's in remarkably good shape, but it's on the way to Stephen Sank for a checkout and tuneup. I don't know about the origin or condition of the MX-5050 other than that it came from a known and reputable seller. the less expensive convertors have to have compromised the quality of the analogue and digital circuits! I was not recommending the greatest because 10 grand is beyond the scope of your request. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
the less expensive convertors have to have compromised the quality of the analogue and digital circuits! I was not recommending the greatest because 10 grand is beyond the scope of your request. You don't need to tell me that better is better. Are you using "Library of Congress" as being an indicator that this should be a no-compromise transfer? It's sufficient that it be better than the tape, and honestly I think that most any ordinary computer sound from the past few years card can do that. My conscience won't let me stoop that low, but I don't find that there's too much difference in surface quality between a $100 interface and a $500 one, and only a small difference between a $1000 one. What I was looking for was recommendations or cautions based on compatibility, reliability, inputs and outputs, and price. My assumption is that there will be no significant difference in quality of the digital recording between one and another in this price range unless there's a real ringer or a real dud. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into
the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion! why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work to get the a higher quality analogue? Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference, there is! They are not going to have another chance to do this digital conversion! I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2. a chain is only as good as its weakest link. Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
On Aug 5, 3:06 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... Dale A. Francis wrote: if they are doing this for the library of congress, why cheat the process by buying a low-end convertors? Why do you think that a $300 interface has "low end" converters? What's the problem? If there's anything "low end" it would more likely be the analog circuitry. I'm realistic about this. The tapes are only so good and there just isn't all that much more than can be preserved with the greatest converters in the world. Honestly, the skill and care with which the transfers will be done is the weakest link in this project. One might say "why cheat the process by not hiring a professional tape archivist?" The converters and analog circuitry in many of these cheap units are superb. I am sure Echo Audio is not alone in this. The world has changed! Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 yes it sure has why digital is said to sound bad to the analogue purist it is because of compromises on the converters used in the recording not the playback medium. the changes are that the newer quality products have gotten much better. and yet low end is still low end. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion! why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work to get the a higher quality analogue? Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference, there is! They are not going to have another chance to do this digital conversion! I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2. a chain is only as good as its weakest link. Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario. I would suggest that apart from the cheapest and nastiest interfaces (interfii ?), the weakest link is stll likely to be the analogue gear, and the source media. geoff |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion! Nope, it's still the tape decks, the operator, and the original recordings. why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work to get the a higher quality analogue? If it was an ATR-100 and the tapes were recorded with great care, then it would be worth spending more money. But given the finite budget and the point beyond which the quality of the digital copy will never improve, I don't see a "lower grade" A/D converter to be a problem. I think it's more important, given the return on investment, to put more money into the tape decks, which really make a big difference, than the converters, which have very small differences from one to another. Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference, there is! Sure there is. But how will that affect the outcome? I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2. How much do you want for it? If it's within the budget, I'll pass it on. a chain is only as good as its weakest link. Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario. And Hand is also a very practical guy. Given the choice of spending money on a better tape deck or a better interface, he'd go for the better tape deck too. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
geoff wrote:
I would suggest that apart from the cheapest and nastiest interfaces (interfii ?), the weakest link is stll likely to be the analogue gear, and the source media. Exactly. This is why I was asking for advice. It's more important to get something that will work without a lot of fooling around, will interface properly to the analog sources, and that won't die prematurely due to poor construction or quality control. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
On Aug 6, 7:31 am, Mike Rivers wrote:
he point beyond which the quality of the digital copy will never improve, I don't see a "lower grade" A/D converter to be a problem. I think it's more important, given the return on investment, to put more money into the tape decks, which really make a big difference, than the converters, which have very small differences from one to another. Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference, there is! Sure there is. But how will that affect the outcome? the library will not have the best digital resolution for their archives and post production. Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario. And Hand is also a very practical guy. Given the choice of spending money on a better tape deck or a better interface, he'd go for the better tape deck too. Hank sold his tape deck and use Metric Halo for his I/O's |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Exactly. This is why I was asking for advice. It's more important to get something that will work without a lot of fooling around, will interface properly to the analog sources, and that won't die prematurely due to poor construction or quality control. Which is exactly why I recommend Metric Halo for his Mac |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion! why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work to get the a higher quality analogue? Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference, there is! They are not going to have another chance to do this digital conversion! I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2. a chain is only as good as its weakest link. Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario. Yet the job may not pay enough to jusitfy the cost of a ULN-2, if one must also buy food and stuff. It is true that every aspect of the MH box, from quality of conversion to ruggedness of build stands above the competition at its price point, nevemind cheaper stuff. And it satisfies the Firewire need, as it will work with a broad range of Mac OS's. I can run my 2882+DSP in OS9 if I want to, and since I still use the original v. of Waveburner pro for premastering assembly, I do that regularly. The problem is that such quality holds its resale value rather well. Still, if one was diligent and had the luxury of some time in which to look for a used ULN-2, one might get a hell of a deal at very close to the specified budget. -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Mike Rivers wrote:
Dale A. Francis wrote: my assumption was that this project has invested significant cash into the analogue tape machines! the cost of a used dragon or the otari and the servicing that is being done is not low end. What is the weakest link in this audio chain ... the d/a conversion! Nope, it's still the tape decks, the operator, and the original recordings. why cut corners to a lower grade digital link after doing all the work to get the a higher quality analogue? If it was an ATR-100 and the tapes were recorded with great care, then it would be worth spending more money. But given the finite budget and the point beyond which the quality of the digital copy will never improve, I don't see a "lower grade" A/D converter to be a problem. I think it's more important, given the return on investment, to put more money into the tape decks, which really make a big difference, than the converters, which have very small differences from one to another. Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference, there is! Sure there is. But how will that affect the outcome? I got that ringer for you, ... a used Metric Halo uln 2. How much do you want for it? If it's within the budget, I'll pass it on. a chain is only as good as its weakest link. Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario. And Hand is also a very practical guy. Given the choice of spending money on a better tape deck or a better interface, he'd go for the better tape deck too. Oh, yeah, even if I did sell the old A80 8-track last spring for about what a used ULN-2 costs. g Still have the B-67. It's useful for many things, beyond playing back old mixes. Slapback, yumm... -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 7:31 am, Mike Rivers wrote: he point beyond which the quality of the digital copy will never improve, I don't see a "lower grade" A/D converter to be a problem. I think it's more important, given the return on investment, to put more money into the tape decks, which really make a big difference, than the converters, which have very small differences from one to another. Just because the low end boys believe that there is no difference, there is! Sure there is. But how will that affect the outcome? the library will not have the best digital resolution for their archives and post production. Hank offered the same advice from the same scenario. And Hand is also a very practical guy. Given the choice of spending money on a better tape deck or a better interface, he'd go for the better tape deck too. Hank sold his tape deck and use Metric Halo for his I/O's If people were willing to buy tape I'd have kept it. If I didn't need to carry a Studer-8-track-equivalent-in-a-box, I'd have kept it. Getting on a plane in Reno and stepping off in Austin with a "studio" in a carry-on is not doable with the A80! g -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
On Aug 6, 11:07 am, (hank alrich) wrote:
Yet the job may not pay enough to jusitfy the cost of a ULN-2, if one must also buy food and stuff. if it didn't pay enough for the uln 2, how did it pay for a nak dragon? will they never again use the equipment? are they going to sell all the audio equipment off after this project? The problem is that such quality holds its resale value rather well. Still, if one was diligent and had the luxury of some time in which to look for a used ULN-2, one might get a hell of a deal at very close to the specified budget. with the intro of the uln 8, this is very likely. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
the library will not have the best digital resolution for their archives and post production. The Library will have 24-bit 96 kHz files. That's their standard. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
if it didn't pay enough for the uln 2, how did it pay for a nak dragon? will they never again use the equipment? are they going to sell all the audio equipment off after this project? I'm tired of arguing with you. This is none of your business. I accept your recommendation of a ULN-2. How much do you want for yours? -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
Dale A. Francis wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:07 am, (hank alrich) wrote: Yet the job may not pay enough to jusitfy the cost of a ULN-2, if one must also buy food and stuff. if it didn't pay enough for the uln 2, how did it pay for a nak dragon? will they never again use the equipment? are they going to sell all the audio equipment off after this project? The problem is that such quality holds its resale value rather well. Still, if one was diligent and had the luxury of some time in which to look for a used ULN-2, one might get a hell of a deal at very close to the specified budget. with the intro of the uln 8, this is very likely. The ULN-8 is sufficiently more costly and requires enough more computer horsepower that in spite of a relative flood of "legacy" MIO's on the market, prices have held up rather well. -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
hank alrich wrote:
The ULN-8 is sufficiently more costly and requires enough more computer horsepower that in spite of a relative flood of "legacy" MIO's on the market, prices have held up rather well. From a sample of one ULN-2 currently on eBay: Starting bid - $800 Shipping - $12 Returns - No returns accepted I wonder what part of "Budget around $300" the MH fans don't understand. I think you'll agree with me, though, that had he bought a MH interface first, even a used one, blew the budget on that, and had to settle for thrift store TEAC or Sony tape decks, the end result wouldn't have been as good as with a $300 interface and a Nakamichi Dragon. Maybe "It will be transferred before the end of this century" isn't such a bad deal after all. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
On Aug 6, 1:12 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
I'm tired of arguing with you. then why did you?? This is none of your business. I accept your recommendation of a ULN-2. You posted and asked in a public forum! You did not attack Hank for his suggestion, why did you choose to go on the offensive with mine? How much do you want for yours? why would I sell mine, I researched and bought just the product you were asking for. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Yet Another "Recommend an Audio Interface" Thread
On Aug 6, 2:43 pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
From a sample of one ULN-2 currently on eBay: Starting bid - $800 Shipping - $12 Returns - No returns accepted try gearslutz |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Please recommend flat "airy" speakers (budget: $1K-$2K/pair) | High End Audio | |||
Does Laura Bush Recommend Jenna Preserve "Daintiness" Lysol Way? | Audio Opinions | |||
Why should I choose an "M-Audio" interface over a "Pro-Tools" interface??? | Pro Audio |