Hello Anyone have experience taking this upgrade and noticing a significant improvement in the recorded audio? I know the balanced ins/outs will improve hum and noise rejection, but the recorded audio actually sound noticeably better? What about VSTs - will the sound quality of these be affected? Thanks
Hello Phil I really appreciate your detailed response and I take your points. My recorded vocals are my main source of discontent - I am using 2 mics - Electrovoice Cardinal and Apex 210 Ribbon (which I have modified by removing the internal wind screens and it sounds much more open now) thru a Yamaha mg124c mixer(this has on board compression which I use very sparingly if at all) into my 2496. I also have the Maudio DMP3 but didn't really notice much of a difference in recorded quality thru that. The quality of my voice I can do nothing about but I keep looking for the focused sound with silent space around it as I hear when listening to say a slow Elvis song. Yet relatively my vocal sounds dispersed. Adding reverb (Cubase reverb A) just adds reverberation - I can't move the voice back from up front. I have yet to get the settings to achieve that. Maybe its just down to finding the right effects but I keep wondering if the initial recording is maybe not clean enough - hence my question whether the 192 grass is greener. I wonder should I build a vocal booth - but then I start wondering if that will introduce unwanted reflections and there is the difficulty of trying to operate Cubase remotely I guess the best thing is to suck it and see - my local supplier has a full refund within 7 days policy although I don't like to take advantage but how else do I decide. Thanks "Phil W" <> wrote in message news:gsjaiq$qi3$... > SSR wrote: >> Hello >> >> Anyone have experience taking this upgrade and noticing a significant >> improvement in the recorded audio? I know the balanced ins/outs will >> improve hum and noise rejection, but the recorded audio actually >> sound noticeably better? > > The Delta 192 has better converters than the 2496. If, and how much, *you* > can really hear the difference - I can´t tell you, as I haven´t used or > heard the 192 yet (and I don´t know, how good your hearing is). > Generally, better converters are something you can hear and it´s a good > idea to improve on them. On the other hand, I´ve been using a 2496 for 3,5 > years now (and a technically similar card from Terratec for 2 years before > that) and have never experienced any hum problems due to the unbalanced > connectors. The sound quality has been satisfying for my personal needs so > far. The drivers for both cards are the same anyway, so there should be > any sound quality or performance differences influenced by these. > >> What about VSTs - will the sound quality of >> these be affected? > > The actual sound quality of VST effects and VST instruments (as well as > any other plug-in formats, like DX) won´t be affected by different quality > converters. The converters are only responsible for the quality of audio > signals to go into the computer and come out of it. Since VST plug-ins are > processed internally on the computer, the quality of the audio interface > does *not* matter to them. What´s more important, is the quality of the > "audio engine" of your DAW software. > Anyway, better converters will get "better" quality audio into and out of > the computer. That means, your recordings from *external* sources may > sound better and when monitoring "VSTs" may sound better, so you can set > fx or sound patch settings in VSTi a bit more accurately. This can be > "important" for live use of VST fx or VSTi and for mixing "in the box". > Don´t forget, there are also numerous other factors, that are important as > well, like good monitoring (in a "good sounding" room), quality of input > signals (before the reach the audio interface) and so on... > The actual "sound quality" of an audio plug-in (effect or "virtual > instrument") is determined by the quality of its implementation. In other > words, the quality depends on the quality of the programming code behind > the plug-in. It´s same principle as with hardware fx and instruments - > there are good sounding ones available, as well as less good sounding > ones. That can depend on the price, but it doesn´t necessarily have to. > There are quite good sounding freeware (or cheap) plug-ins out there and > not so good sounding commercial ones. > > An audio interface with "good" converters won´t turn a not so great > sounding source to a really great one. These things can´t do magic. ;-) > They only offer more accurate reproduction. > > The more important consideration will probably be, if you want/need > balanced connectors or if you could live with unbalanced ones. And, of > course, if you´re willing to pay the higher price for balanced connectors > and better converters. > > > Phil >
SSR wrote: > Hello > > Anyone have experience taking this upgrade and noticing a significant > improvement in the recorded audio? I know the balanced ins/outs will > improve hum and noise rejection, but the recorded audio actually > sound noticeably better? The Delta 192 has better converters than the 2496. If, and how much, *you* can really hear the difference - I can´t tell you, as I haven´t used or heard the 192 yet (and I don´t know, how good your hearing is). Generally, better converters are something you can hear and it´s a good idea to improve on them. On the other hand, I´ve been using a 2496 for 3,5 years now (and a technically similar card from Terratec for 2 years before that) and have never experienced any hum problems due to the unbalanced connectors. The sound quality has been satisfying for my personal needs so far. The drivers for both cards are the same anyway, so there should be any sound quality or performance differences influenced by these. > What about VSTs - will the sound quality of > these be affected? The actual sound quality of VST effects and VST instruments (as well as any other plug-in formats, like DX) won´t be affected by different quality converters. The converters are only responsible for the quality of audio signals to go into the computer and come out of it. Since VST plug-ins are processed internally on the computer, the quality of the audio interface does *not* matter to them. What´s more important, is the quality of the "audio engine" of your DAW software. Anyway, better converters will get "better" quality audio into and out of the computer. That means, your recordings from *external* sources may sound better and when monitoring "VSTs" may sound better, so you can set fx or sound patch settings in VSTi a bit more accurately. This can be "important" for live use of VST fx or VSTi and for mixing "in the box". Don´t forget, there are also numerous other factors, that are important as well, like good monitoring (in a "good sounding" room), quality of input signals (before the reach the audio interface) and so on... The actual "sound quality" of an audio plug-in (effect or "virtual instrument") is determined by the quality of its implementation. In other words, the quality depends on the quality of the programming code behind the plug-in. It´s same principle as with hardware fx and instruments - there are good sounding ones available, as well as less good sounding ones. That can depend on the price, but it doesn´t necessarily have to. There are quite good sounding freeware (or cheap) plug-ins out there and not so good sounding commercial ones. An audio interface with "good" converters won´t turn a not so great sounding source to a really great one. These things can´t do magic. ;-) They only offer more accurate reproduction. The more important consideration will probably be, if you want/need balanced connectors or if you could live with unbalanced ones. And, of course, if you´re willing to pay the higher price for balanced connectors and better converters. Phil
SSR wrote: > Hello Phil > > I really appreciate your detailed response and I take your points. *blush* nice to hear that ;-) > My recorded vocals are my main source of discontent - I am using 2 > mics - Electrovoice Cardinal and Apex 210 Ribbon (which I have > modified by removing the internal wind screens and it sounds much > more open now) thru a Yamaha mg124c mixer(this has on board > compression which I use very sparingly if at all) into my 2496. I > also have the Maudio DMP3 but didn't really notice much of a > difference in recorded quality thru that. There you have it: the main focus to improve would rather be a noticably better sounding preamp AND working on your voice/singing abilities than to get a better version of your Delta 2496 soundcard. The preamps in both devices you mention, are not the best - even though they should be somehow "okay". The most recordings, I´ve done were vocal recordings (although not of myself) with the 2496. IMHO the sound quality of the 2496 is sufficient for that and the 192 won´t be so much different, that it´s worth to buy a new one, as you already have the 2496. Better save the money up for a better pre-amp, so you can get a better signal into the sound card. I don´t really have the experience to suggest something, but very often, the RNP (Really Nice Preamp) is suggested. Costs about 500$ IIRC and probably sounds noticably better than the cheap pre-amps in your rather low-end pre-amps in the small Yamaha mixer. Another aspect is, if the mics really suit your voice. They may be good, but not optimal for your voice. There are situations, where a silly SM58 fits better with certain singers, than "expensive" mics. ;-) One thing, you might try with the Yamaha mixer is to tweak the EQ a little bit and see, if that helps. For example, try rolling off the "lows" a bit. How are "using 2 mics" to record your voice exactly? Do you place both mics close to each other and try to sing into both with the same amount? The reason, I ask, is that we tried this technique for a while and have found, that it´s usually better to use only 1 mic at once and sing into that directly. > The quality of my voice I > can do nothing about but I keep looking for the focused sound with > silent space around it as I hear when listening to say a slow Elvis > song. Yet relatively my vocal sounds dispersed. Adding reverb (Cubase > reverb A) just adds reverberation - I can't move the voice back from > up front. I have yet to get the settings to achieve that. You can (probably) at least try do improve your singing technique, to get more constant levels and more secure intonation. ;-) It also makes a big difference, which reverb you use. These also have different sound characters. I´m personally not really impressed by "Reverb A" and "Reverb B". The "Roomworks" reverb in SX3 sounds way better, but isn´t always best suited. You might want to try some other freeware reverb plug-ins, too: http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/download.php -> the free "Classic Series" stuff is nice http://www.dasample.com/index.php?show=glaceverb - a bit strange to set, but sounds good http://www.knufinke.de/sir/sir1.html - very CPU-"hungry", but with good "impulse response" samples it can sound really great! there are tons of free IR samples available from various sites on the web, so if you bother to download and try enough, you can get the "sound" of really good real rooms and hardware reverb units virtually "for free" ;-) check the "Links" section on the SIR website. BTW: the parameter to "move" a signal in the mix is called "Pre-Delay" > Maybe its just down to finding the right effects but I keep wondering > if the initial recording is maybe not clean enough - hence my > question whether the 192 grass is greener. Well, as I said, I don´t think that´s your real problem. The 192 will probably sound a bit more accurate, but as you describe it, your actual problems already come up, before the signal hits the sound card. I´ve done quite "clean" vocal recordings with various mics (SM58, a Schoeps, Rode NT-1a, a Gefell) through cheap Behringer mixers and a cheap ART "Tube MP" - which is definitely low-end stuff. One band, that I recorded a full album´s (15 tracks) vocals tracks for with an old SM58 through the ART pre straight into the Delta2496, said "wow, those vocal tracks sound amazingly clean"... Not necessarily my opinion, but if the "paying clients" are happy with the result, I won´t say "Well guys, we could have done even greater!" ;-) The tracking was done in their rehearsal space, which is certainly not the best sounding environment. Anyway, the final result sounds quite good. It was a DIY production, but I´ve heard stuff from so-called "studios" (with better equipment, than we had) that doesn´t sound as good. > I wonder should I build a > vocal booth - but then I start wondering if that will introduce > unwanted reflections and there is the difficulty of trying to operate > Cubase remotely Building a good vocal booth takes a lot of work and material. Another option might be "MicroTraps" from http://www.realtraps.com/products.htm - not a cheap option, but probably better than building a vocal booth yourself. Also do some reading on Ethan Winer´s website: http://www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html The fact of operating your DAW software remotely, when you´re recording yourself, can be hassle. Been there, done that. But it can work, if you use keyboard shortcuts to operate Cubase. Either get a long cable extension for your keyboard or try a wireless keyboard. Another key is, to use "markers" (in a "marker track" in Cubase), so you can jump/skip to various positions in the time-line, and also consider the "pre-roll" function. Look up the Cubase manual, if you´re not sure how it works. > I guess the best thing is to suck it and see - my local supplier has > a full refund within 7 days policy although I don't like to take > advantage but how else do I decide. That´s an option, but you might also think about, what you get from them to try. Maybe try some different mics and pre-amps at the shop, if possible. When you find something, that sounds promising, take it home for an "in-depth" test in your typical recording environment. Good luck, Phil
Hi Phil I think you have got me over my present gear aquisition syndrome- I tried the free reverbs you suggested - what a difference. I think I am OK with my vocal sound now I am looking into the possibility of a DIY preamp e.g. next - any suggestions? Many thanks for you help Sirtaz "Phil W" <> wrote in message news:gsjj81$2b1$... > SSR wrote: > >> Hello Phil >> >> I really appreciate your detailed response and I take your points. > > *blush* nice to hear that ;-) > >> My recorded vocals are my main source of discontent - I am using 2 >> mics - Electrovoice Cardinal and Apex 210 Ribbon (which I have >> modified by removing the internal wind screens and it sounds much >> more open now) thru a Yamaha mg124c mixer(this has on board >> compression which I use very sparingly if at all) into my 2496. I >> also have the Maudio DMP3 but didn't really notice much of a >> difference in recorded quality thru that. > > There you have it: the main focus to improve would rather be a noticably > better sounding preamp AND working on your voice/singing abilities than to > get a better version of your Delta 2496 soundcard. > The preamps in both devices you mention, are not the best - even though > they should be somehow "okay". The most recordings, I´ve done were vocal > recordings (although not of myself) with the 2496. IMHO the sound quality > of the 2496 is sufficient for that and the 192 won´t be so much different, > that it´s worth to buy a new one, as you already have the 2496. Better > save the money up for a better pre-amp, so you can get a better signal > into the sound card. I don´t really have the experience to suggest > something, but very often, the RNP (Really Nice Preamp) is suggested. > Costs about 500$ IIRC and probably sounds noticably better than the cheap > pre-amps in your rather low-end pre-amps in the small Yamaha mixer. > Another aspect is, if the mics really suit your voice. They may be good, > but not optimal for your voice. There are situations, where a silly SM58 > fits better with certain singers, than "expensive" mics. ;-) > One thing, you might try with the Yamaha mixer is to tweak the EQ a little > bit and see, if that helps. For example, try rolling off the "lows" a bit. > > How are "using 2 mics" to record your voice exactly? Do you place both > mics close to each other and try to sing into both with the same amount? > The reason, I ask, is that we tried this technique for a while and have > found, that it´s usually better to use only 1 mic at once and sing into > that directly. > >> The quality of my voice I >> can do nothing about but I keep looking for the focused sound with >> silent space around it as I hear when listening to say a slow Elvis >> song. Yet relatively my vocal sounds dispersed. Adding reverb (Cubase >> reverb A) just adds reverberation - I can't move the voice back from >> up front. I have yet to get the settings to achieve that. > > You can (probably) at least try do improve your singing technique, to get > more constant levels and more secure intonation. ;-) > It also makes a big difference, which reverb you use. These also have > different sound characters. I´m personally not really impressed by "Reverb > A" and "Reverb B". The "Roomworks" reverb in SX3 sounds way better, but > isn´t always best suited. You might want to try some other freeware reverb > plug-ins, too: > > http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/download.php > -> the free "Classic Series" stuff is nice > > http://www.dasample.com/index.php?show=glaceverb > - a bit strange to set, but sounds good > > http://www.knufinke.de/sir/sir1.html > - very CPU-"hungry", but with good "impulse response" samples it can sound > really great! > there are tons of free IR samples available from various sites on the web, > so if you bother to download and try enough, you can get the "sound" of > really good real rooms and hardware reverb units virtually "for free" ;-) > check the "Links" section on the SIR website. > > BTW: the parameter to "move" a signal in the mix is called "Pre-Delay" > >> Maybe its just down to finding the right effects but I keep wondering >> if the initial recording is maybe not clean enough - hence my >> question whether the 192 grass is greener. > > Well, as I said, I don´t think that´s your real problem. The 192 will > probably sound a bit more accurate, but as you describe it, your actual > problems already come up, before the signal hits the sound card. I´ve done > quite "clean" vocal recordings with various mics (SM58, a Schoeps, Rode > NT-1a, a Gefell) through cheap Behringer mixers and a cheap ART "Tube > MP" - which is definitely low-end stuff. One band, that I recorded a full > album´s (15 tracks) vocals tracks for with an old SM58 through the ART pre > straight into the Delta2496, said "wow, those vocal tracks sound amazingly > clean"... Not necessarily my opinion, but if the "paying clients" are > happy with the result, I won´t say "Well guys, we could have done even > greater!" ;-) The tracking was done in their rehearsal space, which is > certainly not the best sounding environment. Anyway, the final result > sounds quite good. It was a DIY production, but I´ve heard stuff from > so-called "studios" (with better equipment, than we had) that doesn´t > sound as good. > >> I wonder should I build a >> vocal booth - but then I start wondering if that will introduce >> unwanted reflections and there is the difficulty of trying to operate >> Cubase remotely > > Building a good vocal booth takes a lot of work and material. Another > option might be "MicroTraps" from http://www.realtraps.com/products.htm - > not a cheap option, but probably better than building a vocal booth > yourself. > Also do some reading on Ethan Winer´s website: > http://www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html > > The fact of operating your DAW software remotely, when you´re recording > yourself, can be hassle. Been there, done that. But it can work, if you > use keyboard shortcuts to operate Cubase. Either get a long cable > extension for your keyboard or try a wireless keyboard. Another key is, to > use "markers" (in a "marker track" in Cubase), so you can jump/skip to > various positions in the time-line, and also consider the "pre-roll" > function. Look up the Cubase manual, if you´re not sure how it works. > >> I guess the best thing is to suck it and see - my local supplier has >> a full refund within 7 days policy although I don't like to take >> advantage but how else do I decide. > > That´s an option, but you might also think about, what you get from them > to try. Maybe try some different mics and pre-amps at the shop, if > possible. When you find something, that sounds promising, take it home for > an "in-depth" test in your typical recording environment. > > > Good luck, > > Phil >
SSR wrote: > Hi Phil > > I think you have got me over my present gear aquisition syndrome- I > tried the free reverbs you suggested - what a difference. I think I > am OK with my vocal sound now Fine! ;-) There are many more free reverb plug-ins, but these are the ones, that worked out for me. Over time, I´ve tried a lot and also got rid of a lot of stuff... anyway, if you don´t try it out, you can´t find the good-sounding free plug-ins... At least, you have to invest some time, when you want to save on money. > I am looking into the possibility of a DIY preamp e.g. next - any > suggestions? As I said, RNP is a regular suggestion - though I haven´t used or heard it yet. With my last band, we recorded at a local "audio school" a few times. There, we used an "SPL Goldmike" and a "Mindprint DTC", which sound nice, but are not in the same price region as an RNP. There is a "smaller" version of the DTC called "EnVoice" which is actually a "channel strip" (pre-amp + EQ + compressor) for about the same price as the RNP. The "low-cost" pre-amps (up to 200$ or so) don´t sound very much different. To get in a better league soundwise, you´ll have to take a bigger step. Others here can probably suggest other pre-amps... - Sorry, I don´t want to offend you here!!! - It seems, as if you´re still learning to use all the "tools" required in a recording and mixing situation. Until you haven´t learned a few more things and concepts about the whole thing, you should rather not spend anymore money. Better try around and learn to use the tools that you already have now "in practice", then decide to buy something, when you have a better idea of what makes sense to spend money for. Of course, it´s easy to buy new stuff and pretend, your music sounds better, just because you have better pre-amps or compressors or whatever now. Some friends of mine used to do that for a few years. They bought stuff, gave it a short try, were amazed for a short while, but almost never took the time to dive into the usage deeper. After a while, they sold the stuff again... As far as their musical efforts were concerned: they usually rather played around with their "new toys", than trying to get actual musical work done. Well, they did have fun that way, but in the end there were almost no real musical results. Now, decide what´s more important to you... even if you don´t have the greatest hardware available, it´s still worlds better than what people used for "home-recording" 15 years ago! My personal attempt is to focus on the music first, then worry about technical details. ;-) Phil
Hi Phil Not offended at all, I absolutely agree about not getting on the 'upgrade' bandwagon unless it produces real improvements. I don't part with my moolah easily unless the bang for buck is real and real big (I drive a 23 year old Mercedes 300e which I paid 8 grand for 4 years ago and I fully maintain it myself and is in pristine condition inside and under the hood - I wouldn't swop it for a new car if it was given to me free. They just don't make them as maintainable any more.) When I find a suitable design I will probably build myself a good quality preamp but for the moment I am content with my recorded vocal sound with SIR as the reverb. It was the Cubase Reverb A and B that were destroying it. ( I found a good test is to listen to the wet only signal to get a sense of the reverb quality - Reverbs A and B are dire) Now I can get back to the music instead of the technology. Thanks again SSR "Phil W" <> wrote in message news:gsohe0$op8$... > SSR wrote: >> Hi Phil >> >> I think you have got me over my present gear aquisition syndrome- I >> tried the free reverbs you suggested - what a difference. I think I >> am OK with my vocal sound now > > Fine! ;-) There are many more free reverb plug-ins, but these are the > ones, that worked out for me. Over time, I´ve tried a lot and also got rid > of a lot of stuff... anyway, if you don´t try it out, you can´t find the > good-sounding free plug-ins... At least, you have to invest some time, > when you want to save on money. > >> I am looking into the possibility of a DIY preamp e.g. next - any >> suggestions? > > As I said, RNP is a regular suggestion - though I haven´t used or heard it > yet. > With my last band, we recorded at a local "audio school" a few times. > There, we used an "SPL Goldmike" and a "Mindprint DTC", which sound nice, > but are not in the same price region as an RNP. There is a "smaller" > version of the DTC called "EnVoice" which is actually a "channel strip" > (pre-amp + EQ + compressor) for about the same price as the RNP. > The "low-cost" pre-amps (up to 200$ or so) don´t sound very much > different. To get in a better league soundwise, you´ll have to take a > bigger step. > > Others here can probably suggest other pre-amps... > > > - Sorry, I don´t want to offend you here!!! - It seems, as if you´re still > learning to use all the "tools" required in a recording and mixing > situation. Until you haven´t learned a few more things and concepts about > the whole thing, you should rather not spend anymore money. Better try > around and learn to use the tools that you already have now "in practice", > then decide to buy something, when you have a better idea of what makes > sense to spend money for. > Of course, it´s easy to buy new stuff and pretend, your music sounds > better, just because you have better pre-amps or compressors or whatever > now. Some friends of mine used to do that for a few years. They bought > stuff, gave it a short try, were amazed for a short while, but almost > never took the time to dive into the usage deeper. After a while, they > sold the stuff again... As far as their musical efforts were concerned: > they usually rather played around with their "new toys", than trying to > get actual musical work done. Well, they did have fun that way, but in the > end there were almost no real musical results. > Now, decide what´s more important to you... even if you don´t have the > greatest hardware available, it´s still worlds better than what people > used for "home-recording" 15 years ago! > My personal attempt is to focus on the music first, then worry about > technical details. ;-) > > > Phil >
