Sample Rate for professionals

[wwittman]

If you want to write a popular article on music recording, write that cheap gear is “just as good” as expensive gear and pros are fooling themselves.

Never fails.

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by Southsidemusic

True that -^^^-

I read a lenghty article (in swedish) so pointless to link to that had much to say about interfaces and the prices vs quality.

Basically the article said that it is a very very small difference if any on a $300 interface vs a $3000 in regards to sound quality and that we nowadays pay for the preamps and different connectivity options on the more expensive interfaces, so if I was to understand them correctly I could buy a UR22 or an ID4 interface and get the same quality recording as I would from our newly updated Apollo series (Apollo 8P Quad X2 and Apollo 16 X2) which are all the black units. We got a good trade in for our silver series so we got all 4 upgraded and it is a difference for sure in preamp quality and converters.

But this makes me a bit perplexed .. if a 200 ish interface sound the same as a 3000 ish one if I only use one input from each and only external preamps then why are we paying outta our azzezz for the more expensive ones if we can just get a cheapo and use external pre's for input and our SSL4000G+ for outputs.

I really am not saying this article is true or that their comparisons are correct, however I downloaded their test files and they were all 24/48. There were 8 interfaces recorded with the same mic and external preamp and I could hear a clear difference. This was a blind test and after taking that 5 times I came out different 3 of those times which is a bit scary. The smaller cheaper interfaces were really good sound quality and for instance a Apogee Duet vs Orion 32 flagship were identical IMHO of course.

The test files were voice overs (eBooks) and pop vocal and accoustic guitars and a very pleasant piano piece.

Whats your take on this argument and is this really true these days, that the cheaper interfaces are as good as the ones ten times as expensive taken out the connection options and preamps??

Thanks for reading and sorr,y if this is a bit Off Topic but yet not

Here is my take on this article . (I think it is related and still part of the topic)
I think there is no question that technology gets less expensive. And that means that there tends to be improvements in the sound quality of less expensive tech. ( not to mention because of the greater numbers the incentive to develop and market to the prosumer) Also there is and always has been a relative ratio of diminishing returns of amount of improvement per $$ spent

That said, the old adage and general concept of "you get what you pay for" is still true, and does not magically go away because of advancements in less expensive tech.

Which the article (because of the way the test were conducted) does not really challenge or disprove.


The notion that there is "a very very small difference if any between a $300 interface and a $ 3000 "per se" is still very questionable and suspect. Because the test method does not really address this question, it appears the test only really compared that dollar amount represented by the the conversion tech in the interfaces .
Now I am speculating here but I would suspect that perhaps conversion tech is proportionally probably less expensive to get good results than analog mic pre tech.

But even if this is not case if the number of channels involved is likely not the same on all the interfaces, if so then the test is even more questionable . Because, if for example, the $300 interface has 2 channels and the $3000 has 8 channels then in reality you are comparing $150 per channel to $375 per channel so in reality you are comparing a $300 interface to a $750 interface. and the $750 number also gets reduced by any additional connectivity beyond the basic I/O what .

So yes in point of fact you may well be paying more for additional "connectivity" features but that does not mean you are are not still paying for sound quality also. Because
The other question the tests in the article do not appear to be addressing is--- what happens when you move beyond a one or two channels and tracks of analog audio recording, to 10 or 30 where the difference in the quality of preamps are arguably going to make more of a difference . (which I realize they were stating in the article "paying for preamps" ) but non the less still plays a big factor in the value and validity of the gear.
Not to mention that in analog audio recording the " the preamps" are a definite factor in "the quality of the sound" not separate from the the "quality of the sound"

[SigFriedChicken]

When you record at a lower sample rate, doesn't it also increase the latency? It seems like this would negate some of the performance benefits of recording at the lower sample rate.

[TOM@METRO]

Recording at higher sample rates will reduce latency IF you are using the same sample rate. But, if the additional CPU strain becomes an issue, and buffer size must be increased to accommodate it, guess what happens with latency.

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

All converters have analog stages that are just as critical to quality as microphone preamps and the line amps in professional analog recorders.

For sure! I ran some tests when I first got my brand-new Digi002R (now dead) 12 years ago. I was shocked to discover that the noise floor of the converters without anything plugged into them was at about the same level as 16-bit dither. It could technically record at 24-bit. But it made no difference. You weren't getting any more detail than what you'd get at 16-bit.