Frankenstein Beast of a Digital/Analog Hybrid Studio
- Date added:
- Thursday, 11 September 2008
- Last revised:
- never
- Hits:
- 7280
- Rating:
- Vote for this:
-
- 
- favoured:
-
0
Answer
From: leo cottakis
Dear Bob,
I have been reading your articles at Digital Domain for some time now and I would like to tell you that I consider them an invaluable source of information for all things audio and an incredibly useful resource for the audio engineer. I particularly appreciate the way you discuss – or should I say, rightfully expose – the various manufacturer’s limitations and remove the “gold-dust-in-your-eyes” factor from the picture. All too often audio equipment manufacturers make us believe that their creations are the best thing under the sun only to discover that, under scrutiny their equipment should have probably not been released in the first place. I commend you on a very good effort and would love to see those articles coming.
I would value your detailed opinion on the following: I am in the process of putting together a project studio which will handle mostly classical work but also a combination of electronic/acoustic non pop&rock multitrack work. Quality and purity of tone is paramount and to that end I am proposing to put together a system based around a premium quality analogue desk, a 24 track HD recorder (RADAR II), some high quality outboard, good mics and mic pre’s and monitoring by Genelec and ATC.
The RADAR II is a 24/48 recorder.
The new Radar from IZ corporation claims to support higher sample rates. You should look into that.
I have evaluated other digital recorders and found the Radar to be somewhat closer to analogue 2”/30ips tape – at least in the bottom end – despite its 48khz limitation. During a typical multitrack session (analogue desk/digital recorder) a lot of ADA conversion is taking place between desk and recorder. Knowing that successive ADA conversions can degrade the signal could this eventually become a problem?
We're currently in a hybrid world---Leo, and will be there for a long time. I feel that with the current state of the art in conversion (particularly at high sample rates/wordlengths) and with current "cheap and bad sounding DSP processing", the losses due to degradation with a couple of extra conversions and an analog mix with a GREAT analog console are less than the losses with a bad digital console and DSP. This situation will change with Moore's law, but I don't see it evening out for another 5 years. So I would go with the analog mix, assuming your skills, ears, console, and outboard gear are up for the job. As for the ultimate medium, 24/96 and 1/2" analog are obligatory and the decision on which to use for mastering will remain depending on the music and song you are doing at the time.
Is the previous statement true in this particular case? Radar converters are quite good especially if clocked properly. Could it be said that an analogue signal exiting a DAC (24/48) would somehow benefit from entering an all analogue chain prior to being converted back to digital for mixing down? In other words, would that signal be “enriched” by the addition of 2nd/3rd order harmonics potentially generated by an all-analogue mixing console which also has a better frequency response (10Hz-50Khz)?
These days, it's not particularly the enrichment of the analog chain (depends a lot on the desk you are using), but rather, the lack of the harsh inharmonic distortion that comes from using too many cheap DSPs and plugins when doing digital mixing and processing. You're comparing the lesser of two evils at this point.
Since 24/96 digital mixers are now available at quiet fair prices - this would be a good option too.
The same goes for SR 2 track 2". It's an excellent, superb medium. For many of your jobs you may find it sounds better than the Radar. Depends on the music, your mixing style and many other factors. But regardless, at this point in the state of the art, I would avoid lots of digital processing and digital mixing. To repeat: This decision change as the sound quality of the digital processors available to mixing studios improves over time.
I have read your article on back to analogue and that resulted in me asking the question: Is properly aligned 2”/30ips with Dolby SR better sounding than good 24/48 digital processed through a very good analogue desk mixed onto Sadie and dithered to 16/44.1 using a good algorithm like Pow-R? Also, is that true of a second hand 2” MTR, however well maintained? I know these last two questions are very broad but can you nevertheless offer some feedback?
I am considering interfacing all my digital equipment via an AES patchbay using either an RJ45 unit or a Ghielmetti AES patchbay which is specially designed to handle high-rate AES digital audio. I am also considering using a Z-Sys router which will itself interface to the patchbay and into which signals from other points of the bay will be fed for routing splitting etc. Any potential problems here? Can you offer any feedback on Ghielmetti AES patchbays? Also, is there any real difference between good 110 Ohm AES cable and Belden Mediatwist?
For short runs, either 110 ohm AES or Mediatwist is fine. Mediatwist is cheap but good if you can terminate it properly and keep it from bending and twisting. I recommend a router over any patchbay for 110 ohm stuff. Skip the RJ-45...it's not worth the trouble. Plug everything into the router and have the router feed an external XLR rack for interfacing ancillary digital gear. Avoid too many connectors in the signal path---since the XLR as you know is not true 110 ohm. Especially at high sample rates, it's murder.
Are you working with high bit rate formats like DSD, SACD? Can you offer any comments, experiences, etc?
Not currently.
Finally, where can one get hold of your Model DD-2 here in London, UK?
Thanks... Please contact Tony Faulkner. He's sitting on a DD-2 and I'm sure would let you have a demo.
I'm looking forward to your reply and thank you in advance for your time
Leo Cottakis
Hope this helps,
Bob