Audio interfaces - are they a real alternative?

[gorillaonabike]

So I've shot a couple of shorts now and one element I have noticed is the portability of a Tascam does not confer any real advantage. I have consistently shot in controlled areas, scouted well in advance for sound and portability has never been an issue.

Therefore, I was wondering if an audio interface linked to a Mac (MacBook Pro with souped up RAM) would confer any pre-amp advantage over, say a Tascam DR100?

For example, I have a Mac with Avid and FCP 7.something (the final version before 'X') and I was wondering if I could record using an audio interface with phantom into the Mac. In addition, I am on a budget so would wonder at what point I would be able to buy a used audio interface linked into the Mac at a lower cost than simply buying a DR-100.

As an idea of mic, I have a Sony ECM 674 and will also probably buy some lavs and maybe even a second mic.

The reason for asking this question is I had all my sound gear walk off and after an analysis of my financial situation, I am looking to replace at lowest price. This either means going back to a DR100 with its relatively noisy pre-amps or finding a suitable alternative. And naturally a bit of lo / hi-cut help is always handy.

And please note I am aware of the personnel issues around the kind of setup I am using but might be able to get around this.

Does anyone have any thoughts around audio interfaces and if so, what they would suggest which has better pre-amps than a DR100 which will work with my software setup?

 

[Alcove Audio]

Just a few observations...

Being anchored to a laptop is not my idea of a "fun" day as a production sound mixer/boom-op. Yes, large budget PSMs use laptops with Boom Recorder or something similar, but they also have a bag with a recorder and mixer - that's how they started out! And, if they are using a laptop, they are using a very high quality mixer and interface. These are the guys who are recording a boomed mic and three or four lavs plus a plant mic or two. Oh, and not to mention that the PSM is almost always working with a very experienced boom-op and probably a wrangler as well.

If you're worried about "noisy pre-amps" an inexpensive audio interface won't be any better than the DR-100. If the quality of the pre-amps is your primary concern bite the bullet and get a solid mixer like the Sound Devices MixPre-D ($750). You can hook it up to a digital audio recorder or to a laptop via USB.

I've said it endlessly, if you want quality you have to pay for it.

As for "personnel issues" 'but' and 'maybe' seem awfully fragile to rest your entire production sound upon.

And, BTW, just because "controlled areas... and portability has never been an issue" does not mean that these issues will not present themselves in the future.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I agree entirely with what Alcove has said but would like to add:

In my experience the vast majority of production sound mixers (PSMs), with the exception of the good/top pros, have little appreciation of the engineering aspects of being an audio engineer and do not have enough understanding of audio theory and digital audio theory. In practice this results in them rarely, if ever, achieving as good quality sound as their equipment should allow, even/particularly with budget equipment. So many PSMs get caught in the trap of believing that better sound quality can only be achieved with better quality equipment. The truth is that unless you have a reasonable understanding of how your equipment works and therefore how you can get the most out of it, even having the best equipment on the planet is still not going to make you a competent PSM.

Digital audio theory is a huge and complex area and some of it appears counter-intuitive at first glance. This maybe isn't the place to go into a lot detail but a classic example of this is bit depth: 24bit is no more accurate or higher quality than 16bit, the only advantage it provides is a truly massive dynamic range. However, many PSMs don't seem to know or use this fact to their advantage and continue recording, as used to be necessary with 16bit, as hot as they can. This causes not only a much higher likelihood of clipping (digital overload) but also causes the over-driving of the mic-pre which results in that harsh/distorted or noisy sound so many PSMs blame their equipment for. The entire and only point for the existence of 24bit audio is to provide roughly 20db of headroom. Even top professional mic-pres are designed for optimum performance at around -18dBFS. So consistently recording dialogue up around -6dBFS (which I see frequently) means you are almost certainly over-driving your mic-pre which is likely to cause distortion noise even on the most expensive mic-pres, let alone the more pro-sumer level equipment. IMHO, understanding gain staging and how it applies to digital audio is a fundamental requisite of anyone fulfilling any audio engineering role.

What I've written in the above paragraph is just as applicable to Composers (who do their own recording/mixing), Sound Designers, Mixers, Music Producers or any other audio engineering role.

Maybe you gorilla are an exception and do have a good understanding of gain staging and digital audio theory, in which case I apologise but hopefully this info is useful to others reading this thread.

G

 

[gorillaonabike]

I agree entirely with what Alcove has said but would like to add:

In my experience the vast majority of production sound mixers (PSMs), with the exception of the good/top pros, have little appreciation of the engineering aspects of being an audio engineer and do not have enough understanding of audio theory and digital audio theory. In practice this results in them rarely, if ever, achieving as good quality sound as their equipment should allow, even/particularly with budget equipment. So many PSMs get caught in the trap of believing that better sound quality can only be achieved with better quality equipment. The truth is that unless you have a reasonable understanding of how your equipment works and therefore how you can get the most out of it, even having the best equipment on the planet is still not going to make you a competent PSM.

Digital audio theory is a huge and complex area and some of it appears counter-intuitive at first glance. This maybe isn't the place to go into a lot detail but a classic example of this is bit depth: 24bit is no more accurate or higher quality than 16bit, the only advantage it provides is a truly massive dynamic range. However, many PSMs don't seem to know or use this fact to their advantage and continue recording, as used to be necessary with 16bit, as hot as they can. This causes not only a much higher likelihood of clipping (digital overload) but also causes the over-driving of the mic-pre which results in that harsh/distorted or noisy sound so many PSMs blame their equipment for. The entire and only point for the existence of 24bit audio is to provide roughly 20db of headroom. Even top professional mic-pres are designed for optimum performance at around -18dBFS. So consistently recording dialogue up around -6dBFS (which I see frequently) means you are almost certainly over-driving your mic-pre which is likely to cause distortion noise even on the most expensive mic-pres, let alone the more pro-sumer level equipment. IMHO, understanding gain staging and how it applies to digital audio is a fundamental requisite of anyone fulfilling any audio engineering role.

What I've written in the above paragraph is just as applicable to Composers (who do their own recording/mixing), Sound Designers, Mixers, Music Producers or any other audio engineering role.

Maybe you gorilla are an exception and do have a good understanding of gain staging and digital audio theory, in which case I apologise but hopefully this info is useful to others reading this thread.

G

Strangely, I was beginning to get better-than-expected results from a DR100 and my mic setup. It was great to get to a point where I was thinking of its limitations and wanting more although I made some mistakes early on.

However, part of the question is education because I want to weigh up my options in that although I am familiar with the usual recorders, I know nothing about recording straight to laptop. Bear in mind that a brand new Tascam DR100 in the UK costs $500 USD (our taxes are horrific), so if there was an alternative that was both a little cheaper and better, I would happily take it.

I can always borrow a Tascam if portability is an issue as I know someone who has a spare he can occasionally lend me.

This still leaves me with the question of what I could buy for under $500 USD which could be a half-decent audio interface. However, I guess I have a place to start my research now...

And having done a bit of research, something like this could do the job. http://sounddevices.com/products/usbpre2/ - this is the sort of thing I guess I need to look at. I guess Google is my friend and I will need to do a little searching.

 

[wheatgrinder]

DR100 IS a half-decent audio interface under $500.
Getting something similar to connect to your laptop just moves the controls and nobs around to different places, and requires more wires and other complexity. Its a step BACKWARDS not forwards.

 

[wheatgrinder]

Id invest in wireless LAV setup.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

This still leaves me with the question of what I could buy for under $500 USD which could be a half-decent audio interface. However, I guess I have a place to start my research now...

Regardless of whether you have $500 or $50k to spend, the principles of audio engineering and digital audio theory still apply and you will only get good quality with at least a reasonable understanding of these principles and how to apply them in practice.

I don't want to appear to be a snob but with a $500 budget for interface with pre-amps you are still well within the pro-sumer range of equipment, which I'm not greatly knowledgeable about. My guess is that there would probably be a slight improvement in the audio quality of a stand alone interface for your budget but the difference would be relatively minimal.

If you really must spend some money, then wheatgrinder's suggestion of some decent lavs is a good one. I still stand by my original advice though, spending time learning and applying audio theory will cost you $0 but will likely provide a much higher boost in quality than many times your budget!

G

 

[Alcove Audio]

I'd invest in wireless LAV setup.

The only problem here is that you would need at least two. And I wouldn't trust anything less than the Sennheiser G3 series ($600 each). Plus I would upgrade the lavs to CountryMan or Sankens, another $375 to $475 each, so an serious investment in wireless lavs would be in the neighborhood of $2,000+.

Then, of course, is placing them properly so you don't clothing rub, etc........

 

[gorillaonabike]

The only problem here is that you would need at least two. And I wouldn't trust anything less than the Sennheiser G3 series ($600 each). Plus I would upgrade the lavs to CountryMan or Sankens CountryMan, another $375 to $475 each, so an serious investment in wireless lavs would be in the neighborhood of $2,000+.

Then, of course, is placing them properly so you don't clothing rub, etc........

Lav rubbing - the bane of my life... grrr....

Setup:- two of us who had sound kit. I had a DR100 and the usual mic, boom etc... although the DR100 and XLR leads have gone walkabout. My DoP has a DR100, mics (Sennies), wired lavs (Sennies again) etc... but is short a boom.

We have some Sennies and I personally have a decent little ECM 674. We are canny enough with sound and have done everything from blankets, duvets (duvets are surprisingly effective), filling rooms with people, clever placing of mics (vases with flowers are great...), having alternatives between boomed and lavs as well as every location being scouted for sound as well as visuals. This means our sound capture is not as cr@p as I thought it would be but this is through being meticulous rather than having good kit.

The idea is to explore the concept of a used audio interface to see if it would provide a better alternative to a Tascam DR-100. Alternatively, I want a solution in case my DoP is unavailable and an audio interface would be good. Note that the alternatives expressed (get a sound recorder) are alternatives I am aware of.

However, I will research audio interfaces as I cannot see why they would be more expensive than a DR-100. They have less to do and could therefore be cheaper, especially if I pick up a used one.

 

[KenAudio]

Does anyone have any thoughts around audio interfaces and if so, what they would suggest which has better pre-amps than a DR100 which will work with my software setup?

I can definitely recommend audio interfaces from Metric Halo but they are not at the low cost end...anyway...they are perfect for mobile setups. Check out the ULN-2 for example - it has 2 high end preamps on board already and its powersupply is achieved by firewire connection from your macbook pro only!!! It still works, when you plug TWO condenser mics using phantom power to it.
I personally use a metric halo 2882 with even 8 inputs and even there powersupply via firewire connection still words when I plug 4 or more mics with phantom power to it - AMAZING and sound quality is A W E S O M E...sorry...this sounds like a big buzz coming from metric halo staff...but I am just a user - PROMISE!

Let me know if this works for you!!

Cheers,
Keno

 

[Alcove Audio]

However, I will research audio interfaces as I cannot see why they would be more expensive than a DR-100. They have less to do and could therefore be cheaper, especially if I pick up a used one.

You can record at 24bit/96kHz for well under $100; it's the quality of the pre-amps, not "how much they have to do." The next quality issue is the AD/DA convertors, how smoothly/accurately the analog sounds are converted into ones and zeros and back again.

A functional issue is "real time" controllers to adjust the gain and volume levels. This is why an experienced production sound mixer use a mixer. They know (from rehearsals and blocking) that one or two words of dialog in a scene will peak out, so they ride the knob/fader. See, once again, it's all about technique.

So, once again, I would recommend that you get a dedicated audio mixer to put in front of the DR-100. I recommended the Sound Devices MixPre-D because you could also use it in front of a computer if you really wanted to. It would be a substantial increase in quality with regard to the pre-amps and the AD/DA convertors.

BTW, you didn't mention which Sennheiser mics or lavs you have; if you improve your pre-amps, that may be the next place to improve your sound.

One more BTW; most of us sound types hate the term "Sennies."

 

[Mannie Bothans]

Right now I am just at "the DR100 level" with no mixer, so my question is merely out of curiosity. If a Sound Devices MixPre-D into a laptop would be a huge step-up from just a cheap recorder alone, what kind of recorder would be needed to not "lose" the quality increase you'd gain with the MixPre-D's the pre-amps and the AD/DA (assuming one wanted to operate with a portable recorder instead of a laptop)?

 

[Alcove Audio]

95% of folks won't hear the difference no matter what device they plug the MixPre-D into. The reason is their technique and their skill aren't up to it. But, as long as they are putting in the effort to capture good production sound - like gorillaonabike - they will hear the difference using the MixPre-D over using just a budget recorder or a cheap computer interface; that is, of course, if they are using quality mics in addition to putting the effort into quality production sound.

The dichotomy of budget sound is you need the extra skills/techniques and knowledge to overcome the deficiencies of the budget gear to make the budget gear sound good.

 

[gorillaonabike]

95% of folks won't hear the difference no matter what device they plug the MixPre-D into. The reason is their technique and their skill aren't up to it. But, as long as they are putting in the effort to capture good production sound - like gorillaonabike - they will hear the difference using the MixPre-D over using just a budget recorder or a cheap computer interface; that is, of course, if they are using quality mics in addition to putting the effort into quality production sound.

The dichotomy of budget sound is you need the extra skills/techniques and knowledge to overcome the deficiencies of the budget gear to make the budget gear sound good.

The difference it makes is unbelievable. A little extra with the sound adds so much to a budget production, far more than I know how to do with the visuals.

The short I have worked on is a bit of a dog - it's OK at best but sound puts so much more into play. Once I have enough in place, I have a half-decent sound engineer to look at it. He owes me a huge favour, absolutely enormous and he would be happy to help so I am excited at what he could do. If my fumblings have added this much (and I have tons to learn), he could really add value.

I won't spend too much time on this one as it is my first 'all my own' short and therefore has lots of shortcomings which I have learned from. However, as a learning exercise, it has been fabulous.

 

[gorillaonabike]

You can record at 24bit/96kHz for well under $100; it's the quality of the pre-amps, not "how much they have to do." The next quality issue is the AD/DA convertors, how smoothly/accurately the analog sounds are converted into ones and zeros and back again.

A functional issue is "real time" controllers to adjust the gain and volume levels. This is why an experienced production sound mixer use a mixer. They know (from rehearsals and blocking) that one or two words of dialog in a scene will peak out, so they ride the knob/fader. See, once again, it's all about technique.

So, once again, I would recommend that you get a dedicated audio mixer to put in front of the DR-100. I recommended the Sound Devices MixPre-D because you could also use it in front of a computer if you really wanted to. It would be a substantial increase in quality with regard to the pre-amps and the AD/DA convertors.

BTW, you didn't mention which Sennheiser mics or lavs you have; if you improve your pre-amps, that may be the next place to improve your sound.

One more BTW; most of us sound types hate the term "Sennies."

Yes, a little misunderstanding here - it is what the audio recorders have to do, not the pres. If they don't have to move around and be small then I could get more bang for my buck.

However, I really like the idea of the Sound Devices mixer and will have an ebay hunt. It looks like a fantastic idea although again, in the UK, our prices are higher than the US.

Thanks again for the fantastic advice, Alcove. Great stuff and I just wish I could fly you over on my next short! If you're ever in London, let me know and I'll buy you a beer... or 25...

 

[AudioPostExpert]

It's worth baring in mind: All AD/DA converters operate on the basis of what's called the Nyquist/Shannon Sampling Theorem, which allows for a theoretically perfect recording. There are practical engineering challenges to overcome to achieve this theoretical "perfection" but AD/DA converters have evolved tremendously over the 30 years. All AD/DA conversion is carried out by mass produced integrated circuits, so they are already small, easy to move around and relatively cheap to manufacture. The main difference in quality/price of converters these days is in the number of channels of conversion offered and in the quality of the components in the analogue input/output stages of the converters.

For this reason, the signal which you input into the converter (and the amplifier, speakers or headphones on the output) has more impact on sound quality than the converter itself. High quality converters make sense for high end music recording for example, where you are recording with very high quality mics, mic-pres and in highly controlled environments but they don't make as much sense for production sound. The positioning of the mics, the mics themselves, the quality of the mic pre-amps and most importantly, proper gain-staging are each going to have far greater impact on sound quality than the converters themselves.

This puts into context the advice you have been given so far. A mixer makes proper gain-staging easier and is therefore more likely to provide sound quality improvements than a new converter. So Alcove's advice is good, the only place I would disagree is that I would advise you to stick to recording at 24bit 48kHz (rather than at 24bit 96kHz).

G

 

[gorillaonabike]

It's worth baring in mind: All AD/DA converters operate on the basis of what's called the Nyquist/Shannon Sampling Theorem, which allows for a theoretically perfect recording. There are practical engineering challenges to overcome to achieve this theoretical "perfection" but AD/DA converters have evolved tremendously over the 30 years. All AD/DA conversion is carried out by mass produced integrated circuits, so they are already small, easy to move around and relatively cheap to manufacture. The main difference in quality/price of converters these days is in the number of channels of conversion offered and in the quality of the components in the analogue input/output stages of the converters.

For this reason, the signal which you input into the converter (and the amplifier, speakers or headphones on the output) has more impact on sound quality than the converter itself. High quality converters make sense for high end music recording for example, where you are recording with very high quality mics, mic-pres and in highly controlled environments but they don't make as much sense for production sound. The positioning of the mics, the mics themselves, the quality of the mic pre-amps and most importantly, proper gain-staging are each going to have far greater impact on sound quality than the converters themselves.

This puts into context the advice you have been given so far. A mixer makes proper gain-staging easier and is therefore more likely to provide sound quality improvements than a new converter. So Alcove's advice is good, the only place I would disagree is that I would advise you to stick to recording at 24bit 48kHz (rather than at 24bit 96kHz).

G

OK... so let's take a practical example of this. Let's say I have a relatively skilled operator, buy a Tascam US-200. I pop a mic in front of it - Sony ECM 674 is my preferred (and only) instrument of choice and plug it into my MacBook Pro and record directly into, say, FCP 7.7 - the sound bit. Will this therefore give me the same quality as a DR-100?

The reason I ask is a brand new Tascam DR-100 in the UK is in excess of $500 USD but a the US-200 is only $200 USD. This means an extra $300 USD I can put towards a mixer. Bear in mind I can mostly get access to a DR-100 mkI if I need to go mobile.

Then, hypothetically, I want to add a Sound devices mixer to this. I can simply add it in and with a skilled operator, will start to get half-decent results.

What are your thoughts?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

First off, you have written "relatively skilled operator" and later "skilled operator". Given at least half decent equipment, the skill of the operator trumps all other considerations/equipment when it comes to achieving good quality production sound.

Your comparison doesn't really work because you are not comparing the same category of equipment. Previously you were discussing a pro-sumer standalone converter vs a pro-sumer recorder (Tascam DR100), whereas the audio circuitry in a laptop totals about $30 (inc. converters and speakers!) and are not designed to handle professional level audio signals. Once you get into the pro-sumer range and beyond, the law of diminishing returns comes into play, as I explained in my previous post. Have you considered a Zoom H4N, it's considerably cheaper than the Tascam in the UK but still in the pro-sumer range? The other point is that FCP isn't really designed as live audio recording software so I'm not sure what problems you might encounter on that front.

With something like the SD MixPre-D you are effectively replacing all the "bottom of class" consumer audio circuitry in your laptop for fully professional grade circuitry. Given the caveat of the skill of the operator, you should notice an improvement. The quality of circuitry in the Mixpre-D will contribute to the improvement in sound quality, although arguably the greatest benefit is the metering and the adjustment of gain provided by the unit, which makes it more practical to achieve good gain-staging.

G

 

[gorillaonabike]

First off, you have written "relatively skilled operator" and later "skilled operator". Given at least half decent equipment, the skill of the operator trumps all other considerations/equipment when it comes to achieving good quality production sound.

Your comparison doesn't really work because you are not comparing the same category of equipment. Previously you were discussing a pro-sumer standalone converter vs a pro-sumer recorder (Tascam DR100), whereas the audio circuitry in a laptop totals about $30 (inc. converters and speakers!) and are not designed to handle professional level audio signals. Once you get into the pro-sumer range and beyond, the law of diminishing returns comes into play, as I explained in my previous post. Have you considered a Zoom H4N, it's considerably cheaper than the Tascam in the UK but still in the pro-sumer range? The other point is that FCP isn't really designed as live audio recording software so I'm not sure what problems you might encounter on that front.

With something like the SD MixPre-D you are effectively replacing all the "bottom of class" consumer audio circuitry in your laptop for fully professional grade circuitry. Given the caveat of the skill of the operator, you should notice an improvement. The quality of circuitry in the Mixpre-D will contribute to the improvement in sound quality, although arguably the greatest benefit is the metering and the adjustment of gain provided by the unit, which makes it more practical to achieve good gain-staging.

G

I would rather eat an XLR cable than buy a Zoom H4N. There is a significant difference (to my ear) between a Mk2 DR100 and an H4N and as I mostly have access to a DR-100, I wouldn't want to 'drop' a level.

However, my comparison works. I am comparing a $300 USD convertor to a $500 USD DR-100. If the convertor gives me better pre-amps, then why should I buy the Tascam? Sure, there is a $4,000 USD laptop on the receiving end (UK prices) but the crux is bang for buck. Convertor vs recorder.

Which is it to be? Personally, I would love to buy the SD MixPre-D and would love to spend $1,000 USD on a mixer. However, that is the next stage, when my alimony payments stop...

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Personally, I would love to buy the SD MixPre-D and would love to spend $1,000 USD on a mixer. However, that is the next stage ...

I agree, the MixPre-D is the next stage but IMO, a standalone converter and laptop is not. A $300 converter might give you better mic-pre's or it might not, you'd have to A/B test them to find out. Ergonomically your proposed setup has two problems, the first is being tied to a relatively immobile laptop, the second is in functionality. Most standalone converters have very little if any metering and good metering is essential to the fundamental tenet of any audio recording, good gain-staging because good gain-staging is going to have a way larger impact on your audio quality than any converter or micpre. So you would have to rely on the metering in your software on your laptop and here you have the added complication of making sure you are metering what you think you are metering. Also as I mentioned before, FCP is not primarily designed as live audio recording software so I would imagine there would be other issues which at the least would negatively impact the workflow.

Personally, if I were you and could get my hands on the tascam, I would use that and hire or borrow one from elsewhere when it's not available and save my money until I could afford a real step in the right direction with something like the MixPre-D.

G