Digital recording on PC via multitrack recorder

[SmilesAndGimps]

I have been recording on a Fostex digital multitrack recorder and importing the tracks via USB into Audacity for mastering and touching up etc. This is a bit of a round about way of getting there, so I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on using the Fostex as a "preamp" essentially and running the line out directly into the PC soundcard (Realtek brand) and recording with Audacity. I'm not going for studio quality here, but something that isn't going to jar the eardrums either! Thanks!

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by SmilesAndGimps

I have been recording on a Fostex digital multitrack recorder and importing the tracks via USB into Audacity for mastering and touching up etc. This is a bit of a round about way of getting there, so I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on using the Fostex as a "preamp" essentially and running the line out directly into the PC soundcard (Realtek brand) and recording with Audacity. I'm not going for studio quality here, but something that isn't going to jar the eardrums either! Thanks!

You should try it, compare the two methods and choose the one that you prefer.

[deltoid]

You're not likely to get a better sound. The ADC (analogue to digital converters) on your Fostex are certainly of better quality than the ones on your PC sound card. Especially if it's an onboard sound card.

[JanVigne]

Yes, I doubt you'll prefer this method. Computers aren't built for audio quality in most cases. Mac's are somewhat better at this than are PC's but still both do too many other operations and costs are cut where they are the least likely to be noticed. Even with a budget portable digital recorder the mics and pre amps are of far superior quality. Besides, the storage media in something other than a computer should be much higher quality than the hard disc of the computer.

If your only reason for wanting to eliminate the recorder is to minimize your transfer time to the computer, this seems rather short sighted to me. You'll have far greater flexibility with a "master" saved onto a SD or USB device to which you can always go back and make comparisons or start over again.

http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/...ptops-updated/

http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/wiki/i..._-_Setup_Guide

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by JanVigne

Computers aren't built for audio quality in most cases.

Computers are sonically neutral. They don't have a component in good, bad or indifferent audio. One computer doesn't and can't sound better than another. On the surface it appears there is some fundamental disconnect here.

Originally Posted by JanVigne

Mac's are somewhat better at this than are PC's but still both do too many other operations and costs are cut where they are the least likely to be noticed.

Mac's and PC's role in all of this is merely running the code. If the code is poorly written the computer will throw a fit. Rarely, if ever is the computer at fault. Almost in every case if any application doesn't run smoothly on a computer, it's the failings of the application, not the computer itself.

The age old wives tale that PC's are fundamentally inferior to Mac's is simply incorrect. It is, on the other hand, a truth that PC's and their never ending parade of interchangeable parts and third party poorly written applications tend to pose greater variables than the obviously closed, proprietary Mac systems.

Portable systems are wonderful and for many they simply make sense. Declaring computers not fit for audio seems a tad of a stretch.

[KevWind]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

Computers are sonically neutral. They don't have a component in good, bad or indifferent audio. One computer doesn't and can't sound better than another. On the surface it appears there is some fundamental disconnect here

.
Addressing using a computer to run a DAW into a dedicated monitoring system this would be the case. But.
Perhaps the poster was referring to listening to the sound on the computer itself (particularly so with laptops, probably now the norm for the term computer ) With it's converters and analog sections opposed to a dedicated monitoring system And would that inboard sound not also be dependent on the computers converters etc. Thus possibly different from one computer to another ?

[Joseph Hanna]

[QUOTE=KevWind;3582473]

But..Perhaps the poster was referring to listening to the sound on the computer itself. With it's converters and analog sections opposed to a dedicated monitoring system And would that inboard sound not also be dependent on the computers converters etc. Thus possibly different from one computer to another ?

Well yes of course Kev. The post was a comparison between stand alone recorders and computer recording and a conclusion that computers aren't so good at audio. Of course from that point comparing a raw computer with whatever soundcard it may or may not have and with whatever on-board speakers it may or may not have, to a dedicated recording system would be equally as tenuous and disconnected from anything practical.

[JanVigne]

"Computers are sonically neutral. They don't have a component in good, bad or indifferent audio. One computer doesn't and can't sound better than another. On the surface it appears there is some fundamental disconnect here."





Joseph, I come from a background in high end audio. Your comment reminds me of those strict objectivists who insist all CD players are sonically identical since they only deal with 1's and 0's. A $100 model is all you need and any more spent is simply the mistake of an "audiophool". I feel I have to respond to your comment in much the same way I did with the objectivists; I cannot discuss what you cannot perceive. We all listen in our own way and what I perceive is not always what you will hear. Nothing wrong with that, we're just not aware of the same things and, if you aren't aware of "this" quality, then you won't notice how well it is reproduced. That you do not perceive something, however, is not proof someone else is equally unaware.

Unfortunately, the concept that 1's and 0's are all there is to digital reproduction is a rather antiquated view of the world. Computers are not designed for music quality. When it comes to music they are intended to work more with MP3's at low bit rates than with high quality audio. iTunes anyone? Certainly, the mics and pre amps in most any computer are of significantly lower quality than a purpose built item of even the low cost found in most portable recorders built for music quality. Storing your files on something other than a magnetic disc is best for music quality as any disc reading system will involve more errors than, say, a simple SD card. As you become more particular about music quality, you'll see that USB is inferior to faster transfer systems. Or that simultaneously "pushing" and "pulling" data from two USB ports is inferior to performing only one of those tasks.

This debate becomes a matter of whether you feel FLAC is equal to WAV. One is compressed while the other is not. If you feel digital compression and restoration on the fly is perfect, I can't change your mind other than to ask you to listen with an open mid on a high quality system. I cannot argue with what you hear. But there are differences between computers and computer programs intended for music.




" Mac's and PC's role in all of this is merely running the code. If the code is poorly written the computer will throw a fit."


To some extent I would agree. Only to some extent however. The "code" for a Mac is not identical to the code for a PC. Look at the maximization instructions for either type as provided by a professional sound company like Sweetwater and you'll see there are multiple programs running in the background of each system. What the computer is doing as you are trying to record or playback music is going to have an impact on the final sound quality. It's not me saying this, it's companies dealing with professional sound systems, Sweetwater and Benchmark for example.

In the opinion of these experts Windows 7 is superior to XP for music playback. Why would Sweetwater care which was superior? They have no stake in either. Possibly though, they have heard the differences for themselves. Don't take my work for it. Do the research for yourself.

You can argue that you are unaware of any change in music quality but that it just you saying so. Some folks would say there's really no difference between, say, Ragu from a jar with an expiration date made with soybean oil, dehydrated garlic powder and tomato concentrate and a good home cooked marinara made with fresh tomatoes, garlic, basil and extra virgin olive oil. The difference is, once you've heard it or tasted it, you're degree of appreciation for it usually improves. If you've not heard it or tasted it, then you have no reference for might be superior to me - or the op.


It matters not to me whether anyone uses the recommendations from Sweetwater. I'm not making money or collecting royalties by suggesting it. Logic suggests shutting down unnecessary background programs and using superior inputs and storage devices will result in superior sound quality. Yet, if you are convinced all 1's and 0's are identical to all other 1's and 0's, then you've already made up your mind and I'm not here to try to change your opinion. Some people buy MP3 players and want to place as much data on the player as possible rather than going for higher bit rates but lower storage capacity. If that's how you think about audio quality, then buying a high end system to play back your low bit rate MP3's will be a waste of time and money.

[fdwill]

I find this very interesting and not previously discussed here. I would like the discussion to continue and to allow all involved to express their views, experience, and what their ears tell them. It is clear that there is a difference of opinion and I want to hear from both sides and eventually make up my own mind. It is not necessary to 'prove' the other wrong.

[JanVigne]

Well, for the most part, we're talking about subjective impressions of sound quality. The two of us can sit side by side while listening to the same music reproduced by the same system and both come away with different subjective opinions of what we've heard. Therefore, you sort of have to decide which camp you feel most comfortable in. There are placebos and no-cebos, with each once you've made up your mind you are in one camp or the other, you're virtually 90% of the way there. Do you consider yourself to be an objectivist, drawing conclusions from specs and measurements? Or, do you take a subjective, empirically based approach to what you hear and perceive? Is an amplifier with 0.001% THD always "better" than an amp with 0.1% THD?

If you already feel CD players are pretty much the same and most amps are going to sound alike, then the computer audiophile approach is not likely to be a good fit. If, on the other hand, you are aware of values such as imaging and transparency, timing and timbre, then you are probably going to be aware of the benefits of better computer audio set up. Price has nothing to do with this for the most part. Budget audio is fully capable of satisfying reproduction, particularly when using a computer and DAC as your main source. You do, however, tend to find you get what you pay for in one way or another.