API A2D Sucks?

[Delicieuxz]

Hi HRF, I've been gleaning info from this site for a while, this is my first post, though, and have been impressed with brandondrury's highly involved guides and beginner friendly compilations of information.

Preface:
I've been troubleshooting this issue for the last 2 years, spent probably hundreds of hours, spent around $4000, and have not gotten anywhere. The issue is that my recorded audio sounds like ass, not representative of what's coming out of the amp, and instead sounds dark, muffled, stuffy, thin, buzzy, icky... and useless.

My Setup: AKG 414b XLS & sm57 running into the a2d, which then heads into my soundcard (an Auzentech Prelude) via spdif. My DAW is Cubase SX3 on PC (E8400 @ 3 Ghz, 4 GB RAM [2.5 recognized in XP?] and running SP3).

---------------------

I first encountered this issue when I ran my newly built 7th Circle Audio preamps (A12 & N72) through the line-in on my M-Audio MobilePre. The preamps on the MobilePre sounded like the cheap preamps they are, but they also sounded clear, not muffled or dark. The 7th Circle Audio preamps through the MobilePre line-in sounded dark as can be, muffled, and all the other descriptive words I used above. I was very disappointed and frustrated. Nevertheless, I was determined to have decent if not good recorded sound at home, and so I chose to dismiss the problem as being due to the preamp kits I built. Sooo, I bought the real thing: an API a2d preamp, connected via spdif to my soundcard. This, I thought, could leave me with no trouble. Lo and behold, it sounds identically just as muddy and muffled as the preamp kits did when run through the M-Audio MobilePre's line-in.

I was left, and in fact still am, with the question of: why do my expensive, top-grade preamps sound worse than the $150 MobilePre, and why does the MobilePre give me a clear sound when using its own preamps, but not when running a preamp through its line-in (for the purpose of using its AD converters)?

I'll state, in case this is what anybody is thinking: this is not a mic placement issue. Believe me, it's not. There are always a couple people who mention that's what it sounds like it is, but it isn't. Every square centimeter of the room has been probed in this regard, I'm well familiar with mic positions and their results, and the captured sound represents the clearest sound I can achieve. The position is directly in front of the cone, 1/2" from the grill.

Now, the only area which I feel I have left to scour is the realm of word clocks. I wasn't even aware of this esoteric aspect of audio recording until a couple weeks ago (self-learner here), and until I'd thought of this, I'd started to accept that I'm cursed and the universe just wants me to fail. I still have to wonder why the MobilePre didn't face this issue of muffled audio when using its own preamps but did when using external preamps.


I made a couple threads on Harmony Central as well as TGP, presenting my new thought that my problem revolves around the word clock while providing audio clips, and got some mixed feedback.

My HC thread is here
My TGP thread is here

The audio clips I provided are here

You'll notice that there were a couple people in the TGP thread who said that they could identify nothing that sounded like a word clock issue to them (with one of them saying "Clocking errors usually results in clicks and pops"), while danbronson in the HC thread seemed sure that it was in fact a word clock issue, and the API tech on the phone tell me that a clocking issue could very much impair the sound quality (although said tech didn't listen to my audio clip) and to make sure I am able to get Cubase set to external before consulting with them for further troubleshooting.


Now all that aside, if it is a word clock issue: the API a2d runs on its own word clock, and Cubase is currently set to run on its own internal clock - which I don't want it to do. It appears that I am unable to change the word clock in cubase to External, which, I guess, is due to my soundcard not recognizing an external word clock. Therefore, if this is all true, I need a new interface, one that will allow me to hook up the API a2d, via spdif and accept its word clock as master, and also preferrably allow me to hook up my 7th Circle Audio preamps via TRS line-in.

So, I am seeking input on 2 matter here:

A. What is your diagnosis of my sound and technical issue?
B. What interface ought I to look at, keeping in mind that I am on a PC (although a PCI Firewire port is an option if I remove my current soundcard)?


I thank everyone who read this and gave it their thought.

[Delicieuxz]

Nobody?

[brandondrury]

I was left, and in fact still am, with the question of: why do my expensive, top-grade preamps sound worse than the $150 MobilePre, and why does the MobilePre give me a clear sound when using its own preamps, but not when running a preamp through its line-in (for the purpose of using its AD converters)?

It sounds like to me that you've got a different idea of what "good" is than the high end engineers because I don't know any big boy who would prefer a MobilePre over an A2D.

Now, the only area which I feel I have left to scour is the realm of word clocks.

I can 100% tell you that a word clock upgrade will have ZERO effect on the problem you are having. ZERO! I'm positive. I know. Just the other day I decided to track a band using my Presonus Firestudio clock instead of my usual Mytek. I heard no real difference. I'm of the opinion that clocks are insanely over rated for anyone who isn't cranking out major label quality stuff already. If your stuff already sounds outrageously good, then a clock may give you another inch or two.

Now if your clocks are malfunctioning, I'm sure the effects would be devestating.

On The Good Stuff.....

So I listened to your audio files. They weren't labeled so I don't know what is what, but they both sound like a decent amp with either 2 distortion pedals in front of them or a Big Muff. I actually just recorded a guy who was going for this exact sound. Of course, when using that much gain in that fuzz style, low end mud can result. I'm not hearing any low end mud, but I'm hearing the harmonics of the mud on the next octave up. (What the Big Muff does best).

I suspect that if I tossed either of your mics on this cabinet with this tone here at my place, the tone would practically identical.

I've got a feeling that the tone is much brighter to you ears in the room. Quite a few of the really scooped guitar sounds with tons and tons of gain end up sound dramatically different when you close mic them.

I have several opinions on a solution.
1) For a band doing "sludge rock" who wanted the Big Muff type of sound, I could definitely make it work in a mix. In fact, I think they would like it.

2) This tone would not work for 3 Doors Down or Slayer. If that's the case, the last thing in the world to worry about is preamps. We've got to get the source right! This is HUGE deal. The source is everything. Big boys don't talk about it much because Eric Clapton has his tone down. In home recording land, must of us don't have our sound down like Eric Clapton.

If you don't like the tone you are recording, change the tone. You are using a TON of gain (and I'm not a guy who tells people to turn their gain down much).

this is not a mic placement issue

You put this in bold. The bold part is scary to me because it seems like you KNOW for a fact that this mic placement issue is 100% solved. I have my doubts. When a tone is undesirable it's a mistake to rule out anything.

I'm guessing you didn't like the sound of your amp (even if you think you do in the room) so you moved the mic around. When you did you still heard the sound coming out of your amp. So until the sound coming out of the amp is ideal, the mic placement isn't going to make much difference.

I'm also surprised that you thought the recorded tone was boomy but pulling an SM57 back 12" didn't radically knock off this boom. The difference between a 57 up close and a 57 far away is astronomical. Your studies should have illustrated this.

the captured sound represents the clearest sound I can achieve.

I've never been a guy who actively pursues "clear". Clarity takes care of itself in the mix in the long run. I always shoot for "flattering", "thick", and "ballsy". I often track all instruments a little on the dark / thick side and then use a high shelf boost on the 2bus to bring the track to life. I've seen big boys do this as well.

If you really preferred the M-Audio preamp, I say use it. However, you should also evaluate what you like in more context. How is the final mix turning out? What are you listening on and how is it coloring your sound? Are you going for more of a harsh sound or more of a smooth sound? The high end gear will always point you in the smooth direction. Have you listened side by side your favorite albums to compare the differences? Is it possible that you are in love with fizz?

These days it's rare for me to record 1/2" from the grill. It sounds too lifeless to me. I generally prefer my Royer R121 (which I thought sounded DULL DULL DULL when I first got it. It took me a year to learn how to use it and adapt my tastes accordingly). The Royer R121 (which is THE high end guitar mic for robo pros generally) is boomy, low end heavy, little high end gadget. You would hate it.

A. What is your diagnosis of my sound and technical issue?
B. What interface ought I to look at, keeping in mind that I am on a PC (although a PCI Firewire port is an option if I remove my current soundcard)?

You are blaming gear for your audio problems. As long as it is not malfunctioning, this is flat out wrong 99.9% of the time. Is Gear The Answer To Sound Quality Issues?

he fact that you are already dealing with robo high end pres and excellent converters means you are about to learn a valuable lesson. This is NOT a gear issue. You are exactly where I was years back. You've bought all the gear they've told you to buy and you aren't getting the sounds you are looking for. Why? The answer is you have all this gear but you really haven't been taught how to engineer.

The answer to that is to either become an apprentice and learn, utilize products designed to help teach you (my home recording book addresses each and ever concept I've touched here), or simply record and record enough until you get good at engineering.

[Delicieuxz]

Thanks for the reply, here is a bit more info:

Originally Posted by brandondrury

It sounds like to me that you've got a different idea of what "good" is than the high end engineers because I don't know any big boy who would prefer a MobilePre over an A2D.

Neither do I think that I should be able to say that, but I just uploaded an old clip of the MobilePre, so have a listen and see if you don't also think the same. That it's even close would make my spider sense tingle, but when it sounds closer to the original source I have to think that something's not right.

I can 100% tell you that a word clock upgrade will have ZERO effect on the problem you are having. ZERO! I'm positive.

What I was thinking was not that it's the quality of the clock that could be an issue, but that Cubase is running on its own internal clock, and can't recognize the external clock, while the a2d is also doing the same. So there are 2 clocks pulling against each other.

So I listened to your audio files. They weren't labeled so I don't know what is what, but they both sound like a decent amp with either 2 distortion pedals in front of them or a Big Muff.

Big Muff is correct! The amp is a JCM 2000 TSL.

[brandondrury]

What I was thinking was not that it's the quality of the clock that could be an issue, but that Cubase is running on its own internal clock

Cubase is locked to whatever your audio interface is doing. That little button that says "clock" on the transport bar is for video or something. It's easy to make that mistake. Look into it and you'll see.

I just uploaded an old clip of the MobilePre, so have a listen

This clip you are referring to has too much 2-3k to me. This is the area that everyone in their first two years of recording (give or take) wants to make louder and the area that everyone who's been doing this for a while wants to make quieter. When you learn that the 2-3k range hurts, you also start getting really huge guitar sounds. The secret to size is to keep that region under control.

While maybe not your favorite music, listen to heavier songs on the new Nickelback album. The production is absolutely devestatingly enormous and the guitars have very very little of this 2-3k stuff.

All in all, I don't expect there to be that much difference between the preamps though. If you A/B'd them while playing the same riff you'd probably be disappointed by the difference.

By the way, where are the other tracks? It doesn't do anyone any good to fiddle with guitars if we don't know what the drums, vocals, and bass are doing. The cymbals will fill in the high end, the bass the low, and the vocals will be mostly sitting in the 2k range we cut out of the guitars.

Brandon

[lessthanphil]

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

My Setup: AKG 414b XLS & sm57 running into the a2d, which then heads into my soundcard (an Auzentech Prelude) via spdif. My DAW is Cubase SX3 on PC (E8400 @ 3 Ghz, 4 GB RAM [2.5 recognized in XP?] and running SP3).

I won't try and help with the audio stuff you're talking of - brandon has far more knowledge than I could dream to have at the moment and has already gone into great depth.

I can however tell you your RAM issue is most likely that WinXP (32-bit) doesn't address more than 3gb of ram. It's a well documented issue.

You can read about it here Ask Dan: What's with the 3Gb memory barrier?

Careful, it's quite techy

[Quincysan]

Firstly...Brandon, you could not be more condescending. Really uncool man, you were starting out once and if people came at you like you were sniffing glue when you thought a MobilePre sounded better than an API a2d you probably didn't much like it. Other than your arrogant tone, I agree with most of your criticisms.

That being said, Delicieuxz, you must be sniffing glue. Just kidding. I do agree with Brandon that the tone coming from the API a2d recording (the first one) is vastly superior than what you got from the MobilePre, for exactly the same reason Brandon said, the 2k-3k range is overstated from the MobilePre. If you'll be recording anything with vocals, the 2k-3k range coming from the MobilePre will completely drown out vocals, while the API a2d is going to let the vocals sit very nicely in the 2k-3k range, which is where most vocal frequencies end up.

Going forward, I would suggest listening to some very quality recordings that have been mastered to enhance frequencies in a way that make the recording sound most full. With time, it won't be a struggle for you to identify which recordings utilize the frequency spectrum to its fullest potential. Until that point, here's some greats to get started. No...you do not need to listen to Nickelback, so breathe easy. No one deserves that kind of punishment, even glue sniffers.

ZZ Top - La Grange (from the recent Greatest Hits compilations if possible)
Kansas - Leftoverture (Carry On My Wayward Son is a classic with a great mix)
Anything Pink Floyd post-Syd Barrett
Anything Steely Dan

As you listen to these, look at this chart and start to visualize the frequencies as you hear them:
http://www.dallashodgson.info/files/...mapexample.jpg

Also, when you record, heed the advice of my good internet pal Dan Ball...careful, I think he's a member of the NRA:

A look at the audible frequency spectrum - Effects and Signal Processing - Home Recording Studio Help

Good luck!

[willjrockstar]

Ive only read yr post and before i read on id just like to say that it sound like a mic placement issue. Just kidding,You should try hooking up yr pres to another recording device like a four track or whatever.

[brandondrury]

Firstly...Brandon, you could not be more condescending. Really uncool man, you were starting out once and if people came at you like you were sniffing glue when you thought a MobilePre sounded better than an API a2d you probably didn't much like it. Other than your arrogant tone, I agree with most of your criticisms.

Interesting accusation. I reread my posts. I couldn't find one condescending word. I can't find one arrogant word either. I do give an opinion. I am honest and I don't have the time to sprinkle sugar coating on top of everything.

With that said, the kind of people I want to deal with aren't going to cry about semantics. They want to learn the info and are willing to take constructive criticism. People who are too sensitive for my style probably have a really tough time functioning in the real world where lions rip the throats out of zebras.

Brandon