So I've been a long time recording hobbyist and have lately been spending hours upon hours of time to learn to properly track/mix. I have also had the fortune of signing a writing/publishing/sync contract for my music, so I've been getting serious and started to rent a small artist space and have put together a modest "project studio"

It's a really inspiring and welcoming atmosphere to record and create in, although it's not acoustically ideal. I'm working on the 2nd floor of a warehouse with limited treatment.

My monitors are budget friendly Presonus Eris 5 and
My current gear is a tascam teac5 console, assorted tape machines, golden age preq-73, golden age comp 54, all going into a Focusrite 18i8. I recently just broke the bank and picked up a Neumann TLM 102 as my nicest mic and am now wondering what to save up for to invest in next.

I would like to get more preamps/mics but I'm wondering if upgrading my interface or converters will be benificial?

I'm not really sure as to how large of a part AD/DA converters play in the signal chain so my question is: given my list of budget gear and less-than-pro space, will my recordings benefit all that much from such a large investment in a nice converter like the aurora? Or I have seen that Black Lion Audio offers a mod for the Focusrite interface that cleans the preamps and decouples the converters for significantly less money. I'm very curious to see what everyone's experiences have been and opinions on the priority/importance of converters outside the "pro-studio". Please give me any suggestions!

Do you have situations where you use more than 2 channels? If you mainly use one or two channels, that would make a difference on what to suggest. In general, proper treatment of the space, mics, and monitors are the biggest part of the sound. After that preamps and outboard. Conversion is the smallest part, and even budget conversion is pretty fair these days. I'd probably be focusing on proper treatment for the space, from what you describe. The GIK Room Kits are a pretty good deal and make it easy to get the right setup: http://www.gikacoustics.com/product-category/room-kits/ I have no connection to them, but I use their products and they've worked out well. Also, I'm not familiar with those monitors, but I'd probably take a hard look at them too.

Focusrite is pretty good. You will benefit more from preamps , mics , room and instruments than converter .

How important/crucial are converters for a budget setup?

They're not. I'm in full agreement with monitorlove. What you have is more than fine for what you're doing. Focus on the front end of your signal chain - intruments, amps, mics, acoustics etc...

Ditto the above . Get better monitors first.

I'm in general agreement but also you could very easily upgrade and expand your existing setup with a stereo SPDIF interface of some sort. The Tascam UH-7000 would be my recommendation. You'd get better monitoring, better inputs and the mic preamps on the Tascam are outstanding, so you'd get a lot for your money (roughly $360 currently new). You wouldn't lose anything, only gain options and I/O. You would need a couple of AES to SPDIF cables to make the connection but they're not too hard to find.

I'm more in agreement with monitorlove as a statement than a user haha. Of course hes right, but with your setup I'd definitely prioritize monitors over all else.

Thanks for the input!

My only concern about investing in better monitors would be issues with acoustic treatment in my space. Like I said, I'm in a semi enclosed part of a spacious warehouse, so there is a mess of acoustics i'm both aware and unaware of effecting my sound going in and coming out. (But I guess that's a different post for a different section, ha) So if I significantly upgraded my monitors, would the acoustic issues make the monitoring improvements all that noticeable or accurate?

Have you considered putting an enclosure there like a 40' industrial shipping container lined with rockwool ? You can DIY it to a pretty comfy studio. Also get a few youtube followers in the process .

Any kind of enclosure that lets you line the walls , ceiling and floor with rockwool will do. You can find the shipping container video in youtube.
Treating a whole warehouse is a hassle..

Man, I would watch that video just to see how he gets a 40' shipping container to the second floor of a warehouse

He could build an enclosure out of screens/gobos and/or tubetraps. With nearfields and a high ceiling, I'd imagine that would make new monitors a huge improvement.

I have an Apogee Ensemble 2, and AD/DA-16x mixing to an analog console in my studio. I sometimes record in a friends studio with the Focusrite 18i18. I've never once thought....damn, this would sound better on the Ensemble. The Focusrite is a nice unit. Amazing features for the price.

As far as acoustics, check out the DIY section at ATS Acoustics

ha exactly. plus most of the people who've signed similar contracts have similar converters, so you're in good company OP. i might change my mind if you start sending your entire mix thru your focusrite AD, but for vocals and similar tracking they are more than adequate..

The gobos which usually go 5 - 6' max height will only make a small improvement in a warehouse. Sound will easily go around it and come back. The result is that his mixes will sound different outside the warehouse. He needs something solid to enclose his workspace. And then a layer of rockwool. This will just contain all the sounds inside. Thats the only way I see to make it work for him. Otherwise headphones. But its a quick way to damage his ears . Would never recommend headphones for primary monitoring.

I read the previous responses and thought, "Well, nothing to add here. It sounds like GS has it covered..." but then I came back because I thought of another point that hadn't been made.

Although I am decidedly on the "converters hardly matter outside of a pro studio", I also believe it is very useful (not "important", but "useful") to separate your converter box from your preamp box(es) sooner, rather than later. The reason is simply this: It makes upgrading easier.

By separating out the functions, you have a lot more "cheap upgrades" available to you. For instance, you want ADDA conversion and high quality Neve-style pres? That box doesn't exist. You want to make a noticeable improvement in your converters? Alright, no problem, but you need to buy new preamps at the same time. But once they're separated, you can upgrade one, or the other.

The only exception to my thinking is in the spots where there are combo boxes that have Lightpipe and the built-in pres will, for the foreseeable future, be the best "last choice preamps" that you ever intend to own. So for me as a low-ender, keeping the Behringer ADA8000 makes sense because I can't financially justify owning more than just a couple of nice preamps and, if I ever did have to record drums or record more than 4 channels, it'd be a one-time thing and the ADA8000 would be great for that in a pinch. If you're more full-studio-minded and have a bit more money to spend, then I'd still defend my approach, but I'd point you towards the UA 4-710d (with built in 1176-style compressors as well! Nice last 4 channels, eh?) or the Audient ASP880. None of those would be terrible choices for an "extra 4-8 channels" that you seldom used. But otherwise, I say separate out the functions sooner rather than later.

Agree. If was starting over, convertors would be last on my list.

Disagree. All you hear on GS about Focusrite interfaces is problems, problems, problems, especially with Scarlett. To the OP, I'd honestly avoid Focusrite interfaces like the plague.

If you're on budget, the new Zoom seems a pretty good buy.

The OP is already using a focusrite interface. Doesnt sound like he has problems with it. Do you OP?

Yep, I'd go along with that.

I don't agree with that at all though. You do get folks here on GS complaining about Focusrite gear - particularly the lower-end models - but I wouldn't say that you see significantly more complaints about them than about any other manufacturer of similar units. Not when you bear in mind that there may well be more of them than there are of some others (so even if their fault rate is the same as anyone else, you're potentially going to see more people complaining 'cos there's more units out there).

Second thing to bear in mind is that you don't tend to hear from the folks who don't have problems - for everyone who runs into some kind of problem, you don't know how many others are out there just working fine. That's a general rule with just about anything in any industry, most of the time you only hear from the unhappy customers.

And finally, I'd say that I've seen a fair number of complaints here on GS about all kinds of gear where there is actually nothing wrong with it at all - the user just has it configured wrongly, or had forgotten something in their setup or just plain doesn't have a clue what they're doing. I'd even go so far as to say that when it comes to those kind of issues, you're going to see more of them relating to lower-end gear such as Focusrite Scarletts, etc. because they will often be bought by users who are new to the whole thing and still have a lot to learn about signal flow and how to configure their DAWs and interfaces properly, etc.

So, on the whole, I don't think that Focusrite are any worse than anyone else generally speaking and, in some cases, their offerings are pretty decent in the "bang for your buck" stakes. Certainly more than happy with my LS56 which has been rock solid from day one and has been sitting in my rack for four years or so now.

The Focusrite Scarletts are probably the most popular low-end interfaces at the moment, so some problems are bound to arise just from the sheer numbers of those units in use.

As for converters...this is a somewhat ear-opening test. It is, by no means, the test to end all tests, but there's a few things that stand out: 1) setting up a reliable test is hard and they take a lot of time to set it up in that one (which also means I think a lot of "tests" are probably flawed in one way or the other). 2) The only converter the listeners manage to differentiate is the $2 RealTek chip - until they fix its volume level to match the rest. After that they can't tell it reliably apart from the $2000 Benchmark DAC. So not saying there aren't differences, but just saying that the whole converter thing has been blown completely out of proportion.

Yeah I have been loving my 18i8 for what it is. Most likely upgradng to the rack mountable 18i20. My computer unfortunately does not have firewire or thunderbolt compatibility so the Focusrite has served me very well. I typically run my preamps into the back line inputs anyway.

In no way am I dissasitisfied with the converters or the sound, I was just curious if upgrading them would make a significant difference. I have been using an old Tascam Console lately so I was wondering what effect it would have on sound going in.


As sweet as a shipping container like that would be, I dont think that is in my budget , let alone moving it to the second floor. Im renting this space so Im not sure how much of permanent changes/installations I can make. I actually have been considering the Auralex Promax Gobos to put behind me when I mix. The warehouse is made of brick with wooden floors and my section is somewhat enclosed with walls. So there are reverberations, but not nearly as much as you'd expect.

Better converters will make a difference, but not a "critical" difference in a "low budget" scenario. But there is a difference. And I would guess that the Tascam console may be a weak link in your system.

With regard to monitoring, a large, irregular space is actually an advantage, not a disadvantage. You are fortunate not to be in a small, square, and overly-padded box. I agree with previous posters that a few proper gobos in a large, high-ceiling'd space can make for a very good mix environment.

Having said all that, you must already be doing something right, given your level of success in placing your music so far. I would not re-invent the wheel if things are already being well received. Better is always better, but never lose sight of what got you there in the first place. IMHO. Good luck and much continued success to you.

There were driver/firmware issues with some systems, but they have been resolved. It still may be a little tricky to update if you get an older unit with previous firmware. You may have to plug/unplug the unit until it is recognized. Once it is, the new firmware, embedded in the driver, will be installed, and then you're good to go.

But as far as price to feature/quality ratio, the Scarlett series is pretty impressive.

Maybe 15~20 years ago when budget gear was just coming out it may have been a bigger factor. Most units being sold today is just fine. I've even heard recordings done on windows based sound cards like Realtech and Sound plaster consisting of $2 chips do a fine job.

The things that give you the best bang for the buck is your front end gear, Mics, Preamps, Room Acoustics and Sound Source.

On the back end its your monitors. The monitors are probably the most important of all if you want to mix well. Its hard to do surgery with a blunt knife.

The rest comes down to the artistry of mixing. Having the tools to do the job is only 1% of the job. The other 99% of a good recording comes from the skill of the guy doing the mixing and mastering. One huge mistake musicians getting into recording make is they think the skills of playing music are instantly transferrable to mixing music. Mainly because they listen to themselves play all that time.

That actually becomes one of their biggest roadblocks. Early mixing attempts are going to be biased towards the instrument you play. You want to be able to hear every detail being played and you wind up masking other parts that are just as important. Getting over yourself as a musician and learning to hear all the parts takes allot of retraining. Its so easy to let the mind wonder and turn off the other instruments in your mind. You can do that to some extent mixing but you have to do it for each and every part. Not just your own instrument

The reality is, if you've played guitar for say 5 years before people began to sit up and notice instead of sticking their fingers in their ears, it can take just as long and just as many hours building up your skills as an audio engineer. If you like it, the time spent will be enjoyable. I disappear into the studio for hours on end and probably wouldn't know what time a day it was if my wife didn't tell me it was time for dinner.

If you don't enjoy it, get frustrated easily, and don't want to put in the thousands of hours required to get really good, then you could do much better just paying a studio to record you. Of course all recordings don't have to be great. Some people use A DAW as a music writing tool and find much satisfaction hearing their musical ideas come together. That's a different kind of art of course. Sound quality is not the same thing but often linked to performing skills.

The analogy I always use is you can listen to a song play back on a cheap am radio with a 3" speaker and know if the musicians are great or not. People will intuitively block the bad sound quality and hear the performers. They'll even imaging the parts they cant hear if the music is good.

If the musical performance and composition are poor I don't care how good the audio quality is. All better sound quality does is make something small and crappy sound big and crappy. You always have to understand Musical Performance, Music Composition and Music Audio Quality are all equally important is you want a hit song. if any one of them suffer you wind up with a dud.

Thank you! Definitely using that as a reminder...but you know.....always fighting the itch for more ha

That is fantastic advice! Thanks! And its something ive been working at for a while. I love the creative side of mixing/composing and have realized I need to dedicate just as much time and energy into learning the science of it as well.

I also agree with the idea that although better production may (subjectively) "sound" better, a good song, composition, and musicianship will translate well across just about any medium, regardless of fidelity

That was a really good post, wrgkmc

Thanks.

Its good to know the things I've learned recording since I got my first recorder in 1968 still hold true today and can be shared.
The basics I learned using that that little Mission Impossible recorder so long ago really haven't changes even with all the technological advancements.

Its not to suggest you should ignore the technology either. You just have to keep the proper perspective when using it and "not" over value its contribution to the final results. The Trick is to learn how to change hats.

When you perform, be the best performer you can be. Own every air molecule in the room and make it come alive when you're playing.

When you track, experiment and find that magical zone that captures the best sound quality and If you aren't happy with it, experiment some more. Eventually you'll find the best settings and placements possible.

When you mix, forget about the other two roles and learn to use the tools available to you in every conceivable manor. Push them all to extremes and know their limitations. Learn what you can and cant do with them. Then adopt the approach that they are thee to enhance the music, not to perform RX on something that's DOA. If your tracks are good, the mix should sound great without any additional enhancement. Sure it might be dry because there's no additional reverb, and yes it may be a little two dimensional, but it should be good enough to listen to as is.

Adding effects should simply enhance that greatness. It can take time to get to that stage. For a long time I used EQ and compressors to try and fix things. I would up with small sounding parts that really didn't sound that much better. I then took the approach of noting the EQ settings I was always making and went back to my amp and made the change there before it hit the mic. (I may have found a different mic or speaker, or guitar or amp if that wasn't good enough)

Over time I began to use less and less tweaking in the mix till it sounded great with no additional EQ needed. That's how you get good tracks, not by trying to fix it after the fact.

I'll add this. You will need to get used to playing through gear that has a good recording tone. If you were used to having beefy lows and cut that back to get a good track, your performance may be hindered some. If you're used to having guitar highly driven and you found dialing that back 50% makes the tracks sound great, you have to get over using that drive as a crutch when you perform.

The only thing that matters is how good the tracks wind up being. No one ever said recording was easy. You actually have to experience quite a bit of discomfort to get good sound and have to become even a better player to deal with many of the obstacles. The only thing I can say is it does get easier and when you've done it enough your live playing skills become even better.


Don't be afraid to copy what other people do mixing. You do this learning to play guitar, do the same for mixing and mastering. Import a commercial track that's close to what you're working on and to your mix and A/B compare what others have done. Better yet find a cover song you can play all the parts to. Play along to the song doing tracking each part. When you got all the tracks done mute the original and see ho your stacks up to the original. You can learn more about mixing and tracking doing that in a month then you can with years of trial and error doing it freelance. I do it every once and awhile just as an exercise to keep me in shape. I do mostly my own music any more but the change of pace can be rewarding.

Next learn how to master and put a spit shine on that mix. Mastering brings the mix up to commercial levels, and glues all the parts in place. The music changes when you master and when you use say too much compression, EQ etc on tracks it sticks out like a sore thumb.

It all works backwards too. When you master all weak links are revealed. Mastering reveals mixing mistakes. Mixing reveals tracking mistakes, Tracking well can reveal sound source issues with amps speakers etc.

Next play the music for others and get honest opinions of that mix. Beware of friends and family opinions. They are rarely objective nor educated enough to give you the feedback you need. they are more likely to tell you it sounds great and you wind up believing them and therefore quit improving. Seek out some jealous gods in the business who will tell you what they do and don't like about it. Many pros are more then willing to give pointers. They just don't have the time or energy and spoon feed you.

Take notes on what can be improved then find a way of making it happen. Sometimes it requires better gear but you'll know that when you've exhausted all options. You wont need someone to tell you such and such mic rolls off at 10 K and trying to get more out of its impossible. You will have exhausted all the tricks in the book and come to that conclusion on your own and made due with what it can do well first. There is so much you can do by just making small changes too.

Main thing when dealing with pros is you shouldn't expect to impress them. If they do it for a living they recognize talent not only by the quality of work but respect others who can do that while earning a good living at it. The only difference between pro and amateur is the pro earns a profitable living at it.

In the end, it comes down to making the best recording you can do with the skill and tools you have available. If the music is great it will sound just as good 30 years from now. If its not so good you have to rack it up to gaining experience.

After a few thousand like that you can look back and pat yourself on the back. Its unlikely many others will. Recordings are slivers of talent frozen in time. Hopefully some will wind up making others as happy as they do you. The choice of music and performance quality are always just as important so never let those slack thinking you can make up for them some other place in the chain.

Well trained ears can see right through any tricks you can imagine and hear the source of musical talent. The best you can be noted for is the wrapping paper that package was wrapped in that made it look more appealing. The musicians get all the credit for the notes, emotion and glory (if there is any)