I think I need better converters...

[E-Rock]

So, I've got some great mics, great pres etc... and I'm tracking to ProTools with a Digi 002r.
At this point, it seems like the best improvement could be made with new converters. This is for my home studio, so I don't need a lot of channels. I am mostly doing guitar,bass or vocals. If I track drums, I usually just use like 3 or 4 mics.
So, what do you all think would be the best converter for the job? Apogee? Benchmark? Lucid? Cranesong? UA?
Anyone here using outboard converters with a 002?
I'd love to hear everyones opinion on this....
Thanks!

[r0ck1r0ck2]

what about the monitors...you happy there?

[@?,*???&?]

So, I've got some great mics, great pres etc... and I'm tracking to ProTools with a Digi 002r.
At this point, it seems like the best improvement could be made with new converters. This is for my home studio, so I don't need a lot of channels. I am mostly doing guitar,bass or vocals. If I track drums, I usually just use like 3 or 4 mics.
So, what do you all think would be the best converter for the job? Apogee? Benchmark? Lucid? Cranesong? UA?
Anyone here using outboard converters with a 002?
I'd love to hear everyones opinion on this....
Thanks!

No. You just need a new word clock source.

[Mark Alan Miller]

No. You just need a new word clock source.

I've heard that a lot, and was going to suggest it, too.
Sad thing is, many word clock sources cost $$.
However, I've got an Alesis (Timeline, really) AI-2 and I like its clock. Sometimes run the whole digital side of the studio off of it. (It also provides means to 'varispeed' digital!)

I also agree on the monitoring side. If you're not hearing what's going through the chain well, it's much harder to work with the chain, as opposed to it working against you.

[r0ck1r0ck2]

last year i went nuts and picked up a rme adi-2 (my clock/mixdown channel)
and some event asp-8...
+ beyer 770s...
really been helping a lot...

[I'm Painting Again]

I never liked my sound(in my studio) till I got the converters I'm using now(Lavry Blue )..but I don't know if thats a general rule..you know..I heard some GREAT stuff come out of the old 16 bit protools(882/888) ones on a session recently..

for you I would suggest trying some converters out in your normal working environment..either return them or exchange them or sell them off if you don't like or can't hear the sound get any better..

personally I would go for better converters over adding a WC..been there done that wasnt a night and day difference like stepping up to better conversion..but many people say the digi boxes really do benefit from a better WC..I wasnt using a digi box at the time..it was a motu with a lucid clock..

[joel hamilton]

The Dub stuff I just posted in the "listen to my stuff" forum was tracked on an 001, not clocked to anything. I mixed it at my place with an HD rig clocked to an aardsync II through a console. No tape involved besides for delays and stuff...

The band tracked the stuff at their practice space to the 001 with no clock...
clocking during the mix is more important..

[stapes]

I'll have to say that external clock and converters seem really important to me in the tracking phase on a digi 002. The clock affects the quality of the converters and the clarity of the monitoring. I just did a 2" transfer for a record on HD at 88.2 and was going to do all the overdubs on a digi 002, but I could not for life of me get excited about what I was hearing out of the digi 002 stock. I was FREAKIN out. I called everybody I knew looking for a high sample rate converter/clock. Couldn't find anything, so I just downsampled a few drums and bass to 44.1, clocked the 002 to a Kurzweil Rumor, used it for DA monitoring, an RME for AD and I was much happier. This week is on to upsampling all the overdubs to 88.2 and mixing out of 24 HD channels onto a quad eight to 1/2". Best of both worlds. So, moral of the story, just use the 002 as a big ugly dongle like it should be and get some nice converters like the lavry or benchmark. It will make your job a whole lot easier.

Erik Wofford
Stapes Audio

[Mark Alan Miller]

clocking during the mix is more important..

But clocking during tracking, even if not during mix is better than no clocking, I would suspect...
And one could surmise clocking during tracking an mix would be even better.

Oh, I'm splitting hairs now...

[E-Rock]

Cool. Thanks for the responses everyone.
I may see if I can demo some stuff, and see if it makes a big enough difference.
The jump in quality when I went from crappy pres, to killer pres, was AMAZING.
Somehow I doubt that converters will be as dramatic. But I need to hear for myself.
Thanks again.

[@?,*???&?]

The Dub stuff I just posted in the "listen to my stuff" forum was tracked on an 001, not clocked to anything. I mixed it at my place with an HD rig clocked to an aardsync II through a console. No tape involved besides for delays and stuff...

The band tracked the stuff at their practice space to the 001 with no clock...
clocking during the mix is more important..

Joel, I didn't listen to your stuff, but I know, the 001 has a good bottom end but the high frequency information suffers. Tighten up an 001 system clocking internal to something external and you get better clarity on top with slightly less bottom. Weird, but true. Honestly, I'm sick of hearing poorly clocked sibilance though- especially when we can get rid of it. Vocals are king baby...