M-Audio 410 :) Firewire... :(

[mudbean]

Originally Posted by JoaoM.

Is it important to record 24bit or I'll be just fine with 16bit?

Use 24 bit whenever possible.

mud

[nosuch]

you'll be fine with 16 bit.

after oing through your threats my impression is you need something portable that doesn't get in the way of your creative process. I think that's what attracted you about the apogee gimick – the video tells the story of a creative process with basic tools.

I think what you need is some sort of thing that can be used with or without the computer. You'll have to decide wether you want to do multitracking with the device itself, so you can layout a song without plugging it into a computer (that would determine if you want a mobile mulitrack recorder or if a mono/stereo recorder is enough) and if you in some situations want to record more than one or two tracks at once (like doing multitrack recordings with your friends, playing together but recording evrything on seperate tracks). In this threat you liked the apogee for having only one input but disliked the m-box mini for the same feature – that doesn't make it easy to recommend something to you) - btw. transfering soundfiles from the recorder to the PC will not alter sound quality.

I understand that the choice you have today is somehow too much for a beginner.
When I started doing homerecording there was not much choice, the only devices available for the prosumer was 4-track cassette recorders, I think there where like 3 brands. I used mine for years and recorded anything from demos to theater music. later midi sequencing on the mac was available so I added that to my gear - but still all recordings were done on cassette, the computer only handled midi (harddrive was huge for that time: 250 MB! :)). If I needed more than 4 tracks I had to bounce them (recording 3 tracks and than mixing it to the remaining) - now that was a loss of sound quality.
When USB-Audio Intefaces became available I happily jumped on that train, the first one didn't really work then I got a Tascam two track thingy which worked fine for years. I did some work for commercials, films and theater with that and nobody complained. Today I have an interface with 8 mic inputs so I can record my band on seperate tracks, but the tascam got home use until recently it would not work with the newest mac OS.
I also have a tiny two track recording device with built in mics (Zoom H something – I think that can be used as an interface but didn't really try)) to record rehearsals and gigs and some nice mics.
Anyway, all that gear is used more or less for demos and layouts, serious work is done in a professional studio.
Long story, short conclusion: It does't really matter what brand or converters you get, today it als sounds good. I would do my chooice from an utility point of view, what will get the job done with the least hassle.
Also budget is a consideration, you may need an interface (or multitrack-device), software, one or more decent mic (if not included in the interface).
Make up your mind about your needs and than buy what lets you start your recording career. Maybe finding a decent shop and talking to them may be great.

[nosuch]

Originally Posted by mudbean

Use 24 bit whenever possible.

mud

Oups, that's the hard thing about asking in a forum, you'll always get totally differnet answers. Mud is right, for best sound quality go with the highest resolution. If you have a Neumann mic, 5k$ preamps and converters you'll hear a diference!
;-)

[mudbean]

Just a rule of thumb ... YMMV ... now, where's my cassette player?

mud

[octatonic]

Just want to clarify something here.
24 bit won't give you higher resolution - it gives greater dynamic range.

16 bit will give you around 96db, 24 bit will give you around 144db.

For a lot of music (pop/rock and especially house/dance music) you won't be using much more than 20db of dynamic range.
Some heavily mastered commercial dance music might use 3-6 db.
It is absolutely crushed.

'Resolution' is sample rate conversion- the number of slices taken of the audio to create the digital image.

Really though, numbers are less useful than you might think.
The problem with the 'numbers through' is it doesn't take into account the surrounding circuitry.

You can buy a 24bit 96khz converter for around $50 these days.
On paper it sounds SOOOOOOO much better than, for example, a Prism 16 bit 44.1khz from 15 years ago that cost $5000.

Trust me though the Prism sounds much, much better- and so it should.

Don't trust the numbers- they are meaningless.
Don't trust youtube videos- they tell nothing.
Don't trust marketing blurb- it is written very carefully by people who study manipulating the customer (you) into buying something and feeling good about it.

The only thing to trust is your ears, or if your ears are untrustworthy (or undeveloped) the ears of someone you trust.

[mudbean]

Originally Posted by octatonic

Just want to clarify something here.
24 bit won't give you higher resolution - it gives greater dynamic range.

16 bit will give you around 96db, 24 bit will give you around 144db.

Right - I didn't mention resolution. 24 bits gives you more headroom and distance from your noise floor. I think it's a good rule of thumb (i.e., guideline, suggestion, flight of fancy), because noise floor is a problem for us home recordists. When I put on tracking 'phones and crank the gain, I can hear my fridge downstairs, the A/C unit of a neighbor three houses down, the traffic noise from the freeway a half mile away. I need all the bits I can get before digital clipping rears its ugly head, and the higher bit depth also translates to a little extra cushion on top to accomodate the occasional over exuberant input.

For a lot of music (pop/rock and especially house/dance music) you won't be using much more than 20db of dynamic range.
Some heavily mastered commercial dance music might use 3-6 db.
It is absolutely crushed.

Yeah, but that's after mixdown. Raw tracks have a helluva lot more dynamic range.

You can buy a 24bit 96khz converter for around $50 these days.
On paper it sounds SOOOOOOO much better than, for example, a Prism 16 bit 44.1khz from 15 years ago that cost $5000.

Trust me though the Prism sounds much, much better- and so it should.

Of course, but we're not talking about highend components here, just budget pro-sumer stuff.

The only thing to trust is your ears, or if your ears are untrustworthy (or undeveloped) the ears of someone you trust.

I think that's what he's trying to do ... although, God knows why he should trust us.

mud

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by mudbean

Right - I didn't mention resolution. 24 bits gives you more headroom and distance from your noise floor. I think it's a good rule of thumb (i.e., guideline, suggestion, flight of fancy), because noise floor is a problem for us home recordists. When I put on tracking 'phones and crank the gain, I can hear my fridge downstairs, the A/C unit of a neighbor three houses down, the traffic noise from the freeway a half mile away. I need all the bits I can get before digital clipping rears its ugly head, and the higher bit depth also translates to a little extra cushion on top to accomodate the occasional over exuberant input.

Yeah, but that's after mixdown. Raw tracks have a helluva lot more dynamic range.

Of course, but we're not talking about highend components here, just budget pro-sumer stuff.

I think that's what he's trying to do ... although, God knows why he should trust us.

mud

Mud,

I wasn't aiming my post at you.
Someone else (nosuch, I think) used 'resolution' in conjunction with bit depth and I was answering that point.
I should have quoted.

Re mixdown- yes, good point- should have explained that myself.

The high-end converter I mentioned as an example of why numbers are useless when evaluating audio hardware.
It was the best example I could think of.

Sorry- I was being a bit slapdash with my responses.
There are only so many ways of saying the same thing to the OP and I was beginning to get testy.

Jim

[nosuch]

mea culpa, anyway in the end bit rate translates into dynamic resolution while sample rate into frequency resolution but that's just academic. my point is that Joao is most likely to start with demos and therefore doesn't need high end numbers in bits and sample rates. I've been recording things for commercials, games, films and theater plays for years in 16 bit, 44.1 kHz and nobody ever complained about them lacking resolution or dynamic range. Joao just starts recording, he needs a platform to fix some ideas. 24 bit, 192 kHz can be used for that but is it really needed? I don't think so.
In the end you can buy the most expensive gear in the world, if you neither have the room nor the knowledge to do professional recordings, it won't happen. Even with the knowledge, all components must be on a high end level before you can really hear a different – a cheap mic won't sound like a Neumann even with the most expensive converter. On the other hand, finding something decent in your budget and just start recording sets you on the right track - and will give you good satisfaction, because all the prosumer equipment out there is really good today and has been for years.

Joao, I'd try to make a checklist:
How many tracks do you want to record (1, 2 (or stereo), 4, 8, 16) simultanously?
Do you want to record with or without using the computer (do you need an interface or a standalone recording device)?
is an effortless setup crucial or can you take your time to plug everything together and how important is portability to you?

In the end also your prefered recording software should be taken into account (like if you want pro tools you have to use m-audio or digidesign).
most recording hardware come bundled with some kind of light version of software (that should be fine for making a start) so also look out if the device you consider comes with the DAW you like or is at least compatible.

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by nosuch

my point is that Joao is most likely to start with demos and therefore doesn't need high end numbers in bits and sample rates.

Agree completely.
Think we were coming at the same point from slightly different directions.

It is common for newbies to get caught up in the numbers and in the end it has about as much relevance to audio quality as any other unrelated aspect of the product (colour, shininess, ability to make you a cup of coffee).

:-)

[JoaoM.]

Originally Posted by octatonic

Agree completely.
Think we were coming at the same point from slightly different directions.

It is common for newbies to get caught up in the numbers and in the end it has about as much relevance to audio quality as any other unrelated aspect of the product (colour, shininess, ability to make you a cup of coffee).

:-)

So if the 24/16 bit isn't relevant to me I can go for the Tascam DP-008 right?

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by JoaoM.

So if the 24/16 bit isn't relevant to me I can go for the Tascam DP-008 right?

You've missed my point.

[JoaoM.]

Originally Posted by octatonic

You've missed my point.

So explain me your point.

[nosuch]

Originally Posted by JoaoM.

So if the 24/16 bit isn't relevant to me I can go for the Tascam DP-008 right?

I think so, similar products from competitors would be fine also ...

[mudbean]

Originally Posted by octatonic

Sorry- I was being a bit slapdash with my responses.
There are only so many ways of saying the same thing to the OP and I was beginning to get testy.

Jim

No sweat. I'm right there, with ya.

mud

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by JoaoM.

So explain me your point.

Speaking in plain terms- you're over-thinking this.

I didn't say it was irrelevant- just that the difference in audio quality between the budget converters is negligible and has nothing at all to do with the quoted numbers.

You might as well get a 24 bit interface as most interfaces support 24bit.
Most interfaces also support 96khz (or above).

A lot of this is irrelevant to the audio quality.
A high sample rate and bit depth does not equal high quality.
'High quality' audio conversion is dependent more on the surrounding circuitry than on the converter itself.

Anyway, I've given you as much information on this topic as I think I can.
Good luck with your purchase and your recording.

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by mudbean

No sweat. I'm right there, with ya.

mud

:-)

[64Strat]

Originally Posted by octatonic

A lot of this is irrelevant to the audio quality.
A high sample rate and bit depth does not equal high quality.
'High quality' audio conversion is dependent more on the surrounding circuitry than on the converter itself.

This is spot on!

A lot of people don't understand this. There are proper choices of converters, there are high end ones that are really good, the oscillators used can affect things and the analog circuit design is critical to high quality.

well done Octatonic!

[octatonic]

Originally Posted by 64Strat

This is spot on!

A lot of people don't understand this. There are proper choices of converters, there are high end ones that are really good, the oscillators used can affect things and the analog circuit design is critical to high quality.

well done Octatonic!

Thanks, we got there in the end. :-)

[JoaoM.]

Originally Posted by nosuch

I think so, similar products from competitors would be fine also ...

Such as?

[octatonic]