Headphone Out vs Digital Recording

[Daveyroberts]

Hey all you awesome folks.  I usually build a beat on the Tempest while monitoring through the headphone output.  Unfortunately, when it comes time convert that analog goodness to digital, the results just haven't lived up to the headphone's direct output.  I've gone from the headphone output into a cheap SonicPort interface, from the stereo outs into a Konnekt 6, and from the individual outputs into a Midas f24.  So far, recording separate tracks through the Midas has yielded the best results.  However, it still doesn't quite match the quality heard when monitoring directly via the headphone out.

Have any of you found a preamp/ADC combo that captures the Tempest indistinguishably from the headphone out?  Do you think I'd hear a meaningful improvement using higher end converters, or is this simply the cost of digital capture?

Thanks!

[DavidDever]

Hey all you awesome folks.  I usually build a beat on the Tempest while monitoring through the headphone output.  Unfortunately, when it comes time convert that analog goodness to digital, the results just haven't lived up to the headphone's direct output.  I've gone from the headphone output into a cheap SonicPort interface, from the stereo outs into a Konnekt 6, and from the individual outputs into a Midas f24.  So far, recording separate tracks through the Midas has yielded the best results.  However, it still doesn't quite match the quality heard when monitoring directly via the headphone out.

Have any of you found a preamp/ADC combo that captures the Tempest indistinguishably from the headphone out?  Do you think I'd hear a meaningful improvement using higher end converters, or is this simply the cost of digital capture?

Thanks!

As you'll never be able to monitor DAW playback through the Tempest's headphone out, it seems as if you'll need a better monitoring chain, first and foremost. Optimize that and the rest will follow.

Keep in mind, as well, that the Venice consoles max out at 48 kHz; I had similar reservations when I've tried various Behringer offerings (DDX3216, XR12, XR18, etc.), all of which also max out at 48 kHz. The sound quality is a known limitation, in spite of the otherwise class-leading functionality and built-in effects.

I'm using a Presonus AR12 right now, which lacks the A-D-A conversion of a typical digital mixer channel, but supports 96 kHz / 24-bit recording and playback via USB, and sounds pretty good. The built-in effects are not as elaborate, though they sound pretty decent–but then again, I'd probably use a convolution reverb in-the-box for mixdown anyway.

And there's no doubt in my mind that makes me clamor for higher sample rates / bit depths, etc.–it's an analogue mixer. If the playback doesn't sound right, or the same, then I know it's the interface (or the in-the-box summing); the monitoring chain is exactly the same as it is when I'm NOT recording.

[RobH]

Gettting a better Analog to Digital convertor costs money, i think RME are about the best interfaces around at the moment, nearly every producer i see runs RME interface.

[LucidSFX]

Yeah RME rules. Totally transparent ...if that is your thing. Focusrite seems to be a solid path though. Cheaper too if planning to expand in their ecosystem. Not sure if this addresses the question. I just moved across the country and am waiting for my gear. Once it comes, I will test it out with the UFX. Can you post comparison pics and recordings of a single hit to compare the outs?

[LucidSFX]

As for sample rate...I wouldnt worry about that being the difference. Proper gain staging and monitor levels gets my vote...provided that the headphones out arent different than the mains out. I wouldn't run speakers through the headphone outs though and headphones monitoring has it's place but my tracks never come out as good when building through headphones vs my adam's.

[Daveyroberts]

Thanks for all the replies, guys.

David Dever brings up an important point that I've overlooked.  I've been ignoring the way I'm monitoring the recordings when using headphones, which is by simply using a MacBook's built in headphone port.  Maybe the DAC in the MacBook is the source of the degradation.  I'll a/b the recordings vs the analog output using my konnekt's DAC when I have the chance.

Have you guys ever tried to A/B your digital Tempest recordings with the direct headphone output?  If you don't hear any difference when doing so, please let me know your setup.  Because I'd love to hear what I hear straight from the Tempest coming out of the computer.

[LucidSFX]

Heaphone outs are made for heaphones. As I had mentioned I would not plug speakers into a headphone out. The only true way to determine consistancy would be to have your speakers A/B'd through mains an headphones out...which I do not suggest you do.

The quality of headphones varies tremendously too. DJ headphones can exaggerate bass. There are great studio monitoring headphones $$$ but they still do not replace a good set of monitor speakers and room treatment.

Search google for tons of topics on mixing with headphones. Also reccomend gain staging and room treatment articles.

[RobH]

The only difference i hear using focusrite and active monitors is added noise which you just have to live with until you can afford better gear, i have a focusrite 18i20 and tbh it adds a lot of noise, this is why you need to pay more for RME or topline focusrite gear, but, i wouldn't go focusrite again, no way, its RME for me next time my interface dies or i get a windfall! lol

[LucidSFX]

Glad to hear it;)

[Daveyroberts]

Thanks again for the replies guys.

LucidSFX, I didn’t mean to give the impression that I’m plugging speakers into the headphone out, as that’s not the case.  I’m simply using headphones to compare the Tempest’s analog signal vs. the digital capture on the computer.  I’m finding the analog sound to be noticeably better than the digital capture.  After DavidDever’s comments, I figured this might be the result of using my MacBook’s dac/headphone output.  However, I compared today with my Konnekt’s headphone output and the difference remains.  Perhaps the Konnekt’s DAC & headphone amp is also insufficient, which is why I’m curious what other folks are using successfully.

Also, I appreciate the advice regarding monitors/room treatment.  However, I’m lucky enough to have had K+H O198s for many years now.  I still prefer to use headphones when starting something on the Tempest though.  It’s just comfortable to relax on the couch with a minimal setup and work away.  I’m using Sony MDR-MA900’s which sound great and are really comfortable.

RobH, is the difference also non-existent when listening to your beat straight from the Tempest’s headphone out vs. the digital capture via the 18i20’s headphone out?  I’ve never tried the 18i20.  I’ve owned the 2i4 but I’m assuming the 18i20 has better converters.  I used to have the Apogee Mini-Me & Steinberg mr816 which both have decent converters.   I honestly didn’t notice a significant difference in quality between those two and my Konnekt.  So, I’m surprised to hear the difference I am between the analog signal and the digital capture.  The more I research though, the more I’m finding folks who claim it’s just the cost of digital capture.  I’d be curious to hear how much closer something like the Prism Lyra could get to the source, but not curious enough to pay that small fortune…

[Yorgos Arabatzis]

This is one of the reasons i'm lusting for the upcoming MPC Live!Battery powered with touch screen & hands on control plus it's own audio in/out interface with FX...What more can you ask for..One device and you're done!That's what i call a minimal setup..

It’s just comfortable to relax on the couch with a minimal setup and work away.

[RobH]

There is just a lot of added noise in the recordings. I'd say that the sound is a decent replication of the headphone out with a little less of the warm analog sound of actually listening to analog gear but pretty close. The added noise is the killer for me.

Go RME if your serious and can afford it or if you make money through music production whatever. There interfaces will give you the closest to what you hear that is what they do. Colourless recording with premium AD convertors.

I'm just a pleb so my opinion isn't a professional one. Maybe ask someone who knows a little more about this than me. Sorry mate

[DavidDever]

I've been ignoring the way I'm monitoring the recordings when using headphones, which is by simply using a MacBook's built in headphone port.  Maybe the DAC in the MacBook is the source of the degradation.  I'll a/b the recordings vs the analog output using my konnekt's DAC when I have the chance.

Have you guys ever tried to A/B your digital Tempest recordings with the direct headphone output?  If you don't hear any difference when doing so, please let me know your setup.  Because I'd love to hear what I hear straight from the Tempest coming out of the computer.

You need to insure that your monitoring chain is identical for both live instruments as well as recording & playback; that means that the same pair of headphones, mixer/interface, etc. is used both for live playback from the instrument as well as recording playback from your DAW. Some interfaces will allow you to (low-latency) live-monitor your inputs, which is ideal (as you can hear any degradation from the A-D-A conversion process).

If they differ in any way, you'll never determine whether you're losing something, and you'll be missing the sanity check that a consistent signal path provides.

[Daveyroberts]

Thanks DavidDever, I agree.  And I believe I am ensuring an identical chain to the best of my ability. The only difference when monitoring the digital recording would be the DAC, which I cannot avoid. 

[Shea]

Listening to the dry sound of a recorded tempest probably won't be as exciting as adding a few fx. This is true whether you are using a pro40 like me or an apollo. I just embrace digital once it's recorded and make it sound as good as I can as fast as I can.

I usually record in 48/16, but one thing to note is the difference in "quality" between 48 and 96 sample rate is nothing compared to the difference between 16 and 24 bit depth.

I've done multiple outs for a long time in 2016, but in 2017 I've been concentrating less on jamming and more on making recordings, so I just have the mono L going into a little mackie 802, where I add some gain. Then I send that on the alt out to my sound card when I need to record.

From there I usually pass the drums through a few effects. Lately my Waldorf 2 pole has gotten lots of use.

There is definitely some noise from the pro40, though. I like a noise bed in my tracks, but I would like an RME one day.

[RobH]

Listening to the dry sound of a recorded tempest probably won't be as exciting as adding a few fx. This is true whether you are using a pro40 like me or an apollo. I just embrace digital once it's recorded and make it sound as good as I can as fast as I can.

I usually record in 48/16, but one thing to note is the difference in "quality" between 48 and 96 sample rate is nothing compared to the difference between 16 and 24 bit depth.

I've done multiple outs for a long time in 2016, but in 2017 I've been concentrating less on jamming and more on making recordings, so I just have the mono L going into a little mackie 802, where I add some gain. Then I send that on the alt out to my sound card when I need to record.

From there I usually pass the drums through a few effects. Lately my Waldorf 2 pole has gotten lots of use.

There is definitely some noise from the pro40, though. I like a noise bed in my tracks, but I would like an RME one day.

Pro40 looks kind of like what i have with the 18i20, similar cost anyway, you'll defo know about that added noise then hahahah.

RME for both of us Shea!!!!