Topic: UA-5>H120: worth upgrading to >D50?

[sunjan]

I'm racking my brain about which piece in my gear chain to upgrade, and would love some advice.

At the moment, I'm usually running my AT853>UA-5 wmod>H120 rig.
The way security works over here, I don't mind stealthing a bulky gear bag, but once inside, lo-pro mics are essential.
At paranoid venues I run AT853>CA-9100>H120.

I was considering moving to 24bit, and there aren't really that many bit buckets to put behind the UA-5.
Someone is offering me a D50 at a pretty good price (around $200). Would it make sense to put the D50 into the "bulky rig" just for the sake of getting 24bit? Is UA-5>D50 a good combo? Or could I just as well get a MTII and spend less?
Or should I offload my UA-5 and use the proceeds on an all-in-one (PMD661?!) for venues with sloppy security?
Any ideas appreciated.

[barrettphisher]

I think that there were issues going UA5>D50 search the team threads.
Barrett

[jbell]

2 bills for a Sony D50!  Not sure about the UA-5 and D50 having issues, but that is a great price.  I would grab it!! 

[sunjan]

I think that there were issues going UA5>D50 search the team threads.

Thanks for highlighting this, I was totally unaware!
Found the explanation here:
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=95964.msg1671535#msg1671535

So it seems that most people suggest Littlebox as an analog frontend to the D50 in my price bracket (can't afford a V3 or exotic stuff).
But then, wouldn't it make more sense to go Littlebox>M10, assuming that the AD on both Sony recorders are similar?

Or does D50 have any advantages vs. M10? I don't care much for the internal mics and metal housing.
If the price is roughly the same, I don't see the point carrying the extra weight.

I know $200 is cheap, but I'm afraid I won't be using the D50 to its full potential if I can't pair it with the UA-5.

[jlykos]

I have no idea if there are differences between the line-in and A/D between the D50 and the M10.  Did Leonard ever run tests to compare these two units?  His tests with the D50 vs the R09HR and other models were invaluable.

$200 for a D50 is a steal and I would pick it up for that reason alone.  I think that you would pay more than that for even a used M10.

I heard Todd's tests of the Littlebox vs. the V3 and while I could detect the difference, they were very close.  I think that Littlebox > D50 would be an excellent combination.  It looks like the Littlebox is also holding its resale value fairly well if you want to sell one to upgrade in the future to a V3 or something like that.

If the A/D and line-in in the MTII are the same as the original MT, avoid.  Thin and harsh.  The D50 would be a much better option.  The line-in sounds a bit dark, but I like that anyway and the A/D in it is outstanding.

[acidjack]

IMHO, considering the mics you are running off of, and that you have the Church pre, I would consider maybe either (a) upgrading the mics first or (b) upgrading the deck to an M10 or something like that.  Fine, it's not all digital, but I think CA9100>M10 would sound pretty great.  The D50 seems kind of pointless if you do a lot of lowpro work and the only reason you want it is the digital in.  Not knocking the D50, just don't think that makes much sense for you.

Personally, I'd see if you like any of the mics that are possible upgrades to the 853s, like the Audix 1280c with church cable  (arguably an upgrade, depending how you like the sound of it), an active setup involving AKG ck91 or other similar types of caps, or maybe the Countryman B3 (no personal experience, I just know Richard likes them a lot). 

Or, I'd put an M10 behind the CA100 or UA5... Mainly just so you have a deck that's 24bit, has a better ADC, and isn't HDD based. I'd also consider cheaper options like the new Tascam DR-08 also. 

Littlebox is nothing to shake a stick at, either (love mine).. I just think you are probably, for lowpro work, better off relying mainly on the 9100.

[SmokinJoe]

If you have a good playback system and want to play back 24/48 or 24/96 recordings, then maybe it's worth it.

If you are going to record at 24 bit, dither/resample to 16/44 and then just listen to that, I really don't think you will hear an improvement.

Speaking honestly for myself, I really think "I drank the 24bit Cool-aid" a couple of years ago and all I have to show for it is a lot of hard drive space clogged with 24bit files I don't use.  When I bought my R4, I bought it for 4 channels, and I use 4 channels for AUD/SBD a lot so in that sense it was worth it.  But also at that point I went to 24 bit just because I could and because I thought that's what I should do.  I suppose it's good that I have 24 bit masters for "someday" when/if 24bit playback becomes ubiquitous, but I know in reality I will never go back and retrack that stuff.  So my point is knowing what I know now, I wouldn't drop any serious money on upgrading to 24bit just for the sake of 24bit.

[rastasean]

Wow, this is all excellent advice and I think it should be a sticky.

Personally, I don't like the d50 enough to upgrade. I think optical for digi is silly since this is a field recorder and they should have done the coaxial cable. butttt, you can get it for $200. 

A couple points on 24 bit. If you record in 48/24, you of course have the ability to make it 16/44.1 in the final for burning on CD and during recording you can put the levels a little higher. A lot of people say that you can go to -12 (and maybe even a little higher) without any issues of distortion when recording. We know these few things. However, if you get a 24 bit machine you have the functionality to record at 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/48, 24/88.2 (on the 09hr for example), or 24/96. So you can always and easily record at the standard 16/44.1 and take up less storage space on hard drives and not have to dither down to this format. I think 24 bit is a good upgrade but I wouldn't be surprised if people started recording at 24/192 on their r-44s or dr-680s.

[mattmiller]

A lot of people say that you can go to -12 (and maybe even a little higher) without any issues of distortion when recording.

I think you've got this backwards.  The advantage of 24-bit recording is that, with a lower noise floor, you can record with the levels LOWER, leaving yourself more headroom for those sudden volume spikes.  With less noise, you can then raise the levels MORE in post to bring them up where you want them (without having to worry about raising the volume of the noise).  As a result, the dynamic range that you can handle is significantly greater at 24-bit.

[fmaderjr]

I think 24 bit is a good upgrade but I wouldn't be surprised if people started recording at 24/192 on their r-44s or dr-680s.

I agree with SmokinJoe about the 24 bit Cool-aide. I like using 24 bit, but my recordings don't really sound better than my 16 bit ones. I could record at -12 dB ( or even a good bit lower) in 16 bit too and not hear added noise when I converted the files to 32 bit in Adobe Audition before doing the boosting.

24/44.1 is more than good enough for me and I wouldn't dream of recording at 24/88.2 let alone 24/192. No way you'd convince me I'd hear a difference.

[jlykos]

I think 24 bit is a good upgrade but I wouldn't be surprised if people started recording at 24/192 on their r-44s or dr-680s.

I agree with SmokinJoe about the 24 bit Cool-aide. I like using 24 bit, but my recordings don't really sound better than my 16 bit ones. I could record at -12 dB ( or even a good bit lower) in 16 bit too and not hear added noise when I converted the files to 32 bit in Adobe Audition before doing the boosting.

24/44.1 is more than good enough for me and I wouldn't dream of recording at 24/88.2 let alone 24/192. No way you'd convince me I'd hear a difference.

I record at 24/96 exclusively and I notice a significant difference between that and 16/44.1.  Then again, I have a fairly nice mid-level stereo setup so I can notice these things.  I really can't detect too much difference between 24/48 and 24/96, but there is a magnitude of difference between 24-bit and 16-bit recordings, at least to my ears.

[fmaderjr]

Maybe it's just my aging ears, but I listen with quality headphones (Sennheiser HD600) and can't hear a difference between a good 16 bit recording and 24 bit. We all do what works for us, I guess.

I like to record in 24 bit for extra safely when I have to boost levels a lot, but other than that I'd be happy with good 16 bit gear.

[SmokinJoe]

Like I said, if you have a good playback system and can hear the difference, than it's worth probably worth spending money for 24bit bitbucket.  If you don't, then I would recommend spending the money to upgrade mics, etc.

I think that in some cases there is an unspoken implication that people who still record at 16bit are second class citizens.  I don't believe that's true at all now, but that's why I upgraded... because another taper that I respected asked me at a show "when are you going to upgrade to 24 bit?"  And I think that's a really poor reason. 

My other point is that I think there is a generalized belief that recording at 24/96 and converting to 16/44 will "obviously" sound much better than recording at 16/44.   I don't believe that.  To me the quality of the outcome is almost entirely decided at the analog level, right up to the point where the signal enters the A/D.  Meaning if I record using my V3 > 16bit H120 with the V3's ASN dither feature enabled, versus running V3 digi out > SD722 at 24/192, and then dither and resample to 16/44 so I can burn CD's, I don't think there is huge difference.  In fact, if the dither/resample is done with really crappy software, it might be worse.

Running analog in > H120 versus analog in > D50... that's a different story.  You have probably just made an improvement, but the majority is because you improved the analog chain and the actual A/D converter, and only a tiny bit is because you flipped that D50 switch between 16bit and 24bit.  It's like a digital camera... if you have a fantastic lens on a fantastic camera and take pictures at 2megapixels, they will look better than a $100 point and shoot which generates a 10megapixel image, because resolution isn't the only decider of quality.

[runonce]

Like I said, if you have a good playback system and can hear the difference, than it's worth probably worth spending money for 24bit bitbucket.  If you don't, then I would recommend spending the money to upgrade mics, etc.

I think that in some cases there is an unspoken implication that people who still record at 16bit are second class citizens.  I don't believe that's true at all now, but that's why I upgraded... because another taper that I respected asked me at a show "when are you going to upgrade to 24 bit?"  And I think that's a really poor reason. 

My other point is that I think there is a generalized belief that recording at 24/96 and converting to 16/44 will "obviously" sound much better than recording at 16/44.   I don't believe that.  To me the quality of the outcome is almost entirely decided at the analog level, right up to the point where the signal enters the A/D.  Meaning if I record using my V3 > 16bit H120 with the V3's ASN dither feature enabled, versus running V3 digi out > SD722 at 24/192, and then dither and resample to 16/44 so I can burn CD's, I don't think there is huge difference.  In fact, if the dither/resample is done with really crappy software, it might be worse.

Running analog in > H120 versus analog in > D50... that's a different story.  You have probably just made an improvement, but the majority is because you improved the analog chain and the actual A/D converter, and only a tiny bit is because you flipped that D50 switch between 16bit and 24bit.  It's like a digital camera... if you have a fantastic lens on a fantastic camera and take pictures at 2megapixels, they will look better than a $100 point and shoot which generates a 10megapixel image, because resolution isn't the only decider of quality.

Well said, Joe...

There was a thread the other day where one reply suggested that the noise in his recording was the result of using a 16 bit recorder... But it illustrated this notion that there is some "obvious" differences between 16 and 24.

 

To me the quality of the outcome is almost entirely decided at the analog level

Truer words have never been said!

Level control and mix of gear will define the sound...at least the sound that people are listening to the music will hear. I think listening to gear is a whole other trip.

That said - I think using 24 bits is a good idea...just for the sake of it being technically superior...the math of resolution says so. You don't need hear anything.

To the posters point - I think one of the weaknesses of the Ua5 is its metering is not very good. one peak light for two channels. Unless you're seriously wed to that Oade warmth...an upgrade might be a pre that offered better metering...and a different sound.

[sunjan]

IMHO, considering the mics you are running off of, and that you have the Church pre, I would consider maybe either (a) upgrading the mics first or (b) upgrading the deck to an M10 or something like that.  Fine, it's not all digital, but I think CA9100>M10 would sound pretty great.  The D50 seems kind of pointless if you do a lot of lowpro work and the only reason you want it is the digital in.  Not knocking the D50, just don't think that makes much sense for you.

Acidjack's reasoning was an eye-opener.
The way I'm leaning now; if I can't pair the D50 with the UA-5, I'd have to upgrade the pre as well for my "bulky rig". That would require a bit more thinking (going the littlebox way or not, or getting an all-in-one instead).
And for the stealth rig, D50 doesn't offer the size advantages of M10, R-09HR etc.

I'm tempted to pick up the D50 just for the heck of it, but it would detract money from getting other gear that you guys suggested. Thanks a lot everybody for your advice, TS.com proves to be a great community over and over again!