I would like to step up my recording quality, if possible for $2000 or less, yet keep the chain as simple as possible. Most stuff is direct however we have 2X LA610MkII mic pres and a nice Rode K2 for vocals and several other nice mics for acoustic stuff. So I am thinking this bump will need to be in the audio interface.
I use an iMac on OSX Yosemite. I have USB and Firewire 800, no Thunderbolt. I use Logic Pro 9 and Logic X via Focusrite Saffire 40 and a RME Babyface.
I don't need a lot of channels as I primarily do 1 or 2 channels at a time. I have no trouble selling the Saffire but I would not want to sell the Babyface unless it was to get another device with similar portability.
Any recommendations to move more towards professional recordings would be appreciated.
I think you've gotten some really good advice so far. If I can weigh in here, I'd like to. Please research this stuff before you listen to me and make your own decision....
Huge post here, but I know a little something about this and wanted to share it in full. Worst case, print and read on the throne as it may make better sense.
I have been in the recording field for over 38 years. I have no Grammy awards nor do I have any awards at all to show you. I have an incredible business that is booked solid until early 2017 and have worked with some well-known artists for both mixing and mastering as well as producing...and I myself am a musician.
Now anyone can come on a forum and tell you that. So I'm no one special. However, I sincerely believe that in all the years I've been doing this, there is more hype than actual differences. Today, the converters used are so good, you really don't need to worry much about this. I can record something for you right now through a stock Realtek soundcard at 16/44 that will sound nearly as good as if I recorded it using my Apogee, my RME FF800 or any of the other interfaces I have around here.
You're only going to get so much out of a converter. Those that notice differences are probably coming from some really old gear or gear that had REALLY crappy converters to begin with. Even there...as I said, the right guy running the session will yield great results no matter what he uses. Too much time is spent on things like insane sampling rates and converters where people are failing miserably at other things that are MORE important.
Here are a few examples....
Rooms: This can help you or hurt you. Most of the recordings today do not allow us to hear much of the room being involved in the recording. When was the last time you heard drums like John Bonham? Most drums are close mic'd with barely any room to be heard. Reverb is a no no today and we rarely hear vocals with big room ambiance. With verbs and impulses, you have to use so little, no one knows you even have them on. I've recorded bands in the worst rooms known to man and have been as successful in them as I have the really good rooms with supposedly great acoustics. What you get from the band as well as what you know plays more of a role than any room.
Sampling rates higher than 48kHz: Huge myth in my opinion and not even needed. When you have a great interface, you shouldn't even be able to tell between 48 and 192 UNLESS you are recording instruments that are NOT sonic. For example, if you record an orchestra with mic's all over....natural sounding instruments will be a little more crisp. Distorted guitar, direct recorded guitars and anything with a sonic, driven sound, will not change drastically.
If you pass a sampling rate test to where you can tell the difference in this stuff, I urge you to take some really good blind tests when you are not the one pressing the buttons. The comparisons also have to be recorded from the ground up in those sampling rates....you don't just convert something and hear a difference. No matter what you read, no matter what some guru says...no matter how wrong or right the math is....it's a waste of hard drive space as well as computer resources in my opinion and I'll tell you why I feel that way. (But hey, if you notice a difference....and you had to listen more than 3 times to THINK you heard a difference....well, do you think anyone else will know?
Always do what you feel is best...but do not automatically buy into the hype.)
I have been locked at 24/48 here for years and have tested extensively to 192. There are no differences that make me say "oh man, I so gotta stay locked here!" If you think I'm out of my tree, record songs at whatever sample rate you want. 30 seconds each and make sure you record the same parts without messing up the performance to tip you off that you used a specific rate.
After you're done, label the pieces A, B, C, D etc and label A=44, B=48, C=88, D=96 etc all the way up to 192 if need be....and get a piece of paper out. Get your wife, girlfriend, son, daughter, friend etc to launch the songs at random while they write down which letters they launched so you can't see. While this is happening, you write down which you think is which. At the end of the test, tell them to launch specific letters, but not to use any order.
For example, if you want to try and tell 24/48 and 24/192 apart....tell them to launch B and K, but they are not to tell you which one they are launching. Have them add wild cards...meaning, launch one two times to see if you can even tell there was a change. I'll bet you $1 you lose and don't get them right. When you don't press the magic button and see that big sampling rate for yourself, the game changes. The only sample rate that we should hear a difference in MAY be 16/44. Anything above, with good converters, shouldn't matter. But hey...try it and see.
Now here's a kicker....in the world of everyone trying for analog sounds, why on earth would we want anything to be crispier at a higher sample rate if that were the case? We already have plenty of headroom. I just don't get it. Also, higher sample rates don't make sounds bigger like say...1/4 tape compared to 2 inch tape. You literally get a sound size increase from bigger tape. You do not get that same sound size growth in digital audio. So I'll never buy into the huge sampling rate myth. I can't hear it here enough to waste time with.
(Continued)
