Preamp disablement

[Phil.c]

Here's a quick comparison using a bass guitar, the six files are every other so, the first is using the ISA's Instrument as a DI into the d8b line in, using the preamp, the second is the same but using the insert, there is a difference, i'll let you decide

https://app.box.com/s/17g8g1ivxw5t82w7wx0dlgabut91ejpg

[Y-my-R]

I didn't have a chance to listen on decent speakers, yet, but on the PC speakers I use on my work computer, I cannot tell the difference. Probably fine to record through the insert when mixing for online consumption/mp3/streaming

But as I mentioned... I'm not that great at noticing subtle differences anyway, and to pinpoint what was recorded with the better setup.
I only know that my mixes usually come out better, if I record through my good pre-amp, vs using budget/built-in pre-amps in audio interfaces or budget mixers, etc. As mentioned, in my personal opinion, the main benefit of using high-end pres during recording, is because the tracks stack/mix better with more clarity/transparency, compared to using budget pres.

Little story on the side on that:
In the early 2000's I was working for a manufacturer of audio interfaces, etc. (not Mackie - never worked there), and we had just released our first 96 kHz capable audio interface. Of course there were lots of co-workers who claimed that they can tell the difference EASILY, between a project recorded at 44.1/48 or 88.2/96 kHz. That was a big show-off thing back then, hahaha.
To settle this, the company did a blind shootout, playing mixes that were recorded at different sample rates, and on TOP of it, threw in a bunch of 128 kbit and 256 kbit MP3 files, to mess with people.

The result of this was, that NOBODY (AT ALL!!!!) got all the 48 vs 96 kHz answers right. Not even close. It was rather random.
Plenty of people were able to pick out the 128 kHz MP3... but it was pretty rare that anybody caught the 256 kbit MP3.

...and that was a group of audio professionals, with most of them also playing/recording/mixing music as a hobby.

So, that reassured me back then, that I'll keep recording at 44.1/24-bit (...and also why I don't mind that the D8B can't go any higher)... high resolution audio files were too large for the harddrives I had available back then, to just do high-res for the sake of it... but I really don't miss that.

I was never part of a blind pre-amp shoot-out... but if routing a single audio source through different preamps and blindly comparing them, my guess is that about one in 10 hobby-audio-engineers would be able to tell. I'm one of the 9

Still, interesting to get to compare! Thanks, Phil!

[Phil.c]

To be honest the difference is very small but the file with the d8b's pre is slightly bassier and more overdriven if that's the right word, the Focusright, is a tad cleaner, which when recorded over 24 tracks makes a difference.

I once noticed a small amount of noise on my friends gear, about 3dbs, he said that's nothing, I replied you're right, but 3dbs on 24 tracks comes to 72 dbs of noise!

[Crash]

Little story on the side on that:
In the early 2000's I was working for a manufacturer of audio interfaces, etc. (not Mackie - never worked there), and we had just released our first 96 kHz capable audio interface. Of course there were lots of co-workers who claimed that they can tell the difference EASILY, between a project recorded at 44.1/48 or 88.2/96 kHz. That was a big show-off thing back then, hahaha.
To settle this, the company did a blind shootout, playing mixes that were recorded at different sample rates, and on TOP of it, threw in a bunch of 128 kbit and 256 kbit MP3 files, to mess with people.

The result of this was, that NOBODY (AT ALL!!!!) got all the 48 vs 96 kHz answers right. Not even close. It was rather random.
Plenty of people were able to pick out the 128 kHz MP3... but it was pretty rare that anybody caught the 256 kbit MP3.

...and that was a group of audio professionals, with most of them also playing/recording/mixing music as a hobby.

So, that reassured me back then, that I'll keep recording at 44.1/24-bit (...and also why I don't mind that the D8B can't go any higher)... high resolution audio files were too large for the harddrives I had available back then, to just do high-res for the sake of it... but I really don't miss that.

I was never part of a blind pre-amp shoot-out... but if routing a single audio source through different preamps and blindly comparing them, my guess is that about one in 10 hobby-audio-engineers would be able to tell. I'm one of the 9

Still, interesting to get to compare! Thanks, Phil!

I've had arguments with live guys that claim they can hear the difference in the desks running 96khz versus 44.1khz. It's all in their head. There is no way they can hear that sort of difference in a giant cavernous arena.

I remember an article in EQ magazine I believe it was, where they did a shootout with a bunch of different amp sims versus real amps, and that too had "golden eared" people all over the map in regards to a sim versus the real thing.

[Phil.c]

Hi-Fi magazines used to get me as there were people who could tell the difference with sound using different speaker cables and to top that, with plugs coated in gold as opposed to standard!

[captainamerica]

yep....i remember reading all about cable qualities and types of connectors as well.

[nuss]

im n ot surprised at the difference in your experiments...... using the line ins on the d8b your STILL using mackies op amps. the only way to truly bypass it all is with the insert return as that has no line amp and is POST preamp.

My D8b is now retired and has only been used as a controller for the last couple years but back in the day when i had my "big" studio, that is how we ran the D8B daily.......the mackie pre's were only used as utility pre's and when used, only on non-critical sources

[Phil.c]

Sorry, I typed that wrong, I used the inserts NOT the line-in, there is a sound difference but better listened to with headphones.

[Bruce Graham]

Hey Phil;
Haven't listen to your sample but I will play them over my Mixing speakers and not my computer speakers.

Crash/Y-MY-R
My experience, with regard to 48 versus 96 all has to do with editing and presevation of the signal.
During editing, many, many edits, some noise, artifacts, and general digital crap, does get added. It can be noticable at 48kHz under good listening condiition. At 96kHz the noise during the same editing process, is not heard, nor measured. The preservation part makes sense, to me, to have the highest quality of a more "bullet proof" signal. More samples, more Dynamic Range and signal-to-noise.
There is no way that anyone would hear the different between 48 & 96 as you said. Not possible. Even under ideal conditions, only the truley gifted listeners would have a chance at hearing the different.
All this is my opinion and my experience.
Cheers.
Bruce

[Y-my-R]

At the risk of sounding like an insufferable know-it-all... my understanding is this:

Higher Bit Depth --> More Dynamic Range
Higher Sample Rate --> Increased frequency range (upwards)

Many modern DAWs do their internal processing at 32-Bit, as the increased precision keeps things cleaner when doing a lot of edits/processing.
"Floating Point" processing is also related to better audio quality during processing... but even those two features don't seem to be critical/audible to a lot of engineers, since Pro Tools didn't have either feature for a long time, while most other DAWs had both for years, before PT followed suit. The "Pros" still continued to praise Pro Tools as if it was the only viable choice (LOL).
So, an increased bit depth absolutely makes sense, and will have a direct and audible impact on dynamic range (e.g. if you want to record an explosion and a whisper in the same take, better record at the highest bit-depth available).

Sample rate, on the other hand, is all about the frequency range that gets reproduced. I'm sure everyone's heard of the "Nyquist Theorem" - it basically says, that in digital audio, you have to record at double the sample rate, than the frequency you want to capture.
So, if you want to capture signals up to 22,000 Hz (human hearing goes to about 20 kHz, before that rolls off with age/damage to the ears), you record at 44.1 kHz.
If you need to record a dog whistle or the sound bats make, you can capture them at 96 kHz (or higher).

Edits at higher vs lower sample rates don't usually make a difference from my experience, as long as you cut at a zero crossing. If you zoom into a wave-form down to the sample level, you just see many "dots" (each sample) in a row that form your waveform. For 88.2 kHz, you just have twice as many dots/samples than for 44.1 kHz, and because they get played back so quickly at high sample rates, their frequency of playback is high enough to reproduce high frequencies in the recorded material... so, for 88.2 kHz, up to around 44,000 Hz.

If you also have speakers that can reproduce frequencies higher than 20 kHz (rare, but they exist), you can drive your dog (bat-)shit crazy

Of course humans can't hear frequencies this high at all... but the argument many made about higher frequencies was, that it just sounds "smoother" because the samples get played back in such fast succession and that aliasing is pushed out of the audible range. But as much as this may be true in theory, hardly anybody can reliably tell the difference, anyway.

But again... from an editing perspective, the sample rate doesn't really do much to keep audio clean, from my understanding. But it's also VERY possible, that I have a giant blind-spot when it comes to that (if so, sorry for blabbering on about this on here, anyway).

What a higher sample rate DOES help with, is latency. You can run lower latencies at 88.2/96 kHz than you can at 44.1/48 kHz. I think it has something to do with how quickly the buffer is read out, but I always get confused about that.

Anyway... I'll happily keep working at 44.1kHz/24-bit. If they'll ever make 32-bit converters, I'll upgrade and will record at 44.1/32-bit (and since the D8B can't deal with that, that's the time when it will have to go)... but I don't personally see a benefit in recording at higher sample rates.