Tascam DM 4800 and Apogee Rosetta 200

[madehumble]

Hi all, I do agree that for the money that the converters on the Tascam DM series mixers are pretty good. I would easily put them on par with the RME Fireface line but in all honesty I have owned a Rosetta 200 and the converters are slightly better in it than the DMs. Now I own the Apogee Symphony I/O, I use it along with my DM3200 mixer and the conversion on the Symphony is better than both the Rosetta and the DM3200 and not by a small amount either. I have watch people say you won't hear a difference but I have to respectively disagree. In a good treated room, the difference is clear. With that being said, I do think the DM mixers sound good and you can make good sounding recordings with them but to put it's converters on the level of higher end converters that I can't see.

 

[TascMan]

Really old thread.

But, it brings up the same old question. What is the quality of the Dm's converters? Can they be improved upon? Will it help anything?

Cmaffia (Charlie) and I have been looking down this rabbit hole lately, with some surprising new solutions. Two solid facts live in my mind on the subject:

1, The DM's converters are excellent for what they are used for. I forget what chip is used for the converters, but I know that I have had no problems or issues with them. If you hear a difference between these converters and something else with the same specs, you are likely hearing more than just the actual conversion.

2, Being that these converters were installed somewhere around 2005 to 2006, they definitely can be improved upon with newer stuff. Technology certainly improves upon itself with time, and there has definitely been a significant amount of time since these things were originally installed. So...

Would a dedicated converter box be useful in your setup? Maybe. One of the things I have learned is that there is more to the sound of converters than just the chipset used. Especially the analog circuit used just before the conversion. If you run your signal out of your DM through a dedicated unit, you are adding that dedicated unit's 'color', if you will, to your sound via the circuitry prior to the converter chips. This new color maybe pleasing to your ears, and definitely different than the DM's. If you read about how great some of the big name expensive converters are, you may find that the circuitry used within includes some pretty cool analog signal paths, followed by converters that extend up to 192Khz., along with state of the art clocking, using crystals that are temperature controlled for maximum stability.

Also, I vaguely understand that the DM's input converts are somehow better than it's output converters. I can't verify this, but certainly would explain why they might not sound as good as something else. It again may actually be the analog circuitry coming out after the D/A conversion.

Anyway, Tascam just came out with a couple of new units that I decided to check out after Cmaffia's suggestion. The first is a 1U racked converter with a built in SD Card recorder, capable of recording at 192KHz, as well as recording to Sony's DSD. It is the Tascam DA-3000, which Cmaffia now owns. He sent me a couple of files with before/after results and the difference wasn't subtle. So, I looked into it. It runs about 800 bucks, lower on eBay, so it was a bit high for me initially, but I was intrigued.

I ended up finding a sister unit that Tascam built and came out with at the same time, the Tascam UH-7000, which is a desktop box that now resides on my monitor shelf. With the exact same circuitry as the DA3000, and 200 bucks less, I jumped on it. The UH doesn't record, but has two mic pres built in with excellent specs. Otherwise the specs are that same, as well as the circuitry. Both units utilize the latest Burr Brown op amps in their analog circuitry prior to the conversion as well as individual channel converters, something the DM doesn't have. They also can convert up to 192Khz, and, sure enough, the sample clock is regulated with a temperature controlled crystal. All of the features of the mega expensive converters for around 500 bucks. Sweet.

I have as recently as yesterday, recorded a Breedlove acoustic guitar, for a new album I am engineering, through the UH7000's pres, converting to digital within, and then sending that on through the DM, on to my DAW. I am absolutely loving it.

Upon final mixdown, I will be sending my mix out of the DM digitally and thorough this unit to add it's sound. I don't mean to plug the UH7000, but, there you go. Maybe a new converter is not a bad idea after all.
S

 

[captdan]

Intriguing discussion. Thanks for the update and findings. I may look into this rig myself.

EDIT: I just did. My interest is piqued, especially for the price - in the $500US vicinity (one on eBay starting @ $400).

Sounds like this could be a real bargain. Any further opinions and experiences welcomed.

CaptDan

 

[madehumble]

Really old thread.

Upon final mixdown, I will be sending my mix out of the DM digitally and thorough this unit to add it's sound. I don't mean to plug the UH7000, but, there you go. Maybe a new converter is not a bad idea after all.
S

Tasman, I thank you for your honesty on the subject. The UH-7000 looks like a cool unit as the DA-3000 also. One thing that you brought out that I like is the fact that the DM converters were from 2006. I think that is why it is not far behind the Rosettas converters is because it used converters from that era also. I really thought that I should revive this conversation to show people that although the DM converters are good for what they are, they definitely can be improved on!

 

[TascMan]

But the real point is that it may not be just the converters. The actual converting of analog to digital is not really that hard by today's standards. I would venture a guess that a simple swap out of the converter chip in the DMs for (not that you can do this, but if you could) a newer one with the same specs is not going to change the way you sound , no matter how expensive the new converter may be. The circuitry involved is really paramount here. Make sure you take that into consideration if you go and buy a stand alone unit. The truth is, moving your microphone to the lefty by an inch and a half may make you recordings sound much better than money spent on high end converters.

 

[TascMan]

Dan,
If you are interested in really high sample rate recordings, (two tracks at a time) I was able to record an acoustic using the UH's pres and converter to record at 192K. Of course, I had to bypass the DM for obvious reasons. I sent the signal into my DAW via the unit's USB. It has drivers that you download from Tascam, and they include a soft mixer to control the unit from your computer. The recording sounded fantastic! Too bad I can't really play my own guitar!

 

[madehumble]

But the real point is that it may not be just the converters. The actual converting of analog to digital is not really that hard by today's standards. I would venture a guess that a simple swap out of the converter chip in the DMs for (not that you can do this, but if you could) a newer one with the same specs is not going to change the way you sound , no matter how expensive the new converter may be. The circuitry involved is really paramount here. Make sure you take that into consideration if you go and buy a stand alone unit. The truth is, moving your microphone to the lefty by an inch and a half may make you recordings sound much better than money spent on high end converters.

Let me explain what I mean by improved on. I work in the Pro-Audio industry(I will not say for what company and no we do not make stand alone converters). What I was talking about was buying new converters. The Tascam is what is is now, unless someone starts to mod it. Without doing that using a better converter unit will help accomplish better conversion in your studio. And yes it is true there is more than converter chips in play with the sound of converter units. It is the analog path and also other components inside of a piece of gear as you and I both agree on.

 

[captdan]

Tascman - after you recorded the track @ 192kz, were you able to use the DM OTB in some way, or - in that scenario - does it become just a controller?

It would be nice to have 192kz capability, but 96kz is working out quite well for me. I would think, based on your reaction, that there'd be an audible upgrade using the 7000 at 96kz, too. In any case, I'm already measuring my studio desk's real estate for another addition.

CaptDan

 

[Arjan P]

IMO, 192k is successful marketing, and though the number is higher it is worse than 96k - maybe better for dogs though . As Dan Lavry has argued quite convincingly in the past, 192k introduces artifacts not seen at 96k. It is (not so) simple mathematics; Google Dan Lavry 192k for more info.

 

[TascMan]

I've heard/read the same thing, Arjan. and I am not touting normal recording at such a high SR. It was the point that it can and I tried it. In my case, recording at higher SRs is more about increased waveform reproduction...not higher bandwidth extension.

Dan, the unit works also as a purely stand alone unit via USB2. So, I had to hook my monitors up to it's line outputs (you have an option on the front to make the line outs full level or adjustable level via the phones level knob). This is the only way I was able to listen to a recorded wave file at such a high sample rate. The DM was off at the time.

Here's a shot of mine on the Ol' monitor shelf.

 

[captdan]

Good point, Arjan. I'm aware of Lavry's distaste for S/Rs above 96kz (he's intimated that 88.2 is preferable, but the jury's out on that. )

With all due respect for Dan and his superb products, I've found that it's important to read between the lines of his statements. There are some mastering engineers who've become 'Sample Rate Police,' warning everybody who even thinks to record digitally to NEVER go above 44.1 if CD audio is the end goal. They point to several of Lavry's papers as proof of that concept. But they apparently haven't read more closely, because - although Lavry has made noises along those lines - he's also insisted that 48kz is 'preferable,' because of DSP/filtering concerns. He's also suggested 88.2 and 96kz offers advantages in that way as well.

Here's my UNscientific opinion: a convertor will operate at its optimum quality when operating at optimum sample rate. The DM's converters - to my ears and in my experience - present better at 96kz than they do at 44/48. That's why I always ask DM users who're unsure of the DM's conversion if they routinely record and mix at 88.2 or 96kz. I think judging the DM conversion at lower S/Rs is misleading because it's likely not operating in the most efficient range. Further, if you look at the DM's specs, there's less signal latency at 96kz than either 48 or 44.1. That HAS to count for something quality wise.

Now - whether 192kz is better or worse, I'm not prepared to say. However, it may very well be that a unit like the U7000 might sound better at 192 than 96, simply because it's a current iteration convertor operating within its optimum target range. Perhaps statements made by audio experts need to be updated periodically because they might become obsolete in less than 1/2 decade.

Just a guess. Nothing more.

CaptDan

 

[captdan]

Dan, the unit works also as a purely stand alone unit via USB2. So, I had to hook my monitors up to it's line outputs (you have an option on the front to make the line outs full level or adjustable level via the phones level knob). This is the only way I was able to listen to a recorded wave file at such a high sample rate. The DM was off at the time.

View attachment 493 Here's a shot of mine on the Ol' monitor shelf.

Thanks for the clarification! I'm growing more intrigued by the hour.

CaptDan

 

[TascMan]

New features include doing your taxes, grocery shopping and making dinner. Just download the latest drivers.

 

[TascMan]

Actually, the only con is that they have thrown in some basic effects which can only be used one at a time at 88.2 and 96k and not at all above that. But, I didn't buy it for the effects!

 

[cmaffia]

Since I got the DA-3000, I sold my Rosetta 200 on eBay (today in fact). It was a good unit but aging as well. For the rest of you who are still using the DM3200 internal converters.. either of these Tascam units is a fine upgrade and would make you smile. I really like the DA-3000 not only because of the improved sound but also that it records. I was having issues with playing my Cubase mixes while recording simultaneously to WaveLab. I had to increase my buffers to make sure there were no pops and clicks and then have to remember to drop it back down when tracking. That problem is now eliminated. I pop out the SD card from the DA-3000, pop it into the reader in my audio workstation and master in WaveLab. Simple. Using the DA-3000 reminds me of how I used to mixdown to my Sony DAT from my TSR-8 reel-to-reel . I dig that they are separate hardware units.

 

[captdan]

"For the rest of you who are still using the DM3200 internal converters.. either of these Tascam units is a fine upgrade and would make you smile."

This forum is one of the VERY FEW I've been on where the opinions of its seasoned members carry weight. And, since you're one of those halcyon individuals, yours and Tasc's review of these Tascam units units are reason enough for me to take the plunge.

And I've got a couple of studio devices that I'd be willing to get rid of to sweeten the pot, too.

CaptDan

 

[Arjan P]

it may very well be that a unit like the U7000 might sound better at 192 than 96, simply because it's a current iteration convertor operating within its optimum target range. Perhaps statements made by audio experts need to be updated periodically because they might become obsolete in less than 1/2 decade.

I don't wanna turn this into a pro/con 192 discussion, but the essence of the case against 192k is in the maths of it - not in the quality of components. I can't reproduce the intricacies of it, but it comes down to the artifacts of conversion at 96k staying out of hearable range, and those of 192k coming back into it. Something like that - Dan Lavry's white paper says it much better..

 

[captdan]

Hey Arjan - no argument from me. I'm actually more in your camp; I prefer to believe that 192kz offers no discernible improvement and - may even cause degradation, as Lavry's math indicates. What you describe is essentially what Lavry stated, if I recall: DSP artifacts - which otherwise would fall above or below the audible range - tend to crop back into usable bandwidths at 192kz and above, causing processing errors.

Then again, I'm trying to keep an open mind to other opinions and data as well. I was once a huge naysayer about using anything higher than 24/48, mostly because I hadn't really delved into it myself, using my own gear, and coming to my own conclusions. After doing so, I completely reversed my viewpoint. I may very well do that again someday. Or - maybe not.

In any event, I enjoy revisiting these topics every so often here. In my biased opinion, folks who use DM boards have already demonstrated good judgement by owning them, so their ongoing opinions and findings are valuable.

CaptDan

 

[TascMan]

I could do another 192 sample on my acoustic, if you are needing something to listen too, Dan. I will be tracking a bass from 10-1 EDT but could do it after that and email it to you. However, it would have to be short. The file size is outrageous. Probably a gig for 20 seconds!
I am thinking that the only artifacts you will hear are my non guitar playing skills.

 

[captdan]

Hey St...I mean - Mr Tascman, sir ( ), that would be great! Thing is, I'd prefer to also have a clip of the material done straight into the DM for comparison. If you could arrange that, and send 'em in 128kbs MP3 (more than adequate for comparison sake), I'd very much appreciate that!

Thanks!

CaptDan