Behringer eurotrack UB802 - Griffin imic VS cables VS UA-1EX

[ketherk]

Hi everyone,

This will be a post with my observations so far as well as some questions that hopefully someone can help with.

So I've gathered the equipment to make a podcast and here's what I have:
Behringer eurotrack UB802
An average Dixon MD1178 dynamic mic
My desktop computer


1 - In order to connect the mixer to computer - I have tried the Griffin Imic
This works really well and it's nice because you don't need to fiddle with wires that go into the soundcard. You just connect the red and the white ends of the IMic to the red and white ends (Tape out) on the mixer and the other end goes into the computer via USB. I have also found that the Gain on the mixer needs to be set much lower (relative to the next method) in order to get good volume. The quality is very good. Price for the Imic in Canada 50 dollars

or

2 - I have also connected the mixer to the computer via the red and white (Tape in /tape out) plugs on the mixer that go to line in and line out in the souncard. This also works very well and the quality is the same to my ear. The only difference is that the Gain on the mixer needs to be higher (possibly introducing a bit more noise). Quality still very good. Price for the 2 sets of Rca wires 10 Canadian dollars.

Ok now my questions - that have to do with Bit rate.

I record the podcast using Audacity. Is there any difference in the quality of the recording between these 2 methods? The Griffin Imic says the conversion from analog to digital takes place at 16bit/48KHz (without additional sofware)

How does this compare with the cables scenario? What is the conversion rate using the cables?

I've heard 24 bit is better. Is this true? does this make a difference?

There is another device I've read about called UA-1EX by EDIROL (100 dollars in canada). and this one works at 24-bit/96kHz - is this one better than the Imic? In the longrun is it a better purchase?

thanks everyone!
Ketherk

[roadrageradio]

How does this compare with the cables scenario? What is the conversion rate using the cables?

The answer depends on whether the A to D converter in the iMic is better or worse than the A to D converter in the sound card.

The conversion rate would be set by the soundcard driver, or whatever software came with it. I would be willing to bet that it is 16 bit 44.1 KHz because that is the nearly universal default for non-professional sound and it's also the setting used by audio CDs.


There is another device I've read about called UA-1EX by EDIROL (100 dollars in canada). and this one works at 24-bit/96kHz - is this one better than the Imic?

Without ever using either one, I would say yes, anything Edirol makes is likely to be better quality than the iMic.

In the longrun is it a better purchase?

Since you already have the iMic, and, assuming you have the 100 bucks, the answer is another question. What could you spend $100 on that would improve your audio quality more?

[ketherk]

Thanks so much for that detailed reply! of course it leads to a touch more clarification though....

I've heard 24 bit is better. Is this true? does this make a difference? Seems logical to me that 24 bit is better. But will my untrained ear notice it? will anyone else's?

I CAN exchange that Imic for the UA-1EX by EDIROL so the difference is 50 bucks.

If I'm a big dreamer and dream of making a cd one day - or getting higher quality recordings, should I make the exchange?. I'm in no way rich but I'm prepared to pay the extra 50 as an initial investment.

Thanks again everyone,

I hope to contribute regularly once I learn a few more things.

Ketherk

[roadrageradio]

24 bits give you more dynamic range than 16, so it's better, if you need more dynamic range.

[Reaching for Lucidity]

I CAN exchange that Imic for the UA-1EX by EDIROL so the difference is 50 bucks.

If I'm a big dreamer and dream of making a cd one day - or getting higher quality recordings, should I make the exchange?. I'm in no way rich but I'm prepared to pay the extra 50 as an initial investment.

Thanks again everyone,

I hope to contribute regularly once I learn a few more things.

Ketherk

Believe it or not, I personally think that I learned more by producing my show on the inferior computer soundcard, audacity, and cheap mic than I ever would have with upgraded equipment.

Save your money now and learn how to manipulate your sound with what you have, which is not bad equipment. If you can get yourself sounding great on that, then when you do upgrade you will be ahead of the game. Going to high tech at first may actually rob you of experience.

Save now and upgrade as you go along. The UB802 is not bad, I myself use the UB1204FX with a Beringer condenser mic and run it through a usb m-audio setup, but I started on much less and learned how to maximize sound which helped in the long run.

[mental-escher]

Believe it or not, I personally think that I learned more by producing my show on the inferior computer soundcard, audacity, and cheap mic than I ever would have with upgraded equipment.

Words of wisdom![/quote]

[roadrageradio]

The equipment you have now is not bad. It is more than adequate for your immediate needs. Getting really good audio equipment will require more zeroes in the price than 100 dollars. So I would join in the advice others have given. Use what you have until you can clearly tell that the equipment is limiting your progress. That day may never come.

Two conflicting true stories on the subject of whether to buy good gear first or learn more from overcoming the challenges of low-end gear:

When I learned to drive, I was advised to learn on a standard transmission, because then I could drive any vehicle. I did just that, and it was a lot slower and harder learning to drive my dad's broken down old truck.

When I took guitar lessons, my teacher said I would never learn the chords properly because I had a cheap guitar with a warped finger board. He let me try his guitar, and it was like a dream compared to the beast I had. But it didn't make sense to buy an expensive guitar when I couldn't play very well.

I never learned to play guitar, and grew to be a bitter old man, who drives a 5 speed stick shift car, podcasts, and posts on forums.

[mental-escher]

I never learned to play guitar, and grew to be a bitter old man, who drives a 5 speed stick shift car, podcasts, and posts on forums.

:lol:

But AJ does a **** good podcast!

[shepdave]

Believe it or not, I personally think that I learned more by producing my show on the inferior computer soundcard, audacity, and cheap mic than I ever would have with upgraded equipment.

Save your money now and learn how to manipulate your sound with what you have, which is not bad equipment. If you can get yourself sounding great on that, then when you do upgrade you will be ahead of the game. Going to high tech at first may actually rob you of experience.

Save now and upgrade as you go along. The UB802 is not bad, I myself use the UB1204FX with a Beringer condenser mic and run it through a usb m-audio setup, but I started on much less and learned how to maximize sound which helped in the long run.

While I understand AJ's point (because I had the same experience: I didn't really learn to play the guitar well until I bought a Martin D-18 guitar), I do agree with the above advice.

The thing about home/amateur sound equipment and software available to us nowadays is that even the cheapest stuff is MILES ahead of what you would have used 20 years ago: an analog cassette-based 8-track deck. In other words, I don't think there really is a level of computer audio equipment now that compares with a cheap Sears Silvertone guitar from the 1970s. The cheapest crap is way better than that.

The UB802 mixer is a bit hissy/noisy, and doesn't have I/O insert points, but it is indeed quite decent. I used it myself for the first 6 months of my podcast. And even cheap microphones available nowadays are very good. MXL990=cheap but good. I use a couple Behringer B-1s most of the time. Cheap but good.

Learn the correct levels at which to record. (This will take you longer than you think it will to get it right.)
Learn to make the entire house quiet when you record. (No air conditioning in the summer, no furnace in the winter during sessions.)
Learn to surround yourself with pillows/blankets/carpets to absolutely deaden the "sound zone" in which you record.
Learn the restrained and judicious use of (free) compressor and reverb plugins. Learn to remove hiss by de-amplifying "silent" spots in your track by -20 to -30 dB. (Just make quiet the places where there isn't other speaking or noise. DON'T INSERT SILENCE--just reduce the level of the noise that's there. Learning this hiss-reduction trick radically improved the sound of my podcast. The first thing the listener heard was not hiss, but my voice.)
Once you get all this right, then if you still feel like buying fancy stuff, go for it.

However, now that I've learned all those tricks and techniques, I find that podcasting is about the cheapest hobby I've ever had. I haven't bought new toys in over a year. No need to. I now know what to do to make it sound good.

Dave

[oldradioguy]

surprisingly enough, when i started out in "podcasting" i was was rather clueless. mainly because i'd come from an extensive career in commercial radio. i researched, asked questions, then researched some more. THEN...it hit me...the LAST commerical radio station that i was op director for - and occasionally engineered for - used a no-name computer and (thru line input) fed their high dollar arakis board into a no-name soundcard that probably cost 20 bucks. they used an automation software (now defunct) called wave station. 24 hours a day, the darned station sounded like ANY other other station on the air, no worries. granted the board was over $6k and the mike was an re20....BUT feed it through a 20 buck soundcard and what do you get? from what i've seen, podcasters seem to be "hung up" on equipment (heck, i was, too). that's cool, the more the merrier. but, lets face it, the average "joe/jane" that's listening to our podcasts is probably listening on the speakers that came with their computer or the headset with an ipod or mp3 player...akin to a car radio. whatever equipment it takes to get the job done is probably a good rule. personally, i'd always go for "content" rather than worrying about equipment, these days. do a professional job of presentation, editing, AND watch your noise and levels...and you're cool. your milage mary vary. void where prohibited. :D

[Skell DM Cob #37]

Learn the restrained and judicious use of (free) compressor and reverb plugins.
Dave


Would you point me in the direction of said free compressor software? If I can get something free instead of buying a hardware compressor/limiter from a music shop I'm all for it.

[shepdave]

Would you point me in the direction of said free compressor software? If I can get something free instead of buying a hardware compressor/limiter from a music shop I'm all for it.
Well, I do my podcast on a Macintosh. I believe, however, that there is a Windows version for this plug-in as well.

My favorite compressor plug-in is Blockfish, which is part of the Fish Fillets suite. It is a VST OR Apple AU plug-in that can be found here (http://www.digitalfishphones.com/main.php?item=2&subItem=5).

[ptfigg]

Look into this as well:

http://podcastrigs.com/?p=91

-ptfigg.
podcastrigs.com

[Skell DM Cob #37]

Many thanks, and if I can figure them out and they help my recordings I will give credit where credit is due.

[WildeGeek]

24 bits give you more dynamic range than 16, so it's better, if you need more dynamic range.
True, but most podcasters, for the kind of content they're creating, don't even need 16 bits.

Each bit give you about 6dB more dynamic range. This breaks down a bit when you get below 6 bits, but it's a good predictor for higher bit depths.

The phone system, for example, uses a 8bit/8kHz encoding. So your theoretical maximum dynamic range on a land-line phone call is 48dB.

A typical 16bit/44.1kHz CD, sound card, and so on as a theoretical dynamic range of 96dB. Most analog to digital converters in computer sound cards rarely achieve this, because they can't afford to manufacture the cards with adequately clean power supplies and electrical noise isolation. I've seen computer sound cards with signal-to-noise ratios as bad as 55dB.

A 24 bit converter should give you a dynamic range of 144dB. But for a wide range of confounding technical reasons, not even the very most expensive, esoteric, professional A/D converters can do better than about 120dB.

Now lets look at how much dynamic range you really want in your podcast.

Most audiologists agree that exposure to even short bursts of 120db-SPL is damaging to your hearing. All-day exposures to 90dB-SPL are considered damaging. So lets say that the maximum a sane listener is going to subject themselves to are brief peaks at 100dB-SPL.

Most environments that we reside in are noisy. I once found a place in the desert where the background noise level was 19dB-SPL. It was spooky; I could hear the blood pumping through the vessels inside my ear. Some very expensive anechoic chambers can get down below 15dB-SPL, but most people will never experience one. High-end recording studios are happy if they have a background noise level below 24dB-SPL.

The background noise in a typical suburban home is on the high 40's dB-SPL. Urban locations can range higher, into the 60's. The road noise inside of cars can range from 65 to 80 dB-SPL.

So the dynamic range of real life, for most people, is between 20dB (100dB - 80dB = 20dB in the car) and 55dB (100dB - 45dB = 55dB in a quiet home).

Most commercial radio stations use compressors that can keep most of their output within a 3dB range. Most public radio stations compress to a 9dB range for talk and 15dB for music. Some classical music stations compress to 20dB.

If you want your podcast to be audible in noisy environments, like on the plane or in the car, then you need to limit your finished dynamic range to 6dB or so. If they're only going to listen to it on their high-end stereo in their quiet home or studio, then you can leave in that 50dB dynamic range.

But the only reason to have systems that operate at 96 to 120 dB dynamic range is to give the producer some room for error. The same reason photographers shoot at 60 megapixel and distribute 1.2 megapixel copies. Or the reason I record 3 hours of sound from the field for a 10 minute show.

[SkinnyWhiteBoy]

I am surprised that we seem to be foregtting the obvious, whhich is: Any recording is only as good as its weakest link in the chain. In this case that seems to be the microphone!

I agree with everything said about learning first and then upgrading. I also agree with all the tech specs on soundcards with higher bit rates, but the question you have to ask yourself is: What do I want to achieve?

First of all you need, to axe the iMic. You don't need it. I created podcasts with the UB802 and the built in soundcard on my laptop. Works fine! The tape-out connectors on your UB802 are line level outputs, the inputs on your soundcard are line level inputs. Should match right up. You say you need to adjust the gain without the iMic? I would not be surprised if the iMic actually boosts the signal, in which case the iMic would be noisier then going direct. But!!! On your UB802, what is your master fader set to? (should be 0db) What is your mic channel fader set to? (should be 0db) What is the gain set to? This should be set so that when talking (with the other 2 faders set to 0) your output from the UB802 (and this is hard to see on that **** small meter on that device) should peak at around, you guessed it, 0db. At that point, you have a signal that is neither boosted nor cut. In other words, what goes in, comes out. (you can run this experiment without ever connecting it to a computer)

If at that point, your recorded signal is lower then with the iMic, then raise the recording level in Audacity. But anyway...

For beginning podcasters, I would not recommend an edirol or upgrading the soundcard. The iMic converts at 16, chances are that your soundcard does too and as other posters have pointed out, this is the standard for audio CD's. Truth is, most people have crappy spreakers... they will not hear the difference. EVER! They will hear the difference however between microphones. For the 100 bucks you might spend on an edirol, get a decent Mic. The MXL 990 comes to mind.

I'll get off my soapbox now!

[shepdave]

Um...I cannot get an audio signal into my iBook G4 without the use of a Griffin iMic. There is no line-in jack on an iBook G4 (as well as some other iMacs, I believe). The Griffin iMic is a sound card that allows you to bring audio into your computer through a USB connection. It's not a USB microphone, it's a connector/interface.

I don't like the design of these notebooks without line inputs, but that's the way they are. When I record on my iBook, I have to use an iMic.

[SkinnyWhiteBoy]

Dave! Love your show man! Love it!

The original poster does not have your problem. He has a line in on his machine, judging from this:

2 - I have also connected the mixer to the computer via the red and white (Tape in /tape out) plugs on the mixer that go to line in and line out in the souncard. This also works very well and the quality is the same to my ear. The only difference is that the Gain on the mixer needs to be higher (possibly introducing a bit more noise). Quality still very good. Price for the 2 sets of Rca wires 10 Canadian dollars.

I know the iMic is not a microphone. I was commenting on the fact that everyone seemed to start discussing the features of soundcards and such where to me it is clear where the weakest link in the OP's signal chain is. It's the cheapie microphone (Dixon) he is using.

So what I suggested was to return the iMic to the store, not worry about DA/AD conversion on his soundcard, but instead get a better Microphone.

[ketherk]

Hi Everyone,

It's the OP. Glad to see this thread got some action and THANKS for all those comments.

Save your money now and learn how to manipulate your sound with what you have, which is not bad equipment. If you can get yourself sounding great on that, then when you do upgrade you will be ahead of the game. Going to high tech at first may actually rob you of experience.

You are all correct. I did switch the Imic for the edirol. Although I like the Ediriol it was a waste of 50 extra bucks for my setup at this point in my learning curve. The 10 dollar original RCA cables were just fine. The weakest list is the Dixon Mic. and it's still not that bad. I ordered a condensor Mic. and I'm going to start a new thread now because I'm having problems with it.

So to all the other noobs out there - heed the advice of those that have the experience. Don't waste big bucks while you are still learning.

Thanks again

K