A/D Quality Question

[Bob's Mods]

I have an ESI WT2496 audio sound card I bought in 2000. They have long gone out of production. Are the A/D convertors of today simply much better sounding some seven plus years later or would I strain to hear the difference? I use software to make mine sound pretty good but are the new A/D's so much better that I would not have do as much software processing as I am doing now?

Is there a night and day difference between, lets say, the old, prosumer stuff of yesterday and the stuff thats being sold today? Do you have to strain to hear the difference or is it stand out in your face obvious?

Bob Mod

 

[cusebassman]

Was this card designed for any sort of quasi-professional recording at the time, or is it a consumer soundcard like, say, a SoundBlaster? If it was simply designed for audio playback on a PC, I'd say you'd do well to upgrade to a decent interface either way. But has 8 years improved the quality of converter you can buy for your home at a moderate price? Hard to say... I've listened to recordings made on a Lexicon Core2 from 2001 and they sound damn good, even for how shitty th emics were and how little I knew, so its a tough call.

I'd say go out to the local Guitar Center and buy something (if you can) like a Presonus Firepod, and make sure it can be returned if you don't like it. Plug it in, give it a try, and do some test recording. I'd imagine it would be a step up in quality, but who knows... older technologies have surprised me before (like I said )

 

[Bob's Mods]

It was sold as a professional sound card at the time but its probably in the quasi-pro catagory.

I ask this question for another reason. When I plug my instruments direct and listen to them in my monitors they sound pristine. The analog signal is being redirected back out to the monitors with no conversion taking place. After I record a track, I would expect the playback to sound exactly like the real time analog sound. But it does not. My playback tracks are not a carbon copy of what I hear real time. As a result I've got to do more software processing to bring the life back to the tracks. I would expect what I hear for both real time and playback should be the same. They are not. Thats why I'm thinking its a convertor isssue. My mixes sound fine with some software processing however.

This problem is one I have noticed with every other convertor I have tried, probably about four others. This was about three to four years back. They all seemed to loose some of the high frequency content.

Bob

 

[Reggie]

And sometimes the A/D is passable on an interface, but it is the D/A where it falls on its face a bit and leaves you with that not-so-fresh feeling...Hmmm so hard to know sometimes...

 

[danny.guitar]

It was sold as a professional sound card at the time but its probably in the quasi-pro catagory.

I ask this question for another reason. When I plug my instruments direct and listen to them in my monitors they sound pristine. The analog signal is being redirected back out to the monitors with no conversion taking place. After I record a track, I would expect the playback to sound exactly like the real time analog sound. But it does not. My playback tracks are not a carbon copy of what I hear real time. As a result I've got to do more software processing to bring the life back to the tracks. I would expect what I hear for both real time and playback should be the same. They are not. Thats why I'm thinking its a convertor isssue. My mixes sound fine with some software processing however.

This problem is one I have noticed with every other convertor I have tried, probably about four others. This was about three to four years back. They all seemed to loose some of the high frequency content.

Bob

I've experienced the same thing on every interface I've ever used. Granted, I've never used the real expensive ones.

I think it's more of a matter of while you're playing you're hearing what you want to hear.

At least for me, things always sound fine while playing but when I listen back, it's not what I heard before.

 

[Bob's Mods]

You make a good point about the D/A. The specs on my card's D/A are better than specs of the A/D. The playback of commercial CDs is good too. I feel confident that the D/A is decent.

 

[Bob's Mods]

I've experienced the same thing on every interface I've ever used. Granted, I've never used the real expensive ones.

I think it's more of a matter of while you're playing you're hearing what you want to hear.

At least for me, things always sound fine while playing but when I listen back, it's not what I heard before.

So.....I am not the only one to experience this. I do think that the playback should sound like you hear it real time. I like the real time sound much better than the playback sound. What that means is the convertor IS NOT recording what you hear axactly as you hear it. I would think both should sound the same. That IS the analog signal going into the A/D...is it not? Why doesn't it sound the same on playback? Why?

 

[mshilarious]

Looking at the card's specs, I'd expect that you would realize a performance increase with a modern converter. 24 bit converters were rather new in 2000, and the cheap ones weren't very good. That card's A/D has 100dBA of dynamic range, which is only 17 bit performance. A reasonable modern converter should achieve 19-20 bit performance.

Dynamic range isn't everything, but I've found with converters it is a reasonable proxy for overall performance. I certainly realized an upgrade when I went from 2000 vintage hardware (a Yamaha DS2416, which only had 20 bit converters, but with a similar spec to your unit) to an Alesis AI3, and finally the RME ADI-8 DS I am using now. RME stuff isn't cheap, but I'd guess nearly any brand would outperform the card you have now.

 

[fraserhutch]

I have an ESI (Ego Sys) Wami Rack. It was a great unit in its day, and is still very usable.

I can't speak for that card though, but they have a rep of making top notch audio gear.

 

[Trell Blaze]

Can't say I know anything about that card but if the difference between pre and post record is as drastic as you say it is, then yes, an upgrade in converters would do you plenty good. There's very few units that will "carbon copy" your work but there are hundreds that will narrow the gap signifigantly.

As has already been suggested, the Presonus line is an affordable alternative while the RMI series will dig deeper into your pockets (but with better results).

 

[Bob's Mods]

I was thinking of something like the Ego-Sys Juli@ card. Its not expensive, has better specs than my current card, if you can believe them, and does everything my current card does. There is almost nothing these can't do if all you need is just two inputs that is.

Bob

 

[Bob's Mods]

Would a LynxOne card be worth the extra money?

 

[chessrock]

Look, there have been numerous double-blind tests done where most test subjects have been unable to pick out any differences in an original recording ... and one with several generations of subsequent A/D and D/A conversions. And this is with some pretty standard prosumer sound cards. Once you get to 5 generations of conversions, then most guys with decent enough ears start hearing something.

I doubt that what you're hearing is any more than just in your head.

When you're tracking the initial source ... you're also hearing the source as it's being performed, so no, you're not going to hear that during playback.

.

 

[The Axis]

When I plug my instruments direct and listen to them in my monitors they sound pristine. The analog signal is being redirected back out to the monitors with no conversion taking place. After I record a track, I would expect the playback to sound exactly like the real time analog sound. But it does not. My playback tracks are not a carbon copy of what I hear real time.

What Chessrock said.

There are probably a lot of other things in the recording-playback chain that corrupt the pristinity of your sound more than the AD/DA converters.
A better test would be to take an analog source (tape, CD); listen to it on moniotors, then record that source directly into your recorder (not through a mike) and then listen to the recording. I'll bet it is virtually impossible to tell that fdifference.

 

[Bob's Mods]

I have done this. You are right. I can't hear the difference in playback.

 

[Bob's Mods]

When you're tracking the initial source ... you're also hearing the source as it's being performed, so no, you're not going to hear that during playback.

I'm not so sure. My tech experience tells I should be recording exactly what I'm hearing...but I'm not. I should hear the playback of my direct recorded tracks just the way I hear them. This is still an unexplanied mystery to me.

 

[MOFO Pro]

I'm not so sure. My tech experience tells I should be recording exactly what I'm hearing...but I'm not. I should hear the playback of my direct recorded tracks just the way I hear them. This is still an unexplanied mystery to me.

Are you monitoring from different points during playback and recording... Like from the desk... before the conversion, and from the box afterwards?

 

[mshilarious]

I'm not so sure. My tech experience tells I should be recording exactly what I'm hearing...but I'm not. I should hear the playback of my direct recorded tracks just the way I hear them. This is still an unexplanied mystery to me.

How are you monitoring the live source? Even if you have the best isolation headphones possible, if the source is in the room, sound will still transmit through the bone in your skull to your eardrum.

A simpler test of your A/D would involve running a test signal D/A/D and comparing with the original signal. That will test the D/A together with the A/D, but it's still an illustrative test in comparison with another converter. Try a mix of 18.5kHz/19kHz sine waves. Also try white noise, looking at filter behavior.