understanding AD/DA conversion

B

bethanyb321

Member
hey im trying to find out if upgrading my ad/da conversion is worth it. Is it correct that if im doing all my producing/mixing in the box( vst instruments and fx...) than the only thing that a quality converter would offer for me would be a better signal to my output? So would having a midrange soundcard like m-audio not really affect the final product over if i had a world class converter?

trying to figure out how imporatant really is the ad/da and if investing in one would give me any real benefit
 
Last edited:
Most would argue that your monitoring DA is the most important converter in the chain. But for the most part, if you're creating and mixing ITB, you're probably okay with a "nice" converter.
 
Exactly. The difference between converters is pretty minimal within any price range. Once you get above the crappy built-in sound, everything above that is pretty much the same until you get to the megabuck converters that cost thousands.

So, the decision to upgrade your converters depends on what you have now and how big your budget is.

Frankly, monitors and room treatment would make a much bigger difference in what you hear than a converter upgrade.
 
Farview said:
Frankly, monitors and room treatment would make a much bigger difference in what you hear than a converter upgrade.
Click to expand...

This^^^

I wouldn't call M-Audio mid-range. They're more like consumer grade converters. I have first hand experience with the crappiest of the crap and the creamiest of the "crème de la crème". Phonic vs Lavry. In my humble little home studio, there were so many other factors that affected the quality of my mixes, that the difference in converters went unnoticed. There was no way to tell them apart. I'm sure there is a difference, but you need a really, really great listening environment to hear it.

Concentrate on acoustically treating your room before spending money on upgrading equipment. Best bang for the buck.
 
Massive Master said:
Most would argue that your monitoring DA is the most important converter in the chain.
Click to expand...


While I don't disagree that your monitoring chain and the associated DA are very important...I never understood why many people feel that it needs to be of a higher quality than the AD...?

To me, they are equally important...I mean, the analog to digital conversion is about your source. That's what sets the stage for everything else that follows.
 
miroslav said:
While I don't disagree that your monitoring chain and the associated DA are very important...I never understood why many people feel that it needs to be of a higher quality than the AD...?

To me, they are equally important...I mean, the analog to digital conversion is about your source. That's what sets the stage for everything else that follows.
Click to expand...

You could be right M! Certainly you can find oodles of D/A conveters, mainly S/PDIF boxes but there are a few USB devices. A/D is much more difficult to find.
Then, the analogue side of an A to D is quite a challenge in keeping noise down to sub -100dB FS levels.

But, for chaps like Massive surely most of his work comes in from other people's converters and so he is bound to put the bulk of his wonga on the D/A side?

For most of us poor folk the converters are all in one box so the point is moot.

Dave.
 
The only reason I would (no matter the situation) put the "best" DA on the monitoring chain is that it's the one that dictates all other decisions.
 
It makes sense in a mastering situation...and if I had to choose between a good & best converter for AD or DA, the DA might get the nod. I'm just saying I would like equal quality at both ends.

I'm still tracking to tape...so my monitoring during tracking doesn't involve any converters. Once done, I want the transfer to digital to be of equal quality as when it comes back out through the DA.

I think also it's easier to consider spending the bigger $$$ on a 2-channel DA, since for AD, multi-channel converters are often needed, their cost ads up.

I've actually thought about a 2-channel AD/DA...not so much just for the higher quality, but also because I mix back out of the DAW, so I'm using my three 8-channel converts in both AD and DA configurations. Then I mix down to a 2-track tape, and from there back to the DAW.
I do that simultaneously...IOW, I'm not recording to the 2-track and then later transferring...it's going right off the PB head back into the DAW. So rather than using the multi-channel converters simultaneously for that double-duty during mixdown, a 2-channel AD/DA might be more efficient and then also I can up the quality on that final stage for both AD and DA.
 
thanks guys, i already have pro monitoring, acoustics...not sure how much difference ill hear upgrading to a ~1.5k for mastering grade da, how much better will it help mixes translate?
 
As long as you aren't upgrading from something awful, the difference will be minimal. It should be considered once everything else you have is already up to that standard and the conversion is the weak link.

It's the same as with anything else in electronics, once you get past good, you end up paying ten times more for 1% better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top