A dumb question about A/D converters

[geekgurl]

I've heard that the converters in Pro Tools Digi 001, some other sound cards, and in the common stand-alone DAWs (Roland VS, Yamaha, etc) are not very good... that if one truly wants a nice sound out of any of these, one should bypass the onboard converters and use an A/D converter. OK, here's my dumb question:

* If you use the A/D converter, you're plugging your analog source into an outboard A/D unit, then plugging the outboard unit into the S/PDIF ins of your digital hardware, thereby never using the analog ins on the unit ... right???

OK, here's some follow-up questions for those of you who've used or considered using "after-market" A/D converters:

1. What gear (A/D converter, recording hardware whose converters you bypass) are you using?

2. What A/D converters did you try out before you chose the one you use now? Is there any hardware with good enough A/D (besides ADAT, unless you have a cost-effective solution for using these) to avoid using an external converter?

3. Some names I've heard but probably can't afford are Apogee and Lucid. Other names I probably CAN afford are Flying Calf (who makes this, or is that the manufacturer?), Behringer, ART ... but is going with any of these really any better than the A/D found in DAW analog ins?

[chessrock]

Originally posted by geekgurl
3. Some names I've heard but probably can't afford are Apogee and Lucid. Other names I probably CAN afford are Flying Calf (who makes this, or is that the manufacturer?), Behringer, ART ... but is going with any of these really any better than the A/D found in DAW analog ins?

The flying "Calf" is made by Midiman, isn't it?

The inexpensive units you mentioned probably aren't going to be any better than the a/d you get with a good sound card. The benefit of an inexpensive unit like the "calf" is that the a/d conversion would take place outside the noisy computer environment, and free up some of your computers' resources at the same time.

How does M-audio ever expect to be taken serioulsy with names like "Audio Buddy" and "Flying Cow?' Someone needs to have a talk with their marketing department.

Oh, back to the subject. Units that have breakout boxes already have the a/d conversion taking place outside the computer, so there would essentially be no advantage to the cow, calf or giraffe or what have you (The Delta 1010 and Hoontech are examples of units with the breakout box). Hoontech. I love that name. Say it with me: Hooooooooooon - tech.

If that's your setup, then the next step up would be to sell your car, take out a loan or sell sperm in my case (Sorry - I forgot there were ladies present) -- and get yourself a lucid or apoge. The difference, though, I have heard is very slight. Noticeable, but not enough to wow you over in awe.

My first step would be to look in to using an external clock. This I hear can give you a much more noticeable improvement for less cash than an outboard converter. Do a search on word clocks and feed your brain.

Good luck

ps - The answer to your first question (*) is yes.

[no_monkeybiznus]

I was thinking about doing the same thing. Bypassing the a/d, and those little rca inputs on my cd burner with a standalone. I could also run a balanced cable being that I mix to the burner. Not sure though.

[Ethan Winer]

GG,

> Some names I've heard but probably can't afford are Apogee and Lucid. <

Before you blow half your entire DAW budget on expensive outboard convertors, I suggest you test whatever you already have. Try recording a CD you consider excellent sounding, then see if it really sounds worse when you play it back.

You didn't mention what gear you're using now, but in my experience outboard A/D convertors are probably not going to make as much improvement as better monitor speakers, better microphones, and real acoustic treatment for your mixing room.

--Ethan

[TexRoadkill]

If you use an external DAC and go into the multi than yes, you bypass the DAC on the multi.

I think the biggest problem with the multi's are the entire mixing path and DAC. If you use a good preamp and can bypass the mixer on your multi than that would be the best trick. The DAC is probably not the weakest link in that chain.

I havent tried any stand alone DAC's or done any real testing of various DAC's so I cant tell you what to get.

Remember the quality of DAC is only as important as the analog chain going to it. If you have a $400 mics and pre's a $2000 DAC probably isnt going to make that big of a difference.

[geekgurl]

Cool, thanks, y'all. From what I'm reading, it sounds like I don't need to worry about getting a converter ... maybe if I get really obsessive about recording and dropping $4K on external converters becomes a mere drop in the bucket, then I'll start shoppin'.

Chessrock, thanks for setting me straight on the Flying COW thing. Calf, heh, I probably sounded kinda lame there ... that's what hearsay will do sometimes ...

[barefoot]

gg,

Another thing to consider is the type of music you're recording. The sparser the mix the more dependent it is on the quality of the ADC's. Many classical recordings, for example, are simply two stereo mics in front of the performers with virtually no post processing. The entire waveform goes through the converters in one shot. When you build the waveform from 48 tracks with signal processing on every one you dramatically water down any low level idiosyncrasies of your converters.

In any case, like Ethan said, at this point you probably have much more pressing sonic issues than ADC's. I just made some comments about monitors you might find useful in this thread. http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthr...748#post328748

barefoot