Interesting Converter Comparisons ...

Good idea -- interesting real world test.

Number 3 is most pleasing to these ears.

I liked the stereo field, frequency balance, and general "smoothness" over the other two.

~Tim
:)
 
Chessrock, first, congratulations for high quality and well played recordings.
I´m 1500 miles far from my home, and listening on pc speakers...
But, even on this "poor" condiction, I wanna try my opinion (if is possible in this case...) :D

"cheap": converter 1
"mid price": converter 2
"expensive": converter 3

Well, truth is that even the cheap one works well with a very good song and gear.
(but, for what i´m hearing and if mix are the same , stereo image on first mp3 (tons are a good example) are worst and have not the definition of 2 and 3.

Ciro.
 
Last edited:
I converted a US dollar into a Canadian dollar, then I converted the Canadian dollar into Italian Lira.

Once that was done, I converted the Lira into Gelders.

Then I bought some hash. :D
 
IMHO, #2 is ever so slightly better sounding to my ear than #3, though by a tiny margin. IMHO, #1 sounds noticeably worse, which may be because it is slightly oversaturating the interface.

I'm hearing a touch of gravelly distortion on some of the bass drum hits with that one that I don't hear in the others. Saturation in a simple feedback loop test usually screams "driver bug" to me.... Is #1 a SoundBlaster, by any chance? :D

I think maybe #3 is something by M-Audio. I'm hearing a very familiar sort of transient smear that reminds me of my old Delta 1010LT. I could be imagining things, or this could be an MP3 artifact.

OTOH, I'm hearing more HF phasing on #2 and #3 than I do on #1. This probably means that #1 has a cheap filter bank that results in HF roll-off. With less extremely high frequency signal to push the MP3 encoder, the slightly less extreme HF ends up sounding slightly better on that test, but I think this aspect of #1 sounding better is actually caused by it sounding worse, coupled with MP3 being a terrible medium for comparison. :D

I think #2 is the high end unit, but it is very close to #3. Note, however, that I'm comparing these on a cheap pair of Sony earbuds, so I may totally change my mind about 2 vs. 3 if I listen on actual monitors.... :)

So there's my guess. From worst to best: 1, 3, 2.
 
I find this really, really interesting (especially since I've never owned any even mid-level convertors).

To my ears, digital conversion breaks down in the highs first. When I listen to the cymbals in the very beginning, I think that 1 sounds best, then 2, then 3 is worst.

But at roughly 0:30, my opinion is totally opposite. I think that 3 "opens up" nicer and has a more 3-D quality about it. 2 next best, and 3 worst at 0:30.

Totally baffling. I have to wonder whether my exposure to cheap stuff makes me biased. Something could be crappy sounding, but familiar, so I like it (the crappy sound is like an old friend that I've learned to really like!).

These are all really, really close in sound at the mp3 level (and I am using headphones which makes them even closer). Which is also interesting - the typical iPod listener wouldn't really care which was used for the recording...

Great recording, Chess. As usual, the drums sound killer - you've got a real talent for that.
 
smtcharlie said:
To my ears, digital conversion breaks down in the highs first. When I listen to the cymbals in the very beginning, I think that 1 sounds best, then 2, then 3 is worst.

But at roughly 0:30, my opinion is totally opposite. I think that 3 "opens up" nicer and has a more 3-D quality about it. 2 next best, and 3 worst at 0:30.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant #1 was worst at 0:30.

Like I said, the MP3 encoding artifacts really screw things up. As best I understand it, when the signal slope changes abruptly, the MP3 codec generates ringing in the high frequency data.

The sharper the change, the more ringing. Thus, an A/D converter that accurately reproduces these slope changes (fast slew rate) will result in more ringing distortion in the final version than an A/D converter that rounds off the edges (lower slew rate).

Therefore, in a bizarre reversal of logic, the one with the most high frequency smearing is probably the one that is best, rather than worst.
 
Alright guys. Thanks for your patience.

I want to do this comparison the right way, so I'm going to try another round ... this time using an entirely different sample. I'm thinking of using a comercial mix next time, and only providing a 10-20 second sample.

I'm also going to ask my partner in crime to "mix up" the samples again. Or not to mix them up - his choice. I still don't know which is which, and I don't want to know until after round 2. We should have round 2 available Sunday night after the football games. I'll know the answers after I "turn in" my guesses.

Thanks for your participation so far, guys. Stay tuned.

Oh yea ... by the way, MShilarious; don't post any test measurments. I don't want it to effect people's responses / opinions; namely my own. :D Save 'em for later. Thanks.
.
 
chessrock said:
Oh yea ... by the way, MShilarious; don't post any test measurments. I don't want it to effect people's responses / opinions; namely my own. :D Save 'em for later. Thanks.
.
Click to expand...

Will do! Won't do :confused: . . . uh, OK!
 
Alright, guys.

We just god done with round 2 of the converter comparisons.

This time, I used a much shorter sample from a comercial CD that I happen to think sounds pretty good ... and that, particularly, has a lot of high frequency energy going on in the context of the arrangement, mix, and master.

I also saved these as 320 kb/sec mp3, so I hope there is less complaining about the whole mp3 thing. I find 320 to be perfectly acceptable for comparison purposes in a setting such as this.

Now here's the kicker ... I still don't know which one is which. My buddy, Jim, assisted me on this project ; only he knows the order, and he's been a really good sport in keeping everything hushed. I told him that, this time around, I want him to either shuffle the order, or not shuffle the order. But not to tell me either way.

Anyway, one thing I noticed about this round of comparisons is that, unlike last time, I think I may have found a clear preference. One of the three kind of stands out to me this time. Anyway, here are the new samples. I'll get the answers for us sometime around Tuesday ... would that be cool with you guys?

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=3503&alid=1581

.
 
chessrock said:
Anyway, one thing I noticed about this round of comparisons is that, unlike last time, I think I may have found a clear preference. One of the three kind of stands out to me this time. Anyway, here are the new samples. I'll get the answers for us sometime around Tuesday ... would that be cool with you guys?
Click to expand...

Could you post a copy of the same sample encoded directly (without repeated A/D and D/A conversion) so we can have a solid point of comparison?
 
chessrock said:
Alright, guys.

We just god done with round 2 of the converter comparisons.


.
Click to expand...

AWWW. We have got to wait till tuesday to get the answers from the first round. You got to at least tell us your pic's for the first round before you get the answers. I am thinking you picked #3? am i right. :D

You can tell us your first round pick now. We are into the second round.
 
. My pick for the second round is in this order #1, #2, and then #3. #1 seemed to have the most clarity to me.

round 1
2-3-1
round2
1-2-3
 
undergroundtoon said:
You got to at least tell us your pic's for the first round before you get the answers. I am thinking you picked #3? am i right. :D
Click to expand...


I kinda' thought the first one was a toss-up between 2 and 3, so I'd have to say for that one I like 2 and 3 in a tie, and 1 last.

.
 
dgatwood said:
Could you post a copy of the same sample encoded directly (without repeated A/D and D/A conversion) so we can have a solid point of comparison?
Click to expand...

Do you mean you want me to post the original? That would be a good idea. Done.

.
 
Wow. My first choice for the first round was

2 3 1

Second round

3 2 1 , pretty close order to the first round.

Anxious to find out what the results are so I can know how accurate these Aiwa speakers are that I use at my real job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top