Interesting Converter Comparisons ...

C

chessrock

Banned
Alright, so I have, in my posession, three different types of converters.

I have what many would consider to be a mid-level consumer / prosumer audio interface. I also have a stand-alone a/d converter that many would consider to be a pretty high end / expensive piece. Also in my posession is an el-cheapo stand-alone consumer A/D converter.

For fun, I decided to do what I consider to be a valid comparison of the three units. What I did is take an existing rough mix of one of my clients, and I ran it through each converter. Four times. Each time, I used the exact same D/A. The idea, again, is to test the differences in the A/D.

Levels have been matched pretty well. Signal path, in each case, has been kept as simple as possible. Each one used it's own clock, because I feel that to be an important component of the converter and should be part of the comparison.

Anyway, you can find the files here:

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=3503&alid=1578

Honestly, guys, I think it's pretty damn interesting. I've always felt that comparing converters was a pretty hair-splitting exercise, and I think this comparison lends credence to that. After 4 generations of A/D, you should be able to start hearing some of the degredation that each converter imparts to the audio, and you should start hearing what each unit brings to the table.

.
 
option 4 - they all sound like crap.

It's hard to tell from those examples as the air is pretty much non-existant, and the top end is pretty well hosed in all of them. Bad mp3 conversion maybe?
 
It is easy to hear the difference between sample1, and samples 2 AND 3.
In other words, Sample1 is clearly inferior to 2 and 3. Where it becomes and issue of hairsplitting is between 2 and 3. If i had to choose quickly, i would select sample 3 as the best.

The difference between sample1, and the others is pretty big (relatively speaking!), so i cant really see the validity in blaming mp3 conversion for not being able to hear stuff. Interesting test.
 
teainthesahara said:
I cant really see the validity in blaming mp3 conversion for not being able to hear stuff. Interesting test.
Click to expand...


So you hear "air" in those samples? You think the highs sound fine in those samples? Where did I say I couldn't hear a difference? You are the one that said 2 and 3 were too close to call.......

edit - and for the record I'm saying the are in order 1,2,3 - Guessing 3 is not exactly "high-end" though.

Also, I am not here saying converters will make or break you. I do think they make as much, probably more, diffrence than preamps. But, If you really want to be humbled, pick up Joshua Judges Ruth by Lyle Lovett - recorded straight to 16 bit converters from the late 80's early 90's - not exactly High end by todays standards for sure. That album sounds flippin amazing......
 
Last edited:
i hear some rice crispy type stuff going on in 1 but I doubt that anyone that was'nt looking for such things would ever notice it. i don't hear a great difference in the 3 samples. i took a few quick listens and i'm going to listen some more, just to see.
 
on the tom hits in the intro, i hear a slight difference in the "crispies" in between 2 and 3. 3 having slightly more crispies than 2. what are these "crispies" called? :confused: :D
 
TravisinFlorida said:
on the tom hits in the intro, i hear a slight difference in the "crispies" in between 2 and 3. 3 having slightly more crispies than 2. what are these "crispies" called? :confused: :D
Click to expand...

I like "crispies".
 
other than the crispies, i don't prefer one over the others. what are you guys basing your preferences on? don't be a smartass and simply say "sound". if i sit here all day long and listen over and over, i may develope a slight preference but what's the point?
 
TravisinFlorida said:
other than the crispies, i don't prefer one over the others. what are you guys basing your preferences on? don't be a smartass and simply say "sound". if i sit here all day long and listen over and over, i may develope a slight preference but what's the point?
Click to expand...


I based mine on the cymbals sounds, the squeaks from the guitar player, and the tom hits mainly........
 
TravisinFlorida said:
other than the crispies, i don't prefer one over the others. what are you guys basing your preferences on? don't be a smartass and simply say "sound". if i sit here all day long and listen over and over, i may develope a slight preference but what's the point?
Click to expand...

I only listened to 1 and 2. 2 seemed to have more 'clearity' to me, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm also listening on PC desktop speakers so...
 
NL5 said:
So you hear "air" in those samples? You think the highs sound fine in those samples? Where did I say I couldn't hear a difference? You are the one that said 2 and 3 were too close to call.......

......
Click to expand...

There is enough information in the audio files to make a comparison. While high end/air is important for a thourough evaluation, a lack of it did not make it hard to differentiate 1 from 2 & 3. In my experience, bad mp3 conversion screws up the top end in a way i did not hear from those files...hence my comment. Relax! The more i type in this thread, the more white tape i have to place on the bridge of my glasses! Damn...dont make me buy you a pocket protector for your 1990's DAT tapes :D
 
NL5 said:
option 4 - they all sound like crap.

It's hard to tell from those examples as the air is pretty much non-existant, and the top end is pretty well hosed in all of them. Bad mp3 conversion maybe?
Click to expand...

Easy, killer. Rough mixes. Through 4 generations of a/d before mp3 conversion no less. Looking for thoughts on the differences in a/d. Christ.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top