D/A Conversion for Audio Playback?

[jaynm26]

Most dont use dedicated D/A for playback those who do using either Pre Sonus or Crane Song's D/A conversion for playback do you feel it is vital has your mixes gotten better? Is the sound you hearing through D/C more clear and precise to where you would never ever go back to standard playback through an interface without conversion?

 

[Ethan Winer]

Most modern sound cards are very good, and many are audibly transparent - even budget models that come with modest computers. So if you're not happy with the quality of your productions, replacing one competent sound card with another is not likely to help. I'd look elsewhere, such as better speakers and room treatment.

--Ethan

 

[Massive Master]

No doubt, stack dollars before you start stacking nickels.

That said, it's usually those nickels that cost the most dollars...

 

[Chili]

Most dont use dedicated D/A for playback those who do using either Pre Sonus or Crane Song's D/A conversion for playback do you feel it is vital has your mixes gotten better? Is the sound you hearing through D/C more clear and precise to where you would never ever go back to standard playback through an interface without conversion?

Not at all. I have two units, both on the opposite end of the cost/quality spectrum; Lavry AD10/DA10 and Phonic firewire mixer (think behringer level). Can't hear a dime's worth of difference between the two.

Way too many other variables in the processing chain before the quality of the converters comeo into play.

 

[miroslav]

Is the sound you hearing through D/C more clear and precise to where you would never ever go back to standard playback through an interface without conversion?

What do you mean by "standard playback through an interface without conversion"...?
You're getting conversion for playback no matter what interface you are using.
I guess you just mean a more specialized 2-channel D/A....anf the "without conversion" part was just a typo......?

I use the same 8-channel A/D/A's for everything. I think the monitors and room are more key than the playback D/A being used.

 

[jaynm26]

What do you mean by "standard playback through an interface without conversion"...?
You're getting conversion for playback no matter what interface you are using.
I guess you just mean a more specialized 2-channel D/A....anf the "without conversion" part was just a typo......?

I use the same 8-channel A/D/A's for everything. I think the monitors and room are more key than the playback D/A being used.

Without additional conversion thats what I mean.

 

[jaynm26]

I use the same 8-channel A/D/A's for everything. I think the monitors and room are more key than the playback D/A being used.

Interesting

 

[jaynm26]

Lavry AD10/DA10 and Phonic firewire mixer (think behringer level). Can't hear a dime's worth of difference between the two.

WOW! For real!!??? That is crazy not even in the slightest?

 

[miroslav]

Without additional conversion thats what I mean.

Yeah...OK....but there's no additioanl conversion....unless we're just talking about different things here.

If you use any typical converter, in order to hear the playback, theres is a single D/A conversion....right?
So....if you go out and get a million dollar 2-channel D/A just for the playback conversion,it's STILL just a single D/A conversion.
Not sure how you are seeing additional/multiple conversions...?

So what is your real concern, that typical converters are not up to snuff for playback monitoring?

Oh, and speaking of conversions....some of us were wondering if your are boy or a girl?
Your forum name *jaynm26* sounds like it's a girls name, but then people use all kinds of weird forum handles, so we're not sure...?

 

[Mo Facta]

Absolutely. No question. I've got three different types of D/A (Apogee, Lynx, and Dangerous Audio) and there is a marked difference between them all.

When I first got them we (a colleague and I) did a shootout between them and an RME fireface, a Presonus Firestudio and the Yamaha converters in the 01V96. The high end converters definitely sounded more detailed and just more exciting to listen to. Transients were more defined and stereo imaging got better. Switching back to the prosumer stuff, the playback material just seemed to slump.

We're in audiophile territory here, which I'm not really mad about, but I can definitely say that the playback quality was improved as a result of higher quality D/A. And I should hope so. They cost a fortune.

But yeah, the first thing you should be worrying about is your room and your monitors. If those aren't up to scratch it matters very little what D/A you have.

Oh, and for the record, yes, my mixes improved as a result of having a good D/A. But it was one of many factors that contributed in the long run. Proper gain staging and not overdriving the analogue section of a cheap D/A, for one, will make more of an impact.

Cheers

 

[jaynm26]

Yeah...OK....but there's no additioanl conversion....unless we're just talking about different things here.

If you use any typical converter, in order to hear the playback, theres is a single D/A conversion....right?
So....if you go out and get a million dollar 2-channel D/A just for the playback conversion,it's STILL just a single D/A conversion.
Not sure how you are seeing additional/multiple conversions...?

So what is your real concern, that typical converters are not up to snuff for playback monitoring?

Oh, and speaking of conversions....some of us were wondering if your are boy or a girl?

There are alot of engineers that have 2 conversion going one at the interface stage and another (additional) converter at the monitoring stage.
Like a profire 2626 and also a D-Box or Avocet so 2 conversion thats what I am speaking of. How are you the only one that seems to be lost in translation?

 

[Chili]

But yeah, the first thing you should be worrying about is your room and your monitors. If those aren't up to scratch it matters very little what D/A you have.

This^^^

For the average home-recording schmoe like me, there is not going to be a lot of difference. Too many variables that affect quality before the converters do. And a big one is ears. At 50 yrs old, mine ain't what they used to be.

But, what kind of negates the whole subject is the listening audience. What are they listening on?? As Mo said, high-end converters puts you in audiophile land. That pretty much excludes anybody who will listen to my garbage. Anyone listening to my tunes are using computer speakers, earbuds or car speakers (If I'm lucky!!)

I still advocate using quality stuff, but converters are at the bottom of the list.

 

[jaynm26]

Absolutely. No question. I've got three different types of D/A (Apogee, Lynx, and Dangerous Audio) and there is a marked difference between them all.

When I first got them we (a colleague and I) did a shootout between them and an RME fireface, a Presonus Firestudio and the Yamaha converters in the 01V96. The high end converters definitely sounded more detailed and just more exciting to listen to. Transients were more defined and stereo imaging got better. Switching back to the prosumer stuff, the playback material just seemed to slump.

We're in audiophile territory here, which I'm not really mad about, but I can definitely say that the playback quality was improved as a result of higher quality D/A. And I should hope so. They cost a fortune.

But yeah, the first thing you should be worrying about is your room and your monitors. If those aren't up to scratch it matters very little what D/A you have.

Oh, and for the record, yes, my mixes improved as a result of having a good D/A. But it was one of many factors that contributed in the long run. Proper gain staging and not overdriving the analogue section of a cheap D/A, for one, will make more of an impact.

Cheers

Hmm interesting Mo, so you say your playback experience was much better with High End D/A conversion? Ok...(my room & monitors are fine Focals Solo 6be) I just wanted to hear ideas/opinion of D/A for playback like a dedicated monitoring system I dont have one so I thought I'd ask. The fact that you Mo benefited from it says a lot you are the pioneer of DIY and YDNSBYE (You Dont Need Shit But Your Ears). Whats your routing and cabling setup for you D/A playback Mo?

 

[jaynm26]

Oh, and speaking of conversions....some of us were wondering if your are boy or a girl?
Your forum name *jaynm26* sounds like it's a girls name, but then people use all kinds of weird forum handles, so we're not sure...?

What lol??? And this coming form the guy with the name Miroslav? I dont know if your a Russian Tooth paste or a czech POW? If "JAY"nm sounds like a girls name to you so be it lol.

 

[miroslav]

There are alot of engineers that have 2 conversion going one at the interface stage and another (additional) converter at the monitoring stage.
Like a profire 2626 and also a D-Box or Avocet so 2 conversion thats what I am speaking of. How are you the only one that seems to be lost in translation?

When you monitor...there's only one conversion going on at any time for your D/A playback.
First you said "playback without conversion" then you said "playback without additional conversion"....
...I think maybe you're the one lost in translation.

Regardless....not sure why anyone would want to use a "middlin" converter to do all their actual audio A/D, but then use a high-end converter to monitor, or whatever.
If I was going to use a real high-end converter at just one point, it will always be at the initial A/D audio converting stage....everything after that is secondary, IMO.
At any rate....there's a lot more to consider and improve on in the entire audio process before worrying about a different/better D/A playback converter, IMO.
Yeah...people talk about hearing more detail with better playback converters while they mix...but if you didn't capture that detail with equally good converters, why use a better one just for the monitors?

If "JAY"nm sounds like a girls name to you so be it lol.

Well, you know what it really is....but the way you wrote it, it also reads "JAYN"m26....and that sounds like it could be a girl's name.

Think about it.......

Lots of people use their first name and the initial of their last name on the interwebs to create website handles.




.

 

[Mo Facta]

Hmm interesting Mo, so you say your playback experience was much better with High End D/A conversion? Ok...(my room & monitors are fine Focals Solo 6be) I just wanted to hear ideas/opinion of D/A for playback like a dedicated monitoring system I dont have one so I thought I'd ask. The fact that you Mo benefited from it says a lot you are the pioneer of DIY and YDNSBYE (You Dont Need Shit But Your Ears). Whats your routing and cabling setup for you D/A playback Mo?

Absolutely. No question about it. But like I said, room treatment and good monitors (which you have already) should be your first priorities.

If I'm working entirely ITB, I use the Dangerous D/A. In that case, the cabling is as follows:

Lynx AES16e PCI Card ---<D-SUB to Male XLR (AES/EBU digital)>---> D-Box DAW input (Female XLR) ---> Speaker Outputs ---> Speakers

If I'm summing with the DBOX, my cabling is as follows:

Lynx AES16e PCI Card ---<D-SUB to D-Sub (AES/EBU digital)>---> Lynx Aurora 8 Digital in 1-8 ---> Lynx Aurora 8 Analogue Outs 1-8 ---<D-SUB to TRS>---> PATCHBAY ---<TRS to D-SUB>---> D-Box Sum In 1-8 ---> Speaker Outputs ---> Speakers

The summing bus of the DBOX is monitored straight off of the unit as it is also a monitor controller.

Cheers

 

[Mo Facta]

Yeah...people talk about hearing more detail with better playback converters while they mix...but if you didn't capture that detail with equally good converters, why use a better one just for the monitors?

Well, the use would be to accurately hear problems in the capture, regardless of HOW it was captured. If you can't hear those problems accurately, you'll never be able to fix them. But yes, if there were problems to begin with that you didn't hear, it's not likely your conversion that's at fault.

In any case, in my experience, sub-standard converters almost always have a smeared, duller sound to them, particularly in the top end.

Cheers

 

[miroslav]

Well, the use would be to accurately hear problems in the capture, regardless of HOW it was captured. If you can't hear those problems accurately, you'll never be able to fix them. But yes, if there were problems to begin with that you didn't hear, it's not likely your conversion that's at fault.

In any case, in my experience, sub-standard converters almost always have a smeared, duller sound to them, particularly in the top end.

Cheers

Yes, it's good to hear accurately.
But again, why only worry about high-end converters for the playback monitoring...?
I don't get that logic.

If you want to buy very high-end converters...then get them for the entire process, not just the monitoring.
I would rather worry about *capturing* with very high-end converters....before or rather than just *monitoring* with them.

 

[Mo Facta]

Well, I'm not arguing one way or the other. I agree with you overall.

I'm just answering the question, why have only a high-end D/A and not A/D? Well, to be more specific, it is the first step in the monitoring chain. In my experience a good D/A helps you hear problems you otherwise wouldn't (with substandard gear) and therefore can take steps to fix. If you have a cloudy sounding D/A - and believe me, there is a VAST difference between the D/A in my little MBOX and my high end stuff - you aren't even to step 1 yet. You have a handicap from the get go.

Case in point.

I mixed an album recently where I recorded half of it and the other half was recorded at another studio with another engineer. I finished all the tracking right before the holidays so because I intended to do a studio overhaul during that period, I schemed that I would bring the project home and mix it in my home studio just to get it done. My home studio consists of an original MBOX and HS50M's.

Well, I proceeded to mix the album and while I was getting good results, I was struggling a little. My home studio isn't terrible but like most modestly treated rooms, it has problems in the low end. In any case, I had mixed a couple of songs for another band with success so I knew I could do it but alas, I was having a hard time getting things to gel with this particular record. So, I decided to go to my main studio, unrack all my gear like I planned on doing anyway, and bring home the nice converters and summing. I opened up all the mixes, stemmed everything out for summing in the digital domain, and proceeded to mix the songs.

I can tell you right now it was night and day right off the bat. When I changed to the Lynx and the DBOX everything opened up. The low end became tighter and more manageable and there was this almost airy quality to the bass, like it was present, but not muddy and overbearing. It had been very thick and heavy in the lower midrange with the MBOX. The top end and transient detail was instantly better and the midrange smoothed out considerably. Of course, every little detail was apparent, too, which influenced my decision making process and allowed me to dig into the nitty gritty quicker than I could with the MBOX. I can promise you that if I put you in front of the high end stuff and the MBOX and switched between them, you would hear the difference immediately. It is unmistakable. Even in my little modest home studio it sounded miles better even though it was equally as acoustically disadvantaged as the MBOX.

SO, my point is, at that point it mattered little what converters I tracked with. It could have been Burls or JCF's and it would not have mattered a hoot. It also could have been MOTU's or Presonus. The fact that I had a high detail device to comb through the mix with made my decisions more accurate and sub-sequentially more MUSICAL. The sound of the converters inspired that.

Have I made myself clear now?

Cheers

 

[Mo Facta]

Miroslav, just for interest's sake, what interface/converters are you using currently?

Cheers