A/D Converters, can you actually hear any difference?

[mrface2112]

one thing that's missing from most of the posts here is that when you get a "better" converter (say, rosetta) versus something like a motu or maudio, you're not just getting better converter chips, but you're also getting a better clock.

and upgrading your clock MAY make a HUGE difference when you're running a lower end converter, and should not be overlooked here.

it's like everything else.....if you pay $300 for a micpre/eq/compressor, do you expect the eq in it to out-perform a standalone eq that costs $300? by the same token, i wouldn't expect the clock inside an 8-channel box that costs $500 to be nearly as good as a dedicated clock that costs $500.

i would suspect that if you were to run a motu, etc., unit with a GOOD dedicated clock (lucid genX, aardsync, big ben, etc), then the sound of your motu would improve pretty dramatically.

just my $1.02.....


cheers,
wade

 

[NL5]

I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm saying that a U87 through a Groove Tubes ViPre into the MOTU isn't going to sound like "shit". That's a fair bit of overstatement.

Put it this way, which signal chain would you rather have:

1) U87 into Groove Tubes ViPre into MOTU 828; or

2) Behringer B1 into ART Tube MP into Lavry Gold converters.

If the converters make a bigger difference than the mic or pre, I think you'd chose the second.

I always get a kick out of guys who worry about upgrading their converters, when all they own are Behringer and Peavy mics, or guys who worry about upgrading their mics when they don't pay any attention to placement or to tuning the drums or to getting a decent sounding guitar amp, or, best of all, guys who figure they need some kind of analog summing device, when they have shitty mics, poor source material, bad pres *and* bad converters. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I agree with the last paragraph completely.

The performer is #1, the gear they use is and the room they play in tie for #2, mic choice and placement is #3, and I put converters in front of preamps in importance........at least in my situation.

That being said, you can get a quality sound with lesser gear, and you can get a shitty sound with great gear (I have proved that many times - lol).

edit - BTW - I don't know which would sound better outta your two options, but I bet it would be DAMN close on a single track........

 

[SonicAlbert]

If you were to test either of them against, say, an EMU or a Lynx Soundcard that sells for between $200-600 ... would you still not care?

I've compared my DAC-1 and UA 2192 to less costly converters, side by side. You can definitely hear the finer points of what the more expensive designs have to offer.

If I could buy this quality for $200 I would. But the thing is, I can't.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm saying that a U87 through a Groove Tubes ViPre into the MOTU isn't going to sound like "shit". That's a fair bit of overstatement.

Not at all......... a U87 through a ViPre being recorded to a Fisher Price tape deck will sound like shit.... and bad converters are the equivalent to a Fisher Price recorder. Poor converters sound harsh, grainy, and have a brash top-end, and sometimes a thin low-end.

Put it this way, which signal chain would you rather have:

1) U87 into Groove Tubes ViPre into MOTU 828; or

2) Behringer B1 into ART Tube MP into Lavry Gold converters.

If the converters make a bigger difference than the mic or pre, I think you'd chose the second.

I always get a kick out of guys who worry about upgrading their converters, when all they own are Behringer and Peavy mics, or guys who worry about upgrading their mics when they don't pay any attention to placement or to tuning the drums or to getting a decent sounding guitar amp, or, best of all, guys who figure they need some kind of analog summing device, when they have shitty mics, poor source material, bad pres *and* bad converters. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Obviously - there's no point in someone owning a U87 and an all-Behringer rig and then worrying about converters... I'm all for having a relatively well-balanced set of gear (ie, about all the same calibre) but I kinda presumed that in my comments anyways.

 

[nkjanssen]

Not at all......... a U87 through a ViPre being recorded to a Fisher Price tape deck will sound like shit.... and bad converters are the equivalent to a Fisher Price recorder.

So, are you saying that anything recorded through a MOTU sounds like shit?

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

So, are you saying that anything recorded through a MOTU sounds like shit?

How did you get THAT from what I said?????

Actually - I've not heard MOTU converters, so I can't tell you about how they fair next to say, Lucid or Sony (console), but I did make comments as to what characteristics you can expect from bad converters IN GENERAL. So if the MOTU sounds slightly harsh, grainy, and thin, then yeah - they're poor converters.

 

[dwillis45]

Nothing matters unless you change your strings regularly!

A message from the National Association of String Manufacturers (NASM)

 

[nkjanssen]

How did you get THAT from what I said?????

I said that saying a U87 into a ViPre into a MOTU sounds like "shit" is overstatement.

You replied "Not at all."

If your statement is just that "bad converters sound bad", so be it. That's a trite statement in the context of the topic, though, so I assumed you were implying a little more.

 

[eraos]

Can someone provide an audio file comparison between some convertors and post it?

Or does anyone know a link to convertor comparisons?

 

[Ford Van]

Stock U87's are HIGHLY overrated, and usually, no matter WHAT you record them too, they will sound pretty marginal!

I think the stability of the word clock is what really makes the biggest difference! I have heard pretty good converters improve a bit by using a dedicated, high quality word clock. I have heard really cheap converters sound MUCH better using that same clock.

I don't think converters are that big of a deal. I know guys recording stuff that sounds exquisit on cheap ol' SB cards. Really.

Check out the acoustic guitars and vocals on these guys stuff! Cheap ol SB card, cheap ol' mic pre, and a AKG C3000. http://www.betteroffdad.com/mp3.htm

Quit worrying about the gear so much and get on to recording!

 

[SonicAlbert]

Can someone provide an audio file comparison between some convertors and post it?

Or does anyone know a link to convertor comparisons?

This raises a classic conundrum:

How can you tell what the converters sound like if you are listening to them through your own converters?

 

[JuliánFernández]

From Better Off Dad forum:

"Our recordings use more than the above, but that's only because cool people like jwoo10 and Milan and Tjarko and dtb and TomD use their gear to contribute tracks. "

Ford Van, i agree with you... but i doubt if someone can have this kind of sound with an DMP3, and Audigy and an AKG 3000.

Nice to hear BOD, anyway. Thanks.

 

[eraos]

This raises a classic conundrum:

How can you tell what the converters sound like if you are listening to them through your own converters?

I was actually going to ask that.

 

[chessrock]

How can you tell what the converters sound like if you are listening to them through your own converters?

Easy.


If you're trying to test the A/D: Take some reference material you are familiar with. Favorite songs off of a CD; that kind of thing. Pick something at least somewhat complex from a production standpoint. No solo instruments.

Next, pick a decent set of d/a converters. If you use crappy d/a, then the test is doomed. (Luckily, d/a technology in most audio interfaces is somewhat ahead of the curve compared the a/d side ... very generally speaking. This is because, due to home stereos, dvd, etc., there is a moderately healthy demand for quality d/a spured by demand for consumer products)

Now, take a sample of your reference material, and put it through several generations of re-recording. Three generations or more should do it. Do this for each a/d converter you are comparing. Always match levels. Use a test tone if you have one available; it will make it easier.

If you use the same d/a converter for each sample, then the a/d is the lone variable. This allows for a very directly comparison of the quality of one a/d converter versus the other.

But what if the d/a you're listening to the samples through sucks?

Doesn't matter. Both samples are still at the same disadvantage. Again, any differences you hear when comparing the two samples can be directly attributable to the quality of the a/d converters used in the comparison. Assuming you've done everything else correctly, that is.

If you want to compare d/a: Basically, do the opposite of what I explained for the a/d test. Pick your reference material, and make several generations of re-recordings ... one for each d/a converter you're testing. With matching levels, and always using the same a/d converter.

This will, again, give you a very valid comparison, and any differences you hear between the two samples can, again, be directly attributed to the quality of the d/a converters you're comparing.
.

 

[SonicAlbert]

So basically what you are saying that the generational loss will magnify whatever characteristics the converters have. in other words, whatever converters you are listening through will still have their own tonal signature, but the generational loss will magnify the characteristics of the tested converters to the point where you can roughly hear that through your own converters. That was kind of a mouthful, but I think you get what I mean.

 

[mshilarious]

So basically what you are saying that the generational loss will magnify whatever characteristics the converters have. in other words, whatever converters you are listening through will still have their own tonal signature, but the generational loss will magnify the characteristics of the tested converters to the point where you can roughly hear that through your own converters. That was kind of a mouthful, but I think you get what I mean.

Yeah, if you do an FFT on a high frequency test tone, you can see distortion pretty easily. Since accuracy is always deemed desirable in a converter, one would hope the listening evaluation matched the analysis.

If not, it's always easy to muck up a track

 

[chessrock]

So basically what you are saying that the generational loss will magnify whatever characteristics the converters have.

You got it.
.

 

[Warhead]

The differences are getting smaller as Chess said, but yes you can hear the difference in sound between converters regardless of price. It can be huge or it can be minimal. They are a hugely important step in the process, they need to sound good and convey the music...but it can be done for much cheaper now!

War

 

[Middleman]

To the original question, you may or may not hear the difference depending on your monitors and possibly room acoustics.

There are significant differences as others have pointed out. I experienced a large midrange bump in my old M-Audio card which completely threw translation out the window. When I upgraded I had a fuller range and improved translation. This however, was probably not the converters but the implementation of the circuit supporting the chipset.

Later when I played tracks recorded on the older card they sounded great on the new card. This indicates the AD was pretty good on the M-Audio but the DA and possibly clocking were of low quality.

 

[chessrock]

Later when I played tracks recorded on the older card they sounded great on the new card. This indicates the AD was pretty good on the M-Audio but the DA and possibly clocking were of low quality.

You pretty much nailed the problem with M-audio cards on the head. Good a/d, bad d/a. Nice observation.
.