A/D Converters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Superhuman
  • Start date Start date
S

Superhuman

Shagaholic
I currently have a rack mounted M-Audio Delta 1010, the sound has always been pristine to my ears. Recently I went to a studio and recorded a bunch of guitar tracks through an Apogee AD8000... the difference on sound quality was mind blowing! The Delta 1010 looks the business on paper and untill now I never thought otherwise... do I have it set up wrong (interface settings) or is the AD8000 actually THAT much better??

Anyone got any tips on how to get the most out of an AD converter? I record guitar and bass exclusively.

Cheers
 
My opinion

There are several thoughts on the subject, and you will probably hear them all... conflicting.

To me there are several aspects to the converters and front end to any recording setup. There is the converter itself, some chips are better... how much better?... the better ones have less errors in their calculations that can translate to clearer image. Then there is the clocking mechanism. The better the clock the clearer more focuses and deep the image. Many feel the clocking has more impact than particular chips. Then there is the analogue circuitry at the fron end or rear end after the chip. If you have cheesy wiring and components, it will affect the sound.

Of course the pre amp and signal path prior to the converters is very important.

Not knowing what total signal path differences there were from your rig to the apogee rig, there may have been a combination of things that simply were better.

Having said all of THAT, I run a double Delta 1010 rig synched with a Lucid GenX master clock. I recently upgraded to a Lucid D/A for playback / monitoring (all clocking from the same source). The difference was VERY apparent in the clarity of my allready recorded tracks.The Lucid is quieter and clearer You can A/B through the Deltas and the Lucids and the same tracks sound very different.

That tells me the Deltas input conversion is better than the playback section, I simply was not hearing the quality of what I DID record. I wish I could record the same thing through 2 different converters and listen to side by sides for comparison.

I am going to purchase at least 2 channels of Lucid / Apogee type quality and see what the difference really is on my existing set up.

That probably does not help much but it is a jumping off place.

Tom
 
The Apogees are definitely better, but that was only part of a very strong signal path at the studio. Better monitors, preamps, converters, so the "big difference" may not be there if you take the Apogee home and put it in your rack. It will definitely improve things, but it may not be as impressive as it was at the studio. The 1010 is a fine converter for home studios that don't have the multi thousand dollar budgets.
 
tmix said:
I recently upgraded to a Lucid D/A for playback / monitoring (all clocking from the same source). The difference was VERY apparent in the clarity of my allready recorded tracks.The Lucid is quieter and clearer You can A/B through the Deltas and the Lucids and the same tracks sound very different.

That tells me the Deltas input conversion is better than the playback section, I simply was not hearing the quality of what I DID record.
Tom
Click to expand...

Isn't better D/A conversion just icing on the cake? I mean, it's just for monitoring purposes unless you're going outside the box for external processing.
Superhuman said he went to a pro studio and the difference was mind blowing. I'll bet there were a lot more factors involved than just the D/A converters.
How about mics, preamps, A/D converters, Clocks, Analog mixing or all ITB? Monitors, room acoustics, yada yada yada.
I had a Delta 1010 and it sounded good until I got a Fireface and treated my room and some new mics and pre's. It's a lot of money, and each little piece doesn't make a huge difference, but the difference now is quite noticeable.
BUT- over the past 6 mos. I've spent about $12,000! (no wonder I'm not married!).
 
I saw "the chip" mentioned in there - While it's relatively important, it's only a factor in the puzzle. The rest of the circuitry is just a whisker on the important side also...

But clocking isn't a joke either - A good clock can make a fairly dramatic difference in an otherwise "okay" sounding set of converters...

And I wouldn't call it "icing on the cake" - More like "weakest link in the chain" if that's the issue. Especially on the input side and if there's any outboard loops going on.

True, it isn't going to have the impact of switching mic preamps and yada, yada... But I've come to be a very "top of the chain down" type person - Monitoring first. Conversion second. Everything else later.

If you tackle your monitoring (including the room, of course) and your conversion first, you can make *accurate judgments* on everything else.

Without that, you're trying to assess clarity and color through foggy glass.
 
Massive Master said:
I saw "the chip" mentioned in there - While it's relatively important, it's only a factor in the puzzle. The rest of the circuitry is just a whisker on the important side also...
Click to expand...

With most converter chips, the clock is part of the chip. While chips usually can take an external clock, it is probably better to get a good converter rather than a crap converter and a good clock. The crap converter will probably still have poorer dynamic range irrespective of the clock. The chip is essentially a limiting factor--it isn't possible for the converter to perform better than the chip's specs, but if the rest of the circuit is screwy, then it can get worse . . .
 
hey buds,
semi-related question: i am using an emu interface right into my laptop and mixin in cubase but i would like to start outbourd mixing and signal processing (for fun as well as experience.) i have heard people praise the emu converters but i wanted to know if they were good enough to justify an extra d/a to a/d conversion in the chain? thanks for the wisdom.
-matt
 
The Apogee is better, but then probably was the rest of the signal path at the studio, as has been mentioned. Included in that would be playback. Did you take any tracks you recorded on your Delta and play them back through the studios monitors? They would probably sound better too.

But really the bottom line is always that "you get what you pay for".

You could get similar quality conversion in your home studio using the Apogee Rosetta 200, UA 2192, Mytek or Lavry converters, for example. But cost is a factor.
 
I just got done driving a professional race car that used Good Year tires.

I was so impressed with how fast those tires were. Should I put Goodyear tires on my piece of shit in the driveway? Will it go as fast as the race car if I do?
.
 
No one has mention RME yet. I have been curious about these converters. They look to be a mid price range converter like MOTU.
Could anyone shead a little light on RME? As far as playback and inputs that is. I too use the 1010. When someone said there playback wasn't good, I was thinking Eureka. I have noticed this as well. This makes me feel a lot better about adding a apogee rosetta 200 2 ch. in/out converter to my studio. Use the apogee for playback and single channel instuments, drum overheads and vocal, while using the 1010 for close mic drum tracking.
 
MadMax said:
? I mean, it's just for monitoring purposes unless you're going outside the box for external processing.
Click to expand...

It effects more than that. It will effect the initial quality of signal in when it converts from analog to digital. So even if you mix totally in the box, it will effect every track.
 
The rest of the gear in my chain is pretty good, I DI with a Mesa Boogie Triaxis through a Mesa poweramp and a Palmer PDI-03 amp sim, straight into the Delta 1010. The only difference with the chain in the studio I went to was the Apogee AD8000 unit but the sound was far superior. The monitors in the studio no doubt had a large roll to play, they were a set of Genelec's as opposed to my own Tannoy Reveals.
I recorded a few riffs at home with the idea of importing them into a studio project but after they were loaded into ProTools and played alongside fresh studio recordings using the same gear (except for the AD converter) the sound was very different. The Delta recordings sounded kind of flat along side the Apogee which was brighter and seemed to have more depth and clarity.
 
gcapel said:
This makes me feel a lot better about adding a apogee rosetta 200 2 ch. in/out converter to my studio. Use the apogee for playback and single channel instuments, drum overheads and vocal, while using the 1010 for close mic drum tracking.
Click to expand...

This was my thought as well.
 
Question....

I have a delta 1010. I am looking to get a high end A/D converter that is two channels. Everything points towards the Lavry converters. Now will I be able to set my system up so be needed (DRUMS) I can use both the Lavry and the delta at the same time.
 
Listen to SuperHuman shred!!!

I enjoyed your 2 songs... I laughed when you mentioned the "pre Black" Metallica.
 
Superhuman said:
The only difference with the chain in the studio I went to was the Apogee AD8000 unit but the sound was far superior.

I recorded a few riffs at home with the idea of importing them into a studio project but after they were loaded into ProTools and played alongside fresh studio recordings using the same gear (except for the AD converter) the sound was very different. The Delta recordings sounded kind of flat along side the Apogee which was brighter and seemed to have more depth and clarity.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question.

While everything in the chain is important, in this case, it is ONLY the converters that were different when comparing the two tracks...........
 
NL5 said:
You answered your own question.

While everything in the chain is important, in this case, it is ONLY the converters that were different when comparing the two tracks...........
Click to expand...

I'm confused, I thought they were home recorded tracks vs studio recorded tracks?
 
Robert D said:
I'm confused, I thought they were home recorded tracks vs studio recorded tracks?
Click to expand...
Yes, but he said he use0d the same chain in the studio except for the convertor. So the only differences would be the convertors, the room, and the engineer.
 
fraserhutch said:
Yes, but he said he use0d the same chain in the studio except for the convertor. So the only differences would be the convertors, the room, and the engineer.
Click to expand...

It's DI, so the room is out of the equation as well - pretty much the engineer too.

They were played back at the same studio with the same gear as well.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top