AD converters

  • Thread starter Thread starter LocusLarsen
  • Start date Start date
LocusLarsen

LocusLarsen

New member
Now I need to get a A/D converter. What brands are good, and how much money is it to get a good one....but with 2 channels. I don't need a $10,000 one just yet, but maybe $500? Is that good? I have a Roland 1680 with a stereo digital in(its got the optical(?) and the RCA looking thing. If I get a 2 channel converter, can I output one cannel left, and the other right, through the same digital cable?
 
Try the Lucid 9624AD (about $600, if I recall). Yes, both channels travel on the same wire with 2 channel digital formats common on today's equipment (AES/EBU or S/PDIF).

Scott
 
I am looking at the 9624 right now....it is only one channel.....well, at least it only has ONE XLR input.

What does the clock do?

I assume it is a MIDI clock?

I have a clock on my 1680 and haven't even touched on how to use it yet. MIDI is so confusing to me. I wanted to learn to use it on some hip hop stuff, but just ended up doing everything freestyle by ear.
 
I realize that it outputs both channels to 1 s/pdif, but....it only has 1 XLR input. I need 2.

I'll definitly checkout the clock thing sometime.
 
HAHAH!!!!!

I was looking at the DA converter....sorry, my bad.

Thank you though.
 
What is the big deal with AD or DA convetors? Arn't the 1/4 or XLR plugs good enough? Is this the big deal when using a digital consule to have DA convetors to go into the analog realm? What if you are plugging in all your digital equipment to a analog board, you need a DA? Half my equipment is just 1/4 plugs... some others have digital or XLR. Is it prefered to go all digital do reduce noise or feedback? I understand the concept of the data eventually must be in 41 16bit for at least red book comerical standard for music, so you need to convert from whatever bit depth and sample rate you were using. But it really makes that much of a difference that you need to buy something that costs 600 bucks just to do this simple math? I see thier is analogue circuity involved, but is their not just as much analogue circuity in my analog mixing board?
 
fluxburn,

My Roland 1680 for example..........

I can input with analog sources. But the Roland converts it with an internal A/D. If I output from the Roland (or digital mackie...what have you) to a peice of outboard gear (analog), through a 1/4 send, the signal gets converted to analog via an onboard D/A. So it seems that you are sending a digital signal to analog tape with nothing involved, but you are. As much as I HATE to believe that my Roland has a cheap A/D and D/A, I can't believe that companies manufacture thousand dollar converters if there is no difference, just simple math.

So as basically a life saving grace....Roland opted to include A/D and D/A ins and outs. Meaning I am not sending the signal into Rolands converters at all. I can use outboard (better) ones if i choose.


I have no idea if that was an answer to what you were asking, fluxburn. I hope it was.
 
fluxburn,

Let me put it this way... Do you REALLY expect to get even remotely the same results with an all-in-one digital mixer, recorder, and burner or even simply a digital mixer, costing anywhere from $1000-$3500 or so as you would from a 2 channel A/D or D/A converter costing $600?

Psst... ALL the 1/4" or XLR connectors (except the ones that are direct digital interfaces) on your digital console are connecting to either an A/D or D/A converter!

Now that you know that, with that in mind, try reasking your question.
 
flux,

in using digital equipment, the quality of the converters may be the single biggest determining factor in the ultimate quality of the sound.

it would be kind of like an all-analog studio guy saying, "what's the big deal about mic preamps anyway? They all have three little holes to plug into!"

the plugs and jacks have very little to do with the sound. it's what they are connected to...

(oops! sorry Recording Engineer for repeating a lot of what you said... I was already typing when you posted yours...)
 
ok so basically you either want analog gear or if you god forbid buy anything digital you should make sure it has a digital out? A emu sound module is an interesting example, it only has 1/4 inch outputs and is a digital system right. So thier you have to put up with that a low end A/D D/A convetor. So on nicer equipment they have the digital output option at least on many. So this is just the way to go you guys are saying.... I mean to me it just seems like wasted cash, but you have the experience on this one.

I guess its like buying a cd burner just for cd burning, or a program that just edits audo is more powerful or better than the one that does tons of stuff correct... same principle eh.
 
guess its like buying a cd burner just for cd burning, or a program that just edits audo is more powerful or better than the one that does tons of stuff correct... same principle eh.


Umm...yeah..nup.
 
Um... You're talking about sound modules while we're talking about recording gear? And any digital mixer or recorder you ever consider I should hope would have a direct digital interface! And they do, for VERY good reason, for very good "sound" reasons!

I know... Can you even believe people actually waste money on such a thing; a conspiracy by the globle underground circle of manufacturers, to provide the option ONLY so us consumers think we need to buy even MORE gear?

Look, you can think it is a waste of cash all you want! But you're certainly WAY off-base here. But I guess you're right, we (our ears) do have the experience on this one!
 
Last edited:
yeah,

the 1680 has pretty sad converters. you can hear it after listening to good converters for a while.

I had the lucid AD9624 plus the Lucid Genx6 clock and even though they made the recording sound better, it was not worth even half of the $1200 that I paid for the setup.

The delta 1010 has some pretty amazing converters if you can get your hands on it and it has a pretty amazing clock(even better than the clock on the ad9624)

In comparison to the delta 1010, the lucid ad9624 had more high end detail and sounded more close, and the clock made the low end sound more punchy in the lows and more focused in the highs,

but in a blind test with the lucid vs delta 1010, the average homereccer would only be able to pick the right choice maybe 50% of the time.

If you upgrade from 1680 to delta 1010, you'll notice a huge difference.

Although I still stand by my theory that if you are writing wildcards then your 1680 is more than enough. Its actually overkill if you are writing wildcards.
 
CyanJaguar said:
I had the lucid AD9624 plus the Lucid Genx6 clock and even though they made the recording sound better, it was not worth even half of the $1200 that I paid for the setup.

The delta 1010 has some pretty amazing converters if you can get your hands on it and it has a pretty amazing clock(even better than the clock on the ad9624)

In comparison to the delta 1010, the lucid ad9624 had more high end detail and sounded more close, and the clock made the low end sound more punchy in the lows and more focused in the highs,

but in a blind test with the lucid vs delta 1010, the average homereccer would only be able to pick the right choice maybe 50% of the time.
Click to expand...
Hey Cyan, can you clarify this for me? Are you saying you think the Lucid's AD is better, or the 1010's?
 
MiXit-G said:
Does'nt the roland vs1680 already have eight A/D mic pres?
Click to expand...

Acually 9, there is a HiZ inut too..........

I wish I could go inside it and swap them out. But then in maybe 5 years I will have Protools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top