D/A Conversion for Audio Playback?

[miroslav]

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.

I can accept the need for a good monitoring chain, so no argument there...but again, if very high-end (as in very expensive) conversion is a key point (and I can accept that for some folks it is, especially in a commercial environment where clients expect to see very high-end gear)...why/what is the point of worrying about them mainly at the BACK END?
OK...you hear greater detail....but why wouldn't you also want to capture that same detail at the FRONT END?

That's like...."Hey, I used shitty mics to record, but thanks to my very high-end D/A playback converters, I can now hear just how shitty they were, so now I know to try and fix it in the mix".....HUH?

All I'm saying is that if you are going to worry about a specific brand/quality/price for the back-end, you need to mirror that same standard at the front-end where it's going to be directly applied to what you are *capturing*, and not just what your are *monitoring* after the fact.
Someone tell me I'm wrong.....

AFA as what converters I use....
I've been using Layla24 boxes for quite awhile now. I run my audio at 24/88.2 and I got no complaints. They sound good.
I have considered other brands in the past, but my initial choices were driven by a need for 24 channels of A/D/A because I still track to tape and mix OTB with the DAW as my playback "machine", and 24 channels works very nicely for that. Three Layla24 boxes fit right in with my budget and my overall studio situation...and right into my computer PCI slots.

When I wanted to upgrade my DAW app and some add-ons, I decided to go with a second computer, and again I wanted 24 channels of A/D/A. I looked at the Lynx stuff and a couple of others...but the price tags were nuts, and I had NO complaints with my Layla24 boxes. So I just picked up another three, stayed with the whole PCI interface thing, and decided to keep my old DAW as-is for backups, and just have a "new" DAW with the latest app and plug-software, but still using the same tried-n-true A/D/A hardware.

I thought about the "get a very high-end D/A for monitoring" as there was buzz about people doing that....but going back to what I already said....it made no sense if I wasn't going to *equally* upgrade my front end, and I didn't see much reason for it.
I still hold with the view that the actual monitors, room...and all the gear that you used at the front end, is going to be much more key to your playback, than just $5000 D/A converter would be, added to it all at the back-end.
I would rather put the money elswhere into the studio than just expensive playback converters.


YMMV......................

 

[Mo Facta]

To me, the front end is a totally different beast, though. A/D capture is a LOT more influenced by by OTHER factors that we all know, ad infinitum. Mic placement, player, room, etc etc etc. The capture is NOT just a result of the converters used to capture it.

Surely, if you had converters that were lying to you, you would WANT to know that they were lying to you? At that point it doesn't matter what A/D you have because if your D/A is lying there is no way you would know. There's also a musical factor. I know for a FACT that my Lynx is a LOT more musical sounding than my MBOX. It's seems lighter, more transparent, and doesn't thicken up as quickly in the lower mids. I know this exactly because of the story I told in my last post. I didn't even have to do anything for the sound to improve. All I did was stem out the mixes and bam! It instantly sounded better and the mix just came together. The clarity is incomparable to the MBOX and now I can't work without it, nor can I work without the DBOX D/A. They are just in a league of their own.

I don't know. To me it's a simple concept and I find it difficult to see why we're debating it. I understand the philosophy of upgrading the front and back end; that's exactly what I did in any case; but to me it's the difference between looking through a microscope and the bottom of a coke bottle. I know tIf you're looking through the bottom of a coke bottle, the detail underneath is meaningless.

Not to say your Laylas are coke bottles. They're actually pretty good converters from what I've read and heard (I haven't heard them, per say) and I'm sure that at 88.2 they sound very good. I guess hearing is believing so what I suggest is see if you can get a high-end unit on apro/demo from your local gear shop and make a comparison. I have no doubt you will hear the difference and see my point.

Cheers

 

[jaynm26]

So Mo, you go...
Lynx->D-Box-Main Out? How are the Lynx converters? and do you use the Lynx as a front end converter as well? Like while your tracking Mic->Pre Amp->OBG->Lynx-D-Box-? I am curious as the sound of the Lynx Converters I was thinking about purchasing them with the Apollo but was convinced the Apollo had solid converters and there was no need for additional converter?

I am eager to hear you response on this thx Mo.

 

[jaynm26]

I can accept the need for a good monitoring chain, so no argument there...but again, if very high-end (as in very expensive) conversion is a key point (and I can accept that for some folks it is, especially in a commercial environment where clients expect to see very high-end gear)...why/what is the point of worrying about them mainly at the BACK END?
OK...you hear greater detail....but why wouldn't you also want to capture that same detail at the FRONT END?

That's like...."Hey, I used shitty mics to record, but thanks to my very high-end D/A playback converters, I can now hear just how shitty they were, so now I know to try and fix it in the mix".....HUH?

All I'm saying is that if you are going to worry about a specific brand/quality/price for the back-end, you need to mirror that same standard at the front-end where it's going to be directly applied to what you are *capturing*, and not just what your are *monitoring* after the fact.
Someone tell me I'm wrong.....

AFA as what converters I use....
I've been using Layla24 boxes for quite awhile now. I run my audio at 24/88.2 and I got no complaints. They sound good.
I have considered other brands in the past, but my initial choices were driven by a need for 24 channels of A/D/A because I still track to tape and mix OTB with the DAW as my playback "machine", and 24 channels works very nicely for that. Three Layla24 boxes fit right in with my budget and my overall studio situation...and right into my computer PCI slots.

When I wanted to upgrade my DAW app and some add-ons, I decided to go with a second computer, and again I wanted 24 channels of A/D/A. I looked at the Lynx stuff and a couple of others...but the price tags were nuts, and I had NO complaints with my Layla24 boxes. So I just picked up another three, stayed with the whole PCI interface thing, and decided to keep my old DAW as-is for backups, and just have a "new" DAW with the latest app and plug-software, but still using the same tried-n-true A/D/A hardware.

I thought about the "get a very high-end D/A for monitoring" as there was buzz about people doing that....but going back to what I already said....it made no sense if I wasn't going to *equally* upgrade my front end, and I didn't see much reason for it.
I still hold with the view that the actual monitors, room...and all the gear that you used at the front end, is going to be much more key to your playback, than just $5000 D/A converter would be, added to it all at the back-end.
I would rather put the money elswhere into the studio than just expensive playback converters.


YMMV......................

Think your more referencing your self Miro since you do not have hi end converters at front end.

 

[Mo Facta]

So Mo, you go...
Lynx->D-Box-Main Out? How are the Lynx converters? and do you use the Lynx as a front end converter as well? Like while your tracking Mic->Pre Amp->OBG->Lynx-D-Box-? I am curious as the sound of the Lynx Converters I was thinking about purchasing them with the Apollo but was convinced the Apollo had solid converters and there was no need for additional converter?

I am eager to hear you response on this thx Mo.

They're fantastic. Worth every penny, imo.

And yes I use them as front end converters along with an Apogee AD8000.

Cheers

 

[miroslav]

Surely, if you had converters that were lying to you, you would WANT to know that they were lying to you?

Sure...but knowing about it at the back end doesn't fix it...or maybe then you have to work at it to fix it.
My point is, have the same quality front and back end.
That's a pretty simple concept so I don't understand why it's being debated.

Think your more referencing your self Miro since you do not have hi end converters at front end.

Dude...I tried out a few different boxes when I was deciding on converters. But as I already said, at the time I wanted 24 channels, and the other stuff that was out there that could give me that at the time was crazy expensive and not much better....not thousands of $$$$ better.
I certainly can afford to by more expensive gear when needed....that's not the issue. I just don't see that back-end converters are where I need to put any more money.

Putting up a $5000 back-end converter doesn't do a damn thing for your captured audio....think about it.

PS....I'm not posting gear buying quesitons all over the place. I'm quite happy with my gear. If I needed something better, I would get something different.



.

 

[Ethan Winer]

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

For a reality check, play the files in these articles and email me your choices if you'd like:

Converter Comparison
Converter Loop-Back Tests

--Ethan

 

[mindsound]

Anything that help you hear the "thruth" help you make better decisions
Better decisions lead to a better mix....so it worth.
When I changed my Multiface (not so bad converters) to Benchmark DA, the difference wasn't subtle. But of course, if one record crappy instruments with crappy mics and pres, but mix through stellar DA, he will end up with TRUE crap. There's a balance to keep in the signal chain between the performer and the listener.

A good DA always worth in my opinion.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Fix the weakest link in the chain first.

In home recording the converters aren't likely to be the weakest link in the chain. Acoustics and technique are more likely culprits.

 

[miroslav]

But of course, if one record crappy instruments with crappy mics and pres, but mix through stellar DA, he will end up with TRUE crap. There's a balance to keep in the signal chain between the performer and the listener.

A good DA always worth in my opinion.

Yes....true...but what about your A/D, shouldn't that be as important?
That's all I'm saying.
If you are going to require a certain standard for your converters, it should be the same at both ends.
Just don't see why the back end is *more* important than the front end or why that's become such a focus here.
The old-school rules still apply...your signal chain is only as good as your weakest link.
If you use a "middlin" A/D....or a shitty mic or pre.....a high-end D/A will not directly improve the audio for you.


Also, to be more clear....in my own situation, I don't *mix* ITB through a 2-channel D/A.
I send 24 individual channels of D/A out to an analog mixer, and mix to a 2-track tape deck.
When I monitor my mix....I'm listening to the output from the mixer through the tape deck...not the D/A, so for me it's even less important to have a very high-end playback D/A.

 

[miroslav]

Fix the weakest link in the chain first.

In home recording the converters aren't likely to be the weakest link in the chain. Acoustics and technique are more likely culprits.

Funny....while I was typing my previous reply, you posted that, saying the same thing.

Yes...exactly.
It's always about the weakest link.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Funny....while I was typing my previous reply, you posted that, saying the same thing.

Yes...exactly.
It's always about the weakest link.

Ethan didn't use the term "weakest link" but he said essentially the same thing in the very first reply. That answer should have ended this thread.

 

[mindsound]

Yes....true...but what about your A/D, shouldn't that be as important?
That's all I'm saying.
If you are going to require a certain standard for your converters, it should be the same at both ends.
Just don't see why the back end is *more* important than the front end or why that's become such a focus here.
The old-school rules still apply...your signal chain is only as good as your weakest link.
If you use a "middlin" A/D....or a shitty mic or pre.....a high-end D/A will not directly improve the audio for you.

Of course, Miroslav, it's the same (if not more important!) for the AD stage. I was just talking about the DA.
I'm 100% agreeing with you.

 

[Ethan Winer]

That answer should have ended this thread.

Yet for some reason it never does.

--Ethan

 

[Mo Facta]

Sure...but knowing about it at the back end doesn't fix it...or maybe then you have to work at it to fix it.
My point is, have the same quality front and back end.
That's a pretty simple concept so I don't understand why it's being debated.

But I'm not debating that point! I even admitted that it is exactly what I did when I upgraded! I would most DEFINITELY suggest upgrading both ends. I feel like you're cherry picking my comments and putting my arguments out of context.

Anyway...

For the last time (I promise!). I believe that IF you acoustically treat your room properly, you get some good monitors you're familiar with, and get a high quality D/A you are putting your best foot forward before you even press record. That is all.

Cheers

 

[miroslav]

But I'm not debating that point! I even admitted that it is exactly what I did when I upgraded! I would most DEFINITELY suggest upgrading both ends. I feel like you're cherry picking my comments and putting my arguments out of context.

Anyway...

For the last time (I promise!). I believe that IF you acoustically treat your room properly, you get some good monitors you're familiar with, and get a high quality D/A you are putting your best foot forward before you even press record. That is all.

Cheers

Still going.....

 

[Mo Facta]

Oh, I'm done.

Cheers