Really dumb question: Analog / Digital Conversion . . .

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessrock
  • Start date Start date
C

chessrock

Banned
Just a quick, dumb question to anyone who might have some light to shed on this topic . . .

What makes the A/D - D/A conversion different from one recording or playback device to another?

How important is it to have a high quality converter, and what will it do to the sound? Why do some cost $200 and others several thousand?

Am I naive to think a multitrack recorder like a VS-880 or a SoundBlaster Live audio card can deliver a near-professional level of digital conversion? :)

Will 24 bits of audio using a cheap A/D sound worse than 16 bits on an expensive A/D converter? Or is the difference only somethign an audiophile can hear?

Where can I find more info. on just what goes in to converting sound waves to O's and 1's?

Thanks !
 
The more expensive the converters, the better the sound quality. Apongee converters are one of the best, they will sound extremely clear and up front compared to a soundblaster live card. A good soundcard will give you a high signal-to-noise ratio, very little jitter, and 24-bit ad/da converstion. If your not PRO, then an M-Audio card in the $400-$600 range will suit you fine.

...I don't think that a VS-880's soundcard will be something to cheer about...
 
Gidge and Slack . . .

Thanks for the links and info. Some very interesting stuff.

I'm afraid the link on DSP theory on Prorec.com may have been just a tad bit over my head.

My DAW workstation operates in the 24-bit domain throughout, and does employ (to the best of my knowlege) adequate dithering to 16 bit for the final "master." (quote-unquote).

My question centers primarily on the first step in A/D chain. I still love to use my multitrack recorder, in some instances, to record inital tracks and overdubs. A lot of what I do involves on-the-spot recording, so portability is a huge issue . . . as is the ability to edit on the fly. (Unfortunately, my laptop just doesn't give me that level of convenience).

Now my multitrack records the initial audio at 20-bit, dithering to 16 for storage. Tracks are then converted to .wav files, and further edited, mixed, and "mastered" (quote-unquote) via DAW.

Am I basically compromising sound quality (on these tracks) for the convenience? Does it even make sense to buy a quality mic pre if much of the detail of the sounds I'm recording will be lost on their quest to becoming 0's and 01's on my multitrack hard drive?
 
Never mind . . .

I just did a search and read some of sjoko2's comments on the subject . . . posted sometime in July, I believe.

Any new developments?
 
Hey frank_1,
seeing in your other post that you use a cassette 4 track to record, you should take your own advice and upgrade you OWN equipment. I'm always a bit dubious about people talking about equipment that they havn't used or owned. Even if what your saying is ok. And whats with that huge fuckn jpeg monkey under your name. Your wasting my screen space for NOTHING. Shrink it down.
 
Scott Tansley,

First of all, Yes I do own a Tascam 414 and no other recorder besides that one. Second I know enough information about Roland VS series recorders to talk about (except the newer models). Thrid, LEAVE MY DAMN MONKEY ALONE! That's my monkey, and I will never part with it! Ha, Ha! I actually tried to shrink it down but I could not, unless I shrunk it down to the 60 60 size they originally wanted. That will never happen mind you...
 

Attachments

  • fakir.webp
    fakir.webp
    53.6 KB · Views: 64
franks comments were in response to chessrocks needs ("near pro quality"), not his own....i have very modest gear myself and i love it and feel its good quality, but if someone wants pro quality, its not the gear id recommend...

that monkey sure duz have a perty mouth.....
 
Sjoko2's comments on the whole A/D converter and word clock thing were very interesting and helpful.

Still, it's all pretty tough to digest. Way, way, way back, I remember when you HAD to go digital in order to get a superior signal-to-noise ratio. Then you had to go back to analog for superior accuracy and warmth. Then it was okay if you went digital again, as long as you were recording 48k - 20 bit. Then it was 96 / 24.

Now, 96/24 isn't necessarily as important. You just have to have an expensive external A/D converter. And an expensive word clock to go with it.

At what point is the recordig medium going to be "too accurate?" Part of the whole analog and tube nastalga thing was due to digital music sounding "too clean." I'm very worried that I will wind up selling my soul for the latest Plutonium-fueled 96 gazillion khz / 24 zillion bit, A/D converter with flex capacitor . . .

. . . and then some audiophile is going to get on this forum and tell me that that 96 gazillion Plutonium-based sounds like utter crap next to the new industry-standard 97 gazillion model.

. . . or worse yet, everyone will wax nastalgic over 44.1 khz. "Man, you just can't beat the warmth conveyed by the classic 44.1. I've got a whole collection of 44.1s I just bought the other day at the spin-disk . . . and man! I'm telling ya' nothing outside of 16-bit MP3 even comes close !"
 
chess, you're missing it. Nothing has changed. Cheap stuff still sounds like shit and always will. The numbers don't exist to fool professionals, they exist to fool amatures.

Slackmaster 2000
 
2" tape is, and has always been the shit....for us amateurs, not so cost effective so all these guys market this digital stuff in a way to make us think we can get "pro" results at home....

i guess from Sjokos comments you gathered the truth....24/96 is just getting to where it rivals analog, but even then, you are talking top of the line converters and clock.....
 
Still, it seems like a scary proposition to shell out $1K (or more) for what is supposed to be a top-o-the-line a/d converter and word clock, when the standard really hasn't been set.

As far as the 2" reel, the standard is there. Not very likely someone is going to come along with a 12" reel that runs at 180 i.p.s. anytime soon.

What's to say the $1K + I shell out now will have any sort of shelf life before: a) something else becomes "the standard" or b) price on "the standard" drops far below the $1K + I originally paid 6 months ago?
 
the Beatles made great music on a 4 track:D ....

sorry, had to throw it in....i know that doesnt help, but it puts things in perspective....Ive heard some awesome stuff in the MP3 Mixing Clinic and alot of it was done on less than optimal equipment......
 
Strongly agree.

Maybe a "less-than-optimal" a/d converter would be just what I'm in need of. How 'bouts a nice ART di/o to go with that spiffy new $300 word clock? :)
 
Im not too sure about Arts converters....i just know if you want to rival the quality of a pro recording, it will take pro mics,preamps,compressors,cords,instruments,room treatment, etc etc etc.....

is this just a hypothetical type question you are posing or are you in the market?...what soundcard will you be using?.....
 
In the market. What soundcard will I be using?.....

Good question. :) Ideally, something with a decent selection of ins and outs, allowing for external a/d conversion and word clock. Need to get analog signals in to my PC for editing -- two tracks at a time is fine, but with as little loss in audio quality as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top