[Revelation]

Originally Posted by danasti

My opinion is that this broad generalization is a bunch of bologna. (not that you said it but I read that all the time too.)

I think it's mistaken logic because not all classical will sound the same, have the same production requirements or sound charactaristics. Both classical and rock have many variations in tone, frequency and dynamics. Maybe it's good for one particular song or producer/artist but not an entire, broad and drastically different genre.

Converter designers are focusing on capturing all audio as accurately and as phase and distrotion free as possible.

A good converter should be good at making sound into numbers and making numbers into sound. It shouldn't be about sounding good ;only about sounding exactly the same, indistinguishible.

My opinion is that people have been making great recordings in digital since the mid 1990s. Once you learned a system and how to hit it correctly, along with what you can and can't do, great recordings could be made using those converters. It was the material that mattered and the skill of the engineer. I think that apogee had a lot to do with making an engineers life easier. Not to say that you couldn't overcome other converters but units like the ad-1000 and the ad8000 were pretty big steps forward. If used correctly they were extremely close to the analog they were converted; what a concept.

Alot of what I learned with my first digital system was how to feed the converter. The stage before it, and after it on the DA end. This was really the peice that most people, even experienced people, had a hard time adjusting to. It was really the difference between a good recording and a "man it sounds so cold and digital" recording.

Now, 2006, converters have really strong and solid analog stages, both AD/DA, and converter designers found much better ways of dealing with pre and post digital. For instance, the Benchmark DAC1 has a great headphone amp and a really solid analog output, yet people call that a great converter. Point being that I know in ten years I would be 100% comfortable with it as my DAC, knowing I could make as great of a mix as my talent, along with the material, would allow. Since I'm comfortable with certain older converters now, I feel the same way. I feel like my skills could overcome any deficiency that I percieved in them while mixing, and compensate.

What I see now is people wanting their converters to be more than converters. I read about "imaging" and "clarity" but I hardly ever find the discussion leading back to a comparison of what was actually converted. Why, where and how it feel short in comparison? Did it lose all that imaging? It seems to me they are after a unit which will make the mix sound bigger and better than it did in the first place.

The most important part of the converter is the person using it. How well they know how to use it and quality of the material going through it.

Words of wisdom Grasshopper. But do you really think an good engineer is more important than the gear? (Smile)

To Numrolgoist, I am the same way now. I have my Apogee Rosetta 800 and now I don't even think about the quality of the converters any more. The only thing I want now (what not really the only thing) is a dual core computer so I can record at 88 without worrying much about my CPU power. I was floored on how well my Audio Technica 4033 sounded through my Portico through the Rosetta at 88. So was the vocalist.