Converters: Black Lion Sparrow vs. Behringer Ultramatch Pro

[living sounds]

Here's a little low end vs. high end test.

Preamplification und EQing has been done in my heavily modified Mackie console. Sources are E-Guitar (direct), technosaurus microcon II, Shakuhachi, Tin Whistle, Acoustic Guitar, Vocals, Hand Drum (a little clipped, but I decided to keep it in the test), Blues Harp.



And take the poll: Which one do you prefer, left channel or right channel (I'll tell which is which in a few days).

http://www.scherer.de/Download/Sparr...ramatchPro.zip

Have fun!

[HobbyCore]

Remove the 'hint'. It completely ruins your test.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

Remove the 'hint'. It completely ruins your test.

OK, did that.

[space2012]

according to the file R side, not my speaker R,
to avoid that possible mistake, instead of testing all my signal chain,
i have splitted the LR file. in two mono files.
and S.R.C. to 48khz 16-Bits.

R file has less jitter in the wordclock. = more defined, less mudy sound.
spectrograms look almost the same, L file has a strange brighter frequency peak near 2:50.

if you used same master clock for both with verry hi quality digital cables, then: the analog circuit design in R file is better.
but i think the diference here is the wordclock.
the diference is big.
...
what you think about the Behriner Ultramatch SRC2496 DAC ?

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by space2012

according to the file R side, not my speaker R,
to avoid that possible mistake, instead of testing all my signal chain,
i have splitted the LR file. in two mono files.
and S.R.C. to 48khz 16-Bits.

R file has less jitter in the wordclock. = more defined, less mudy sound.
spectrograms look almost the same, L file has a strange brighter frequency peak near 2:50.

if you used same master clock for both with verry hi quality digital cables, then: the analog circuit design in R file is better.
but i think the diference here is the wordclock.
the diference is big.
...
what you think about the Behriner Ultramatch SRC2496 DAC ?

What converters/monitors are you auditioning through?

[rkwyent]

Bump!!

[Chris Lago]

1 Behringer, 2 Sparrow.

[e-cue]

Originally Posted by space2012

R file has less jitter in the wordclock.

Priceless.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by e-cue

Priceless.

Yes, and he obviously doesn't want to say what listening equipment he's using.

[silence2-38554]

While the left channel does almost seem to have more clarity in the high end, the right channel seems fuller and more powerful.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by living sounds

What converters/monitors are you auditioning through?

your test i was listening with:
Compaq Presario V3000 laptop speakers,
or old onboard Intel Soundcard in an old Compaq Presario 4700 pc.
and Stanton DJ PRO 60 headphones.
with:
WMP10, dont like WMP11 becouse the removed features.
+Cole2K Media Pack Advanced: AC3Filter Prefered "AS-IS 32-Bit" Waveout, dont like the sound of ffdshow filters.
+Adapt-X Chronotron "Force Stereo 24-Bit Active"
+Cakewalk VST-DX Adapter
+any decent VST EQ plugin. "the personal taste variable" some VST EQs sound much better than the "Stock" Graphic EQ in WMP9/10/11.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4104731-post13.html

im selling pspaudioware.com MasterQ e-license.
some people love it, all depends in your music style & personal taste.
***
jitter is accumulative:::

is harder to listen recording jitter with a verry hi quality MasterClock
for example:
if you record a file with 1ppm jitter,
and listen in other system with 1ppm jitter = 1+1=2ppm
or if you recorded samething with:
800ps like RME SteadyClock(TM), and hear in a 1ppm clock like Drawmer M-Clock = 800ps+1ppm
but if i listen in other like Alesis Ai-2 +-50ppm, = 800ps+50ppm
or atomic clock 0.00003ppm recording, but listening with 1ppm clock = 1ppm
or record 800ps and hear with atomic clock = 800ps
if its recorded & played back with a jitter sensitive converter.
they all sound diferent... the same recording, same mic-pre, same mic, same cables.
jitter makes it sound blur in most cases, but in some other jitter makes some harmonics to dissapear.

the second jitter "playback jitter" makes more obvious "modulates" the first recording jitter.
almost multiply it.
most consumer crystal clocks, have less than 2ns or 2000ps jitter.

i have much better equipment, but for converter listening tests, lots of tests has shown me that standar/decent equipment is better, becouse i want to amplify the jitter in the recordings.
but the opposite also happens for recording/mixing/mastering/general listening, a more accurate clock is much better, i want them to sound as close as possible as the source, and also realtime eq plugins settings are affected like crazy with the playback jitter.

sometimes playback jitter has weird side effect/problems.
like Yamaha DSP Factory DS2416 clock jitter, or EMU 1820m E-DSP 576ps jitter.
the clock jitter frequency resonates in an odd way with most AD clocks/recordings ive heard, and increases the harmonic cancelations like crazy, everything sounds dark, pulled back, weak, odd strange.

some times, some CD extracted to .wav songs, that were recorded with a hi-jitter clock, in AAD signal chain, listened with 1ppm clock, sounds LOUDER, IN YOUR FACE, WIDER STEREO.
and listened with other standar clocks sounds not as louder, not as impressive.
recording and playback jitters amplify or nulls each other.

and some people like the sound of some jitters., i dont.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by space2012

your test i was listening with:
Compaq Presario V3000 laptop speakers,
or old onboard Intel Soundcard in an old Compaq Presario 4700 pc.
and Stanton DJ PRO 60 headphones.
with:
WMP10, dont like WMP11 becouse the removed features.
+Cole2K Media Pack Advanced: AC3Filter Prefered "AS-IS 32-Bit" Waveout, dont like the sound of ffdshow filters.
+Adapt-X Chronotron "Force Stereo 24-Bit Active"
+Cakewalk VST-DX Adapter
+any decent VST EQ plugin. "the personal taste variable" some VST EQs sound much better than the "Stock" Graphic EQ in WMP9/10/11.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4104731-post13.html

im selling pspaudioware.com MasterQ e-license.
some people love it, all depends in your music style & personal taste.
***
jitter is accumulative:::

is harder to listen recording jitter with a verry hi quality MasterClock
for example:
if you record a file with 1ppm jitter,
and listen in other system with 1ppm jitter = 1+1=2ppm
or if you recorded samething with:
800ps like RME SteadyClock(TM), and hear in a 1ppm clock like Drawmer M-Clock = 800ps+1ppm
but if i listen in other like Alesis Ai-2 +-50ppm, = 800ps+50ppm
or atomic clock 0.00003ppm recording, but listening with 1ppm clock = 1ppm
or record 800ps and hear with atomic clock = 800ps
if its recorded & played back with a jitter sensitive converter.
they all sound diferent... the same recording, same mic-pre, same mic, same cables.
jitter makes it sound blur in most cases, but in some other jitter makes some harmonics to dissapear.

the second jitter "playback jitter" makes more obvious "modulates" the first recording jitter.
almost multiply it.
most consumer crystal clocks, have less than 2ns or 2000ps jitter.

i have much better equipment, but for converter listening tests, lots of tests has shown me that standar/decent equipment is better, becouse i want to amplify the jitter in the recordings.
but the opposite also happens for recording/mixing/mastering/general listening, a more accurate clock is much better, i want them to sound as close as possible as the source, and also realtime eq plugins settings are affected like crazy with the playback jitter.

sometimes playback jitter has weird side effect/problems.
like Yamaha DSP Factory DS2416 clock jitter, or EMU 1820m E-DSP 576ps jitter.
the clock jitter frequency resonates in an odd way with most AD clocks/recordings ive heard, and increases the harmonic cancelations like crazy, everything sounds dark, pulled back, weak, odd strange.

some times, some CD extracted to .wav songs, that were recorded with a hi-jitter clock, in AAD signal chain, listened with 1ppm clock, sounds LOUDER, IN YOUR FACE, WIDER STEREO.
and listened with other standar clocks sounds not as louder, not as impressive.
recording and playback jitters amplify or nulls each other.

and some people like the sound of some jitters., i dont.

This is an astounding piece of guesswork, fantasy and information you read somewhere else.

[living sounds]

To the people who preffered the right channel - what listening equipment did you use?

[pinwale]

Originally Posted by living sounds

This is an astounding piece of guesswork, fantasy and information you read somewhere else.

I concur with Mr. Sounds.

Mr. 2012, you're a barmy fella, aren't ya? One tick short of a sample? One bit short of a wordlength?

[space2012]

Originally Posted by pinwale

I concur with Mr. Sounds.

Mr. 2012, you're a barmy fella, aren't ya? One tick short of a sample? One bit short of a wordlength?

what means Barmy for you?
barmy definition | Dictionary.com
by the way... what does mean your avatar ?

what ever you have to say,
seems you have problems to say things directly.

[living sounds]

All right, I consider this poll a failure, since the people with the high end listening equipment probably didn't bother to listen and vote, and the ones without it couldn't really hear it on their systems and/or didn't know what to listen for.

The left channel is the Sparrow, the right one is the Behringer. As far as jitter is concerned, the Behringer is actually several orders of magnitude worse (a few 100 times!). Due to this, and due to the cheap Op Amps (JRC45xx) and the noisy power supply in the Ultramatch Pro there are - besides lower detail and constrained transient response - audible (through good converters) mid-range artifacts that may come over as fatness on lower end systems, but will ultimately present a host of problems at the mixing stage. EQing will reveal the harshness, and compression will show the lost transients. The Behringer is quite good for the money, but the Sparrow really is A LOT better.

This once again proved that simple converter test over the internet are completely unreliable and more or less useless, at least for the gear-challenged beginner. If I had the time I'd record a complete song and mix through the different converters, the end result would clearly show the better converter, but I doubt I'll ever get to do that.

[bigpharoah]

The Behringer has also beat the Lynx Aurora in a subjective test where they were run at the same sample rate. The test was done using analog summing to complete a mix.
You shouldn't put up a test as subjective as sound quality of converters and get angry with people because they don't give you the results that you expect.
Aren't the majority of songs going to be listened to by end users as lossy mp3 files? Perhap's you should do a blind test yourself and take your preconceptions out of the equation. The only problem with this test is you!

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by bigpharoah

The Behringer has also beat the Lynx Aurora in a subjective test where they were run at the same sample rate. The test was done using analog summing to complete a mix.
You shouldn't put up a test as subjective as sound quality of converters and get angry with people because they don't give you the results that you expect.
Aren't the majority of songs going to be listened to by end users as lossy mp3 files? Perhap's you should do a blind test yourself and take your preconceptions out of the equation. The only problem with this test is you!

I think you got me wrong there, I'm not angry at people. I just realised that this kind of test is of little use. The differences are there, but you need to know what to listen for and the equipment to hear it. Once you start processing, mixing the tracks it gets all to obvious.