Audio interfaces and their AD/DA chips LISTED

[living sounds]

The circuit design, power supply, clocking scheme, analog circuitry and components are way more important than the converter chip. And they also cost a lot more to do properly, too.

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by living sounds

The circuit design, power supply, clocking scheme, analog circuitry and components are way more important than the converter chip. And they also cost a lot more to do properly, too.

Agreed, I've always said that this is true (although I personally believe that even the worst on board clocks are still responsible for basically inaudible differences between audio interfaces... the actually audible differences are in the rest of the items you listed).

The analog circuitry is almost completely responsible for the audible differences between audio interfaces. That is a fact however many supposed audio engineers disbelieve it.

hence why my delta 1010 comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, although I do feel it's plenty good enough for pro work (well, I use it for paid work all the time so I know for a fact that it's good enough). But I have no doubt that the converter chip is almost irrelevant as long as certain minimum requirements are met.

Which is why the poitn about the steinberg 816 using a codec for d/a conversion is such a surprise. That is, technically, an actually audible effect from a cost cutting decision. One of only a couple of converter design choices that they could have made, and they made the wrong one. It's tough to screw up audio conversion these days, but imho that's what they did considering the target market of the mr816. Surely they could have made the rack box 1 inch deeper and charged $100 more for it to have more chips with better performance...

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by dkelley

Agreed, I've always said that this is true (although I personally believe that even the worst on board clocks are still responsible for basically inaudible differences between audio interfaces... the actually audible differences are in the rest of the items you listed).

The analog circuitry is almost completely responsible for the audible differences between audio interfaces. That is a fact however many supposed audio engineers disbelieve it.

hence why my delta 1010 comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, although I do feel it's plenty good enough for pro work (well, I use it for paid work all the time so I know for a fact that it's good enough). But I have no doubt that the converter chip is almost irrelevant as long as certain minimum requirements are met.

Which is why the poitn about the steinberg 816 using a codec for d/a conversion is such a surprise. That is, technically, an actually audible effect from a cost cutting decision. One of only a couple of converter design choices that they could have made, and they made the wrong one. It's tough to screw up audio conversion these days, but imho that's what they did considering the target market of the mr816. Surely they could have made the rack box 1 inch deeper and charged $100 more for it to have more chips with better performance...

Which is funny, as everyone seems to think it is the best interface and invention since sliced bread.

Are we sure we always prefer clarity? Or is it that not a lot of people know what they are doing?

Seen as you are the tech masters, how does my onyx 1640i stack up?

[tanov]

I extracted the data from the service manuals for n12 and 816. I am disappointed too as n12 owner. Marketing. That is why I started building my own stuff. Another issue with n12 is poor phantom power filtering. My c414 is fine, but c451 has awful hum. With my DIY trident preamp you can hear only silence. I am not sure if the n12 chips can be replaced or it is better to find pure adc/dacs with line I/O.

Please update the main page...

[anna_britbass88]

wow my old Line 6 UX2 uses the same AK4528 as the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.

go figure.

[nms]

Originally Posted by ShadowAMD

Which is funny, as everyone seems to think it is the best interface and invention since sliced bread.

Are we sure we always prefer clarity? Or is it that not a lot of people know what they are doing?

No and yes respectively

The mr816 performs pretty bad in transparency tests:

The Ultimate Converter DA/AD Loopback Shootout Thread!

[Chagalj]

Originally Posted by tanov

Please update the main page...

Check if I got it right. I suppose specs for the N12 were ok.

[tanov]

Perfect!

[dkelley]

if clarity and accuracy were paramount, burl would be out of business (as the famous example).

(side story:I remember the first NICE sounding sound card I got back in the later 1990s. a HUGE sound improvement from the sound blaster series I'd used until then. wish I could recall the make, but it was a 4 channel in/out with 1/4" sockets right on the pci card. very cool. it sounded WAY warmer than the soundblasters. in testing it showed a couple 2 more output through most of the frequency range and a subtle DECREASE in HF output in d/a and even a tiny bit in a/d.

the recordings were stellar sounding. but it was about as far from transparent as one could imagine for digital recording.

I bet if I had it today I'd probably prefer it's sound to the 1010 I use just because I appear to like thicker sounding mids LoL.)

In other words, I think I dislike neutral transparency. But engineering wise I'm perfectly happy to add my higher low mid output using eq etc rather than with inaccuracies in my audio interface.

Maybe though this is one of the attractive things about the sound of the 816... it may slightly sound warmer or brighter or whatever (I don't recall which way it was out of balance right now). Any change is sometimes considered an improvement when you "think" the new product should be better, yet in the case of the 816 it's quite possible that people are actually downgrading their playback sound quality, hearing something they like, and thinking it's actually more accurate because of the new fancy product.

[tanov]

Turtle beach? This was the "better" in the SB years. I agree transparent is better for converters. I am started thinking that keeping analog part separate from digital is better. Converters become more advanced and amps are the same or worse than '70, so it will be easier to replace the digital gear only.

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by tanov

Turtle beach? This was the "better" in the SB years. I agree transparent is better for converters. I am started thinking that keeping analog part separate from digital is better. Converters become more advanced and amps are the same or worse than '70, so it will be easier to replace the digital gear only.

I wish I could say for sure what it was, although that is a strong possibility.

I agree about keeping analog/digital separate. but of course all audio interfaces contain both analog and digital sections, and almost always the analog part has a sound to it while hte digital parts sound almost identical from brand to brand, price to price, because it's all so good now. Unless someone goes and cheaps out with ancient tech like the 816 uses. and of course even then the difference is small, although audible.

[tanov]

It is better to concentrate on our work. There are a lot of brilliant recordings in the past, recorded in very hard conditions with equipment incomparable to the latest cheap digital ad/da converters.

[Category 5]

Originally Posted by nms

No and yes respectively

The mr816 performs pretty bad in transparency tests:

The Ultimate Converter DA/AD Loopback Shootout Thread!

I seem to remember reading rave after rave about the mr816's conversion. That's why you can never trust reviews on forums. One man says it's devine, the other says it's not fit for function.

[dkelley]

most people make up their minds based on how they like the product in other ways. many of those people don't even realize they're doing that (others do but deny it publicly).

This is well understood human nature. It's also why anyone can start a successful business if they know how to market effectively.

The thing is though, as someone suggested already, the poor accuracy of the d/a conversion in the 816 (based on the waveform analysis and noise specs) is still SO good compared to that of most analog recorders (or, if you prefer this thinking instead, compared to first generation digital recorders...) that all of this is moot really.

Anyone who can make great music in a recording situation can make great music with anything from a soundblaster to a burl to anything in between.

The gear that is FUN to talk about here is the gear that is truly interesting, like compressors, preamps, limiters, cool control surfaces and mixers, tape emulators, distortion boxes (distressor type comps and so on), reverbs, delays, etc etc.

cheers
Don

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by dkelley

most people make up their minds based on how they like the product in other ways. many of those people don't even realize they're doing that (others do but deny it publicly).

This is well understood human nature. It's also why anyone can start a successful business if they know how to market effectively.

The thing is though, as someone suggested already, the poor accuracy of the d/a conversion in the 816 (based on the waveform analysis and noise specs) is still SO good compared to that of most analog recorders (or, if you prefer this thinking instead, compared to first generation digital recorders...) that all of this is moot really.

Anyone who can make great music in a recording situation can make great music with anything from a soundblaster to a burl to anything in between.

The gear that is FUN to talk about here is the gear that is truly interesting, like compressors, preamps, limiters, cool control surfaces and mixers, tape emulators, distortion boxes (distressor type comps and so on), reverbs, delays, etc etc.

cheers
Don

I am more confused about this then I ever have been..

So for a rock / metal recording's which are mainly acoustic (Mic'ing amps, Guitars / Bass etc.) Do I want transparent? You can tell difference on a mixing desk pre converter to post so is it going to be a massive problem?..

Why would the MR816 be any good?

In my head I say, poor technical spec's, in my other head people pay a lot of money for "colour" inaccurate noise etc. (E.g. A mic has a 140Db dynamic range) What are you loosing from the converter's?

You can't say tape is "Accurate", It just sounds good.

I think ultimately where my rambling (and train wreck of a post) is getting to, what do we want?

What really sound's the best to us? Many people don't like the sound of MOTU, is this because it may be too good?

*Rock's back and forward going slightly crazy*

[nms]

Just a reminder.. There are only 2 Motu units that have tested with the chart topping transparency. The 2408mk3 and 828mk2. You don't want to lump all their offerings together.

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by ShadowAMD

I am more confused about this then I ever have been..

So for a rock / metal recording's which are mainly acoustic (Mic'ing amps, Guitars / Bass etc.) Do I want transparent? You can tell difference on a mixing desk pre converter to post so is it going to be a massive problem?..

Why would the MR816 be any good?

In my head I say, poor technical spec's, in my other head people pay a lot of money for "colour" inaccurate noise etc. (E.g. A mic has a 140Db dynamic range) What are you loosing from the converter's?

You can't say tape is "Accurate", It just sounds good.

I think ultimately where my rambling (and train wreck of a post) is getting to, what do we want?

What really sound's the best to us? Many people don't like the sound of MOTU, is this because it may be too good?

*Rock's back and forward going slightly crazy*

imho the problems with the d/a of the mr816 are seriously outweighed by any usability features it has, so really the output is a pretty subtle difference compared to truly neutral interfaces. I wouldn't worry too too much.

I get totally what you're wondering about though and I don't know the answer other than, try it (which is an expensive suggestion LoL).

I personally feel that 0.5db frequency balance difference is VERY subtle, and the noise figures suck compared to other interfaces but not compared to analog, so I really wouldn't worry about it too much.

[terence]

The new RME UCX, anyone? Does it use the same Cirrus CS536x series chip for AD conversion as the UFX perhaps?

[Telefunk]

For RME Multiface II the ak5383 is only the ADC. Any idea what is the DAC?

AK5383|Site of Asahi KASEI MICRODEVICES

[Category 5]

Mytek 8x192

Analog Devices ad1955 DA

Burr Brown PCM4202 AD

[Category 5]

Metric Halo Lio-8

AK5394 AD

AK4395 DA

Same as ULN

[Category 5]

Popped open the Apollo

DAx5 (1-8 and main) CS4398 (like Orpheus)

DACx2 (Headphones) AK4480

ADCx2 (Ins 1-4 - Preamps, line in and INstrument on 1-4 shared) AKM AK5388EQ (Quad AD)

Preamps x4 - PGA2500 like Prism, Apogee and RME

[Chagalj]

List updated with 8x192, Lio8 and Apollo.

[djmukilteo]

Originally Posted by Category 5

Popped open the Apollo

DAx5 (1-8 and main) CS4398 (like Orpheus)

DACx2 (Headphones) AK4480

ADCx2 (Ins 1-4 - Preamps, line in and INstrument on 1-4 shared) AKM AK5388EQ (Quad AD)

Preamps x4 - PGA2500 like Prism, Apogee and RME

FWIW
Just because one MFG uses the same chip doesn't mean they are the same quality or design. All of the surrounding discrete components and design for each of those circuits has way more to do with it than anything.

[Category 5]

Originally Posted by djmukilteo

FWIW
Just because one MFG uses the same chip doesn't mean they are the same quality or design. All of the surrounding discrete components and design for each of those circuits has way more to do with it than anything.

Clock, PSU, and op-amps play a big part but unless those things are botched the chip is still the biggest part of the equation most times. FWIW, Apollo is using 5532 opamps same as Orpheus. The design is clean as can be.

[djmukilteo]

Originally Posted by Category 5

Clock, PSU, and op-amps play a big part but unless those things are botched the chip is still the biggest part of the equation most times. FWIW, Apollo is using 5532 opamps same as Orpheus. The design is clean as can be.

So your conclusion is there are the same?

[Category 5]

Originally Posted by djmukilteo

So your conclusion is there are the same?

Not at all. But considering the cleanliness of design and the components used sound quality will be similar.

TL082 and NJM4580 and such cause the lower end units to vary wildly in performance, not to mention poor power filtering (some powered off bus power only). As you get into the higher end interfaces the variances will be smaller. true using Burr Brown op-amps will yield audibly different results than 5532s, but while in the lower end two devices may use the same chip and one be good while the other is crap this is less likely at the higher end of the spectrum.

Point being the device sits amongst the lynx, prism, and higher boxes. Agreed chips tell only part of the story, but they do tell something indeed.

[nms]

Originally Posted by Category 5

the chip is still the biggest part of the equation most times. FWIW, Apollo is using 5532 opamps same as Orpheus. The design is clean as can be.

Not true, there are several units using the same chips with widely varying results. You never want to assume similar performance between units with the same chip whether high or low end. From 1.5k upwards is where the Apollo & Orpheus differ most with the Orpheus being much more transparent. I'm going to add some stuff to the Ultimate Converter Loopback thread tonight to show more on that.

[doulos30]

pretty pointless info without knowing how the chips are used. You can get great results to crappy results from any and all converter chips

[DanRand]

I'm pretty sure the RME Multiface II uses the same AK4620A Codec (i.e. combined ADC & DAC chipset) as the Fireface 400.

The AK5383 ADC certainly has different latency (Group Delay) figures listed on it's datasheet than the latencies listed in the Multiface II manual.