Top 3 gains from Quality AD converters

[peter893]

Top 3 gains from Quality AD converters
I would like to know what people feel the top 3 advantages/gains would be from high quality AD converters. Specifically Apogee converters, AD 16X ?
Please feel free to list more reasons, but really what are the top 3 reasons for better AD converters ? mind you I would be upgrading from Motu828MKII converters.

thanks everyone


Peter

[5down1up]

THE SOUND ?

[ALifeOfRhyme]

when i went from a motu 896 to a rme adi pro ad/da, i noticed a little difference for the better, more transparent...but when i went from the rme to apogee rosetta it was night and day to me, more detailed and transparent, better imaging. Every ear is different and some will hear the difference easier than others. But for my ears, you get what u pay for- i think.

"be cool on your stool"

[logichead]

Improved sound quality is number 1 reason to get better converters, but greatly reduced ear fatigue was the unexpected benefit.

(2 Rosetta 800's and Big Ben, MiniDAC.)

Best....H

[drmad69]

Well, in the case of the lavry, the analog saturation mode, and then there is the digital squash mode too. you basicly get those free. or at least those are my descriptions, but honestly, one of the key designs to a better converter, and apogee was one of the first widely recognised ones to do this, (or at least this is probably why I think people liked them) is the limiter before the conversion, so, you generally don't get that in a crappy converter, you generally don't get a decently designed cutoff filter (sound again there), things like meters that don't suck always help. I mean, it depends how you look at it, the last 5% cost you snotload. But there is just absolute crap out there too.
It's been to long for me to rememver my motu's, 5 years was a long time ago but most people don't like them, course you might want to try a clock first. I know my pci-324 or whatever kind of sucked stability wise.

[u b k]

1) smoothness. better tone to begin with, holds up after plug-in processing.

2) width. wide is good.

3) depth. low level detail is preserved, effects are easier to manipulate, it's easier to tuck things into the mix.

4) bonus: transients. punch, impact, moving air, what have you.

basically, as was stated, it sounds better.


gregoire
del ubik

[Kyle Ashley]

I recently made the large and overdue jump from MAudio Delta 66 converters to a UA2192. I haven't had a big tracking session yet, but from a quick test with a bass guitar I found:

Better depth.....More dimension to the notes....clearer, better definition (especially in the low/low mids).

The Delta converters were actually not too bad considering their price and the fact that I've had them for 5 years, but they were more 2 dimensional and murky sounding with smearing in the low end and low mids. When A/Bing, the Delta really sounded flat and boring compared to the UA. It's also easier to hear the differences with good DA. I had used a Benchmark until I got the UA box.

The UA just sounds more detailed, focused and "big league". It will surely pay off nicely once I start stacking up tracks on top of each other, and that's going to make mixing easier (and more fun).

[Sui_City]

Peter,

We recently received our Lavry Blues. We are running them into a pair of BM5As with a sub.

Although most of this has been said already, here is a list of improvements that we've experienced:

1.) The first thing i noticed was the bottom end was a lot tighter. Previously it was very smeared. Now the low end definition is brilliantly preserved.
2.) Better stereo imaging. Now when i placed things in the mix space i can hear it immediately.
3.) Increased dynamic range that obviously leads to a greater sense of depth.

What surprised us the most was what Logichead mentioned, radically reduced ear fatigue. This was a total surprise, but the sound is just delivered so smoothly, it is amazing. This obviously relates more to the DA portion, but with the ADs we are just not getting that old harshness that we were previously having to deal with.

Good luck.

[max cooper]

I upgraded to a Rosetta 800 96k recently and it really underscores the differences between mics (primarily) and preamps.

It also makes it a lot easier to stay in tune when I'm tracking a vocal. If you can't hear the pitch, you can't really hit it! In fact, I think the overall definition of pitch is increased.

Immediately after upgrading the converters, I upgraded to ATC monitors (from Tannoy System 800 & PBM 6.5) and now I'm thinking of retracking everything I've ever recorded.

[Doublehelix]

I recently went from a Motu 24i/o to the Lynx Aurora-16:

1) Much less brittleness on the high end (didn't even know it was there until I A/B'ed!).

2) Better stereo separation and better control of subtle panning settings.

3) Got that low-end thump!

[gtr123]

I recently upgraded from the MOTU 828 MKII to Lavry Blue A/D and Benchmark DAC-1 for D/A. I was shocked at the difference. The Benchmark just sounded so detailed on playback..you could hear things you didn't know were there before...and like was mentioned before much less ear fatigue. As far as the Lavry Blue A/D goes, if you can afford it...buy it....ther are amazing converters!! I ended up re-tracking so many guitar parts on my latest project because it sounded so incredible. All the guitar parts on my new CD are done through the Lavry and mixed through the Benchmark for monitoring. If anyone would like to hear some clips you can here:

www.sadites.com
www.sadites.com/music.htm

Jay

[peter893]

thanks for the replies.

I was thinking of apogee AD 16x for all my AD conversions and then monitoring thru- Apogee's Mini-DAC http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/minidac.php
Also using the Addon firewire card fro the AD16x to get everything into the box.

Im aslo working on my Micpres. Ive got 2x (16ch) focusrite Octopres and 4ch sytek mpx 4AII. all going into my motu828 via analog and adat i/0
Yes its the focusrites I will slowly be getting rid of.

Peter

[belairstudio]

Hi,

been using ad16x and da16x in the past year and let me tell you:

1) they're smooth and transparent

2) great dynamic range

3) no comparison with older ad8000 or digi's 192.


It won't bite your ears, but the difference with a motu interface is in dynamics, detail and honesty in reproducing sound


BYE

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

Now the low end definition is brilliantly preserved.

'Preservation' is the key word here. It keeps the original tone of the analog signal as close to possible as a PCM device can (IME especially with the Lavry Blues above all else). Digital, even the best, shrinks the depth and width of the original source. The better the converter, the less obvious the detriment. YEMV.

[warhead]

Originally Posted by u b i k

2) width. wide is good.

It's interesting that you say this, I've always felt like moving between my Creamware A16 and Lucid AD9624 was like going from 1" to 2" as far as "width" resolution is concerned. The Lucid just has a bigger image and it's not just a low end thing...it's bigger than life by comparison and the details are better and "bigger" sounding.

War