DAC-1 question for Jules and others

[darwin]

I am sorry if this has been covered before, but this issue is gnawing at me. Jules, you have reccommended the DAC-1 to improve the accuracy of playback monitoring. The logic is that accurate D/A conversion optimizes ones ability to accurately adjust mixes within the digital realm. I agree with this logic.

So, it sounds like you are mixing within PT then going through the DAC-1 to your monitors. Is this basically right?

Next, suppose one were to use the digital realm for editing and some effects, and mix primarily in the analog world by using the D/A converters on a soundcard (in this case, the MOTU 828 Mark II). When mixing in this manner, is the value of the DAC-1 diminished when compared to mixing primarily in the digital world?

[Riccardo]

Darwin,
if you are mixing in the digital domain then the DAC-1 will go to your amp/monitors so that you can properly hear what you are doing in the DAW.

If you mix in the analog domain from a digital source (the DAW) then you will have to have either an analog console or something like a Dangerous summing box. In both cases you will need to convert the digital outs from your DAW into analog via the converters on your interface or external converters (12 DAC-1 for 24 tracks ). Once in the analog domain (be it a console or a summing box) it is up to you to go back to digital via DAC-1 (and in this case you will need the DAC-1 to monitor the mix going back in) or to analog 1", 1/2" or 1/4".
Hope this helps

[darwin]

Thanks for the reply. The final product would be tape. This would go to the mastering house.

I pretty much understand the concept that at every instance that you go from digital to analog or vice versa you have to have either an A/D or D/A converter depending on which way you are going. My question focuses more on the value of the DAC-1 when one is mixing in the analog realm with a desk. How useful is the improved D/A conversion when what you are hearing in the monitors is coming out of the analog desk? The signal has already been converted, and adjustments to that signal in the analog realm (sound coming out of the desk) are what is going to go on the tape that is sent to the mastering house.

P.S.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the DAC-1 is an A/D converter. It is only a D/A converter. I think the equivalent Benchmark product for an A/D converter is the ADC-1.

[Riccardo]

Sorry you are obviously right I meant ADC-1.
In the case you mentioned the DAC-1 (several of them) will get you a killer sound (personal opinion of course) into the analog console for mixing (provided that you have used a good ADC in the first place to record sources....as well as mikes and preamps and so on).
It really depends on the budget.

[jazzius]

If you're mixing on an analogue console, then why would you even need the DAC-1?.......the mix goes from the consoles 2-buss to your loudspeakers purely in the analogue domain so where does the D/A conversion come into it?.........or am i missing something?.........

..........maybe what you're asking is "would the DAC-1 be useful for getting your DAW tracks into the analogue console"?.......then you'd surely be better off buying an 8 or 16 channel D/A converter that runs off ADAT.....though that involves more $$$

[atticus]

Whether you are mixing digitally or via an analog console you will always need a D/A converter at some point. It would either feed your monitoring system or your console. If you are mixing analog you need premium D/A simply to get the highest quality signal to your console. Now if you are mixing analog but storing the mix in the workstation or DAT machine I would recommend using the DAC1 to monitor the mixes as they are going into the storage unit off of the storage unit's digital outputs, after the A/D conversion has taken place, since this is an area where the sound can be substantially altered. We understand that when using large numbers of output channels it can be impractical to have 24 DAC1's in a rack, so we also have the DAC-104 card for our System 1000, which basically gives you 48 channels of DAC1 conversion in a cardframe setup in a 3ru space. I hope that this was of some help. Whether you use our converters or another companies converters the same rules apply. You should always pay attention to both sides of conversion. Thanks.

[Bob Olhsson]

A DAC-1 direct to the monitors could lead one to making some very different decisions about analog vs. digital processing or mixing in a particular situation!

[HEDDcase]

I think the equivalent Benchmark product for an A/D converter is the ADC-1.

Is there an ADC-1 ?

As in a 2 channel counterpart to the DAC-1.

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by atticus
We understand that when using large numbers of output channels it can be impractical to have 24 DAC1's in a rack, so we also have the DAC-104 card for our System 1000, which basically gives you 48 channels of DAC1 conversion in a cardframe setup in a 3ru space.

*OT*

Hi David,

We're trying to figure a (relatively) economical way to get some better conversion on the DAC side of things into our 80B... Specifically, 24 channels to start.
I've glanced at the website, and I couldn't quite get a grip on what exactly we would need and what the cost would be. Could you maybe give me a basic rundown?

TIA,

[HEDDcase]

I've glanced at the website, and I couldn't quite get a grip on what exactly we would need and what the cost would be.

I too couldn't figure out the card system and it's pricing.

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by atticus
...so we also have the DAC-104 card for our System 1000, which basically gives you 48 channels of DAC1 conversion in a cardframe setup in a 3ru space.

David made it possible for me to mix a project through the System 1000DAC's - it's amazing, the difference that those converters made in the mix.

[blackcatdigi]

Well, I looked a little closer and arrived at roughly $8900 for 10 card frame and 6 DAC 104s...

And we need to keep the Digi 'Dongles'...

[darwin]

Originally posted by jazzius

..........maybe what you're asking is "would the DAC-1 be useful for getting your DAW tracks into the analogue console"?.......then you'd surely be better off buying an 8 or 16 channel D/A converter that runs off ADAT.....though that involves more $$$

That was sort of my thought process. If excellent D/A converters help the accuracy of the mix on a stereo two track. Then, maybe I need to consider the 8 or 16 channel process.

[darwin]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
A DAC-1 direct to the monitors could lead one to making some very different decisions about analog vs. digital processing or mixing in a particular situation!

I am very interested in this comment. You probably have had the opportunity to make these kinds of decisions. I am sort of hypothesizing so that I can best spend funds. Would you care to give some examples of different situations you have encountered?

[jazzius]

Originally posted by darwin
That was sort of my thought process. If excellent D/A converters help the accuracy of the mix on a stereo two track. Then, maybe I need to consider the 8 or 16 channel process.

I think you're confusing the 2 different ways that the quality of your ADDA can effect your mix.

The first is where the conversion is actually involved in the sounds that go into your mix....so the D/A between your DAW and your console, or the DAAD loop that you might use for analogue processing if you were only mixing in the DAW, or the AD in your DAT or Masterlink or CD recorder when you record the final mix.........

..........the other is where the DA is used to monitor what you're doing but it doesn't directly effect the sound of the mix........the idea is that the more accurately you can monitor what you're doing, the better placed you'll be to make decisions.
So this DA effects your sound indirectly.

Also, when you say you need to consider the 8/16 channel process, you're not really making any sense..because how is your music exiting your DAW?.......or do you mean you need to consider getting better multi- DA - outs than you already have?

[Bob Olhsson]

You are better placed to make decisions in that you are no longer trying to fix D to A shortcomings that weren't really problems in the recording.

Clock jitter generates high frequency playback distortion that can make digital eq unlistenable compared to analog. A high quality, relatively jitter insensitive D to A will reveal that some digital eq sounds as good or better than lots of analog eq. does, especially mid-priced analog eq run through mid-priced converters.

[darwin]

Originally posted by jazzius
I think you're confusing the 2 different ways that the quality of your ADDA can effect your mix.

The first is where the conversion is actually involved in the sounds that go into your mix....so the D/A between your DAW and your console, or the DAAD loop that you might use for analogue processing if you were only mixing in the DAW, or the AD in your DAT or Masterlink or CD recorder when you record the final mix.........

..........the other is where the DA is used to monitor what you're doing but it doesn't directly effect the sound of the mix........the idea is that the more accurately you can monitor what you're doing, the better placed you'll be to make decisions.
So this DA effects your sound indirectly.

Actually, I am not confused about that at all. Perhaps I wasn't communicating well. We are on the same page here.


[/b][/quote] Also, when you say you need to consider the 8/16 channel process, you're not really making any sense..because how is your music exiting your DAW?.......or do you mean you need to consider getting better multi- DA - outs than you already have? [/b][/quote]

I definitely miscommunicated here. Ultimately, however, I think you understood what I was saying. Yes, I want to run multiple digital outs from the DAW to a console mixer. Each track in the DAW would have a track on the console. It sounds as if the d/a conversion to the console accomplishing this is really important because, as Bob says, you are better positioned to make decisions without the shortcomings of inadequate conversion.

[jazzius]

What Bob O said was specifically refering to the D/A that doesn't directly effect your mix.........he's talking about the quality of your monitoring D/A which helps you make decisions about what you do in the mix.........you've got to really seperate out in your mind the difference between these 2 sorts of D/A.......they're both important but they are different.

I think (others may disagree) that the multi- out DA from you're DAW is where you can get away with lower cost converters.........whereas the DAAD for a 2-buss analogue loop would need to be higher quality.........

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by jazzius

I think (others may disagree) that the multi- out DA from you're DAW is where you can get away with lower cost converters.........whereas the DAAD for a 2-buss analogue loop would need to be higher quality.........

Yep, that's where I disagree; the difference between 16 channels of Benchmark DAC's and 16 channels of Digidesign 888/24 converters was a lot bigger than I feared. I set up my basic mixes using the Digi boxes, then ran AES outs into the Benchmarks when they arrived. It's not fair how much better it sounded, with no changes other than the converters.

[jazzius]

yeah, scrap that........if we could all afford 64 channels of Prism we would........it's just a financial thing

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by jazzius

I think (others may disagree) that the multi- out DA from you're DAW is where you can get away with lower cost converters.........whereas the DAAD for a 2-buss analogue loop would need to be higher quality.........

This can work if you have a great external clock.

Nothing smoothed out the brittleness of the 888's than an Aardvarc.

The better the conversion the easier your choices will be, the less processing you will use in your mixes(especially to compensate for the sound of the converters).

Though sometimes the older D/A's can do wonders on some tracks ie; the warmer sound of the older reverb units.

[darwin]

Well, now, at least, I am feeling better about shelling out the cash for the quality d/a conversion.

[atticus]

The cash aspect is whay I really feel that the modular thing is the way to go. You can upgrade over time. The frame we use has been in use for about twenty years now and we plan on supporting it indefinitely. It has a ton of upgradeability built into it and once you get past the initial frame cost the price per channel of conversion is pretty reasonable. Not to mention it's an extremely compact way to get a lot of channels in your rack.

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
This can work if you have a great external clock.

Nothing smoothed out the brittleness of the 888's than an Aardvarc.

Yes and no.

Certainly not meant to be argumentative, but rather additive;

We currently use a bunch of 888/24s clocked via Aardsync II, as DACs (only) to mix analog through our console. We recently did a little A/B/C comparison of them with both Cranesong and L2 DACS, and it worked out pretty much as you might imagine.

The Cranesong was just wonderful.
The L2 was slightly thinner and more 2 dimensional.
And the other just plain sucked in comparison.

A real eye opener... Especially when considering *how much better* it sounds to mix through all those Digi DACs into the console, as opposed to just staying in the box.

I'm beginning to see a Radar in my future (as that would be the most cost effective option at this time).

YMMV.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by blackcatdigi
Yes and no.

Certainly not meant to be argumentative, but rather additive;

We currently use a bunch of 888/24s clocked via Aardsync II, as DACs (only) to mix analog through our console. We recently did a little A/B/C comparison of them with both Cranesong and L2 DACS, and it worked out pretty much as you might imagine.

The Cranesong was just wonderful.
The L2 was slightly thinner and more 2 dimensional.
And the other just plain sucked in comparison.

A real eye opener... Especially when considering *how much better* it sounds to mix through all those Digi DACs into the console, as opposed to just staying in the box.

I'm beginning to see a Radar in my future (as that would be the most cost effective option at this time).

YMMV.

I'm comparing the 888's with and without the Aard II.

Too much Hedd can be a drag sometimes also(too much color bunched together).

[jazzius]

FWIW, radar mixed thru a 9k sounds incredible.

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
I'm comparing the 888's with and without the Aard II.

Too much Hedd can be a drag sometimes also(too much color bunched together).

Oh, I see what you're saying...

I've actually not tried the 888's DACs w/o the Aard. I'd guess that would be quite ugly. The point (I was trying to make in my post) is that they're quite horrid even with it.

But, yes, I would imagine they're (at least relatively speaking) much better with the ext. clock.

And I agree with the HEDD comment, too much of any flavor of distortion can get nasty.

We compared the HEDD, L2, and 888/24s as stereo pairs all clocked to Aardsync, with no processing on the HEDD or L2... DACs only, head to head (pardon the pun)!

[ghoost]

Originally posted by jazzius
yeah, scrap that........if we could all afford 64 channels of Prism we would........it's just a financial thing

jazzius ... 64 channels of Benchmark is a whole lot cheaper and I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't feel the neeed for prism's afterwards ...

[ghoost]

Originally posted by HEDDcase
Is there an ADC-1 ?

As in a 2 channel counterpart to the DAC-1.

Rumor has it ... soon ... very soon

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by atticus
(snip)once you get past the initial frame cost the price per channel of conversion is pretty reasonable.

David, please forgive me as I really don't intend to sound like a smartass, but the frame is rather inconsequential, costwise. And not to throw punches, but...

$17,900 MSRP for 24 channels of AD/DA plus a rack and a p/s is not really (what I at least) consider to be "pretty reasonable"... I'd consider that to be pretty darn expensive! Right up there with the highest priced multichannel units, no?

Quality of conversion aside, 24 channels of Radar starts at around $6k... Now that seems a little more reasonable, and fits into the same amount of rackspace. Heck, the top-o-the-line system with the S-Nyquist convertors sells for about the same as the $17.9k figure above...

Again, not trying to take a swing at ya! Just trying to figure out a sensible way to acquire some reasonably good convertors at a reasonable rate.