Lavry Blue, Apogee, Lynx Auroa, Mytek, Cranesong.

[Revelation]

I think most would agree that you could make some amazing recordings with any of these converters. Yeah they are not Prism or Weiss, but they still are pretty good converters. If your using the same clock for all converters, there will be different personality’s heard with each of them. Therefore you will most likely mix them differently, all striving to get a similar sound in all mixes. I know with the Mytek, you may use less EQ in the top end compared to the Apogee for instance. So the question is, is there enough of a quality difference between them, that would warrant you to go with one over the other. Yeah I know, for classical, brand M is better, for rock n roll, brand A is better. But with using Great River, Manley and Cranesong Eq’s to get your sound, do you feel a particular converter is above the other?

[Zwinter]

The differences are probably not going to be hit-you-on-the-head obvious. But all of the converters you mentioned are worth taking a listen to and selecting the one that fits your musical taste. Because one is not going to be better than another, they are simply going to be different.

[danasti]

Originally Posted by Revelation

Yeah I know, for classical, brand M is better, for rock n roll, brand A is better.

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.

[numrologst]

I had digi 192 and lynx in the past. I got very hung up on trying to find new converters. It was something I went ocd about for months.

Finally I bought 1 ad16x and 2 da16x, and i don't worry about converters anymore, I don't even think about it until I listen to mixes in the car.

I spent $10,000 on the whole apogee package, and I must say that my records have never sounded better.

They sounded really nice on the digi and lynx, but I can honestly say converters are not a worry for me now

[dkatz42]

Originally Posted by numrologst

Finally I bought 1 ad16x and 2 da16x

Wow...if you don't mind my asking, what do you do with 32 channels of D/A (particularly with only 16 channels of A/D?)

[brokemusician4]

Originally Posted by dkatz42

Wow...if you don't mind my asking, what do you do with 32 channels of D/A (particularly with only 16 channels of A/D?)

He's mixing analog.

[Acoustic Cloud]

At some point, the adda will get so clear and crystal clean, that you will HAVE to use a Behringer tube pre to put at least "some" mud back into the chain!!!

[dkatz42]

Originally Posted by brokemusician4

He's mixing analog.

Um, right, duh.

"Analog, that old thing."

[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.

[danasti]

Originally Posted by Revelation

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

It's funny.

For most really good engineers mixing is second nature. It's not something they think about. It's like a top chef who runs a big kitchen, in a big restaurant, in a big city. They can think about the gear because they really don't have to think about their mixing.

For guys who aren't the best, such as me, someone who is still perfecting workflow and mix dissection as well as being able to add your own sonic signature. The gear excuse can get in the way of learning how to impose our will on the mix.

I do feel like the truth gets muffled in the debate here sometimes. Especially when it comes to converters and clocks.