Converter shootout Files

[huarez]

Same mics, same pre , same Level,same position, different converters , 3000 Bucks per channel difference, worth it? what do you think?( No comp , eq or anything.) Which one do you like more soundwise?(please excuse the poor playing)!!! I posted two more files a little further down the thread, which may be a little more informative. I used a 4006 through a PV 76. The Converters are a Lavry Gold and an Apogee Rosetta 200.

[matt_l]

Interesting, and extremely subjective, as always.

Through my stock MOTU Ultralite (still considering the BLA mod) and BM5As, file 01 sounds larger/wider/deeper/glassier.

Many have argued the worth of this kind of comparo. I like them, but acknowlege that it's all relative/subjective when it comes to listening to these files.

I wonder, if you sum OTB, can you EQ some of the "missing" freqs and "size" back into the 2-buss mix. Maybe that's part of what people hear and like about OTB mixing.

The lesson here is that the cost/benefit curve gets flatter as you climb the converter mountain.

At least the files are .wavs . . .

Matt

[ALL*MYTEE]

#1

[huarez]

Originally Posted by matt_l

Interesting, and extremely subjective, as always.

Through my stock MOTU Ultralite (still considering the BLA mod) and BM5As, file 01 sounds larger/wider/deeper/glassier.

Many have argued the worth of this kind of comparo. I like them, but acknowlege that it's all relative/subjective when it comes to listening to these files.

I wonder, if you sum OTB, can you EQ some of the "missing" freqs and "size" back into the 2-buss mix. Maybe that's part of what people hear and like about OTB mixing.

The lesson here is that the cost/benefit curve gets flatter as you climb the converter mountain.

At least the files are .wavs . . .

Matt

It´s summed ITB ( 2 channels, not a lot of summing needed) and it´s 100 % the same what you would hear when the gear would be in your room.

[GYang]

On my PC's low resolution speakers 2nd file sounded just less lifelike, natural and spacey, so without further listening it's apparent that 1st file represents better converters.

[raal]

preferred #1. seemed to have less high freq info (or more low end) on my laptop than #2 -- sounded nicer for the material imo.

[andremattos]

A prefer #2
Please if you can , PM me tell which converters that you've used for the A/B
I was curious

[mookie]

i heard more space and definition in #1 (this was through pretty bad speakers). just IMO. the second file sounded less dimensional, but i guess it's really the performance that matters most

[Freakuency]

#1 seems to be taming the mids better for this steup

[Windtaken]

i like #1...are you using what i think you're using?

now i'm really anxious...

[ZFire]

On my computer speakers, #1 sounded more polished/smoother... but #2 seemed more like real instruments (more detailed) - I voted #2 (probably the behringer..lol)

[NL5]

A better converter test is to reamp the same signal thru both converters. Too much variation in the playing to do an accurate assessment here. I thought #2 sounded clearly better though. Much more detailed.

[huarez]

Here are two, more identical files, I tried hard to get everything very similar ( picking point , attack ,Position) what may help to work out the differences of the converters. File O3 is the same AD as File 01 and File 04 the same AD as File 02

[huarez]

Originally Posted by NL5

A better converter test is to reamp the same signal thru both converters. Too much variation in the playing to do an accurate assessment here. I thought #2 sounded clearly better though. Much more detailed.

I´m looking for the first AD Process. But I see your Point.

[mcsnare]

I still liked converter #1 better. So please reveal what converters we have been hearing.
Dave

[amigo]

I like the wavs 1 and 3 over the others. IMHO sound better (lows), round, dense and more "analog-like". 2 and 4 sound brighter, thinner, more "digital-homerecording-like (?)".
Thanks for the samples!

[brad347]

#1 sounded more musical to me for these examples. I liked the extended low-end over the other example. Just seemed more dimensional to me. But what do I know? I'd love to know what they were!

[andremattos]

Now 3 or 4 ?!
#4

[bcgood]

I like #2 better because it seemed smoother and cheaper to me ; )

bcgood

[mackid]

Number 1 sounds best to me. More 3d and a little clearer on the left channel guitar. These are pretty close though.

[A.Y.]

#2 & #4... just seemed smoother with equal clarity.

[picksail]

Originally Posted by A.Y.

#2 & #4... just seemed smoother with equal clarity.

This is my assessment too.

[aaronsternke]

I gotta go with #4 over #3. Detail. Come on now, what are we listening to?

Aaron

[Winey]

#1 sounds more like a record to me.
Very different sounding on my speakers.

[AMIEL]

I agree!

[huarez]

I will reveal the name of the units later today. So far said, it´s´both Pro Studio Gear.

[Vato]

It is unpolitically obvious that 1 and 3 are better recordings. They give the detail in such a smooth rich way. Even on my cheap computer speakers the results are clear. 2 and 4 sound like they are trying too hard to be an acoustic guitar,wheras, 1 and 3 really represent evrything I love about acoustic instruments. It almost sounds like 1 and 3 are allowing me to hear the room better. Does anyone notice that?
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You for putting this test before us. This is what gear slutz should be. I think you are smart for not revealing the products by name. It allows us to just listen first instead of stupidly deciding on a product for its "name".
I cant wait to find out what Im listening to. By the way thanks for posting the 2nd set of tracks. More accurate test.
Vato

[GYang]

OK, let me reveal for all:

#3 Lavry Gold
#4 Apogee

#3 depth, space, well defined higher harmonics, touch of analogue subtlety
#4 more direct sound, somehow simplified sonics, slightly harsher

If we talk about what SEEMS to be better IMO again #3 is clear winner.
If we talk what is subjectively better to some listeners, #4 can be prefered by some and it reminds me to situation when somehow lesser, simplified conversion is appropriate (like tool).
Very often I choose Apogee over Lavry even though I can hear that Lavry is truer to acoustic instruments.
Lavry Gold should be quite easy to dinstict from Apogee.

By the way what guitar was recorded?

[huarez]

Originally Posted by GYang

OK, let me reveal for all:

#3 Lavry Gold
#4 Apogee

#3 depth, space, well defined higher harmonics, touch of analogue subtlety
#4 more direct sound, somehow simplified sonics, slightly harsher

If we talk about what SEEMS to be better IMO again #3 is clear winner.
If we talk what is subjectively better to some listeners, #4 can be prefered by some and it reminds me to situation when somehow lesser, simplified conversion is appropriate (like tool).
Very often I choose Apogee over Lavry even though I can hear that Lavry is truer to acoustic instruments.
Lavry Gold should be quite easy to dinstict from Apogee.

By the way what guitar was recorded?

Hi Gyang,
It´s a Santa Cruz Tony Rice ( D 28 ) .

[Vato]

Hey Huarez- You did mention the names of the converters in the original post, you just didnt specify which was used in what track. Im pretty sure the answer is..track 1 and 3=Lavry Gold and tracks 2 and 4= Apogee, however, Im praying that its the opposite. If the latter is the case...Im going to buy an apogee tomorrow.
You should do more of these converter tests for us. Or maybe a kick drum or snare with pres a/b/and c test.
Thanks again for taking the time to do this for us. -------Vato