Hi End Converter Shootout - Blind Test

[MattGray]

Hi Everyone,

For those of you who were following my thread regarding the 'Pacific Microsonics HDCD Model 2' & my quest to find the ultimate D/A & A/D converter combo for mastering duties, I've finally got a set of test files ready for download to test your ears in a blind capacity.

I compiled a 01:30 selection of 3 x 30 sec musical pieces in 3 different genres to run through various converters to test their capacity for transparent conversion. All files are 24bit 96kHz & there is 10 converter options to listen to. I didn't create all the converter files so some levels are slightly different with the worse case being 2.1dB difference from the original digital file while most others are within 0.2dB difference or no measurable difference at all. These are all original mixes upsampled to 96kHz with iZotope's 64bit SRC with no other processing applied, just exactly how I received them from my clients.

All the test files were a hard wire transfer from D/A to A/D with short AES patch leads used for digital & analog interconnects & each AD converter was clocked internally (set as master clock through BNC wordclock).

In all but 3 of the files, matching brands of D/A & A/D converters were used where possible to keep things on a more even playing field however when listening to these test files be aware that your monitoring D/A of choice will colour the files 'true' sound but at least all files will be on an even playing field. I felt it important to do this as in my testing I preferred matching brands rather than mixed brands which makes sense I guess considering that they would be calibrated for the best accuracy between each unit in terms of linear frequency balance etc.

About the session... I decided to compile a blind ABX Pro Tools HD session for auditioning the files for a number of reasons (a Digital 192 I/O was used to capture the files through its AES-EBU interface). Firstly I've left the original files untouched in terms of their final levels but adjusted the mixer faders in Pro Tools to compensate for level differences. I know a number of people from various other shootout tests didn't like the idea of putting destructive gain on the test files for various reasons so I've left them at their captured level so you can apply whatever gain tool you deem transparent to match the levels. However, if you open this session in Pro Tools every file is on a clean track ready to be solo'd against the original digital mix file & against each other with levels compensated on the PT's mixer. If you don't like this approach I've also made it so all the files can be imported to the DAW of your choice & will all sync with the start point of each file in the timeline. However you will need to level match the files yourself if you choose this method of auditioning the files.

This test was designed with my workflow in mind which is why files are 96kHz & not 44.1kHz. Sorry if this doesn't match with your workflow & apologies for the additional bandwidth.

If you wish to participate in this test, please do so without whining about the test being flawed for whatever reason. It was done as evenly as possible under the circumstances & where possible each unit was calibrated to match the same levels as closely as possible with the exception of the files which weren't done by me. If you download & participate in this blind test take it for what it is warts & all.

ok so enough of the boring stuff... what converters were tested? In no particular order...

Lavry Gold AD122-96 MkIII, Lavry Gold DA924
Prism Orpheus AD & DA
Prism ADA8XR AD & DA
Forssell MADA-2 AD & DA (proper release not an early prototype)
Pacific Microsonics HDCD Model 2 AD & DA
Cranesong HEDD 192 AD & DA (current DA board older AD board with no processing)

There is also 3 files which have mixed brands, they are...

Lavry Gold DA924 & Pacific Microsonics Model 2 AD
Pacific Microsonics Model 2 DA & Lavry Gold AD12296-MkIII
Forssell DA & Lavry AD12296-MkIII

Plus one mystery file just to keep things interesting...

The session & audio files can be downloaded here...

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3481388/Blin...r_Shootout.zip

Feel free to post observations & after extended careful listening post on the poll what your preferred converter is. Also I'd like to ask you to supply your monitoring specs (speakers, headphones & monitor DAC) that you used to do this test, just to put some relevance on your listening results.

Once we've got a number of people posting results I'll reveal the true identity of the files or if you simply can't wait to find out, post your initial thoughts on this thread & post your fav on the poll & PM me for the results. I would recommend listening through them for a few days though before making up your mind.

Enjoy!

** Update - converter identity revealed in this post

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by MattGray

I didn't create all the converter files so some levels are slightly different with the worse case being 2.1dB difference from the original digital file while most others are within 0.2dB difference or no measurable difference at all.

Looking forward to hearing the Pacific Microsonics... Thanks for that! I think it would be a good idea to match all levels in the comparison samples though (I'll gladly offer to do it, if you don't have the time).

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

Looking forward to hearing the Pacific Microsonics... Thanks for that! I think it would be a good idea to match all levels in the comparison samples though (I'll gladly offer to do it, if you don't have the time).

Hi Robin, please note this paragraph in my original post... looking forward to your opinion on the files as I know you did something similar just recently with A/D's.

About the session... I decided to compile a blind ABX Pro Tools HD session for auditioning the files for a number of reasons (a Digital 192 I/O was used to capture the files through its AES-EBU interface). Firstly I've left the original files untouched in terms of their final levels but adjusted the mixer faders in Pro Tools to compensate for level differences. I know a number of people from various other shootout tests didn't like the idea of putting destructive gain on the test files for various reasons so I've left them at their captured level so you can apply whatever gain tool you deem transparent to match the levels. However, if you open this session in Pro Tools every file is on a clean track ready to be solo'd against the original digital mix file & against each other with levels compensated on the PT's mixer. If you don't like this approach I've also made it so all the files can be imported to the DAW of your choice & will all sync with the start point of each file in the timeline. However you will need to level match the files yourself if you choose this method of auditioning the files.

[William Bowden]

God, I'm still at work, Matt why do you have to set homework all the time?

Will try to listen at some point, it was interesting hearing Fred's unit the other night.


The King

[macc]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

Looking forward to hearing the Pacific Microsonics... Thanks for that! I think it would be a good idea to match all levels in the comparison samples though (I'll gladly offer to do it, if you don't have the time).

You can do it for me if you like

Thanks for this, Matt.

[GYang]

I think the winner is Forssell thumbsup

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Hi Robin, please note this paragraph in my original post... looking forward to your opinion on the files as I know you did something similar just recently with A/D's.

My apologies... I overlooked that completely.

I'd still humbly propose to make compensated files the default download, and an alternative unmatched version for those that believe that digital attenuation at 24 or even 32 bits is inherently evil...
...reason being that this is Gearslutz and in all likelihood many participants won't compensate level on their end.

Hope you don't mind me writing my thoughts on this in your thread.

Originally Posted by macc

You can do it for me if you like

Can do later... Alternatively, since Matt has already done all the work, maybe someone can use his Pro Tools session and bounce the compensated files?

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by macc

You can do it for me if you like

Thanks for this, Matt.

well if you can play the session back in Pro Tools you won't have to do a thing... Maybe I was a bit presumptuous to assume that everyone had a Pro Tools rig these days. I can provide the level differences for each file if that helps you peeps without PT's?

Originally Posted by GYang

I think the winner is Forssell thumbsup

Great! & which converter file do you perceive that is in this blind test? C'mon put your money where your mouth is.

Originally Posted by William Bowden

God, I'm still at work, Matt why do you have to set homework all the time?

I'm still tinkering away on a few last minute jobs as well. One of the downsides to having the studio on the same property as your house

Will try to listen at some point, it was interesting hearing Fred's unit the other night.

Yes although I still contest that listening session was pretty flawed (different calibration levels & the AD not running as master clock). I'm pretty pedantic about these things as it's too easy to fool yourself if the levels are slightly off &/or the clocking isn't optimal. I was maybe thinking that the Lavry faired better than usual with the Prism acting as master clock, but then this in itself will raise some eyebrows I'm sure. I don't believe that any well designed A/D converter would benefit from external clocking but at least you still got to hear some idea of how the Forssell sounds Also I find that an hour or so of listening isn't going to tell you too much. You need to run a set of converters in your chain for a while & compare your regular converter's DA & AD capture (on a real job!) to the new set to really appreciate the differences. The other thing is that when you're so used to hearing something a certain way (like I was with the Lavry AD12296-MkIII) it's hard not to subconsciously make that your 'true' point of reference when listening to a new converter. Its easy to pick up the bigger differences but it certainly took me sometime & some regular A/B'ing in unattended sessions on jobs to appreciate all the subtle differences between them.

Matt

[macc]

Originally Posted by MattGray

I can provide the level differences for each file if that helps you peeps without PT's?

That'd be great thanks.

As well as removing another argument for the inevitable onslaught of 'this test is flawed' posts

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

I'd still humbly propose to make compensated files the default download, and an alternative unmatched version for those that believe that digital attenuation at 24 or even 32 bits is inherently evil...
...reason being that this is Gearslutz and in all likelihood many participants won't compensate level on their end.

Well there are other reasons why I'm reluctant to adjust them all destructively. There is 3 different mixes per converter file & some converters alter the levels differently from one piece of music to the next even though they were all run directly through the converter as one continuous audio file. So for example one sample might have the same peak level as the original digital file but be hotter by 0.1dB RMS but then in a different piece of music the same converter file might might be down -0.2dB in it's peak level but is still only 0.1dB RMS louder. Then in the 3rd piece of music it might be down -0.1dB in Peak levels but up +0.2dB in RMS levels. Should I ignore peak values & just change RMS values per piece of music?

Also if I lower levels should I be adding 24bit TPDF dither? Wouldn't adding it or not adding it slightly change the sound?

You can see what I mean when you open this can of worms... what is the best way to match levels in a case like this? Obviously for the file that's 2.1dB in difference it needs to be done but with small differences of 0.1 should we bother or are we going to do more harm than good?

Just saying...

[MattGray]

Ok here is what I've done... I've used iZotope Ozone with 24bit TPDF & gain only (no other modules active) to raise the level of 'Converter File F' by 2.1dB destructively.

All the others need the gain adjusted as follows if you look at RMS values only...

Converter A. -0.1dB
Converter B. no change
Converter C. -0.3dB
Converter D. -0.2dB
Converter E. no change
Converter F. no change (I've done it for you destructively)
Converter G. +0.1dB
Converter H. -0.3dB
Converter I. -0.3dB
Converter J. -0.1dB

I'll leave these up to you to decide how you wish to best process them if you take my previous post into consideration. If you were early off the mark & downloaded the files already please download these adjusted files here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3481388/Chan...e_existing.zip & replace the files with the same name so everyone has the same files (please allow some time for the links to become active again while it's uploading).

A lot of people have a Pro Tools rig to run this on but for those that don't, use your preferred digital gain to adjust the files to the values I've noted in this post. I'm sure you're all competent enough to make these adjustments yourself in the DAW of your choice. I don't see any reason to upload 2 different file sets & waste bandwidth.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Well there are other reasons why I'm reluctant to adjust them all destructively. There is 3 different mixes per converter file & some converters alter the levels differently from one piece of music to the next even though they were all run directly through the converter as one continuous audio file. So for example one sample might have the same peak level as the original digital file but be hotter by 0.1dB RMS but then in a different piece of music the same converter file might might be down -0.2dB in it's peak level but is still only 0.1dB RMS louder. Then in the 3rd piece of music it might be down -0.1dB in Peak levels but up +0.2dB in RMS levels. Should I ignore peak values & just change RMS values per piece of music?

Also if I lower levels should I be adding 24bit TPDF dither? Wouldn't adding it or not adding it slightly change the sound?

You can see what I mean when you open this can of worms... what is the best way to match levels in a case like this? Obviously for the file that's 2.1dB in difference it needs to be done but with small differences of 0.1 should we bother or are we going to do more harm than good?

Just saying...

I understand; and and not changing the different songs' respective levels makes much sense indeed.

Also, my suggestion was with regards to high level differences. When we're talking about 0.1 or 0.2 dB, that's obviously very close anyway, so I guess I've been actually raising a non-issue. Sorry for that. I admit I was reacting to the figure of 2.1dB.


For academic / geek points only, I'd like to reply to some things you mentioned:

I'd say that one way or another, whether samples are matched by peak or rms measurement, by ear, or even not matched at all (beyond the unit's initial calibration), it's an active decision made, an influence imposed on the test. I.e. I don't think the can of worms is - or can be - sidestepped at all.
The reason I suggested matched files (as the default download) is that I believe them to produce a better comparison setup than random / non-matched samples. I.e. the benefit of matched levels will significantly outweigh the (imo purely academic) degradation through a simple level change (in 24 bit, be it dithered or not). Or put another way: I believe it's fair to say that unmatched levels (if there are significant differences) will very likely affect the outcome of the comparison considerably, whereas a properly done gain change will very likely not.

Originally Posted by MattGray

Ok here is what I've done... I've used iZotope Ozone with 24bit TPDF & gain only (no other modules active) to raise the level of 'Converter File F' by 2.1dB destructively.

All the others need the gain adjusted as follows if you look at RMS values only...

Awesome, thanks! Can't wait to be done with work and have a listen

Originally Posted by macc

removing another argument for the inevitable onslaught of 'this test is flawed' posts

Hope my posts weren't understood to mean that

[corky]

Well, I'm downloading it now, but I've done enough of these kinds of tests over the years to know there won't be any perceivable differences in any of them. And I also know that a number of dolts will claim they hear something they don't anyway....

[corky]

I can't get this zip file to open and extract for anything.

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by corky

I can't get this zip file to open and extract for anything.

Just double checked the zip file this end & everything unpacks fine. Perhaps your download was corrupted or incomplete. Try again.

anyone else have any unzipping problems?

[macc]

Originally Posted by MattGray

anyone else have any unzipping problems?

Ok, I've obviously had a few beers.... but insert your own jokes here.

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by macc

Ok, I've obviously had a few beers.... but insert your own jokes here.

[corky]

You know, I don't think the whole thing downloaded for some reason. Anyhow, I'll try again either tonight or tomorrow.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by MattGray

Yes although I still contest that listening session was pretty flawed (different calibration levels & the AD not running as master clock). I'm pretty pedantic about these things as it's too easy to fool yourself if the levels are slightly off &/or the clocking isn't optimal. I was maybe thinking that the Lavry faired better than usual with the Prism acting as master clock, but then this in itself will raise some eyebrows I'm sure. I don't believe that any well designed A/D converter would benefit from external clocking but at least you still got to hear some idea of how the Forssell sounds Also I find that an hour or so of listening isn't going to tell you too much. You need to run a set of converters in your chain for a while & compare your regular converter's DA & AD capture (on a real job!) to the new set to really appreciate the differences. The other thing is that when you're so used to hearing something a certain way (like I was with the Lavry AD12296-MkIII) it's hard not to subconsciously make that your 'true' point of reference when listening to a new converter. Its easy to pick up the bigger differences but it certainly took me sometime & some regular A/B'ing in unattended sessions on jobs to appreciate all the subtle differences between them.

Matt

Hi Matt,

You are making a lot of assumptions there! How do you know that the Prism clock is worse than say the Forsell or Lavry? There are no conclusive tests regarding this, and Prism are renowned for their clock accuracy.

The second is levels- we matched them very close in the end, certainly within 0.1dB. Are you certain that the files that you are presenting here do not suffer from the same problem? It looks like you are matching them the same way as we were using Sequoia.

I mean you could go into all sorts of aspects such as cabling, AES routing etc. But I think we still got an idea of what the Forsell sounded like. And personally I would find it odd that a professional device would be so sensitive to cabling and external clocking. Like the Lavry, most top end conversion is over engineered and very tolerant of external factors.

Anyway thanks for bringing the converters down for a listen!

[MattGray]

Hey Ben, man first off please don't take any offence to my comment regarding the converter test at Sonamax. I realise we didn't have a lot of time & it was difficult enough just to get it patched in, so I appreciate all the effort you went to in order to hear it. Personally its just not how I would go about auditioning converters.

Originally Posted by Ben F

Hi Matt,
You are making a lot of assumptions there! How do you know that the Prism clock is worse than say the Forsell or Lavry? There are no conclusive tests regarding this, and Prism are renowned for their clock accuracy.

I'm sure the Prism clock is excellent, there is no doubt in my mind at all & I'm not saying otherwise but when it comes to AD conversion, I've always believed that a great A/D will sound its best set as the master clock (call it me being pedantic if you will). Of course this is assuming the AD converter is well designed & that it has a high quality internal clock. In the case of testing or comparing an AD converter I always start with making it the master clock because you don't know how an external clock could effect the results of a test. I'm not saying the Prism clock effected the result of the Forssell negatively (you're right I can't quantify that) but I also can't be sure that it may have improved or slightly degraded one or both of the converters so for me its an 'unknown variable' that doesn't need to be there. When you use an external clock to test 2 converters, you're not going to hear exactly what you're paying for. Take out the external clock (prism or otherwise) & then the boxes are on an even playing field because you're hearing it how the designer of the converter heard & tested it & ultimately deemed it 'done' to their ears.

Another reason I prefer internal clocking is that I found with my Cranesong HEDD that its very fussy about clocking & can even introduce ticks in the audio signal if its not happy with an external clock source (it prefers its own). This is not the only box that I've heard do this either. Of course Prism, Lavry, PM Model 2 or Forssell are very high end units & may not be as fussy on external clocking but in my experience if the A/D is set as the master clock it can often sound better than external clocking imo.

There is a lot of BS floating around regarding master clocks, remember when Apogee introduced 'BIG BEN' it was touted to make any digital system sound better Apogee Electronics > Products > Big Ben & sure it can improve the clocking & conversion quality on converters that aren't well designed but this is often a band aid fix for converters with a sub par clock or clocking related issues. Depending on the quality of the converter clock it can either improve things or slightly degrade things.

The second is levels- we matched them very close in the end, certainly within 0.1dB. Are you certain that the files that you are presenting here do not suffer from the same problem? It looks like you are matching them the same way as we were using Sequoia.

I don't think it's just a question of matching levels perfectly using digital gain. With all the converters I personally tested, I set them all up to have the same operating level (analog trim pots or jumper pins) & the conversion was a straight wire transfer (no console or other mastering gear in between). With the tests at Sonamax the Prism DA was a couple of dB hotter than the Forssell (different analog calibration level) & the Lavry AD input level was of course lower to compensate (different analog calibration level) & in between the converters was a Crookwood Mastering console & a Neve 2087. So gain needed to be adjusted digitally for it to hit the console/Neve in the same way when the Forssell was patched in. It introduces further unknown variables... but again I understand that in the time we had it was not realistic to re-cal converters to match & to change clocking etc.

I mean you could go into all sorts of aspects such as cabling, AES routing etc. But I think we still got an idea of what the Forsell sounded like.

Its true you would've still got a decent vibe on the Forssell. I just question whether it was in an ideal test case situation. When I test something I want to hear it without any unknown variables & how the designer intended it to be heard. The listening tests I've done still aren't going to showcase each converter in a real mastering workflow experience but the test is certainly very controlled (with the exception of one of the files which was done outside my room & was 2.1dB lower). As I said in my quote to William, "Its easy to pick up the bigger differences but it certainly took me sometime & some regular A/B'ing in unattended sessions on jobs to appreciate all the subtle differences between them." I certainly didn't find an hour or two enough to truly appreciate the differences. Remembering that my 1st impressions of the Forssell was much like yours until I began comparing it with my usual converters as DA & AD. That's not to say there is a clear winner every time... I'm sure the polls will definitely show that! One thing you'll hear with my test files is that one converter may sound better on one mix but not as good as a different converter on another mix & as you mentioned at Sonamax even in the same song one converter could favour a verse over a chorus on the same track.

I understand for some that it may be a case of a simple workflow wins... if you've already got a high end set of converters why do you want the hassle of integrating a second set.. more cost, more rack space, more time patching & comparing etc. However this is quite common practice in bigger facilities & even some of the smaller ones. I also like the idea of having a back up set for redundancy should one set need to go out for servicing & I don't want a compromised set of converters as my back up.

Anyway thanks for bringing the converters down for a listen!

Any time Ben... I'd still like to hear the rest of the gear at Sonamax sometime.. The 2087 sounded cool but I want to hear the Tube-Tech's next time.

[Aivaras]

First of all, a warm thanks to the original poster for taking the time to assemble and present these samples.

I’ve spent some 4 hours in my studio exploring these tracks, although I wish I could allocate more time to the task.

Needless to say, I found the differences to be very subtle (but they are there). As a result, the wording of my observations should be taken as having quite a narrow semantic range.

In an instance or two, I make remarks about the same converter but different songs that seem to be conflicting. I leave it at that for the moment. Perhaps, different performance under different conditions, or I was simply getting distracted or tired...?

Summa summarum, I prefer converters G and I. They sound better and they do so consistently.

Here are the details:

My monitoring chain: LE Lavry Blue M.DA-824 > DM Dangerous Monitor ST > 2 x Tannoy Ellipse 8 + 2 x Tannoy TS12.

Converter A:

Song 1: Very close to the sample track.

Song 2: More rounded, duller highs, worse transient response at both ends of the spectrum.

Song 3: Narrower stereo field, especially in the high-mids, some spacial dimension is lost, poorer sense of reverberation.

Converter B:

Song 1: Very similar to the sample track.

Song 2: A tiny bit more resolved, wider stereo image, overall very close to the sample track.

Song 3: Quite close to the sample track, but a dab more detailed and effortless.

Converter C:

Song 1: Hard to tell from the sample track.

Song 2: A little less resolved on all counts: stereophony, transient response, spectral detail, yet quite similar to the sample track.

Song 3: Really hard to tell from the sample track, if anything, just a slight loss of detail.

Converter D:

Song 1: The piano sounds fuller in the low-mid band.

Song 2: Broader, better transients, crispier highs, overall very nice, lacks some of the sub-lows that are present in the kick of the sample track.

Song 3: Better transients (notice the shakers during the verse), nice overall spectral balance, wider stereo field.

Converter E:

Song 1: The center of the stereo field compromized; washy, hollower mids.

Song 2: Duller and phasier high band; unpleasant widening and chorusing in the stereo field.

Song 3: Quite close to the sample track.

Converter F:

Song 1: The spectral balance is very close to the original with a little more weight in the low-mids; yet somewhat loosened transients (pay heed to the guitar strats).

Song 2: A nice balance of all the elements, sounds somewhat fuller, wider, and more pinpointed than the sample track.

Song 3: This time less of a difference, still better transients (pay heed to the shakers during the verse, and the tambourine during the chorus, here you can hear the actual attacks whereas in the sample track the tamburine's initial snap is masked by the snare’s attack and only the second part of its dynamic envelope - the rattle and the reverb - can be heard more distinctly.

Converter G:

Song 1: Exquisite, euphonic, fuller than the sample track, stereophonic stage, transients, spectral balance - everything in right measure and proportion.

Song 2: Once more beautiful performance, excellent transients, the kick is very focused, contoured, the highs more resolved, overall better sounding than the sample track.

Song 3: The differences are less pronounced, better transients, the middle band has more instrumental separation, the snare has better attacks, sounds snappier.

Converter H:

Song 1: Very similar to the sample track.

Song 2: Phasier, the transients quite smeared, the attack of the kick loses its focus and spectral acuteness.

Song 3: Quite similar, yet less resolved.

Converter I:

Song 1: Same observations as per G.

Song 2: More detailed and resolved, while retaining the timbral proportions of the sample track.

Song 3: A winner in the genre of rock, best instrumental separation, clearest highs, excellent transient response.

Converter J:

Song 1: Very close to the sample track, a tiny bit wider stereo field.

Song 2: Wider stereo field but negatively so, the sides start to overpower the center.

Song 3: Very close to the sample track, perhaps very moderately fuller than its counterpart.

[jackthebear]

Just been watching this thread with interest and thought I'd put in my thoughts FWIW.

I respect those who take the time to put these surveys together and I guess the discussion can be of interest BUT.......then it gets to the point where people start majoring in minor things.

Happy clients are where it's at and .1 or .2 this or that when you rinse it all out really isn't going to be a showstopper.

Can't remember the last time a client rejected a master or asked for a revision because the clock wasn't set internally.........

[Aivaras]

Originally Posted by jackthebear

Just been watching this thread with interest and thought I'd put in my thoughts FWIW.

I respect those who take the time to put these surveys together and I guess the discussion can be of interest BUT.......then it gets to the point where people start majoring in minor things.

Happy clients are where it's at and .1 or .2 this or that when you rinse it all out really isn't going to be a showstopper.

Can't remember the last time a client rejected a master or asked for a revision because the clock wasn't set internally.........

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you completely.

Still sometimes little things do add up to bigger ones. No single cigarette is deadly, smoking as a cumulative process is.

Converters are but a link in an audio chain, great converters are but an element of that link. Little by little you can build a great chain. You can take it apart little by little, as well.

Clients should not worry about these things, as one of the tasks of a sound engineer is to offer a product that hides complexity, and not sports it.

[dave-G]

Originally Posted by jackthebear

Just been watching this thread with interest and thought I'd put in my thoughts FWIW.

Just wanted to say welcome back, Tony! ... It's good to read your voice in this purple frontier.

You must be several ounces heavier with ink since last posting around these parts, no?

Sorry ... we now return to the sound of people humming and tapping their feet to the sound of converters.

-Dave

[jackthebear]

Originally Posted by dave-G

Just wanted to say welcome back, Tony! ... It's good to read your voice in this purple frontier.

You must be several ounces heavier with ink since last posting around these parts, no?

Sorry ... we now return to the sound of people humming and tapping their feet to the sound of converters.

-Dave

Thanks DG.....yeah the ink has now tipped me just above fighting weight....looks like it's diuretics, saunas and a heavy week of cutting......is there a K-System for scales??

Maybe I should set my internal clock to external?

Originally Posted by Aivaras

I’ve spent some 4 hours in my studio exploring these tracks, although I wish I could allocate more time to the task.

Converter A:

Very close to the sample track.

Converter B:

Very similar to the sample track.

Converter C:

Hard to tell from the sample track.

Really hard to tell from the sample track, if anything, just a slight loss of detail.

Converter E:

Quite close to the sample track.

Converter G:

Song 1: Exquisite, euphonic, fuller than the sample track, stereophonic stage, transients, spectral balance - everything in right measure and proportion.

Song 2: Once more beautiful performance, excellent transients, the kick is very focused, contoured, the highs more resolved, overall better sounding than the sample track.

Song 3: The differences are less pronounced, better transients, the middle band has more instrumental separation, the snare has better attacks, sounds snappier.

Converter H:

Very similar to the sample track.

Quite similar, yet less resolved.

Converter I:

Same observations as per G.

A winner in the genre of rock, best instrumental separation, clearest highs, excellent transient response.

Converter J:

Very close to the sample track, a tiny bit wider stereo field.

Song 2: Wider stereo field but negatively so, the sides start to overpower the center.

Song 3: Very close to the sample track, perhaps very moderately fuller than its counterpart.

Let the hilarity ensue!


[more adjectives, please.]

[Table Of Tone]

Thanks Matt!
I've got the files and will seriously check em out when I get some downtime!

[tomlee]

ignore me.

just subscribing to this thread.

thumbsup

[Aisle 6]

Hey Ben, Adam and King Willy.
Great to meet you all last week and shoot shit over dinner. : )

It was also very interesting to have a listen to the converters in someone else's environment. Ben/Adam, you guys inspired me to add a sub to my ATC monitoring path. Pulled the trigger on a Velodyne.

I will have a listen to the files in the next few days. Looking forward to hear them in my environment. Thanks for all the effort Matt. I am sure that people will get a lot out of it.
Cheers,
Scott

[William Bowden]

Originally Posted by Aisle 6

Hey Ben, Adam and King Willy.
Great to meet you all last week and shoot shit over dinner. : )

It was also very interesting to have a listen to the converters in someone else's environment. Ben/Adam, you guys inspired me to add a sub to my ATC monitoring path. Pulled the trigger on a Velodyne.

I will have a listen to the files in the next few days. Looking forward to hear them in my environment. Thanks for all the effort Matt. I am sure that people will get a lot out of it.
Cheers,
Scott

Good to meet you too mate, I use a couple of Velodyne's myself so enjoy the sub bass realms!

I wish I had more time, of course today my TMC arrived and even though I'm way behind (by 1 album and 1 EP and oh forget it...) I just had to get it up and running...

The King