RME conversion: Not loving it...are the soundcards also subject to this sound quality

[88fingerz]

Good day ya'll!

I've been using an ADI-8 Pro as a front end to a Digi 001 setup via ADAT lightpipe. I A/B'd the Kurzweil Rumour's convrsion against it and the Rumour wins!

I'm about to say goodbye to PT LE and hello to a Digital Performer setup.

I'm looking for a high quality soundcard to allow me to send multiple channels of ADAT and spdif into the Mac G4 867.

RME has the 9652 solution and it seems like a good value (though I'm willing to pay top $ for the best card I can find).

So the question is: Are RME's souncards subject to the same sound quality and characteristics as their converters? Their conversion isn't horrible, but it's definitely a noticeable differnce in the A/B test.

Would Lynx be a better option?

I'm looking to sell the ADI-8 and ad a Kurzweil Mangler to the Rumour setup, giving 4 channels of A/D D/A via Spdif.

Is this question a moot point? Are we just passing digital data thrugh the card which means the card has no sound qulaity of it's own per-say?

Thanks for any insight, Dean Fingerz

[Teacher]

going digital will still retain the quality of the signal so the rme would be fine.

[toolskid]

just get the super-awesome music machine dude at your studios to sort you out, you'll be fine....

[bigbaby987]

i have a lynx card and i'm amazed at it's quality, however, if you want to go adat you will have to by an analog card with the adat daughter card.. this can run you a nice penny... it will give you few extra channels of analog io with good conversion, but if you just want adat i/os's then i would go for the rme card you were contemplating.. you're not going to run through the rme converters since you're going digital and it's a quick jump in without having to buy 2 cards...

[88fingerz]

Originally Posted by toolskid

just get the super-awesome music machine dude at your studios to sort you out, you'll be fine....

I wonder what that means?


...Anyway, to the rest of you, thanks for the help.

Fingerz

[radiant]

Clock your RME's with an Aardsync II or Big Ben and you will see a huge improvement. I'll probably get shot down on this one, but I actually liked my old ADI 8 DS clocked with the Aardsync II better than my Myteks. I'm currently using an Apogee AD-16X and love it.

[amost]

Originally Posted by 88fingerz

Is this question a moot point? Are we just passing digital data thrugh the card which means the card has no sound qulaity of it's own per-say?

Thanks for any insight, Dean Fingerz

Good question. I've always wanted to hear definitively that going digi to digi would be of no consequence either way.

[edyer]

Originally Posted by amost

Good question. I've always wanted to hear definitively that going digi to digi would be of no consequence either way.

Man I think that's going to be debatable. Just like the lightpipe cable thing.

In Response to what seemed to be the original question .
I use the hdsp with DP originally on a G4 733. (upgraded the computer since ) It worked great. The hdsp uses it's own internal chip to handle the audio in/out load which frees up the cpu to run your audio software. (very cool ) Since most of the converers out there offer lightpipe you can mix and match up to 3 and build whatever you want. I dumped LE and never even looked back. The latest incarntion of Dp is very good also.
Good luck
Eric

[Johnny B]

Maybe in addition to Manley Labs' Slam, you should check out the products from Daniel Weiss:

http://www.weiss-highend.ch/representatives.html

Hope this helps.

[George Necola]

if you wanna be on the top, buy lavry's..

http://www.lavryengineering.com/

heard the D/A for mastering.. incredible but expensive as hell

[Johnny B]

There are those who disagree and feel others top Lavry, but everyone gets to have an opinion. It would rather nice if all those opinions where based on "ears" and *not* on "math."

[George Necola]

He is the man for my ears

but I can tell you, I've heard some productions made with ADI-8 and it seems it's not everything on the A/D-D/A it's the man who pushes the record-button

[toolskid]

Originally Posted by 88fingerz

I wonder what that means?

Fingerz

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...ight=88fingerz

[Johnny B]

George, nice pic...here's another nice pic..

http://www.weiss.ch/core.html

[George Necola]

and bob katz is god so everything he says is the absolute truth

no.. life is a matter of taste.. that's the problem

[toolskid]

Originally Posted by 88fingerz

Mr. Schmuck,

I'm booked 6 days a week, 30-45 hrs steady.

You're apparently an asshole with lots of free time.

thanks for the vote of confidence!!!

peace out dude!!

[Johnny B]

George,

Here's another nice pic of one of the devices that some people feel tops Lavry:

http://manleylabs.com/containerpages/SLAM.html

[George Necola]

johnny

I'm 24 years old, I don't have the experience you may have. I heard some converters and I only can tell you about these I heard myself.

I know there is something better or something diffrent out there..

thanx for sharing!

cheers George

[Johnny B]

George,

You are quite welcome.

Here's what "certain" ear people believed after a "Shootout Test" of many different 'verters. In the order of the "best" to "very good."

First Place: Manley SLAM with the 192K digital option installed
Second Place: Daniel Weiss Converters
Third Place: Lynx Cards

This list, based on Sound Quality Results, also happens to correspond to the price you pay, so the Lynx Cards that will do 192K offer a very good value.

One must always remember that things change so fast in digital that everything is obsolete before it is even designed. Thus, the above list could change when "Next Gen Chips" start to be implemented.

Of course, for the present time, nothing is as good as "pure" unadulturated Analogue for the very best "Sound Quality."

[George Necola]

then again I have to ask what's the problem in your opinion with the lavry-converters.. and to go totally offtopic, 192k is only for marketing, isn't it?

[Johnny B]

No, 192K is not "only" for marketing and on point this I disagree with Mr. Lavry. He seems to believe there is a large-scale conspiracy to push 192K, but many feel 192K sounds better than lesser sample rates and that 192K allows for better sounding filters and so forth.

The truth is: none of the current digital tech does it really well, it's because it is all based on bad assumptions from the outset. When you have a building sitting on a shaky foundation it will fail, you can try to shore it up, to retro-fit it, but that route is never as good as doing the foundation right to begin with. Digital simply has a weak foundation, weak underpinnings, and all the blame rests with the Digital Math Scoundrels, many of whom came from the freakin' phone company for Christ's sake.

About the "only" thing these bastards were successful at was giving digital that wonderful "telephone sound" quality, which sure ain't up to world class analogue sound quality standards. Again, the fault rests squarely with the Digital Math Scoundrels and to a lesser extent, the telecom industry and the freakin phone comapny. If Nyquist were not already dead, I'd consider shooting him and all his lemming followers who have really screwed things up. According to these lyin' bastards, you'd never need anything more than 16-bit at 44K, but they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Throw it all out and start over, that is the very best prescription to improve digital sound quality.

[George Necola]

you are radical johnny but I like your thoughts.. maybe I will start over and questions more things.

but even if mr lavry thinks 192k is too much, I like his converters

[bloodstone]

The thing that spooks me about the higher sample rates is the amount of disk space you need. A stereo mix file is huge, and 24 channel multitrack file is gigantic.

[George Necola]

lavry also named "processing power ", "value for money"...

[Johnny B]

He's got several arguments, most of which do not hold up when subjected to strict scruntiny or critical thinking about his point of view which seems to ignore the rapid technological advances and increases in memory, storage, and raw CPU horsepower, all of which have been brought to you for less cost. Disk space? Who cares...if it gives you better sound quality. He has a very nice piano however and does try to help people with understanding his, rather limited, point of view which is primarily routed in math. My biggest disagreement with him is that the only "important" frequencies are constricted by a theoretical and rather arbitrary limit of 20Hz to 20Khz. Professor James Boyk at CalTech has measured musical instruments in the higher end of the spectrum that exceed even the current 192K SRC's ability to even capture, let alone, reproduce. My other problem with him is that he derides and discounts all the experience of the "Ear People" who are constantly complaining about the disgusting sound quality of digital. In addition, most people working with the current SRC's will confess there are severe problems on the low end of the spectrum which are too often overlooked.

Any honest person looking at the current tech of SRC's will say there have been "trade-offs" and "compromises" all of which negatively impact digital's sound quality.

Since the sound quality of digital is not up to snuff, not up to analogue standards, then the underlying math and assumptions should be discarded and new, fresh ideas, new experiments should come along to replace them. Constant challenge, innovation, and untilisation of new methods entirely, is the only way that people can ever hope to improve digital's sound quality.

[George Necola]

He's got several arguments, most of which do not hold up when subjected to strict scruntiny or critical thinking about his point of view which seems to ignore the rapid technological advances and increases in memory, storage, and raw CPU horsepower, all of which have been brought to you for less cost. Disk space? Who cares...if it gives you better sound quality

if it gives you better sound quality.. that's the point. The point, that most converters only record from ~22Hz to 20khz, most microphones working from ~20hz to 18khz are the best arguments for me, why I don't need 192khz..

My other problem with him is that he derides and discounts all the experience of the "Ear People" who are constantly complaining about the disgusting sound quality of digital.

I think digital should go one step forward and not try to emulate the old classics.. and I agree with you, mixing in analog (or summing out of the box) make your record more transparent with a greater depth..

Constant challenge, innovation, and untilisation of new methods entirely, is the only way that people can ever hope to improve digital's sound quality.

yeah babe



PQ: have you ever heard a lavry, or is it just "people told me..."?

cheers george

[natpub]

and yet another superior converter:


http://www.emmlabs.com/index.html





.

[Johnny B]

Yeah, you have a few good competitors in the field, but as I've been saying...the entire foundation of digital is shaky at best and full of math "anomalies" *and* sound "anomalies" as well. Maybe with the Next Gen Chips and some entirely new formats and entirely new methodologies of doing the ADDA process it just *might* get out of the doldrums and actually up and challenge World Class Analogue Sound Quality Standards. So far, digital sound quality just has not made the grade, it's simply inferior as it exists today. All of it!