DCS CONVERTERS AD 904

[FROGGY]

anyone using DCS A to D converters??
Tell me your choice for these machines compared to lavry, Prism or others...
Is it transparent or not?

They are selling a new machine which goes higher than 192 kHz!!!

[Plush]

We use dCS converters and like them a LOT. The sound is non digital, smooth and accurate. What goes in , comes out. The newer ones do all the sample rates up to 192 and DSD which we are not interested in. Very good converters with non sterile sound.

ENDORSED!

[Mike Pappas]

We did a shootout with the DCS and EMM Labs converters in DSD mode and the EMM Labs converters won hands down.

I would suggest you audition any converter in your application before you buy.

[Plush]

Originally posted by Mike Pappas
We did a shootout with the DCS and EMM Labs converters in DSD mode and the EMM Labs converters won hands down.

I would suggest you audition any converter in your application before you buy.

Sir,
As I mentioned we have no interest whatever in DSD after using it since 1998 and attempting to do what we need with it.
We are solidly in the pcm camp.
Your experience with Meitner vs DCS is not born out in our tests at all. I have no interest in Meitner converters and the pseudo physics and audiophile mumbo jumbo of its creator. There are many good converters on the market. The former flagship brands are challenged now by Benchmark and Grimm.

As far as DSD is concerned, it's a total non starter technically and
usage wise. I think DSD is a joke with its soft sound. Vanderkoy was right!

[audiothings]

Plush

I know that some very experienced people have fundamental problems with DSD.

Some of us do not have the means to do an A/B comparison under ideal conditions. Could you give us some clues / pointers on the reasons why DSD makes no sense?

Thank you.

[Mike Pappas]

Originally posted by Plush
Sir,
As I mentioned we have no interest whatever in DSD after using it since 1998 and attempting to do what we need with it.
We are solidly in the pcm camp.
Your experience with Meitner vs DCS is not born out in our tests at all. I have no interest in Meitner converters and the pseudo physics and audiophile mumbo jumbo of its creator. There are many good converters on the market. The former flagship brands are challenged now by Benchmark and Grimm.

As far as DSD is concerned, it's a total non starter technically and
usage wise. I think DSD is a joke with its soft sound. Vanderkoy was right!

Well that’s quite interesting. As always in this business your experiences may vary and are based upon taste which obviously yours have.

We auditioned the DCS converter and found them to be lacking and expensive. They dcs folks blamed it all on "outdated firmware". They updated the converter and it wasn't any better. My observation.

My suggestion that folks audition a converter (especially one as expensive as the dcs) before buying it is no less valid than your observation (regardless of how wrong I personally feel you are about DSD). Hey if you don’t want to take a listen that fine with me, blow your bucks on the dcs.

And Vaderkoy was on mars..

[Plush]

I totally endorse the idea that one should audition several converters before buying. I wish everyone a good business relationship with a cooperative and well stocked prfessional dealer. Mr. Pappas has a great suggestion.

Make sure you audition the converter with your type of music.

For us, in the classical business, DCS was a good choice. We have used them since 1996. They are a premium converter with good technical engineering. That said, 8 years ago is a loooong time (in tech world.) DCS has always been expensive because it always did things that other converters did not do. This is not the case anymore.

If someone is looking for a premuim converter right now, I'd steer them towards Benchmark, Grimm, and the Hedd 192.

After using and testing DSD, 192 and its variants, we have settled on using 96 as the top rate and find it more than sufficient. There are any number of converters that will do 96K well---although DCS are still unique in using the 5 bit architecture and non overlapping converters (no gain ranging.)

I don't badmouth other converters from hi-fi manufacturers, although I'd never buy one. Likewise, the audiophile market driven SACD, has a miniscule market share and is certainly not the format of the future. To invest in it is a con game.

I attach ZERO prestige, cachet or Brahmin caste position to DSD recordists who have purchased entire DSD edit systems only to have Sony tell them to send a pcm master for the SACD. Sadly, for them, it's money down the tube.

If one requires an ego stroke in Pro Sound News, where one can read about oneself doing the latest DSD mastering of a new age record, then go ahead. For serious production, still with a lot of elegance of sound, the still evolving pcm world is perfectly sufficient.

The compact disc isn't going to go away any time soon.

[Mike Pappas]

Here is a pic from our 5.1 classical session this last weekend.

32 tracks of DSD, three Neumann Solution D upsampled from 88.2 to DSD and a KU-100 for rear channels, 5 Sennheiser MKH-800, and a bunch of other mics I can't recall at the moment.

[MIKEHARRIS]

The DCS converters have always been amongst the best available....always pricey ...their cost and features have usually kept them in mastering studios only..and at $$9000 for the A to D....OR D to A...they are a bit outta reach for most folks

[Jack Luminous]

A classical session with an electric bass ???
Damn, I feel really old....

[Plush]

Looks like a jazz session to me--complete with bleed from monitors. Very hi-fi.

[Mike Pappas]

Dianne Reeves Colorado Symphony 5.1 broadcast

Originally posted by Plush
Looks like a jazz session to me--complete with bleed from monitors. Very hi-fi.

You are correct. It was very HiFi as the monitor mixer wasn't a mutant about levels and tweaked the monitors after listening to the playback of both rehearsals to minimize the impact. We also selected and placed the orchestra mics to minimize the issues with the monitors.

Of course the bottom line was the client loved it. As you all know that’s what really counts.

[krs]

Originally posted by Plush
Looks like a jazz session to me--complete with bleed from monitors. Very hi-fi.

Is there ANYTHING about that photo that looks like a session???

[Plush]

Please address the issues brought out in the original post. This is about converters, not PR photos of unknown orchestras.

[RobAcid]

for me the DCS was big step up from my L2.....

i love mine, its great even for electronic sounds......

[Yannick]

"three Neumann Solution D upsampled from 88.2 to DSD"

if those were a decca tree = main mic, I'm sorry but I'm missing the point of doing a 32 track DSD session anyway ...
That being said, there seems to be a consensus that DSD is a very good delivery medium. Even there, my Benchmark DAC1 being fed by the 16 bit 44.1K layer comes frighteningly close to a stereo DSD playback, in some respects even surpasses it (more physical, better dynamics).
That leaves us guessing about the DAC1 in 24 bit/88.2K versus DSD

Also, why record in 32 track DSD as most workstations convert to PCM for editing/mixing anyway ?
Better to do hires PCM and convert the master as needed.

[jdunn]

I have a problem with the massive amount of high frequency noise added to the signal to even make DSD work. The AES Society soundly rejected DSD as an archival medium because it was not as accurate as PCM.

And I'm sure it's a big pain-in-the-ass to work with too.

[FROGGY]

MY QUESTION ABOUT DCS CONVERTERS AND THE SOUND OF THESES CONVERTERS IN PCM FORMAT.
ARE THEY TRANSPARENT??

[Plush]

Originally posted by FROGGY
MY QUESTION ABOUT DCS CONVERTERS AND THE SOUND OF THESES CONVERTERS IN PCM FORMAT.
ARE THEY TRANSPARENT??

The answer is most certainly "Yes." I assume you mean do they output the same sound as the input and the answer is "Yes."
How's that Froggy?