the sweetest converters i've ever heard... and the tracks to prove it

[toneguru]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

I said "You can always print the mix through a different AD if you are unsatisfied with the sound", didn't I. And the attenuator does allow you to dial in more or less coloration.

You haven't used them either, have you Blue.

Unless one has direct experience with a piece of gear, what else can one do but speculate and/or rely on the opinions of those who do have direct experience.

I understand the logic in the point you make, but thinking about it and using it are 2 different things.

Burls sound less digital. To me less digital is more true. That's why I use them for both tracking and mix capture.

If my job was to make scientific test recordings or something, then I'd think differently. But my job is to record music, so I use what sounds musical to me. It's that simple. It just sounds better. Nothing more important than that to ponder.

If you mix through a Neve console you will get that pleasing color on every mix. If you print to an ATR 102 you will get that color on every mix. Not too many complaints about Neves and ATRs floating around, so why do ADCs have a different rule?

Very well put Justin. You speak for many slutz like me that are musicians first and engineers second. Its a very close second for sure but ... oh well, what you just said.

On another note, I hope music is being good to you, if you are in the city lets hook up for a drink.

- Cheers

[Bassmankr]

It sounds like we should just start another thread if we are going to talk about color vs. transparent in converters as not to knock what is probably a very good product here. But for those interested in this product, how colored is it? A couple of you have mentioned how hard you push it effects how much color (as with transformers) it puts out but shouldn't levels on a converter be set and forget, not something you want to change? Lastly a colored converter being compared to a colored two track deck is appropriate but not a Neve desk as you can moniter exactly what you are getting at the 2 buss with the Neve, with the deck and colored converter you need an extra trip to hear what you are truely getting. By the way I started as a session musician so "being a musician" has nothing to do with one's preference for converters, "more musical" is mostly just a marketing phrase.

[Trakworx]

I'm stuck at home with a knee injury today so I have nothing but free time to debate Bassmankr

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

It sounds like we should just start another thread if we are going to talk about color vs. transparent in converters as not to knock what is probably a very good product here. But for those interested in this product, how colored is it?

Less colored than you probably imagine. UBK's last post pretty much nailed it.

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

A couple of you have mentioned how hard you push it effects how much color (as with transformers) it puts out but shouldn't levels on a converter be set and forget, not something you want to change?

Rules are meant to be broken - that's how innovation happens. Besides, levels on an analog mastering deck are not "set and forget", and those still sound better than any ADC to me. Personally, I enjoy having the option to either set it and forget it or adjust it to taste when I want to.

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

Lastly a colored converter being compared to a colored two track deck is appropriate but not a Neve desk as you can moniter exactly what you are getting at the 2 buss with the Neve, with the deck and colored converter you need an extra trip to hear what you are truely getting.

With a desk you still have to capture the mix, so monitoring the 2 buss is monitoring something that no one else will ever hear. You can monitor a mastering deck in repro mode, and you can monitor through your AD/DA to hear what you are truly getting. Or do you believe that your ADC gives back exactly what goes in? My experience has been that no converter does that, and every piece of gear in the chain has a "sound", so real transparency is just a pipe dream. All we can do is choose the gear that sounds good to us. If you want transparency, go sit in front of the source. If you want to record, the sound changes as soon as it hits the mic, and every step of the way after that.

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

By the way I started as a session musician so "being a musician" has nothing to do with one's preference for converters, "more musical" is mostly just a marketing phrase.

"Musical" happens to be the best descriptor I have for it. Sorry if it sounds like marketing. "Euphonic" also applies, but that probably sounds like marketing too. In fact, how can one say anything complimentary about a piece of gear without sounding like marketing?

Perhaps if you had logged a few hundred hours using these converters then you might agree. Or at least you could disagree from an informed point of view. I always try to avoid making assertions about gear that I don't have first hand knowledge of. That's why you see me posting often in Burl threads - I was an early adopter so I have a lot of experience to share. Generally, I post in threads about converters, clocks, preamps, analog tape, summing, and microphones because those are areas where I have researched and conducted my own tests so I feel that I can contribute something meaningful.

OK, I'll stop rambling now. It's the Vicodin.

[chet.d]

Originally Posted by Kris

Sounds really GREAT chet.d . Wild tune.

Thanks! nice to hear. Knee deep in mixing this record and making it good as is possible at this time. While knowing when to say way. That's indeed a challenge.

Originally Posted by u b k

Warm digital is a beautiful thing, the new records I adore all exhibit this quality of tone; the old records I adore are warm analog, which is also a beautiful thing, but it's neither practical nor attainable for a whole host of reasons, the biggest being that I don't hear that way. Balancing the crystalline focus and transient precision of 0's and 1's with the soft blur and harmonic richness of good analog is a pursuit I'm enjoying immensely these days, and that's where my ears keep taking me; the Burls are extremely helpful because they personify the best of both worlds, they are clear and pure and musical and rich in all the right proportions.

The more I do this the more I'm learning that what I prefer is compression that is slow, saturation that is thick, equalization that is colorless, and conversion that is balanced in the middle. As with all things, this is subject to change without notice, but that's where I'm at and in that light this is arguably the best time ever to be a self-recording artist who loves sound as much as music.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Well put as usual.

I admittedly don't even think about it much. I know it sounds good... onto next concern.
That last paragraph does however feed my wondering about the potential nice-ness of the OWA U33.

[Bassmankr]

Justin, first I hope you heal up fast. I was on crutches for a couple months for a knee injury as a teen and what a hassle that was. The biggest problem I see with color in converters is if there is color in the D/A because then you will never know what you are really getting outside of playing your work on many outside systems. While it's true that every pc. of gear or even how long of a signal path you have will effect the sound, an engineer still needs to pick some point in the mix process signal chain as his reference to make his decisions and for the guys with analog desks that is commonly at the desk's 2 buss. The desk's usually have their monitering options set for that also (multiple moniters out etc.), so shooting for transparency in the final A/D stage after that is a realistic expectation to get a product as close to what the mixer hears. I agree there is no such thing as perfect transparency with audio gear which is one more reason not to hit the D/A twice as your monitering point as it's not just the D/A but your whole monitering chain you are hitting for the second time thus adding to the circle of not knowing exactly what you are printing. I'd rather have a firm grasp on what I'm gonna get at the point in the signal chain I'm making my mix decisions at (the desk's 2 buss), for others adding color at a later stage is an option. This probably boils down to personal choice for which set of compromises you want to live with (all audio gear and signal paths have some form of compromise) as with enough time with the same setup/room someone with a decent set of ears will make internal adjustments no matter what gear/methods are being used. Finally the end user's D/A and moniter chain is going to be all over the map in terms of quality and transparency so getting the perfect mix only matters to us, some of our clients, and very few end users these days.

[Koachie]

The more I do this the more I'm learning that what I prefer is compression that is slow, saturation that is thick, equalization that is colorless, and conversion that is balanced in the middle. As with all things, this is subject to change without notice, but that's where I'm at and in that light this is arguably the best time ever to be a self-recording artist who loves sound as much as music.

Hey Greg. Great insight. Quick question...When you say 'balanced in the middle' do you mean the mid-frequency range or the balance between 'the focus and precision of 0's and 1's' and 'the soft blur and harmonic richness of good analog'?

Thanks.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Koachie

Quick question...When you say 'balanced in the middle' do you mean the mid-frequency range or the balance between 'the focus and precision of 0's and 1's' and 'the soft blur and harmonic richness of good analog'?

Ah yes, that was unclear, sorry about that. I meant the latter, I prefer conversion that has the clarity of digital and the musicality of analog.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[Lance Lawson]

I'm in the camp of the converters being as true to the analog signal being fed them as possible. Once on HD and being mixed then its open season on coloration so give it your best shots. Now a general recording in a typical recording session my acquire a bit more of a warm and fuzzy vibe if there's a warm fat and fuzzy converter at the head of the signal chain but how necessary or even desirable is it? Clearly the digital recording process is very different than the purely analog process. I'd rather have a starkly accurate take no prisoners AD converter going in and where desirable a warm and fuzzy DA converter going out. With so many devices to enhance and color the mix the converters in topic just may be overkill and several years too late.

[Koachie]

Originally Posted by u b k

I prefer conversion that has the clarity of digital and the musicality of analog.

Thanks Greg.

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by Lance Lawson

I'm in the camp of the converters being as true to the analog signal being fed them as possible.

Honestly to me the Burls when not slammed sound more true to source than the other ADCs I've tested. It's just that they capture different qualities of the source better. Have you tried them?

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

Justin, first I hope you heal up fast. I was on crutches for a couple months for a knee injury as a teen and what a hassle that was. The biggest problem I see with color in converters is if there is color in the D/A because then you will never know what you are really getting outside of playing your work on many outside systems. While it's true that every pc. of gear or even how long of a signal path you have will effect the sound, an engineer still needs to pick some point in the mix process signal chain as his reference to make his decisions and for the guys with analog desks that is commonly at the desk's 2 buss. The desk's usually have their monitering options set for that also (multiple moniters out etc.), so shooting for transparency in the final A/D stage after that is a realistic expectation to get a product as close to what the mixer hears. I agree there is no such thing as perfect transparency with audio gear which is one more reason not to hit the D/A twice as your monitering point as it's not just the D/A but your whole monitering chain you are hitting for the second time thus adding to the circle of not knowing exactly what you are printing. I'd rather have a firm grasp on what I'm gonna get at the point in the signal chain I'm making my mix decisions at (the desk's 2 buss), for others adding color at a later stage is an option. This probably boils down to personal choice for which set of compromises you want to live with (all audio gear and signal paths have some form of compromise) as with enough time with the same setup/room someone with a decent set of ears will make internal adjustments no matter what gear/methods are being used. Finally the end user's D/A and moniter chain is going to be all over the map in terms of quality and transparency so getting the perfect mix only matters to us, some of our clients, and very few end users these days.

Thanks, I'm healing fast!

I agree that color in the monitoring DAC is unwanted, and so does Burl BTW - their DACs have no trannies/coloration.

I don't get how you would be hitting the DA twice. Wouldn't it be analog from the desk's mix out > ADC > DAC > monitors, so you would in fact be monitoring the mix print which is the actual outcome of your mix? Before digital a lot of AEs used to monitor through the mastering deck for similar reasons.

Not that it should make a huge difference in mix translation, even if you use a Burl ADC. The coloration is subtle, and in many ways it sounds more like the analog source, especially when you hit it softly. That's the whole point of Burl's philosophy; they love analog and strive to preserve the best parts of analog when capturing to digital, but without the non-linearities of tape. That's why they're so well suited for capturing analog console mixes, and part of why so many big names have endorsed them.

Artists | Burl Audio | Analog and Digital Professional Audio Recording Gear

Best,

J~

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Lance Lawson

...if there's a warm fat and fuzzy converter at the head of the signal chain but how necessary or even desirable is it?

Never in a million years would I describe the B2 as 'warm, fat and fuzzy', nor would anyone I know who's tried one.

Truly, unless and until you've used the thing and actually heard it, it seems strange and a bit pointless to debate its utility as a converter on some philosophical basis, no? You have ideas of what this thing is and what it does, but your ideas have no basis in reality because you have no experience with it.

Why resist the mere idea of something? What's the payoff? At best, it precludes you from experiencing and knowing, at worst it excludes potentially rewarding outcomes from your life.

I'm not saying you'd love or even like the B2 if you tried it, for all I know you'd hate it. I'm just saying that until you know, you don't know.


Gregory Scott - ubk