What's more important? AD or DA?

[DeeDrive]

Ok, if you were going out of a DAW with some pretty cheasy converters, let's say a Digi 001 or 002, and you wanted to do some analog processing, but you could only afford EITHER 2-channels AD conversion or 2-channels of DA conversion, which would it be? How do each of these affect the sound? Is one more important than the other, or are they pretty equal?

[Darius van H]

Equally important.......a signal chain only sounds as strong as it weakest link ( )

[insomnio]

1) A good musician (session pro if possible)
2) Good instrument
3) Correct micing technic

Try Apogge with a bad musician, you'll know.

I

[djanogil]

In my opinion, you better spend on the A/D first,
so you know you're recording a high quality signal, and if you need, you can mix elsewhere where they have good D/A and outboard, at least you know you have a high quality recording on disk.

If you record with cheap A/D, they won't be much you can do to improve the original conversion.

[Adebar]

Originally Posted by DeeDrive

Ok, if you were going out of a DAW with some pretty cheasy converters, let's say a Digi 001 or 002, and you wanted to do some analog processing, but you could only afford EITHER 2-channels AD conversion or 2-channels of DA conversion, which would it be? How do each of these affect the sound? Is one more important than the other, or are they pretty equal?

The question for me here is: How did you get the signal IN the DAW. Or was it already digital coming out of a can?

I also agree with Darius: equally important.

[DeeDrive]

Thanks for the info guys, as far as the comment about getting A/D first, I'm not going to be doing as much recording as I am using outboard gear on already recorded material. So, going DAW --> D/A --> Analog Gear -- A/D --> DAW.

[MMazurek]

I'd go DA first.

Hear what's really going on.

THEN you can hear the AD differences better & make better decisions based on it.

[sleepwalker]

AD.

DA and monitoring is overrated if you have a lot of time to try out your mixes on lots of references. Good monitoring is important if you've got to bang out stuff that will have to stick.

Also, my advice is geared towards someone who can't afford both, I would be giving different advice to a different question.

__edit__

I take it back. I thought you'd be using mics. DA all the way if you're not using any mics at all.

[drmmrboy]

Originally Posted by DeeDrive

Thanks for the info guys, as far as the comment about getting A/D first, I'm not going to be doing as much recording as I am using outboard gear on already recorded material. So, going DAW --> D/A --> Analog Gear -- A/D --> DAW.

In this case, I would say both.
I would say both anyway, but for this I really have to say both.
You have D/A & A/D in your chain.
If you pick just one, the whole chain suffers.
Only as strong as your weakest link....

[maskedman72]

i say a/d for shure.

although i fully understand that good d/a is important and allows you to hear things better,i also will say that all of the people that are going to listen to what you are mixing will not be listening through any d/a so why should you? that is my main arguement as to why i have no d/a. and for that statement i could be labeled as an ass by many on this forum.

mabyee if i heard a system with good d/a would want it myself.

i bet you can get equally as good of mixes with or without good d/a.

[Doublehelix]

Obviously, both are important...

It seems to me that it is important to capture the music in the best possible light, since that is your one and only shot at it.

[warhead]

I think 2 channels of high quality AD / DA makes a tremendous difference. After drums, pretty much everything we do is one or two mics at a time so there is a huge difference to be made when you stack it all up.

Good DA for monitoring is a must.

War

[AllAboutTone]

Just had to bring this thread back to life. Both are Important, but I could tell a huge difference with the AD and its clock, clocking my 002r, really do not have the need for HD at all.
Thinking of selling my AD16x and buying a Rosetta 800, hope the clock is good enough.

[Jim Williams]

ADC's are more important. It gets the music encoded. There will always be folks with better DAC's than you have.

[Doc Mixwell]

I say ADA is better than AD or DA.

[robertshaw]

both

[recordinghopkins]

Originally Posted by insomnio

1) A good musician (session pro if possible)
2) Good instrument
3) Correct micing technic

[Silent Sound]

In this case, I'd go DA. You're bottlenecked either way if you only upgrade one, and I don't think you'll hear a significant difference in the final product no matter which way you go. Only reason I say DA, is because you'll be using it twice. One DA on the way out, one AD on the way back in, and one more DA out again, to your monitors. It's a slight advantage at best, but honestly, I'd save that money until you can get both.

[lakeshorephatty]

Originally Posted by AllAboutTone

Thinking of selling my AD16x and buying a Rosetta 800, hope the clock is good enough.

Sorry for the OT.

I made the switch from AD and DA16x to a rosetta last year. Didn't need the channels and put the cash into other outboard. I think I did initially notice a small difference. A year later however, my material sounds so much better due to skill that its impossible to hear whatever small difference the x's had in their favour. In short I don't think you should worry about it. Any quality outboard is going to make more difference to the sound.

Russell

[robertshaw]

FYI this post is 6 yrs old.........

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

FYI this post is 6 yrs old.........

Naw, dude....the time-stamp says you just posted it today.

[mattg082]

Well, I would think if you do a lot of itb instruments or samplers DA and maybe a masterlink, finLizer(cd burner) would be better. If you record a lot of instruments and have good pres AD. I do both just the same so have both taken care of.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Naw, dude....the time-stamp says you just posted it today.

lol.....thread

ooops