The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker
Old 5th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2161
Gear Addict
 
hebjam's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Great response. Converter units are no different from other gear. You might be surprised what you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulthesparky ➡️
Exactly, If you don't trust the computations and numbers, then why don't you just LISTEN! TRUST YOUR EARS! After all, isn't it ultimately all about the sound, not just a bunch of numbers on a table? Hearing is believing.

The 'List of Results' doesn't just contain a bunch of numbers/ results in an ascending/ descending order/rank, necessarily to indicate better/ worse.

Much more importantly, it contains a bunch of downloadable audio files. These files can then be added to a DAW, gain matched and subjectively be listened to. ideally, with decent conversion/ monitors/ treated environment, in order to hear nuances/ differences, in an A/B comparison to the original source file.

I encourage all people, to be blindfolded, upon listening to these files, and then determine whether or not a certain converter has a tendency to enhance/ smear/ colour/ widen certain frequencies/ reverbs/ room size/ front to back depth, and realism.

Not all people necessarily want a converter that is absolutely transparent, reproducing an exact copy of the source material, and many may actually find they enjoy the sound of lower numerically 'ranked' units more.

Many may prefer certain converter's that do hype/colour the sound, similar to the way certain preamps/ microphones do, with certain types of music, when Tracking.
Many may place more importance on the clipping characteristics of certain converters, when Mastering.

In these cases, I'd completely disregard the numbers, and not be inclined to race out and buy a Eventide H9000, just because it happens to be on top of this list.

It all depends on your intended outcome, which suits your particular application.
Old 5th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2162
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by funka ➡️
Didier, you're so courageous! Happy new year!
Oh Courageious Leader !

Old 5th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2163
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulthesparky ➡️
Exactly, If you don't trust the computations and numbers, then why don't you just LISTEN! TRUST YOUR EARS! After all, isn't it ultimately all about the sound, not just a bunch of numbers on a table? Hearing is believing.

....

I encourage all people, to be blindfolded, upon listening to these files, and then determine whether or not a certain converter has a tendency to enhance/ smear/ colour/ widen certain frequencies/ reverbs/ room size/ front to back depth, and realism.
I'd encourage it too. But without a perfect room, it's going to be difficult to come to a conclusion.

I'd bet that in a blind test, different people will attribute opposite sonic attributes to the same converters.. or, if they were in tune with their senses, rather than their subconcious, they'd hear no difference.

But I don't wish to add yet another argument where people don't accept this at all. That good old SoundonSound mic-pre test was a good example of reality (wildly opposite sonic descriptions being given by participants to the very same mic pres in a blind test. )
Old 5th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2164
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
As someone who has had a UFX, Apoggee Symphony, and now a Lynx Aurora n, I can tell you with certainty that the UFX deserves its rating. I was shocked when I saw the results years ago, so I decided to purchase a cheap Motu 828 mk II on eBay just to test. I was blown away at how much more I could hear in the Motu and how much more natural everything sounded. I've said it before, but the UFX sounded too bright and congested. Liken it to walking into a room with spotlights on everywhere, where its hard to see. The 828 was like walking into a well lit room where everything was visible. I was sad when I heard this, because I didn't want to believe it. I ended up selling the UFX and bought a Symphony, which I would've kept if it wasn't USB and always messing up on me. Now I own an Aurora n, and honestly, unless it goes down in flames in a house fire, I don't see myself owning anything else for a long time.
Old 5th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2165
Lives for gear
 
guigui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumnbass411 ➡️
As someone who has had a UFX, Apoggee Symphony, and now a Lynx Aurora n, I can tell you with certainty that the UFX deserves its rating. I was shocked when I saw the results years ago, so I decided to purchase a cheap Motu 828 mk II on eBay just to test. I was blown away at how much more I could hear in the Motu and how much more natural everything sounded. I've said it before, but the UFX sounded too bright and congested. Liken it to walking into a room with spotlights on everywhere, where its hard to see. The 828 was like walking into a well lit room where everything was visible. I was sad when I heard this, because I didn't want to believe it. I ended up selling the UFX and bought a Symphony, which I would've kept if it wasn't USB and always messing up on me. Now I own an Aurora n, and honestly, unless it goes down in flames in a house fire, I don't see myself owning anything else for a long time.
Symphony Mk 2?
Old 6th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2166
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Nah just a Mk 1.
Old 6th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2167
Lives for gear
 
guigui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumnbass411 ➡️
Nah just a Mk 1.
I asked you that because I'm very interested in how Aurora n compares to the best modern converters. There doesn't seem to be many people out there with it. I think people doesn't treat it like Burl, Apogee, Crane Song, etc. So there aren't many comparisons.
Old 7th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2168
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumnbass411 ➡️
As someone who has had a UFX, Apoggee Symphony, and now a Lynx Aurora n, I can tell you with certainty that the UFX deserves its rating. I was shocked when I saw the results years ago, so I decided to purchase a cheap Motu 828 mk II on eBay just to test. I was blown away at how much more I could hear in the Motu and how much more natural everything sounded. I've said it before, but the UFX sounded too bright and congested. Liken it to walking into a room with spotlights on everywhere, where its hard to see. The 828 was like walking into a well lit room where everything was visible. I was sad when I heard this, because I didn't want to believe it. I ended up selling the UFX and bought a Symphony, which I would've kept if it wasn't USB and always messing up on me. Now I own an Aurora n, and honestly, unless it goes down in flames in a house fire, I don't see myself owning anything else for a long time.
Dr. Dre owned two of those MOTU 828 Mkii interfaces in his studio.

I have the modern 828ES AVB interface which is miles ahead of the legacy Motu converters that shares many of the same components in the Apogees. I have mine installed in a desk full of outboard gear. The converters are very neutral sounding not bright sounding like other converters I heard. They have a nice puncy bottom end and better clarity in the mids like the Apogees. I previously used Focusrite stuff and always seemed to sound to bright esp the Clarett and Forte. Lynx is great too as the last time I used the original Lynx Aurora 16 was back in 2014 at my buddies studio in Nashville. But I think MOTU offers better vaule for the money and no need for a patch bay and messy cables for a studio work horse.
Old 7th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2169
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Yeah, other than this thread, I haven’t seen anyone do a listening test with those that you mentioned. Lynx is definitely “boutique”, although yeah you’re right, people don’t seem to put them up with those guys (to their loss). To me, and to most other engineers, converters are best when they’re the most transparent. I’ll let my outboard and plugins do the tone shaping.
Old 11th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2170
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
It's all makes sense

I know everybody will agree with me that there is a huge difference in how converters sounds.
We don't need "abx blind test" that never shows that, We can trust our own ears and eyes. Blind tests are for amateurs and measurement equipment don't tell the all truth.

Our ears are much more sensitive then any measurement equipment. This companies can use "measurements" but we all know it's not needed. You can simply do a loopback test.
All the companies are a bunch of liars anyway. This test prove it. everything in the market till today have only max -79dB SNR/Dynamic range.

It's not about trying to sell new product or "pumping the capitalized technology pump". Digital audio is only 50 years old, It's not possible yet to make a transparent converter to the human ear for less then 5000$. This is how technology usually rolls, Very slowly.

RME are Germans, And Germans converters sound sterile and strict, They can even hurt your ears.
You better buy something comfortable to the ear with "dreamy" sound made in USA like MOTU with less distortion.
Because we all know less distortion is always better sound and our ears can easily notice that.

It's also a known that the more you pay for a converter the more expensive it will sound. If not why would professional invest in such expensive products?
If somebody mix for 20 years and have expensive equipment you can trust he knows the truth about converters.

Please continue sending more test results and talking about the huge difference you hear with different converters. Don't let who ever offers to test this test distract you with his cynical thinking.
The truth needs to be heard!
Old 11th January 2021
  #2171
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest ➡️
The updated list of results is at the end of the thread.
Old 14th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2172
Gear Head
 
Erik Guevara's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest ➡️
Hi Didier
I noted an error with the list position of the zen tour. Check it out
Old 14th January 2021 | Show parent
  #2173
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Guevara ➡️
I noted an error with the list position of the zen tour.
I ranked the Zen according to the loopback test through its line outputs. The test through its monitor outputs is much better. The technical specifications at the end of the user manual confirm that the monitor D/A converters are different from (and better than) the line outputs converters (129 dB DR and -108 dB THD+N instead of 120 dB DR and -107 dB THD+N). The Zen is now ranked according to the loopback test through its monitor outputs in the

Old 16th January 2021
  #2174
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Test of the Antelope Pure2 by leolycra

Internal clock
Original2_Pure2_ownclock.wav
42.376 µs, 0.0326 dB (L), 0.0095 dB (R), -56.7967 dBFS (L), -58.1716 dBFS (R)

Black Lion Audio MK3 XB clock
Original2_Pure2_BLA_XB.wav
42.464 µs, 0.0325 dB (L), 0.0095 dB (R), -56.7967FS dB (L), -58.1716 dBFS (R)

To be added to the next issue of the

Old 4 weeks ago
  #2175
Gear Addict
thanks didier for doing this.

another apogee duet 2. would love to see the new symphony desktop on here if anyone who owns one would be so kind.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qye...ew?usp=sharing
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2176
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
+4dBu line out into +4dBu line in.aif

The L and R channels are swapped with respect to the original. After correction, here's the result:

-21.927 µs, 0.7868 dB (L), 0.7860 dB (R), -40.0605 dBFS (L), -41.3769 dBFS (R)

Other results to follow on.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2177
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
+4dBu into mic pre with no gain.aif

Result after L and R channels swapping:

-21.928 µs, 0.7875 dB (L), 0.7868 dB (R), -40.0508 dBFS (L), -41.3677 dBFS (R)

Other results to follow on.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2178
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
-10dBv line out into -10dBv line in.aif
Result after L and R channels swapping:
-21.714 µs, 0.4886 dB (L), 0.4830 dB (R), -39.3612 dBFS (L), -40.7092 dBFS (R)

-10dBv line out into mic pre with no gain.aif
Result after L and R channels swapping:
-21.661 µs, 12.4632 dB (L), 12.4623 dB (R), -39.3592 dBFS(L), -40.7071 dBFS (R)

These '-10 dBV' results and the '-4 dBu' ones will be added to the next issue of the

Last edited by didier.brest; 4 weeks ago at 11:22 AM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #2179
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
An easier to use software than Audio Diffmaker is Deltawave. Much more polished, and reliable. You can download it for free here:
https://deltaw.org/

It gives results within a couple db either way of what didier gets using his methods. So if anything it corroborates what didier.brest is doing.

Paul Kane who wrote it has recently added a metric that tries to take into account audibility of different kinds of residuals after nulling. Something that gives a more useful number to say two bits of gear are audibly the same or different. It is a work in progress. If something scores better than -50 db on this metric it is expected you are crossing into the area you couldn't perceive a difference. Just as an example, the RME converter which rates -46 db nulls in the list here on the new metric scores better than -80 db.

You can read about what he is doing here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...ta-test.19841/
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2180
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360studios15 ➡️
Dr. Dre owned two of those MOTU 828 Mkii interfaces in his studio.
I have the modern 828ES AVB interface which is miles ahead of the legacy Motu converters that shares many of the same components in the Apogees. I have mine installed in a desk full of outboard gear. The converters are very neutral sounding not bright sounding like other converters I heard. They have a nice puncy bottom end and better clarity in the mids like the Apogees. I previously used Focusrite stuff and always seemed to sound to bright esp the Clarett and Forte. Lynx is great too as the last time I used the original Lynx Aurora 16 was back in 2014 at my buddies studio in Nashville. But I think MOTU offers better vaule for the money and no need for a patch bay and messy cables for a studio work horse.
Knowing Dre used these is great lore; thank you for sharing that. However, the 828 mk iii scores lower on the loopback test than the mkii, and the 828es scored even lower. Puzzling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumnbass411 ➡️
As someone who has had a UFX, Apoggee Symphony, and now a Lynx Aurora n, I can tell you with certainty that the UFX deserves its rating. I was shocked when I saw the results years ago, so I decided to purchase a cheap Motu 828 mk II on eBay just to test. I was blown away at how much more I could hear in the Motu and how much more natural everything sounded. I've said it before, but the UFX sounded too bright and congested. Liken it to walking into a room with spotlights on everywhere, where its hard to see. The 828 was like walking into a well lit room where everything was visible. I was sad when I heard this, because I didn't want to believe it. I ended up selling the UFX and bought a Symphony, which I would've kept if it wasn't USB and always messing up on me. Now I own an Aurora n, and honestly, unless it goes down in flames in a house fire, I don't see myself owning anything else for a long time.
This is really intriguing testimony, thank you for sharing. It's exactly what I want to know--do these numbers correlate to real world sound quality? They do seem to correlate to price, for the most part, except for these MOTU 828 mkii's. Hidden gem? How come you went for the Symphony if the 828 mkii blew you away?
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2181
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Churlish ➡️
Knowing Dre used these is great lore; thank you for sharing that. However, the 828 mk iii scores lower on the loopback test than the mkii, and the 828es scored even lower. Puzzling.



This is really intriguing testimony, thank you for sharing. It's exactly what I want to know--do these numbers correlate to real world sound quality? They do seem to correlate to price, for the most part, except for these MOTU 828 mkii's. Hidden gem? How come you went for the Symphony if the 828 mkii blew you away?
Yeah. Dre made hits with them justifies that you can make a hit with pretty much anything. Even veteran Producer Ron Fair went down from a large format console to a Presonus Quantum. It's Not so much about the gear you use but how you utilize the tools to get the job done and make it sound great. Talent makes a big difference.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2182
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Churlish ➡️
Knowing Dre used these is great lore; thank you for sharing that. However, the 828 mk iii scores lower on the loopback test than the mkii, and the 828es scored even lower. Puzzling.

This is really intriguing testimony, thank you for sharing. It's exactly what I want to know--do these numbers correlate to real world sound quality? They do seem to correlate to price, for the most part, except for these MOTU 828 mkii's. Hidden gem? How come you went for the Symphony if the 828 mkii blew you away?
Would like to know this as well. According to the numbers some of the Motu's nearly keep up with the best and seem definitely to be the best bang for the buck. If this test really correlates to real world sound quality(or better "transparency"), I'm gonna get 2 Motu 24 IO and call it a day, having better AD/DA than prism and on par with the best Lynx, Apogee, Mytek.
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2183
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude ➡️
It gives results within a couple db either way of what didier gets using his methods.
If some result in the list of the results could be improved by more accurate time shift and gains values, please tell me which one and with which values.


Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude ➡️
Paul Kane who wrote it has recently added a metric that tries to take into account audibility of different kinds of residuals after nulling. Something that gives a more useful number to say two bits of gear are audibly the same or different. It is a work in progress.
The official metric for this purpose is the loudness. It is measured according to the recommendation ITU-R BS.1770-4, entitled Algorithms to measure audio programme loudness and true-peak audio level, issued by the International Telecommunication Union in 2015. The loudness is expressed in LUFS instead of dBFS for the RMS level used in this thread launched in 2011. The loudness of an audio sample is its RMS level at the output of a two stage filters. The frequency responses of the two stages are given by the here attached graphs. There is no way that such a frequency weighting (minimum weight in audio band is about -13 dB at 20 Hz) would make that

Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude ➡️
the RME converter which rates -46 db nulls in the list here on the new metric scores better than -80 db.
I don't expect that the ranking according to the loudness would be much different from the ranking according to the RMS level of the
Anyway I am not keen on issuing a new list based on loudness instead of RMS level.
Attached Thumbnails
Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker-lufs_1.jpg   Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker-lufs_2.jpg  

Last edited by didier.brest; 4 weeks ago at 04:48 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2184
Gear Nut
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumnbass411 ➡️
As someone who has had a UFX, Apoggee Symphony, and now a Lynx Aurora n, I can tell you with certainty that the UFX deserves its rating. I was shocked when I saw the results years ago, so I decided to purchase a cheap Motu 828 mk II on eBay just to test. I was blown away at how much more I could hear in the Motu and how much more natural everything sounded. I've said it before, but the UFX sounded too bright and congested. Liken it to walking into a room with spotlights on everywhere, where its hard to see.
RME have definitely done major changes/ upgrade from the old UFX to the UFX+.

They're no longer using Cirrus Logic AD or Burr Brown DA.

Now using Asahi Kasei Microdevices (AKM) on both AD and DA Conversion.

AD Conversion is now AK 5388 AEQ.

DA Conversion is now AK 4414 EQ.

As a point of interest, the AD Chip is exactly the same as whats used in the latest Universal Audio Apollo 8 MKII's.

Although spec wise, the UA Apollo 8, uses a better premium DA chip being a AKM 4490. It has THD+N -112dB, 256 x Over sampling, 30-768 Khz sample rate, as opposed to -107dB, 128x, 30-216 khz in the UFX+. But importantly, both have same DR S/N 120 dB at 32bit digital filter.

Now that I've blown your brains with geeky digital spec differences, GUESS WHAT?

Sound wise, it means jack s**t, because my SPL Madison D/A, which absolutely kills in the D/A audio diffmaker results 'rank?', and sounds way more exciting to my ears, has even lower D/A spec difference than both the Apollo MKII, and UFX+. It uses an older AK 4621 CODEC (integral AD/DA in one chip). Spec wise, its 'only' 24bit digital filter, DR S/N 115 dB.

This evidence would suggest to me, the biggest difference to obtaining excellent D/A sound, is more so in the analog domain, as the biggest difference is the SPL Madison has 30 VDC rail voltage for the analog output.

Pretty happy with my UFX+ as far as A/D conversion, and the D/A is still fairly good these days AFAIK. Can't help but drool over LYNX and Eventide though.
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2185
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
This has probably been asked here before but does anybody know what DAC is used in the RME Babyface Pro FS? I can't seem to find it listed anywhere.
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2186
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
I downloaded some of the files myself and checked out the HILO vs MOTU 16A vs Zen Tour.

While with the HILO the RMS was lowest when doing the null test, the MOTU cancelled out better than the ZEN TOUR, even though it is lower on this list?
I tested it by putting all files into Cubase, flipping the phase on the original and pushing each of the other testfiles sample by sample until they cancelled out with the original file the most, unsurprisingly it was also the position where the interpolated waveforms exactly matched each other positionwise.

Also the MOTU16A showed lower RMS in my case than the MOTU 828 MkII, which also is higher on this list.
Has anybody an explanation for that?
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2187
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJ99 ➡️
Has anybody an explanation for that?
The time alignment has to be done with subsample accuracy, which cannot be achieved by shifting the loopback track with respect to the original track in a DAW. Such a time alignment is performed in the frequency domain by means of linear phase shifting (equivalent to time shifting in the time domain). Example of result here. The time shift value is not reported and the gain and difference level values are rounded to one digit after the point in the
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2188
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest ➡️
The time alignment has to be done with subsample accuracy, which cannot be achieved by shifting the loopback track with respect to the original track in a DAW. Such a time alignment is performed in the frequency domain by means of linear phase shifting (equivalent to time shifting in the time domain). Example of result here. The time shift value is not reported and the gain and difference level values are rounded to one digit after the point in the
Thanks for the insight. So this is basically what is done in matlab (automatically)?
And how the correlated depth is calculated and differs to that RMS values is not known yet, right? I assume you would trust your matlab method more than the corr. depth measurement?
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2189
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
ADM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJ99 ➡️
So this is basically what is done in matlab (automatically)?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJ99 ➡️
And how the correlated depth is calculated and differs to that RMS values is not known yet, right?
The difference level in the list of the results are to be compared to the level of the difference wav file issued by ADM. I do not know what is the correlated depth. I observe that it is not exactly equal to the conventional null depth expressed in dB equal to the level of the original in dBFS minus the level of the difference wav file issued by ADM, also expressed in dBFS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJ99 ➡️
I assume you would trust your matlab method more than the corr. depth measurement?
Before a new result is inserted in the precise values of the time shift and gains corrections are given so that anybody having basic skill in digital signal processing can check easily that the difference level values correspond well to these corrections values. Example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest ➡️
For checking this, import Original2 Hedd192.wav in Matlab and perform a FFT of length N = 8388608 on each column of the resulting file named data:
Hedd_f_L = fft(data(:,1),N);
Hedd_f_R = fft(data(:,2),N);
Generate the time offset and gain compensated left and right channels:
Hedd_L = real(ifft(Hedd_f_L.*exp(1i*2*pi*44100/N*[0:N/2-1,-N/2:-1]'*692.54E-6)).*10^(0.526/20));
Hedd_R = real(ifft(Hedd_f_R.*exp(1i*2*pi*44100/N*[0:N/2-1,-N/2:-1]'*692.54E-6)).*10^(0.536/20));
Import Original2.wav, composed of 2 channels x M = 5340666 samples, by overwriting the file named data and compute the RMS level of the difference between the time offset and gain compensated loopback file and the original:
10*log10(mean((Hedd_L(1:M)-data(:,1)).^2))
ans = -50.6630
10*log10(mean((Hedd_R(1:M)-data(:,2)).^2))
ans = -49.9652
Anybody can check also that these difference level values are lower than the ones measured in any DAW from the ADM difference file. It is the reason why ADM is no longer used.

Last edited by didier.brest; 3 weeks ago at 09:22 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago | Show parent
  #2190
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
Thanks again Didier, lots of valuable information here.

It is also interesting that according to some measurements here, there are cases, where some converters clocked by other converters indeed improve their performance, which in standalone measure worse.

ESI [email protected] XTe DAC ---> MSB Studio ADC as master (DUJS)
1.6 dB (L), 1.6 dB (R), -66.1 dBFS (L), -67.6 dBFS (R)

SPL Madison ---> Focusrite Blue 245 as master (funka)
4.0 dB (L), 4.1 dB (R), -79.2 dBFS (L), -79.2 dBFS (R)

MOTU 24Ao ---> Antelope Pure2 as master (leolycra)
-0.2 dB (L), -0.2 dB (R), -56.8 dBFS (L), -58.1 dBFS (R)

From variuous topics over here at GS however (i.e. this one Is an external clock always better?), knowledgeable people, including those who build converters commercially, seem to agree with each other, that there are no improvements when clocking your AD/DA externally.

"The claim that an external clock can improve an AD is analogous to a doctor that can may patients with different illness, without ever seeing them or hearing from them." Dan Lavry

Or am I misinterpreting something?
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 183 views: 26239
Avatar for baikonour
baikonour 10th October 2006
replies: 369 views: 95748
Avatar for madethisforpm
madethisforpm 6 days ago
replies: 4759 views: 1267440
Avatar for soapmak3r
soapmak3r 1 day ago
replies: 61 views: 10512
Avatar for Transistor
Transistor 21st February 2015
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump