The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Superb A/D
Old 11th April 2016
  #121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaseUTB View Post
Maybe yes maybe no, however he sells all three brands you listed at dsp doctor. Doc has great advice and is a valuable member to this forum. My mother taught me to not believe everything I read and I believe that applies to GS as well. No disrespect to DspDoc or DocMixwell.
I appreciate your comments. I gather we're off topic though, since we squashed any notion of aggressive "pimping" of one brand or another a while back. I post here to help out. So I appreciate being valued as a member of this community.

When I started out, I wanted to hear every single piece of gear ever in existence. That's what lead me to Mercenary Audio to work with Fletcher and still drives my passion to this day, with DSPdoc.

Basically, I have used all this stuff and have been able to form my own opinions of it. Of course, as it relates to me and my ears. But, as it were...I try to rely my experiences in order to help select the right tools for my clients.

That's pretty much it. But I do agree with the meat of your post. Trying stuff for yourself is actually the only way to get trustworthy information. Over the years, I have grown my business by providing solid advice that is personalized to the user.

About 90% of them ask me for my own preference.
Old 11th April 2016
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaseUTB View Post
Lets hear some great jcf or lake people conversion... Wait a minute.... How do you hear conversion by itself? I know we can test analog paths, DR of said chip, Decibel max output of said chip and other specs, but is anyone testing multed outputs from the same performance source into different units ?
The descriptions I gave of AD-converters in this thread are derived from endless direct comparisons of a chain consisting out of two mics into one stereo preamp with double outputs on each channel, so that the exact same analog signal could be converted simultaneously by two converters and I could A-B them. All sorts of difficult to reproduce sound generators, such as wind chimes, rain sticks and string instruments, were used in front of the mics. Before I made these tests I painstakingly calibrated the converters so they would convert to the exact same digital level of a 1000Hz test tone.

My goal with these tests was not to find a "winner", but to find out about their relative strengths and weaknesses. That's how I was able to describe "smoothness" or "articulation". I have also used the different converters for mastering direct analog mixes (from digital multitrack playback), so the same signal could be reproduced again and again. And of course I have also used these converters for a prolonged time, outside the testing protocol.

I always try to refrain from sweep statements such as: "sounds great", without explaining what's so great about the sound. But it seems that for nuanced assessments of product's qualities there is no place here. Products must be hyped by advertising or sellers before people seem to believe that they are an option to buy.
Old 11th April 2016
  #123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
The descriptions I gave of AD-converters in this thread are derived from endless direct comparisons of a chain consisting out of two mics into one stereo preamp with double outputs on each channel, so that the exact same analog signal could be converted simultaneously by two converters and I could A-B them. All sorts of difficult to reproduce sound generators, such as wind chimes, rain sticks and string instruments, were used in front of the mics. Before I made these tests I painstakingly calibrated the converters so they would convert to the exact same digital level of a 1000Hz test tone.

My goal with these tests was not to find a "winner", but to find out about their relative strengths and weaknesses. That's how I was able to describe "smoothness" or "articulation". I have also used the different converters for mastering direct analog mixes (from digital multitrack playback), so the same signal could be reproduced again and again. And of course I have also used these converters for a prolonged time, outside the testing protocol.

I always try to refrain from sweep statements such as: "sounds great", without explaining what's so great about the sound. But it seems that for nuanced assessments of product's qualities there is no place here. Products must be hyped by advertising or sellers before people seem to believe that they are an option to buy.
I am not sure why you felt I was talking or writing to you, I wasn't, and would have quoted you like I am. Your testing results is exactly what type of info I am looking for. When I said "conversion heard by itself", most seemed to be focused on the actual converter chip in the converter. Instead of what chips or specs, I asked about multing outputs etc. I did not read or see where you posted your process in this thread other than the post I quoted here, if you did state your testing description here in this thread and I missed it then I will go back and re read. I appreciate people's real world feedback as others do as well. I was not referring to you or talking bad about you or anyone in my post. I am eager to learn because as this being my profession, I am in constant pursuit of my sonic perfection and that takes experience and years of learning.

Thank you for your description of lake people converters. I do not know about them and will research further. What genres do you work in? How is the build quality of Lake people converters? Can you share more results from your tests ? There are audio files you recorded could you post a comparison? I am interested as I'm sure others are as well? Do you have a test file we can start with?

I enjoy the info and learn how to read through the marketing talk. Also GS has to have a way to pay for itself so we can be here discussing the accute differences in analog to digital to analog audio conversion. People like DocMixwell have used lots of gear I haven't so I always try to absorb the message not judge the messenger if you get what I'm saying. Have a great day making, recording, producing, mixing, or mastering music my fellow Gearslut
Old 11th April 2016
  #124
Dot
Lives for gear
 
Dot's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
My goal with these tests was not to find a "winner", but to find out about their relative strengths and weaknesses.
Absolutely. And I'll even put myself on a list with only a handful of people who have more extensive experience with more current-market pro audio gear than anyone else on the planet. Fletcher and I were even talking about that just a few weeks ago in a few phone conversations.

That's why when I speak with people, or make recommendations in forums, I usually start off by asking more questions to gather more information about what someone really needs. Sometimes people even think they need to make corrections or a purchase in one area, when it turns out that they haven't even determined their own needs correctly.

How To Get Better Answers To Your Recording Studio Gear Questions - by Dan Richards

You can search my post history on GS, and I'm sure there's at least a good 200 products I've recommended to people, and certainly have discussed many more. There is no "best winner," but there certainly are some standouts. And there are products that are the best in their class and price range and for what they do.

There's quite a few companies that are well known now, that hardly anyone had heard of before I came in contact with them, and later started letting people know about the company and their products. That's been a major drive for me all these years. To get the right tools in the right people's hands. And to help companies building great tools to expand and grow. I've also consulted with manufacturers on product development.

I've put a lot of time and effort into being able to knowledgeably use and discuss mics, preamps, outboard gear, monitors, converters, recording techniques. I think if you look back, you'll also see enough feedback from people that make it obvious that I know my stuff.

My recommendations have put multi-millions of dollars of pro audio products in end-user's hands.

Sure, the world is full of people who have only tried a few things, and love to jump and down to justify their purchases. Their posts are also only a line or two long—often with lots of exclamation points.

There are others that have more real-world, in-the-trenches experience.

It's up to anyone to qualify the source of answers and recommendations they're receiving to questions and inquiries.

Last edited by Dot; 11th April 2016 at 09:24 PM..
Old 11th April 2016
  #125
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaseUTB View Post
Thank you for your description of lake people converters. I do not know about them and will research further. What genres do you work in? How is the build quality of Lake people converters? Can you share more results from your tests ? There are audio files you recorded could you post a comparison? I am interested as I'm sure others are as well? Do you have a test file we can start with?
I record mainly classical music and other acoustic sources. Finicky stuff.

The Lake People converters are well built (German quality labor) with a very sober look. They're housed in a stainless steel box and the inside shows all high quality components. The (built in) power supply is excellent. You need to calibrate the channels with a test tone, if you want perfect channel matching with the different pots. (If you want you can remove the knobs after calibration, if you intend not to change the calibration often.)

I've been considering sharing samples from my tests, but these would all have to be 96kHz/24bit files, so it would take up a lot of space to put these on GS. And I think their use is limited when you can't compare them to what your ears would hear in real life of the same source. I will see if I can find a useful sample made with each converter.
Old 11th April 2016
  #126
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
The descriptions I gave of AD-converters in this thread are derived from endless direct comparisons of a chain consisting out of two mics into one stereo preamp with double outputs on each channel, so that the exact same analog signal could be converted simultaneously by two converters and I could A-B them. All sorts of difficult to reproduce sound generators, such as wind chimes, rain sticks and string instruments, were used in front of the mics. Before I made these tests I painstakingly calibrated the converters so they would convert to the exact same digital level of a 1000Hz test tone.

My goal with these tests was not to find a "winner", but to find out about their relative strengths and weaknesses. That's how I was able to describe "smoothness" or "articulation". I have also used the different converters for mastering direct analog mixes (from digital multitrack playback), so the same signal could be reproduced again and again. And of course I have also used these converters for a prolonged time, outside the testing protocol.

I always try to refrain from sweep statements such as: "sounds great", without explaining what's so great about the sound. But it seems that for nuanced assessments of product's qualities there is no place here. Products must be hyped by advertising or sellers before people seem to believe that they are an option to buy.
Ive said it a billion times to use a drum machine into multiple converters or record it each time into different converters and i always get ignored, it seems like the only way to get consistent results,even though its not super optimal
Old 11th April 2016
  #127
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by deuc647 View Post
Ive said it a billion times to use a drum machine into multiple converters or record it each time into different converters and i always get ignored, it seems like the only way to get consistent results,even though its not super optimal
Read again how I performed my tests and you will see that every time the source signal was exactly the same, split over two converters (or sequential when in a mastering situation). I used a preamp with identical multiple outputs per channel. I used exactly the same length and type of cable on each and I even switched outputs to make sure the differences were consistent. (I also tested different types of cable between the preamps and the converters for further refinement of the chain, but I'll leave those findings out of the discussion for now.)
Old 11th April 2016
  #128
WAD
Gear Maniac
 

PrismSound, no question.
Old 11th April 2016
  #129
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
No clue what this is about. Mine has worked flawlessly for 6 or 7 years at this point.
same for me!
Old 11th April 2016
  #130
Lives for gear
 
nevefreak's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WAD View Post
PrismSound, no question.
for transparency maybe
Old 12th April 2016
  #131
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuc647 View Post
Ive said it a billion times to use a drum machine into multiple converters or record it each time into different converters and i always get ignored, it seems like the only way to get consistent results,even though its not super optimal
Another route is to test the gear with an oscilloscope/audio analyzer, along with music listening time.

It's not the last word by any stretch, but if you know what you're doing it can cut down some time learning the piece of gear, and possibly point out things to listen for... or shortcomings that may not be immediately obvious.

I don't do this for everything, but I've definitely done it to test interfaces, adcs, dacs, some preamps, eqs, etc.

Maybe it's not for everyone, but I think it's useful.
Old 12th April 2016
  #132
mpr
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuc647 View Post
Ive said it a billion times to use a drum machine into multiple converters or record it each time into different converters and i always get ignored, it seems like the only way to get consistent results,even though its not super optimal
What I like to do when testing ADC is use tape machines. With a properly cared for machine, and a low run reel, you can be confident that the tracks coming in thru each conversion pass (converter brand) are exactly the same, one after another. Playlist each conversion pass in PT, and time align them. Then have someone blindly switch the playlist while you stare off into space. You will soon find out what each is doing sonically next to the other, and also next to the analog source if you can bring the 2 track in as an AB monitor source.

Years ago I was apart of a large multitrack converter shootout with 6 guys, some of whom brought their PTHD converters. We used my Studer 827 feeding 23 tracks into Apogee Symphony mk1, Mytek 8x192, Avid HD, Digidesign 192 and Lynx Aurora. We compared them to each other as both a digital sum (2 tracks out thru a DAC1) as well as an analog sum which used 23 channels of DAC from whatever brand we wanted to hear playback (which made it impossible to compare side by side, but we still spotted clear differences).

For some reason the greatest differences between the 23 track ADC passes (grouped playlists) were spotted using the output of the digital sum (DAC1), despite settling on the Apogee as the 'control' multitrack playback DACs.

Based on the blind tests, there was no clear consensus winner when done blind, but it was obvious that they all sounded different. The general consensus was that the Avid was truest to the source (96khz), but the Apogee sounded more pleasing (bigger) than all of them. And I personally fell in love with the Myteks because I liked how they matched up with the sound of the Studer (smoothest top end of all) so I ended up with 24 channels of them, which I eventually got rid of when I stopped tracking to the Studer and wanted more digital clarity (ugh).

To make things even more difficult to pin down, we all came to slightly different conclusions based on 2x fs or 1x fs. Some converters do indeed sound better at 96khz despite nyquist being well out range.
Old 12th April 2016
  #133
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dot View Post
Somewhat similar to the UA sound. RME, while not being "reference," have an excellent musical sound. A bit like Lundahl transformers.
Interesting. For me I see that with very superficial listening theres maybe the same articulation in the presence area (3k?) and a bit tight bass that some transformers can deliver. But regarding the RMEs this comes with a harsh, somewhat metallic touch which lacks all the depth of the original room reprasentation where a lundahl sounds much more natural and organic. I never would say RMEs converter design are sounding 'musical', for me. They are indeed quite the opposit: technical sounding with some very music destroying signatures in their behaviour. It seems a lot of this behaviour comes from their clock design, in my experiences. This signature, maybe, can work good with some electronic music or even some rock stuff, but with a classical or acoustic recording these flaws very easily become very annoying and unnatural.
We see once again sound is a very personal thing and its very much useless to expect 'the truth' from a forum.

Lundahl has several different transformer designs which are also sounding quite different btw.

Last edited by JP__; 12th April 2016 at 07:23 AM..
Old 12th April 2016
  #134
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
I always try to refrain from sweep statements such as: "sounds great", without explaining what's so great about the sound. But it seems that for nuanced assessments of product's qualities there is no place here. Products must be hyped by advertising or sellers before people seem to believe that they are an option to buy.
+1
But descibing a tool as 'great sounding' is very easy and needs no nuances, so ideal parlance for a seller or a forum. But if someone is truly listening, it should be clear that there isnt anything like 'great' in all nuances. Every gear design is a trade off and its important to finetune or balancing the artefacts (that are always there) in a 'optimal' way. But optimal can be a very personal thing.
So, a review of a product without describing these nuances is simply wasted time. Therefore this forum often more look like adveritsing than a exchange from user to user...

Another problem is that theres always a chain (at least DA to speaker) involved when listening to gear and this chain influences the result of the test too.

Last edited by JP__; 12th April 2016 at 07:27 AM..
Old 29th May 2016
  #135
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
The analog circuitry in the ADC RS04 is exactly the same as in the F444, with a dynamic range bigger than the AD converter itself. The analog path is most decisive for the sound of a converter, as the chips themselves all sound the same (when they are of the same type). The only addition the RS04 has (insertable into in the analog path) is a soft limiter to avoid clipping. It also has more output options, so this is a great table top two channel AD-converter that can be used by people who have difficulty handling AES only. No need of an RME UC in that case, as you could use USB directly into your computer.

The analog path of a Burl is made to have a specific sound, with transformers and all. The analog path of the Lake people is made to have no sound of its own at all. Interestingly this results in a "sound" that seems very analog as it is just very close to real.
I have had the new LP converter designs here for a testrun over the last two weeks and can fully confirm earcatchers impression. For me definitly the best "bang for the buck" in this price range, even compared to quite some higher priced converters. Its for sure the most neutral/ transparent converter design I heard yet, but without being any boring, steril, whatsoever... Just an impressive sound that comes out of these small boxes... No artefacts, just music.
Old 11th December 2016
  #136
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
I have had the new LP converter designs here for a testrun over the last two weeks and can fully confirm earcatchers impression. For me definitly the best "bang for the buck" in this price range, even compared to quite some higher priced converters. Its for sure the most neutral/ transparent converter design I heard yet, but without being any boring, steril, whatsoever... Just an impressive sound that comes out of these small boxes... No artefacts, just music.
Hi JP,
thanks for your input.
Do i have to make some calibration stuff with the RS04 or can i just plug them to my old Babyface or Apollo Twin via ADAT and start recording....
And will you check out the ADI 2 Pro too?
Greetz from Franken
Old 12th December 2016
  #137
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilaci View Post
Hi JP,
thanks for your input.
Do i have to make some calibration stuff with the RS04 or can i just plug them to my old Babyface or Apollo Twin via ADAT and start recording....
And will you check out the ADI 2 Pro too?
Greetz from Franken
What kind of calibration do you mean? Level? Input level is set by those big potis at the front.
Its setting is only depending on the input level you feed the ADC with. Theres no calibration in the digital world.
But I dont know if its capable to feed an ADAT stream. May you want to read the manual before buy. I used AES only.
Im done with ADCs for the next few years. So no, no real interest in the RME ADI2 (I already owned the ADI1 and several other RME converters before). Sorry.
Old 12th December 2016
  #138
Antelope Pure 2 is amazing for the money, bought mine this year and it has been just incredible
Old 13th December 2016
  #139
Gear Maniac
 
OhioGreg's Avatar
 

QES Labs PAD-2. Just got my unit, my first reaction was 'whoa', 'oh my' was my second. It features a totally passive analog front end. From top to bottom, it's a full-bandwidth digital component with exceptional detail and complete neutrality. Cymbals through the PAD-2, for example, sound clean, clear, airy, and beautifully delineated, not spalshy, obscured, or hard. The voice? Is rendered firmly, realistic, with air and space around it. I'm extremely happy of my unit.
Old 13th December 2016
  #140
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
 

Congrats Greg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im super stoked you have it now!!! Post up some samples if you get a chance, i did one but i use a drum machine for all my recording so its hard to get the depth and articulation out of it but it does a good job of preserving them even with the drum machine.
Old 13th December 2016
  #141
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
What kind of calibration do you mean? Level? Input level is set by those big potis at the front.
Its setting is only depending on the input level you feed the ADC with. Theres no calibration in the digital world.
But I dont know if its capable to feed an ADAT stream. May you want to read the manual before buy. I used AES only.
Im done with ADCs for the next few years. So no, no real interest in the RME ADI2 (I already owned the ADI1 and several other RME converters before). Sorry.
Thanks for your Feedback!
Very nice!
Yes they have an ADAT out. I dont know if i need Wordclock. If i feel some strange things i will consider a ULN2 or maybe there is a new UCX already which has Wordclock too. So my tracking chain for pre-production will be Brauner > Phoenix Pre > Line Splitter for 525 > RS04 and Apollo Twin to Mac.
This is the plan.

I was on the High End in Munich and had nice talk with the Lake-People Captain.
Best
Old 14th December 2016
  #142
Gear Maniac
 
OhioGreg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuc647 View Post
Congrats Greg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im super stoked you have it now!!! Post up some samples if you get a chance, i did one but i use a drum machine for all my recording so its hard to get the depth and articulation out of it but it does a good job of preserving them even with the drum machine.
I will, thanks. I hope you're enjoying your PAD-2. What are the strong points that you like about this unit?
Old 14th December 2016
  #143
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilaci View Post
Thanks for your Feedback!
Very nice!
Yes they have an ADAT out. I dont know if i need Wordclock. If i feel some strange things i will consider a ULN2 or maybe there is a new UCX already which has Wordclock too. So my tracking chain for pre-production will be Brauner > Phoenix Pre > Line Splitter for 525 > RS04 and Apollo Twin to Mac.
This is the plan.

I was on the High End in Munich and had nice talk with the Lake-People Captain.
Best
You mean a separate wordclock connection? No, no reason for it (the clocking signal is in the ADAT-stream too) .Just use the LP as master.
Old 14th December 2016
  #144
Lives for gear
 
Friedemann's Avatar
 

The ADAT clocking is sufficient as long as we are talking non realtime applications (A/D -> DAW -> D/A). If there is a direct realtime connection to other converters I would recommend a good clock distribution scheme via Wordclock. Still, whenever possible make the main A/D master.
Old 14th December 2016
  #145
Lives for gear
 
JP__'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Friedemann View Post
Still, whenever possible make the main A/D master.
This is a rule that has at least its theoretical legitimacy, but in the end its just another rule...
I happily have broken these rule without necessity in the past, just trusted my (and others) ears.

The LP clock is quite good indeed.Mine is clocked external by a mutec master clock, but the audible difference is quite small after all.
Old 14th December 2016
  #146
Lives for gear
 
Friedemann's Avatar
 

It's not a rule, it's just an approach to gain maximum audio quality fail safety. Experienced users may freely diverge, but for larger installations there are quite a couple of pitfalls to avoid.
Old 14th December 2016
  #147
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGreg View Post
I will, thanks. I hope you're enjoying your PAD-2. What are the strong points that you like about this unit?
Strong points are that it translates better than anything ive ever heard. It preserves depth extremely well, wide range, just seems like it isnt filtered in the really low end and the really high end. The only down side i see of the unit is the lack of memory on the buttons. If i work at 96 i have to put it at 96 everytime i turn the unit on. But that is a small price to pay for what i got. Seriously debating on getting another unit so i have 4 channels
Old 14th December 2016
  #148
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
You mean a separate wordclock connection? No, no reason for it (the clocking signal is in the ADAT-stream too) .Just use the LP as master.
Yeah thanks!
I think this is more than accourate for pre-production.
In the end i might have a better sound than the wondering "pros" because i just moved the knobs....
Old 15th December 2016
  #149
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
No clue what this is about. Mine has worked flawlessly for 6 or 7 years at this point.
Agreed. Never had an issue with the HEDD192, which I have had for about 5 years. Not aware of any HEDD192 issues. IMO the HEDD192 has a wonderful sound, that some of the newer technology is starting to catch up with. I had one issue with a Trakker compressor LED, which was fixed by Cranesong at no charge. Cranesong customer care and quality is legit IMO.
IMO Cranesong is still a valid contender against the newer technology in the same price range. IMO Burl B2 is excellent as well. IMO at this level of converters, other things such as our experience make a bigger difference.
I have to admit JCF has my interest, but waiting...

Peace!
Greg
Old 29th December 2016
  #150
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP__ View Post
This is a rule that has at least its theoretical legitimacy, but in the end its just another rule...
I happily have broken these rule without necessity in the past, just trusted my (and others) ears.

The LP clock is quite good indeed.Mine is clocked external by a mutec master clock, but the audible difference is quite small after all.
JP, i ordered one right now.
Next week i have holidays and 2017 will be my music year ....
Thanks for Input. I will see how it handles rocknroll against Apollo Twin and an old Babyface. But anyway i need 2 addtional recording channels.
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump