The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
best tracking converter Digital Converters
Old 17th July 2017
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
It was never a mystery that only a few companies supply chips to converter manufacturers.

I'm not worshiping at the altar of brands or of pictures of the insides of a piece of equipment.

Your post is interesting for those people who do not realize that the converters listed use the same engine. I bet some posters didn't know about that. But I don't think that manufacturers are trying to trick people into believing they developed everything in house.

I'm trying to talk about the forward march of better sounding converters which get us closer to the sound of the line out from our analog consoles or Rens Heijnis equipment.

It is FOR SURE that curious engineers who keep up with new products are noticing that recent converter design is getting better and better--on a march towards transparency. And progress without resorting to gain-staging!

Certainly, as a goal, transparency is NOWHERE NEAR met yet, but progress towards that goal is certainly noticed here at my place.

We all know that it is the design surrounding the chip that makes the difference.
Old 20th July 2017
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
We all know that it is the design surrounding the chip that makes the difference.
If this is what we all know, then why do you make the obviously false claim that "There have been vast improvements in a/d chips, ..."? You're blowing a lot of smoke into this discussion with your last post, making assumptions of things that were never claimed here. I was trying to help others to understand what makes a difference in judging what makes a converter sound good. Don't trump the debate into some stupid ego-battle!

DAD AX24 is a design from 2007, by the way. And "the next step on the way to total transparency" QES Labs PAD-2 uses an AD chip from 2006. So it even seems the cutting edge AD-converters of this moment preferably use OLD A/D-chip designs to get their best sound.
Old 20th July 2017
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
No, not a battle of any sort. I was just posting an educated opinion. Don't seek drama where there is none.
Old 21st July 2017
  #34
Seems to me that there's a semantic difference, depending how "converter" is used...
If "converter" is the analog electronics from the input all the way to the output of the actual A/D chip (essentially the entire device)... then I side with Plush - I believe there have been improvements in the devices.
If "converter" is the A/D chip itself, then I disagree - the actual chipsets used have been optimized for quite a while.
Old 21st July 2017
  #35
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Gotta consider the whole box, right?

D.
Old 21st July 2017
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
Gotta consider the whole box, right?

D.
Of course you have to consider the whole box, but you may be reading this post of mine once again, to see that recent developments can only be partial improvements, at best: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12740745-post26.html

The whole point is that highest quality A/D-chips were already available ten years ago and analog stages could have been as good as they sometimes are in new designs, because the tech was already available. Only clock technology has really become more affordable for a serious stepup, compared to older designs. So, the engineers who went out of their way ten years ago with their analog design will not be bested by current designs, although a newer clock may make a jump forward in matters of transparency and naturalness. Claiming that recent A/D-chip development and somehow "new" technology in the analog stages is the cause of a current jump forward in converter quality (the box) is therefore not correct. There have been many designs though that simply were "good enough" at the time and we now want them replaced by better designs in search of the ultimate sound. Many parties try to jump into that niche of needs with new boxes, that are for the most part built out of known tech. In that sense Plush and I agree (there are more better converters now), but we have different stories of what the new boxes consist of and whether it would be possible to use an "old" converter and make it sound "new". Clear now?
Old 22nd July 2017
  #37
Gear Addict
 

.....and what about designs like the RME ADI-2PRO? RME specifies it can run both AD and DA at a max sample rate of 768kHz.
Old 22nd July 2017
  #38
Gear Addict
 
esldude's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adorno View Post
.....and what about designs like the RME ADI-2PRO? RME specifies it can run both AD and DA at a max sample rate of 768kHz.
What is the possible benefit to those sample rates? I don't see any or hear any. They might improve the stock price of HD makers.

My guess is they used new chips that have the ability to run at those rates so why not. More equals better for marketing so yeah just add that on.
Old 24th July 2017
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
What is the possible benefit to those sample rates? I don't see any or hear any. They might improve the stock price of HD makers.

My guess is they used new chips that have the ability to run at those rates so why not. More equals better for marketing so yeah just add that on.
This rate seems to be for the Measurement crowd who wished for up-to 384khz response.

So, it just might be science and not marketing.
Old 24th July 2017
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Super clock rates sound great. I use them with my DAD converter.

384 KHz. clock recording sounds liquid and flowing with no edge to tone.

Filters acting far above audible frequencies makes a big difference.

Can use MAGIX daws, (Sequoia and ProX3) Acoustica, and Pmix to record this way.
Old 24th July 2017
  #41
I am enjoying the Merging Pyramix setup with DXD project mixdown [352.8k] sounds noticeably wider and broader/larger than 192K. As does 384K sampling rate.
Old 26th July 2017
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
What is the possible benefit to those sample rates? I don't see any or hear any. They might improve the stock price of HD makers.

My guess is they used new chips that have the ability to run at those rates so why not. More equals better for marketing so yeah just add that on.
Bats!
Old 27th July 2017
  #43
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earcatcher View Post
Thank you for your compliments. I am usually not very satisfied with my own results, so it is nice to know someone else enjoys them.

You stated: "Deep soundstage, transparent as oxygen 1 inch from your face, excellent bass". For that idea I can only think of the Mytek. It's not clinically cold, but has a sharp transient texture and therefore sounds a little "hard" with some instruments. Generally I use it in conjunction with softening preamps, in order to avoid mushyness in the chain. But with a Gordon I would never use it as the Mytek would (over-)enhance its already pinsharp imaging. No breaking glass in my ears, please.

The Lake People converter has more subtle transients and fits their F355 preamp really well, as that model can be rather hard with Mytek. Because of the subtle transients the naturalness is more like we hear things, but only when the mic and preamp have not lost that info. With TM101's I usually link directly to the Lake People converters, especially with string instruments. M296 might however invite me to try the Mytek in this case, as it already is a very smooth mic and some bite could be desirable.

Recently I added a CC2 clock to the Lake People converter and it worked really well with it. (The Lake People has a fast locking clock which makes it very suitable for better external clocking.) Just a notch more image sharpening and linear highs extension. Perfectly controlled lows. Absolutely wonderful sound at mastering level. (I also tried the CC2 with a Mytek 8x192 ADDA, but the sound changed so much that I had to mix differently. Creepily transparent and "naked" sound. And for those who want to know: the CC2 did not bring any improvement to the Hilo with synchrolock on.)

I find both Mytek and Lake People to have a musical quality, but in a different way. For my own use I could be perfectly happy with the Lake People and CC2, as it is the most effortless, "analog" sounding combo without any coloration. But whether this is what your ears want to hear too, I cannot judge.
I've been looking into getting a stereo ADC and this thread, and your posts, seem to have a lot of information related to my goals. I have a home recording setup primarily for stereo recording of steel string acoustic guitar solo fingerstyle arrangements. I usually prefer a spaced pair arrangement using omni mics. I'm currently using a pair of Gefell M296S's into a pair of Speck 5.0 MicPre's into a Motu Ultralite AVB. On the playback side I'm using Equator D5's or Westone in ear monitors. My typical goal of recording is for realism; getting recordings as close as possible to the source's sound. As this is just a home recording hobby I'm trying to keep costs down, so hoping to buy used. I haven't used/demoed any external ADCs, and right now I'm considering the Lavry AD10 or the Mytek Stereo 192 (kind of leaning towards the Lavry, but that's only based on reading forums).

Any thoughts or recommendations for me?
Old 27th July 2017
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Earcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck_S View Post
I've been looking into getting a stereo ADC and this thread, and your posts, seem to have a lot of commonality to my goals. I have a home recording setup primarily for stereo recording of solo acoustic guitar arrangements. I usually prefer a spaced pair arrangement using omni mics. I'm currently using a pair of Gefell M296S's into a pair of Speck 5.0 MicPre's into a Motu Ultralite AVB. On the playback side I'm using Equator D5's or Westone in ear monitors. My typical goal of recording is for realism; getting recordings as close as possible to the source's sound. As this is just a home recording hobby I'm trying to keep costs down, so hoping to buy used. I haven't used/demoed any external ADCs, and right now I'm considering either a Lavry AD10 or a Mytek Stereo 192 (kind of leaning towards the Lavry, but that's only based on reading forums).

Any thoughts or recommendations for me?
The M296's are smooth microphones, so I think you could be very happy with the articulate Mytek Stereo192 ADC, in order not to smooth out the signal too much. I like that combo myself. Compared against the samples of the AD10 that I have heard I would choose the Mytek.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
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