|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 2, 2017 10:33:00 GMT -6
I'm starting to switch my philosophy...although, I don't know if I've really had any type of philosophy or anything, but it seems like there's a lot more conversation about AD conversion than DA. (Or maybe I'm crazy) Anyway, more and more, I'm thinking that these new AD boxes - while some certainly better than others - are light years ahead of anything we had even ten years ago. The differences in them are probably more subjective than measurable (yes, I know some are measurably better than others)...
But, if you can't hear the difference, what good does it do? It just makes me think that DA and monitoring is of paramount importance.
My quest has always been to find the best place to put my money. (I think the unfortunate answer is "it all matters") I've recently demo'd the BLA Micro Clock MKIII...heard a slight difference in the DA when clocked with it. Tighter bottom, maybe a smoother top...maybe. Kind of the same thing with the Hilo DA. I kind of wrote it off as, "I don't think this would make me make different mix decisions." But now I wonder. Would it? Most likely, yes...That tiny advancement probably reveals itself more clearly over the course of a mix. And those advancements are pretty tiny considering what I already use is pretty damn great. But I guess the point I'm getting to is this: I'm beginning to worry less about what gets in than what's coming out.
|
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Apr 2, 2017 11:27:43 GMT -6
There's one new 2-channel box that's getting accolades for both it's DA and it's AD, the RME ADI-2 Pro. Users who have done the comparison rate it as an overall improvement over the Lynx Hilo, the Antelope Pure 2, and the Prism Lyra. As a DA, it's been favorably compared to the Mytek Brooklyn and roughly equivalent to the newest DA's from Dangerous, Crane Song, and Forssell.
For the price, the ADI-2 Pro is amazing if these comparisons are confirmed. However, the audiophile community is going nuts over it, and it concerns me that RME has tried to thread the middle-ground between studio use and audiophile use, so the features are not as optimally configured for mixing and mastering as they could be. Still, I'm considering adding one to my RME UFX + SvartBox configuration. 99% of the time I only record 2 channels at a time, so this combo would probably enable me to stop worrying about conversion for my life time.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,009 
|
Post by ericn on Apr 2, 2017 11:31:10 GMT -6
I don't think there is a reason to but more weight in the purchase of either. While at this point bad sounding AD and DA are few, it's still pretty laughable that the evaluation boards and suggested implementation of the chips is still superior to most products!
One thing to consider John are manufacturers paying more attention and investing more time and effort into the DA because there is a larger market because they can sell them to audiophiles as well as to the recording market?
What if a sudden overall improvement in DA development shows we should be paying more attention to the AD ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 11:53:50 GMT -6
Hm, i am with the philosophy of John in the way that an AD of better quality than the DA is not really reasonable, because you can not judge recorded details that you can't hear. If you still get better results, it is more like a blind chance.
IMHO the monitoring chain is the most important part of all. The old thumb rule "1/3 of your whole budget" is not exaggerated IMO.
Good news:
Getting the DA to high quality i.e. maximum transparent, most probably is a bit easier than getting the AD there. Most critical frequency range is deep mids and bass. It was like lifting the last curtain when i heard the RM SB against the other models. Very subtle but important improvement that the box maintained the dry power there. Most probably same with svartbox, but i had not the pleasure to hear.
Don't know how much further it really goes...
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 2, 2017 11:53:55 GMT -6
I don't particularly think one is *more* important than the other as long as you are in the realm of at least "good enough"... But you can still spend a lot more to ensure that certain aspects of the conversion are never questioned.
You need good AD to capture at a higher fidelity, but you need good DA to hear what you're capturing.. It's kind of a catch 22 I guess.
Now, as far as modern converters.. I think we're in an era where the *conversion* quality is maxed out. What we hear is just differences in implementation of hardware (filters, layout, power supplies, etc) and software. You hear a drastic difference in converters you say? Did you think about the drivers handling the audio streams after the AD and before the DA?
I think those matter just as much as any hardware, and I think there lies much more difference in audio stream handling these days, than in the conversion quality of the hardware, but there is still certainly some differences, such as clocking, power supply cleanliness and layout for noise, etc, that can be addressed, and contribute to costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Apr 2, 2017 11:56:29 GMT -6
I agree, but even if it's a slightly colored DA, you'll use EQ, compression, saturation, whatever, to get the sound you want. But to capture that sound, you need a very high quality AD or else you're going to change the sound that you've worked to achieve. In that sense, I still think the AD is a bit more important. Best would be as transparent AD as possible, unless you like a bit of additional color that you might get by driving something like a Burl.
Note that I'm talking about mixing here, with an analog chain.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Apr 2, 2017 13:42:36 GMT -6
Can't mix what you can't hear and unless your monitors have a built in DA then then the DA is feeding the monitoring chain and or console which affects your decisions downstream... I think it's very important for the DA to be more linear throughout the freq spectrum Due to the various monitoring levels from mixing and mastering... One doesn't want the DA converter or circuit adding 5 Db at 7khz to the signal because the da converter cant convert the signal as linearly at those high spl levels as it can with low levels... To me AD converters are less affected here because gain in the DAW can always be made up very cleanly, so if the ad converter doesn't perform well at high Db / spl levels, you can hit the ad converter very conservative and make up level later...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Apr 2, 2017 13:53:40 GMT -6
My thinking is that once a minimum level of quality has been achieved, any "color" or inaccuracies in the AD become "just part of the sound" so to speak. And you can compensate or adjust for those anywhere up stream in the signal path, as you would with a colored preamp, compressor etc.
Whereas DA is more important because it's part of the monitor path, we need it to be more accurate so we can make the best mix/tracking decisions (just like quality monitors and room acoustics).
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,009
|
Post by ericn on Apr 2, 2017 15:52:57 GMT -6
Oh the audio equivalent of the Chicken and the egg!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 16:14:18 GMT -6
Oh the audio equivalent of the Chicken and the egg! This is not half as difficult, as it seems. Very easy answer. The egg was first. Definitely. Even in the continuum of evolution, there is one chicken, that is the first to define the species chicken. Chicken is an artificial abstract of nature, defined by a set of properties. And if there is a species called chicken, then there is one individuum that is the first to fit the category. And it comes from an egg, that is the first chicken egg because it contains the first chicken. Egg is first. q.e.d. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 16:21:24 GMT -6
(If egg equals AD and chicken equals DA, which is a valid analogy, because AD is the origin, and DA represents the final product, you decide which is more important for you....)
;-)
(not to be taken too serious, but kind of the logic i use for this...)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 2, 2017 17:22:50 GMT -6
I do not know which end is more important? For AD I use RME and I don't see a reason to change it. I did try other options. I stick with RME, for the last 14 years, because the RME gear works without any trouble that could interrupt my work, except user error.  Excellent sounding DA, and still a sleeper, is the tc electronic BMC-2, which you can buy with some luck at 250 € in Europe. It uses the converter of the system 6000. I don't see a reason to change this either because it just sounds good to me. I don't believe that it will come at low cost to get a better DA. If there is a weak link its the monitors, and this will be tested in the next two weeks Genelecs vs Geithain 906. For the rest I love to concentrate on the music. I just need tools which work for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Apr 2, 2017 18:47:12 GMT -6
My thinking is that once a minimum level of quality has been achieved, any "color" or inaccuracies in the AD become "just part of the sound" so to speak. And you can compensate or adjust for those anywhere up stream in the signal path, as you would with a colored preamp, compressor etc. Whereas DA is more important because it's part of the monitor path, we need it to be more accurate so we can make the best mix/tracking decisions (just like quality monitors and room acoustics). That's what I was going to say. You can have AD "flavors" just like you have your different preamps or whatever. Burly sounds, symphonic sounds, whatever the labels are, that can all work into a mix in some way. The DA however is just this super critical thing that needs to be clear and open. I think there are a lot of really good DA out there at reasonable prices that meet these criteria, that I wouldn't be worried about it if I had one that I liked. Although I must admit the mastering grade stuff has a certain appeal to me, as a pseudo-audiophile engineer. It's something I will just have to wonder about for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Apr 2, 2017 19:31:10 GMT -6
I guess I misunderstood John's original post, and was only answering one part of the equation. I think part of the reason for the contradictory answers is that for most of us there are two sets of AD's and DA's. For the original recording, as has been said, the different flavors of AD can be used as part of the sound that's being recorded, but the monitoring DA has to be as accurate as possible so that you can hear what you're actually recording.
For mixing or mastering, there is a DA - AD loop for an analog chain, as well as a monitoring DA to once again hear what it is you're recording. The AD for the analog chain may or may not be the same AD used for original recording. I would suggest that in the analog chain, the AD is more important so you can capture exactly what you're trying to accomplish with analog processing. But of course, the monitoring DA is still the more critical.
So overall, I would say the most critical of these components is the monitoring DA, followed by the analog chain AD, followed by the analog chain DA. The original recording AD may be the same as the analog chain AD, or it may be different flavors depending on your own tastes.
How is that for a convoluted answer to a simple question?
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Apr 2, 2017 20:30:01 GMT -6
I want my bounces to sound exactly like my final mix does. There's so much involved though, it gets confusing. When I bounce, it comes out a little different, when mastering, it's different, (hopefully better). I have no technical explanation, but I think the final D-A is slightly more important. When I'm tracking, I can easily compare the playback to what I'm hearing live. So the tone choices I make have that very first A-D conversion in mind. But after all that tracking, I don't want it messed with any further.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocinante on Apr 3, 2017 17:20:59 GMT -6
Depends how you work. If your moving around in studios having better AD is more advantageous. You've collected a good source and have a means to. If your strickly mixing at home probably better DA. Really we are splitting hairs though. Almost any AD on the market these days is pretty damn good.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Apr 3, 2017 17:31:08 GMT -6
I'm more concerned about AD because it's what everyone hears and it's cumulative across potentially dozens of tracks in each song.
That said, both are very important and as someone who uses mostly hardware for mixing, my DA affects the sound others are hearing at some point too.
Monitoring-wise, I'm not as concerned as most converters these days are good enough that they probably won't affect my decision making ability to a great degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Apr 4, 2017 14:35:15 GMT -6
An AD converter is much easier to screw up and much harder to get right. The AD is where the layout is super critical, power supply and regulation makes HUGE differences; and where the use of no amplification , discrete, opamps or transformers can all be used before the converter chip and all the textures and rules of different amplification conjecture come into play.
That being said the chip manufactures have this down to a science now so is is very hard to get ahead of the manufacture suggestions for amplification suggestions as they are pushing the envelope with the newest designs.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Apr 4, 2017 15:28:14 GMT -6
I would throw my hat on the the AD side... once tracked you can swap out DA's but you are stuck with what you have got... having said that its all important though... we all know that.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Apr 4, 2017 17:17:41 GMT -6
I would throw my hat on the the AD side... once tracked you can swap out DA's but you are stuck with what you have got... having said that its all important though... we all know that. cheers Wiz I agree with wiz , I think A/D is most important . Your stuck with whatever the original A/D sounds like.....FOREVER..... D/A kinda doesn't matter to me as much cause whoever listens to your music is always gonna listen to it on a different D/A . It could be a really nice D/A or crappy D/A . You have no control over it and its not a part of your sound . Unless your going OTB . But still every playback system and room sounds different . So if your mixing ITB , I think D/A is not very important , |
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Apr 4, 2017 18:22:45 GMT -6
How many if you use you DA for HW/ outboard? Yup your DA is included in that round trip print.... can't swap that out either, you would have to get another converter and re print thru the analog chain... Both are super important... Still feel DA is more important to me... AD can be Tracked conservatively at -20dbfs peaks and stay out the way of the ad circuit folding in under higher gain staging/ clipping...
I have Always heard about cheap converters not handling full scale ( high gain level ) signals or clipping welll due to the analog / conversion stage... so this tells me keep my levels more conservative and I can avoid the pitfalls of the cheap converter... any feedback?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Apr 4, 2017 18:24:58 GMT -6
I would throw my hat on the the AD side... once tracked you can swap out DA's but you are stuck with what you have got... having said that its all important though... we all know that. cheers Wiz I agree with wiz , I think A/D is most important . Your stuck with whatever the original A/D sounds like.....FOREVER..... D/A kinda doesn't matter to me as much cause whoever listens to your music is always gonna listen to it on a different D/A . It could be a really nice D/A or crappy D/A . You have no control over it and its not a part of your sound . Unless your going OTB . But still every playback system and room sounds different . So if your mixing ITB , I think D/A is not very important , Except your D to A converter feeds your monitors? That's very important for tracking and dialing in sounds, mixing and mastering... Whatcha think? |
|
|
|
Post by illacov on Apr 4, 2017 21:03:34 GMT -6
So are there any modern converters (AD/DA) that don't use anti-aliasing filtering? If we are going to talk about implementation I'm all for it, I'd just love to know what the solution to Nyquist looks like in 2017 or are we still using a sort of filter system there?
Truly have no idea, would love to know. Tried to Google it before, not a very openly discussed topic, so I'm pulling up at the Cantina Mos Eisley to find out.
-L.
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Apr 4, 2017 21:08:55 GMT -6
I agree with wiz , I think A/D is most important . Your stuck with whatever the original A/D sounds like.....FOREVER..... D/A kinda doesn't matter to me as much cause whoever listens to your music is always gonna listen to it on a different D/A . It could be a really nice D/A or crappy D/A . You have no control over it and its not a part of your sound . Unless your going OTB . But still every playback system and room sounds different . So if your mixing ITB , I think D/A is not very important , Except your D to A converter feeds your monitors? That's very important for tracking and dialing in sounds, mixing and mastering... Whatcha think? Yeah thats important . You gotta have decent monitoring . I'm just saying if you mix ITB , the D/A is less critical because with the end product , nobody is gonna be listening through your D/A . But the A/D is part of the end product that everyone will hear . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2017 4:13:08 GMT -6
Following this logic, we should mix and master on the iPhone with $10 inears.
;-)
(This is most probably the DA of your customers today.)
|
|
