|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 12, 2015 22:11:44 GMT -6
I'm doing some testing with my new pair of Warm EQP-WA's and I've been testing them as inserts vs tracking through them. This got me curious about the DA/AD trip of using HW as inserts in the DAW, which is something I've done many times with various converters.
Right now my rig is (conversion wise) an Apollo, a Burl B2 and a D Box. I love this rig. I usually track anything two channels or less through the Burl, and I use the Apollo conversion for the rest, while monitoring through the D Box's DA.
Anyway, I was curious about the DA/AD roundtrip for a HW insert. So I took a WAV file of a mix I know well, the Beatles "Come Together", and ran it through the Apollo's DA and AD four times. Meaning, I had the original stereo track in PT, then I inserted a DA/AD loop and bounced. Then, on that bounce, I re-inserted a DA/AD loop and bounced again. And so on, until I had "Come Together" in everything from the original WAV file to a version that had gone through the Apollo's DA and AD four times. After listening myself, I had my gal come in here and flip back and forth between the original WAV and the 4x DA/AD version while I kept my eyes closed and concentrated. It took me about 10 flips back and forth to even develop a preference and, even then, I felt like I was stabbing in the dark. The one I preferred turned out to be the original WAV but I'm telling you I could hardly tell them apart. I'm not even totally convinced I did tell them apart. It felt like guessing. More testing would have maybe shed light on the matter but my wife has a limited tolerance for flipping PT tracks back and forth while I nerd out on some pretty clearly unimportant audio nonsense.
Now, I'm sure I don't have the best ears on the planet, and I certainly don't have the most high end room (it's well treated, I'm monitoring through the D Box DA into Dynaudio BM5a MkII's) but if, at mix position in a room I know like the back of my hand, I have to put that much effort into distinguishing any sonic difference at all between an original WAV and a version that's had 4 roundtrips through conversion, I straight up don't care about it. If there's a difference, I'm not interested in it. Move a mic a half and inch and you'll get 50 times more sonic difference. Honestly.
Anyway. Just thought I'd share.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdmitch2 on Jun 12, 2015 23:13:26 GMT -6
Interesting observations -- thanks for sharing. This makes me feel a little better about my hybrid setup...... I usually don't have the patience to set up these kinds of tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 12, 2015 23:48:04 GMT -6
Agreed eagan AD/DA in and out phobia is over-rated.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 13, 2015 0:11:49 GMT -6
Just a quick test, obviously not the whole story. But yeah, I will not be sweating DA/AD loops when printing hardware.
I wasn't really anyway, I just wanted to do some blind listening. I think blind listening comparisons would save your average musician/recordist/engineer a lot of dough if they were utilized more often. There's simply no getting around confirmation bias other than not knowing what you're listening to.
I have somewhat often rented gear that I was lusting after in order to really scrutinize whether it was worth spending a big chunk of change on. Relatively frequently, I would decide that it wasn't (for me, of course). Sometimes though, I'd smile and frown simultaneously and go ahead and start saving pennies.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 13, 2015 0:52:00 GMT -6
Think about multiple AD/DA conversions compared to analog tape. LOL Even ONE bounce was noticeable noise and loss of signal. 4 bounces? Unuseable for most. We;ve got it pretty good compared to the old days....
|
|
|
|
Post by ionian on Jun 13, 2015 3:01:06 GMT -6
About 3 years ago I bought a Mytek 8 channel converter. That day I stopped worrying about D/A A/D round trips. I haven't even given it a single thought in a very long time until this post. I go in and out like a mofo over and over trying different equipment, adding more processing later on, etc and I've never noticed any degradation.
There's many things messing with my signal. 3 or 4 round trips though a high end converter is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 13, 2015 4:52:46 GMT -6
Stupid neophyte thought here, so feel free to put me in my place - and I don't doubt that your conclusions are correct - but is it possible that your reference material is masking any potential artifacts by virtue of its higher noise floor, or some other sonic characteristic like tape hiss, limited frequency range, etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by henge on Jun 13, 2015 6:47:20 GMT -6
"Sometimes though, I'd smile and frown simultaneously" ragan can I get a pic of that smiley frown...;-) |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 13, 2015 7:07:21 GMT -6
Good that you heard a difference though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 13, 2015 8:11:39 GMT -6
Interesting post Ragan. First, don't forget, you have a Burl. That's already a huge step forward in sound quality and tone. Much of the AD/DA lusting has to do with the first conversion to digital, so you're already ahead of the game in a way. Second, monitoring through the D-box gives you an advantage, where you'll make less mistakes than you would without it.
I've thought about this for a while, and he's where I've landed. I'm sitting here with the Svartbox prototype A/D-D/A and haven't tried it yet. I once had the BLA Microclock for a week, and it was clearly, (pun intended) more transparent. I had a Burl for a week, and it gave me the fullness in the low end I miss from console days. So, I've been thinking, get a better clock, get a better converter for my Apollo Duo. I really do feel the Apollo converter is a shortcoming, but I don't blame UAD, they hit a home run with two on with the Apollo, so there's no sense complaining they didn't hit a grand slam.
And now.. ta da! UAD comes out with the updated Apollo's. The jury's still out, but preliminary reports are great, they've outdone the BLA mod, (saving me $700-$900) if I wanted one. The've improved the converters, saving me anywhere from $600-$5000. For my purposes, mainly song demos that might be released eventually, this solves my problem in one fell swoop.
I no longer need a D-box if conversion is better, no longer need a Burl, (not that the Apollo can do what the Burl does, which is a beautiful thing), but that it's that big step better than the already very close to ideal for me at this time Apollo.
Now, as to the multiple conversions, here's what I know. In blind tests, differences are rarely identifiable. I've found that only over time do the differences become apparent. Sometime those differences are minor, as seems to be the case with Ragan, and sometimes, ( and I've said this before) it stands out like a mustard stain on a black tie, once noticed, your attention goes right to it.
Now, all I need is $1000 to make the switch, or more, because I think I'll need a Thunderbolt computer, as my late 2009 iMac was two months shy of coming with it, aaarrgghh..
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 13, 2015 8:22:59 GMT -6
Good that you heard a difference though. Is it though? I'm not even sure I did hear a difference and I don't believe there is much of a difference to hear. Everything changes when you do it blind. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 13, 2015 8:28:44 GMT -6
Stupid neophyte thought here, so feel free to put me in my place - and I don't doubt that your conclusions are correct - but is it possible that your reference material is masking any potential artifacts by virtue of its higher noise floor, or some other sonic characteristic like tape hiss, limited frequency range, etc? Totally possible. I guess I'm mostly saying, if the differences are such that, concentrating in my own control room, I have a hard time hearing the difference between 4 round trips of conversion (and not even through the best DA/AD I've got) then I've lost interest in that difference. Especially when the whole thing was just in regards to printing some HW, so ONE round trip. No way in hell I can hear one round trip. Total non factor. |
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 15,141 
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jun 13, 2015 9:32:27 GMT -6
ragan, knowing your music and production chops I now that inherent noise will not be a problem in your recordings. I have always understood the multi bounce issue to be more so about resolution: the idea that the digital sampling is inherently non analog and so will will become grittier with each pass. You, I also know that simply passing the stock apollo through the dbox DA and then back through the apollo also didn't degrade the sound and actually I always preferred it  so, I understood that you were listening for a loss of resolution and detail and arguably didn't hear it ? Martin, I think the jury is out still about how much different the new bf sounds. UA has apparently copied about half of the bla mod, stuck in "better"converters and tweaked the psu and signal path to improve S/N ratio by like maybe 2-3 db. I am looking forward to what cat5 has to say as he has had al three apollos ?
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 13, 2015 9:42:18 GMT -6
ragan, knowing your music and production chops I now that inherent noise will not be a problem in your recordings. I have always understood the multi bounce issue to be more so about resolution: the idea that the digital sampling is inherently non analog and so will will become grittier with each pass. You, I also know that simply passing the stock apollo through the dbox DA and then back through the apollo also didn't degrade the sound and actually I always preferred it so, I understood that you were listening for a loss of resolution and detail and arguably didn't hear it ? Martin, I think the jury is out still about how much different the new bf sounds. UA has apparently copied about half of the bla mod, stuck in "better"converters and tweaked the psu and signal path to improve S/N ratio by like maybe 2-3 db. I am looking forward to what cat5 has to say as he has had al three apollos ? Yeah, I was just listening for any sonic difference at all. And once I went blind, I could barely (if at all) tell any difference after 4 round trips. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 13, 2015 10:03:24 GMT -6
I should say. I'm not trying to claim conversion doesn't matter. My Burl sounds different than the Apollo. And the D Box (which if you configure it that way, let's you flip between the Apollo's DA and its own DA with a button) sounds better than the Apollo's DA.
But in this particular test (where I was just wondering about line level DA/AD trips through HW) I have to regard the conversion as an absolute non factor.
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 15,141
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jun 13, 2015 10:48:13 GMT -6
10 4 good buddy |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 13, 2015 11:09:27 GMT -6
There's no reason an Apollo couldn't be used for an incredible product. It's a great box. But I think we are talking about preferences. Like any great gear, the biggest thing is that it lets me do my job faster and in a repeatable manner. Like a KM84 - I set it up and record. Maybe a few eq tweaks, but not the digging out of midrange frequencies I would have to do with other mics. The Sta is set and forget. The new FC526's are freaking volume monkeys - locks down what you want in a transparent manner and sound good at almost any setting.
And that's why I feel like I need another AD and DA for the Apollo. There are other ones out there that save me time in tracking and mixing. I could absolutely "learn" the Apollo and deliver great products, but it's about what gets me there faster and doesn't make me have self doubt and second guess. Btw - when I use outboard, I go out of the Apollo too. I just don't think twice about it.
If love to hear the new Apollos. If the ADDA is up to par, they could be the perfect all in one solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 13, 2015 11:12:46 GMT -6
I should say. I'm not trying to claim conversion doesn't matter. My Burl sounds different than the Apollo. And the D Box (which if you configure it that way, let's you flip between the Apollo's DA and its own DA with a button) sounds better than the Apollo's DA. But in this particular test (where I was just wondering about line level DA/AD trips through HW) I have to regard the conversion as an absolute non factor. But to get the whole picture of the difference in the two DA's, you would need to disconnect the dbox altogether, make sure the Apollo is being clocked internally and go to the monitors from the Apollo monitor connections. What are you clocking the Dbox with? The Burl? |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 13, 2015 11:26:22 GMT -6
I should say. I'm not trying to claim conversion doesn't matter. My Burl sounds different than the Apollo. And the D Box (which if you configure it that way, let's you flip between the Apollo's DA and its own DA with a button) sounds better than the Apollo's DA. But in this particular test (where I was just wondering about line level DA/AD trips through HW) I have to regard the conversion as an absolute non factor. But to get the whole picture of the difference in the two DA's, you would need to disconnect the dbox altogether, make sure the Apollo is being clocked internally and go to the monitors from the Apollo monitor connections. What are you clocking the Dbox with? The Burl? I don't think you do, but maybe I'm wrong. If you have the Apollo's monitor outs going to the D Box's "Analog" in, you can switch between that and the D Box's DA (labelled "DAW" on the D Box). The D Box doesn't have a word clock connection. It gets whatever clock the Apollo is using through its AES/EBU connection so it's always clocked to the Apollo (or whatever the Apollo is clocked to). So when you flip back and forth, the D Box is either passing the Apollo's post DA analog signal to the monitors or its passing the digital (if you check the mirroring option in Apollo's settings) signal that it's converted with its own DA. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 13, 2015 11:38:46 GMT -6
Ok. I'm not familiar with the dbox. But I would yank out those analog connections from the Apollo to make sure what you're hearing is the digital signal being sent from the Apollo and converted in the dbox. Not saying you're doing it wrong at all - but I know sometimes I get paranoid. Lol. Wasn't long ago I posted a "omg listen to the difference in width of this itb bounce and this otb bounce" - then I realize I had left on a stereo spreader on the otb bounce. Ha. Re-did it and I really couldn't tell that much of a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 13, 2015 11:47:57 GMT -6
The Sonnox Codec was like $435 at GC. That doesn't qualify as uhber cheap to me. Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jun 13, 2015 12:08:21 GMT -6
Ok. I'm not familiar with the dbox. But I would yank out those analog connections from the Apollo to make sure what you're hearing is the digital signal being sent from the Apollo and converted in the dbox. Not saying you're doing it wrong at all - but I know sometimes I get paranoid. Lol. Wasn't long ago I posted a "omg listen to the difference in width of this itb bounce and this otb bounce" - then I realize I had left on a stereo spreader on the otb bounce. Ha. Re-did it and I really couldn't tell that much of a difference. We've all been there. I can't count the number of times I've been really liking an EQ move only to realize it's been in bypass the whole time I was tweaking. As for the Apollo analog cables, it's def the D Box DA cause after I went back and forth a few times, I unplugged the analog connections. I don't dislike the Apollo DA at all. I compared it for several days to my last interface (BLA modded 003) and I liked the Apollo a lot better. The D Box does sound wider, deeper and more detailed but, as usual with pro audio, it's not an enormous difference we're talking about. |
|
