Not just another thread about high end convertors.

[paul999]

In my quest for big boy sound I have been finding the relevance of high quality mic pre's and up comes this issue of convertors. I record with ADAT HD convertors and M-audio profire2626 convertors. I believe these are mid to mid low convertors. What I understand from a few sources where I actually talked to the "guys" (not just internet who ha) is the following.

"If you hear great convertors on one track compared to low end convertors you will not notice much of a difference. When you stack up a bunch of tracks what you will notice is far more front to back depth. With low end convertors you can get good side to side width but front to back is flat."

The reason->"Most convertors are built with the same or similar IC's to convert but the audio hardware surrounding the IC's is what you pay for.

Thoughts?

[newkid]

Originally Posted by paul999

In my quest for big boy sound I have been finding the relevance of high quality mic pre's and up comes this issue of convertors. I record with ADAT HD convertors and M-audio profire2626 convertors. I believe these are mid to mid low convertors. What I understand from a few sources where I actually talked to the "guys" (not just internet who ha) is the following.

"If you hear great convertors on one track compared to low end convertors you will not notice much of a difference. When you stack up a bunch of tracks what you will notice is far more front to back depth. With low end convertors you can get good side to side width but front to back is flat."

The reason->"Most convertors are built with the same or similar IC's to convert but the audio hardware surrounding the IC's is what you pay for.

Thoughts?

I think you are whomper. With those
Golden Ears that can tell the big boy sound whatever that is.
(What exactly is that "big boy" sound anyway?)

All the devices do use the same commercial chips. Nobody can afford doing a custom chip for this sales volume.

The commercial chips are cheap. And any of them in the mid range of the line on up will be indistinguishable by you if they use the thing properly. Check out the spec sheets at the chip makers sites.

There is no technical reason for more expensive chips to give depth while cheap ones give width. That is nonsense spouted by some platinum eared dood. Those L/R F/B characteristics come from the miking and the mixing not the converter.

You ARE paying for the surrounding hardware. Convenience, reliability, less noise, more stability , better filters, yada yada.
And you pay for the logo.

Stable clocks will be crucial to getting the most out of the chip at its high end eg 192/24 not at 48/16 or 44.1/16.

The S/N varies a few db but is so high as to be irrelevant.
We used to have HALF that S/N when we did recordings on mag tape and still got great sound.

The best chip is only a couple of bucks more than a midrange. But if they know their midrange filters, and sloppy clock can't use all that chip's specs they will save the bux and use a cheaper one cause the expensive one's capability would be wasted.

You could probably design and build a convertor that beats all of them , using standard components if you wanted to. The problem is selling enough of them to make a profit. These days people want cheap. If you are 20-50$$ higher with a noname logo you wont be selling enough to make your nut. Trouble is most vendors would price it 200-500$$ higher instead of just the parts cost difference. Then you got no sales at all.

The big name guys are not going to do better converters for the same reason. Too many low/mid converters sucking away the sales because of price.

The chip makers have gone as far as they can go because of the reality of the environment and physical constraints.

This is as good as it will ever get unless you get a consortium together to squeeze out the little remaining potential.

[String7th]

I've never heard of side and depth as descriptions. Is that regarding panning or frequency response or something?

I always assumed the difference between converters was how fast it translated the audio. I figured the average ones just made some "guesses" to fill in the faster transient at the begining of the signal. And a fast solid state pre would be useless into a low-end converter, because it would be guessing some of the waves.

Edit: Hey, Whomp, you forgot your yellow exclamation sign.

[paul999]

Originally Posted by String7th

I've never heard of side and depth as descriptions. Is that regarding panning or frequency response or something?

I am pretty sure that supposedly the finer detail (less intermodular distortion) gives your ear more info. and therefore psychoacoustically giving the impression of depth.

[brandondrury]

"If you hear great convertors on one track compared to low end convertors you will not notice much of a difference. When you stack up a bunch of tracks what you will notice is far more front to back depth. With low end convertors you can get good side to side width but front to back is flat."

I don't buy the fact that preamps stack and I certainly don't buy the fact that converters stack. In other words, I believe that impact you hear is just as apparent on one single track as it is on 50.

I personally believe this is bullcrap psuedo-logic intended to make people who don't hear much a difference in an A/B test feel better about themselves (and their purchase). I think, to a degree, that great sounding drums have a way of making up for mediocre guitars. However, the problem here is I would NEVER use "great" to describe what a preamp or converter does.

Brandon

[bozmillar]

yeah, the stacking thing just doesn't make any sense. Why would it? If it has a low SNR and low distortion, there is nothing it can do to add to or take away from the sound quality.

Adding tracks together masks the qualities of the single tracks, it doesn't bring them out.

[bozmillar]

I've used very cheap A/D converters, and I don't think they sounded great, but applying mystical terms like flat doesn't describe the sound. They were slightly more noisy, had a non-flat frequency response and caused aliasing on the inputs and outputs. Once in a while I'd hear some harddrive noise in there too. All very quantifiable measurements that I could see on a scope.

[Danny Danzi]

I did an interview with Beau Hill who has produced and engineered quite a few well known bands. I asked him about this and he gave me a one line answer as far as mic pre's go.

Danny: I have always had mixed emotions on mic pre's. Though they can make a difference in a recording, do you feel that the use of plugins non-destructively can achieve the same results? I have been fighting people on this for years. To me, if my signal is hot enough and I like the sound that is going to disc, am I not where I need to be without using a mic pre? If I have a good sound without one, do I really need it?

Beau Hill: No, you don’t…you nailed it…” a good sound without it…!!”

You can read the entire interview sometime at my site if you're interested. Danny Danzi • Index page

As for converters, definitely a difference but I do not believe that everyone needs an Apogee or the equivalent to get the sound of the big boys. I use a few different things and I think I come damn close. Good soundcard, properly printed sounds, know what to listen for, good ears, make the right calls, you get big sound.

[newkid]

Originally Posted by String7th

I've never heard of side and depth as descriptions. Is that regarding panning or frequency response or something?

I always assumed the difference between converters was how fast it translated the audio. I figured the average ones just made some "guesses" to fill in the faster transient at the begining of the signal. And a fast solid state pre would be useless into a low-end converter, because it would be guessing some of the waves.

Edit: Hey, Whomp, you forgot your yellow exclamation sign.

One book says L/R is from the panning.
And you get the F/B by loudness.

Track everything separately and when you mix you lower the stuff you want to seem farther away by a little bit. Adds a bit of 3D effect to the mix.

Sample rate is only one factor. The filters make a big difference. The method used to recreate the signal makes a humongous difference. There is noise too, which should be minimal for every chip. The clock sync is also megahumongous with repsect to the accuracy and quality.

All digital is "guessing". The trick is how good a method they use to guess.

Back in the day a simple ZOH was used for servo. Good enough. Use that on audio and you will notice it.

Go look at the chip makers specs and their WHITE PAPERS. You can learn an awful lot from them.


And just for string7
!!!!
Don't know why he wants a yellow ! instead of a black one.

[paul999]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

I don't buy the fact that preamps stack and I certainly don't buy the fact that converters stack. In other words, I believe that impact you hear is just as apparent on one single track as it is on 50.

Brandon

I am not in a position to defend good convertors seeing as I don't have any. In the preamp department I am convinced after experiencing the difference which I know you have Brandon. I see it the same as all those cheezy mic tests where you hear a single voice with no mix at all and have a cheap condenser go against a U87 then they quote some producer that thought the cheap mic was the U87. A mix is so much less forgiving on gear IMO.