A/D Converters - is there a difference?

[vivalastblues]

i'm not talking about the quality of the mic preamps, or any other additional features - i mean, if i were to compare my own audio interface (the hercules 1612):



with say, the rme multiface, or any other interfaces - in terms of the actual signal going into the inputs - is there any actual difference in quality there amongst what is being sold today? or is it just one of those brand preference things? sorry if i sound completely ignorant about this, it's just something i always wondered and because it's digital stuff, i don't really understand it so well.

thanks!

[Nick Sevilla]

Hi,

In a short word : Yes.
As to whether there is a "better" this than that, well, that is completely subjective.
There will be people who exclaim and proclaim the virtues of this or that interface.
In the end though, what still matters most is what you put through the interface.

You know, that little thing called a song?

[joel hamilton]

There is a difference. The amount of that difference, and the subjective merits of the differences themselves are debated ad nauseum on the interwebs daily.

Saying that "because it is digital...." is like saying "because it is food..."
Like any given apple is awesome just because it is an apple, regardless of any of the other criteria we would subjectively or empirically find attractive?

So yes, there is a difference.

Comparing two apples from the same tree? hard to tell... same orchard? maybe hard also. Different orchard? different taste. Rotten? totally different taste.

[???????]

.

[eeldip]

there is a massive behringer ada8000 shootout thread on gearslutz that you should probably read. pair that with one of those converter listening CDs, and i think you could form a pretty good opinion on how converter differences translate to "better" or "worse" audio.

my personal opinion is that in terms of "goodness", the differences are minimal to a wash. for some people, that minimal difference is worth the $$$. say, if you are charging people $300 an hour, its a no brainer.

for most home studios, or self recording musicians, i think people should spend their money elsewhere.

[farview]

There are differences, but if you stay away from the cheapest of cheap, those differences will not keep you from creating a great recording.

Most of the time, there isn't much difference between two converters in the same general price range. And, as usual, once you get to the top of the food chain the differences become less about quality and more about personal preference.

[???????]

.

[joel hamilton]

Of course the only way to know for yourself what is important to you is to gain some experience.

Thats the take away here, for sure.

[losthighway]

The converter upgrade made a huge difference in the quality of the sound coming out of my place in both my opinion and in my peer's.

Unfortunately like most everything in the audio world you have to spend a chunk of money to get the difference.

[eeldip]

Of course the only way to know for yourself what is important to you is to gain some experience.

Thats the take away here, for sure.

on the other hand, people buy all sorts of stuff to "improve" their sound, and then they "hear" the improvement. "its night and day!"

but hearing is subjective (lots of engineers PREFERED the sound of behringer in that blind-ish test-ish on gearslutz), and its very possible that you have wasted your money.

so trust your ears, but verify with your left brain.

[joel hamilton]

Of course the only way to know for yourself what is important to you is to gain some experience.

Thats the take away here, for sure.

on the other hand, people buy all sorts of stuff to "improve" their sound, and then they "hear" the improvement. "its night and day!"

but hearing is subjective (lots of engineers PREFERED the sound of behringer in that blind-ish test-ish on gearslutz), and its very possible that you have wasted your money.

so trust your ears, but verify with your left brain.

All very true,
but experience would inform the decision because its not just about the one "this vs that" type of thing where a mackie totally works just as well as a Neve.
Its about longevity, value holding, ability to work under many circumstances and for many years....
its like this:
one time I found a piece of crap acoustic guitar at a salvation army that sounded AMAZING through a microphone below the 7th fret. if you had to play anything above that, it was garbage. it felt like shit, and it sounded horrible with intonation issues and all manner of obvious "cheap guitar" symptoms. Below the 7th fret, that thing was amazing for blocking out a rock song as a support track or even up front with a singer. That is like a less expensive mic pre, it may TOTALLY rule on acoustic guitar ( EH 12aY7 anyone?) but then kind of feel saggy or not quite right on kick drum for you, or maybe just suck completely for electric guitar, but be okay for voice.... you get the idea. but then you get a 1073 in there and it just seems to work, always, on everything. Even during the mix when you need it to help you bring the vocal forward without sounding annoying.
3k on a mackie 1208 is very different than 3k on a Neve 1084, or 3k on a pultec EQP1.
That means that when you start to try and really put together a mix, rather than just listen to a single element through any given device, you might decide that device is aweosme, and then have it feel horrible for like 10 whole sessions worth of tracking in a row after that... such is the life, a cyclical love affair with all the different weird pieces we collect in a giant system that we control with subjective and vague criteria for its operation.
ALL of this requires experience to inform that final decision as to whether it is worth the time/effort/money. The cost benefit analysis will be tricky in any ephemeral, subjective situation, but the nomber of applications where the piece doesnt make you look like a ding dong should be taken as FACT.

[Gentleman Jim]

[T]here's something to be said for doing the best we can. There's also something to be said for not giving a shit.

Frankly, I think this is the takeaway of this thread. At least it is to me.

Kind of like a Nyquist filter for your own brain. Care just enough to get things as good as they should be. Then stop caring about anything beyond that, because it's all just useless noise.

[???????]

.

[Jitters]

The converter upgrade made a huge difference in the quality of the sound coming out of my place in both my opinion and in my peer's.

Unfortunately like most everything in the audio world you have to spend a chunk of money to get the difference.

What did you upgrade from and to?

[The Scum]

There was a time when converters really, really mattered, and the differences were not subtle. It was 15 years ago. The heyday of 16 bit, implemented in DAT machines, blackface ADAT, and samplers like the S1000.

DAT machines are a pretty good example - the Panasonic 3700 really did sound better than the 3500. And if memory serves, the Fostex machines were better still, until they started eating tapes. There was some research (Steve St Croix, maybe?) published that a whole era of 16-bit converters had more like 12 or 14-bit resolution.

We were learning what to listen for...digital behaves differently than analog, and it took some time to figure out some of the details. Quantization distortion has a particular sound...dither (or lack thereof) has a sound...clock jitter has a sound. When a design was good, it shined above the competitors. As we progressed, we learned that these details matter, and figured out how to approach them. Research was published, designs improved, and the bar was progressively raised.

Those differences are less distinct today. Quantization, dither and jitter are well understood, and there are design techniques to solve them...or ignore them, as a naive designer may do out of ignorance, or a price-conscious designer may be forced into by component costs.

The bottom line is that most converters out there are passable or better - midmarket consumer items sound & measure an order of magnitude better than their equivalents did a decade ago.

As the "flaws" get more minuscule, it gets progressively harder to measure them. 15 years ago, you could validate the difference between 2 digital devices with common analog instrumentation (test oscillator and analog oscilloscope). As things have progressed, it takes more serious test equipment to measure things.

Of course, maybe I'm too much on the objectivist/empiricist tangent with that thinking - though we've proven time and again that audible differences are measurable. If you can hear but can't measure the difference, you might need to devise a better test.

We live in magical times.