A/D Converters - is there a difference?

[b3groover]

There are differences but one thing to keep in the back of your mind is that with a computer and an inexpensive interface like the Echo or Presonus Firestudio et al, you have at your fingertips more power and better quality than 90% of studios back in the 50s / early 60s. Think about how much great music came out of those years.

Quality of gear does not replace the quality of the music, the musicianship, or the performance.

[???????]

But has as anyone ever actually argued that gear can make up for poor performances, lack of musicianship, lackluster material, or lack of engineering skill?

Even among the most gear-obsessed people, I've never heard anyone make that claim. Not even a single time.

It seems we spend an awful lot of time on an argument that's not actually real. You never see anyone argue in favor of the other position, and yet we talk about it as though it's some sort of subversive or revolutionary concept.

[virtualsamana]

The OP asked if there is a sonic difference between high end and low end converters. Period. That someone could answer "in a word, no" is astonishing to me. And, it's either a sign of ZERO experience comparing modern converters, or a heartbreaking hearing deficiency.

Are converters a mature technology? Yes. Are properly designed converters dirt cheap to make compared with 20 years ago? Yep. Is there a difference between converters? Yes. Can the differences be heard between properly designed converters? Maybe. Does cognitive bias shape human perception into hearing differences that aren't there? Definitely. Can we determine that there is a perceptible sonic difference between two converters without doing a properly level matched blind test that eliminates bias? No.

Are pro engineers immune to bias? Definitely Not.

[virtualsamana]

But has as anyone ever actually argued that gear can make up for poor performances, lack of musicianship, lackluster material, or lack of engineering skill?

Even among the most gear-obsessed people, I've never heard anyone make that claim. Not even a single time.

It seems we spend an awful lot of time on an argument that's not actually real. You never see anyone argue in favor of the other position, and yet we talk about it as though it's some sort of subversive or revolutionary concept.

I agree. It is the classic audiophile argument. Is there a sonic difference between a $200 CD player and a $4000 CD player? Most people who buy the $4000 CD player will emphatically argue that the difference is vast. Unless you do a test to eliminate bias, it's just hearsay. It's not rocket science to make a transparent sounding CD player. In fact economy of scale makes it very inexpensive to do so.

People seem to forget that there are reasons to buy a high end converter that don't have anything to do with sound. Build quality, connections, warranty, serviceability are all considerations when buying a converter for professional use.

[virtualsamana]

I can certainly hear the difference between my Burl B2 and my Alesis AI3.

Burl are unique since they are designed to not be linear but impart euphonic distortion.

[???????]

Burl... designed to not be linear but impart euphonic distortion.

Not trying to be a dick, but what is this claim based on? Here's a statement from Burl's own literature on the B2 ADC:

By using a revolutionary hybrid circuit with a proprietary transformer, the BURL AUDIO BX1, and a discrete class-A, zero feedback, zero capacitor signal path, we have achieved dynamic and tonal balance.

OK, so zero negative feedback, and zero capacitors in an all-discrete, Class A signal path. To me, that doesn't sound like "euphonic distortion" was the goal. It sounds like a clean, direct signal path was the goal. Measureables from the unit (freely available) are also quite good, including a wide bandwidth that's razor flat ?0.1dB beyond both ends of the audible spectrum. Very "linear."

Just because something includes a transformer does NOT mean it's "designed not to be linear." Transformers have a different set of tradeoffs compared to transformerless technology--they are neither panacea nor boogeyman. Sometimes, it's the right tool for the job. If you ever get a chance, I recommend talking to Klaus Heyne and Oliver Archut about the subject someday. Both men have encyclopedic knowledge of audio and some very provocative pearls of wisdom to share.

The famed audio designer H.H. Scott said, "If it measures good and sounds bad, it's bad. If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing." This isn't about the presence of absence or "euphonic distortion" as much as it's about which set of tradeoffs were selected, and which objectives were prioritized.

There are a host of time-related and phase-related concerns that must be balanced, and while most designers of digital audio gear try to minimize distortion and noise, there's also a question of what TYPE of distortion that remains (even, odd, low-order, high-order, intermodulation), the TYPE of noise that remains (wideband, narrow band, correlated, uncorrelated), etc. These things don't always show up in the numbers-- in fact, they typically do not.

Again, not trying to be a dick, but jI'd be curious as to your first-hand experience with the Burl. I know we've all read the reviews, but remember that even reviewers will being their own biases to the table about tubes and transformers, etc., which then get filtered through the reader's biases. It's just a different kind of "buying into the hype," really. In absence of real, direct, first-hand experience with various technologies, anyone with any opinion at all is buying into someone's hype.

Earlier, you used the phrase "any properly designed converter." If you're willing to take the time, I'd also be curious of your definition of what a "properly designed" converter is. Every converter that exists, to my knowledge, has at least some tradeoff (however small) somewhere, as it's (to this point) an imperfect and very YOUNG technology, compared with most of the rest of what we use in the audio world.

[b3groover]

It seems we spend an awful lot of time on an argument that's not actually real. You never see anyone argue in favor of the other position, and yet we talk about it as though it's some sort of subversive or revolutionary concept.

No, we spend a lot of time on conversations about what compressor / preamp / converter / monitor / microphone / DAW / plug-in / etc. is better when even the least expensive interface and mic combo is soncially superior to what they had in the early days of Motown.

The point is: Yes, there are differences. But use what you can afford because you can get professional results from pretty much anything that's out there right now. I am willing to wager that in 99.9% of circumstances, the weak link in the chain is not the gear. So focus on making music and when you get to the point where you can afford a Burl, then go for it. But it's not holding you back.

[???????]

No, we spend a lot of time on conversations about what compressor / preamp / converter / monitor / microphone / DAW / plug-in / etc. is better

On the "gear" section of a message board devoted to recording and audio, I don't think those discussions lack perspective at all. In my opinion, this is the proper venue for interested parties to isolate this one small aspect of the process, do research, and share/seek personal opinions to improve their knowledge-base.

when even the least expensive interface and mic combo is soncially superior to what they had in the early days of Motown.

If you said "editing flexibility" or whatever, I might agree, but "sonically superior?" I balk. You might not agree with the sounds they chose for their AM Radio-dominated market, but it's hard to argue that they had subpar gear, even by modern standards. I love Motown, so this is something I've had occasion to learn a little about.

Early on, for microphones they had a U47 and a U48, as well as RCA 44s and 77s, and a few EV 666s. In 1962 they got a U67 that they used for all female vocals. The later "factory" years (beginning in 1968) were marked by a switch to Neumann KM-86s for all condensers. Lead vocal chain from the early days onward was an Ampex tube console pre and a Fairchild 660. And the EQs... I've been in the room when audio was going through those custom-built EQs they used to have there. There are a few at Avatar. Those things sound amazing. Their tape machines were Studer C37s in the very early days, and they used Ampex tube mixers in those early days, I think. This was before they made the jump from 3 tracks up to 8. They also had an array of real reverb chambers with an RCA 44BX as the pickup in their main chamber. An EMT plate came their way shortly.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the sound of ANY of that gear than a CAD M179 and a Firestudio, or whatever.

Here's a Bob Olhsson (motown engineer) quote from an old Tape Op interview:

Well here?s a classic tape op interview question for you: how do you feel about digital?

Frustrated. (laughs) There's so many great things about it and yet - there was a thing at the AES called "When Vinyl Ruled" - this was incredible. I hope to heaven that they let them do it again but I can see how a lot of manufacturers would not let them do it again.

They set up a state of the art 1962 control room and played back a bunch of old three-track safety masters from that era. The sound destroyed everything at the show. I mean, it was a no-brainer better than anything we're doing now, it's sickening. And at one point, Doug Botnik, who used to be at Sunset Sound turned to me and said, "Man I remember the first time I tried to do a session on a transistor board I wanted to slit my wrists." (laughs).

The point is: Yes, there are differences. But use what you can afford because you can get professional results from pretty much anything that's out there right now.

Again, defends on your definition of "professional." "Professional" enough to sell records at your gigs or on iTunes? Definitely. "Professional" enough to record piano for Telarc's classical division? Not even close.

I am willing to wager that in 99.9% of circumstances, the weak link in the chain is not the gear. So focus on making music and when you get to the point where you can afford a Burl, then go for it. But it's not holding you back.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, and I'm not trying to bust your balls or anything-- just saying that in THIS particular discussion, with the decidedly unambiguous question the OP asked, it's a bit of a red herring/straw man. He didn't ask us to evaluate his priorities. He asked a question about technology.

[b3groover]

Ok. You're right. I'm wrong. Have a good one.

[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.

[eeldip]

just to clarify, burl audio gear is designed for non linearities:

. A stepped knob attenuates the analogue input signal by between -12dB and -24dB, allowing the user to, in Burl?s words, ?hit the front end hotter or colder depending on what the material calls for?. Intriguingly, Burl even say that the B2 will sound better if the input level is high (but obviously not clipping), thanks to the bespoke analogue circuitry on the front end.

[???????]

Let's look at some numbers for the Burl:

Frequency response at 48kHz sample rate is 12Hz to 22kHz, +/- 0.1dB
Frequency response at 96kHz sample rate is 15Hz to 46kHz, +/- 0.1dB
Frequency response at 192kHz sample rate is 18Hz to 94kHz, +/- 0.1dB

Those are the numbers for deviation from bandwidth. To my interpretation, if taken at face value, they're by definition linear within one tenth of one decibel, past both ends of audibility in all three cases. If we're talking about some other parameters, let's know which ones, and see something that supports the claim of non-linearity. Preferably, some first-hand experience, as that's the most valuable kind of internet hearsay.

Just out of curiosity, who are you quoting in your post above?

[virtualsamana]

Not trying to be a dick, but what is this claim based on?

Measurements from an Audio Precision analyzer taken by Hugh Robbins. The burl does transparent very well but it also imparts odd-order harmonic distortion as you ramp up the input level. THD+N goes from -116 dBFS to around -98 dBFS as you turn up the input.

Just because something includes a transformer does NOT mean it's "designed not to be linear."

Agreed, but in this case it's also employed for subtle color.

Again, not trying to be a dick, but jI'd be curious as to your first-hand experience with the Burl.

I've heard them in a studio context. I have not recorded with them.

Earlier, you used the phrase "any properly designed converter." If you're willing to take the time, I'd also be curious of your definition of what a "properly designed" converter is. Every converter that exists, to my knowledge, has at least some tradeoff (however small) somewhere, as it's (to this point) an imperfect and very YOUNG technology, compared with most of the rest of what we use in the audio world.

By properly designed converter, I mean the vast majority of prosumer and pro offerings out there. Sure, every converter has some trade off but sonically the differences are so subtle that you need to conduct double blind testing to insure cognitive bias isn't the difference you are hearing.

A mature technology is a technology that has been in use for long enough that most of its initial faults and inherent problems have been removed or reduced by further development. Another indicator is a reduction in the rate of new breakthrough advances related to advances to a mature technology are usually incremental improvements only.

I don't think we are going to be seeing any significant breakthroughs in future generations of converters related to sonics.

So these are just a few potential areas that can cause MAJOR audible differences among converters--even those in similar price ranges.

Not to be a dick, but did you take steps to eliminate potential bias when listening to the converters that you say sound MAJORLY different? What converters are you referring to?

[eeldip]

Just out of curiosity, who are you quoting in your post above?

that is quoting a SOS review, posted on burl audio's website that was quoting their own press release. so the product is both designed AND marketed as a color box when pushed.

i think your point about recording for Telarc's classical division shows that we are all pretty much in agreement here. i think EVERYONE is basically saying that the improvement is at the margins. and its those sorts of margins that will allow to distinguish your recordings in that microscopic context, but will overwhelmingly go unheard in a broader context.

[???????]

Not to be a dick, but did you take steps to eliminate potential bias when listening to the converters that you say sound MAJORLY different? What converters are you referring to?

No, I didn't, and that's a fair point. But differences I've experienced haven't seemed subtle enough to me that I would question whether or not I can really believe what I'm hearing. Kinda like how I don't take steps to remove potential bias when noticing that the street outside my house has been re-paved since I saw it last.

In my home studio, I used a 002 for years before switching to a Lynx Aurora. Granted, that's not super high-end creme de la creme, but the difference-- particularly on acoustic instruments, drums, and vocals-- did not seem very subtle to me. I'm not sure I'd say the improvement was "at the margins," either, on those sources. On bass, synth, even electric guitar... "marginal" improvement might qualify. But I wouldn't call it "marginal" on transient-rich acoustic sources.

This is just my experience, and my opinion.

I'm actually surprised that this is so controversial.