# Question about AD/DA Converters



## eqcollector (Oct 14, 2015)

Hello guys!

I'm planning to buy some quite decent converter (DA mastering preferably, but AD/DA would be also good!) for orchestral production. 
Also, if possible that the converters are high end inside price range of lets say 3500$.
Number of channels aren't too much important, so the converter can have only 2 of them too.
So my question goes: What are your best converters for orchestral production?
All in all, any advice or shared experience would be highly appreciated! 

Thanks in advance guys!  

Rafael


----------



## Noam Guterman (Oct 24, 2015)

I strongly recommend Lynx Hilo


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 24, 2015)

Convertors are only one step! How well is your room treated to be able to hear the differents? I think, 90% and more listeners do not notice any different between a best or a not so best quality.


----------



## Noam Guterman (Oct 24, 2015)

I can not agree more with germancomponist.
Room acoustics and also your monitors are -by far- more important than all the ADA converters you will ever purchase. Once you have all those stuff set up, AND have a trained ear, adding a high end converter will make the purchase worthwhile. And it will be worth it.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 24, 2015)

Hi Rafael,

I spent a long time on this topic. Most of what I found was subjective, really just opinions with no objective data to support them. Many brands that are advertised heavily use testimonials -- user praise -- as their main vehicle for promotion.

I think the reason is that there actually may be no scientific way to prove the reproduction of acoustic material is "good." You can check an oscilloscope sine wave, but how about a guitar or a voice or a French Horn? Tough.

So one is left with subjectivity.

My impression from actually listening to a lot of them was that the $2,000 converter was noticeably better than the $800 converter, and the $5,000 converter was noticeably better than the $2,000 converter. While I agree with Gunther and others that your entire setup -- mics, cables, converters and so on -- all matter, a good converter makes a meaningful contribution.

I chose Lavry's "Blue" series, but they also have a much higher end unit. I also like Lynx and RME, both of which I've used a lot over the years.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 24, 2015)

I have a Ferrofish MADI that sounds like an expensive unit.
For live work I bought a piece of Crap Behringer ADA8200 for 225 $.
When I A/Bd it to the Ferrofish I was using ADAT w/ the AKG C414 and noticed a big difference.
Sent it to Black Lion Audio and replaced the opamps and capacitors for 450 bucks.
I think the AD is impressive.
The DA is unchanged but this is 675 total for a fantastic sounding unit that offers simultaneous AD/DA of all I/O.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 24, 2015)

JohnG said:


> Hi Rafael,
> 
> I spent a long time on this topic. Most of what I found was subjective, really just opinions with no objective data to support them. Many brands that are advertised heavily use testimonials -- user praise -- as their main vehicle for promotion.
> 
> ...


The weakest link in the chain is the boogeyman.


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 24, 2015)

Best and most musical converters I have ever used are the UA 2192 which is discontinued now. The designer of the piece, Rich Williams runs and designs Burl Audio and his Bomber B-2 is even better.

http://burlaudio.com/products/b2-bomber-adc

Also, do not underestimate the impact of a good digital clock in your rig. The clock in the UA and Burl is top notch.


----------



## jononotbono (Oct 24, 2015)

I use a Motu HD192 which has been discontinued now. I bought it secondhand because I needed 12 inputs for tracking some drums and kind of kept it since buying. I don't have any complaints to be honest (as I got it quite cheaply) but I will definitely be changing over to a UA Apollo when I can!


----------



## eqcollector (Oct 25, 2015)

Thank you guys so much on your advice and your replays!
Really appreciate them! 
Well, I thought to start from somewhere so converter seemed as a quite good idea to be the first step hehe
I am aware of room acoustics, monitors etc. planning to get them too quite soon. I just wanted to see your experiences about converters and your opinions how the stuff works to get some picture about the quality because, as JohnG said, lot of companies are heavily advertising their products and in the end you end up not being sure what would be best solution for real (which applies to the most of other studio equipment too).
Definitively going to take a look at all of your examples and check them out!
Thank you once more for all of your answers and shared experiences!


----------



## OleJoergensen (Oct 25, 2015)

Do you use AD/DA convertors with samples or only for Audio- mics recordings?


----------



## eqcollector (Oct 25, 2015)

Well, mostly I'll use it for samples - D/A, but I'd like to have one decent for A/D too if possible.


----------



## wbacer (Oct 25, 2015)

I started with an Apogee Rosetta 800, which sounded great. Then I added an Apogee Big Ben and wow what a difference, much wider sound stage. I've since sold both and now own an Apogee Symphony IO which has the Big Ben clock technology build in. Sounds great to my ears but as others have stated, unless you treat your room and have decent monitors you may not hear the difference.


----------



## jamwerks (Oct 25, 2015)

Check out the Pure2 by Antelope Audio. I'm buying one soon!


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 25, 2015)

In the very past, I used the AD convertors from my Sony Dat-Recorder, because they did a better sound as my soundcard did. But, this was/is maybe more my personally sound feeling, no mathematics.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2015)

eqcollector, if you're just using it for samples, I personally would just get a good audio interface rather than stand-alone converters.

The post about stand-alone digital clocks... you should hear mastering engineer Bob Katz go off about that. He'll tell you to yell at the manufacturer of your audio interface if it sounds better with an external clock - any external clock, Big Ben or whatever - because it's a sign of something being very wrong.


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 25, 2015)

The UA Apollo series and RME are good choices. Both have very good internal clocks.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> eqcollector, if you're just using it for samples, I personally would just get a good audio interface rather than stand-alone converters.
> 
> The post about stand-alone digital clocks... you should hear mastering engineer Bob Katz go off about that. He'll tell you to yell at the manufacturer of your audio interface if it sounds better with an external clock - any external clock, Big Ben or whatever - because it's a sign of something being very wrong.


----------



## benatural (Oct 25, 2015)

JohnG said:


> I chose Lavry's "Blue" series, but they also have a much higher end unit. I also like Lynx and RME, both of which I've used a lot over the years.



I'm not an expert, but I can second the Lavry blue. I was using an RME multiface 2 at work and an m-audio interface at home for a few years before I decided to upgrade. Did a ton of research and settled on the blue because of Lavry's reputation, and also because the unit is modular so I can expand as needed when I'm ready to.

The improvement from the m-audio to the rme was very noticeable, and the step up to the blue was even more pronounced. Overall clarity and depth improved significantly. Frequency response was flatter at least to my ears. My mixes seem to translate better.

That said good converters won't suddenly make a bad mix better, if anything they call even more attention to issues. Good mixing is the most important part of a good mix, gear just helps get there a little more reliably. But even if your mix sucks, at least you'll know it's not your converters!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2015)

Aesthete, Katz' point is that you're best off with the device doing the A/D using its own clock. He argues that you're going to introduce more jitter as soon as you have to recover the clock (using a phase-locked loop).

If you're not using A/D - as in playing back samples - then the device doing the D/A would want to be the master, for the same reason.

I'm not a digital design engineer, but I have a strong feeling he's right.

Also, I have a strong hunch that any interface that sounds decent has a good internal clock. And that everything has a good internal clock these days, because everything uses the same chips.


----------



## Noam Guterman (Oct 25, 2015)

About using external clocks... It's really simple. Do you have a lot of digital connections going on in your chain? Using one will improve your studio. Do you have 1 or 2 digital connections going on in your chain? Don't worry about it (that is assuming you have at least a mid-high end interface / ADA)


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 26, 2015)

According to Dan Lavry, who knows a little something about these  External clocks are for multiple audio interfaces. Adding even a great one to a single audio interface will only introduce more jitter, unless the clock in the device is woefully designed, which is very rare these days.


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 26, 2015)

Nick,

I'm not arguing with you 

But I do not think all clock are not designed equally. Because my ears have told me differently.

I have heard high end systems sound better with external clocks. I think I would take the opinion of someone like Kush who has been in the musical slums and gutter over someone like Katz. But that's just my opinion.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Aesthete, Katz' point is that you're best off with the device doing the A/D using its own clock. He argues that you're going to introduce more jitter as soon as you have to recover the clock (using a phase-locked loop).
> 
> If you're not using A/D - as in playing back samples - then the device doing the D/A would want to be the master, for the same reason.
> 
> ...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 26, 2015)

Read Dan Lavry's white paper on this. Nobody on the planet knows more about clocks and converters.


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 26, 2015)

Sometimes analytical data can lie. I would rather trust guys like Williams, Kush, and Neve who have great ears, that design musical gear and can tell there is difference in certain rigs with digital clocks (including there own). Certainly there may not be a difference though as Nick pointed out. I am just saying if your spending that kind of money on converters not to overlook digital clock. YMMV.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 26, 2015)

aesthete said:


> Sometimes analytical data can lie. I would rather trust guys like Williams, Kush, and Neve who have great ears, that design musical gear and can tell there is difference in certain rigs with digital clocks (including there own). Certainly there may not be a difference though as Nick pointed out. I am just saying if your spending that kind of money on converters not to overlook digital clock. YMMV.



Nah. You learn more about a table from a carpenter who makes tables than someone who polishes them


----------



## Noam Guterman (Oct 26, 2015)

aesthete said:


> spending that kind of money on converters not to overlook digital clock


Actually, it's the other way around.. If you're gonna spend that kind of money on high end converters, you should definitely overlook digital clock


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 26, 2015)

Noam Guterman said:


> Actually, it's the other way around.. If you're gonna spend that kind of money on high end converters, you should definitely overlook digital clock



Yep.


----------



## Carbs (Oct 26, 2015)

aesthete said:


> Best and most musical converters I have ever used are the UA 2192 which is discontinued now. The designer of the piece, Rich Williams runs and designs Burl Audio and his Bomber B-2 is even better.
> 
> http://burlaudio.com/products/b2-bomber-adc
> 
> Also, do not underestimate the impact of a good digital clock in your rig. The clock in the UA and Burl is top notch.



The great Bruce Swedien agrees with you on that 2192. He's no slouch in the audio department. On another forum back in 2006 he said: "It also sounds so good it makes me want to hurt myself!!!" Lol. Wonder if he still uses it.

If I had the money, Burl would absolutely be my choice. I drool over the thought of having a maxed out Mothership....

As it stands now, I use a Dangerous D-box in conjunction with an original Apollo Quad. I've been extremely happy with this set up.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 26, 2015)

Here is a paraphrase of what Dan Lavry personally explained to me :
There will ALWAYS be more jitter with a single interface hooked up to an external clock when the audio interface has a properly designed internal crystal, and nowadays they almost all do. More jitter means a more smeared sound. Some people may prefer a more smeared sound, but in terms of accurate reproduction you don't want that. Jitter is jitter


----------



## eqcollector (Oct 26, 2015)

Wow guys,
Didn't expect so many replays!
Thank you! 

Okay, to be honest, this is the first time I hear that external clocks can improve/change the sound quality of converters or interfaces, really happy to learn new things! 
Also, been looking for your examples that you all gave me and calculated a bit with the additional costs, taxes etc. and ended up with few of the results and probably the favourite (on the first hear and sight) the Lynx Hilo.
Furthermore, found few examples of its sound and quite liked it, compared with b2 and symphony and they sound somewhere around there, as you all said, it also depends on ones subjective thoughts and other parameters. 
Also, I liked it too because its relatively new technology so the workflow, at least I hope, won't be so interrupted too much.
What are your thoughts on this choice?
And, just to be sure, could you please tell me, I've seen that some people are putting hilo in high end, is it really a high end converter or just some higher class converter?

Really appreciate all of your thoughts and experiences putted into this thread.
Thank you so much!


----------



## Noam Guterman (Oct 26, 2015)

eqcollector said:


> ended up with few of the results and probably the favourite (on the first hear and sight) the Lynx Hilo.
> Furthermore, found few examples of its sound and quite liked it, compared with b2 and symphony and they sound somewhere around there, as you all said, it also depends on ones subjective thoughts and other parameters.
> Also, I liked it too because its relatively new technology so the workflow, at least I hope, won't be so interrupted too much.
> What are your thoughts on this choice?
> And, just to be sure, could you please tell me, I've seen that some people are putting hilo in high end, is it really a high end converter or just some higher class converter?


Hilo owner here! I can't say enough good words about it. So I'll keep it short: Get it.


----------



## eqcollector (Oct 26, 2015)

Thank you Noam!
Could you please give me any links of compositions/tracks where you were composing with hilo?


----------



## Noam Guterman (Oct 26, 2015)

eqcollector said:


> Thank you Noam!
> Could you please give me any links of compositions/tracks where you were composing with hilo?


Sure! Here are a few
https://soundcloud.com/noamguterman (first playlist)


----------



## Vdub (Oct 27, 2015)

I personally would go with an interface that has high end converters.. an All-In-one unit like Antelope Zen, Or Prism Lyra. You can't go wrong with prism or Antelope converters, IMO some of the best converters i've heard next to burl and lynx hilo. 

A nice interface with something like the burl b32 which allows you to loopback your sounds through the AD conversion of your interface and also add some extra "analogy" juice to it lol. 
Sweetwater sold me with this statement. 

"If you've ever worked on a classic large-format analog console, you've likely got that inimitable sound stuck in your head, and the results you're getting out of your DAW may not be cutting it. Enter the the Burl Audio B32 Vancouver. With no capacitors in its discrete analog Class A signal path, this 32-channel "mix bus" embues your mixes with the hugeness, impact, spatial detail, and clarity. It gives your mixes the "glue" they've been missing."

I put it to the test at one of my friends studio and i was sold. He's using the Orpheus and routes his sub groups through the b32. Huge sound! Now this is mainly a Mixing/mastering chain, but imagine some nice cinematic strings, and hybrid BOOMS BRAAAMS and Heavyocity percussion coming through it. 

But do you need it, no! it's all subjective and no one will truly care what you're using but you. I've heard great things come from people using a lil $100 m-audio mobile interface. 

a great composition is a great composition regardless of whether Burl Antelope Lynx or Prism has anything to do with it.. but it would make a great composition sound AWESUMMMMM!!! lol IJS


----------



## Carbs (Oct 27, 2015)

"Sweetwater sold me with this statement."

IMO...getting your analog "mojo" simply from the conversion alone is BS. You really must incorporate outboard gear (comps, eq's, etc.) in conjunction with all this...to get a difference that only YOU may hear.

That's actually why I like dangerous D/A...it's extremely CLEAN...so you can add that all important outboard gear to a relatively untouched pure signal for just the sound you want.

Only a small fraction of those "Sales Engineers" actually know what they are talking about. I go in there all the time (in fact my main sales engineer has been there since 1984...) and the misinformation or strait up lies they will say to make a sale is as common as other sales jobs where commission is king. I could give a thousand personal examples.

I grew up in the same zip code as Sweetwater, watched them grow from a small business to the Walmart wannabe's they are today. Watched them put every mom and pop music shop out of business in town over that period. A good friend of mine works there. He spent over a decade selling power tools before he got hired in at Sweetwater. He got hired for his ability to SELL...not his knowledge on music gear (which is none, lol). 

I suppose I'm getting off topic, I guess my point is that one should beware of marketing. If I had $3500 to spend on some conversion I'd definitely be weary of what you "need" as apposed to what they want to sell you.

All that said, I still want a mothership :D (though because I do a lot of audio recording, if I was only using samples I would not lust after it).


----------



## JohnG (Oct 28, 2015)

Hi Carbs -- I'm not quite sure what you're saying. If it's, "you need the whole chain to be good because the weakest link affects it," then I agree; you can't expect a big improvement from a great converter if you plug it into rubbish amp / speakers / cables / rotten room. 

However, if it's, "analogue gear makes all the difference," I'd disagree. You can do genius stuff with all-digital post and genius stuff with all analogue. Different situations may call for different applications anyway; if one is starting with a great live orchestra recorded at 96k through the world's best mics in a great room with great A/D conversion and it will be heard on super sound systems, that would be a different situation than if you're working with 16 bit samples on a web series that's going to be heard through ear buds.

Back to the OP: A good converter makes a very noticeable difference if the rest of one's setup is strong. If not, not.


----------



## Carbs (Oct 28, 2015)

Hey there John,

I'm not actually saying either one of those things, not sure where you got that.


----------



## Vdub (Oct 31, 2015)

Carbs said:


> "Sweetwater sold me with this statement."
> 
> IMO...getting your analog "mojo" simply from the conversion alone is BS. You really must incorporate outboard gear (comps, eq's, etc.) in conjunction with all this...to get a difference that only YOU may hear.
> 
> ...



I do agree.. when it comes to gear, people now days are just trying to get the sale vs get you what you really need. 

I, for so long, been that guy that just had a bunch of gear going through crappy converters. Until i actually ran my setup through some nice converters and heard a night and day difference. I then was able to tell what i would do differently if i had "that" sound to begin with. Not that conversion or sales reps are the cream of the crop, but it's definitely a necessity when it come to pushing what you have to the next level without having to work so hard in the mixing stages, imo. 

I've rarely, if ever, heard bad thoughts of burl or any major conversion, pre, interface company at that level. You hear many horror sales stories, and even tho sweetwater may have their issues i felt their depiction of what the b32 does was pretty spot on. I'd love to have a full burl or prism setup. But as we all know, is it a huge necessity no, just another stepping stone.


----------



## thecompactor (Oct 31, 2015)

I hope this isn't a silly question, but here goes:

I just recently purchased an RME HDSPe RayDAT and Behringer ADA 8200. In terms of D/A, am I creating a quality bottleneck by passing the signal through the slaved 8200? I am just using it as a cost effective breakout solution.


----------



## benatural (Nov 4, 2015)

thecompactor said:


> I hope this isn't a silly question, but here goes:
> 
> I just recently purchased an RME HDSPe RayDAT and Behringer ADA 8200. In terms of D/A, am I creating a quality bottleneck by passing the signal through the slaved 8200? I am just using it as a cost effective breakout solution.


Depends on how good the converters are on the 8200. Also depends on which clock you're using, the RayDAT's or the 8200 and how good those are. The RayDAT is outputting a digital signal so as long as that signal is stable you're fine. The AD/DA side of your setup will influence the final quality of the sound. Obviously monitoring conditions will also influence the sound, but that's the subject of another thread...

Best way to know for sure is to hear the difference yourself. If its possible for you to temporarily get your hands on another converter for a point of comparison that will go a long way to answering your question!


----------



## thecompactor (Nov 8, 2015)

benatural said:


> Depends on how good the converters are on the 8200. Also depends on which clock you're using, the RayDAT's or the 8200 and how good those are. The RayDAT is outputting a digital signal so as long as that signal is stable you're fine. The AD/DA side of your setup will influence the final quality of the sound. Obviously monitoring conditions will also influence the sound, but that's the subject of another thread...
> 
> Best way to know for sure is to hear the difference yourself. If its possible for you to temporarily get your hands on another converter for a point of comparison that will go a long way to answering your question!


Thank you for the response! For the clock, I believe I am using the RayDAT's. It's connected to the 8200 by ADAT for in and out, and the 8200's word clock is in slave mode via ADAT. Does that mean that it's just passing the signal along without altering it?

I don't currently have another converter to test on, but I will try to do so! Thanks again.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 8, 2015)

thecompactor said:


> I just recently purchased an RME HDSPe RayDAT and Behringer ADA 8200. In terms of D/A, am I creating a quality bottleneck by passing the signal through the slaved 8200? I am just using it as a cost effective breakout solution.



I'm sure lots of great music can be written listening through a Behringer. That said, I would never use an RME device and then put it through a Behringer for listening. Even though I don't know that RME device personally.

People make way too much out of all this, of course. A lot of music originates on inferior gear but is, nevertheless, enjoyed by millions. The Stray Cats' liner notes for their first album (a big hit in its day) said something to the effect that "this music was produced on the cheapest and most inferior equipment," which at the time I thought very funny. 

So while I do see the Behringer stuff I've owned as very much beginner level that doesn't mean that it "doesn't work" or is useless or something. Besides, maybe what you have is really great -- I don't know that device at all. But if you're trying to get to hearing exactly what's going on with your sound, I'd stick with the RME.


----------



## benatural (Nov 8, 2015)

JohnG said:


> [...]I'd stick with the RME.



Definitely, I forgot to mention that. Your RME is the strongest link in your chain. I use an RME AIO with a pretty good converter, and I don't hesitate that I'm getting an excellent digital signal from the RME. I just can't vouch for the 8200 because I don't know anything about it.

And what JohnG said about inferior equipment is all too true. Gear doesn't make music, you do! But to answer your question, yes all the RME is doing is passing along the digital signal without altering it. The converter is what has an effect on the final sound quality.


----------

