Significant differences in sound quality between hi and low-end converters?

[James Price[_5_]]

After listening to some blind tests from Ethan Winer and a few others, it seems, at least to me, that differences between some of the higher and lower end converters is fairly subtle. Of course, this could be due to my monitoring, though I tend to think Mackie HR824's would be suitable to differentiate any significant discrepancies.

For instance, a few samples Ethan recorded in 2010 pitted an Apogee 8000 against a $25 SoundBlaster. The differences seemed so negligible as to be inconsequential to my ears.

Any thoughts?

[[email protected]]

Processing choices in mixing and mastering will
lend more of an audible difference than any
difference between those two converters.

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price > wrote:
>After listening to some blind tests from Ethan Winer and a few others, it s=
>eems, at least to me, that differences between some of the higher and lower=
> end converters is fairly subtle. Of course, this could be due to my monito=
>ring, though I tend to think Mackie HR824's would be suitable to differenti=
>ate any significant discrepancies.

This is increasingly the case.

>For instance, a few samples Ethan recorded in 2010 pitted an Apogee 8000 ag=
>ainst a $25 SoundBlaster. The differences seemed so negligible as to be inc=
>onsequential to my ears.

The question becomes one of wondering what is inconsequential. Stuff that
is inaudible in one generation becomes a serious problem in ten. Stuff that
is a non-issue when you can keep levels up becomes a problem when you have
to drop reference levels down 40dB.

Back in the eighties the name of the game was doing everything possible to
make signals into the converters perfect and allow as little level slop
as you can get away with. Now you don't have to do that so much, likely
not even with the $25 soundblaster.

>Any thoughts?

I can hear the difference between the Prism and Apogee converters, but I won't
say that one or the other is necessarily better. I haven't compared the
Apogee with a $25 soundblaster... but I will say that the age of sigma delta
conversion means that you can get a hell of a good conversion job for $25.

Still, if I can do a little bit better, I will. Because really, that's my
job.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

Ethan was my computer programming hero! Interesting to find him also involved in audio.

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/15/2017 5:05 PM, James Price wrote:
> After listening to some blind tests from Ethan Winer and a few
> others, it seems, at least to me, that differences between some of
> the higher and lower end converters is fairly subtle.

20 years ago, there were good converters that were expensive, and there
were computer sound cards that were fun to play with. But an inexpensive
IC today does a better job of A/D and D/A conversion than any of the top
rated converters of the early 2000s.

A couple of things that add to the cost and overall performance of a
converter that doesn't have anything directly to do with the conversion
between analog and digital signals is the care taken in the analog
circuitry, power supply, and clock source supporting the chips that do
the conversion work. Some of the inexpensive audio interfaces that I
reviewed 10 years or so ago did a really good job with the conversion,
but the input stage would get dangerously close to clipping before the
converter reached full scale.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 16/02/2017 12:54 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> A couple of things that add to the cost and overall performance of a
> converter that doesn't have anything directly to do with the conversion
> between analog and digital signals is the care taken in the analog
> circuitry, power supply, and clock source supporting the chips that do
> the conversion work.


Well I say you can't convert between analog and digital *without* an
analog stage, so it *is* directly connected to the conversion, and often
the weak link in cheap converters. But even that is getting better now
in most instances.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/02/2017 9:05 AM, James Price wrote:
> After listening to some blind tests from Ethan Winer and a few
> others, it seems, at least to me, that differences between some of
> the higher and lower end converters is fairly subtle. Of course, this
> could be due to my monitoring, though I tend to think Mackie HR824's
> would be suitable to differentiate any significant discrepancies.
>
> For instance, a few samples Ethan recorded in 2010 pitted an Apogee
> 8000 against a $25 SoundBlaster. The differences seemed so negligible
> as to be inconsequential to my ears.
>
> Any thoughts?

Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers (and
rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is rather
pointless. You can really only measure them.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 2/16/2017 7:15 PM, Trevor wrote:
> Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers (and
> rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is rather
> pointless. You can really only measure them.

Today the high end A/D converters for studio use have some flavor of
distortion built in so they don't sound so much like what they really
are. Each one has its extollers, and there are enough to go around so
that everyone with enough money can buy the distortion that he prefers.

There's no clear "best" any more, though, but there are some mighty
expensive converters, still.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[James Price[_5_]]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:42:29 PM UTC-6, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/16/2017 7:15 PM, Trevor wrote:
> > Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers (and
> > rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is rather
> > pointless. You can really only measure them.
>
> Today the high end A/D converters for studio use have some flavor of
> distortion built in so they don't sound so much like what they really
> are. Each one has its extollers, and there are enough to go around so
> that everyone with enough money can buy the distortion that he prefers.
>
> There's no clear "best" any more, though, but there are some mighty
> expensive converters, still.

If history is any indication, I'd imagine the most expensive converters today will be relatively inexpensive in 15 years.

[Trevor]

On 17/02/2017 1:42 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/16/2017 7:15 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers (and
>> rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is rather
>> pointless. You can really only measure them.
>
> Today the high end A/D converters for studio use have some flavor of
> distortion built in so they don't sound so much like what they really
> are. Each one has its extollers, and there are enough to go around so
> that everyone with enough money can buy the distortion that he prefers.
>
> There's no clear "best" any more,

Lots of challengers for best, and so close as to make their other
features the defining difference. ANY that have added "flavor" are not
even in the running for best IMO, despite what some ******s prefer.

> but there are some mighty expensive converters, still.

Right, and they are the ones who find it necessary to be different. I
buy the best value converters I can find that are designed to be as
transparent as possible. I can add ANY effects I want later thanks very
much!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 17/02/2017 1:55 PM, James Price wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:42:29 PM UTC-6, Mike Rivers
> wrote:
>> On 2/16/2017 7:15 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>> Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers
>>> (and rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is
>>> rather pointless. You can really only measure them.
>>
>> Today the high end A/D converters for studio use have some flavor
>> of distortion built in so they don't sound so much like what they
>> really are. Each one has its extollers, and there are enough to go
>> around so that everyone with enough money can buy the distortion
>> that he prefers.
>>
>> There's no clear "best" any more, though, but there are some mighty
>> expensive converters, still.
>
> If history is any indication, I'd imagine the most expensive
> converters today will be relatively inexpensive in 15 years.

Nope, manufacturers rarely drop prices on "high end" gear for fear of
alienating their suckers (customers), however equivalent, perhaps even
better ones will be cheaper, and some others will be even dearer to
capture the market that always insists anything more expensive must be
better. There's a lot more profit to be made from those people after all.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 17/02/2017 8:04 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 17/02/2017 1:55 PM, James Price wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:42:29 PM UTC-6, Mike Rivers
>> wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2017 7:15 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>> Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers
>>>> (and rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is
>>>> rather pointless. You can really only measure them.
>>>
>>> Today the high end A/D converters for studio use have some flavor
>>> of distortion built in so they don't sound so much like what they
>>> really are. Each one has its extollers, and there are enough to go
>>> around so that everyone with enough money can buy the distortion
>>> that he prefers.
>>>
>>> There's no clear "best" any more, though, but there are some mighty
>>> expensive converters, still.
>>
>> If history is any indication, I'd imagine the most expensive
>> converters today will be relatively inexpensive in 15 years.
>
> Nope, manufacturers rarely drop prices on "high end" gear for fear of
> alienating their suckers (customers), however equivalent, perhaps even
> better ones will be cheaper, and some others will be even dearer to
> capture the market that always insists anything more expensive must be
> better. There's a lot more profit to be made from those people after all.
>
> Trevor.

Yeah. You just say things like 'selected capcitors' and '12-gauge steel'.

geoff

[[email protected]]

> >
> > For instance, a few samples Ethan recorded in 2010 pitted an Apogee
> > 8000 against a $25 SoundBlaster. The differences seemed so negligible
> > as to be inconsequential to my ears.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers (and
> rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is rather
> pointless. You can really only measure them.
>
> Trevor.

yes I agree with that if you know what to measure.

I once had a system that didn't sound quite right but had no obvious issue when tested at normal levels. But digging deeper, there was some small glitch that was easy to see and measure, _____once I figured out what to look for___.

Sometimes it's not obvious. The game is identifying what and how to measure.


m

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:04:09 AM UTC-6, Trevor wrote:
> On 17/02/2017 1:55 PM, James Price wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:42:29 PM UTC-6, Mike Rivers
> > wrote:
> >> On 2/16/2017 7:15 PM, Trevor wrote:
> >>> Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers
> >>> (and rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is
> >>> rather pointless. You can really only measure them.
> >>
> >> Today the high end A/D converters for studio use have some flavor
> >> of distortion built in so they don't sound so much like what they
> >> really are. Each one has its extollers, and there are enough to go
> >> around so that everyone with enough money can buy the distortion
> >> that he prefers.
> >>
> >> There's no clear "best" any more, though, but there are some mighty
> >> expensive converters, still.
> >
> > If history is any indication, I'd imagine the most expensive
> > converters today will be relatively inexpensive in 15 years.
>
> Nope, manufacturers rarely drop prices on "high end" gear for fear of
> alienating their suckers (customers), however equivalent, perhaps even
> better ones will be cheaper, and some others will be even dearer to
> capture the market that always insists anything more expensive must be
> better. There's a lot more profit to be made from those people after all.

Who said anything about manufacturers lowering prices, though it's been known to happen when they release new hardware.

[Trevor]

On 18/02/2017 2:23 AM, wrote:
>>> For instance, a few samples Ethan recorded in 2010 pitted an
>>> Apogee 8000 against a $25 SoundBlaster. The differences seemed so
>>> negligible as to be inconsequential to my ears.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Most converters these days are *SO* far ahead of any speakers (and
>> rooms, and human hearing) that listening for problems is rather
>> pointless. You can really only measure them.
>>
>
> yes I agree with that if you know what to measure.
>
> I once had a system that didn't sound quite right but had no obvious
> issue when tested at normal levels. But digging deeper, there was
> some small glitch that was easy to see and measure, _____once I
> figured out what to look for___.
>
> Sometimes it's not obvious. The game is identifying what and how to
> measure.

No argument there, knowledge is always essential. Sadly many people
don't have enough to realise it though. :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 18/02/2017 6:53 AM, James Price wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 1:04:09 AM UTC-6, Trevor wrote:
>> On 17/02/2017 1:55 PM, James Price wrote:
>>> If history is any indication, I'd imagine the most expensive
>>> converters today will be relatively inexpensive in 15 years.
>>
>> Nope, manufacturers rarely drop prices on "high end" gear for fear
>> of alienating their suckers (customers), however equivalent,
>> perhaps even better ones will be cheaper, and some others will be
>> even dearer to capture the market that always insists anything more
>> expensive must be better. There's a lot more profit to be made from
>> those people after all.
>
> Who said anything about manufacturers lowering prices,

Fair enough, today's most expensive converters will be next to worthless
on the second hand market in 15 years. Or perhaps there will be a
collectors market for them. You just never know what suckers will collect.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 18/02/2017 9:05 PM, Trevor wrote:

>
> Fair enough, today's most expensive converters will be next to worthless
> on the second hand market in 15 years. Or perhaps there will be a
> collectors market for them. You just never know what suckers will collect.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

Anybody want a Turtle Beach Multisound or Tahiti ? Cheap !

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 18/02/2017 9:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> Fair enough, today's most expensive converters will be next to worthless
>> on the second hand market in 15 years. Or perhaps there will be a
>> collectors market for them. You just never know what suckers will collect.
>
>Anybody want a Turtle Beach Multisound or Tahiti ? Cheap !

No thanks, but weirdly I get emails from people all the time (usually from
Japan) wanting to buy my 1995 vintage Prism AD-124.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 18/02/2017 9:38 PM, geoff wrote:
>
> Anybody want a Turtle Beach Multisound or Tahiti ? Cheap !

Good luck with that! I have a Turtle Beach card laying around somewhere
already that I haven't used in a decade. Hell even my MOTU boxes are
next to worthless now since they are firewire only. :-(
Lucky the laptop I use them with is still going fine atm. :-)

Trevor.