D/A Conveter Question

[Gianni B.]

Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible with other d/a
converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend any others?

thanks.

-RH

[EricK]

Gianni B. wrote:
> Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible with other d/a
> converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend any others?

The Dakota is just an ADAT lightpipe output. It will be compatible with
any device that utilizes the ADAT lightpipe protocol.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com

[EricK]

Gianni B. wrote:
> Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible with other d/a
> converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend any others?

The Dakota is just an ADAT lightpipe output. It will be compatible with
any device that utilizes the ADAT lightpipe protocol.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com

[Animix]

I use a Dakota with Paris converters sometimes so, yes. Any converter that
offers lightpipe protocall should work.

Doug Joyce
Animix Productions
Durango, CO

"Gianni B." > wrote in message
om...
> Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible with
other d/a
> converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend any others?
>
> thanks.
>
> -RH

[Animix]

I use a Dakota with Paris converters sometimes so, yes. Any converter that
offers lightpipe protocall should work.

Doug Joyce
Animix Productions
Durango, CO

"Gianni B." > wrote in message
om...
> Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible with
other d/a
> converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend any others?
>
> thanks.
>
> -RH

[Hal Laurent]

"Gianni B." > wrote in message
om...
> Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible with
other d/a
> converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend any others?

Any convertors with lightpipe outputs will work. I've used Tango24s,
a Presonus Digimax, and the convertors from an Alesis HD24 with
no problems.

I kind of doubt that you'll find any convertors better than the Tango24
for the price (less than $700 for 8 channels of A/D/A).

Hal Laurent

[Hal Laurent]

"Gianni B." > wrote in message
om...
> Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible with
other d/a
> converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend any others?

Any convertors with lightpipe outputs will work. I've used Tango24s,
a Presonus Digimax, and the convertors from an Alesis HD24 with
no problems.

I kind of doubt that you'll find any convertors better than the Tango24
for the price (less than $700 for 8 channels of A/D/A).

Hal Laurent

[Arny Krueger]

Hal Laurent wrote:
> "Gianni B." > wrote in message
> om...
>> Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible
>> with other d/a converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend
>> any others?
>
> Any convertors with lightpipe outputs will work. I've used Tango24s,
> a Presonus Digimax, and the convertors from an Alesis HD24 with
> no problems.
>
> I kind of doubt that you'll find any convertors better than the
> Tango24 for the price (less than $700 for 8 channels of A/D/A).

Pehaps more signficantly, are any of these options 350% better in unbiased
evaluations than an ADA8000 @ $200 for 8 channels of A/D/A.

[Arny Krueger]

Hal Laurent wrote:
> "Gianni B." > wrote in message
> om...
>> Question. Is the Frontier Design Dakota PC soundcard compatible
>> with other d/a converters besides the Tango? Can anyone recommend
>> any others?
>
> Any convertors with lightpipe outputs will work. I've used Tango24s,
> a Presonus Digimax, and the convertors from an Alesis HD24 with
> no problems.
>
> I kind of doubt that you'll find any convertors better than the
> Tango24 for the price (less than $700 for 8 channels of A/D/A).

Pehaps more signficantly, are any of these options 350% better in unbiased
evaluations than an ADA8000 @ $200 for 8 channels of A/D/A.

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> Pehaps more signficantly, are any of these options 350% better in unbiased
> evaluations than an ADA8000 @ $200 for 8 channels of A/D/A.

I don't think this is a question that everyone will have the same answer
for. I can guarantee you that there are better sounding converters than
the Behringer, and also probably the Tango, Presonus and just about
anything else you could mention.

I could also state that the rates that some folks charge others while
using these devices will easily be greater the cost of any of these
units, making them 'affordable' in the sense that they get paid back
really quickly. But, only for those people...

That's why there are lots of different pieces of gear out there with
different levels of performance and price. What I object to is the
notion that you're somehow wasting money by buying a converter that's
only a little bit better sounding but a lot more expensive and that the
line is drawn above $200 eight channel units. This price point is
artificial and unrelated to how a lot of people work.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> Pehaps more signficantly, are any of these options 350% better in unbiased
> evaluations than an ADA8000 @ $200 for 8 channels of A/D/A.

I don't think this is a question that everyone will have the same answer
for. I can guarantee you that there are better sounding converters than
the Behringer, and also probably the Tango, Presonus and just about
anything else you could mention.

I could also state that the rates that some folks charge others while
using these devices will easily be greater the cost of any of these
units, making them 'affordable' in the sense that they get paid back
really quickly. But, only for those people...

That's why there are lots of different pieces of gear out there with
different levels of performance and price. What I object to is the
notion that you're somehow wasting money by buying a converter that's
only a little bit better sounding but a lot more expensive and that the
line is drawn above $200 eight channel units. This price point is
artificial and unrelated to how a lot of people work.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Arny Krueger]

Monte McGuire wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Perhaps more significantly, are any of these options 350% better in
>> unbiased evaluations than an ADA8000 @ $200 for 8 channels of A/D/A.

> I don't think this is a question that everyone will have the same
> answer for.

Agreed. For example, I recently read a passionate article by an installed
sound guy who basically said that it would be professional suicide for him
to install Behringer, regardless of how good it is. He convinced me of his
situation!

>I can guarantee you that there are better sounding
> converters than the Behringer, and also probably the Tango, Presonus
> and just about anything else you could mention.

Seemingly, a bad choice of words. You seem to have guaranteed yourself of
that. There seem to be many others who are equally convinced.

But, I've leaned over the years that I am more of true skeptic about sound
quality issues than most people. Therefore, nobody can really guarantee me
squat about something like this, until some fairly serious homework has been
done. I don't see that anybody has really done their homework on this
specific issue. I've made a few efforts in this direction, and every bit of
evidence I see to date says that many people are just plain wrong.

> I could also state that the rates that some folks charge others while
> using these devices will easily be greater the cost of any of these
> units, making them 'affordable' in the sense that they get paid back
> really quickly. But, only for those people...

Money isn't really the issue here. Based on what I've seen of the measured
performance of a ADA8000, it should be sonically transparent. Specifically,
that means that nobody, no-one, nada can hear the difference between music
looped through an ADA8000 at 0 dB gain, and a piece of wire, over a
reasonable range of levels.

> That's why there are lots of different pieces of gear out there with
> different levels of performance and price.

I agree that prices are based on people's perceptions, what amounts to be
basically hype, and equipment quality issues that don't relate directly to
sonic accuracy. Much equipment is sols on the grounds that it inherently
colors music that is recorded through it. In many cases like guitar amps,
this seems to be exactly right. But what about converters?

> What I object to is the
> notion that you're somehow wasting money by buying a converter that's
> only a little bit better sounding but a lot more expensive and that
> the line is drawn above $200 eight channel units. This price point is
> artificial and unrelated to how a lot of people work.

That may all be true, but I see zero proof and even zero logical support for
the implication that the ADA8000 inherently audibly changes music that is
recorded and played through it in any way, let alone a way that is harmful.

[Arny Krueger]

Monte McGuire wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> Perhaps more significantly, are any of these options 350% better in
>> unbiased evaluations than an ADA8000 @ $200 for 8 channels of A/D/A.

> I don't think this is a question that everyone will have the same
> answer for.

Agreed. For example, I recently read a passionate article by an installed
sound guy who basically said that it would be professional suicide for him
to install Behringer, regardless of how good it is. He convinced me of his
situation!

>I can guarantee you that there are better sounding
> converters than the Behringer, and also probably the Tango, Presonus
> and just about anything else you could mention.

Seemingly, a bad choice of words. You seem to have guaranteed yourself of
that. There seem to be many others who are equally convinced.

But, I've leaned over the years that I am more of true skeptic about sound
quality issues than most people. Therefore, nobody can really guarantee me
squat about something like this, until some fairly serious homework has been
done. I don't see that anybody has really done their homework on this
specific issue. I've made a few efforts in this direction, and every bit of
evidence I see to date says that many people are just plain wrong.

> I could also state that the rates that some folks charge others while
> using these devices will easily be greater the cost of any of these
> units, making them 'affordable' in the sense that they get paid back
> really quickly. But, only for those people...

Money isn't really the issue here. Based on what I've seen of the measured
performance of a ADA8000, it should be sonically transparent. Specifically,
that means that nobody, no-one, nada can hear the difference between music
looped through an ADA8000 at 0 dB gain, and a piece of wire, over a
reasonable range of levels.

> That's why there are lots of different pieces of gear out there with
> different levels of performance and price.

I agree that prices are based on people's perceptions, what amounts to be
basically hype, and equipment quality issues that don't relate directly to
sonic accuracy. Much equipment is sols on the grounds that it inherently
colors music that is recorded through it. In many cases like guitar amps,
this seems to be exactly right. But what about converters?

> What I object to is the
> notion that you're somehow wasting money by buying a converter that's
> only a little bit better sounding but a lot more expensive and that
> the line is drawn above $200 eight channel units. This price point is
> artificial and unrelated to how a lot of people work.

That may all be true, but I see zero proof and even zero logical support for
the implication that the ADA8000 inherently audibly changes music that is
recorded and played through it in any way, let alone a way that is harmful.

[ScotFraser]

<< Agreed. For example, I recently read a passionate article by an installed
sound guy who basically said that it would be professional suicide for him
to install Behringer, regardless of how good it is. He convinced me of his
situation!>>

I feel this is also very true for studios which have progressed past the
project scene. In order to convince people to part with money for your studio
services, I feel you have to provide equipment that the clients don't already
own at home. Thus ART, Alesis, Nady, Behringer et al shouldn't be seen in a
facility that wants to be taken seriously, regardless of how good one might be
able to prove those devices to be.

<< Therefore, nobody can really guarantee me
squat about something like this, until some fairly serious homework has been
done. I don't see that anybody has really done their homework on this
specific issue.>>

I believe Lynn Fuston has done exactly that.

<<Based on what I've seen of the measured
performance of a ADA8000, it should be sonically transparent. Specifically,
that means that nobody, no-one, nada can hear the difference between music
looped through an ADA8000 at 0 dB gain, and a piece of wire, over a
reasonable range of levels.>>

Maybe yes, maybe no. We all know 2 devices can have matching specs yet sound
different, due to non-inclusion of some unflattering parameters.

Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< Agreed. For example, I recently read a passionate article by an installed
sound guy who basically said that it would be professional suicide for him
to install Behringer, regardless of how good it is. He convinced me of his
situation!>>

I feel this is also very true for studios which have progressed past the
project scene. In order to convince people to part with money for your studio
services, I feel you have to provide equipment that the clients don't already
own at home. Thus ART, Alesis, Nady, Behringer et al shouldn't be seen in a
facility that wants to be taken seriously, regardless of how good one might be
able to prove those devices to be.

<< Therefore, nobody can really guarantee me
squat about something like this, until some fairly serious homework has been
done. I don't see that anybody has really done their homework on this
specific issue.>>

I believe Lynn Fuston has done exactly that.

<<Based on what I've seen of the measured
performance of a ADA8000, it should be sonically transparent. Specifically,
that means that nobody, no-one, nada can hear the difference between music
looped through an ADA8000 at 0 dB gain, and a piece of wire, over a
reasonable range of levels.>>

Maybe yes, maybe no. We all know 2 devices can have matching specs yet sound
different, due to non-inclusion of some unflattering parameters.

Scott Fraser

[Ken / Eleven Shadows]

> I agree that prices are based on people's perceptions, what amounts to be
> basically hype, and equipment quality issues that don't relate directly to
> sonic accuracy. Much equipment is sols on the grounds that it inherently
> colors music that is recorded through it. In many cases like guitar amps,
> this seems to be exactly right. But what about converters?

> That may all be true, but I see zero proof and even zero logical support for
> the implication that the ADA8000 inherently audibly changes music that is
> recorded and played through it in any way, let alone a way that is harmful.

If you are saying that you don't see a difference between quality in
converters, I would strongly suggest renting or auditioning some and
determine if you can hear a difference.

I operate in extreme BudgetLand, so I am not about to pop for
something that won't make an audible difference in my recordings. The
difference in audio quality between Digi001's stock converters and my
Apogee AD-16 converters was not even subtle for me or my bandmates.

Ken/Eleven Shadows
http://www.elevenshadows.com
http://www.blueberrybuddha.com

[Ken / Eleven Shadows]

> I agree that prices are based on people's perceptions, what amounts to be
> basically hype, and equipment quality issues that don't relate directly to
> sonic accuracy. Much equipment is sols on the grounds that it inherently
> colors music that is recorded through it. In many cases like guitar amps,
> this seems to be exactly right. But what about converters?

> That may all be true, but I see zero proof and even zero logical support for
> the implication that the ADA8000 inherently audibly changes music that is
> recorded and played through it in any way, let alone a way that is harmful.

If you are saying that you don't see a difference between quality in
converters, I would strongly suggest renting or auditioning some and
determine if you can hear a difference.

I operate in extreme BudgetLand, so I am not about to pop for
something that won't make an audible difference in my recordings. The
difference in audio quality between Digi001's stock converters and my
Apogee AD-16 converters was not even subtle for me or my bandmates.

Ken/Eleven Shadows
http://www.elevenshadows.com
http://www.blueberrybuddha.com

[Arny Krueger]

ScotFraser wrote:

> << Agreed. For example, I recently read a passionate article by an
> installed sound guy who basically said that it would be professional
> suicide for him to install Behringer, regardless of how good it is.
> He convinced me of his situation!>>

> I feel this is also very true for studios which have progressed past
> the project scene. In order to convince people to part with money for
> your studio services, I feel you have to provide equipment that the
> clients don't already own at home. Thus ART, Alesis, Nady, Behringer
> et al shouldn't be seen in a facility that wants to be taken
> seriously, regardless of how good one might be able to prove those
> devices to be.

> << Therefore, nobody can really guarantee me
> squat about something like this, until some fairly serious homework
> has been done. I don't see that anybody has really done their
> homework on this specific issue.>>

> I believe Lynn Fuston has done exactly that.

Where?

> <<Based on what I've seen of the measured
> performance of a ADA8000, it should be sonically transparent.
> Specifically, that means that nobody, no-one, nada can hear the
> difference between music looped through an ADA8000 at 0 dB gain, and
> a piece of wire, over a reasonable range of levels.>>

> Maybe yes, maybe no. We all know 2 devices can have matching specs
> yet sound different, due to non-inclusion of some unflattering
> parameters.

Where?

[Arny Krueger]

ScotFraser wrote:

> << Agreed. For example, I recently read a passionate article by an
> installed sound guy who basically said that it would be professional
> suicide for him to install Behringer, regardless of how good it is.
> He convinced me of his situation!>>

> I feel this is also very true for studios which have progressed past
> the project scene. In order to convince people to part with money for
> your studio services, I feel you have to provide equipment that the
> clients don't already own at home. Thus ART, Alesis, Nady, Behringer
> et al shouldn't be seen in a facility that wants to be taken
> seriously, regardless of how good one might be able to prove those
> devices to be.

> << Therefore, nobody can really guarantee me
> squat about something like this, until some fairly serious homework
> has been done. I don't see that anybody has really done their
> homework on this specific issue.>>

> I believe Lynn Fuston has done exactly that.

Where?

> <<Based on what I've seen of the measured
> performance of a ADA8000, it should be sonically transparent.
> Specifically, that means that nobody, no-one, nada can hear the
> difference between music looped through an ADA8000 at 0 dB gain, and
> a piece of wire, over a reasonable range of levels.>>

> Maybe yes, maybe no. We all know 2 devices can have matching specs
> yet sound different, due to non-inclusion of some unflattering
> parameters.

Where?

[Arny Krueger]

Ken / Eleven Shadows wrote:
>> I agree that prices are based on people's perceptions, what amounts
>> to be basically hype, and equipment quality issues that don't relate
>> directly to sonic accuracy. Much equipment is sols on the grounds
>> that it inherently colors music that is recorded through it. In many
>> cases like guitar amps, this seems to be exactly right. But what
>> about converters?
>
>> That may all be true, but I see zero proof and even zero logical
>> support for the implication that the ADA8000 inherently audibly
>> changes music that is recorded and played through it in any way, let
>> alone a way that is harmful.

> If you are saying that you don't see a difference between quality in
> converters, I would strongly suggest renting or auditioning some and
> determine if you can hear a difference.

I already have a modest collection of what some people think are quality
converters. The point where converters stop sounding different seems to be
in fairly modest territory.

Here's an example - http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm . See
how far you get before you stop hearing differences in unbiased listening
tests.

> I operate in extreme BudgetLand, so I am not about to pop for
> something that won't make an audible difference in my recordings. The
> difference in audio quality between Digi001's stock converters and my
> Apogee AD-16 converters was not even subtle for me or my bandmates.

Have you REALLY done your homework?

[Arny Krueger]

Ken / Eleven Shadows wrote:
>> I agree that prices are based on people's perceptions, what amounts
>> to be basically hype, and equipment quality issues that don't relate
>> directly to sonic accuracy. Much equipment is sols on the grounds
>> that it inherently colors music that is recorded through it. In many
>> cases like guitar amps, this seems to be exactly right. But what
>> about converters?
>
>> That may all be true, but I see zero proof and even zero logical
>> support for the implication that the ADA8000 inherently audibly
>> changes music that is recorded and played through it in any way, let
>> alone a way that is harmful.

> If you are saying that you don't see a difference between quality in
> converters, I would strongly suggest renting or auditioning some and
> determine if you can hear a difference.

I already have a modest collection of what some people think are quality
converters. The point where converters stop sounding different seems to be
in fairly modest territory.

Here's an example - http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm . See
how far you get before you stop hearing differences in unbiased listening
tests.

> I operate in extreme BudgetLand, so I am not about to pop for
> something that won't make an audible difference in my recordings. The
> difference in audio quality between Digi001's stock converters and my
> Apogee AD-16 converters was not even subtle for me or my bandmates.

Have you REALLY done your homework?

[Gianni B.]

Okay..thanks for the input guys. I used to have the Tango but
unfortunately my rack was stolen from my storage space a little while
back :( !!!! So I'm basically looking for a low budget replacement
for the Tango which will be used in a simple PC, bedroom studio setup.
Would the ADA8000 suffice or is there anything in that price range or
a little bit more?

[Gianni B.]

Okay..thanks for the input guys. I used to have the Tango but
unfortunately my rack was stolen from my storage space a little while
back :( !!!! So I'm basically looking for a low budget replacement
for the Tango which will be used in a simple PC, bedroom studio setup.
Would the ADA8000 suffice or is there anything in that price range or
a little bit more?

[EricK]

Gianni B. wrote:
> Okay..thanks for the input guys. I used to have the Tango but
> unfortunately my rack was stolen from my storage space a little while
> back :( !!!! So I'm basically looking for a low budget replacement
> for the Tango which will be used in a simple PC, bedroom studio setup.
> Would the ADA8000 suffice or is there anything in that price range or
> a little bit more?

Never thought I would say this: the Behringer is probably your best bet.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com

[EricK]

Gianni B. wrote:
> Okay..thanks for the input guys. I used to have the Tango but
> unfortunately my rack was stolen from my storage space a little while
> back :( !!!! So I'm basically looking for a low budget replacement
> for the Tango which will be used in a simple PC, bedroom studio setup.
> Would the ADA8000 suffice or is there anything in that price range or
> a little bit more?

Never thought I would say this: the Behringer is probably your best bet.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
Multi-Track Masters on CD-ROM
www.Raw-Tracks.com

[Garth D. Wiebe]

EricK wrote:
> Gianni B. wrote:
>
>> Okay..thanks for the input guys. I used to have the Tango but
>> unfortunately my rack was stolen from my storage space a little while
>> back :( !!!! So I'm basically looking for a low budget replacement
>> for the Tango which will be used in a simple PC, bedroom studio setup.
>> Would the ADA8000 suffice or is there anything in that price range or
>> a little bit more?
>
>
> Never thought I would say this: the Behringer is probably your best bet.

At AudioRail Technologies, we were originally concerned about whether
the Behringer ADA8000 was a good product. It was only $200, and it was
the "B" word. We manufacture a digital snake product with ADAT
lightpipe interface point of connection which we promote as completely
transparent and designed to be very reliable. The ADA8000 was the best
price complement to get to analog from digital, so we cite it as such
multiple times on our company website.

Because of the concern about quality, I personally did some tests and
posted them in the old ProSoundWeb equipment forum. You can still get
to this at the following URL:

http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=4322#4322

Be careful about mis-interpreting the line to mic. loopback scans.

[Garth D. Wiebe]

EricK wrote:
> Gianni B. wrote:
>
>> Okay..thanks for the input guys. I used to have the Tango but
>> unfortunately my rack was stolen from my storage space a little while
>> back :( !!!! So I'm basically looking for a low budget replacement
>> for the Tango which will be used in a simple PC, bedroom studio setup.
>> Would the ADA8000 suffice or is there anything in that price range or
>> a little bit more?
>
>
> Never thought I would say this: the Behringer is probably your best bet.

At AudioRail Technologies, we were originally concerned about whether
the Behringer ADA8000 was a good product. It was only $200, and it was
the "B" word. We manufacture a digital snake product with ADAT
lightpipe interface point of connection which we promote as completely
transparent and designed to be very reliable. The ADA8000 was the best
price complement to get to analog from digital, so we cite it as such
multiple times on our company website.

Because of the concern about quality, I personally did some tests and
posted them in the old ProSoundWeb equipment forum. You can still get
to this at the following URL:

http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=4322#4322

Be careful about mis-interpreting the line to mic. loopback scans.

[ScotFraser]

<< > I believe Lynn Fuston has done exactly that.>

<Where? >>

I'd check his web site. Didn't he do an ADC shootout CD, in the fashion of his
mic pre shootout CD?

Scott Fraser

[ScotFraser]

<< > I believe Lynn Fuston has done exactly that.>

<Where? >>

I'd check his web site. Didn't he do an ADC shootout CD, in the fashion of his
mic pre shootout CD?

Scott Fraser

[Arny Krueger]

ScotFraser wrote:
> << > I believe Lynn Fuston has done exactly that.>
>
> <Where? >>
>
> I'd check his web site. Didn't he do an ADC shootout CD, in the
> fashion of his mic pre shootout CD?

I bought several of these CDs. The ones I bought were made with musical
sources that were constantly changing, albeit slightly, from test to test.
Therefore it was very hard to reach any conclusions about small audible
differences between various pieces of equipment.

[Arny Krueger]

ScotFraser wrote:
> << > I believe Lynn Fuston has done exactly that.>
>
> <Where? >>
>
> I'd check his web site. Didn't he do an ADC shootout CD, in the
> fashion of his mic pre shootout CD?

I bought several of these CDs. The ones I bought were made with musical
sources that were constantly changing, albeit slightly, from test to test.
Therefore it was very hard to reach any conclusions about small audible
differences between various pieces of equipment.

[Arny Krueger]

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:

> Because of the concern about quality, I personally did some tests and
> posted them in the old ProSoundWeb equipment forum. You can still get
> to this at the following URL:

> http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=4322#4322

I've always regretted that the actual RMA composite test files were not
provided. It's nice to be able to play with scale factors and the like, at
one's leisure.

> Be careful about mis-interpreting the line to mic. loopback scans.

I think the next logical step would be to loop some stressful audio signals
through an ADA8000 and set them up for people to listen to, along the lines
of what I've previously done at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm .

One novel feature of the audio interface tests posted at www.pcabx.com are
the files that were created by repeatedly looping signals through the UUT.

In the case of equipment that I consider substandard, such as the legacy
SoundBlaster Live! card tested, looping the test signals just once was
sufficient to provide clear audible indications of sonic coloration.

In the case of other consumer audio equipment such as the Turtle Beach Santa
Cruz (TBSC) , one pass had few if any audible effects, but the effects of 5
passes can be heard . This is arguably "good enough" performance for
situations where production is entirely in the digital domain. It may leave
something to be desired when there are a number of generations of
conversions between the analog and digital domain. It also does not really
suit the critical production worker who wants "bulletproof" equipment and
results, and is willing to pay more to get it.

In the case a high quality audio interface such as the DAL Card Deluxe
(DALCD), even large amounts of repetitive looping did not produce clearly
audible effects. This level of performance means that numerous
analog/digital and digital.analog conversions will not result in audible
degradation due to this high quality audio interface. I think this suits the
actual technical needs of most critical workers.

Exactly where the ADA8000 fits on this scale of sonic quality from the
legacy SoundBlaster Live! to the Card Deluxe and beyond (e.g. LynxTWO), is
one of those things that actual listening would show.

On paper, the ADA8000 results appear to be some place between those of the
TBSC and DALCD. Other interfaces that fit in this range include the widely
used M-Audio AudioPhile 2496.

[Arny Krueger]

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:

> Because of the concern about quality, I personally did some tests and
> posted them in the old ProSoundWeb equipment forum. You can still get
> to this at the following URL:

> http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=4322#4322

I've always regretted that the actual RMA composite test files were not
provided. It's nice to be able to play with scale factors and the like, at
one's leisure.

> Be careful about mis-interpreting the line to mic. loopback scans.

I think the next logical step would be to loop some stressful audio signals
through an ADA8000 and set them up for people to listen to, along the lines
of what I've previously done at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm .

One novel feature of the audio interface tests posted at www.pcabx.com are
the files that were created by repeatedly looping signals through the UUT.

In the case of equipment that I consider substandard, such as the legacy
SoundBlaster Live! card tested, looping the test signals just once was
sufficient to provide clear audible indications of sonic coloration.

In the case of other consumer audio equipment such as the Turtle Beach Santa
Cruz (TBSC) , one pass had few if any audible effects, but the effects of 5
passes can be heard . This is arguably "good enough" performance for
situations where production is entirely in the digital domain. It may leave
something to be desired when there are a number of generations of
conversions between the analog and digital domain. It also does not really
suit the critical production worker who wants "bulletproof" equipment and
results, and is willing to pay more to get it.

In the case a high quality audio interface such as the DAL Card Deluxe
(DALCD), even large amounts of repetitive looping did not produce clearly
audible effects. This level of performance means that numerous
analog/digital and digital.analog conversions will not result in audible
degradation due to this high quality audio interface. I think this suits the
actual technical needs of most critical workers.

Exactly where the ADA8000 fits on this scale of sonic quality from the
legacy SoundBlaster Live! to the Card Deluxe and beyond (e.g. LynxTWO), is
one of those things that actual listening would show.

On paper, the ADA8000 results appear to be some place between those of the
TBSC and DALCD. Other interfaces that fit in this range include the widely
used M-Audio AudioPhile 2496.

[Mike Rivers]

[Generic reply, not specifically addressing Arny]

In article > writes:

> I bought several of these CDs. The ones I bought were made with musical
> sources that were constantly changing, albeit slightly, from test to test.

Just like the real world, right?

> Therefore it was very hard to reach any conclusions about small audible
> differences between various pieces of equipment.

A logical conclusion here would be that differences in live sources, even
the same source from take to take, can overshadow small differences in
A/D converters.

What you need to listen for are differences that are consistent across
the examples. I recognize that this is difficult to do if you only accept
ABX testing as valid.

If you can't hear differences of that nature, don't worry about them and buy
the converter that you like for other reasons (price included). People
tend to be much too concerned about things that they can't hear, or
more accurately, that they can hear but don't understand why. Until
you can afford to own enough converters to choose the right one for
each job, you can live with whatever you choose.

If there's something really wrong, you'll know it when you start using
it, and that's the time to return it and exchange it for something
else.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

[Generic reply, not specifically addressing Arny]

In article > writes:

> I bought several of these CDs. The ones I bought were made with musical
> sources that were constantly changing, albeit slightly, from test to test.

Just like the real world, right?

> Therefore it was very hard to reach any conclusions about small audible
> differences between various pieces of equipment.

A logical conclusion here would be that differences in live sources, even
the same source from take to take, can overshadow small differences in
A/D converters.

What you need to listen for are differences that are consistent across
the examples. I recognize that this is difficult to do if you only accept
ABX testing as valid.

If you can't hear differences of that nature, don't worry about them and buy
the converter that you like for other reasons (price included). People
tend to be much too concerned about things that they can't hear, or
more accurately, that they can hear but don't understand why. Until
you can afford to own enough converters to choose the right one for
each job, you can live with whatever you choose.

If there's something really wrong, you'll know it when you start using
it, and that's the time to return it and exchange it for something
else.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> [Generic reply, not specifically addressing Arny]
>
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> I bought several of these CDs. The ones I bought were made with
>> musical sources that were constantly changing, albeit slightly, from
>> test to test.
>
> Just like the real world, right?

In the sense that the real world seems to abhor a fair test, yes.

>> Therefore it was very hard to reach any conclusions about small
>> audible differences between various pieces of equipment.

> A logical conclusion here would be that differences in live sources,
> even the same source from take to take, can overshadow small
> differences in A/D converters.

No argument, there!

> What you need to listen for are differences that are consistent across
> the examples. I recognize that this is difficult to do if you only
> accept ABX testing as valid.

It's really not an ABX problem because the same problem shows up regardless
of how you organize the test. There's at least 5 different ways to set up a
test comparing two or more alternatives. ABX and ABC/hr being just the two
that show up in the audio literature a lot. If you are going to compare two
things and say that your results are the consequence of just this one thing
(different converters for example) then you better change NOTHING but the
converters preamps. This isn't mission impossible.

> If you can't hear differences of that nature, don't worry about them
> and buy the converter that you like for other reasons (price
> included). People tend to be much too concerned about things that
> they can't hear, or more accurately, that they can hear but don't
> understand why. Until you can afford to own enough converters to
> choose the right one for each job, you can live with whatever you
> choose.

No argument, there!

> If there's something really wrong, you'll know it when you start using
> it, and that's the time to return it and exchange it for something
> else.

No argument, there!

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> [Generic reply, not specifically addressing Arny]
>
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> I bought several of these CDs. The ones I bought were made with
>> musical sources that were constantly changing, albeit slightly, from
>> test to test.
>
> Just like the real world, right?

In the sense that the real world seems to abhor a fair test, yes.

>> Therefore it was very hard to reach any conclusions about small
>> audible differences between various pieces of equipment.

> A logical conclusion here would be that differences in live sources,
> even the same source from take to take, can overshadow small
> differences in A/D converters.

No argument, there!

> What you need to listen for are differences that are consistent across
> the examples. I recognize that this is difficult to do if you only
> accept ABX testing as valid.

It's really not an ABX problem because the same problem shows up regardless
of how you organize the test. There's at least 5 different ways to set up a
test comparing two or more alternatives. ABX and ABC/hr being just the two
that show up in the audio literature a lot. If you are going to compare two
things and say that your results are the consequence of just this one thing
(different converters for example) then you better change NOTHING but the
converters preamps. This isn't mission impossible.

> If you can't hear differences of that nature, don't worry about them
> and buy the converter that you like for other reasons (price
> included). People tend to be much too concerned about things that
> they can't hear, or more accurately, that they can hear but don't
> understand why. Until you can afford to own enough converters to
> choose the right one for each job, you can live with whatever you
> choose.

No argument, there!

> If there's something really wrong, you'll know it when you start using
> it, and that's the time to return it and exchange it for something
> else.

No argument, there!

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>
>
>>Because of the concern about quality, I personally did some tests and
>>posted them in the old ProSoundWeb equipment forum. You can still get
>>to this at the following URL:
>
>
>>http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=4322#4322
>
>
> I've always regretted that the actual RMA composite test files were not
> provided. It's nice to be able to play with scale factors and the like, at
> one's leisure.

It would not be a problem to provide these.

I am working on re-formatting that whole ADA8000 review into a single
web page to put it up on the AudioRail website. It needs to be there,
for our own sake.

>>Be careful about mis-interpreting the line to mic. loopback scans.
>
>
> I think the next logical step would be to loop some stressful audio signals
> through an ADA8000 and set them up for people to listen to, along the lines
> of what I've previously done at
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm .

This is a good idea, as well. If you can think of anything else, maybe
we could take another pass at testing. You know we have good reason to
make sure this is a decent converter. We stopped our development of an
AudioRail product with embedded converters on account of it, because
Behringer made the price point of an external converter solution, even
at retail pricing, more economically feasible than what we could have
offered ourselves.

> One novel feature of the audio interface tests posted at www.pcabx.com are
> the files that were created by repeatedly looping signals through the UUT.

This is a valid and interesting test. I'm not sure I agree about its
ultimate usefulness, though. If multiple generations can make it
through the loop with flying colors, then this is a good indication,
indeed. But if they don't, then how do you make practical the
significance? Is it a fair test to compare products? Since there is
analog in the loop, you *can* see degradation in a plot from a single
pass. Isn't this enough?

The bottom line, I would think, would be to do as you suggest and post
WAV vs. WAV for anyone to do their own ABX testing on. If you can't
tell the difference in a double blind test, then there is nothing more
to think about. If you can tell a difference, then only be a single
pass difference is relevant to make a practical judgment on.

In saying the above, I might anticipate that you would counter by
pointing out our own website results of sound looped through a mating
pair of AudioRail units 64 times. But that is a different matter,
because it is digital, and the assumption is that there is no measurable
degradation in a completely digital path.

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>
>
>>Because of the concern about quality, I personally did some tests and
>>posted them in the old ProSoundWeb equipment forum. You can still get
>>to this at the following URL:
>
>
>>http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=4322#4322
>
>
> I've always regretted that the actual RMA composite test files were not
> provided. It's nice to be able to play with scale factors and the like, at
> one's leisure.

It would not be a problem to provide these.

I am working on re-formatting that whole ADA8000 review into a single
web page to put it up on the AudioRail website. It needs to be there,
for our own sake.

>>Be careful about mis-interpreting the line to mic. loopback scans.
>
>
> I think the next logical step would be to loop some stressful audio signals
> through an ADA8000 and set them up for people to listen to, along the lines
> of what I've previously done at
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm .

This is a good idea, as well. If you can think of anything else, maybe
we could take another pass at testing. You know we have good reason to
make sure this is a decent converter. We stopped our development of an
AudioRail product with embedded converters on account of it, because
Behringer made the price point of an external converter solution, even
at retail pricing, more economically feasible than what we could have
offered ourselves.

> One novel feature of the audio interface tests posted at www.pcabx.com are
> the files that were created by repeatedly looping signals through the UUT.

This is a valid and interesting test. I'm not sure I agree about its
ultimate usefulness, though. If multiple generations can make it
through the loop with flying colors, then this is a good indication,
indeed. But if they don't, then how do you make practical the
significance? Is it a fair test to compare products? Since there is
analog in the loop, you *can* see degradation in a plot from a single
pass. Isn't this enough?

The bottom line, I would think, would be to do as you suggest and post
WAV vs. WAV for anyone to do their own ABX testing on. If you can't
tell the difference in a double blind test, then there is nothing more
to think about. If you can tell a difference, then only be a single
pass difference is relevant to make a practical judgment on.

In saying the above, I might anticipate that you would counter by
pointing out our own website results of sound looped through a mating
pair of AudioRail units 64 times. But that is a different matter,
because it is digital, and the assumption is that there is no measurable
degradation in a completely digital path.

[Arny Krueger]

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:

>> I think the next logical step would be to loop some stressful audio
>> signals through an ADA8000 and set them up for people to listen to,
>> along the lines of what I've previously done at
>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm .

> This is a good idea, as well. If you can think of anything else,
> maybe we could take another pass at testing. You know we have good
> reason to make sure this is a decent converter. We stopped our
> development of an AudioRail product with embedded converters on
> account of it, because Behringer made the price point of an external
> converter solution, even at retail pricing, more economically
> feasible than what we could have offered ourselves.

IMO it's performance is amazing given the genesis of its components.

>> One novel feature of the audio interface tests posted at
>> www.pcabx.com are the files that were created by repeatedly looping
>> signals through the UUT.

> This is a valid and interesting test. I'm not sure I agree about its
> ultimate usefulness, though.

It simulates what happens when people bounce tracks to analog to add analog
EFX.

I've done extensive testing to determine what happens technically when you
do this. Sonically, its a way to hear the artifacts that a component
introduces, even when they are inaudible in normal (1-pass) operation.

> If multiple generations can make it
> through the loop with flying colors, then this is a good indication,
> indeed.

That, too. Take listen to the "20 times" samples at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm for a indication of the
quality that audio gear can have when people try.

> But if they don't, then how do you make practical the
> significance? Is it a fair test to compare products?

I think so, particularly when you do the same tests on both pieces. However,
I think we learn something when one piece is audible after one pass (e.g.
the legacy SBLive!), another is good for one pass but is audible after 5
passes (e.g., TBSC) and another is difficult or impossible to hear, even
after 20 passes (e.g. Card Deluxe). A hierarchy of performance seems to
suggest itself, no?

>Since there is
> analog in the loop, you *can* see degradation in a plot from a single
> pass. Isn't this enough?

I think that sound quality as heard while passing musical sounds is the
ultimate test.

> The bottom line, I would think, would be to do as you suggest and post
> WAV vs. WAV for anyone to do their own ABX testing on. If you can't
> tell the difference in a double blind test, then there is nothing more
> to think about. If you can tell a difference, then only be a single
> pass difference is relevant to make a practical judgment on.

I think that in either case there are other relevant considerations such as
price, service, support, reliablility, durability, and suitability for a
given application.

> In saying the above, I might anticipate that you would counter by
> pointing out our own website results of sound looped through a mating
> pair of AudioRail units 64 times. But that is a different matter,
> because it is digital, and the assumption is that there is no
> measurable degradation in a completely digital path.

I think it makes an important point, for people who are skeptical about some
of the canonical claims about all-digital processing. Besides, maybe there
is a hidden gotch that only shows up when to try something wild and crazy.
But if there are no hidden gotchas, even when you try crazy things, so much
the better!

[Arny Krueger]

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:

>> I think the next logical step would be to loop some stressful audio
>> signals through an ADA8000 and set them up for people to listen to,
>> along the lines of what I've previously done at
>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm .

> This is a good idea, as well. If you can think of anything else,
> maybe we could take another pass at testing. You know we have good
> reason to make sure this is a decent converter. We stopped our
> development of an AudioRail product with embedded converters on
> account of it, because Behringer made the price point of an external
> converter solution, even at retail pricing, more economically
> feasible than what we could have offered ourselves.

IMO it's performance is amazing given the genesis of its components.

>> One novel feature of the audio interface tests posted at
>> www.pcabx.com are the files that were created by repeatedly looping
>> signals through the UUT.

> This is a valid and interesting test. I'm not sure I agree about its
> ultimate usefulness, though.

It simulates what happens when people bounce tracks to analog to add analog
EFX.

I've done extensive testing to determine what happens technically when you
do this. Sonically, its a way to hear the artifacts that a component
introduces, even when they are inaudible in normal (1-pass) operation.

> If multiple generations can make it
> through the loop with flying colors, then this is a good indication,
> indeed.

That, too. Take listen to the "20 times" samples at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm for a indication of the
quality that audio gear can have when people try.

> But if they don't, then how do you make practical the
> significance? Is it a fair test to compare products?

I think so, particularly when you do the same tests on both pieces. However,
I think we learn something when one piece is audible after one pass (e.g.
the legacy SBLive!), another is good for one pass but is audible after 5
passes (e.g., TBSC) and another is difficult or impossible to hear, even
after 20 passes (e.g. Card Deluxe). A hierarchy of performance seems to
suggest itself, no?

>Since there is
> analog in the loop, you *can* see degradation in a plot from a single
> pass. Isn't this enough?

I think that sound quality as heard while passing musical sounds is the
ultimate test.

> The bottom line, I would think, would be to do as you suggest and post
> WAV vs. WAV for anyone to do their own ABX testing on. If you can't
> tell the difference in a double blind test, then there is nothing more
> to think about. If you can tell a difference, then only be a single
> pass difference is relevant to make a practical judgment on.

I think that in either case there are other relevant considerations such as
price, service, support, reliablility, durability, and suitability for a
given application.

> In saying the above, I might anticipate that you would counter by
> pointing out our own website results of sound looped through a mating
> pair of AudioRail units 64 times. But that is a different matter,
> because it is digital, and the assumption is that there is no
> measurable degradation in a completely digital path.

I think it makes an important point, for people who are skeptical about some
of the canonical claims about all-digital processing. Besides, maybe there
is a hidden gotch that only shows up when to try something wild and crazy.
But if there are no hidden gotchas, even when you try crazy things, so much
the better!

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>>>One novel feature of the audio interface tests posted at
>>>www.pcabx.com are the files that were created by repeatedly looping
>>>signals through the UUT.
>>
>
>>This is a valid and interesting test. I'm not sure I agree about its
>>ultimate usefulness, though.
>
>
> It simulates what happens when people bounce tracks to analog to add analog
> EFX.

Perhaps, if you are talking straightforward things like noise floor or
frequency response. I would worry about the implications to phase and
time domain effects that would not be so intuitively additive.

As for analog effects, think about all the artifacts a substantial
analog path is going to add, compared to today's converters. (At least
compared to the pro-grade ones. I know you do a lot of testing of
consumer gear, which spans a greater range from low end to high end
quality, of course).

People that are so particular about converter quality are likely to not
go that route (bouncing analog tracks). In contrast, people who bounce
back and forth to and from analog are less likely to be as particular
about converter quality, in terms of straining at gnats.

> I've done extensive testing to determine what happens technically when you
> do this. Sonically, its a way to hear the artifacts that a component
> introduces, even when they are inaudible in normal (1-pass) operation.

This is a good point for the training phase of an ABX test. "Let me see
if I can pick out some things to listen for." Then what I would do is
take all the extra loops out and try to hear that in one pass through
the system.

>> If multiple generations can make it
>>through the loop with flying colors, then this is a good indication,
>>indeed.
>
>
> That, too. Take listen to the "20 times" samples at
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm for a indication of the
> quality that audio gear can have when people try.
>
>
>>But if they don't, then how do you make practical the
>>significance? Is it a fair test to compare products?
>
>
> I think so, particularly when you do the same tests on both pieces. However,
> I think we learn something when one piece is audible after one pass (e.g.
> the legacy SBLive!), another is good for one pass but is audible after 5
> passes (e.g., TBSC) and another is difficult or impossible to hear, even
> after 20 passes (e.g. Card Deluxe). A hierarchy of performance seems to
> suggest itself, no?

Again, I don't want to disparage the method. It's definitely an
interesting thing to do. I just think that it fits into the realm of
extrapolation, in a scientific sense of the term.

>>Since there is
>>analog in the loop, you *can* see degradation in a plot from a single
>>pass. Isn't this enough?
>
>
> I think that sound quality as heard while passing musical sounds is the
> ultimate test.
>
>
>>The bottom line, I would think, would be to do as you suggest and post
>>WAV vs. WAV for anyone to do their own ABX testing on. If you can't
>>tell the difference in a double blind test, then there is nothing more
>>to think about. If you can tell a difference, then only be a single
>>pass difference is relevant to make a practical judgment on.
>
>
> I think that in either case there are other relevant considerations such as
> price, service, support, reliablility, durability, and suitability for a
> given application.

Yes. I agree.

[Arny Krueger]

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>>> One novel feature of the audio interface tests posted at
>>>> www.pcabx.com are the files that were created by repeatedly looping
>>>> signals through the UUT.
>>>
>>
>>> This is a valid and interesting test. I'm not sure I agree about
>>> its ultimate usefulness, though.

>> It simulates what happens when people bounce tracks to analog to add
>> analog EFX.

> Perhaps, if you are talking straightforward things like noise floor or
> frequency response. I would worry about the implications to phase and
> time domain effects that would not be so intuitively additive.

I tested that. They both add linearly.

The general rule is that noise adds geometrically. Linear (frequency
response and phase) distortion and nonlinear distortion add linearly. Note
that if there is a polarity inversion, odd order distortion adds linearly,
and even order distortion cancels. This is what theory suggests, and this is
what happens in actual practice.

> As for analog effects, think about all the artifacts a substantial
> analog path is going to add, compared to today's converters. (At
> least compared to the pro-grade ones. I know you do a lot of testing
> of consumer gear, which spans a greater range from low end to high end
> quality, of course).

Yes, as a rule some of the very best audio components around are converters.
Testing a LynxTWO with Audio Precision's latest-greatest leaves questions
about which measurement is due to the UUT and which is due to the test gear.

> People that are so particular about converter quality are likely to
> not go that route (bouncing analog tracks). In contrast, people who
> bounce back and forth to and from analog are less likely to be as
> particular about converter quality, in terms of straining at gnats.

One point of my tests is figuring out how pesky those gnats are.

>> I've done extensive testing to determine what happens technically
>> when you do this. Sonically, its a way to hear the artifacts that a
>> component introduces, even when they are inaudible in normal
>> (1-pass) operation.

> This is a good point for the training phase of an ABX test. "Let me
> see if I can pick out some things to listen for." Then what I would
> do is take all the extra loops out and try to hear that in one pass
> through the system.

If you look at the www.pcabx.com web pages, you'll I start people out with
the multipass tests and then work slowly into the single-pass tests.

>>> If multiple generations can make it
>>> through the loop with flying colors, then this is a good indication,
>>> indeed.

>> That, too. Take listen to the "20 times" samples at
>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm for a
>> indication of the quality that audio gear can have when people try.

>>> But if they don't, then how do you make practical the
>>> significance? Is it a fair test to compare products?
>
>> I think so, particularly when you do the same tests on both pieces.
>> However, I think we learn something when one piece is audible after
>> one pass (e.g. the legacy SBLive!), another is good for one pass but
>> is audible after 5 passes (e.g., TBSC) and another is difficult or
>> impossible to hear, even after 20 passes (e.g. Card Deluxe). A
>> hierarchy of performance seems to suggest itself, no?

> Again, I don't want to disparage the method. It's definitely an
> interesting thing to do. I just think that it fits into the realm of
> extrapolation, in a scientific sense of the term.


I think that some of this is logical induction and deduction. The limits are
always set by the actual performance of the UUT.

When I use a similar means to test audio equipment other than audio
interfaces, then the presence of the audio interface in the test requires an
understanding of the results of the other tests of just the audio
interfaces. I agree that this would be a form of extrapolation.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> >> I bought several of these CDs. The ones I bought were made with
> >> musical sources that were constantly changing, albeit slightly, from
> >> test to test.
> >
> > Just like the real world, right?
>
> In the sense that the real world seems to abhor a fair test, yes.

That's not what I was talking about. In the real world, you can never
exactly duplicate a performance, so a test may not really be of
great value. It's not unreasonable to expect that at a given price
point, all reputable converters will be of similar "quality" and the
choice will be based on flavor, and to a certain extent, availability.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article >
> writes:
>
>>>> I bought several of these CDs. The ones I bought were made with
>>>> musical sources that were constantly changing, albeit slightly,
>>>> from test to test.
>>>
>>> Just like the real world, right?
>>
>> In the sense that the real world seems to abhor a fair test, yes.

> That's not what I was talking about. In the real world, you can never
> exactly duplicate a performance, so a test may not really be of
> great value.

I guess I'm not expressing myself well, because that is one of the things I
was thinking about when I wrote.

>It's not unreasonable to expect that at a given price
> point, all reputable converters will be of similar "quality" and the
> choice will be based on flavor, and to a certain extent, availability.

Totally agree. Lots of choices seem to be made on grounds other than
absolute sound quality, regardless of what people may say. No problem. It
isn't a one dimensional world.

[WillStG]

<< (Ken / Eleven Shadows) >><< The difference in
audio quality between Digi001's stock converters and my
Apogee AD-16 converters was not even subtle for me or my bandmates. >>

Now try replacing the 001's micpres with a preamp that has honking big
transformers! My brother's Digi 001 sounds _very_ different with a Telefunken
V672 as a front end, copper windings are very underrated I think...



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Because of the concern about quality, I personally did some tests and
>>> posted them in the old ProSoundWeb equipment forum. You can still get
>>> to this at the following URL:
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=4322#4322
>>
>>
>>
>> I've always regretted that the actual RMA composite test files were not
>> provided. It's nice to be able to play with scale factors and the
>> like, at
>> one's leisure.
>
>
> It would not be a problem to provide these.
>
> I am working on re-formatting that whole ADA8000 review into a single
> web page to put it up on the AudioRail website. It needs to be there,
> for our own sake.

Here you go, Arny:

http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000.htm

This is a re-packaging of the review, with the RMAA binary results files
added, just for people like you.

How does this look?

[TonyP]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> I think so, particularly when you do the same tests on both pieces.
However,
> I think we learn something when one piece is audible after one pass (e.g.
> the legacy SBLive!), another is good for one pass but is audible after 5
> passes (e.g., TBSC) and another is difficult or impossible to hear, even
> after 20 passes (e.g. Card Deluxe). A hierarchy of performance seems to
> suggest itself, no?

Yes, as the relevent prices would suggest. The difference in quality is not
necessarily in-line with the difference in price though, but that's the
usual law of diminishing returns.
However the measured loop performance figures show exactly the same thing
without the "20 passes".

TonyP.

[Arny Krueger]

TonyP wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I think so, particularly when you do the same tests on both pieces.
>> However, I think we learn something when one piece is audible after
>> one pass (e.g. the legacy SBLive!), another is good for one pass but
>> is audible after 5 passes (e.g., TBSC) and another is difficult or
>> impossible to hear, even after 20 passes (e.g. Card Deluxe). A
>> hierarchy of performance seems to suggest itself, no?

> Yes, as the relevent prices would suggest.

That would be $59 or so for 4 channels versus about $349 for 2 channels. I
come up with an 11x price ratio.

>The difference in quality
> is not necessarily in-line with the difference in price though, but
> that's the usual law of diminishing returns.

True, however a good analysis would look at system prices not component
prices. The weakest link, and all that.

> However the measured loop performance figures show exactly the same
> thing without the "20 passes".

Yes, but the relevance between measured performance and andible performance
while listening to music is not universally well-known or agreed-upon.

[Arny Krueger]

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
> Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Because of the concern about quality, I personally did some tests
>>>> and posted them in the old ProSoundWeb equipment forum. You can
>>>> still get to this at the following URL:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?p=4322#4322
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've always regretted that the actual RMA composite test files were
>>> not provided. It's nice to be able to play with scale factors and
>>> the like, at
>>> one's leisure.
>>
>>
>> It would not be a problem to provide these.
>>
>> I am working on re-formatting that whole ADA8000 review into a single
>> web page to put it up on the AudioRail website. It needs to be
>> there, for our own sake.
>
> Here you go, Arny:

> http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000.htm

> This is a re-packaging of the review, with the RMAA binary results
> files added, just for people like you.

I downloaded them and they really help.

I take exception to the current RMAA default settings that basically set up
a SMPTE-type IM test, as opposed to a CCIF-AES type IM test. The SMPTE-type
RMAA IM test is totally blind to a not-uncommon failure of some modern audio
interfaces such as the CL Audigy2 and others, related to high frequency
nonlinear distortion. I am critical of this parctice because it is a type of
distortion that the ear can be very sensitive to, given appropriate musical
sounds.

http://www.aes.org/standards/b_pub/aes17-1998-r2004.pdf. page 16. The AES
considers SMPTE-type measurements to be of secondary importance to twin-tone
tests run at the upper end of the audio band.

When I install RMAA I quickly go in and set the IM test up to use twin
tones, 2 KHz apart, and well above 10 KHz. IOW for 44 & 48, tests based on
high-amplitude tones at 18 & 20 KHz.

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> I take exception to the current RMAA default settings that basically set
up
> a SMPTE-type IM test, as opposed to a CCIF-AES type IM test. The
SMPTE-type
> RMAA IM test is totally blind to a not-uncommon failure of some modern
audio
> interfaces such as the CL Audigy2 and others, related to high frequency
> nonlinear distortion. I am critical of this parctice because it is a type
of
> distortion that the ear can be very sensitive to, given appropriate
musical
> sounds.

I agree, particularly when testing solid-state gear, including digital. I
find SMPTE IM tests useful for sleuthing out problems in tubed gear, where
they can detect inadequate power supply or transformer low-frequency
problems quite nicely, and they can provide an easy clue when something is
seriously broken, but they're of marginal use in testing solid-state stuff.
I use a similar test to Arny's, 19 + 19.5kHz, producing difference tones at
500Hz and multiples thereof. I've also done three-tone testing, adding a
9.6kHz tone to the above two. If something pops out at 300 or 400 Hz, you
know the circuit needs more work.

Peace,
Paul

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I take exception to the current RMAA default settings that basically set up
> a SMPTE-type IM test, as opposed to a CCIF-AES type IM test. The SMPTE-type
> RMAA IM test is totally blind to a not-uncommon failure of some modern audio
> interfaces such as the CL Audigy2 and others, related to high frequency
> nonlinear distortion. I am critical of this parctice because it is a type of
> distortion that the ear can be very sensitive to, given appropriate musical
> sounds.
>
> http://www.aes.org/standards/b_pub/aes17-1998-r2004.pdf. page 16. The AES
> considers SMPTE-type measurements to be of secondary importance to twin-tone
> tests run at the upper end of the audio band.
>
> When I install RMAA I quickly go in and set the IM test up to use twin
> tones, 2 KHz apart, and well above 10 KHz. IOW for 44 & 48, tests based on
> high-amplitude tones at 18 & 20 KHz.

That's easy enough. I will add this to my list of tests to perform in
the next round of testing.

So far I have on the list the above, plus your suggested "stressful
samples" from your previous post, plus checking the thresholds of the LEDs.

If you or anyone else thinks of anything else to add, don't hesitate to
suggest.