Testing quality of A/D converters?

[Tubeguy]

Is there some software that can test quality of A/D converters of interface/sound card? Or maybe compare quality of audio files recorded on different interfaces? I found nothing on the Net, but than again I'm not sure what exactly to look for.

[Cableaddict]

Define "quality."

- And good luck with that !

-------------------------------

The single most important factor is jitter, which is determined mostly by the clock. This can be measured, and a graphical print-out made showing resultant audio distortion throughout the audible frequency spectrum.

Except, AFAIK, no converter manufacturer voluntarily gives these out.

I've seen a few in my day, (for Digidesign, Apogees, Mytek) The differences were significant, and matched what my ears had told me. However, that info wasn't for public consumption. I was fairly well-connected at the time.

Maybe there's a way to measure this yourself, but I have no idea.

[pepe44]

You can test latency, drivers,etc.. but quality in its exact word, no...Well, if you´re willing to try using multiple interfaces, test all you can with them you´ll find out the " quality" of each one compared to another..

[lolilol1975]

Noise level of the amps (SNR): anything above 105 db A-weighted is very good, state of the art being above 110dBA.
THD: anything below 0.005% is very good. State of the art below 0.001%.

[Philbo King]

Measuring clock jitter is nontrivial. I used to do it in my day job at an aerospace company. We used a specially designed piece of test gear that cost about $130k. This was for microwave communications which has far more stringent requirements than audio, though.

The measurement I used was spectral phase noise, which, when integrated over frequency, yields jitter as a time measurement. Anyway, probably TMI...

[serr]

Originally Posted by Tubeguy

Is there some software that can test quality of A/D converters of interface/sound card? Or maybe compare quality of audio files recorded on different interfaces? I found nothing on the Net, but than again I'm not sure what exactly to look for.

You can subtract one digital file from another and tell if they were exactly the same or not. Null result = exact match. Not a null means different. They may be close and null down to 50db or something but that tells you nothing. You already knew they were close...

Fidelity shootouts can be obvious between wildly different quality products. But when the quality level gets close, you start to get within perception bias. This is where you start needing to play tricks on yourself like blind tests. And it is critical to set up the shootout with levels matched between the devices to within .1db so you can A/B switch between them and not just pick the louder one. Setting up and matching the analog output levels like that and setting up the A/B switch hardware is a big project!

[DVDdoug]

Is there some software that can test quality of A/D converters of interface/sound card?

There should be no audible differences in A/D's (in a scientific-blind ABX test).

The A/D one of the last things I'd worry about.

However, assuming there is a mic preamp there will be noise differences, and possibly audible noise differences. (Distortion & frequency response are usually better than human hearing so noise is usually the only thing to worry about.) And, the acoustic room noise picked-up the mic is usually far worse than the preamp noise.

...And of course, the preamp on a regular soundcard/laptop is generally worthless and it's the wrong interface for a studio/stage mic.

You can subtract one digital file from another and tell if they were exactly the same or not. Null result = exact match. Not a null means different. They may be close and null down to 50db or something but that tells you nothing. You already knew they were close...

That usually won't work... It will only work if both A/D's/interfaces are running from the same master clock. (And of course most "home" interfaces don't have external clock inputs and most home studios don't have master clocks.) Without exactly-synchronized clocks you'll be sampling at different points on the waveform, and the clocks will drift apart over time.

If you record the same thing twice with the same A/C, the results won't null perfectly (and they could null very badly, even if there's nothing wrong).

[Cableaddict]

Originally Posted by DVDdoug

There should be no audible differences in A/D's (in a scientific-blind ABX test).

The A/D one of the last things I'd worry about. .

Dude, that is so wrong it's scary.

[lolilol1975]

Originally Posted by Tubeguy

Is there some software that can test quality of A/D converters of interface/sound card? Or maybe compare quality of audio files recorded on different interfaces? I found nothing on the Net, but than again I'm not sure what exactly to look for.

You can easily measure the roundtrip (i.e A/D + D/A) with RightMark Audio Analyzer (RMAA). But I don't think you can measure A/D only with it.

[cassembler]

Originally Posted by Cableaddict

Dude, that is so wrong it's scary.

I think it depends on the chain of priorities. If room, mic choice, preamp/settings, other pre-AD processing hasn't been considered (much less monitoring environment), I'd say AD quality is pretty low on that list.

Of course, not to say they're not important, just to say there are higher priorities in the overall chain that have a much larger impact on perceived audio quality...

$0.02

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Cableaddict

Dude, that is so wrong it's scary.

A/D is in the 0.0001 percentile comparatively (in 2018). Go here and see how small of a difference in volume you can hear. .5 dB, .2, .1? Any possible difference in AD is far below any of those. Start with the first one "level tests" on your results of .1 dB and get back to us.

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

A/D is in the 0.0001 percentile comparatively (in 2018). Go here and see how small of a difference in volume you can hear. .5 dB, .2, .1? Any possible difference in AD is far below any of those. Start with the first one "level tests" on your results of .1 dB and get back to us.

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php

You are comparing apples with oranges. I have compared several mid to high end AD converters and I can tell you that there is an audible difference between them, from very subtle to quite obvious. Not from a pure technical view point from from a sound perspective.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by mlprod

You are comparing apples with oranges. I have compared several mid to high end AD converters and I can tell you that there is an audible difference between them, from very subtle to quite obvious. Not from a pure technical view point from from a sound perspective.

Just take the test, there are several there that will help you decide if you can hear at a level of detail that is sufficient to judge a converter's performance, it's about how tiny of a difference you can hear across several criteria (frequency, level, pitch and so on). Once one passes all those at their smallest values, we can talk fruit. Yes, I'm saying in 2018 differences in converters are smaller than that unless something is broken or misconfigured.

Anything less, is guessing and/or bias.

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Just take the test, there are several there that will help you decide if you can hear at a level of detail that is sufficient to judge a converter's performance, it's about how tiny of a difference you can hear across several criteria (frequency, level, pitch and so on). Once one passes all those at their smallest values, we can talk fruit. Yes, I'm saying in 2018 differences in converters are smaller than that unless something is broken.

Anything less, is guessing and/or bias.

I'm sure those tests are great, how are they comparable to hearing the difference between AD converters? Again, apples and oranges.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by mlprod

I'm sure those tests are great, how are they comparable to hearing the difference between AD converters? Again, apples and oranges.

Because any human can only hear in terms of pitch, level, timing, distortion and a few others. If we can't hear them in tests, then everywhere else will follow regardless of the fancy name we slap on the technology being judged. The ears couldn't care less if it is an A/D convertor or someone singing 1/2 cent off pitch, or with .001 % THD or .1ms late and so on - they (our ears) only care what they actually hear or in this case usually don't hear.

We can't suddenly hide behind apples and oranges just because the name of what we are judging changes. Also, I'm not saying it isn't possible for some set of converters somewhere to be audible, I am saying that the OPs point that "it' so wrong it's crazy" is way, way, way over the top comparatively in the real world all of us function in every day. I know you and most of us here already know this.

[karbomusic]

Just take the tests, you don't have to admit you did. The EBU specs you quote don't matter for this forum discussion. This is just a forum and you guys can either hear it, or you cannot hear it, it really is that simple, don't be scared.

My "level differentiation" goes south around .2 dB - I'm pretty close to chance at that point, that's both eye-opening and more helpful when mixing et al, than running from them in an attempt to convince myself I can hear better than I actually can. Don't make me call you guys chicken.

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Because any human can only hear in terms of pitch, level, timing, distortion and a few others. If we can't hear them in tests, then everywhere else will follow regardless of the fancy name we slap on the technology being judged. The ears couldn't care less if it is an A/D convertor or someone singing 1/2 cent off pitch, or with .001 % THD or .1ms late and so on - they (our ears) only care what they actually hear or in this case usually don't hear.

We can't suddenly hide behind apples and oranges just because the name of what we are judging changes. Also, I'm not saying it isn't possible for some set of converters somewhere to be audible, I am saying that the OPs point that "it' so wrong it's crazy" is way, way, way over the top comparatively in the real world all of us function in every day. I know you and most of us here already know this.

I'll opt out of this soon, since I think we'll have to agree to disagree=)

Just two things, 1) have you done a blind test of converters yourself? and 2) so you are basically saying that all professional mastering engineers (as a good example) might aswell buy the cheapest 50 EUR AD in the local shop to replace their lets say Cranesong, Prism, Burl or comparable AD's and they will not hear any difference in a blind test?

I like science trust me, but in this case you are taking a much too theoretical approach in assuming that all converters are made equal, and above all, sound equal.

ADD: And I agree that the "crazy comment" was a bit over the top=)

Have a nice evening!

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

My "level differentiation" goes south around .2 dB - I'm pretty close to chance at that point, that's both eye-opening and more helpful when mixing et al, than running from them in an attempt to convince myself I can hear better than I actually can. Don't make me call you guys chicken.

Sounds about right, though I do believe that smaller differences are audible in a context of other sounds, like in a mix for example.

[serr]

You can absolutely hear the difference between converters and SD vs. HD with excellent fidelity mixes/masters on a reference quality system in a decently tamed room if you're paying attention.

However, the point trying to be made above is while that may be the case, an amateur or inexperienced mix makes that all a moot point in comparison. And just by magnitudes! You may still be able to hear some slight something in the fidelity but if the real problem is the kick drum sounds like a cardboard box (or something equally silly) it kind of makes the last few % of fidelity a moot point.

I've noticed SD vs. HD most prominently on material that already had some damage. (eg. a round or 7 of analog generation loss) This is where the odd loss or artifacts start to snowball and you genuinely hear something distracting.

I think there's every reason to use the best quality converters you can justify and using HD sample rates. It simply removes the storage format from the generation loss equation once and for all and just works with no odd case distractions no matter what.

But the sky doesn't start to fall if you need to go back to SD rates! And this really should be the smallest variable in the quality of the mix. No one is going to find fault with releasing a fantastic mix in SD. Consumers would be none too happy to download a big 24bit 96k file or buy a bluray disc and hear that cardboard box kick drum though!

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by mlprod

You are comparing apples with oranges. I have compared several mid to high end AD converters and I can tell you that there is an audible difference between them, from very subtle to quite obvious. Not from a pure technical view point from from a sound perspective.

+1

And to those who would disagree with me: look, I don't want this to be true. I would love to say "your mainboard's onboard Realtek device is just as good as it gets". Things have come a long way in terms of inexpensive audio devices sounding better than ever (for instance the newer Realtek stuff is pretty good actually), but there's still a pretty noticeable difference in the A/D and D/A when comparing to some higher-end interfaces.

It is true that it's difficult or impossible to compare A/D specifically if the audio devices have preamps inline with the A/D that you can't bypass. In that case you may as well consider it a case of "does this interface sound better than another interface" and not think of the specific chain of stuff inside it.

In terms of D/A though, it's pretty easy to do a comparison if you use 2 different interfaces on the same computer and can A/B them with the same material.

I'm not even disagreeing with Karbo. Thing is: "the specs lie". More specifically, gear manufacturers choose to publish specs to brag about the performance of the item or gloss over its shortcomings. I still see people saying things like "these $50 headphones have a range of 20Hz to 20KHz, so they should be just as good as (higher-end headphones)" when there are so many things missing in that "spec" that it makes my head spin. So it's virtually impossible to "compare on paper" one interface to another (or for that matter one set of headphones or monitors to another).

Anyway we can be thankful we live in a time when even the onboard audio of some inexpensive mainboards should be considered good enough to do a solid mix. Whether that onboard audio allows you to hear all the things you're trying to discern when making that mix (or limiting your recording quality in a way you can't notice because of your monitoring through its own D/A) is another story. Decide for yourself what's most important to you and where to spend your money...but I do recommend trying to do some proper comparisons to some higher-end gear at some point to see if you can hear a difference.

I'll also say that most inexpensive audio interfaces with a few ins/outs (up to around the $500 range) sound no better than the current onboard (PC mainboard) Realtek stuff. What you get with the external device that the onboard stuff doesn't have: more features like mic preamps etc.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by mlprod

I'll opt out of this soon, since I think we'll have to agree to disagree=)

All good.

Just two things, 1) have you done a blind test of converters yourself? and 2) so you are basically saying that all professional mastering engineers (as a good example) might aswell buy the cheapest 50 EUR AD in the local shop to replace their lets say Cranesong, Prism, Burl or comparable AD's and they will not hear any difference in a blind test?

I'm saying that most converters today, have little/none of the problems they did in the past, and that those differences are smaller than most any differences in the link I posted - that's a very important distinction. Anytime I ask anyone to put their ears where their claims are, they do everything but that. To be clear it isn't about that link, it's the point that those differences are small enough that if you can't pass those tests, worrying about converters is mostly a waste of time.

IOW, should I spend 5k on converters or preamps - I went for preamps because those subtle differences are larger than converter subtle differences.

I like science trust me, but in this case you are taking a much too theoretical approach in assuming that all converters are made equal, and above all, sound equal.

I never said that, I have only stated that the size of the difference is smaller than any difference in those tests - aka, smaller than .1 dB and so on the vast majority of the time so concentrating on converters as a significant is highly unlikely.

ADD: And I agree that the "crazy comment" was a bit over the top=)

Have a nice evening!

You too!

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

And to those who would disagree with me: look, I don't want this to be true. I would love to say "your mainboard's onboard Realtek device is just as good as it gets". Things have come a long way in terms of inexpensive audio devices sounding better than ever (for instance the newer Realtek stuff is pretty good actually), but there's still a pretty noticeable difference in the A/D and D/A when comparing to some higher-end interfaces.

That realtek difference is far, far more likely due to the fact it's sitting on the motherboard and susceptible to every interference imaginable than the 'quality of the converters'. I often disagree with DVDDoug but I'm with him on this one... converters should be at the very bottom of the list which is what spurred my reply - I think people could be far more productive worrying about bigger fish. It's interesting that everyone is suddenly using the worst gear they can find as an example which sort of proves my point.

You can absolutely hear the difference between converters and SD vs. HD with excellent fidelity mixes/masters on a reference quality system in a decently tamed room if you're paying attention.

You say it, I ask you to blind test it, you always go silent not long after - for a few years now. Anyway my original point was, if any of us can't hear the most minute examples in that link (or any like test that prevents one from cheating), then hearing minute converter differences is as unlikely. I suggest everyone go there for their own personal benefit as it will help them in their own musical quests and completely outside this thread - no need to post the results here, it's sincerely for them.

Let me phrase slightly differently - If no one takes the time to understand just where their own ears/perception works for them and/or fails for them (beyond bias), as in where that line actually is, they are working harder than they need to and spending valuable time and money unnecessarily.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by mlprod

Sounds about right, though I do believe that smaller differences are audible in a context of other sounds, like in a mix for example.

I make 0.2 dB adjustments all the time for that reason since I may have 100 tracks interacting which can become a case of whackamole which I'm sure you understand. 0.5 dB is obviously too much, can't really hear 0.2 dB directly but that's more than 0.0 and less than 0.5

But my musical OCD can be as much a hindrance as it is helpful - I toiled for hours last night over such small changes on a vocal, they sounded huge to me and I became pretty frustrated. I finally pulled the render from 3 days earlier and A/B'd them in Reaper as a sanity check, and low and behold they were incredibly tiny and insignificant although my brain had amplified them terribly.

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I'm saying that most converters today, have little/none of the problems they did in the past, and that those differences are smaller than most any differences in the link I posted. Anytime I ask anyone to put their ears where there claims are, they do everything but that. To be clear it isn't about that link, it's the point that those differences are small enough that if you can't pass those tests, worrying about converters is mostly a waste of time.

And here is of course where I think you are fundamentally wrong, you havent done a converter blind test have you?=)
I love doing tests to challenge myself, doing the tests you posted included when I get the time, but it doesn't say wether I can hear a diff between converters or not. The differences are much bigger than you'd think, me included before I did actual tests.

But of course, getting a hi-end converter doesnt make any sense if you havent got the rest of the chain (monitoring and room for example) right. But if you are working every day with audio, chasing every single % of quality then getting a really good converter is a very good idea. (DA as well as AD)

[serr]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

You say it, I ask you to blind test it, you always go silent not long after - for a few years now.

I consider the stuff posted online for such blind tests useless. What I've heard anyway. Always extreme lo-fi hash that would sound pretty much the same recorded on 8-track. (OK, slightly exaggerating. )

It takes time and effort to set up. I've been repeating my observations from the last time ever since. Tell you what though. I was planning on some vinyl transfer work in the near future. This would have me close to set up to run some samples for such a shootout, so I'll follow through with that.

We'll see if my observation changes then!

FWIW, I agree with you that this (any insane example aside) is the smaller player in all things audio. The only time this has been genuinely apparent to me (ie some loss from SD) is with generation loss stacking up. With studio recordings (or even live stuff) it's more about making my mix less shitty or fixing that glaring thing in one of the live recording's tracks. But I very much noticed a better capture of already troubled recordings with 96k vs 48k in my travels with restoration work.

Some opinions have evolved too. You'll find comments from me from years ago (like in NSA records or something) reading the CD format the riot act. Turns out I should have been reading the intern they gave the mastering job in question to the riot act! What do you do... You hear hundreds of examples with the same harsh chirpy sound. Finally you realize one day that your own downsamples don't sound like that. Why can't they do that?! Oh, there's a couple out there done well after all.

Anyway, at the end of the day even if SD works so well it's really hard to justify HD, the fact that HD removes all variables and just works 100% of the time means I can leave the switch set there and put it to bed.

But yeah, OK. Let's see if this all still works like I thought or if I'm out to lunch!

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by mlprod

And here is of course where I think you are fundamentally wrong, you havent done a converter blind test have you?=)
I love doing tests to challenge myself, doing the tests you posted included when I get the time, but it doesn't say wether I can hear a diff between converters or not. The differences are much bigger than you'd think, me included before I did actual tests.

If you have done true blind ABX converter tests, then what exactly were the differences and results?

But of course, getting a hi-end converter doesnt make any sense if you havent got the rest of the chain (monitoring and room for example) right. But if you are working every day with audio, chasing every single % of quality then getting a really good converter is a very good idea. (DA as well as AD)

I feel my monitoring environment is sufficient (at least my empty wallet thinks so) but once we go there, it becomes an admission of extreme subtlety and that cannot = large difference by definition. See the slight irony there? Either way, I enjoyed the respectful conversation.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by serr

I consider the stuff posted online for such blind tests useless. What I've heard anyway. Always extreme lo-fi hash that would sound pretty much the same recorded on 8-track. (OK, slightly exaggerating. )

If you claim you can distinguish at will then you can distinguish at will when someone asks you to demonstrate it to them, the only difference is making yourself prove it to yourself in a way the removes everything but the actual hearing which most who are challenged **always** find a way to escape/run from in one form or another - whatever it takes to not take that test (except mlprod who just said he passed blind ABX converter testing).

Edit: I reacted quickly and didn't read all of your post, sorry and props for the effort. I promise none of this is really for debate reasons, I've actually become a better mixer by knowing what to and what not to fret about which is truly my bigger interest in this discussion for all of us. And to be clear, there are things I don't think blind tests expose or help with, I'm just on a "don't waste your time measuring converters" kick today.

[mlprod]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

If you have done true blind ABX converter tests, then what exactly were the differences and results?

I feel my monitoring environment is sufficient (at least my empty wallet thinks so) but once we go there, it is an admission of extreme subtlety and that cannot = large difference by definition. See the slight irony there? Either way, I enjoyed the respectful conversation.

Like wise!
Always hard to describe in words, but I'd say depth, sense of resolution in for example reverb tails, clearer stereoimage and even subtle frequency balances.
Btw, I just meant A monitoring setup, not yours. But as with all things hi-end we are per definition talking about things within a still pretty small window=)

Btw other ABX tests which are fun here:
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by mlprod

Like wise!
Always hard to describe in words, but I'd say depth, sense of resolution in for example reverb tails, clearer stereoimage and even subtle frequency balances.
Btw, I just meant A monitoring setup, not yours. But as with all things hi-end we are per definition talking about things within a still pretty small window=)

Btw other ABX tests which are fun here:
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html

Thanks for the link!

[Cableaddict]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

A/D is in the 0.0001 percentile comparatively (in 2018). Go here and see how small of a difference in volume you can hear. .5 dB, .2, .1? Any possible difference in AD is far below any of those. Start with the first one "level tests" on your results of .1 dB and get back to us.

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php

Sorry, Karbo. You're a very intelligent guy, and when it comes to computer tech, I totally bow to your expertise. But when it comes to AUDIO, you would be wise to bow to mine.

I have PERSONALLy done double-blind tests of multiple high end converters ( all north of $2,000 using a 2" 16 track recording as the repeatable source, with some of those tracks containing blumlein & other techniques that rely on super-fine details.

I've also then seen the jitter / distortion graphs of all those same converters, done by someone with no dog in the race.

Side by side with me at those tests, done at a high end retailer in NYC, was Bob Clearmountain. (And a number of other famous engineers & interested parties)

How about you?

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Cableaddict

Sorry, Karbo. You're a very intelligent guy, and when it comes to computer tech, I totally bow to your expertise. But when it comes to AUDIO, you would be wise to bow to mine.

I have PERSONALLy done double-blind tests of multiple high end converters ( all north of $2,000 using a 2" 16 track recording as the repeatable source, with some of those tracks containing blumlein & other techniques that rely on super-fine details.

I've also then seen the jitter / distortion graphs of all those same converters, done by someone with no dog in the race.

Side by side with me at those tests, done at a high end retailer in NYC, was Bob Clearmountain. (And a number of other famous engineers & interested parties)

How about you?

Been in audio far longer than computers, roughly 40 years now (actually closer to 47 years but I'm shaving a few of those since it's more fair) and hanging out with bob is not a blind "ABX" test. I've been in similar tests (like when I spent a week at EV in their million dollar listening room and anechoic chamber back in the '90s) so exactly how did the ABX process you guys did work? I've worked in that high end retail space before professionally, so I know how that entire game works. What do we do next compare our collective gear?

More importantly you need reread what I said and the intention, and that is converters are NOT big fish of the list of things that affect sound, they just aren't I will stand behind that based on experience, training, graphs whathaveyou because all of them show that converters are on the bottom of the list of subtlety. The need for such a pristine environment alone proves this.

Btw: I hate name dropping, guess why?

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

That realtek difference is far, far more likely due to the fact it's sitting on the motherboard and susceptible to every interference imaginable than the 'quality of the converters'.

I also said that the Realtek onboard stuff is in the same ballpark as most inexpensive (sub-$500) interfaces. Of course the implementation of the Realtek device on the MB has an effect so you can't just look at the ALC1150 specs and assume that's what you'll get. But some MBs have pretty darn good implementations of these and at a reasonable price too.

I won't even argue about whether it's "just the converters" or not. As far as I'm concerned if the output sounds better or worse--for whatever reason--it does. I try to figure out what the reasons are, as much as I'm able to, but in the end it still comes down to "what interface sounds best to me". No spec will ever tell the whole story and there's no "magic converter chip" either.

Originally Posted by karbomusic

I often disagree with DVDDoug but I'm with him on this one... converters should be at the very bottom of the list which is what spurred my reply - I think people could be far more productive worrying about bigger fish. It's interesting that everyone is suddenly using the worst gear they can find as an example which sort of proves my point.

Realtek ALC1150 isn't the worst lol, not by far. It's basically on par with something you'd get in a 2-in, 2-out interface that costs $200-$400, from what I can tell (in the limited number of situations when I've been able to compare). I've used lots of different interfaces and the Realtek example was to show that "even a Realtek" nowadays *can* sound fairly good (unlike 20 years ago when onboard audio was really noticeably worse than even some $200 sound cards).

I disagree that converters should be "at the very bottom of the list". Even if I'm in a cement room with no treatment, at least if I'm wearing good headphones I can hear a very noticeable difference from my current interface to the last one I owned, and it allows me to mix better (yes, even with headphones, not that I would always want to mix that way).

That also doesn't mean I think worrying about converters should be near the top of the list, or for that matter the middle of the list, or that I can assign a dollar value to what people should look for. Some of it depends on what you're mixing and what you're listening for. If you can do the job with "a Realtek" (for instance!), great. Some people are happy with the results they get with less expensive interfaces, and again to be fair they have come a long way in 20ish years.

But there is a difference, it is noticeable, and "the specs lie". So...

I'm saying people should give themselves the chance to compare some better converters using the same material in controlled conditions to hear what they're missing, and judge for themselves if it's important enough for them and what they're willing to spend on a given set of converters (or interface etc.) I'm far from the "top-end" in terms of what I use, considering myself only "one step above average converters" (although it's a noticeable step that I appreciate and consider reasonably important). I'm not spending $5000 on an interface...but even so it doesn't surprise me some people do.

[karbomusic]

I disagree that converters should be "at the very bottom of the list". Even if I'm in a cement room with no treatment, at least if I'm wearing good headphones I can hear a very noticeable difference from my current interface to the last one I owned, and it allows me to mix better (yes, even with headphones, not that I would always want to mix that way).

The thread is about A/D converters though per the title, meaning if the above is the case, can't you create a recording aka A to D you can null test? Then we all can listen, I get that it at first seems like a pain but with some of the apps that allow psuedo-aggregate devices in windows, this should be fairly easy to demonstrate. Also when I say specs, I don't mean "sales specs", I mean the one's on the data sheets for the individual parts and components that can't lie for the most part (OK Chinese caps come to mind but you get the point) because they are for the actual designers not the end users and they have to depend on them.

I won't even argue about whether it's "just the converters" or not. As far as I'm concerned if the output sounds better or worse--for whatever reason--it does.

I think it's important because it's advancing ignorance if someone is going around saying their 2k converters sound better and "more 3d" due to superior A/D conversion simply because someone who designed the $300.00 converters forgot to shield properly. I get your point but if we are talking the entire package then that goes beyond the conversion process and I'm specifically talking of the conversion process.

[Cableaddict]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Btw: I hate name dropping, guess why?

That's why I don't ever drop MINE.


- And yes, it was a double-blind test.

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by DVDdoug

There should be no audible differences in A/D's (in a scientific-blind ABX test).

I double dawg dare you to post this at gearslutz

But you're right

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

The thread is about A/D converters though per the title, meaning if the above is the case, can't you create a recording aka A to D you can null test? Then we all can listen, I get that it at first seems like a pain but with some of the apps that allow psuedo-aggregate devices in windows, this should be fairly easy to demonstrate. Also when I say specs, I don't mean "sales specs", I mean the one's on the data sheets for the individual parts and components that can't lie for the most part (OK Chinese caps come to mind but you get the point) because they are for the actual designers not the end users and they have to depend on them.


I think it's important because it's advancing ignorance if someone is going around saying their 2k converters sound better and "more 3d" due to superior A/D conversion simply because someone who designed the $300.00 converters forgot to shield properly. I get your point but if we are talking the entire package then that goes beyond the conversion process and I'm specifically talking of the conversion process.

Yes we are talking about "the whole package" here, and I'm guessing the OP was as well despite the thread title. That's the context I was working with.

If we're just arguing about specific converter ICs, that's interesting enough in a sense but not practically useful for most people.

As for your proposed test: it can't be done with my interface since its inputs go through mic preamps. 2 of the mic preamps can be bypassed by using inserts but it's not optimal and not a perfect comparison to something meant as a "standalone A/D" with normal line inputs. The same case or worse is true for most interfaces with built in mic preamps. This is why I was operating under the assumption the OP was being practical and considering what interface might be desirable, not so much what converter ICs are the best. I could be wrong though...it wouldn't be the first time.

[cassembler]

Originally Posted by Cableaddict

I have PERSONALLy done double-blind tests of multiple high end converters ( all north of $2,000 using a 2" 16 track recording as the repeatable source, with some of those tracks containing blumlein & other techniques that rely on super-fine details.

I don't think anyone disagrees, but in the grand scheme of things, pointing the wrong mic in the wrong direction through the wrong preamp with the wrong settings through the wrong compressor with the wrong settings will each probably have a bigger impact than the wrong AD converter will.

If the rest of the chain/technique (not to mention performance and material) is solid, then sure, AD quality will have a more noticeable impact.

EDIT:

"Noticeable impact" is probably the phrase I'm looking for here Send crap through a great converter, still sounds like crap. Send gold through a crappy converter, still sounds like gold (just not 24 karat gold)

[Mavriq]

Consider this:

Look at the specs for modern A/D and compare to studio's specs in the 70's and 80's. S/N, distortion etc are far, far below even the most high end mixers, preamps, tape machines etc of the time. If today's decent A/D interfaces were used in those environments I would bet ANY differences would be unnoticeable. Even with all that gear with "bad" specs, there were a least a few albums made that sounded fairly decent IMHO.

Much of what is considered prized gear colors the sound. People spend large sums to add that "analog" sound to modern recordings. Seems to me that is the opposite of worrying about the nth degree of "perfect" reproduction of sound. Again, that very small subtle difference isn't going to matter much after adding everything in the signal chain.

In other words, I agree with Karbo in the sense that A/D are not the best choice for sinking lots of money unless you have it to spare. I can see it in the top studios and/or mastering suites, but not for the average one.

[David Else]

I can comment on the DAC rather than the ADC if it's of any help.

There is a noticeable difference in all the DACs I have owned. Right now I listen most days to the Scarlett 6i6 DAC and the Benchmark DAC1 (v1).

The Scarlett is the best sounding audio interface DAC I have owned so far, but it is still not as good as the DAC1. The older interfaces that cost the same as the Scarlett were far worse than the DAC1, so it shows that cheaper interfaces are getting better.

If i had to quantify it I would say the DAC1 is 9/10 sound and the Scarlett is 8/10 sound. Not a massive difference, but certainly important for sound engineering and music enjoyment. The DAC1 sounds more 'solid' in the sound stage with a touch more detail.

I would recommend anyone on a budget who wants to hear a good DAC get a 2nd hand DAC1 from ebay, I just checked and you can get them for about £250. Just use the digital out from your motherboard or USB interface.

[serr]

I'll just throw this out there.

The guys stating that the AD/DA are .0000001% of the equipment priority probably used analog systems back in the day. Tape systems that - while they certainly still had very high fidelity - almost required an 'artful' approach to keep calibrated. (That's not to suggest anyone wasn't also being very analytical with specs and calibration.)

Compared to the hoops you had to jump through with some of that, even some of the budget AD/DA devices are just happiness and light.

That doesn't change the part that the mix is still a much bigger factor in this as long as you capture reasonable sounding tracks. Just trying to suggest how someone can both hear the differences between converters and also state it's a low priority in the big picture.