What makes AD/DA converter better then others?

gabriel g.

gabriel g.

Member
Sep 7, 2006
3,171
1
38
Hamburg
www.myspace.com
This question bothers me a long time now (and my collage class will hit this next semester :( )

Ermz and Lasse mentioned that they like some converters more then others (ermz talked about the Aurora Lynx) because they are feeling more 3D

But lets take a look under the skin...

I know some things (from collage about electrics/digital systems/data-flow) so I would love if someone with good knowledge will join and bring some light in this myth :)

cheers
 
Bad AD conversion has less accuracy and the quantization errors are more pronounced, compared to a high quality AD conversion. You surely must have had analog quantization during your electronics courses, so you will know it. But if not, here it is in a nutshell:

analog+digital.gif


The top signal is analog, the bottom signal is the same signal in digital form.
 
My limited understanding of AD/DA converters is from previous research on the subject and coming to the conclusion that it is commonly the one weak link in many studio configurations - people may have awesome pres, great outboard gear, good monitors, nice room, but then they skimp on the conversion portion of the equation.

While many of these converters may share the same conversion IC, I guess it's what is wrapped around them in between the input and the output that separates the good from the great - the differences may be near indistinguishable, but you may hear it in a sense of the sound being more sweeter, more dynamic, less abrasive.

I'll be interested to see what others think, but that's my understanding of the difference between professional AD/DA converters (read more costly) over most pro-sumer type gear or interface built-in AD/DA converters.
 
It is worth bearing in mind though, that even today's consumer converters are much better than what was available in the early and late 80's. If I have this right, CD's when they first came about were sort of frowned upon, as not being as high quality and warm sounding as vinyl. This was due to the quality of the converters that people were using at the time; nowadays, it isn't as big a problem as it used to be. For the home studio hobbyist, they don't need to spend massive amounts of money in order to get decent quality recordings.
 
I am no expert but I know there are many factors that come into play:
Higher grade components in the analog stages resulting in smaller signal to noise ratio, lower harmonical distortion, lower crosstalk, absence of dc offset...etc
Steadier clock: Less Jitter (Jitter is the time variation of the samples)
Better anti-aliasing filtering: Less harmful to the signal (filter excursion, ripple...etc)
And certainly many other stuff I can't think of right now or simply don't know..
 
~BURNY~ said:
I am no expert but I know there are many factors that come into play:
Higher grade components in the analog stages resulting in smaller signal to noise ratio, lower harmonic distortion, lower crosstalk, absence of dc offset...etc
Steadier clock: Less Jitter (Jitter is the time variation of the samples)
Better anti-aliasing filtering: Less harmful to the signal (filter excursion, ripple...etc)
And certainly many other stuff I can't think of right now or simply don't know..
Click to expand...

+1
 
I got a class at collage with Thomas Görne (the german guys will know him hopefully:) )
All about filter, Nyquist and Shannon.

So at the end it is all about the sampling and the depth ?

So what makes the difference between some Aurora and a Apogee?

I think they both are great with Jitter, Sampling (oversampling), headroom (SNR)....and what makes the RME fireface 800 worse then the RME ADI ?

I mean the big names all have unreal numbers:)

Do you know what I mean=
 
conversion DOES matter.
i couldn't believe my ears when i switched from the profire 610 (which supposedly has decent converters in that price range) to the RME fireface.
the increase in detail, depth, stereo image, and sheer frequency range was amazing.
sure, to a regular joe the difference would have been nearly inaudible, but being an audiophile it was like night and day really.
i'm talking about d/a conversion btw.....just listening to music. there's obviously a difference when recording stuff too, but to me it's the listening where it really slaps you in the face.
 
Fragle said:
conversion DOES matter.
i couldn't believe my ears when i switched from the profire 610 (which supposedly has decent converters in that price range) to the RME fireface.
the increase in detail, depth, stereo image, and sheer frequency range was amazing.
sure, to a regular joe the difference would have been nearly inaudible, but being an audiophile it was like night and day really.
i'm talking about d/a conversion btw.....just listening to music. there's obviously a difference when recording stuff too, but to me it's the listening where it really slaps you in the face.
Click to expand...

I noticed the same difference going from an mbox2 pro to a firepod. the firepod seemed much more dynamic and had greater freq. range.

when I upgraded to a profire from the firepod, then main difference i noticed was the pre`s, although there was a bit of a difference in d/a quality too.

I would like to get my hands on a ff400 or 800 to compare with my profire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back