A/D Conversion, can you hear the difference?

In my downtime I decided to do a in-depth comparison between the A/D converters I have at hand. With the amount of “Night & Day” reviews you read about it’s easy to question if converters are drastically different from box to box, It got me questioning at-least. The technical converter specs over the last 10years or more out perform most sound sources, processing, & environments. I have done my share surgically analyzing the THD+N, frequency response, Jitter, & so on, But that never answered the question if one can audibly hear the difference? Time for a real-world test I say.

I 1st decided on a few methods/guidelines to rule out any false impressions.

• Analog generation source.
• Same signal to all converters.

For the sources I recorded some late night noodling of Analog synth/drum, Rhodes, & Udu drum. I also took a random cross selection from my Vinyl collection (via a kab 1200/apt holman for the curious audio geeks). This gave me a wide range of content to listen/judge.

I split & recorded the signal into the analog line inputs of a Lynx, API, TC, & a MBox. All levels are roughly matched to within .1dB.

The files below are the 24bit/48khz recording from the four converters. Download the files, can you hear a Night/Day difference? Can you tell what is what?

A/D Conversion, can you hear the difference?

Interesting.

It really seemed like 2 were definately brighter or 'crisper' than the other two.  I wont say anymore so I dont influence anyone elses observations.

I've been to plenty of shootouts...
in pro studios and home studios.

the difference is obvious.

but you have to use controlled environments, and be used to the playback systems to really hear the differences.

what's more important:

how tracks stack up over time, using the same convertor.

that's when the differences REALLY become apparent.

So, not too many share my taste. I voted for the one with the thirdmost votes.
Would you PM me which one that is?

Wilko

Interesting! I don't really hear a difference.... pretty much in line with what I expected....even the cheapest OPAMP/AD combo sounds just excellent to me... R

B or D are the highend once. I didn't download the files.
Same kind of tests has been at gearlsutz before too and I always spot them even with small computer monitors. I would guess B = LYNX 

Layer each sample 10X and you'll be able to tell exactly which one's which then? 

no, i think you missed my point/meaning.




when using just ONE converter, over and over, throughout the process of tracking multiple takes with microphones, direct and analog signals, the sonic fingerprint of the converter comes into play.


some converters i've heard, actually put a 'sheen' or cloud across multiple built-up tracks.


a collective frequency buildup, if you will.


so just listening to one iteration, of an analog signal passed through, doesn't really tell the whole story.

Eric Beam


Well as of today before this reveal.
12 voted for A (API).
14 voted for B (TC).
5 voted for C (Lynx).
3 voted for D (MBox).

I’m not to surprised with these results based on my more analytical D-Scope measurements beforehand. I don’t expect a different outcome, but I’ll do a multi-track test when time permits.

WOW Amazing Eric!
That LYNX was C was a suprice to me. That was the worst ADs of the all clips. 
I thought C that was MBOX? Are MBOX using the same high end converters as  DIGI 192 interface Cirrus Logic? That can explain why D (MBOX) sounds good too!I use Cirrus Logic converters myself in the studio.

Eric Beam


No it's the original "focusrite" MBox. Years before the 192's

Okay!
 
Focusrite converters and stuff has always sound good!

  Too funny!

So does that MBOX let you bypass the mic pres on the line inputs?

So, I can trust my ears after all. (Voted for C)

Wilko

SCorey


Fascinating. I voted for B, and my order of preference was B, D, A, C. Listened through MOTU 2408 converters on Genelec 8050s.

Same here... it because we use our ears!

Bats I was just teasing.  I got your point, certainly with pres that accumulated effect becomes a major consideration.

The main point here is unless you can hear the original un-converted signal along with the conversions you can't hear the deviation from that.

Whilst all the convertors may sound better, different, worse or whatever the point of a converter is complete transparency in maintaining the authenticity of the original signal.

We can never know which fulfils that aim best in these kinds of tests.

I chose 'B' simply because it sounded closest to my belief of what a natural sound should sound like.  I wouldn't complain if I had to use any of them as I didn't experience a 'night and day' difference that would impair any final product I was working on.  I would certainly be more capable than any of thase converters of impairing the final product...

Thanks Eric, I find it very interesting to see the outcomes of these kinds of things and really value your input.  One thing I will say about these examples is that they do show your undoubted recording skills.

First and foremost, never trust a shootout on the internet. I have known people that purposely skew the results. That said I am with Wilko on this one. C was the stand out. But due to the variety of listening systems, headphone versus monitors and what you have hanging off your 2 buss, everyone is going to get different results. So I am not going to jump up and down and say which was better but given my system, the Lynx had less wavering of the sound in the upper midrange as the guitars faded. It just sounded more stable to my ears. The others less distinct.
 
Listened on headphones AKG702s and monitors Event ASP8s & M-Audio BX5A all coming out of a Lynx Two A soundcard.