Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mullard]

Hi to all and my sincere admiration for this forum which I visit often and where I got some very useful insights.
I know that questions related to converters choice were debated quite often, but still I would like to have some real world opinions when investment in top converter is worthwhile.
First of all, my facility is recording studio (not mastering) and I try to keep it pretty high-end in terms of equipment choice, acoustic treatment and engineers.
I use Lavry Blue, Benchmark and Apogee 16X converters.
Recently I had chance to listen Lavry Gold ADC converter (via Benchmark DAC what is similar to my setup) in one studio.
To my ears it was more analogue like than already excellent Blue, but owner said that Gold is subjectively very similar to Blue with slight high roll-off and that this nuance is just matter of taste and not more resolution or better sound. His opinion was that for mastering and especially for expectation of clients, he needs to have different converters than those more common in various studios. That makes sense to some degree.
In reality, many mastering houses prefer Gold, most probably on higher overall resolution improvement.
My question is related to recording stage and what real benefits can be expected from up scaling already high-end converters?
Are there any objective reasons (not just 'matter of taste' or 'take what suits you the best' and similar general phrases) due to which vocals, acoustic guitars, harmonically reach distorted electric guitars etc. will benefit to extent to justify purchase of top level converters?
In same time, if I keep my current monitoring chain (Crane Song Avocet or Lavry Blue, or Benchmark DAC and K+H monitors) can I expect to hear improvements caused by top quality ADC on typical 20+ channel project?

Thanks in advance for inputs.

J.Mullard
 

[Arf! Mastering]

I think one thing that sets the Gold apart is a sonic character that ranks with the highly prized legendary analog designs such as Neve, Pultec, API, etc.   Even though the Gold is a digital device, the analog side is classic sounding.  If you can afford it and value the difference accordingly, then go for it.

[mullard]

Many people agree about Gold's quality for mastering and in same time open question remains whether it's purposeful to use such conversion on individual tracks during recording phase, as sum of multi track project (either ITB or OTB) will somehow blur subtle nuances of Gold conversion.
In some sense Gold could be just 'too good' for that task, opposite to mastering where dense final mix with richer content put more critical demand on converters.
I'm continiously improving some parts of my rig and after adding dozen of high quality pres, comps, EQs I  just thought if in ADC department adding Gold to existing Blue-ADDA16X-Benchmark converters would affect sonical quality of mixes.
I use only analogue summing and go to 2-track tape.

[Arf! Mastering]

I believe that better is better, and that the difference is apparent even through lesser gear.  No such thing as too good, only too expensive.  Tracking with the Gold ADC will give you conversion as good as it gets.  Whether too good, or too expensive, is a personal choice.

[mullard]

AlanS wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 16:33

I believe that better is better, and that the difference is apparent even through lesser gear.  No such thing as too good, only too expensive.

I agree, although at least theoretically expensive is  justified by certain improvement that can or cannot be within reasonable frames. My focus is on whether that improvement is reflected audibly in final mix to be assumed reasonable.
I can compare it with quite frequent ITB vs. clean OTB summing, where most people don't easily differentiate digital and clean analogue summing results.
To me clean analogue, although similar to ITB is in most cases undoubtedly sonic winner that alone justifies adding this part of the chain to the whole setup.
I would not say that analogue OTB sum has more resolution or clarity (probably just opposite), but overall result is in favor to high-end OTB analogue setup.
I don't doubt that if Gold ADC is used on input and whole thing is done ITB without leaving digital, the result should contain particular degree of conversion's added quality.
Do you have practical experience comparing differences of Blue and Gold in final mix if processing/summing job is mostly done in analogue?
Unfortunately, we cannot avoid entering into subjective opinions here, as I can't imagine scientific method that can ideally reflect what is exactly going on when signal leaves digital domain and enters imperfect analogue world.

[Arf! Mastering]

Gold converters basically sell themselves.  Most buyers I know, self included, paid for one on an approval basis and decided to keep it.   IMO, the AD122-96MKIII is not only highly resolved, but classically "analog" sounding in the best sense of the word.   Tracking with it, then mixing OTB, and recapturing with it would be da bomb, to use a well-known technical term.  I also own LavryBlue and Mytek converters, and have experience with UA and Weiss.  Subjectively, the Gold AD122 and DA924 are my favorites, although all the others are extremely good.

[Ivo]

The questions remains whether (as far as the direct sound improvement is concerned) it is worth to invest in the upgrade from Blue to Gold, or it would be much more fruitful and reasonable to spend this hard earned cash rather in a new preamp, mic, eq or compressor ... (we are not talking about unlimited cash now)

[mullard]

Ivo wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 01:52

The questions remains whether (as far as the direct sound improvement is concerned) it is worth to invest in the upgrade from Blue to Gold, or it would be much more fruitful and reasonable to spend this hard earned cash rather in a new preamp, mic, eq or compressor ... (we are not talking about unlimited cash now)

Very exact expression of my dilemmas.
I know that Gold is top league and that fact naturally dictates its price. I can afford it, otherwise this discussion would be just empty rhetoric.
In same time although my choice of outboards is excellent,  some attractive pieces as Atomic Squeeze Box compressor or Fairman EQs still stay in 'wish list'.
It might look like apples and oranges comparison, but idea is clear, as well as, my target  to improve those parts of chain that can bring further benefits to final mix quality.

[Tomas Danko]

mullard wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 09:35

Ivo wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 01:52 The questions remains whether (as far as the direct sound improvement is concerned) it is worth to invest in the upgrade from Blue to Gold, or it would be much more fruitful and reasonable to spend this hard earned cash rather in a new preamp, mic, eq or compressor ... (we are not talking about unlimited cash now) Very exact expression of my dilemmas. I know that Gold is top league and that fact naturally dictates its price. I can afford it, otherwise this discussion would be just empty rhetoric. In same time although my choice of outboards is excellent,  some attractive pieces as Atomic Squeeze Box compressor or Fairman EQs still stay in 'wish list'. It might look like apples and oranges comparison, but idea is clear, as well as, my target  to improve those parts of chain that can bring further benefits to final mix quality.

I figure once you have your U47s, KHEs and E LAMs, your Neve-, Gordon-, GML- and TAB-preamps you wouldn't hesitate the plunge towards a Gold. Well, perhaps a decent set of monitors too, but I'm sure you get my drift.

[mullard]

[quote title=Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 05:21
I figure once you have your U47s, KHEs and E LAMs, your Neve-, Gordon-, GML- and TAB-preamps you wouldn't hesitate the plunge towards a Gold. Well, perhaps a decent set of monitors too, but I'm sure you get my drift.
[/quote]

Yes, thanks.
Compared to Gold converters, it was easier decision to extent that decent monitoring (PMC and K+H) was 'no question'.
As well as particular top flight mics or pres for exact purposes. I think that in general all bases are pretty well covered, so here I talk about refinement priorities, but spending just to add next excellent box is not what I usually do.
I would much appreciate further experienced user's opinions.

[Ivo]

The question is whether the AB sound difference between Blue and Gold is within those few typical esoteric % recognisable by the ears of passionate connosieurs like us, or whether every layman hearing tracks recorded by blue and gold would immediately say "wow" ! I tend to think that 1) may be right ... But, of course, I have yet to try the Gold ...

[mullard]

Ivo wrote on Tue, 01 August 2006 08:19

The question is whether the AB sound difference between Blue and Gold is within those few typical esoteric % recognisable by the ears of passionate connosieurs like us, or whether every layman hearing tracks recorded by blue and gold would immediately say "wow" ! I tend to think that 1) may be right ... But, of course, I have yet to try the Gold ...

I witnessed many times that people who are closely related to music making (whether musicians, engineers, producers etc.) when involved occasionally to listening (nonscientific of course) sessions quite well perceive and differentiate with high degree of synchronicity 'nicer' and 'less nicer' mixes.
No doubt, that average CD stereo or MP3 system would probably not reveal any difference between converters used during tracking stage, but I would expect that finished mix on master CD listened on good hi-fi system should enable listener to pick 'truer' or 'less true'.
If difference is less than that, purchase of next level ADC for tracking purpose is highly questionable.
Unfortunately, no other way is known to me to decide what is appropriate for particular tasks and expectations.

[Arf! Mastering]

Same observation here.  Musicians and engineers can discern subtle and moderate differences quite consistently when you set them up with a level matched blind test.

[Bob Olhsson]

FWIW people having hearing damage are often very sensitive to things that are subtle and even inaudible to the rest of us. It's not a very good idea to totally assume that others hear what we hear.

It's really all a moving target and a bit of a miracle that anybody comes up with something pleasant sounding. This is why less is often more when it comes to signal processing. It's also why I tend to trust things that BOTH sound good and measure good over those that only manage to accomplish one of those things.