ghellquist wrote:
Any pointers from the top down is appreciated.

Starting at the top - or at least, as near to the top as I can afford! - I use dCS904 ADCs and 954 DACs (3 of each to get 6 channels). It's not exactly a cheap solution but I've yet to hear a better one.

Coming down in to the realms of sensible pricing - almost - I recently used a Prism ADA8 and subsequently an ADA8XR and was very impressed. To me they sound much better than the old Prism AD1 and are remarkable value for money. Again, they're not cheap but for about the same price as two channels of dCS, you get 8 channels of ADC and DAC and various other useful tricks.

I still think that the dCS has the edge in pure quality terms, being slightly more neutral with a more transparent midrange but not by so much that it's easy to justify the price differential. I didn't try the DSD option in the Prism but I know that the dCS is very hard to beat on DSD. It knocks Meitner and Genex converters into a cocked hat!

For something slightly cheaper than the dCS and about the same quality I also have a Weiss ADC-1 MkII. It's a different sound from the dCS, a little brighter perhaps but not in a brittle/hard way, just a little lighter sounding. (Sorry - I hate trying to describe sound!)

Below these, I don't really know. Having spent my converter budget on the dCS/Weiss combination I haven't really looked at much else. I do find myself wanting an ADA8XR - partly for the convenience of 8 channels of conversion in 2U instead of 9/10U.

I know they're expensive but having gone to the trouble of buying/borrowing top notch pres and mics, it doesnt make much sense for you to go through cheap converters ;)

(Edited to fix typos)

Hi Gunnar,

Take a look at the products from [="http://www.digitalaudio.dk/products.htm"]Digital Audio Denmark[/]="http://www.digitala…"]Digital Audio Denmark[/].

I use and recomend their ADDA 2408, very close to the sound of the very reputable Weiss converters.

/ptr (who is just catching up after having been a way for 6 weeks)

ps : distributor in sweden is [[url=http://="http://www.poltekni…"]Polteknik[/]="http://www.poltekni…"]Polteknik[/]

The Lynx Aurora must be worth a look/listen as well. I haven't heard one yet but its on my todo list.

Oh Dear LORD!

Don't get me wrong guys - I'm happy you like your converters and it's not my intent to knock them.

But, HOLY SH*T!

DCS and a lot cheaper (in the affordable realm) the Prism?!?!? :shock:

Maybe I'm misreading Gunnar's post (and all of his previous ones) but I don't think the dude's looking for a $12,000 converter as his "cheap" option!

I've used the DCS (2 channels - local NPR station) and I've used the Prism extensively (the Dream ADA, not the DSD/192kHz version) and while I did like it - never in a million years could I justify that price.

And yes, I do like expensive gear and yes, I do proclaim to be the kind of guy who can hear a difference. (Hence the MIT Opus cables hooking up my hifi system). But, considering their marginal improvement over even converters like Apogee, I couldn't justify either of these boxes at 1/2 the price (or even less!)

Gunnar - you've got a good signal chain up front and a good ear. These items, combined with a mediocre converter will still yield you excellent recordings.

But, here's my recommendation -

In my opinion, there are 2 converters on the current market that deserve to be looked at -

Mytek (Their new one promises to be frikkin cool and reasonably priced for 8 ch AD/DA with a DSD option if it floats your boat)

Lynx Aurora. I purchased the Aurora 8 from Nathan not too long ago and have had the opportunity to use it quite a few times now. This converter is The Best Value in a Converter on the Market!!!! 8-)

(Did I emphasize that enough... :wink: )

Having used the Benchmark DAC 1 many times but never having dropped the dough to buy one myself, I figured I'd wait until I heard the Lynx. Yes, it does sound that good! I didn't and won't buy the Benchmark now. It's not 100% as good, but so damn close that I don't feel the need to justify another $1000 purchase. And that's just the DA!

The AD sounds good at ALL sampling rates (although, I've only used 44.1, 96K, 192K - but they all sound fantastic). In most every project, I never feel a lacking sound quality by going with the 44.1 (an amazing compliment for any high sample rate converter). I use the 96 or 192 for potential DVD-A or SACD masters and I've been thoroughly pleased.

Do yourself a favor - try it and don't look back!

:D
J

As Jeremy said, I'd look at the Lynx seriously as would i look at Mytek. Mytek has just added David Semour (formerly of Benchmark) to the staff so I would expect that things would run a bit smoother around there.

I would also look seriously at the Lavry Blue series. It is modular so you can fill it with whatever channels you want- You could easily do a rack with only 6 channels or 6 channels of AD and 2 channels of DA, etc... These are the high end converters that I use the most around here.

Other options include Genex or Euphonics (if you want LOTS of channels).

--Ben

FifthCircle wrote: I would also look seriously at the Lavry Blue series.

Oh yeah - momentary lapse of memory - great converters, great price, great configurability.

FifthCircle wrote:
Other options include Genex or Euphonics (if you want LOTS of channels).

--Ben

Mmm... the Euphonix is nice. Like you said - lots of channels!! That converter plus the RME MADI interface = sweet setup. And probably the lowest price A/D on the market (when figured at a $/Channel basis.)

Great thanks. I will look into all the suggestions. More pointers are appreciated if you have them.

Cucco has the bad (?) habit of suggesting sensibly priced really good stuff, the MG 296 is one of his suggestions which I would never have found otherwise. (Basso "stole" them from me before I really got into using them, but they are coming back real soon now).

Gunnar

Yo Gunnar -

Here's a serious winner -

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7346240452&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1

The price is right too!

However, it says they ship to US. It doesn't say they *won't* ship to Europe, just that it only says US.

Perhaps you can ask and if he's willing to ship it to you - great. If not, maybe you could have it shipped to someone stateside and then have it shipped to you from there.

How bad are duties and taxes on this kind of stuff?

(If you go that latter route - contact me, I'll try to help you out.)

J.

Hi Jeremy,
great tip. I´m not quite there yet so no buy the next few days. I have just scratched the surface here and must get the rest of the chain in place as well. Find there are a lot of things I have no clue about (part of the fun is finding out). Using the Mytek I would need 4 AES channels into my laptop for location recording if I understand things rightly. Not quite sure how to do that.

I am also thinking seriously about perhaps not using a laptop on location. I´ve seen your setup on pictures and just maybe that should be an idea to pursue. Not very much difference on the number of boxes either as the laptop is only a small part of the setup (not quite the way things started a while ago).

Gunnar

PS: as for taxes and dutys I believe the situation is like this:

-- import duty on this kind of stuff is around 5%
-- on top at that goes VAT which in Sweden is 25%. This goes on the full cost including shipping, but is deductible against income VAT for businesses.
-- there might be a duty-handling surcharge as well, could be steep for small purchases but not really significant here

ghellquist wrote: PS: as for taxes and dutys I believe the situation is like this:

-- import duty on this kind of stuff is around 5%
-- on top at that goes VAT which in Sweden is 25%. This goes on the full cost including shipping, but is deductible against income VAT for businesses.
-- there might be a duty-handling surcharge as well, could be steep for small purchases but not really significant here

Gunnar
That's even worse than here. Duty is 2% on mics (maybe it's higher on other electronic goods -it can get quite complicated) and VAT is 21% and then there's a handling charge.

I'm reluctant to buy anything from America now. While I know people who travel back and forth from here to the US -a 2U rackmountable box isn't exactly suitable for carry-on :wink:

I hate VAT :evil:
John

what about hte RME ADI 8 pro DS? nothing said about it- - just wondered pe ople's thoughts...

I love mine!

It is a good box of fine quality, however it is not anywhere close to most of the other boxes listed here. The converters listed in the first couple posts are upwards of several thousand dollars for either 2 channels or the next price level down is several thousand dollars for 8 channels.

Before the Lynx came out I would say it was one of the top at that general price level. The Aurora 8, though, pushes the quality/price line to a new level.

--Ben

I am going to chime in on this one, especially as I see a lot of comment on how great certain ADCs are, but with what tests and values??? I have used quite a few of the ADCs here on the list, and do disagree with some comments.

I assert that many of you are not testing the ADCs side by side and looking at the technical variables that make certain units perform better (or worse) in certain applications. Thus, most comments are just that, comments (matter of opinion) without solid technical merit. ADC performance will vary (sometimes greatly) depending on what you are using to feed them. One of several variables that must be addressed is that of nominal operating level and clip level of an ADC in comparison to the analog equipment one is using to feed them. This point is often overlooked. This goes back to appropriately setting up your levels for optimized headroom, SNR, etc. in a system.

Couple of examples:
If you are feeding your ADCs with a mixer that has a nominal operating level of 0VU equaling 0dbu with its clip level around +20dbu, using an ADC with a nominal input level ref'd to +4db and a clip level of +26dbu, you will have wasted 6db of useful resolution of that ADC, and thus may not be getting the full resolution and best SNR of that ADC. Or, you may be overdriving your analog components just to get perceived higher resolution on the ADC (I have scene this). If you connect an ADC that does have its nominal level of 0dbu in its analog input stage and a clip level of +20dbu, your ADCs performance will be on pair with the rest of your system. I have seen just this situation with someone feeding a Benchmark card frame ADC then an RME converter. Benchmarks analog components in their card frame ADCs are calibrated for +4dbu/+27dbu clip level if I am not mistaken. After I corrected his methods of evaluation, he got to hear the Benchmark for all its glory and also hear the deficiencies in the RME.

Same in point goes for high end microphone pre’s, which typically clip at between +24dbu and +36dbu. You will want to utilize an ADC that clips close to +24dbu to maximize overall system performance.

That said, when I test converters, I fully calibrate both the analog and digital side of system to maximize performance. Then I listen, and thus have found certain converters to perform extremely well and others poorly. The following comments are now on units I have tested and/or have had personal experience with:

First I’ll spell out the poor performers:
RME converters lack detailed resolution. Their clip level is extremely low (+19dbu) and thus is inappropriate in most professional installations. RME does provide modifications to allow +24dbu clip level, but the noise floor/SNR of the converter is then sacrificed. RME has excellent technical merit on the digital side, but rather poor analog components and design.

Others with similar problems to RME to shy away from:
Alesis, Swissonic, M-audio and MOTU unmodified.

Decent value performers:
Lucid, Lynx, modified MOTU, Apogee

Very good value/performers:
Benchmark, Mytek, Genex

Excellent performers overall:
Lavry

Cream of the crop:
Prism and EMMLabs

One other thing I should add when testing ADCs (and other equipment too)...

Utilizing known good test generators, scopes, tests sets and in this case a known quality DAC, when should also test an ADC be sweeping a tone through the unit to see if there are any frequency response and/or level issues.

Good points Alex!!

I guess I should be more cautious in my recommendations as the converters I recommended and the comments I made above are in fact based on subjectivity. In otherwords - you get what you pay for and you just got some *free* advice from me Gunnar... :lol:

J.

Cucco wrote: Good points Alex!!

I guess I should be more cautious in my recommendations as the converters I recommended and the comments I made above are in fact based on subjectivity. In otherwords - you get what you pay for and you just got some *free* advice from me Gunnar... :lol:

J.

Ahh - maybe this one is flying over my head...what is the *free* advice?

Alex

Cucco wrote: In otherwords - you get what you pay for and you just got some *free* advice from me Gunnar... :lol:
J.

I think I have received a lot of really good advice on this forum from sincere people sharing their both objective and subjective experiences! And free as well. The rest as always is up to me.

I am in the process of looking through my computer setup as my old laptop is showing signs of age and has always been noisy.. If I go with a new laptop, a firewire connection is probably a must from the sound card (maybe the Lynx Aurora with the promised FW option), or perhaps a "digital" to FW card + a separate converter.

Well, to keep it short, I am learning a lot here. The last word is not said yet.

Gunnar

alexaudio wrote: [quote=Cucco]Good points Alex!!

I guess I should be more cautious in my recommendations as the converters I recommended and the comments I made above are in fact based on subjectivity. In otherwords - you get what you pay for and you just got some *free* advice from me Gunnar... :lol:

J.

Ahh - maybe this one is flying over my head...what is the *free* advice?

Alex

My advice re: the converters = *Free*
:wink:
IOW - YMMV, etc...

http://www.lake-people.de/

Check out these converters. There was a test on the net where the authors compared the Lavry Gold, StageTec, Prism, Lake People and some other hi end A/Ds. While the StageTec came out on top, the Lake People converter was a really close second, leaving the other converters further behind. They have a 4 ch A/D converter for 24-25000 skr and are distributed by polteknik (http://www.polteknik.se).

For the record, I´ve heard a StageTec console at Berwaldhallen in Stockholm and it sounded... good. If the Lake People converter isn´t far behind, it might be worth listening!

Mats

route909 wrote: http://www.lake-peo…

Check out these converters. There was a test on the net where the authors compared the Lavry Gold, StageTec, Prism, Lake People and some other hi end A/Ds. While the StageTec came out on top, the Lake People converter was a really close second, leaving the other converters further behind. They have a 4 ch A/D converter for 24-25000 skr and are distributed by polteknik (http://www.polteknik.se).

For the record, I´ve heard a StageTec console at Berwaldhallen in Stockholm and it sounded... good. If the Lake People converter isn´t far behind, it might be worth listening!

Mats

Thanks for the information. I took a look at the Lake People ADCs sometime ago and found that they do not support 88.2 kHz sample rate. This became a limitation, as much of the work here for my clients is done at the sample rate.

That's a pretty odd reason to shoot down a converter?? Would not the clients be fine with a 96 kHz rate?

alexaudio wrote:

Thanks for the information. I took a look at the Lake People ADCs sometime ago and found that they do not support 88.2 kHz sample rate. This became a limitation, as much of the work here for my clients is done at the sample rate.

That´s odd. This page says it´s 88.2 kHz compatible (32-192 kHz): http://www.lake-people.de/Digital_devices_Deutsch/F444de/f444de.html

Mats

Cucco wrote: That's a pretty odd reason to shoot down a converter?? Would not the clients be fine with a 96 kHz rate?

The scenario required multiples of 44.1, which was required when I was looking. Not trying to shoot down anything, my appologies if it came across that way. Looks like they do have a nice unit, one which wasn't around when I was looking.

Seems the new one goes up to 192kHz. Has anyone read Lavry's documentation on not needing to utilize sampling rates higher than 96khz? Just curious how many people have read his papers and information.

alexaudio wrote: [quote=Cucco]That's a pretty odd reason to shoot down a converter?? Would not the clients be fine with a 96 kHz rate?

The scenario required multiples of 44.1, which was required when I was looking. Not trying to shoot down anything, my appologies if it came across that way. Looks like they do have a nice unit, one which wasn't around when I was looking.

Seems the new one goes up to 192kHz. Has anyone read Lavry's documentation on not needing to utilize sampling rates higher than 96khz? Just curious how many people have read his papers and information.

I bet a lot of people here have, it´s quite a knowledgeable forum. My post merely pointed out it´s compatibility with 88k. I have an RME Fireface 800 and haven´t even tried recording at 192, it´s a bit of a waste i m o.

BTW, have you read Bob Katz book on mastering? He states that dynamic processors sound better at higher sample rates and proves it with some graphs. If I´m not entirely wrong, eq is supposed to sound better too. My ears tell me that anyway. I sometimes record at 96 when making choir stuff or solo pieces with small track counts. Though for most of my work 44.1 is good enough.

Do you do much hi res work?

Mats

route909 wrote: [quote=alexaudio]

The scenario required multiples of 44.1, which was required when I was looking. Not trying to shoot down anything, my appologies if it came across that way. Looks like they do have a nice unit, one which wasn't around when I was looking.

Seems the new one goes up to 192kHz. Has anyone read Lavry's documentation on not needing to utilize sampling rates higher than 96khz? Just curious how many people have read his papers and information.

I bet a lot of people here have, it´s quite a knowledgeable forum. My post merely pointed out it´s compatibility with 88k. I have an RME Fireface 800 and haven´t even tried recording at 192, it´s a bit of a waste i m o.

BTW, have you read Bob Katz book on mastering? He states that dynamic processors sound better at higher sample rates and proves it with some graphs. If I´m not entirely wrong, eq is supposed to sound better too. My ears tell me that anyway. I sometimes record at 96 when making choir stuff or solo pieces with small track counts. Though for most of my work 44.1 is good enough.

Do you do much hi res work?

Mats

Yeppers - read Bob's book cover to cover...highly recommended read. The majority of the work I do is now in high resolution, usually 88.2 kHz or 96kHz. Much of it is now in surround as well. Far as dynamics and EQ sounding better at higher sampling rates, I find this to be true, so long as the application/hardware is specifically written and supports the higher sampling rates. Far as EQ sounding better, this makes sense, due to the filter sets involved. However, one needs to look at all variables. If the finished product is intended for release on CD, the EQ may sound better at a higher sampling rate, but is the difference noticable after SRC. Then comes the variable of the quality of SRC. If I know the the end result is going to be on CD and if the project warrants it, I record at 88.2kHz so the SRC is a more simplistic 2 to 1 conversion.

Far as utilizing 192kHz, I have found no significant advantage of that sample rate. I find Lavry's papers a very interesting and provocative read, as well as the statements of utilizing converters above 96kHz providing diminishing return in some regards to be valid.

Time for a topic switch?

alexaudio wrote: Then comes the variable of the quality of SRC. If I know the the end result is going to be on CD and if the project warrants it, I record at 88.2kHz so the SRC is a more simplistic 2 to 1 conversion.

Alex-

I see this argument brought up a lot and I've seen many arguments about SRC quality versus processing quality. I believe it was Daniel Weiss wrote a white paper some time back about how the difference was basically negligible when resampling from 88.2 versus 96K. The thought process basically being that when we resample, it isn't just a removal of half of the samples- as you would be loosing much data. Also added to that the fact that there are some pretty complex filters used to deal with anti-aliasing. Between those two, the math ends up being pretty much a moot point.

What are your feelings about this? I do all of my work at 96K. To be honest, I don't hear a huge difference between 88.2 and 96 but I just opt to process at the higher rate.

--Ben

FifthCircle wrote: [quote=alexaudio] Then comes the variable of the quality of SRC. If I know the the end result is going to be on CD and if the project warrants it, I record at 88.2kHz so the SRC is a more simplistic 2 to 1 conversion.

Alex-

I see this argument brought up a lot and I've seen many arguments about SRC quality versus processing quality. I believe it was Daniel Weiss wrote a white paper some time back about how the difference was basically negligible when resampling from 88.2 versus 96K. The thought process basically being that when we resample, it isn't just a removal of half of the samples- as you would be loosing much data. Also added to that the fact that there are some pretty complex filters used to deal with anti-aliasing. Between those two, the math ends up being pretty much a moot point.

What are your feelings about this? I do all of my work at 96K. To be honest, I don't hear a huge difference between 88.2 and 96 but I just opt to process at the higher rate.

--Ben

I have not read Daniel's paper, but certainly would love to. I'll email him when I have a chance to get a copy if available. I have just made it a general rule of thumb of, if I know it will be ending up on CD, I just start at 88.2. If I know it will be on DVD-A - it is a crap shoot really. If it is DVD-V or crossbreed - I will indeed start with 96. Either way, I think the results between 88.2 and 96, stealing your words, are pretty much moot - especially when using quality software SRCs available. The only case where I notice the difference, which is small, is when I have to use a realtime SRC hardware unit which isn't of the highest quality. In that case, I do notice a, be in small, difference with 88.2 vs. 96 SRC'ing to 44.1. In that case, 88.2 to 44.1 in realtime seems to resemble more the original in soundstage depth. That is about as specific as I can get, not really scientific either, as I haven't performed a true AB test. I am sure that if I had a Weiss unit, it wouldn't matter at all.

I find that maintaining overall system integrity, clocking and 24 bit depth is more important that the 88.2 vs. 96 - don't you?

Alex

alexaudio wrote: I find that maintaining overall system integrity, clocking and 24 bit depth is more important that the 88.2 vs. 96 - don't you?

Alex

Absolutely... I found that 24 bit recording gave me by far the greatest increase in fidelity of my recordings (well, that and switching to recording multitrack in the DAW instead of mixing outboard and going straight to stereo, but that's another topic altogether).

If you write to Daniel Weiss, I'd love to hear his current thoughts. It was quite awhile ago that I read the paper (and as I said before, I believe he was the author, but I could be mistaken).

--Ben

alexaudio wrote: Then comes the variable of the quality of SRC. If I know the the end result is going to be on CD and if the project warrants it, I record at 88.2kHz so the SRC is a more simplistic 2 to 1 conversion.

FifthCircle wrote: I see this argument brought up a lot and I've seen many arguments about SRC quality versus processing quality. I believe it was Daniel Weiss wrote a white paper some time back about how the difference was basically negligible when resampling from 88.2 versus 96K. The thought process basically being that when we resample, it isn't just a removal of half of the samples- as you would be loosing much data. Also added to that the fact that there are some pretty complex filters used to deal with anti-aliasing. Between those two, the math ends up being pretty much a moot point.

I've written multi-rate DSP code, including polyphase SRC filters. In theory I agree with Daniel. In practice, I don't really feel safe trusting a randomly selected DAW's non-integer-ratio conversion routine to be written correctly. Even though the (long) prototype filter is very similar in either case, the associated program logic that decides which filter taps to use in which phases, and which phases happen when, is a lot more complex. If it's done right, then no problem. If it's done wrong... :evil:

Ben and Alex, what do you hear in the Samplitude SRC routines? I just converted a surround project from 88.2 to 48 in order to put it on a DVD-R using Disk Welder Steel, and I wasn't altogether pleased with the results. I took the wizard's suggestion of using the not-quite-slowest routine because I was dealing with 24-bit files. But I'm sure they were 32-bit data by the time they hit the SRC routine, so I need to try the best option offered and see if I like it any better. Maybe it's just that I don't like 48k as much as I like 88.2. Whatever the problem was, it sure dried things up.

David L. Rick

SRC CAN sound

Here is a comment from a VERY experienced friend regarding the SRC in Samp:

Samp and Sequoia work *exactly* the same way on SRC. This was confirmed from MAGIX tech support long ago. I have the same dialogue you have, and Sequoia has the same problem Samp has with the SRC. The problem is not in the choices. The one that says VERY SLOW on bounce will be quite quick, if you do a SRC. The same dialogue on effects (destructive) that says VERY SLOW will be much slower and will sound better.

Rich

You can also get very good SRC results using the free R8brain software from Voxengo...

The offline SRC from Samp and Sequoia is quite good, the online or bounced is somewhat less so...

--Ben

My friendly studio gear seller suggested the new Apogee 16x as an alternative. Any comments on that one?

Gunnar

Depends on price. Right now Mytek is selling the remaining stock of 8x96 converters at VERY low prices. Another very attractive feature of the Myteks are the optional ADAT cards that allow you to send AES and lightpipe (SMUX) simultaneously.

My setup allows recording of 16 channels; I never need to play that many. I also send to a HD24 via the lightpipe for backup.

I used to use Lynx A/D but the Mytek is noticeably more transparent when recording more than 6 channels. You should definitely audition anything you are considering-- but I have not seen Apogee considered in the higher category of A/Ds in a while.

Another issue is whether NOT having 192 with the Myteks is a problem, assuming that the Apogee goes to 192. I used to record at 176.2 and concluded that is a pointless waste of real estate, not to mention a serious challenge to the computer with high track counts. I now operate at 88.2 with no complaints. If the price is close I would go with the Myteks.

Another question is since this thread began as an SRC question perhaps it is time to start a different one?

Rich

I got around to do a bit of listening. Currently heavily leaning towards 8ch of Lavry Blue. The price is just about what I can reach and to my ears what I heard was very "musical" somehow.

Last chance to make me change my mind. Any takers?

Gunnar

I've used the Lavry Blues extensively and you pretty much can't go wrong with them. There are a lot of great converters at that price of which the lavry's are one of them.

I will say that the one problem with them as they come stock is that they have a fan in them that is quite noisy. Perhaps the newer ones don't (the ones I use are original dB Technologies ones), but if it is the same, the fan can be a pretty major issue.

--Ben

ghellquist wrote: I got around to do a bit of listening. Currently heavily leaning towards 8ch of Lavry Blue. The price is just about what I can reach and to my ears what I heard was very "musical" somehow.

Last chance to make me change my mind. Any takers?

Gunnar

Seriously - check out both the Myteks and the Aurora! Sure the Lavry's are nice, but I like the Myteks even better - and for a little less even still is the Aurora, which after playing with all of them, I decided to go with. (Not *quite* as beautiful as the Myteks, but not so far off that anyone would ever notice.)

J.

I saw on another board that Lavry are about to release a new stereo DAC for around $1000 USD.

FifthCircle wrote: I've used the Lavry Blues extensively and you pretty much can't go wrong with them.

I will say that the one problem with them as they come stock is that they have a fan in them that is quite noisy. Perhaps the newer ones don't (the ones I use are original dB Technologies ones), but if it is the same, the fan can be a pretty major issue.

--Ben

Well, just received the AD. No fan at all in there.

A bit of work left to be done on flight case and internal cablings and such.

Gunnar

Well, after a VERY busy week, I thought I'd stop in for a visit once again (probably won't get to this board much since I am now in my busy season + now have even more work since I just took over some operations of another studio).

Anyways, I was at the AES this past week and in between serving on panels, I got to speak to the folks at Lavry as well as Daniel Weiss. To clear something up earlier in this thread, Daniel does state verbally that with well implemented code/algorithims - recording at 88.2 or 96 kHz and SRCing to 44.1 shouldn't be a problem. However, I told him the real time SRC I use to get the audio into the CDR recorders for quick client refs, and well - thank goodness I am at 88.2! No, I am not going to say what the unit is. Also, Daniel has not written a paper on this subject...words right out of his mouth. I will be trying his restoration processor soon - if you haven't seen/read about it, you should take a look.

Concerning the Lavry's - they no longer have those noisy fans. I am considering them and with the Benchmark ADC1 for a remote two channel ADC. I will also say that I am considering in my recording studio the Aurora 16 and the DAD product. I am replacing another 24 track, 24 bit recorder, so the Aurura 16 will likely be needed for multi-track sessions. The Aurora 16 will need to be modified, since it clips at +20dbu. I spoke about their lack of headroom at the AES show and they have now admitted that they will need to make a +24dbu unit available for those who require it. I am still looking at other affordable AD/DA combinations.