I believe the mic pre in both versions is the same.

I wouldn't be so hesitant about the converter - it's a top notch conversion system with a great clock. You could drive all clocks from this. A good clock distribution amplifier is a must.

J.

Cucco,
I´d like to high-jack the thread a bit and ask a question here. I see that the V3 has a Clock out on a BNC. In my world, you simply daisy chain the word-clock cable, in-in-in- and so on using T connectors. And on the last T-connector comes a terminator.

But you say "A good clock distribution amplifier is a must".

Have I missed something? Is there some specific functionality you are looking for?

Gunnar

Anyone know or is willing to speculate how:

- the preamps in the V2/V3 compare with the Grace 101?

- the converters in the V3 compare with the RME ADI-2?

Thanks

True, you can daisy chain with a terminator at the end. There's a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo as to why this is not the premier solution. Of course, for a couple pieces, no harm, but beyond that, spring for the clock distributor.

As for the pre's/converter's:

Grace himself states that the converters in the Lunatec are just a step better than the 101. That being said, the 101 is a phenomenal mic pre, so the difference is truly minimal.

The converter - Grace isn't in the business of converters, yet somehow his stuff is very transparent and quite capable of holding its own against many high end brands. I've just recently heard the 902 Headphone amplifier and I would rank it up there with the Benchmark DAC. The only problem is that it only has unbalanced analog outputs. (phono plugs nonetheless :x )

J.

Thanks Cucco,

I guess what I'm really trying to ask is if they would be a measurable difference between getting a Grace 101/RME ADI-2 vs a Grace Lunatec V3? Sorry for hijacking.

Hmmm... I would tend to lean towards the Lunatec if you need it and a 2 channel converter. The great thing is, with the Lunatec, you still have the analog outs for the preamp, so if you decide to go with a different converter down the line, you still have a pair of great pres.

For the money, you would be better off with the Lunatec. 2 Grace 101s and the RME would add up to around $1900 - the Lunatec would be a couple hundred less and take up less rack space.

J.

ps. I don't consider that hijacking, merely siezing the opportunity.

"I would tend to lean towards the Lunatec if you need it and a 2 channel converter."

Why a separate converter, or is for the D/A? I was actually thinking of a mono setup so the 101 and RME would be cheaper (especially if I ebayed a bit) plus the RME would give me a D/A converter and decent headphone jack as well. Do you think there would be much sonic difference?

Well since I’m not hijacking I have another question:

If the end result is going to be 16/44.1, would there be a difference between using the Lunatec V3 with the ANSR feature on and recording straight to 16/44.1 versus recording in 24 bit and then using the dithering function in Audacity to reduce to 16/44.1? Audacity has 3 options for dithering: rectangle, triangle, and shaped. Would adding reverb be better done when in 24bit? I don’t have any recording gear yet and am trying to learn about the recording process before I throw down my cash so plz bear with me. Thanks.

Well, some good questions here -

If you only need the one channel, go for the Grace/RME combo. It's cheaper and you shouldn't really notice much of a difference. However, the Lunatec is a dual channel, hence the note about 2 channels.

As for the DA, you won't get much more out of the RME than you would out of many of the better sound cards on the market. So, if that's the deciding factor, don't feel limited. Truly, the better D/As are stand-alones like the Benchmark or the Lucid.

As for 24 bit vs 16 -- work in the higher bit rates wherever possible and dither down at the last possible step. Every bit of processing adds digital noise. It's much better for it to be in the lower levels of 24 bit than the louder levels of 16. I don't know the quality of the dithers that you speak of, so it might be best to get a A/D-D/A that's capable of dithering and uses something like POW-R or UVHR22.

J...

Jeremy
This is a surprisingly busy topic! I not really interested in the converters as I can't slave it to someting else. The Mini-Me has no analog outs, and it can't be slaved either, so I was hoping to get two channels of preamp, and maybe something like the two channel RME. I'll be buying the E-Mu 1616m so I can finally have digital inputs on my laptop. It has the same converters as the dearer ProTools (although of course that might mean they have a chip in common), but they should be good enough to use in an emergency. I rarely need morethan four channels anyhow, and I'm happy with the Apogee, so two more channels of decent conversion should be ok.

I've been looking at the Grace headphone preamp as a DAC. I've also considered the Apogee Mini DAC and Benchmark. The one reservation I have about the Benchmark, is that -given the way it works- it might gloss over deficiencies in lower sample rate recordings. The MiniDac might not sound as good, but if it tells it like it is, I think I'd prefer it. OTOH the DAC-1 is very enticing!

Thanks Jeremy 8-)

John

I would think of the Benchmark as a far more useful tool. It won't gloss over imperfections, it will display them in their full glory. In the studio, you never want a piece of hardware that "makes" things sound good. If it sounds good, it should "let" it sound good. If it sounds like crap, it should "let" it sound like crap. That's how the benchmark works.

Hi Jeremy
I'm always prejudiced against anything that processes the digital signal the way the DAC-1 does, although I freely admit that it may be a case of a little knowledge being a bad thing. It does seem that the DAC-1 delivers the impossible -given its price. It's a pity that the ADC is so much more expensive.
John