Well, you see where I was going, cheap analog in the form of the big knob, destroyed, the audio far more than either of the interfaces by themselves.

I don't see monitors controls as gear, I look more at it like hifi stero equipment. A nice power amp, and speakers, with clean switching, will last a long time.

Fwiw, I responded before I even watched the vid. Lol, watching it now!

I might get that Satori today. It covers a lot of what I have been doing for the last 4 years. I do prefer an independent monitor controller though, because I like being able to switch converters and speakers more fluidly , to pin point > hear what I am doing right on the tracking or after the mixdown (in the analog matrix) or on the capture DAW precisely at the end of the session on the capture DAW. Which would be after the limiters / before the upload to the web.

Being able to move your ears to the exact spot you are working at, is stellar. But, this new box from Antelope gets a lot of it done at a very reasonable price.

Notice this is called a summing controller. Personally, I think of the new hybrid engineer as the new mixing/ summing/ mastering engineers. The war to improve sound is coming down to less SR conversions and summing smarter.

Once you are in this stage of audio, mastering really is a dated concept. What I do, and what I am leading in, is the new hybrid crop coming, we mix into masters. The advantage is, we remove 2 conversions and basically are able to mix audio better because we are hearing the (depending on your workflow) Tracking >Mixdown> Sum = from a mastering POV. = Excellent Monitor controllers / Satori.
I no longer look at hybrid the same way as I did 5 years ago.
I have completely removed mixing hardware out of my workflow ( but thats just me) . The uncoupling is still the bomb for me. What I still do, and find irreplaceable ( un able to emulate) is what you can do with something like this new product, Satori.

The new generation of engineers are replacing mastering as we once knew it. We can do it all in one step if we learn this.

I'm not saying a second set of ears isn't better, but sonically, if you are able to get it done in less DAD passes, you are always going to have a more open and less digitized sounding mix. What I would call the best way to produce the best sounding music in history.
Converters are moving towards online collaboration. They are soon to be the new consoles and the connection to connect your pre to the world. UAD is a prime example of how the converters will be the connection to the store, plugs, CP (control panel) to your account to where everyone is playing (collaborating).

Converters are taking on a whole new world.
I'm sure we are a few years away, but its coming...

Kurt Foster, post: 428512, member: 7836 wrote: DonnyThompson
check the last issue of Tape Op... Burl speaks on his converters. they are transformer loaded and his intent was to add some color.

I've been using the Burl B2 bomber for about the last 3 years and I just don't hear this color thing that everyone keeps talking about - I guess - even the owner of the company. In fact, I'd say mine is quite clean sounding. However....and this is probably a big however... I don't hit it very hard at all. I've heard there is a spot at where the color kicks in....I guess I've just never pushed it to that spot. I'll leave "the cranking it" for my other hardware (not AD), if and when it is necessary to do so.

thats Rich Williams from Burl [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.google.c…"]Tape Op #105[/]="http://www.google.c…"]Tape Op #105[/]

kmetal, post: 428517, member: 37533 wrote: I've recorded the same signal thru my m audio, then, thru my soundblaster USB. There was a big difference in the bottom. But one cost $30 and the other $400. And the $30 one is still good enough for home demos. There's a lot more going on than what chipset is there,

this is something i'm interested in. which cheapo converters sound the best. i do think you discount the chipset thing too much. especially at the bottom of the pond. most of the input and outputs are probably ic's and would have more than less in common with each other.

JayTerrance, post: 428522, member: 49019 wrote: I've been using the Burl B2 bomber for about the last 3 years and I just don't hear this color thing that everyone keeps talking about - I guess - even the owner of the company. In fact, I'd say mine is quite clean sounding. However....and this is probably a big however... I don't hit it very hard at all. I've heard there is a spot at where the color kicks in....I guess I've just never pushed it to that spot. I'll leave "the cranking it" for my other hardware (not AD), if and when it is necessary to do so.

I've thought about Burl for a while, thanks for explaining this more. I wondered about how it was designed to be both. SPL has this on the Neos, where the console remains transparent but once you hit a threshold, it adds a colouring harmonic effect called the Bend.

Pressing the Bend button endows the Neos with a slightly thicker sound character, which makes the mix a little more organic, but it only becomes obvious if you deliberately push the mix levels quite hard. With normal mix levels, the effect is of benignly tamed transients, but it gradually builds into a more overt form of gentle mix compression, gelling things together in a helpful and musical way, with some nice harmonic richness. I've often found that mixing in the analog domain is easier and somehow less critical than in-the-box mixing, and the Neos is no exception. Mixing on its control surface was a very pleasant experience.

I'm thinking converters are going to start getting smarter. Where we can add a bit more of something. I think its brilliant. I would love to see a converter with analog or software add-ons.

Burl has an interesting approach. Their ad offers color but their da is 'transparent'. They have the right idea of where to get what. I've wanted them since I saw Sylvia Massey got the mothership in a QA at gs.

Kurt Foster, post: 428512, member: 7836 wrote: heck the last issue of Tape Op... Burl speaks on his converters. they are transformer loaded and his intent was to add some color.

I wasn't aware of this. I'm not doubting you tho

My impression has always been that those who go with hi end conversion do so because it offers as much transparency/integrity as possible...

d.

audiokid, post: 428498, member: 1 wrote:

The OP was vague and your points are unintentionally, notoriously off the mark.

Jeez, Chris... That was a pretty hurtful thing for you to say, that I am "notoriously" off the mark... your use of the word "notorious" implying that "being off the mark" is something that I'm known for here.

And, just to be clear, I wasn't making a point at all. Ethan made a point based on my original post, which wasn't a "point" - I was simply asking a question ... which was - "beyond a measurable difference, is there an audible difference between various hi end converters".... because there is a difference between measurable and audible.

I never said there was, and I never said there wasn't... although, apparently I'm finding out that there is.

But, that's not even pertinent to me now... at this juncture, I'm trying to make sense of your statement and to figure out what I did here on RO to earn the reputation in your eyes as being notorious.

The issue is what is the differences between hi end converters, I belive is what Ethan was getting at. And any time there are shootouts the answer is yes. Never a better, just different. Usually it's comments about the bottom, or imaging. Which are both signs or proper power, and phase coherency, in the design. I've read a bunch of these in the usual trade mags with the usual guys, and that's usually how it goes. Same as in the mid teir. Presonus a and h Mackie , all about the same just different, slightly in features set and sonic tendencies.

Kurt Foster said:
check the last issue of Tape Op... [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.burlaudi…"]BURL[/]="http://www.burlaudi…"]BURL[/] speaks on his converters. they are transformer loaded and his intent was to add some color.

I wasn't aware of this. I'm not doubting you tho

My impression has always been that those who go with hi end conversion do so because it offers as much transparency/integrity as possible...

d.

that's not what he says. he believes the same as me that there is no such thing as "transparent" .... read the article.

kmetal, post: 428535, member: 37533 wrote: The issue is what is the differences between hi end converters I belive is what Ethan was getting at.

Actually, this was originally my question, Kyle - which was originally based on the OP's list of his final converter choices - and me trying to get from him what it was in particular that led him to determine those choices, and, what criteria he used in which to narrow the list down to those specific manufacturers. At which point, I presented the followup question - which was, at the hi end level, are there audible differences between them. Ethan then responded to that post.

-d.

Kurt Foster, post: 428540, member: 7836 wrote: that's not what he says. he believes the same as me that there is no such thing as "transparent" .... read the article.

I'm not doubting either one of you. ;) I was simply stating that there are a large number of users who feel that transparency is their main criteria when choosing a conversion system, whether right or wrong, informed or uninformed.

I'm certainly not doubting what Burl says, in regard to the intended "coloration" he added to one of his models through the use of XFO's - How could I doubt it? After all, he's the one who designed and built the thing, so accordingly - and obviously - he's the one who would know best.

I'll say this one - more - time .... because for some reason, I keep getting tagged on this subject with this "doubting donny" label,

Okay... so here goes: I never said that converters were all transparent, or for that matter, that any of them are.

I asked a simple question - or what I thought was a simple question ... which was, at the hi end of the scale, are there audible differences between converters...

I never said there was or wasn't.

I was asking a question - and other than to suggest that there are some pieces of equipment where there may be measurable differences between them - and that these differences in measurements don't always necessarily present these numbers in an audible way. I wasn't making any point regarding transparency at all.

It was just a question. :confused:

Its pretty clear a few of you are offended which I can't help but be blunt and call it like it is. I am making a point on something very very important. I care.

When you have experience in the different interfaces and options that some "high end" converters come "equipped with",
the chip and what Ethan is talking about has nothing to do with my choices. I could care less about the transparency actually. Any converter is good enough for me as long as it does the main things its supposed to do :)
I'm sorry to those I offend but... this is where experience comes up.

What I want is stability, consistencies on each channel, excellent driver, software support, headroom/ gain stage and depending on the application, the right interface for the job.

Currently. AES and MADI are my choice when it comes to "high End" multichannel conversion. There is a very real reason for this. So, until you use this, with an internal PCIe interface, its all mid to low end on any multichannel past 8 IO without .. If the box also includes logical ways to adjust the gains, its a bonus.

Its why I ask how many channels someone needs and if they are round trip or just capturing. Do they require low latency etc.

Its a dead indicator on qualifying.

DonnyThompson

don't qualify your remarks. never say ' I was just trying to say ........" there was nothing wrong in your post. (y)

this guy Rich Williams, is responsible for some of the UA products as well. imo, it would help in this topic overall if everyone would just read the article. the major differences between converters is in the analog circuits in the in and out amps .....

Rich Williams from Tape Op #105 wrote: The thing about recording music is there's no such thing as transparency. From the first moment sound goes into a microphone... tell me which microphone is transparent? Then it comes out a speaker. Which speaker is transparent? None. Everything in between is supposed to help the signal along from the microphone to the speaker. We all know that it takes a lot of magic tricks to get music to sound the way that it does out of speakers. The transformer takes an electric field, turns it into a magnetic field, and then back into an electric field. With hot levels the magnetic field acts like a shock absorber, just like it does with tape, dynamic mics, and speakers that have coils. At nominal levels, the transformer is incredibly linear and clean; it's actually more true than transistors. Transistors add a lot of tonality to music. A lot of people don't realize that. Not only does every integrated circuit op-amp sound different, but also every transistor sounds different.

Tape Op is FREE. click on the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.google.c…"]link[/]="http://www.google.c…"]link[/] and subscribe!

" Once I had gear upgrades, I was booked solid. I approach recording from the artists' standpoint. I relate with what the band and the listener want to hear. I am not a "turn the crank" kind of recording engineer/producer..."

I would imagine that the differences between the higher end gear and his previous DA88's and the Mackie mixer would have been quite obvious, and there's no doubt in my mind that he upped his business by improving his gear.
Actually, it's not at all hard for me to imagine. I currently have three dead DA88's up in my attic that act as supportive evidence. ;)

Rich Williams has the chops and the background and he's done real well. he has diverse abilities and doesn’t need to depend on any one skill. that's what it takes these days to make it. btw we went to the exact same recording school but in different classes ... lol!

DonnyThompson, post: 428545, member: 46114 wrote: I currently have three dead DA88's up in my attic that act as supportive evidence. ;)

i still have 2 ADATs. i just sold 3 and the BRC. 5000 hours plus and all of them still work.

audiokid, post: 428543, member: 1 wrote: Its pretty clear a few of you are offended which I can't help but be blunt and call it like it is. I am making a point on something very very important. I care.

When you have experience in the different interfaces and options that some "high end" converters come "equipped with",
the chip and what Ethan is talking about has nothing to do with my choices. I could care less about the transparency actually. Any converter is good enough for me as long as it does the main things its supposed to do :)
I'm sorry to those I offend but... this is where experience comes up.

What I want is stability, consistencies on each channel, excellent driver, software support, headroom/ gain stage and depending on the application, the right interface for the job.

that clears things up a lot. i understand and i completely agree with everything you are saying. i realize you need to be able to switch from hearing DAW 1 to DAW 2 seamlessly with no latency. i also agree that in sessions with multiple musicians and track counts faster thoughput capibility is needed. driver and software stability are very important.

i don't need all those bells and whistles though. i will mostly work by myself or with one or two others at a time and probably 4 people will listen to it. so basically, no one will give a sh*t. 8 in and out will be plenty and with firewire, latency is not the problem. i could run a commercial studio with that. really imo, 8's all anyone should need ... i see a lot of small studios with less. i am re thinking about if i really need to mix otb .... i am going to try doing something entirely itb and see what it sounds like.

Rich Williams from Tape Op #105 said:
At nominal levels, the transformer is incredibly linear and clean; it's actually more true than transistors.

That explains my experience with the BURL as clean sounding...I've just never pushed it. Glad you posted that.

isn't it interesting that there are so many designers who love transformers? think about the company they are in ... Jensen , Neve .... who else?

isn't it interesting that there are so many designers who love transformers? think about the company they are in ... Jensen , Neve .... who else?

Kurt Foster, post: 428555, member: 7836 wrote: isn't it interesting that there are so many designers who love transformers? think about the company they are in ... Jensen , Neve .... who else?

Focusrite ISA, Grace, A-design ... ;)

Well, the now beloved ( and rare) Fairchild 670 used Sowters, which have recently seen a resurgence as alternative XFO's for many DIY kits.

Lundhals were used in the first initial Focsrite ISA desks that were designed by Sir Rupert - in fact, he commissioned Per Lundhal exclusively to design the now highly sought-after 1538 (and 1538 XL) XFO for his ISA consoles, and you can also find them in mics as well. One of the popular mods for cheaper ribbon mics is performed by replacing the cheap/stock transformers with the 1538.

I think RCA used Melcor trannies in their consoles, but someone who knows would have to check me on that.

Pultecs were, I think, a Triad Transformer... maybe an HS66 - used in conjunction with tubes of course - but there's no denying that the trannies played a big part in the way the model reacted, and ultimately to how it sounded.

Then there's the ubiquitous Jensen J-16A XFO which is, according to Jensen, ( and to many users) their finest XFO. Followups since - like the Jensen JT-110K - have also found their place solidly in other upper level mic pres and desks as well.

And of course, API, who, with their various XFO's and OpAmps - 2520's, 312's's (and others) - managed to set a sonic standard of sorts, for those who loved "that" sound - actually, they had that reputation for quite awhile - so it seems to pay itself forward to some degree.

Personally, from what I've both researched and experienced first hand ( I have the ADK mic Pre which allows me to swap out both the input and output transformers, and I currently have a Sowter 9820C, a Jensen JT-110K, a Lundhal 1538XL, a JH 990c, Seventh Circle SC25 and an ADK Vint Op M) I think that the guys who design and build these transformers are artisans. It's a craft of its own, all based upon particular colors and textures, and when one of these guys hits on a special one, one that really sounds great, it carries with it the spirit of the person who designed and built it. It's a sonic legacy of sorts. I'm amazed by what these people have come up with, why they came up with it, and, how what they've built has been for used since, and in other ways, beyond what the original intended purpose was. ;)

note : original post edited for fact checking and correction from J.H.

audiokid, post: 428509, member: 1 wrote: A test for you is running a signal through an AD to judge a converter?

Kurt said he never said that, and I certainly never said that. Have you even listened to either of the converter test files I linked to previously? If you did, you never emailed me your choices. Both of them use music, not test tones. Here they are again:

[="http://www.ethanwiner.com/converters.html"]Converter Comparison[/]="http://www.ethanwin…"]Converter Comparison[/]
[[url=http://="http://www.ethanwin…"]Converter Loop-Back Tests[/]="http://www.ethanwin…"]Converter Loop-Back Tests[/]

In all honesty, telling people they don't know what they're talking about is not a very compelling argument. Even if it's true (it's certainly not true in my case), it avoids the issues and borders on insult.

--Ethan

Kurt Foster, post: 428548, member: 7836 wrote: that clears things up a lot. i understand and i completely agree with everything you are saying. i realize you need to be able to switch from hearing DAW 1 to DAW 2 seamlessly with no latency. i also agree that in sessions with multiple musicians and track counts faster thoughput capibility is needed. driver and software stability are very important.

i don't need all those bells and whistles though. i will mostly work by myself or with one or two others at a time and probably 4 people will listen to it. so basically, no one will give a sh*t. 8 in and out will be plenty and with firewire, latency is not the problem. i could run a commercial studio with that. really imo, 8's all anyone should need ... i see a lot of small studios with less. i am re thinking about if i really need to mix otb .... i am going to try doing something entirely itb and see what it sounds like.

Which is why I
ve been usin 2 channels going in and 32 going out for years. I don't ever need more than 8 going in. But, I could make use of 64 going out! :) 32 is perfect :)

If I wasn't stem mixing or hybrid, there would be no need to use anything more than a 2 channel AD or DA. But, no matter what converter I've used in the last 2 decades... , the best of the best always come with AES so you can interface that to PCIe. The reasons are unmatched. Latency and being the closest you can be to the internal clock of the DAW rules. The more independent your interface is from everything else going on in your workflow, the better.
2 channels or 32 channels, that part doesn't matter. AES or MADI rules. I'm expecting TB will be another contender.

He is another thing that maybe Bos can explain about now. Better converters always sound better at lower SR to cheaper ones even running at double or greater speed.
To put it another way, a cheap converter at 96k still sounds harsh to examples: A Lavry AD11 or Orpheus at 44.1. Why?

Which opens up yet another discussion about choosing good gear and converters no matter what your track count is. ( I hate to say it again)....smart ways to capture audio to avoid SRC in the first place is where I look.

I have mixed a lot of brittle sounding music recorded at 96k on low end converters more than I care to talk about.
What is that brittle sound? I never hear it on my gear at 44.1 or even at a compressed MP3. Aliasing? When it comes to converters, there is no compromise for me.

kmetal, post: 428517, member: 37533 wrote: ( Ethan Winer Any time you want to make the treck up to my studios in R.I, your welcome to stay in the brand new apartment we have in the back for guests. you might get a kick out of the 80s LEDE control room.

I'd consider that. Would you be up for some audio testing? I'm sure it would be fun, and then we could post what we did and the results here the next day. Do you still have the Apogee and MOTU converters set up and working? Do you still have a SoundBlaster? :LOL:

I will say I'm not sure what your idea of proper is. But I listened to some familiar tunes in the identical conditions, other than pluggin the apogee instead of the motu and it was audible. More solid. Same for tracking. I'm not near the expertise level of you sir, but I can say that just listening passively, with eyes closed, and somone else swapping the cables, I heard a difference.)

I have to say I'm skeptical, if only because "more solid" is a frequency response issue that I wouldn't think could vary enough between two decent quality converters. Earlier I mentioned that "blind" is needed for a proper test, but it's also important to test yourself blind ten times in a row. Otherwise you could guess correctly by chance. I'm not a statistics expert, but I think ten tests are needed for a 95 percent "confidence" level.

And really if your talking one or two tracks it doesn't matter. It's the collective of 16 drum tracks of mid teir stuff.

I'm not convinced that dozens of mixed tracks are needed to compare converters, but the converter comparison article I linked to used five tracks. Have a listen and email me your choices!

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.ethanwin…"]Converter Comparison[/]="http://www.ethanwin…"]Converter Comparison[/]

--Ethan

Ethan Winer, post: 428561, member: 1430 wrote: Kurt said he never said that, and I certainly never said that. Have you even listened to either of the converter test files I linked to previously? If you did, you never emailed me your choices. Both of them use music, not test tones. Here they are again:

[="http://www.ethanwiner.com/converters.html"]Converter Comparison[/]="http://www.ethanwin…"]Converter Comparison[/]
[[url=http://="http://www.ethanwin…"]Converter Loop-Back Tests[/]="http://www.ethanwin…"]Converter Loop-Back Tests[/]

In all honesty, telling people they don't know what they're talking about is not a very compelling argument. Even if it's true (it's certainly not true in my case), it avoids the issues and borders on insult.

--Ethan

Ethan Winer, post: 428564, member: 1430 wrote: I'm not convinced that dozens of mixed tracks are needed to compare converters, but the converter comparison article I linked to used five tracks. Have a listen and email me your choices!

Ethan, I fully agree with your point but its not where I look nor would I waste a moment comparing audio between brands like you are doing. Its ridiculous in a debate or an inquiry over 32 DA requirements in a busy workflow. When I am asked for help in this subject, the A/B card you are pulling out here is moot. We all know this was resolved in 2006.
The interfacing and driver stability along with the conversion is paramount at this point. You are missing the mark to where conversion and interfacing goes from okay to rock solid.

I can tell this is going right over your head or of no importance to you.. No worries. I'm glad you are with us just the same!

i think you guys are talking about two different things ... driver and latency performance vs. audio performance. for the sake of the discussion, let's just consider actual audio performance or the sound of the converters. that is much more informative. i think that every one would agree that uber buck high end converters are needed for performance and stability under multi track sessions with high track counts.

audiokid, post: 428562, member: 1 wrote: To put it another way, a cheap converter at 96k still sounds harsh to examples: A Lavry AD11 or [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.prismsou…"]Orpheus[/]="http://www.prismsou…"]Orpheus[/] at 44.1. Why?

same mic, same pres? same front end? ..... imo a lot of the harshness comes from the cheap front end employed in lo cost converters. it's crucial to find a box which allow by passing the mic and line pres.

audiokid, post: 428562, member: 1 wrote: I have mixed a lot of brittle sounding music recorded at 96k on low end converters more than I care to talk about.
What is that brittle sound? I never hear it on my gear at 44.1 or even at a compressed MP3. Aliasing? When it comes to converters, there is no compromise for me.

again, cheapo front end. get past that and you're really looking at the conversion.

Kurt Foster, post: 108644, member: 7836 wrote: Latency can be an issue or not. If a system is a very basic set up with only few channels activated, latency can be very low and not so much of an issue.

I like my DAW to perform like a console and recorder ... so I keep a lot of input channels activated and that bumps the latency up to a high and unacceptable level for overdubbing and talent monitoring ... so I use the AISO function in the soundcard to split the input back out of the (16 channels of) converters which I have normaled to the first 16 inputs of my Mackie SR24 ... I monitor the DAW mix via the spdif out of the soundcard which is routed to my stand alone CD recorder. I also have the outs of the CDr normaled to the 23/24 ins on the Mackie.. so I monitor the mix and inputs all on the Mackie without any delay ... I can send multiple phone mix's to talent, add effects (from my stand alone effects box's) to phones or monitors.

The Mackie provides C/R and talkback functions ... it works pretty cool if you ask me. I feel (almost) as if I were back in front of a large format console.

Kurt Foster, post: 428580, member: 7836 wrote: no one had any use with the DAD so there was no response to that specific question

Really< I haven't even got into the DAD yet, they are stellar. My question hasn't been answered by the OP.

Kurt Foster, post: 428580, member: 7836 wrote: a lot of threads morph. why so sensitive on this subject Chris?

Actually Kurt, I'm playing with you.

Again,

When was the last time you were tracking and what was the gear you were using.

i told you

Kurt Foster said: [="http://recording.org/goto/post?id=108644#post-108644"]↑[/]="http://recording.or…"]↑[/]

Latency can be an issue or not. If a system is a very basic set up with only few channels activated, latency can be very low and not so much of an issue.

I like my DAW to perform like a console and recorder ... so I keep a lot of input channels activated and that bumps the latency up to a high and unacceptable level for overdubbing and talent monitoring ... so I use the AISO function in the soundcard to split the input back out of the (16 channels of) converters which I have normaled to the first 16 inputs of my [[url=http://="http://www.mackie.c…"]Mackie[/]="http://www.mackie.c…"]Mackie[/] SR24 ... I monitor the DAW mix via the spdif out of the soundcard which is routed to my stand alone CD recorder. I also have the outs of the CDr normaled to the 23/24 ins on the Mackie.. so I monitor the mix and inputs all on the Mackie without any delay ... I can send multiple phone mix's to talent, add effects (from my stand alone effects box's) to phones or monitors.

The Mackie provides C/R and talkback functions ... it works pretty cool if you ask me. I feel (almost) as if I were back in front of a large format console.

yeah that was 9 years ago at least ... and that was a PCI card set up. still slower than sh*t what a kludge that was. i sure thought it was fast then. it makes me think, where will we be in 3 years? and it strengthens my resolve not to ever spend that kind of money on a computer ever again. the mackies gone but i still have the computer. i haven't fired it up in years. another $1600 digital doorstop.

Things have changed a lot since then, Kurt.
I do recall you talking about latency with Donny and I a few weeks ago. I guess I should dismiss this and the oodles of other posts where you mention how you hate latency and all that comes with digital audio? If I recall, you used Cubase 3 and some archaic CP on window 5 or something back then as well.

Q: are you suggesting I am trying to talk you into buying a Prism converter?

hipbluescat, post: 428449, member: 49035 wrote: Concerning converters my research yields these three options:-

1. DAD AX 32

2. Merging Horus

3. EMM labs

I have actually been trying to get DAD gear in my studio for a year. http://www.digitalaudio.dk/ I contacted them but never got a response.

This looks really interesting.

to the OP,
hipbluescat
have you had any experience in this setup?
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/page1821.aspx

audiokid, post: 428584, member: 1 wrote: Things have changed a lot since then, Kurt.
I do recall you talking about latency with Donny and I a few weeks ago. I guess I should dismiss this and the oodles of other posts where you mention how you hate latency and all that comes with digital audio? If I recall, you used Cubase 3 and some archaic CP on window 5 or something back then as well.

Q: are you suggesting I am trying to talk you into buying a Prism converter?

no it was Cubase 5.1 VST and Windows XP PRO / AMD dual 1800 on an ASUS board and nVida graphics card with a gig of ram. state of the art at the time (the computer)

no i don't think you are trying to sell me anything ...

good, lets leave it at that.

to the point where other manufacturers - like [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.johnhard…"]John Hardy[/]="http://www.johnhard…"]John Hardy[/] - decided to copy the 2520 OpAmp to exacting specs for use in their own mic preamps. JH designed the 990 OpAmp based on the 2520, as a preferred alternative

It may just be semantics, but I need to clarify some things: I did NOT copy the 2520 in any way, and I did not design the 990 based on the 2520 in any way, other than to use the same package dimensions and pin locations, which was already somewhat of an industry standard used by at least one early semiconductor company (Datel?).

The circuit of the 990 is completely different from the 2520. Deane Jensen, founder of Jensen Transformers, designed the circuit of the 990 and made that circuit available to the public with permission to use it. I did the packaging and production design to fit the 990 circuit into a package that could be plugged directly into an API application in case anyone wanted to try it.

Steve Hogan, who worked at Jensen Transformers for many years, did the revisions to the original 990 circuit design to come up with the 990C. Steve operates as The Sound Steward these days.

Thank you.

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.
http://www.johnhardyco.com

JWHardy

awesome! Thanks for clearing up obvious myth, and my most sincere apologies for propagating that.

Misinformation has been removed from the original post, and noted as to why. ;)

FWIW, A cool vid about Lundhal: