Originally posted by p.ark:
Fletcher- I know you use Lucid boxes and DP- Can you run inputs into the ADA8824 and monitor your mains out of the 1 and 2 outputs at the same time- as in, record off of the inputs and monitor it all at the same time? I assume you can, but if so, how do the meters break it down, seeing as how there's only eight total? My 1296 has 12 in meters and 12 output meters, so it's no question.
-

Errrr, are you asking if you can monitor inputs and outputs at the same time? The answer to that question is: NO.

I assume that you are ADDA'ing to some sort of DAW or other digital device which has meters.

What I do is I monitor the signal input A/D level on the Lucid. I then monitor the output D/A level from Logic on the fader meters in Logic.

It works well for me.

And,

Fuck MOTU. I just ditched my 2408mkII. That cheaply built and assembled turd wasted so much of my time...

Another question- I'm probably going to get ahold of a ADA8824, pit it against the 1296 and, if i love the difference, hock the 1296. Anyway, I'll run pretty much everything I can through them until the return period runs out, but I was wondering if anyone had any advice on methods they feel would best magnify the differences in these converters- full mixes? low level sensitive instruments? Like I said, I'll probably try everything, but if anyone knows the best ways to cut to the chase, i'd be interested in hearing them.

thanks-[/QB][/QUOTE]

TO immediately hear the differences, just do an 8-12 track song through both sets of converters.

Try and go for realistic micing.
Use a very good clock on playback. It helps you hear the differences better

My soundcard comverters are comparable to the 1296. Much better than the 2408 but not quite as good as the 1296(slightly better stereo separation on the 1296).When the delta 1010 is pitted against the lucid on one track, they sound very similar, even though people still pick out the lucid as sounding better , but the difference is night and day on a full mix. I can let anybody hear mixes done on both, and nobody will pick the lucid as sounding worse. It sounds cleaner, clearer, more lifelike, more detailed and bigger and richer all at once.

Hey CyanJaguar,

Good post. I think you've got a good point. The "sum" of 20+ tracks with "A" Brand AD converters versus the "sum" with that of "B" Brand's would definitely stand out a lot better than comparing a track or stereo...

I think I'll be doing all my shootouts this way...

Also, run both converters from the same clock source [say a Lucid GENx6], that way you have a stable reference point.

------
Samara Krugman
Mercenary Audio
"this is not a problem"
[url=(dead link removed)[/url]

I've always thought that an independent clock was only necessary when dealing with multiple digital units. I only use one box for my I/O - are you saying a clock would enhance its performance?

As long as it's a better clock than what's in the unit you're using, I'm pretty sure it would. Am I mistaken on this?

Tim L

No Tim, you are absolutely right. Passing clock along with audio does not work well - daisy chaining clock does not work well, the only thing that does work well is using a stand alone, accurate clock which feeds each piece of digital gear its own clock. The quality improvement obtained by doing this is quite amazing

Lots of good responses here. Thanx to all. regarding metering on the 8824, you can choose analog or digital input or output - 4 choices. They can be selected via dipswitches in the back and then power cycling, which of course is inconvenient during a session (but doesn't affect your other gear and won't neccessitate a reboot of any kind) - or you can get to them on the fly with the control software we include with the unit. It accesses the 8824 via MIDI, and allows you to select meter function, clock reference, and signal routing. This is also the only way to adjust gain. It's an executable that resides on the desktop to be opened and closed on command. It also uploads to flash ram in the 8824 so the latest settings will be retained.

And no, the analog signal path doesn't follow directly from input to output. It goes through the converters. So an analog monitor of source is only possible if your recording device/software can pass that through. I'm using a Hammerfall DSP with my PC and it includes a comprehensive sofware mixer for signals coming through the card. It allows me to mix playback tracks and source and route them to analog or digital outputs independently or simultaneously.

Jim Latimer
Lucid

Oops -

And yes, an external word clock makes a positive impact on both playback and record. It makes sense that any improvement of the clock accuracy in the A/D stage would lead to a better, more accurate recording. However, if the clock on the D/A (playback) is of lesser quality, then it will not return an optimal representation of the audio. I've been using our clocks (no surprise there) in situations ranging from a single A/D session to multiple converters having digital interconect with processors, to a recent mastering session with my Hammerfall, Pro Tools, our SRC9624, and our DA9624. Any time you can improve the clock it will help your sound. And external clocks are designed to do nothing other than improve the clock.

Jim Latimer
Lucid

The Apogee PSX100

can be used as

Analog - spdif/aes/

And at the same time

Spdif in - analog out

So -
converter for DAW recording + analog monitor of DAW mixer output.

It's a feature called "confidence monitoring"

I'm sure with 2 x Lucid units you could do the same thing... for less...

:)