Skip to main content

2017 - 16 channel ADDA converter choices and why?

I need a new high quality 16 channel ADDA converter for my hybrid DAW system. I would also be looking for the best matching interface for this as well. Stability and sound quality is the goal. What would you choose and why?

Thanks for chiming in.

Comments

Boswell Thu, 02/23/2017 - 10:37

Assuming you mean 16 A-D line-level inputs plus 16 line-level outputs, there aren't that many boxes available that will fulfill that spec. You didn't say what range of interface types you would entertain.

I'm sure you know the several of the ranges from various manufacturers, but here's a couple of examples:

The Lynx Aurora is one of the standard boxes for this sort of work, and is reasonably priced for the number of channels. They also have new 24 and 32 channel versions, and the boxes can be fitted with Dante cards. I find the Aurora a very good but not spectacular converter.

I've been very impressed with the Prism ADA-8XR modular kit. You would need two chasses, probably set up as one box with 16 A-D and one box with 16 D-A. There are optional interface types, including FireWire, various PT boards and (amazingly) DSD. Not cheap.

Not really in the same league, but I recently used my A+H Zed-R16 mixer as a 16-in, 16-out interface, and was surprised by the quality of what came through it.

What have you been considering for this task?

audiokid Thu, 02/23/2017 - 11:33

Thanks for chiming in Bos and Marco, for the vote of confidence. You made me smile.

Bos, excellent start to this, thanks.

Boswell, post: 447766, member: 29034 wrote: You didn't say what range of interface types you would entertain.

The OP is ultimately for me but I would like share this thread for others heading this way too, so please feel welcome to deep in deeper on hybrid converters, should others have questions.

Back to me.

Boswell, post: 447766, member: 29034 wrote: 16 A-D line-level inputs plus 16 line-level outputs

Yes!
To clarify, these converters will be racked for studio tracking and mixing (not mobile) and no preamplification is needed. The ideal specs would be something like this:

  • Input level for 0 dBFS: +24 dBu, +19 dBu, +13 dBu, +4.2 dBu, each adjustable in steps
  • Output level for 0 dBFS: +24 dBu, +19 dBu, +13 dBu, +4.2 dBu, each adjustable in steps
  • Output level global: 0 down to -96 dB in 48 steps
  • Sample rates: 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz, 192 kHz, variable (sync/word)
class="xf-ul"> DA 16 channels > analog summing console

Pre 2016, I've been most impressed with either AES EBU or MADI interfacing but expect this will change and include USB 3.1 or newer and Thunderbolt.

The interfacing will include Midi because I produce electronic tracks using an array of vintage and modern controllers.
The workflow will be for full band tracking and piece by piece overdubbing with mics or midi production. So basically I need rock solid interfacing that can do the lowest latency.

So far Antelope Audio Orion 32/ RME MADI PCIe has been the most solid but the sound quality of Orion 32 are less quality than Prism or Lavry but could live with less quality to gain performance.
I'm spoiled from Prism and Lavry but I find Prism and Lavry better for capturing a mix apposed to tracking and production (low latency overdubbing in larger sessions).

I've read Lynx Aurora's are quick like Antelope but have also heard them to not sound quite as sweet. Those opinions are based on hearsay, pre 2016 back though.

I am expecting the next crop of converters to sound and perform better to what I just sold off.

pcrecord Thu, 02/23/2017 - 12:10

I did a bit of searches and a lot of highend stuff doesn't have realtime mixer, which I guess meens they would work well with a mixerboard or we'd need to use the DAW realtime monitormix fonctions. Using the DAW mix for headphones kinda make me fear computer crashes or latency. I think I'd be missing RME Totalmix a lot if I had to change...
The Red product and SSL seems interesting as well.
But it will be hard to reach prism or Lavry.
Mytek does some nice stuff but no 16 ports..

audiokid Thu, 02/23/2017 - 12:38

pcrecord, post: 447768, member: 46460 wrote: I did a bit of searches and a lot of highend stuff doesn't have realtime mixer, which I guess meens they would work well with a mixerboard or we'd need to use the DAW realtime monitormix fonctions. Using the DAW mix for headphones kinda make me fear computer crashes or latency. I think I'd be missing RME Totalmix a lot if I had to change...

If I understand you Marco, I would use external monitoring like the Dangerous Monitor ST. This converter would feed the DA to the Monitor controller. Once I set up the converter channels on RME, Prism or Antelope I never use the converter mixers again. All they do is establish L/R path which is simply the stem channel of the buss lanes of the DAW, the rest of the configuring happens in either the DAW or console then. All analog hardware routing is passed onto SSL Xpatch.

pcrecord, post: 447768, member: 46460 wrote: The Red product and SSL seems interesting as well.
But it will be hard to reach prism or Lavry.
Mytek does some nice stuff but no 16 ports..

I don't know anything about either Red or SSL. I haven't heard any upper praise about SSL though.

pcrecord Thu, 02/23/2017 - 12:57

audiokid, post: 447769, member: 1 wrote: If I understand you Marco, I would use external monitoring like the Dangerous Monitor ST.

What I meen is, I use Totalmix which is a software that controls the internal realtime mixer of my Fireface 800
I can do as many mixes as outputs with this software.. ;)
but if you have external multiple monitor controler your set.. For exemple if your 16 inputs are patch to the outputs and somehow you send that to headphone controlers, the musicians could do there own mix live.. Me, I just do it for them on the screen...

audiokid Thu, 02/23/2017 - 13:02

pcrecord, post: 447771, member: 46460 wrote: For exemple if your 16 inputs are patch to the outputs and somehow you send that to headphone controlers, the musicians could do there own mix live..

Gotcha! A better monitor controller would be nice. I currently use the Little Red Cue box which allows the talent to adjust the volume but that's all. Can or could your talent actually adjust the mix individually using TotalMix? If so, that is something I completely missed ever knowing or doing!

pcrecord Thu, 02/23/2017 - 14:19

As I said, with totalmix, I'm the one doing the mix for the talents.
But would it not be nice if we could send all the seperate track to a system which lets the talent make their own mixes.. I know some live mixers can do that.
The Yamaha tf5, if I remember, can even let the talent modify their mixes with their iphones via wifi !!! :)

So with a 16 in 16 out , the outs could go to some kind of splitter or split snake. One path could go to your second DAW and the other path to a mix by talent system,,, ;)

DonnyThompson Fri, 02/24/2017 - 04:52

audiokid, post: 447776, member: 1 wrote: I was thinking a StudioLive might work well as a talent mixer.

How intricate do you want the performer's mixes to be - that is, what is the degree of control you want them each to have?
Obviously, you'll want to provide each of them controls for track volume(s)... but... do you also want them to be able to adjust for Stereo/Mono? Panning? Tone Controls?

If you've got enough outs ( discreet or submix) to send each performer at least the important tracks (or sub-mixes/stems) of the mix - and it sounds like you do - then maybe you should look into something like the Aviom system?

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/A320?adpos=1o2&creative=55678058761&device=c&matchtype=&network=s&product_id=A320&gclid=CJnfu4vhqNICFYmVfgodPKUGQw

You would need one of these for each performer, which isn't cheap ( $300 per mixer U.S.) but would seemingly give the talent a great deal of control for each of their monitor mixes.

Dave ( @dvdhawk ) has this system - maybe he could chime in with pros and cons ? ...

FWIW

audiokid Fri, 02/24/2017 - 07:16

Thanks Donny,
I'm not needing anything elaborate to monitor talent right now. I have looked into other methods over the years including the Aviom system which looks very nice. I use the Little Red Cue Box for now which is okay. Marco brought up the subject of a more advanced monitoring method using TotalMix and I simply extended the idea that a Studiolive console might do that.

kmetal Sat, 02/25/2017 - 18:17

The big question is always budget. Then there's getting something high spec but in only two channels for the capture rig. I'm finding high spec is usually more than stereo i.e. Overkill channel count. The high end stereo stuff is both a high cost per channel as expected, but I've not come across one that has full adjustable adda levels. The RME stereo converter offers selectable choices of like 4 levels I believe.

The other thing is modular or not... I'm interested in DAD comverters, which are card based in a rackmount chasis. They have various io cards and 2 and 5 card chassis. Not cheap, but modular which opens things up financially. And overall not more expensive than any other botique converter. Not sure on adjustability of adda levels

In Bang for the the Buck (on paper) I think the lynx e44 Pcie converter cannot be beat. It's not perfect but quite good. It's pcie so latency is as good as any system out there, it's got the ability to digitally select between 3 levels on the adda , -24, -20, -18, if I remember correctly. It's also got continuously variable trim pot on each as well. So you can have some practical options for level easily selectable. I guess you'd have to run and it print a test tone or something w the manual option for repeatability.

The design is essentially a lynx aurora in pcie form. They did some updates to the e44 card in 2015 as the aurora is about 12 years or so old.

With pcie chassis it makes it easy to move cards around between computers or external pcie chassis and also lynx has various cards like the aes 16 and others that work side by side with each other's.

Burl mothership is a contender for 16ch adda. The focusrite rednet stuff is intriguing. Even if it's not something you decide on its worth looking into becuase it's got unique features that open interesting configurations and workflow options. I don't think either of those are adjustable.

The thing about thunderbolt and and USB 3.x from a latency perspective is they are only good as they're drivers. In that case a company like RME shines with reliable low latency performance. I'm going pcie new even now, becuase I think it's a more mature technology and TB/USB3 isn't outperforming pcie even unstabley, so I'm not seeing any benefits unless it's a rig without pcie slots like a laptop.

If the new mytek 8ch unit can be linked up it could be the perfect marriage of quality vs price be ch count. They had myteks over at sears sound, where they literally could use any converter innhe world.

This is a rough time to be shopping for a flagship unit. The cutting edge stuff has few options, and the rest is all somewhat re hashed conversion, with a focus on dsp and connectivity type.

as far as midi goes the motu rackmout midi io seems like a reliable choice.

kmetal Sun, 02/26/2017 - 10:42

From what I can find the RME adi-8 is the only one that meets the criteria of for I/o level adjustment. @audiokid was that you in another thread here that said the ADI was among the best you've heard?

Other than that is seems like most converters levels are fixed or offer less adjustment options.

It also seems that chassis / card type units are the only ones breaking the 8 ch barrier in a single unit. Those and the pcie based stuff.

audiokid Sun, 02/26/2017 - 11:00

kmetal, post: 447901, member: 37533 wrote: From what I can find the RME adi-8 is the only one that meets the criteria of for I/o level adjustment. @audiokid was that you in another thread here that said the ADI was among the best you've heard?

Yes, I owned two ADI-8 QS' , thought 24 channels was necessary so I sold them because I couldn't justify another $3000 for 8 more channels ($9000.00 for 24 channels of ADI 8 QS')

I sold both ADI-8's for an Orion32 which was a step back but the remainder of my money went towards a Bricasti M7 which I soon discovered was a really good trade-off because of what Bricasti's do for imaging.

The top RME converters coupled together with their PCIe interfacing is second to none.

audiokid Sun, 02/26/2017 - 11:14

audiokid, post: 447902, member: 1 wrote: The top RME converters coupled together with their PCIe interfacing is second to none.

One thing that RME didn't do well was change SR (88.2 vs 44.1) without a reboot to the converter. In a two DAW workflow I often switch SR during sessions for various reasons. RME ADI 8 QS' would freeze, require a converter reboot where the Orion 32 , Prism Orpheus, Prism Atlas and Lavry Blacks would do this no problem. Most people don't switch like that so its not really a big deal.

The ADI-8 QS' were AES EBU (including 110 ohm digital Mogami cabling) interface (They didn't have the optional MADI $800 cards added).
After using USB2, Firewire 400 and 800, MADI and AES EBU interfacing, I also noticed MADI PCIe interfacing to be the most stable interface of all. From these experiences, MADI is my choice for larger channel workflows but would settle on AES EBU as a second.

kmetal Sun, 02/26/2017 - 12:03

audiokid, post: 447902, member: 1 wrote: a Bricasti M7 which I soon discovered was a really good trade-off because of what Bricasti's do for imaging.

The top RME converters coupled together with their PCIe interfacing is second to none.

Nice.

Do you intend on using the same converter for both daws? Are there seperate requirements apart from channel count?

You bring up and interesting point about rebooting w the RME, that would drive me nutso.

What are your thoughts on different sets of capture converters. Like say a apogee for rock and prism for classical, as an example?

audiokid Sun, 02/26/2017 - 12:26

kmetal, post: 447907, member: 37533 wrote: Do you intend on using the same converter for both daws?

No. These are specific for DAW 1 duties.

kmetal, post: 447907, member: 37533 wrote: Are there separate requirements apart from channel count?

I would prefer these converters to have all the gain adjustments mentioned either through the converters face front or its interface control panel.

kmetal, post: 447907, member: 37533 wrote: You bring up and interesting point about rebooting w the RME, that would drive me nutso.

indeed.

kmetal, post: 447907, member: 37533 wrote: What are your thoughts on different sets of capture converters. Like say a apogee for rock and prism for classical, as an example?

(Best question I've been asked in years)(y)

(Edited to explain better )

I'll include @DonnyThompson on this as he has slightly confused my tracking vs mixing methods. This shed light on how you can go from clean to colour in a 2DAW workflow.
Many mastering engineers (including (not all) hybrid studios choose clean or transparent (transformerless) 2 buss consoles.
When you have the best imaging possible you also get the best representation of all character hardware you "insert into your analog processing console"as well. It would be foolish or naive to use conversion as a way to introduce colour when you already have character gear for that. Meaning, if I want a rockin tone added to a mix or capture, all I need to do is insert one product into a lane, group buss(s) stem(s) or 2 buss matrix and we have instant "tranny, tube saturation" > whatever sonic character I want. That is the beauty of hybrid audio.

We are miles ahead using the best converters possible coupled with something like a Dangerous Master, Liaison, SSL XPatch... transformerless summing box, Folcrom over a converter claiming as colourful. Its easy to add colour but impossible to remove it or change it if it is always there.
Also, not everyone wants their mix tones changed. If you are (mixing or mastering) as a business (not just your music) transformerless and pristine converters and a console that never reveals you've "been there" is the first and foremost most important core of your signal processing. You want people to go wow because it sounds like what they were trying to do, but couldn't.

DAW 2 is basically the Master section of DAW1 moved over to DAW2. The analog section is in between DAW 1 and DAW2.
The analog section is how you add colour or shift the audio. DAW 2 is how you capture it and process the finished product which could be for mastering or additional advanced sound designing etc. Or, to avoid bouncing down. Both converters for DAW1 and DAW 2 should be as truthful as possible.

kmetal Sun, 02/26/2017 - 15:04

It's funny I've been ITB for most of the time I'm just conditioned to getting colour and tones at tracking. Especially since I generally have worked with mid level stuff.

I brought up the different sets of adda becuase I noticed ME's tend to have a few different ones on tap.

My angle was not necessarily color but more based on tendency of the adda. This is two fold.

No adda is perfect, does it make sense to have those slight differnces in response for anylytocal reasons.?

And does some conversion just naturally lend itself to something better. Not add or subtract from like an 'add colour' rather just suit it better.? Or for a different slant on whatever's on disk.

audiokid Sun, 02/26/2017 - 15:44

kmetal, post: 447910, member: 37533 wrote: It's funny I've been ITB for most of the time I'm just conditioned to getting colour and tones at tracking. Especially since I generally have worked with mid level stuff.

Oh for certain. Better tracking, closer it is to your intentions.Easier to mix and master as well. Tracking is the most important part to recording.

However! greater options arise, go beyond traditional recording, mixing, mastering when you include the hybrid workflow. The hybrid workflow "can" expand even further when you add the 2 DAW system. The 2 DAW workflow will expand even more options if you incorporate analog processing for all sections of tracking, mixing and mastering at any point of the either AD DA DAW 1 or DAW2 I/O's.

kmetal, post: 447910, member: 37533 wrote: No adda is perfect, does it make sense to have those slight differences in response for anylytocal reasons.?

Maybe. There are no rules to any of this. Personally, and only because of money, I use a better ADDA for DAW2 but if I had a choice, I would use what has the best specs and stability.

Depending on individual needs, you choose what works. Again, if you are mixing or mastering, I personally would never invest in a converter that added any sort of colour. You want absolute transparency and because of that, I personally see no reason to want various converters like someone would choose preamps. The converters are there to transfer unscathed, unaltered A to D.

If I wasn't including a hybrid arsenal such as what I use, I suppose I would be more inclined to choose an AD that was just for me and that could include Burl then. Maybe I like Blues, I don';t have analog gear to play with and want a warmish tone stacked. Then the Apollo, Burl as two examples might be a great bargain to get great sound with less gear involved.

Again, the converters we use should be consistent on all lanes, have enough headroom so they don't clip and hopefully don't sound like fingernails on chalkboards.

kmetal, post: 447910, member: 37533 wrote: And does some conversion just naturally lend itself to something better. Not add or subtract from like an 'add colour' rather just suit it better.? Or for a different slant on whatever's on disk.

I think so. I also like combo (AD DA and preamps) on the DAW 2 converters. Why? I use those converters in a mobile rig for tracking classical music. They are usually FW or USB as well which make connecting to my laptop simple. DAW 2 has less track count and therefore, USB and FW work perfectly well.
Prism Lyra, Orpheus, Atlas and Lavry Blacks all have excellent SS preamps and converters so they are a win win for mobile and DAW2 duties.

What do you think?

pcrecord Mon, 02/27/2017 - 11:35

audiokid, post: 447903, member: 1 wrote: One thing that RME didn't do well was change SR (88.2 vs 44.1) without a reboot to the converter.

Interesting !
I'm using my Fireface 800 which is slaved via wordclock from a Mitek AD96 and it responds very well to resolution changes. In my case it's Sonar who isn't so good, I often need to close it to take the new settings.

audiokid Mon, 02/27/2017 - 11:51

I chained two FF800 together in my hybrid system and they switched well. Just a guess... but AES EBU isn't as forgiving as other digital clocking. At least it wasn't at the time. MADI and Firewire are more fluid in comparison. It could have been a driver related issue but that issue lasted 2 years lol!

kmetal Mon, 02/27/2017 - 16:50

audiokid, post: 447911, member: 1 wrote: Oh for certain. Better tracking, closer it is to your intentions.Easier to mix and master as well. Tracking is the most important part to recording.

However! greater options arise, go beyond traditional recording, mixing, mastering when you include the hybrid workflow. The hybrid workflow "can" expand even further when you add the 2 DAW system. The 2 DAW workflow will expand even more options if you incorporate analog processing for all sections of tracking, mixing and mastering at any point of the either AD DA DAW 1 or DAW2 I/O's.

Maybe. There are no rules to any of this. Personally, and only because of money, I use a better ADDA for DAW2 but if I had a choice, I would use what has the best specs and stability.

Depending on individual needs, you choose what works. Again, if you are mixing or mastering, I personally would never invest in a converter that added any sort of colour. You want absolute transparency and because of that, I personally see no reason to want various converters like someone would choose preamps. The converters are there to transfer unscathed, unaltered A to D.

If I wasn't including a hybrid arsenal such as what I use, I suppose I would be more inclined to choose an AD that was just for me and that could include Burl then. Maybe I like Blues, I don';t have analog gear to play with and want a warmish tone stacked. Then the Apollo, Burl as two examples might be a great bargain to get great sound with less gear involved.

Again, the converters we use should be consistent on all lanes, have enough headroom so they don't clip and hopefully don't sound like fingernails on chalkboards.

I think so. I also like combo (AD DA and preamps) on the DAW 2 converters. Why? I use those converters in a mobile rig for tracking classical music. They are usually FW or USB as well which make connecting to my laptop simple. DAW 2 has less track count and therefore, USB and FW work perfectly well.
Prism Lyra, Orpheus, Atlas and Lavry Blacks all have excellent SS preamps and converters so they are a win win for mobile and DAW2 duties.

What do you think?

Not having any experience w the 2 daw setup, this is speculation.

Personally I think I want the dac to be identical on both daw 1 and 2. In my imaginary perfect world the dac is built right into the speaker and I never think twice about it for the life of the speakers. Adc would be built into the mic, tape machine, ect. Convert at the source(s). There's a lot of time spent on the analog sections of good converter units, I wonder if this could be avoided by building the conversion into the mics and amps/speakers.

Since that doesn't exist I'm guessing matched comverters or using digital outs on daw 2 allows monitoring thru the same daw?

Dac should be and clear as possible in every way. Burl uses no transformers on the dac side of their stuff.

I honestly think some comverters differ in time enough that it'd be a nice luxury to have a set of super clear and something hyped around, even in stereo form, just for creative reasons. Ie lavry for a violin solo, apogee Rosetta for Marshall stack.

Since budget usually doesn't allow for this I want adc to be unobtrusive. If it's flattering in herbal cool, otherwise I'd rather not even notice my comverters are there.

I think built in pres have their place, but I'd wouldn't want to use them for anything serious. A 1u rack pre is easy enough to tote around. lol sound super snobby. Becuase of my budget restrictions I'm into a very 'one thing well' mentally with gear, since added features mean added cost or reduced quality.

So I guess if I saw anybolace or reason for multiple comverters it's on the adc side. Evennon the dac side of money was no consideration, just for perspective.

What I don't want to do is trash my comverters every 6 years, so I plan to assign them to future roles like effects send/returns, home entertainment comverters, room- re - amping chains ect. so having something of presentable quality on each channel is a process of growth for me.

Besides the botique level the lavry golds the prism adr the uber stuff I think rhe level below that is great as far as quality for the money, and while still has significant diminishing returns (in general).

What I've found difficult is most comverters are touting their dsp or connectivity features over ultimate pursuit of quality. While I understand mass market appeal, it's difficult to find something ideal without also paying for feature I don't want.

Personally I'm starting w the e44 card then moving that to a daw 2 next year when I grab a flagship unit. I think I'm leaning towards one of the chassis/card systems. Particularly the DAD stuff right now.

As far as digital connectivity it's madi vs cat5 for me. I'm starting w cat5 for moving audio aroud digitally based on cost and availability.

I'm still working thru all this as things come together.

audiokid Mon, 02/27/2017 - 18:14

kmetal, post: 447933, member: 37533 wrote: Since that doesn't exist I'm guessing matched converters or using digital outs on daw 2 allows monitoring thru the same daw?

When you incorporate a hybrid monitor controller system like the Dangerous Monitor ST, you wouldn't want your speakers to have the DA. It would take the ST (hybrid monitoring) completely out of the loop. You want the ST in the loop . That's the beautiful part of it.

kmetal Mon, 02/27/2017 - 19:02

audiokid, post: 447935, member: 1 wrote: When you incorporate a hybrid monitor controller system like the Dangerous Monitor ST, you wouldn't want your speakers to have the DA. It would take the ST (hybrid monitoring) completely out of the loop. You want the ST in the loop . That's the beautiful part of it.

Right in that case they'd be standalone or in the monitor controller itself.

Do you use dacs on your daw2 to feed the Dangerous ? Or loop back digitally to the daw1?

the great advantage to modular is you can have varying ad da counts. I'm finding my ins don't always equal the outs as far as channel count.

Another consideration is the currrent lack of audio hardware aggregation support for windows. Maybe windows enterprise has it? Not sure on that.

So do you need all 16ch in one unit or is Asio4all good enough?

audiokid Mon, 02/27/2017 - 19:23

kmetal, post: 447936, member: 37533 wrote: Do you use dacs on your daw2 to feed the Dangerous ? Or loop back digitally to the daw1?

Yes, you would indeed use a separate DAC on DAW2 and feed that signal into the monitor controller. The Dangerous Monitor has 3 "analog" audio inputs that will route analog to any speaker via switching routers with 100% transparency, adjustable incremental volume accuracy controls right down to off. Meaning, the sound doesn't change when you get lower in volumes like many monitoring systems do.
You can also network audio back via file sharing or homegroup connection via CAT5 but that's another topic.

kmetal, post: 447936, member: 37533 wrote: So do you need all 16ch in one unit or is Asio4all good enough?

16 channels is the bare min for a full hybrid mix. That would be 8 stereo stems which gets used up fast. 24 channels is ideal because you can use a few of those for outboard stereo effect processors.

Asio4all is fine for DAW2 and the 3rd DA which I have not really touched on. Asio4all is fine for anything requiring little track count and average latency which is really anything but tracking live musicians.

audiokid Tue, 02/28/2017 - 07:36

I think its pretty accurate to say, the most transparent signal path represents the truest representation of pure organic "analog". "If you really want to think of true analog, then a live experience is about as true as it gets".

The beauty and reasoning behind my approach to hybrid is about the purest path to analog as it can be, then with a flick of a switch you can go from pure to bad ass dirty processing, track to track, stem to stem, sum to master.

In my case the goal and challenge to all things recorded with microphones is trying to be as transparent and pure to the art as you can capture. Which definitely include all things analog front end.
Once art is on a medium (tape, DSD, DAW, etc), it seems to be much easier to spice things the way you want it to sound using more tools or plugins that can be bought and sold. The main goal is that the converters do not butcher the original path in the first place.

The AD converter can be whatever you like but in my case, the goal is to have the AD DA paths as true and unaltered as possible then, so I have more to work with or in many cases, less need for excessive expensive "mixing" tools.

Over the course of my hybrid experiences, I'm finding I need less mixing gear and more front end that gets the capture ITB as accurate as possible.. No doubt, easier said than done.

kmetal Tue, 02/28/2017 - 15:31

audiokid, post: 447938, member: 1 wrote: Meaning, the sound doesn't change when you get lower in volumes like many monitoring systems do.

This has been an issue for me since starting at the studios. Then big knob would cut off one channel when played low, and the Meyers and or d8b also had a drastic difference between average and a little more than average. Which could be the Meyer amplifier in the speaker , it has some sort of 2nd stage or something .

audiokid, post: 447938, member: 1 wrote: 3rd DA which I have not really touched on.

in my sketches I've always allotted the third channel of the ST to something like a phone or the Internet sound, coming from another computer or device. To audition my YouTube uploads ect

audiokid, post: 447948, member: 1 wrote: "If you really want to think of true analog, then a live experience is about as true as it gets".

This is true. It's also why I'm on a per song basis as to the sonic side of things. Transparent, processesed, tape, live, ect ect. Since I don't have the luxury of adc / dac for 'effect' I am shopping for out of the way as possible or 'true'.

Having been dabbling in physics, it could be argued that we are digital or binary ourselves. Lol

audiokid, post: 447948, member: 1 wrote: Over the course of my hybrid experiences, I'm finding I need less mixing gear and more front end that gets the capture ITB as accurate as possible.. No doubt, easier said than done.

Sweet! Comverters are no doubt important, looking forward to seeing how you arrive at a decision

I'm finding the recall of a daw session to awsome to want any sort of mixing based outboard. At least at this stage.