audiokid, post: 428566, member: 1 wrote: 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!

LOL, more insults. But thanks anyway. :eek:

:ROFLMAO:

So if the sound quality of converters isn't the point of this discussion, and if comparing the sound of two converters recording and playing an identical source isn't relevant, what exactly is the point then?

--Ethan

Ethan Winer, post: 428608, member: 1430 wrote: LOL, more insults.

Silly,was the best description but lack of understanding might have been a better.

Ethan Winer, post: 428608, member: 1430 wrote: So if the sound quality of converters isn't the point of this discussion, and if comparing the sound of two converters recording and playing an identical source isn't relevant, what exactly is the point then?

Ethan, it always end up the same with us.

Q: Why are you so obsessed with this old debate? I'm not. I am curious why you miss the importance of interfacing being a huge part of the conversion process (in this particular thread) ? Conversion is intertwined more so than the comparisons you are caught up on here.

Is conversion to you all about the A/B and nothing to do with how we connect and take advantage of other aspects of converters? The OP was interested in High End and 32 DA. How does your website address this?
Good converters all sound relatively close enough, at least until we start getting accumulative aliasing distortions. A term used by Bob Olson so don't blame me for that .

If you read or understood the OP in depth we wouldn't be here head to head on silly AB comparisons (Having or exhibiting a lack of good judgment or common sense) . It is silly to me and distracting from gaining more depth about converters. Especially high end multitracking. I'll find a new word for silly next time.

Q: Do you mix OTB and do you use 32 DA? And if so, .... what interface do you use?

At this point, I refuse to go to your site. Could you please tell me what your comparisons have to do with helping someone interested in 32DA and mastering level converters.?

I would also like to learn what you know about interfacing in multichannel applications? What do you prefer?

Chris;
really, the O/P didn't even spell converter correctly. how seriously can he be taken?

we get it. the guy should buy the DAD. i said that in my second post. i'd like to see the conversation move on minus the 32 channel sticking point. i'm interested in the SOUND of the converter(s), not how it's implemented.

perhaps a new thread on the topic sans the "O/P's" post? that way, the conversation wouldn't be hindered by this 32 D/A requirement that only you keep insisting be imposed. to me this sticking point is a[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.google.c…"] red herring[/]="http://www.google.c…"] red herring[/].

personally, i don't know of anyone with the need for 32 channels D/A out just for mastering. i bet you could do fine without it. is there any body reading this that has those requirements?

Kurt, the OP was asking about high end conversion using 32 DA outs? Did you miss that? DAD and DA are two different parts to this post lol! DAD is a product and DA are digital outs.

32 DA means interfacing :)

I wish we could move on but we also have Ethan here who insist a silly AB comparison is somehow of value. I don't agree. That topic was put to rest back in 2006 lol.
We all agree that the real benefits to conversion lay in the analog sections and interfacing. So why are we wasting time on a silly A/B? I'll tell you why. Its ridiculous to me and I am happy to discuss that. It appears... Ethan and you are unaware of something that is very obvious to me.

Now, if you or Ethan actually used 32 DA on a day to day basic, I bet we would be having an intelligent conversion rather than wasting a bunch of time on a very silly topic about how few converters sounds close enough.

You guy are missing the ball on this big time.

:cool:

Ethan, what does your impressive comparison have to do with this below?

Product highlights:

Flexible AD/DA interface configuration, with mic-pre option Versatile digital interface structure
Easy control of converter parameters

• 8 to 48 analog channels
• 8 channels on a card
• 8 ch. Line in AD card
• 8 ch. Line/Mic pre in AD card
• 8 ch. Line out DA card with output level control
• Sample rates 44,1 kHz up-to 384 kHz/DSD
• High precision internal clock and PLL

class="xf-ul">

• 8 AES3 I/O interfaces
• MADI coax and optical I/O
• 64 channel interface for Pro Tools (TM)
• Ethernet IP audio interface for 64 I/O channels using Dante(TM)
• Synch via word clock, AES11, Video, and all digital I/O
• Adapt to incoming sample rate
• Optional channel patching and multiplexer engine

class="xf-ul">

• Settings control via front panel knobs and large LCD display
• Operation via DADman control software for Windows and OSX
• Ethernet control interface
• Compliant with the Dante Ethernet controller

class="xf-ul">
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/page1503.aspx

in 5 pages, ....has any one suggested anything different than the DAD? no. the "O/P" (who i believe is imaginary) posted with an agenda .... to create a stir about DAD .... well it didn't work because the participants on this site are too smart to rise to the bait. i'm surprised you didn't catch it. no one but you cares about 32 channels of D to A Chris. no one else is banging on this. everyone else wants to discuss the differences in the audio performance.

audiokid, post: 428612, member: 1 wrote: Now, if you or Ethan actually used 32 DA on a day to day basic, I bet we would be having an intelligent conversion rather than wasting a bunch of time on a very silly topic about how few converters sounds close enough.

you keep insisting we discuss 32 DA and i have said 3 times now.
i get it, everyone gets it. does anyone not get it? speak now!

if i had a hugeoid console and i needed 32 outs to go to it, i agree. high end is the ONLY way to go. ethernet, MADI - Thunderbolt interfacing ... stability with loads of tracks and plugs. I GET IT!

but that's not what other contributors to the thread want to talk about. if you insist that no threads be hi jacked or taken o/t .... well then there's a lot of yard work to do.
kmetal Ethan Winer
again i suggest we start a different thread.

hipbluescat, post: 428425, member: 49035 wrote: Hi

I am looking at replacing my AD/DA converters box in my studio.

I have read that EMM labs are the best per there web site.

I have also looked at DAD and threads from various people state that the 32 track model.

Then there are people who swear about prism converters.

I am looking for converters that are 100 percent transparent without modifying the sound in any respect.

So my question is what are the best converters for a recording studio use only high end gear?

Do certain converters suit specific music production e.g. Live band verse purely electronic music for example.

All comments are welcome.

Cheers

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

1. DAD AX 32

2. Merging Horus

3. EMM labs

Kurt Foster, post: 428614, member: 7836 wrote: you keep insisting we discuss 32 DA and i have said 3 times now.
i get it, everyone gets it. does anyone not get it? speak now!

Kurt,
Its you who didn't get it and actually helped kill this thread.

I feel like I'm in romper room here.:giggle:
Oh Man... are you guys are seriously missing the ball completely. Even if the OP is a troll... the OP is what it is. If I was the OP, I wouldn't return to this site.:censored:

I have to ask this. Would you actually spend time talking about how a few converters spinning around and around end up sounding the same after a few trips? You believe this is where this thread should stop or be most focused? Are you friken kidding me? What an embarrassment.

Please don't tell me you actually find that more interesting than interfacing and how it is a direct relation to how your DAW and converters react and clock etc etc etc.
I'm blown away if this is where you saw this threads potential and where it should stop.

Summary

hipbluescat
I see the problem why this thread degraded so fast and at least its been brought to attention. A/B comparisons like Ethan's were wrapped up 9 years ago. They are pointless and ridiculous to those who know better. People who know better do not waste time on those silly comparison for gawd sake. :notworthy:
A/B comparisons like that have very little to do with this thread. If the OP was serious, I'll gladly reopen this thread or even better, we can in fact start a new one with a caveat this time. It would be a pleasure to discuss this again under better light. (y)

Ethan Winer Kurt Foster
I suggest Ethan or Kurt start a new thread that is specific to Ethan's A/B comparison.

This thread is closed.