USE THE SUPER THANKS IF YOU LIKED THIS VIDEO! 👆👆👆 My Small Monitors: imp.i114863.net/qaPmg My Headphones: imp.i114863.net/2Dzyz SSL Fusion Video: ruclips.net/video/zQ-wlyMTyOo/видео.html 🔥 YOU GOTTA WATCH THIS! ➡️ ruclips.net/video/YuRVDyGL0VY/видео.html 🔥 🔥Join the Channel to Access All The Premium Courses: bit.ly/2SNX8bx + Mix Consultations 🔥Bella Kelly's Single/Video Throat: bit.ly/3dxeJOf
I used to own Lavry blue and black, they are outstanding. The funny thing is I’m a home producer and now I use a focusrite and I’m very happy with it. If you are not doing high end mixing and mastering i don’t think it’s that important
Trabalho com eletrônica há 19 anos, faço reparos de interfaces de áudio no Brasil. O Conversor NÃO colore a música, e sim o circuito driver/ pré que o antecede. É só pegar o datasheet do componente conversor e pesquisar, ele tem e é neutro. A questão do som ser mais agradável em um que em outro se deve ao circuito anterior, e isso é pessoal e indiscutível.
the MAP is NOT the TERRITORY! from alfred korzybski’s general semantics. what it means is this: the “map” is always an approximation, a model, like a plugin version of hardware. it attempts to model the analog as simply and as dsp efficient as possible. its always a battle of how accurate the model is vs how “expensive” is it dsp, latency-wise. but always remember: the physical universe is always more complex than the map or the model. plugins can only approximate. all maps and all models necessarily have to approximate.
A null test would be fun. Though of course, just academic. I did this same test (10 passes) with my 2002 built M-Audio for snicks and giggles, and got pretty much the same results. I couldn't tell the diff at all - though I don't have super developed ears.
What you also can offer is a phase inversion on one channel and then mix them with the 10 times resampled sound (technically called "AND" operator). Then the difference is what you hear. If we hear silence, there would be no difference, everything else is exactly the difference between the signals. Only the latency must be compensated which could be done by a leading click sound
We didn't need a null test to hear analog vs plug-in difference right? A null test with analog vs the original is useless as two 1 passes won't even null
the result is what i already supposed: the converters of today are so really good that you didn´t get a mess in the signal if you put it a lot of times through it ... thx for your vid and the content 👍👍👍
I do wonder what options works best and most bang for buck for connecting a lot of outboard with this principle in mind. Digitally controlled analogue routing vs huge amount of I/O and having a few extra conversion trips. I suppose mostly it depends on the material And genre to a degree. So a bank of Patches vs a Bank of Ferrofish? Could be a very complex and time consuming video to out together. 😂
Thanks for doing this test and video! Could Definitely hear the difference, before seeing this I ran my own ad/da loop tests between ferrofish, Apollo; Apollo x, lead me to upgrade to lynx Aurora, couldn’t be happier mixing and tracking, yes analog is deeper , more detailed than the software emulations with proper converters in my humble opinion but of course most people can’t hear the difference and it doesn’t matter
i own a cl1b hardware and the cl1b uad plugin and id prefer the hardware any day ..... ..... i love plugins but i love hardware more , cant live without both of them
I'll take 400 passes through a cheap modern converter any time over re-tracking take after take on tape. The crosstalk and bleed would always be horrible but the more you had to re-record over a track or punch in & out the more noise would creep up into that track. Between the 2 cycles for each pass across the heads to record and rewind the more you would re-record over a track the more crosstalk (bleed) you would have between the track you were recording and the other tracks on each side. This is why you normally see Bass guitar is on the 1st or last track and usually kick is on the 1st or last track. The lower the instrument the more it would spill over to other tracks on the tape. If you ever see a 1 inch or 2 inch tracking reel and the bass guitar is on a middle track you can be for certain than the engineers was a total noob or an very new assistant. After 20 to 30 plays the tape would begin to degrade from heat and friction so if it was an important session as soon as you were done tracking you made a safety copy to ensure that if the mix process went too long or overdubbing became a problem you could at least make recall sheets from the first mixes on the Dull original tape and then when you were ready to commit the mix down to 1/4 inch 2-track you would switch out the dull tape to the clean safety copy instead. Preserving as much fidelity as possible. None of these things are even an issue in modern recording and I am SO thankful for! I came up in the last years of tape and it was so much HARDER to get a good recording with so many factors that could go horribly wrong.
@@p0llenp0nyBecause its hardware, give me an analog console any day to do tracking sessions with since it makes the session move faster but TAPE SUCKS. The hysteresis would eat reverbs and delays so you have to over use them to even hear them on the mixdown tape. But good tape machines like a MCI JH24 made inexperienced engineers get better results during tracking since the tape would kind of glue things together and because engineers HAD to gain stage properly. There was no clip gain to pull an over cooked track down. You were basically mixing as you tracked it and you had to learn to get it right at the beginning. It was a pain but you would at least learn the fundamentals of recording. Today its the wild west and everybody has an opinion on how to do things their way and DAWs are very forgiving for bad engineers. But rewinding the tape and saying ROLLING for an overdub to start was way more fun than pushing the spacebar or R for record on a Mac!! LOL
A lot of drama about tape. Use a Studer A820 or 827 and don't print so hot. I can't relate to the tape hate at all, it sounds better, makes for mellower, less obsessive sessions. Maybe doesn't work for the most modern music, but generally sounds better than PCM for many genres. Converters keep getting better and better, and they keep losing less and less of the detail in the source tape. I work with digital now, and have to put in a ton more effort and money to try and deal with all the harsh edges, plugin artifacts etc. But I've yet to find a way around the detail that is lost with PCM. Tape, hardware, and console was WAY, WAY easier to get a good sound. Maybe I just lucked out working at studios that had high end stuff like API, SSL, Studer, Ampex etc. And also, musicians who could actually play and weren't relying on endless edits, tuning, or snap to grid.
@@chipsnmydip I can see benefits for both a good machine like and MCI JH24 or and Studer 827 with its digital EQ curve instant recall, running at 30ips and a tape formula that can handle hot signals such as +9 like GP9 or 499 is as good as any digital session running at 96K with about roughly the same bandwidth and very low noise for tape. But the time it takes is atrocious compared to modern computers. I think the reason digital gets such a bad wrap for many people is the level of i/o they buy. Recording on a Studer 827 was 1000 times better than recording on the 24 track 1 inch unbalanced Tascam MSR24 with no head room! Modern converters are better than they have ever been but the analog side of modern interfaces can vary wildly. Impedance differences in line level inputs from one brand to the next can be a pain to work with, the DBU levels of the outputs for monitoring can be from 14dbu to 22dbu and so on. So its less about the converter chips today and more about the analog inputs and outputs on a interface that can really be great or garbage. But I treat the DAW like a modern tape machine for the most part. But I still prefer the workflow on a computer compared to a tape machine simply for the fact that UNDO is a real option that did not exist in the analog days!! LOL
@@joesalyers I can appreciate and agree with all this. I did a few projects with Tascam 38, 1/4" 8 track, and it was very fortunate that these were lofi records...
The "do a roundtrip to have more oomph" thingy you are referring to at the end, stems from the idea that you may get grittier sound if you clip the converter..I think it's useful to know how your converters sound when clipped, but that's about it
I don't know where it stems from but you see many home studio guys running adda trips with low budget interfaces because they thing it adds "analog vibe" which is obviously ridiculous
I still use my Universal Audio 2192 converter on the input, cause it imparts some sort of harmonic distortion that makes everything sound "bigger", compared to my Apogee Symphony converters. It's not clean, but, for a lack of a better word "more anologue" sounding to my ears. It's not accurate, but more pleasing. In a similar way in the old days, tapes were impacting the sound, and that was cool. It's a matter of a personal taste, but I'd never sell my UA 2192, regardless of how cleaner other converters sound.
with one pass the difference is negligible, but there is a very subtle smearing of transients. with 5 passes, it became more apparent, especially if you listen closely to the high frequencies such as hi hats or sibilance. at 10 passes, it was obvious. it would be interesting to hear all the tracks together because i think the difference is most noticeable in a mix.
Very interesting. Thank you for your effort to make this "shocking" video. In addition, I learned that the psyche also has an effect on the hearing result. Just close your eyes and you will hear.
The thing is, every conversion is always detrimental, even todays converters, even the ones used in “intro” or “low end” gear is generally so good that many people can’t hear the difference. But making peope listen to it on RUclips kinda is totally irelevant as it will destroy any purpose of giving a meaningfull and true a/b compare. Not that you can’t hear differences, but they are not representing the true real world difference between 2 different signals when you add the compression from the RUclips codec
Nice experiment :) As expected, after 10 passes it definitely sounds slightly more "dull", the difference is even audible after youtubes lossy encoding. Applying a steep lowpass filter close to nyquist freq. is part of the conversion process btw. so they obviously do effect high frequencies and when working at 44.1k that can be audible at least after multiple conversions. Claiming that this is the only difference between analog/digital signal processors is obviously nuts, a heavily oversampled plugin could theoretically come pretty close to how the analog effect sounds though.
My first pass is my entire mix going the the Burl ADC. Once I am done mixing I send my summing output to my Neve MBP and that runs to my Dangerous AD+ for my 1 only print. That’s my 2nd pass. Burl for color on the mix and AD+ for clean masters
@@tytansoundlab Ah yes, i've just been reading about ASH, i thought it was emulating the colour aswell, but it's only doing the clipper part. Cool thanks for replying
I just took Dangerous Covert AD+. I convinced myself thanks to your previous videos (Crazy Clipping 😆). I confirm that it's true: Converters really make a difference on sound. Thanks David for sharing these tips for good music
Thanks for doing this test! Very interesting. I would have expected to hear more differences in the 10 AD/DA conversions. But that's quite an eye-opener! :D
Thank you, David. Another great video! By the way, I have SSL Fusion hardware, and compared it to the SSL plugins. Regarding the Vintage Drive, as you said, the differences are drastic.
I'm confused, because I saw a video where someone demonstrates the difference in conversion between an RME, a Crane Song and some other converter. And I can hear a difference even though RUclips extremely compresses and degrades the audio in the videos. There is a massive difference. What is it, if not the converters? The clock? I don't get it. Why should I buy an Apogee Symphony when converters do not matter and not just buy a Focusrite Scarlett?
Who said it doesn't matter or there's no difference? There's a reason why I have MOTU, and there's a reason why I have Dangerous. The fact that I said MOTU are my "worst" converters doesn't mean they're bad or cheap, but the dangerous is 4x the price per channel of course they're better. MOTU are still Amazon. The others you mentioned do change the sound more. The point here wasn't a convert battle, it was to show that one pass is irrelevant
This test needed to be done. Thank you for sharing and adding audio examples! From my tests, the ONLY converters that sounded identical or better than the digital signal were Merging Technologies. They're literally the best (as in closest to raw signal in DAW). I've never heard converters that sounded exactly like the digital audio. Even my RADAR ADA II converters adds a little color and softens transients. The cheaper converters from my tests were less pleasant sounding and had less transient detail, when comparing to the top converters in the market (Prismsound, Merging Technologies, RADAR). As a hybrid mix engineer, I'd say that converters are VITAL, for accurate audio response of the hardware. It can lead to making different choices in the mix, similar to using oversampling in a plugin vs not. I did enjoy this video!
@@ilikemyrealname , The HAPI with the 2020 Premium cards sounded the best. This was specifically for muti-track converters. There are stereo converters like Forssell MADA-2 and JCF Latte that are at the same quality as HAPI, from my recent tests.
Awesome test. I did this on a multitrack of vsti and confirmed same thing. Better to improve mixing chops than waste time running everything out and back into converters.
One is talking about sound perception improvement (like a limiter/clippr can do) the other one about pure technical point of view where the A/D clipping process is physically shapping/cutting the signal …. Plugins can both emulate AD/DA cvt sound shaping and sound processing with the typical color of the emulated HW, but, reaching the HW flavour with the SW emulation (plugin) is another story.
Actually when comparing any hardware with software I usually pass both of them through my converters so I can hear the exact same treatment to both signals so its a completely fair test. I don't think internal summing sounds the same to my ears. Maybe its my Rosetta adding a bit of analogue mojo. (which I personally love) But certainly whether you would class a conversion as better or worse its all a matter of subjectivity and suitability to your or your clients music. So you do what makes you reach that end product. I've noticed that TOP mastering engineers comment on certain converters that play well with some hardware and not with others so this can also be a matter of marriage just like it would be for a microphone pairing to desired preamp. Converters surely do imho add a sound even if its subtle. I use multiple converters because I like to use them all for different things. Motu 896HD was my first converters as well as Creamware scope back when I didn't really understand the hardware so well. 21 years ago now. Currently still using an old school Apogee Rosetta 800, A Burl B2 Bomber and always experimenting. Hardware is usually my favourite choice. Softwares come a long way but most of the time still introduces some aliasing if not gain staged correctly so I usually use them in parallel and don't push them like I would my hardware. Mostly love Acustica stuff and using IRs or over sampling. All the best with your videos and keep it up!
But you don't use plugins that way. You don't do an adda trip every time you put a plugin on :D for testing, okay, just out of curiostity but yeah, not a real life comparison
@@mixbustv actually a lot of engineers loop plugins back into the chain. It’s very realistic and normal. Read SOS magazine mix reviews. Every top mix engineer working hybrid does it!
Nice video! Results where to be expected here. I think I could hear a tiny difference in the 10th pass thru drums, focusing on transients. Even in that extreme, non real life, case it could be just my bias.
is it fair to say the ad is vital to capturing the best clear solid signal that goes for whole chain source mic cable pre convertor as the whole sum of micro detail, then bounce out a wav to send for an analogue mixbus master, i see so many youtube guitarists with thousands of pounds of guitar chain going into a cheap interface, does my nut in,
people who think the plugins sound the same need to try a real la2a for example. I was floored how different it sounded the first time I tried recording with hardware.
Nice test and valid conclusions! Have you tried the Pacific Microsonics Model Two? Many consider it the pinnacle of AD conversion regardless it is a 20+ years product.
All well said... Truth of the matter - even a handheld recorder's AD/DA is just fine... maybe going up to 384 kHz or higher for scientific measuring purposes will begin to show the weaknesses. Another fact - patchboys are practically pointless with decent conversion... I wish I hadn't even bothered buying mine, when in the end, I realized - Pro Tools IS a digital patch bay since you can patch one in to one out, etc., for each external insert, and it's all latency-managed (and no latency anyway, with the HDX)! Once i got over the fact that multiple round trips of conversion is no issue at all, life was much easier regarding different routings. :)
why didn't you just make a null test? I must say that I didn't quite understand what was the point of debunking such a nonsense! anyway, I love your content, I've learnt so much from you, thanks man, you are awesome!
Because you don't need a null test to hear the difference between analog vs plugin do we? And anyone who touched analog once know that it will NEVER null, that's analog, even just a pass on the ADDA. If you run the same track twice, as in two 1st passes of the original they won't null. I find it funny that people claim they don't hear a difference in plugins vs hw videos or it doesn't matter but lol this, everyone has golden ears?
@@mixbustv ok! I watched the video again and now I completely understand what's all about! I lost one or two lines and I thought you talked about ADDA converters in general! that's why I didn't grasp the 10fold passing and such! However, now I am realizing that it was even sillier than before, because as you said, the hw units of that kind are non linear (like most plugs)!
Oh, this is not what I was thinking it was. I thought this said AD/DA converter roundup! Like a shootout with the Lavry Gold and the Dangerous Music AD+. That's what I've been waiting for. AD/DA roundtrip test?! What the? Phew! SMH. I'm glad we put an end to that one. I didn't even know that was a thing.
always clear and straight to the point! I'd like to know if you have any experience with Lynx converters, since I'm looking into an Aurora n. They seem to be super transparent, and I would be upgrading from my conversion of my old MOTU audio interface (which is still great!), thanks
The N series is legit. The series before it, not so much. If you buy one negotiate the price. Retailers have a lot of margin in them and have a decent amount of wiggle room to cut you a deal. The Hilo is also really good as someone else has mentioned.
I mean, you can hear the difference. It's just subtle, and not a fundamental one. I'd definitely rather incur an extra round trip through hardware than the sound of a plugin.
Most guys use say a burl converter for clipping reasons during mix down. I prefer to use a summing box. Everyones different. I have heard some of the best engineers say 44.1 sounds better than 48khz. They say 48khz sounds to digital but then they go on to say 96khz sounds great. People have to realize we all have different ears and hear maybe a little different. Great video. There are people that say summing boxes dont make a difference. I can switch a right and left channel into mono say channel 1 and 2 summing box and it will blow your mind. Night and day compared to get mono to come through that way in the daw or into your interface.
There's opinions and science. If you say 44.1 sounds better than 48, that's an option. 48 sounds better than 44.1 it's science. Burl doesn't handle clipping as good as AD+ or Lavry or even Prism or Crane, clipping is different than transformer coloration which is what the Burl has
@@mixbustv yea I agree but like I said there are known popular engineers that have said this that 48khz sounds really digital and 44.1 kHz sounds better lol. Then went on to say 96khz sounds fine too. It blew my mind because I always use 48khz so I’m like wtf. I have never noticed much of a difference.
David I mean what is this guy on About..A few yrs ago 2 guys from present day production's channel put to test 2 audio interfaces.The SSL2 and the ID14 and asked this question.They ran It through the interfaces 500 times.its worth a watch.Your video's are great man.
Hi. Great video. Can you do a null test with 1 pass versus 5 pass, and then 10 pass. A null test is the final test to hear if there is any small difference . Thanks
reading about converters on gearslutz leading at some point to your videl...someone put this link...and I said lets watch it...even if I have also did same tests years back...not with plugins... BUT one thing that I hear in first round trip is that looks like converters cut some very high frequencys...same felling as when you use lopass filter ...lets say around 16kHz on any source...lets say guitars or drums or vocal...you instantly fell like you hear more depth in sound...analog feel...more alive...less cold... Any way.... I and what I found today by listening through cheap mobile headphones on my laptop is, that could be right that , that all plugins will sound more analog with looptripp at some point , where some very high fequencys (above 20kHz) will be cut with every new round tripp with anz converter. Like when you do lopass on instruments when mixing ITB for more analog vibe. So your test feels like the same proces, if you will cut some hi and probably also lo end at some point that happend any way with every round loop through converters even if 99,99% of regular people it is not able to hear a difference . Even some very trained engineers cant hear it...but some can. And to some means this alot...to 99,99% of listeners of music...they don't care...they just hear a song... But there are people that care about all this and means to them alot...it adds this push and feel more... maybe emotions...deep feelings...more space... try once just cut some extreme very highs on master...and than add back some...it feels like you add depth to the space. Cheers!
Awesome video!!!! 🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾 People I tell you! There is no comparison!! 😂😆🤣🤣😂😂you’re so right! It’s the people who don’t have any outboard gear that’s making these statements. In my opinion plug ins are just 1’s and 0’s and these companies are referencing outboard gear so they can craft the digital into what outboard gear sounds like. So it’s just an EMULATION. As close as they can get it. The outboard gear these naysayers have to take into consideration all the internal components of outboard gear that colors the sound that digital simply cannot replicate. Still usable. Just nowhere near the same. You’re absolutely right Conversion is conversion regardless. Please continue to pound that into peoples heads. I believe that in this day and age how much better can conversion get Love when you break these videos down. Keep it up sir!!!!!
Saying "the digital cannot replicate analog" is just as wrong as the people saying CD sounded worse than vinyl because it cannot reconstruct the smoth waveform and it looked stepped... Anything can be simulated, it's just a matter of ballance between complexity and practicality. There are software programs that can do complex electromagnetic simulations, circuit modelling and so on, but making a plugin needs to be comercially viable. A company that would spend - let's say - 5 years working only on 1 plugin to actually simulate all electronic componets, in a physically accurate way, as well as interactions, would be out of business instantly. So at the moment, while possible, is too difficult and not practically viable. But software is getting better and better, and quite soon, it would be impossible to reliably tell the difference, even by experienced engineers, it is inevitable.
@Alexandru Lapugean plugins companies, in case you missed it, has been trying to emulate analog for 30+ years. And yet, analog is still better. Plus, if you ever worked with analog, you should know the ergonomics are just as important, plus you should also know that different chains will yeld different results, if anything just because of impedance differences between unit a and unit b. It doesn't matter how much money or time you throw at research and development, you won't do it. Just like CD don't sound like vinyl or tape. Why can't you people get over it lol don't buy analog and keep using plugins, we don't care, we don't come to you saying you're wasting money on your plugins. Yet, most mixes and masters out there, that sound great, are done in analog. Great, not good. Good is the enemy of great. We don't care about good here.
@@mixbustv 🤣😆😂😆🤣😆😂🤣Tell’em sir! Tell’em!!! Why waste the time and money on an emulation when you can go online or to your local music equipment store and buy/order outboard gear that’ll give you the sound you’re looking for🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾. Whatever works for a Engineer works for that Engineer. MixbusTv you might have to do a Documentary on this to get your point across on a bigger scale. 🤦🏾🤦🏾😂😂 like for real sir!!!
@@mixbustv Of course I agree with you with ergonomics/workflow, even the quality/liveliness ... at the moment. They have been trying, but where has the technology been at 20 years ago? Even now, as I mentioned, it is not really feasible, even though possible. The EM simulations I was talking about, are no even close to realtime. So computation power is also a limitation. But all these are just at the moment. There is no reason why digital could not do it. There is no "analog magic" that cannot be - by principle - reproduced by the digital, it's just variations/tolerances/interactions tha are really complex so not feasible from a financial or computational point of view in the present. And I hate to break it to you, but vinyl or tape do not sound better than CD, at least not in the way I am refering to it. The same waveform tthat sits on that vinyl or tape, could be perfectly be reproduced on a CD. But this is not the way it is done. A CD master sounds exactly as intended and heard by the engineer. A vinyl master is completely different. You have limitations with regards to the abilities of the cutting head, depth and thickness of the channels, depending on the song, there is plenty of filtering you need to do in order to feasibly cut that vinyl, and so on. For tape is similar, the sound will be modified by the magnetization process which is not perfect. Both these cases modify the incoming sound in a way that some perceive as "better", but if you did those changes in the master itself (for example running it trough a tape machine) and wrote that on a CD, what would be the difference?
While I agree that there is a difference between analog and digital, it is usually a very subtle one, this is why in mixing we try to approximate these differences by using saturation and clippers and different analog modeled signal paths to try to get that sound in the box. But having said that I can't really hear the difference here on RUclips through my car stereo, which is usually my last stop with my mixes for quality check. So if I can't hear it now through all that, is it really something that I need to be worried about? If I had the money I would love to have a burl mother ship setup. That is my dream converter. It has that clear 3d thing that I love from analog and that's hard to get in digital. But it's also one of those super subtle differences that only someone wired like me would either hear or care about. Your average listener isn't going to hear that difference, even if you sit them down, explained it and pointed it out while they were listening to it. So should I stress over not having it? I don't think so.
No sir analog and digital are not the same. My $4000 black box is the reason I don’t have to worry about clipping my drums and losing transients to save headroom. That unit is the reason I can hit a beautiful -7 LUFS on my Masters.
I'm not interested in the objections at this point. It's just funny how with plug-in vs hw it seems people can't hear the difference but some grew golden ears for this video lol
Oh my.. I'm so surprised to comments like this. Like, you realize that analog will NEVER null right? If you pass one track once, then you pass the original again and null test the two 1st passes will NEVER null, right? This is one of the reasons as to why analog is different then digital. And also you don't need a null test to hear the difference between plug-ins and analog in that video.
@@mixbustv I'm just saying to show what difference there actually is in the spectrum. I can't be the only one curious to see the actual delta. I'm not saying it's the most practical application and the sound is the most important part but still something that might be interesting.
Only thing I disagree w/ David here is when he said that “No AD/DA round trip will make the plug-in sound better” (to the ear) because I believe here the term “better” is subjective. If I choose to sample a plug-in from my DAW into a SP-1200 or MPC3000 and the sound I get back from the conversion of either one of those samplers sounds better to the ear as far as I’m concerned then the sound DID get better. Even if it is just the coloration of those machines that I like.
But I didn't say "to the ear" :D which you added. That is the entire point. You can like 8bit converters but that's *objectively* worse, there's no way around the fact that a conversion, any conversion is detrimental. But even tubes are in fact detrimental if we look at it from a fidelity standpoint, yet we like them, same for transformers. The point is converters are not color boxes, at best they should have an OPTION for color, but I personally do not want my converter to color by default because is like starting a paint with an orange (or pick the color) canvas instead of white.
@@mixbustv no doubt, I appreciate it. And I get that wasn't the point you were making to begin with, I just wanted to offer a counter perspective. lol.
Lots of articles online talk about 20$ plugins are way better than some mid level hardware not excluding this case ad/da conversion processors, but I have never seen anyone provided an actual example such as xxx compressor, xxx eq or interface sounds bad.
U can compare the plug in and the hardware. Just make sure when u using the plug in. The ad da roudtrip is happening, and the fusion hardware bypassed.
This is the silliest idea ever. In what universe you use plugins like that? Tell me who the heck does a pass on their ADDA every time they put a plugin on, like anyone with a functioning brain.
The difference in converters in the tone is when they have analog components that add tone, I.E transformers (some are selectable some aren't) ... which is again, will be what analog adds... the actual conversion isn't what would be adding the tone difference, it'll be the same components added to the circuitry that give the analog unit their sound also... you can bypass the transformer in yours and so you will only hear the color of the unit... I think it is a bit silly to put color in the conversion because you'll be getting that from the units you buy anyway and one tone doesn't fit all. I personally love what Burl does to the sound, but that's their circuitry not their conversion and that circuitry is the analog and the things brought that we love about analog. If you put another transformer in the line then it would't represent the unit reviewed well, but, your not a idiot so wouldn't do that lol. A lot of advice out there is taken out of context... so it's not really stupid to think because certain converters do have a sound, so have the sound option and some it's just baked in. I only got to use the Burl one time, I'm not actually sure if those are selectable, they probably are. I've not heard enough converters to have opinion on what I'd think was best for myself... and i'd be trying to find the one that when clean doesn't take from the sound, so I can trust what I'm hearing will be what is captured.
I had this issue with some old DAW's which seemed to have a different sound when mixed down to what was being played when the project was open. Those are issues of the passed... but again, looking for what doesn't take from the sound.
Maybe that guy who put that comment mixed the normal use of a converter which is like you show, totally transparent, with clipping a converter, which will surely change the sound (for better of for worst)
Can’t hear a damn thing on my iPhone for the synth. But I definitely hear the difference even at 5 passes on the drums and vocal. Didn’t think I would. But I can. Something akin to saturation or loss of detail in the upper mids/highs. Interesting.
Cool Video. Iam the opposite guy, I have a SSL Fusion Hardware and Neumann KH310, but I rarely use it. I was mixing so long in the box and with my DT770 pro, that it become my style of working and its hard for me to switch my workflow. Think always about to sell my speakers and the fusion, because of that.
Do what gets you the most output. It's always a grass is greener scenario. There is always 'better' something available. Trust me when you get your first hit using free plugins you realise none of it matters as long as you have the ear training to know. except to other engineers and audiophiles if course. And those two aren't a profitable audience!
@@Bthelick I use UAD plugins and imho most of them are sounding great. What I love is the total recall, when I work simultan on different projects. Sometimes when I know that a track come to the end, I start the SSL Fusion.
the only discernible difference i believe i could hear was 10 passes on the drum track, sounded like the transient snap was slightly weaker after the 10 passes i suspect the transient issue could be largely dealt with using proper clock sync or something very interesting to hear you can pass through A/D multiple times without discernible difference, thanks
Thanks, I also use klotz 5000 and vovox sonorus, sometimes I find klotz a little accentuated in high mid freq. sometimes I suspect cables affected sound more than converters. Best
Very interesting video. I watched it carefully in my studio through monitors. Basically I can clearly hear (or that`s my imagination only) the difference. So the first run sounds fuller, richer than the original track (or that`s maybe it`s sllightly louder?) and 5th and 10th pass sound a lot worse than the original track. How would you comment on that Dave? Also... When having an external converter doesn't add anything in addition, and every converter degradates the sound, why do we have so many high end AD DA converters on the market? Thank you so much for your reply.
I hear same as you bro, i think the sound from a converter, give more thickness and easy to mixing to the sound. In this video test, i disagree with David 😅
I won't beat the guy up, because this happens all the time and has probably happened to us all at some point. The only difference us we didn't get called out in a video. Haha. This is likely a result of some other RUclips guy or 'engineer' who said this and this dude just trusted it was true without testing and has spread it. Just like the old rules of cutting instead of boosting eq, etc... Cool video. Thanks for it!
Very nice one mate ! If I may, I don’t know where the original audio files are coming from but the vocal has such a rumble in the low end that my room is shaking 😱
@@maddietourmaline46 Well, I would really believe you if I actually haven't double-checked with headphones... Please guys, tell me you hear that low freq thingy in heaphones too?! (checked through HD650) I know at 45 my upper range is slowly falling into the void but my lows are good enough to hear this substantially ;) I'm definitely not talking about things I made up based on psychoacoustic effects of some sort. I can even add we can hear other track(s) in the vocal's reverb that have been exported with... I'm almost certain the low end rumbling is part of this reverb export, which can happen... But I wonder why we can find such low freqs in the low end of a reverb in a mix. Keep in mind I'm not trying to be an asshole tackling around, just want to analyse that thing I hear...
@@UltraSteaKME I believe that and I think you're hearing things correctly. I might just like bass a little too much. For the record I was listening on headphones as well, including a pair of very bass-enthusiastic v-moda Crossfades - my take is that the vocals probably have more low mids than they would in a mix (arbitrary but pretty indisputable). Still I am getting no distortion or discomfort and the vocal track sounds good to my ears. I would likely consider turning down or compressing the 150-300 hz range at least gently if I were to mix em', then mess around some more til I found values that worked better. Not something I noticed at first blush, but that may say more about my lack of ear training than your experience :>
@@mixbustv There is definitely a 60hz or 50hz hum going on in this recording, or a truck driving by, or some low tone. The vocal itself sounds fine but there is some low nonsense happening for sure.
I can speak for the Titan as I have one, and it is amazing. I've never used their converters but literally everything Wes makes is top shelf so it's safe to assume that's no different
USE THE SUPER THANKS IF YOU LIKED THIS VIDEO! 👆👆👆
My Small Monitors: imp.i114863.net/qaPmg
My Headphones: imp.i114863.net/2Dzyz
SSL Fusion Video: ruclips.net/video/zQ-wlyMTyOo/видео.html
🔥 YOU GOTTA WATCH THIS! ➡️ ruclips.net/video/YuRVDyGL0VY/видео.html 🔥
🔥Join the Channel to Access All The Premium Courses:
bit.ly/2SNX8bx + Mix Consultations
🔥Bella Kelly's Single/Video Throat: bit.ly/3dxeJOf
The Small Monitors link doesn't go anywhere.
The reason I love this channel is you're telling the absolute truth of everything in audio. No acting
🙏🙏
Pfft.
I'm calling you out on this one.
(He's the Terminator.)
@@antoine2817 Name one better then ?
best audio engineering channel on youtube, been here since day 1
You should call this "Thoughful Thursday's. Debunking audio myths, lies, and misconceptions" 😁
A null test would have been nice to see what is actually different between the two files.
Yes, please!
True
No brainer
Good call. This test should be able to be replicated by most ppl watching so let's do it.
came to the comments to say the same thing
I used to own Lavry blue and black, they are outstanding. The funny thing is I’m a home producer and now I use a focusrite and I’m very happy with it. If you are not doing high end mixing and mastering i don’t think it’s that important
Trabalho com eletrônica há 19 anos, faço reparos de interfaces de áudio no Brasil. O Conversor NÃO colore a música, e sim o circuito driver/ pré que o antecede. É só pegar o datasheet do componente conversor e pesquisar, ele tem e é neutro. A questão do som ser mais agradável em um que em outro se deve ao circuito anterior, e isso é pessoal e indiscutível.
NICE. Sometimes you can't tell people 'the truth' .... you must SHOW THEM. Your time and effort ..... MUCH appreciated !!!
🙏
the MAP is NOT the TERRITORY! from alfred korzybski’s general semantics. what it means is this: the “map” is always an approximation, a model, like a plugin version of hardware. it attempts to model the analog as simply and as dsp efficient as possible. its always a battle of how accurate the model is vs how “expensive” is it dsp, latency-wise. but always remember: the physical universe is always more complex than the map or the model. plugins can only approximate. all maps and all models necessarily have to approximate.
Thanks for contributing a comment that makes zero sense. Trying to be deep on RUclips comments...great job.
@@Jazzguitar00 It wasn't complicated. If you didn't understand, ask for clarification.
A null test would be fun. Though of course, just academic. I did this same test (10 passes) with my 2002 built M-Audio for snicks and giggles, and got pretty much the same results. I couldn't tell the diff at all - though I don't have super developed ears.
Não há diferença. Conversores são TODOS iguais. Os circuitos antes dele que podem modificar o som.
What you also can offer is a phase inversion on one channel and then mix them with the 10 times resampled sound (technically called "AND" operator). Then the difference is what you hear. If we hear silence, there would be no difference, everything else is exactly the difference between the signals. Only the latency must be compensated which could be done by a leading click sound
We didn't need a null test to hear analog vs plug-in difference right? A null test with analog vs the original is useless as two 1 passes won't even null
@@mixbustvIt would be interesting, though, where the differences are. Maybe even just to realize that it makes no sense.
@@mixbustv was just an suggestion for the heretics and unbelievers 🙃
THIS is why I love your channel so much. Thank you David!
the result is what i already supposed: the converters of today are so really good that you didn´t get a mess in the signal if you put it a lot of times through it ... thx for your vid and the content 👍👍👍
🙌
I do wonder what options works best and most bang for buck for connecting a lot of outboard with this principle in mind. Digitally controlled analogue routing vs huge amount of I/O and having a few extra conversion trips. I suppose mostly it depends on the material
And genre to a degree. So a bank of Patches vs a Bank of Ferrofish? Could be a very complex and time consuming video to out together. 😂
Thanks for doing this test and video! Could Definitely hear the difference, before seeing this I ran my own ad/da loop tests between ferrofish, Apollo; Apollo x, lead me to upgrade to lynx Aurora, couldn’t be happier mixing and tracking, yes analog is deeper , more detailed than the software emulations with proper converters in my humble opinion but of course most people can’t hear the difference and it doesn’t matter
i own a cl1b hardware and the cl1b uad plugin and id prefer the hardware any day ..... ..... i love plugins but i love hardware more , cant live without both of them
I'll take 400 passes through a cheap modern converter any time over re-tracking take after take on tape. The crosstalk and bleed would always be horrible but the more you had to re-record over a track or punch in & out the more noise would creep up into that track. Between the 2 cycles for each pass across the heads to record and rewind the more you would re-record over a track the more crosstalk (bleed) you would have between the track you were recording and the other tracks on each side. This is why you normally see Bass guitar is on the 1st or last track and usually kick is on the 1st or last track. The lower the instrument the more it would spill over to other tracks on the tape. If you ever see a 1 inch or 2 inch tracking reel and the bass guitar is on a middle track you can be for certain than the engineers was a total noob or an very new assistant. After 20 to 30 plays the tape would begin to degrade from heat and friction so if it was an important session as soon as you were done tracking you made a safety copy to ensure that if the mix process went too long or overdubbing became a problem you could at least make recall sheets from the first mixes on the Dull original tape and then when you were ready to commit the mix down to 1/4 inch 2-track you would switch out the dull tape to the clean safety copy instead. Preserving as much fidelity as possible. None of these things are even an issue in modern recording and I am SO thankful for! I came up in the last years of tape and it was so much HARDER to get a good recording with so many factors that could go horribly wrong.
@@p0llenp0nyBecause its hardware, give me an analog console any day to do tracking sessions with since it makes the session move faster but TAPE SUCKS. The hysteresis would eat reverbs and delays so you have to over use them to even hear them on the mixdown tape. But good tape machines like a MCI JH24 made inexperienced engineers get better results during tracking since the tape would kind of glue things together and because engineers HAD to gain stage properly. There was no clip gain to pull an over cooked track down. You were basically mixing as you tracked it and you had to learn to get it right at the beginning. It was a pain but you would at least learn the fundamentals of recording. Today its the wild west and everybody has an opinion on how to do things their way and DAWs are very forgiving for bad engineers. But rewinding the tape and saying ROLLING for an overdub to start was way more fun than pushing the spacebar or R for record on a Mac!! LOL
A lot of drama about tape. Use a Studer A820 or 827 and don't print so hot. I can't relate to the tape hate at all, it sounds better, makes for mellower, less obsessive sessions. Maybe doesn't work for the most modern music, but generally sounds better than PCM for many genres. Converters keep getting better and better, and they keep losing less and less of the detail in the source tape.
I work with digital now, and have to put in a ton more effort and money to try and deal with all the harsh edges, plugin artifacts etc. But I've yet to find a way around the detail that is lost with PCM. Tape, hardware, and console was WAY, WAY easier to get a good sound. Maybe I just lucked out working at studios that had high end stuff like API, SSL, Studer, Ampex etc. And also, musicians who could actually play and weren't relying on endless edits, tuning, or snap to grid.
@@chipsnmydip I can see benefits for both a good machine like and MCI JH24 or and Studer 827 with its digital EQ curve instant recall, running at 30ips and a tape formula that can handle hot signals such as +9 like GP9 or 499 is as good as any digital session running at 96K with about roughly the same bandwidth and very low noise for tape. But the time it takes is atrocious compared to modern computers. I think the reason digital gets such a bad wrap for many people is the level of i/o they buy. Recording on a Studer 827 was 1000 times better than recording on the 24 track 1 inch unbalanced Tascam MSR24 with no head room! Modern converters are better than they have ever been but the analog side of modern interfaces can vary wildly. Impedance differences in line level inputs from one brand to the next can be a pain to work with, the DBU levels of the outputs for monitoring can be from 14dbu to 22dbu and so on. So its less about the converter chips today and more about the analog inputs and outputs on a interface that can really be great or garbage.
But I treat the DAW like a modern tape machine for the most part. But I still prefer the workflow on a computer compared to a tape machine simply for the fact that UNDO is a real option that did not exist in the analog days!! LOL
@@joesalyers I can appreciate and agree with all this. I did a few projects with Tascam 38, 1/4" 8 track, and it was very fortunate that these were lofi records...
Oh my god, I'm chomping at the bit one minute into this. Daddy's going to teach someone a lesson and we get to watch, laugh, and learn! 🤣
😄
The "do a roundtrip to have more oomph" thingy you are referring to at the end, stems from the idea that you may get grittier sound if you clip the converter..I think it's useful to know how your converters sound when clipped, but that's about it
I don't know where it stems from but you see many home studio guys running adda trips with low budget interfaces because they thing it adds "analog vibe" which is obviously ridiculous
I still use my Universal Audio 2192 converter on the input, cause it imparts some sort of harmonic distortion that makes everything sound "bigger", compared to my Apogee Symphony converters. It's not clean, but, for a lack of a better word "more anologue" sounding to my ears. It's not accurate, but more pleasing. In a similar way in the old days, tapes were impacting the sound, and that was cool. It's a matter of a personal taste, but I'd never sell my UA 2192, regardless of how cleaner other converters sound.
with one pass the difference is negligible, but there is a very subtle smearing of transients. with 5 passes, it became more apparent, especially if you listen closely to the high frequencies such as hi hats or sibilance. at 10 passes, it was obvious. it would be interesting to hear all the tracks together because i think the difference is most noticeable in a mix.
thx, great video! that's, what i waited for.
Nice! I always wandered how much the adda roundtrip was affecting the sound
Very interesting. Thank you for your effort to make this "shocking" video. In addition, I learned that the psyche also has an effect on the hearing result. Just close your eyes and you will hear.
The thing is, every conversion is always detrimental, even todays converters, even the ones used in “intro” or “low end” gear is generally so good that many people can’t hear the difference. But making peope listen to it on RUclips kinda is totally irelevant as it will destroy any purpose of giving a meaningfull and true a/b compare. Not that you can’t hear differences, but they are not representing the true real world difference between 2 different signals when you add the compression from the RUclips codec
Nice experiment :) As expected, after 10 passes it definitely sounds slightly more "dull", the difference is even audible after youtubes lossy encoding. Applying a steep lowpass filter close to nyquist freq. is part of the conversion process btw. so they obviously do effect high frequencies and when working at 44.1k that can be audible at least after multiple conversions. Claiming that this is the only difference between analog/digital signal processors is obviously nuts, a heavily oversampled plugin could theoretically come pretty close to how the analog effect sounds though.
Exactly, and also I've been "nice" and did it at 48 with my worst conversion
My first pass is my entire mix going the the Burl ADC. Once I am done mixing I send my summing output to my Neve MBP and that runs to my Dangerous AD+ for my 1 only print. That’s my 2nd pass. Burl for color on the mix and AD+ for clean masters
Beautiful!
@@mixbustv that combo with the ASH and Symph EQ is ridiculous sounding.
@@tytansoundlab Acustica ASH ? What do you do with it, since you are already using the Burl for colour ?
@@bontempo1271 use it as a clipper to squeeze a few more dbs into my mix. And it sounds great. It’s last right before my mastering chain
@@tytansoundlab Ah yes, i've just been reading about ASH, i thought it was emulating the colour aswell, but it's only doing the clipper part. Cool thanks for replying
I just took Dangerous Covert AD+.
I convinced myself thanks to your previous videos (Crazy Clipping 😆).
I confirm that it's true: Converters really make a difference on sound.
Thanks David for sharing these tips for good music
Duh of course they make a difference
Thanks for doing this test! Very interesting. I would have expected to hear more differences in the 10 AD/DA conversions. But that's quite an eye-opener! :D
All these yrs...i never thought of this david, interesting experiment! Thanx again
Thank you, David. Another great video! By the way, I have SSL Fusion hardware, and compared it to the SSL plugins. Regarding the Vintage Drive, as you said, the differences are drastic.
did you compare the acoustica version?
@@ManOfDoodle No, I compared only SSL Fusion plugins. Maybe somebody else on this stream did and can comment.
I'm confused, because I saw a video where someone demonstrates the difference in conversion between an RME, a Crane Song and some other converter. And I can hear a difference even though RUclips extremely compresses and degrades the audio in the videos. There is a massive difference. What is it, if not the converters? The clock? I don't get it. Why should I buy an Apogee Symphony when converters do not matter and not just buy a Focusrite Scarlett?
Who said it doesn't matter or there's no difference? There's a reason why I have MOTU, and there's a reason why I have Dangerous. The fact that I said MOTU are my "worst" converters doesn't mean they're bad or cheap, but the dangerous is 4x the price per channel of course they're better. MOTU are still Amazon. The others you mentioned do change the sound more. The point here wasn't a convert battle, it was to show that one pass is irrelevant
This test needed to be done. Thank you for sharing and adding audio examples! From my tests, the ONLY converters that sounded identical or better than the digital signal were Merging Technologies. They're literally the best (as in closest to raw signal in DAW). I've never heard converters that sounded exactly like the digital audio. Even my RADAR ADA II converters adds a little color and softens transients. The cheaper converters from my tests were less pleasant sounding and had less transient detail, when comparing to the top converters in the market (Prismsound, Merging Technologies, RADAR). As a hybrid mix engineer, I'd say that converters are VITAL, for accurate audio response of the hardware. It can lead to making different choices in the mix, similar to using oversampling in a plugin vs not. I did enjoy this video!
Which Merging Technologies converters do you have?
@@ilikemyrealname , The HAPI with the 2020 Premium cards sounded the best. This was specifically for muti-track converters. There are stereo converters like Forssell MADA-2 and JCF Latte that are at the same quality as HAPI, from my recent tests.
@@americanantagon1st Thanks for your response, I’ll check these out. I think Marc Daniel Nelson mentioned using the Latte.
@@ilikemyrealname , No problem at all! My pleasure! Yes, the Latte is at the same level as the top converters and the price reflects this.
Converter has steep Low Pass filters above 20k. Thats a good thing.
Jay clas is famous now LOL
Great video as always David! Is it possible to get the files? I would love to do a blind test myself and I think I speak for a lot of people!
Amazing video! This should have a million views
Waiting for your thoughts on this new product called Freqtube Ft 1 by Freqport. Analogue external tubes for a plugin!
Awesome test. I did this on a multitrack of vsti and confirmed same thing. Better to improve mixing chops than waste time running everything out and back into converters.
One is talking about sound perception improvement (like a limiter/clippr can do) the other one about pure technical point of view where the A/D clipping process is physically shapping/cutting the signal ….
Plugins can both emulate AD/DA cvt sound shaping and sound processing with the typical color of the emulated HW, but, reaching the HW flavour with the SW emulation (plugin) is another story.
Maybe I'm missing something about your comment but nobody mentioned clipping anywhere
Physically cutting? A signal? Which is not physical? Ok.
Great work! 👍
"It's always the people that don't have analog hardware the screams and shouts that they are the same, we don't give a damn." lol so true. 😂🙃💯🤷♀
2:14 en serio??? el risitas con jesus quintero es de lo mejor que ha podido dar españa al humor universal
No olvidemos la escoba.
Again, thanks for this video. Learn something new every time( almost 😊) keep it up
Actually when comparing any hardware with software I usually pass both of them through my converters so I can hear the exact same treatment to both signals so its a completely fair test. I don't think internal summing sounds the same to my ears. Maybe its my Rosetta adding a bit of analogue mojo. (which I personally love) But certainly whether you would class a conversion as better or worse its all a matter of subjectivity and suitability to your or your clients music. So you do what makes you reach that end product. I've noticed that TOP mastering engineers comment on certain converters that play well with some hardware and not with others so this can also be a matter of marriage just like it would be for a microphone pairing to desired preamp. Converters surely do imho add a sound even if its subtle. I use multiple converters because I like to use them all for different things. Motu 896HD was my first converters as well as Creamware scope back when I didn't really understand the hardware so well. 21 years ago now. Currently still using an old school Apogee Rosetta 800, A Burl B2 Bomber and always experimenting. Hardware is usually my favourite choice. Softwares come a long way but most of the time still introduces some aliasing if not gain staged correctly so I usually use them in parallel and don't push them like I would my hardware. Mostly love Acustica stuff and using IRs or over sampling. All the best with your videos and keep it up!
But you don't use plugins that way. You don't do an adda trip every time you put a plugin on :D for testing, okay, just out of curiostity but yeah, not a real life comparison
@@mixbustv actually a lot of engineers loop plugins back into the chain. It’s very realistic and normal. Read SOS magazine mix reviews. Every top mix engineer working hybrid does it!
Nice video! Results where to be expected here. I think I could hear a tiny difference in the 10th pass thru drums, focusing on transients. Even in that extreme, non real life, case it could be just my bias.
Yes you can at the 10th pass, if done at higher SR with the AD+ we probably woldn't hear a thing
@@mixbustv What about the others? Is that your ultimate choice for transparency?
is it fair to say the ad is vital to capturing the best clear solid signal that goes for whole chain source mic cable pre convertor as the whole sum of micro detail, then bounce out a wav to send for an analogue mixbus master, i see so many youtube guitarists with thousands of pounds of guitar chain going into a cheap interface, does my nut in,
The opening email read 😂
people who think the plugins sound the same need to try a real la2a for example. I was floored how different it sounded the first time I tried recording with hardware.
Great video! Thanks David👍😎🎸
Thank you!
Great vid, thank you! Fan from Poland
this video is a commercial for doing multiple passes😂...esp on drums
really great channel. Thank you for sharing what you do! Cheers from Bugtustle!
This conversion give warm tone to original one.
Nice test and valid conclusions! Have you tried the Pacific Microsonics Model Two? Many consider it the pinnacle of AD conversion regardless it is a 20+ years product.
I like the first trip. It sounds smooth, silky and more pronounced.😂😂😂😂😂
All well said...
Truth of the matter - even a handheld recorder's AD/DA is just fine... maybe going up to 384 kHz or higher for scientific measuring purposes will begin to show the weaknesses.
Another fact - patchboys are practically pointless with decent conversion... I wish I hadn't even bothered buying mine, when in the end, I realized - Pro Tools IS a digital patch bay since you can patch one in to one out, etc., for each external insert, and it's all latency-managed (and no latency anyway, with the HDX)! Once i got over the fact that multiple round trips of conversion is no issue at all, life was much easier regarding different routings. :)
why didn't you just make a null test? I must say that I didn't quite understand what was the point of debunking such a nonsense!
anyway, I love your content, I've learnt so much from you, thanks man, you are awesome!
Because you don't need a null test to hear the difference between analog vs plugin do we? And anyone who touched analog once know that it will NEVER null, that's analog, even just a pass on the ADDA. If you run the same track twice, as in two 1st passes of the original they won't null. I find it funny that people claim they don't hear a difference in plugins vs hw videos or it doesn't matter but lol this, everyone has golden ears?
@@mixbustv ok! I watched the video again and now I completely understand what's all about! I lost one or two lines and I thought you talked about ADDA converters in general! that's why I didn't grasp the 10fold passing and such! However, now I am realizing that it was even sillier than before, because as you said, the hw units of that kind are non linear (like most plugs)!
This is why it’s so important to capture great tones GOING INTO THE BOX
Why? Lol yes it's important but this test literally demonstrates adda trips have zero impact 😄
Yes! I've been waiting for this one!
Oh, this is not what I was thinking it was. I thought this said AD/DA converter roundup! Like a shootout with the Lavry Gold and the Dangerous Music AD+. That's what I've been waiting for. AD/DA roundtrip test?! What the? Phew! SMH. I'm glad we put an end to that one. I didn't even know that was a thing.
always clear and straight to the point! I'd like to know if you have any experience with Lynx converters, since I'm looking into an Aurora n.
They seem to be super transparent, and I would be upgrading from my conversion of my old MOTU audio interface (which is still great!), thanks
Aurora are great converters
I have the Hilo and it's astounding
The N series is legit. The series before it, not so much. If you buy one negotiate the price. Retailers have a lot of margin in them and have a decent amount of wiggle room to cut you a deal. The Hilo is also really good as someone else has mentioned.
Some people just overthink, looking for what they seek even when it just doesn't exist.
I would hope they would just get educated.
Wow, this was an eye opener! 💪💪
The snare was the easiest to hear what it did. There is a blurring of the snap to the transient. The snare loses a tiny bit of the pop.
I mean, you can hear the difference. It's just subtle, and not a fundamental one. I'd definitely rather incur an extra round trip through hardware than the sound of a plugin.
Thankyou for such great content bro... . The only mixing Channel I trust on RUclips . ❣️
🙌🙏
Most guys use say a burl converter for clipping reasons during mix down. I prefer to use a summing box. Everyones different. I have heard some of the best engineers say 44.1 sounds better than 48khz. They say 48khz sounds to digital but then they go on to say 96khz sounds great. People have to realize we all have different ears and hear maybe a little different. Great video. There are people that say summing boxes dont make a difference. I can switch a right and left channel into mono say channel 1 and 2 summing box and it will blow your mind. Night and day compared to get mono to come through that way in the daw or into your interface.
There's opinions and science. If you say 44.1 sounds better than 48, that's an option. 48 sounds better than 44.1 it's science. Burl doesn't handle clipping as good as AD+ or Lavry or even Prism or Crane, clipping is different than transformer coloration which is what the Burl has
@@mixbustv yea I agree but like I said there are known popular engineers that have said this that 48khz sounds really digital and 44.1 kHz sounds better lol. Then went on to say 96khz sounds fine too. It blew my mind because I always use 48khz so I’m like wtf. I have never noticed much of a difference.
Oh. Amazing comment. Wanna grab some chips and dips
Haha - best video ever! thanks!
Thanks for keeping it real.
Awesome video, very interesting content as always.
David I mean what is this guy on About..A few yrs ago 2 guys from present day production's channel put to test 2 audio interfaces.The SSL2 and the ID14 and asked this question.They ran It through the interfaces 500 times.its worth a watch.Your video's are great man.
Thank you!
Hi. Great video. Can you do a null test with 1 pass versus 5 pass, and then 10 pass. A null test is the final test to hear if there is any small difference . Thanks
reading about converters on gearslutz leading at some point to your videl...someone put this link...and I said lets watch it...even if I have also did same tests years back...not with plugins... BUT one thing that I hear in first round trip is that looks like converters cut some very high frequencys...same felling as when you use lopass filter ...lets say around 16kHz on any source...lets say guitars or drums or vocal...you instantly fell like you hear more depth in sound...analog feel...more alive...less cold... Any way.... I and what I found today by listening through cheap mobile headphones on my laptop is, that could be right that , that all plugins will sound more analog with looptripp at some point , where some very high fequencys (above 20kHz) will be cut with every new round tripp with anz converter. Like when you do lopass on instruments when mixing ITB for more analog vibe. So your test feels like the same proces, if you will cut some hi and probably also lo end at some point that happend any way with every round loop through converters even if 99,99% of regular people it is not able to hear a difference . Even some very trained engineers cant hear it...but some can. And to some means this alot...to 99,99% of listeners of music...they don't care...they just hear a song... But there are people that care about all this and means to them alot...it adds this push and feel more... maybe emotions...deep feelings...more space... try once just cut some extreme very highs on master...and than add back some...it feels like you add depth to the space. Cheers!
Love it, No BS!
Awesome video!!!!
🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾 People I tell you! There is no comparison!! 😂😆🤣🤣😂😂you’re so right! It’s the people who don’t have any outboard gear that’s making these statements.
In my opinion plug ins are just 1’s and 0’s and these companies are referencing outboard gear so they can craft the digital into what outboard gear sounds like. So it’s just an EMULATION. As close as they can get it.
The outboard gear these naysayers have to take into consideration all the internal components of outboard gear that colors the sound that digital simply cannot replicate. Still usable. Just nowhere near the same.
You’re absolutely right Conversion is conversion regardless. Please continue to pound that into peoples heads. I believe that in this day and age how much better can conversion get
Love when you break these videos down. Keep it up sir!!!!!
Saying "the digital cannot replicate analog" is just as wrong as the people saying CD sounded worse than vinyl because it cannot reconstruct the smoth waveform and it looked stepped... Anything can be simulated, it's just a matter of ballance between complexity and practicality. There are software programs that can do complex electromagnetic simulations, circuit modelling and so on, but making a plugin needs to be comercially viable. A company that would spend - let's say - 5 years working only on 1 plugin to actually simulate all electronic componets, in a physically accurate way, as well as interactions, would be out of business instantly. So at the moment, while possible, is too difficult and not practically viable. But software is getting better and better, and quite soon, it would be impossible to reliably tell the difference, even by experienced engineers, it is inevitable.
@Alexandru Lapugean plugins companies, in case you missed it, has been trying to emulate analog for 30+ years. And yet, analog is still better. Plus, if you ever worked with analog, you should know the ergonomics are just as important, plus you should also know that different chains will yeld different results, if anything just because of impedance differences between unit a and unit b. It doesn't matter how much money or time you throw at research and development, you won't do it. Just like CD don't sound like vinyl or tape. Why can't you people get over it lol don't buy analog and keep using plugins, we don't care, we don't come to you saying you're wasting money on your plugins. Yet, most mixes and masters out there, that sound great, are done in analog. Great, not good. Good is the enemy of great. We don't care about good here.
@@mixbustv 🤣😆😂😆🤣😆😂🤣Tell’em sir! Tell’em!!!
Why waste the time and money on an emulation when you can go online or to your local music equipment store and buy/order outboard gear that’ll give you the sound you’re looking for🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾🤦🏾.
Whatever works for a Engineer works for that Engineer.
MixbusTv you might have to do a Documentary on this to get your point across on a bigger scale. 🤦🏾🤦🏾😂😂 like for real sir!!!
@@mixbustv 💯💯💯💯💯🎯🎯🎯🎯
@@mixbustv Of course I agree with you with ergonomics/workflow, even the quality/liveliness ... at the moment. They have been trying, but where has the technology been at 20 years ago? Even now, as I mentioned, it is not really feasible, even though possible. The EM simulations I was talking about, are no even close to realtime. So computation power is also a limitation. But all these are just at the moment. There is no reason why digital could not do it. There is no "analog magic" that cannot be - by principle - reproduced by the digital, it's just variations/tolerances/interactions tha are really complex so not feasible from a financial or computational point of view in the present.
And I hate to break it to you, but vinyl or tape do not sound better than CD, at least not in the way I am refering to it. The same waveform tthat sits on that vinyl or tape, could be perfectly be reproduced on a CD. But this is not the way it is done. A CD master sounds exactly as intended and heard by the engineer. A vinyl master is completely different. You have limitations with regards to the abilities of the cutting head, depth and thickness of the channels, depending on the song, there is plenty of filtering you need to do in order to feasibly cut that vinyl, and so on. For tape is similar, the sound will be modified by the magnetization process which is not perfect. Both these cases modify the incoming sound in a way that some perceive as "better", but if you did those changes in the master itself (for example running it trough a tape machine) and wrote that on a CD, what would be the difference?
Some converters add a little bit of high frequency shelving. Arora for instance. I've never heard of an adda that attenuates high frequencies.
Some do, Burl does, in a different way some cheap ones do too
great test and it reveals there is no difference that is audible
While I agree that there is a difference between analog and digital, it is usually a very subtle one, this is why in mixing we try to approximate these differences by using saturation and clippers and different analog modeled signal paths to try to get that sound in the box. But having said that I can't really hear the difference here on RUclips through my car stereo, which is usually my last stop with my mixes for quality check. So if I can't hear it now through all that, is it really something that I need to be worried about? If I had the money I would love to have a burl mother ship setup. That is my dream converter. It has that clear 3d thing that I love from analog and that's hard to get in digital. But it's also one of those super subtle differences that only someone wired like me would either hear or care about. Your average listener isn't going to hear that difference, even if you sit them down, explained it and pointed it out while they were listening to it. So should I stress over not having it? I don't think so.
Here's another one... If you think it's subtle you never work with 50 channels of analog. But like you said don't worry about it
No sir analog and digital are not the same. My $4000 black box is the reason I don’t have to worry about clipping my drums and losing transients to save headroom. That unit is the reason I can hit a beautiful -7 LUFS on my Masters.
Great video as always. You should sum out of phase the sets, just to address the inevitable objections.
I'm not interested in the objections at this point. It's just funny how with plug-in vs hw it seems people can't hear the difference but some grew golden ears for this video lol
I would have liked to have seen the phase flipped on the higher generations to see if it nulls out.
Oh my.. I'm so surprised to comments like this. Like, you realize that analog will NEVER null right? If you pass one track once, then you pass the original again and null test the two 1st passes will NEVER null, right? This is one of the reasons as to why analog is different then digital. And also you don't need a null test to hear the difference between plug-ins and analog in that video.
@@mixbustv I'm just saying to show what difference there actually is in the spectrum. I can't be the only one curious to see the actual delta. I'm not saying it's the most practical application and the sound is the most important part but still something that might be interesting.
Good! But I think the comparison lacks the Nul test
You can't null analog with digital. You can't even null two 1st passes. Totally useless
Do a polarity switch on the passes to see the difference if you don't mind.
Two 1st passes wouldn't null with each other. It's analog
@@mixbustv Gotcha! I learned a lot from that answer.
Only thing I disagree w/ David here is when he said that “No AD/DA round trip will make the plug-in sound better” (to the ear) because I believe here the term “better” is subjective. If I choose to sample a plug-in from my DAW into a SP-1200 or MPC3000 and the sound I get back from the conversion of either one of those samplers sounds better to the ear as far as I’m concerned then the sound DID get better. Even if it is just the coloration of those machines that I like.
But I didn't say "to the ear" :D which you added. That is the entire point. You can like 8bit converters but that's *objectively* worse, there's no way around the fact that a conversion, any conversion is detrimental. But even tubes are in fact detrimental if we look at it from a fidelity standpoint, yet we like them, same for transformers. The point is converters are not color boxes, at best they should have an OPTION for color, but I personally do not want my converter to color by default because is like starting a paint with an orange (or pick the color) canvas instead of white.
@@mixbustv no doubt, I appreciate it. And I get that wasn't the point you were making to begin with, I just wanted to offer a counter perspective. lol.
Best in the game once again!
Lots of articles online talk about 20$ plugins are way better than some mid level hardware not excluding this case ad/da conversion processors, but I have never seen anyone provided an actual example such as xxx compressor, xxx eq or interface sounds bad.
U can compare the plug in and the hardware. Just make sure when u using the plug in. The ad da roudtrip is happening, and the fusion hardware bypassed.
This is the silliest idea ever. In what universe you use plugins like that? Tell me who the heck does a pass on their ADDA every time they put a plugin on, like anyone with a functioning brain.
The difference in converters in the tone is when they have analog components that add tone, I.E transformers (some are selectable some aren't) ... which is again, will be what analog adds... the actual conversion isn't what would be adding the tone difference, it'll be the same components added to the circuitry that give the analog unit their sound also... you can bypass the transformer in yours and so you will only hear the color of the unit... I think it is a bit silly to put color in the conversion because you'll be getting that from the units you buy anyway and one tone doesn't fit all.
I personally love what Burl does to the sound, but that's their circuitry not their conversion and that circuitry is the analog and the things brought that we love about analog.
If you put another transformer in the line then it would't represent the unit reviewed well, but, your not a idiot so wouldn't do that lol.
A lot of advice out there is taken out of context... so it's not really stupid to think because certain converters do have a sound, so have the sound option and some it's just baked in.
I only got to use the Burl one time, I'm not actually sure if those are selectable, they probably are.
I've not heard enough converters to have opinion on what I'd think was best for myself... and i'd be trying to find the one that when clean doesn't take from the sound, so I can trust what I'm hearing will be what is captured.
I had this issue with some old DAW's which seemed to have a different sound when mixed down to what was being played when the project was open.
Those are issues of the passed... but again, looking for what doesn't take from the sound.
Maybe that guy who put that comment mixed the normal use of a converter which is like you show, totally transparent, with clipping a converter, which will surely change the sound (for better of for worst)
Can’t hear a damn thing on my iPhone for the synth. But I definitely hear the difference even at 5 passes on the drums and vocal. Didn’t think I would. But I can. Something akin to saturation or loss of detail in the upper mids/highs. Interesting.
Granted, RUclips compression and all.
Cool Video. Iam the opposite guy, I have a SSL Fusion Hardware and Neumann KH310, but I rarely use it. I was mixing so long in the box and with my DT770 pro, that it become my style of working and its hard for me to switch my workflow. Think always about to sell my speakers and the fusion, because of that.
Don't be afraid to let "good" go for "great". Changes can be hard, when for the better are always worth it
Do what gets you the most output.
It's always a grass is greener scenario. There is always 'better' something available. Trust me when you get your first hit using free plugins you realise none of it matters as long as you have the ear training to know. except to other engineers and audiophiles if course. And those two aren't a profitable audience!
@@Bthelick I use UAD plugins and imho most of them are sounding great. What I love is the total recall, when I work simultan on different projects. Sometimes when I know that a track come to the end, I start the SSL Fusion.
thanks!
You only need a simple null test if cancels perfectly then there is no difference done!
Nothing cancels perfectly other than a digital copy of a file. Nothing.
I absolutely believe you and i could not tell difference. However a null test would have been proper at the end.
You can't nulla analog with digital. You can't even null two 1st passes, it's analog.
@@mixbustv You can't or is it just not ever going to be 100%?
the only discernible difference i believe i could hear was 10 passes on the drum track, sounded like the transient snap was slightly weaker after the 10 passes
i suspect the transient issue could be largely dealt with using proper clock sync or something
very interesting to hear you can pass through A/D multiple times without discernible difference, thanks
Yass!
Many thanks for the video, which cables are you using in the chain? Many Compliments fot the channel
Mogami and Klotz
Thanks, I also use klotz 5000 and vovox sonorus, sometimes I find klotz a little accentuated in high mid freq. sometimes I suspect cables affected sound more than converters. Best
Very interesting video. I watched it carefully in my studio through monitors. Basically I can clearly hear (or that`s my imagination only) the difference. So the first run sounds fuller, richer than the original track (or that`s maybe it`s sllightly louder?) and 5th and 10th pass sound a lot worse than the original track. How would you comment on that Dave? Also... When having an external converter doesn't add anything in addition, and every converter degradates the sound, why do we have so many high end AD DA converters on the market? Thank you so much for your reply.
I hear same as you bro, i think the sound from a converter, give more thickness and easy to mixing to the sound. In this video test, i disagree with David 😅
I won't beat the guy up, because this happens all the time and has probably happened to us all at some point. The only difference us we didn't get called out in a video. Haha. This is likely a result of some other RUclips guy or 'engineer' who said this and this dude just trusted it was true without testing and has spread it. Just like the old rules of cutting instead of boosting eq, etc...
Cool video. Thanks for it!
Some converters really do make you lose high end information though
Some shitty converters you mean
Very nice one mate !
If I may, I don’t know where the original audio files are coming from but the vocal has such a rumble in the low end that my room is shaking 😱
Then your room might have problems, that's how a human voice is suppose to sound as oppsed to the over HPF'd crap that's out there today
Providing a second point of reference to say that the rumble is not in the audio file. Good luck sorting out the room resonance 💪
@@maddietourmaline46 Well, I would really believe you if I actually haven't double-checked with headphones... Please guys, tell me you hear that low freq thingy in heaphones too?! (checked through HD650) I know at 45 my upper range is slowly falling into the void but my lows are good enough to hear this substantially ;) I'm definitely not talking about things I made up based on psychoacoustic effects of some sort. I can even add we can hear other track(s) in the vocal's reverb that have been exported with... I'm almost certain the low end rumbling is part of this reverb export, which can happen... But I wonder why we can find such low freqs in the low end of a reverb in a mix. Keep in mind I'm not trying to be an asshole tackling around, just want to analyse that thing I hear...
@@UltraSteaKME I believe that and I think you're hearing things correctly. I might just like bass a little too much. For the record I was listening on headphones as well, including a pair of very bass-enthusiastic v-moda Crossfades - my take is that the vocals probably have more low mids than they would in a mix (arbitrary but pretty indisputable). Still I am getting no distortion or discomfort and the vocal track sounds good to my ears. I would likely consider turning down or compressing the 150-300 hz range at least gently if I were to mix em', then mess around some more til I found values that worked better.
Not something I noticed at first blush, but that may say more about my lack of ear training than your experience :>
@@mixbustv There is definitely a 60hz or 50hz hum going on in this recording, or a truck driving by, or some low tone. The vocal itself sounds fine but there is some low nonsense happening for sure.
Hi Dave, did you have any feedback of the wes combo titan/calypso compared to ad+ or other hi-end dac?
I can speak for the Titan as I have one, and it is amazing. I've never used their converters but literally everything Wes makes is top shelf so it's safe to assume that's no different
Maybe this guy ment the Amp and/or Transformer of the D/A Converter could be better or less?:)
Would make no sense either way and it's quite different from what the comment says.