Dutch & Dutch 8Cs

[pirad]

And this gearslutz thread shows how choosing the right converter is important to people who actually make a living with them
and not just....on scientific forums
best ADC ever made

 

[Sal1950]

And this gearslutz thread shows how choosing the right converter is important to people who actually make a living with them
and not just....on scientific forums
best ADC ever made

There are as many lunnies there as on WBF!

 

[pirad]

And finally a sample "converter shootout" from "Pro Audio Review Magazine".
I am pretty sure that some pundits here will consider also this source unsatisfactory.

 

[Cosmik]

This one looks pretty reasonable:

• 24-bit Conversion
• 120 dB Dynamic Range
• -110 dB THD+N
• Supports All Audio Sample Rates Including 192 kHz

Bit pricey though: £7095

.. for 500.

 

[oivavoi]

And finally a sample "converter shootout" from "Pro Audio Review Magazine".
I am pretty sure that some pundits here will consider also this source unsatisfactory.

Interesting. But it's not clear to me whether this test was conducted blind or not?

Ad conversion is in general regarded as more tricky than da conversion.

 

[Cosmik]

Ad conversion is in general regarded as more tricky than da conversion.

Absolutely. But once it's designed and 'burned into silicon', the trickiness is dealt with.

 

[pirad]

The iPhone X processor is $30 and the total bill of materials $370. The display is $110.
It's the same with DACs. DAC chips are relatively cheap, top ES9038 pro is $100 retail.
The BOM could well be $300-500 and the MSRP of 1-2k is with all the overheads, profit etc.
I build my loudspeakers with BOM of 20-30% of MSRP. It's rather typical. I do not venture to
build my own DACs though.

 

[pirad]

Interesting. But it's not clear to me whether this test was conducted blind or not?

Ad conversion is in general regarded as more tricky than da conversion.

I am sure the pianist could have played blind.

 

[Blumlein 88]

And finally a sample "converter shootout" from "Pro Audio Review Magazine".
I am pretty sure that some pundits here will consider also this source unsatisfactory.

Unsatisfactory. Sound on Sound is about the only pro mag that is much better than the hi fi rags.

 

[Purité Audio]

I took the Kiis down to Phil Ward and I thought his review excellent and fair , he subsequently reviewed the Manger actives and that too was spot on, not just gushing praise, the U.K. ‘Hi-fi’ mags are just advertorials.
Keith

 

[pirad]

Unsatisfactory. Sound on Sound is about the only pro mag that is much better than the hi fi rags.

Here are two of the same (almost) units reviewed by SoundOnSound. And two more random picked recent ones. Deeply scientific. With excerpts.
Comments and comparisons with the PAR Mag reviews welcome.

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/benchmark-dac1
The ultimate sonic quality of any digital audio system is defined by the quality and resolution of the analogue-to-digital conversion used — any loss of signal resolution at this early point in the signal chain cannot be recovered later. This simple truth is widely understood by the majority of serious amateurs and professionals who have embraced digital audio recording, and most allocate a significant part of their equipment budgets to purchasing the best A-D converters they can afford. [...]
The PSX100 is, as converters go, a pretty good mid-range device. It's not in the same league as the high-end converters, but it resolves low-level detail and imaging information pretty well, and is certainly a lot better than most of the built-in converters in recorders, desks and soundcards. However, it was immediately apparent that the DAC1 was superior — most notably in a small but recognisable improvement in resolution, especially through the mid range. It provides a fantastically transparent conversion, completely free from any hint of digital 'graininess,' with a smooth, detailed high end and a really solid, full bass. The stereo image is truly three-dimensional, with not only impressive width but realistic depth cues too, and the dynamic and transient response is phenomenal!

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/lavry-engineering-ad11
As a line-level converter, the AD11 performs extremely well, with a huge dynamic range (the practical equivalent of about 20.5 bits) and an extremely neutral and transparent sound stage. The soft saturation mode is also transparent for signals below -4dBFS, but traps occasional full-level transient peaks very smoothly, and while the process is, obviously, noticeable, it is also quite benign and could be described as 'tape-like'. Personally, I like to maintain a sensible headroom margin when recording and try to avoid transient clipping or crushing, but for those who feel strangely attracted to meters hitting the end stops, the saturation system provided here works well.

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/dangerous-music-convert-ad-plus
Comparing the recorded result with the mix recorded through my other mastering-grade A-D converter, it was clear to me that the Convert-AD+ offered another level of depth and clarity. Not only did the mix sound slightly wider, but the whole stereo panorama also sounded somehow more coherent. Another thing that struck me was the upper mid-range clarity, which manifested itself as an opening up of the whole mix — just a little something extra. The mix already had a good-sounding mid-range depth, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it sounding even better defined when captured through the Convert AD+. In the context of A-D conversion, these differences are easily discernible — when you know a mix inside out it’s fairly easy to hear differences in the finer details of, say, reverb tails and effects. The icing on the cake for me was a beautiful low-end depth and definition, which sounded to me exactly like the all-analogue mix, as I’ll describe in more detail later. [...]
While the Convert-AD+ performs an incredibly ‘pure’ conversion, it’s not purely about conversion — there’s that analogue processing too. And I became rather addicted to the sound of the input transformers and the Emphasis processing. I can best describe their combined contribution to the sound as ‘analogue polish’. They work in tandem to tighten the low end while adding mid-range warmth and ‘sparkle

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/burl-b2-bombers
My overriding impression of the Bomber converters is that they really do sound a lot more 'analogue' than most. We're talking about the deliberate inclusion of some 'nice' and subtle distortion artifacts, but there's also something smoother and more natural‑sounding about the top end, while the bottom end is very tightly controlled but still larger than life, and the mid-range gives the impression of being slightly more expansive and dynamic than expected. None of these subtle characteristics were revealed in my bench tests, but they add up to a very nice style of presentation that addresses the 'sterile' nature of ultra‑clean digital systems rather well. First and foremost 'musical' rather than 'transparent' converters, they have a kind of tape‑like ability to handle transients in a very flattering way, and the power to make a mix sound glued together in a way that I usually associate with top‑flight analogue systems.

 

[oivavoi]

Isn't this starting to stray a bit too far from the topic of the thread? There can be a legitimate debate about the effects of AD conversion, and whether it's indeed so tricky that one would be better off buying external AD converters than using all-in-one systems like the 8Cs (if one insists on using analog sources of course). But I think it can deserve a thread of its own.

 

[Thomas savage]

There’s been a lot of thread drift here, as it’s productive I have let that go but please feel free to start new threads as the discussion diverts .

Just let me know the post numbers you want transferring out.

 

[pirad]

Interesting. But it's not clear to me whether this test was conducted blind or not?

The PAR Mag review has also a "blind" test section (unlike SoundOnSound reviews).
Let's keep in mind that the test was not a multiple conversion.
https://mytekdigital.com/download_l...annel_Analog_to_Digital_Converters_(ADCs).pdf

EPILOGUE: At Studio B Mastering Charlotte, NC
This PAR Session Trial wouldn’t have be complete without a “head check” at a proper mastering studio, providing an ideal monitoring environment and another experienced set of ears (in blind testing) to assist with evaluation. Dave Harris and his Russ Berger-designed Studio B Mastering — a pro with plenty of critical listening experience through Dunlavy SC V monitors, Lavry Engineering Blue Series 4496 ADCs and DACs, a Crookwood custom mastering console, etc. — fit the bill perfectly.

First, I let Dave hear our IS (inverse sum) files to whet his appetite, and he was quite surprised at the differences, taken aback by how one file was so much quieter and lacking in high end (the Mytek). We both noticed the presence of sibilance, amounts of kick drum vs. bass guitar and frequency emphasis curves of the various IS files. We then mused for a long while on the content of the IS files, questioning what contributes most to audibility. Is it the DAC or the ADC, the attenuation of certain frequencies, the gain of frequencies, distortions of the time domain, or a blend of all of the above? Fun stuff.

Upon hearing the orchestral files, Dave expressed how much he wished he had a baseline to which he could compare these converters’ recordings. Without the benefit of being present at the Stevens Center during recording, I asked Dave to choose a file based on what he would choose if mastering these options for a client. Within about eight listens total (a few repeats of two ideal one-minute sections and then repeats of smaller sub-sections), he decisively (but still blindly) picked out the Mytek as being the “fastest,” “most articulated,” and “snappier,” even as he questioned whether its bottom was either thin or accurate, without a true reference. The Prism drew his second rank for opposite reasons: a “very nice” sound — heavy emphasis on the word “nice” — “mellowed,” and “most finished.”

Dave’s third pick was the Lavry, which he called “drier” and with a “transient absence, as if limited.” Unlike me, Dave was not pleased with the Benchmark, citing its coloration and “blurring.” This environment did shed an exacting new light on such issues, and Dave reported hearing more differences than he expected.

At this point, Dave knew he liked “converter #3” the most (not knowing it was the Mytek), and his preference stayed the same for the piano evaluation. Very quickly this time, he declared his continued admiration of the Mytek, citing all the same exact reasons that Alex and I had. Again, Dave picked the Prism for his number two, again citing the warmth, the “nice-sounding loss of transients” and its finished qualities. He was largely ambivalent about the Lavry Engineering, calling it both the “most open” and “a little bland.”

Dave hesitated at summarizing but called the four units “all pro and all usable.” He stated there was not a winner or loser here: “It depends on what you’re working with.” He ultimately cited the Mytek for the most honest portrayal, the Prism as the “most finished and tamed,” and the Lavry as “not unlike-able, not at all negative.”

 

[Cosmik]

Recording professionals in action performing a 'blind test' on high res versus CD:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wq2sr#play

(starts about 40 minutes in)

If you don't want to listen, I'll tell you: they get it wrong, including the engineer who actually made the recording. The night-and-day differences they describe in loving detail are entirely in their heads.

 

[pirad]

Recording professionals in action performing a 'blind test' on high res versus CD:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wq2sr#play

(starts about 40 minutes in)

If you don't want to listen, I'll tell you: they get it wrong, including the engineer who actually made the recording. The night-and-day differences they describe in loving detail are entirely in their heads.

I will watch without prejudice when I have a moment.
In the end, if all DACs are equal, all music should be mastered and reproduced on this $30 beauty:

What follows is this amps for $20, after all amps are easy to build. There you have the dream set for $50.
No need for audio electronics science, manufacturing, forums and all that jazz. Good news.
For hard core agnostics B-652 Dayton speakers for $50 will round off the buying splurge.

 

[Cosmik]

I will watch without prejudice when I have a moment.
In the end, if all DACs are equal, all music should be mastered and reproduced on this $30 beauty:
View attachment 12714
What follows is this amps for $20, after all amps are easy to build. There you have the dream set for $50.
No need for audio electronics science, manufacturing, forums and all that jazz. Good news.
For hard core agnostics B-652 Dayton speakers for $50 will round off the buying splurge.
View attachment 12715

You don't need to labour that point: Amir often measures low cost devices and finds that some are better than more expensive units, and some are worse.

I am fully aware of the importance of 'engineering' - I wouldn't want to connect anything valuable to some of these dirt-cheap units, nor leave them switched on unattended! But I am not going to fall for the opposite delusion: that there is 'magic' in exotic materials and hardware, and by extension 'magic' in the abilities of hack 'engineers' who dress themselves up as gurus.

 

[pirad]

I actually agree with you, I am against gurus and magic. I use hypex n-core and icepower units in my integrated amps. This was a conscious decision after
testing them against many A and AB class solutions.* They are better, more efficient and way cheaper watt for watt (yeah, I expect criticism for that).
I tested all buffers for the NC500OEM, including those based on very expensive Sonic Imagery Labs opamps , and the best are
hypex OEM $30 ones. In the cheaper single-ended model I put a $300 DAC that delivers 90% of performance of top (above 2k) units.
But the pro fully balanced model needs a matching DAC, with AES/EBU, so the price goes up. The question is do we believe that sound professionals
and critics can hear differences in the converters they tested. They are all usually in the same price range- $500- 1k/channel. I proposed three sources--
Gearslutz ("loonies!'), PAR Mag ("unsatisfactory") and finally the satisfactory "Sound on sound" (silence). They all say the same things. People working
professionally with sound hear differences in AD/DA converteres. Even in the blind test they chose the same model as the best. Here the buck stops. Literally.
And fortunately everybody can make a decision based on his beliefs.
*since Bob Carver challenge the case of amplifiers is for me closed.

 

[fredoamigo]

Don't you guys think we're getting a little off topic here??

I still don't have answers to my questions about these speakers, and I think I would never have anything ( I would then go to kii or another) if you drowned the subject in a conversation that had nothing to do with the 8Cs...

 

[oivavoi]

Don't you guys think we're getting a little off topic here??

I still don't have answers to my questions about these speakers, and I think I would never have anything ( I would then go to kii or another) if you drowned the subject in a conversation that had nothing to do with the 8Cs...

Agreed. I will ask @Thomas savage to remove some off-topic posts when I get around to it.