![]() ![]() It wasn't as deep, it also felt very flat. And I think also for William was the Radar. Everything seemed to collapse in, on itself in those low mids and it made it really unpleasant to listen to. Steve DeMott: I also felt the low mids were a little crowded, or narrowed. Of course you could go back and listen to just the tape and it was clear that it was losing something relative to the tape. Just in every way was it was plain and in uncomfortable kind of way. Other adjectives for it would be flat, flattened, lifeless, smaller, narrower, and image was shorter front to back. It just sounded flat, but not in a positive way. William Wittman: The clear loser was the Universal Audio. Unlike some convertor comparisons this was a comparison of both A/D and D/A conversion, an important point. The entire test was a double blind test with the listener unable to know which unit was being played back at any time. Recordings were coming in at around -18db to give the convertors plenty of headroom.Ĭonversion for the UA, Radar and Metric Halo was 24/96. All audio to the converters was also lined up using a test tone to match input gain. The stereo playback for the session was then sent out to all four convertors at the same time using matrix outputs. The mixer used is the APB-DynaSonics' ProDesk-8. The multitrack recorder is the Otari MX5050 MKIII 8-Track 1/2” and the two track master recorder/playback is the Otari MTR-12 1/2”. The recordings consisted of guitar, bass, drums and vocal all straight to tape. The original recordings were analogue, so no prior conversion took place to create the recording. RADAR 24 with Adrenaline Plus & Nyquist (96) converter Some of the units available are no longer made, but they are good benchmarks in the test. “Because there were a few choices of converters on site, we thought while we're at it, we might as well try a few and not just one converter versus DSD.” William Wittman picks up the reason for the test. The result is still a high-res signal it’s just generated in a completely different way.“ You can read more here However, instead of sampling the information several thousand times a second, this single bit samples 2.8 million times a second to generate the audio signal. Instead of using many bits of information in the signal, DSD uses a single bit. The system has been used since the dawn of CD (which uses a 16/44.1kHz signal) and it also represents the basis of how our ATF upsampling process works.ĭSD takes a different approach to the creation of a high resolution audio signal. This stream of information is then sampled 96,000 times a second- giving us the 96kHz part- to produce a signal that is then converted to an analogue signal by a DAC. If we were to look at a ’24 bit 96kHz’ file- a commonly used high resolution sample rate, this contains a stream of information 24 bits in size. It’s a high-resolution format that produces a high-resolution signal in a different way to that employed by the PCM system that can be transmitted as WAV, FLAC, ALAC or AIFF. So I got to try one in the studio for a month.”Ĭambridge Audio has an excellent explanation about DSD Audio, here is an extract So several people said the Korg MR-2000S DSD unit that will change your mind about DSD. I chimed in saying that I tried DSD a long time ago, late nineties and was completely unimpressed. It actually was because of a discussion about DSD versus PCM and there was an ongoing discussion. Steve said, “What happened is there was a discussion elsewhere about converters. This article is the follow on from a podcast where they discuss the test and the results in detail. They wanted to know if they could hear the difference and which one they preferred of the four units. Two of our professional contributors, Steve DeMott and William Wittman, decided to put analogue to digital converters, in fact A/D and D/A convertors, to the test.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |