| Author
|
It is proved that Cubase export has better quality than FL export ?
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Feb 18, 2010 22:01
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-02-18 11:16, Fragletrollet wrote:
I`m not sure to be honest. There seem to be a deeper, wider sound. My speakers became more "3d", and the high frequencies seem extended. Maybe the dynamic range is extended, difficult to say.
But there really is a difference, that is clearly audible.
|
|
I mentioned the main reasons for why people would hear any obvious difference between a cheap interface with a decent spec and a high end interface.
If the difference is clearly audible you are either comparing with an interface using quite old converter technology or that really is substandard.
You are still talking about the difference between m-audio and SSL?
My experience with m-audio interfaces (had an Ozonic for a few days until I returned it) is that they have a really low level output.
Did you perform a blind test?
How did you perform the comparison so that you ensured that the levels was perfectly matched?
It wouldn't surprise me though if a M-Audio card is quite a bit worse than a soundblaster.
According to the spec it only has 101.5 dB dynamic range, which is not very good for a card in that price range.
For example soundblaster claims 109 dB for the "Sound Blaster X-Fi", and even built in converters on motherboards often claim 110dB nowadays.
Of course specs can be deceptive, but I don't think M-Audio is making more modest claims based on my experience with their interfaces.
Regardless of what is causing you to hear a clear difference between your interfaces, if it was down to the actual conversion any inaccuracies should be amplified by re-running it tough the converters several times, and you would notice the degradation very clearly indeed if it's clear to you during the first run.
So if it's actually due to the converters degrading the signal it might be more revealing listening to what a few runs though the M-Audio will do to the signal through your SSL card.
But if you cannot notice any difference on you M-Audio card when listening back to a signal re-recorded with it 20 times when compared to the original it probably pretty damn transparent.
  (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Fragletrollet
Fragletrollet
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
1748
Posted : Feb 19, 2010 14:31
|
You still dont get, or am I really that far off?
How can you hear a detail that WAS NOT THERE in the first place after a gazillion times through a converter loop? If its gone the first round, it wont be more apparrent later... actually it should be less apparent, no?
Altough... Im not saying it was the converters alone that made the difference. It might have been much cleaner amps in the converter box... altough that is not the AD/DA converter itself, its a part of the converter.
And no, I did not perform a blind test with matched levels between my interfaces, so it might be unprecise. However, do you need to do a blind test to listen that analog synth sound different to digital ones?
Im not trying to be rude, im sorry if I appear that way, I just dont think we understand eachother.
Have you ever used a high-end converter?
To actually hear any difference running a multiple AD/DA loop, the AD/DA would have to limit the frequency range and possibly add noise, to change the files. So its not going to "add" anything other than noise...
What a good "converter" sounds like in contrary to cheaper ones, is that low level detail is way more apparent. Like the cheap ones actually mask the material..
Say for example that masking would be a LPF at say 13k for the soundblaster, and 20 for the SSL (just as an example. ). The first trip out of the Soundblaster would remove 13khz<, and there would be no change however many times you ran it through the AD/DA (except for added noise etc), cause the frequencies arent there anymore, and the "LPF" is not moving. Therefore you cant hear any degradation of the material.
http://www.myspace.com/fragletrollet
http://www.myspace.com/unknowncausesound
http://www.fragletrollet.com/ |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Feb 19, 2010 15:18
|
i heard same thing as you , sound going more 3d , more detailed stereo,maybe some placebo..maybe a bit of both .
but removing a card and had a other one is not a proper test , placebo will be there for sure |
|
|
|
braininavat
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
233
Posted : Feb 19, 2010 15:26
|
I think we have a natural bias towards converters with higher specs and the difference is so subtle with modern gear that there is truely no way to test these hypothesis. I doubt anyone could tell the difference beyond random, not to mention there is no way your going to get a proper blind test of this with a sample size large enough to mean anything.
I think its a mistake to talk in terms of "better"..If you took a roland jd-800 with converters from 1993, and strapped on the converters from the blofield..would it really sound "better"? It would surely sound different and no longer sound like a jd-800 but is that better? It doesn't make sense to talk in these terms IMO. |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Feb 19, 2010 15:33
|
@Fragletrollet
Basically, if the interface is not transparent that is due to technical deficiencies.
"Detail" is a subjective term. You might think a certain signal sounds more detailed with a uneven frequency response, or it might sound more detailed with a flat response. It depends on the signal and how you define "detail".
The goal of a converter is to be transparent, which means a flat frequency response, low distortion, high dynamic range and no jitter.
There is no unmeasurable quality to audio called detail.
If there was it would have been observed in blind tests, and we would have found a way to measure it.
Sure, it can be hard to define which of the above variables is degrading the audio by listening, and hence one might use "soft" terms like detail to explain it, but the difference will be down to quantifiable factors.
And all those quantifiable factors will be multiplied by running the signal repeatedly though the converter.
Your example regarding a 13k LPF is purely theoretical. In reality all filters have a slope which means that you will indeed notice a difference when applying the filter several times.
Also, both your M-Audio and SSL interface will extend above what most speakers and ears can perceive, and the differences of interest is any dips and peaks within the audible range which will certainly be amplified by running the signal though the interface several times.
If you did not ensure that the levels was perfectly matched and did not do the test blind that is huge factors that guaranteed to affect you perception of the sound quality.
Much more so than for example minor differences in frequency response or dynamic range.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Eleusene
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
117
Posted : Feb 19, 2010 17:47
|
|
Fragletrollet
Fragletrollet
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
1748
Posted : Feb 19, 2010 18:02
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Feb 20, 2010 13:34
|
Actally I'm a bit surprised by the result as well...we are after all talking about a unit costing $25 per channel released some eight years ago being compared to a more modern unit costing $250 per channel.
Quote:
|
On 2010-02-19 18:02, Fragletrollet wrote:
Not so weird when you see that Behringer ripped off design from RME for those converters...
|
|
Ripping other manufacturers designs is a common practice by Behringer, and I really dislike their products in general.
But in case of the ADA8000 it seems like that kind of accusations are a bit unfounded.
Read the posts by tascamwiz in the the thread, he does seem to know what he is talking about.
This is what he says about the accusations you make:
Quote:
|
Regardless of what Behringer may have done in the past, the idea that they ripped off such a simple and easy to implement design is non-sense. Looking at the reference design docs at http://www.wavefrontsemi.com/UserFil...ta%20Sheet.pdf , it is apparent that the good sound (I have 8 of them) of the ADA8000 is mainly due to the fact that the Wavefront chips are highly integrated, require no complex clocking circuits(low jitter), and are designed to work together without requiring extensive skills in digital circuit design and topology layout. |
|
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
|
