So what did you discover from the ADCD?

[3daudioinc]

I know that people are listening. I'm already hearing comments privately.

So who will be among the first to share their opinions of the converters that they heard on the ADCD?

You can mention names, but please don't identify ID #s, so as not to spoil the fun for future listeners.

[Mark W]

Okay, I'll go first. My ADCD copy arrived last weekend and I couldn't wait to spend some time listening. Found out my LynxTWO is not very satisfactory when compared to something like a Prism or a Crane Song HEDD. In comparison, I find the Lynx somewhat thin, a bit cold, and more distorted up in the high end. **** ! At least it seemed to preserve a lot of the dynamics well.

[trazan]

Hi Mark,
Besides the Prism and Cranesong, which really are in another price league, how do you think the LynxTwo compared to the other converters? Or, what kinda differences did you hear?

[Mark W]

trazan, to me there are a very few converters that sounded among the best. I was noticing and comparing things like compressed vs. dynamic sound, high frequency smoothness vs. distortion of cymbals, midrange mud vs. clarity, general upper midrange harmonic distortion, and another aspect that I'm not quite sure how to describe, but some of the converters just seem to have a more solid, stable sound quality than others -- maybe it's some sort of jitter thing with the less solid ones, but I'm not sure.

With regard to all the above aspects, almost all of the converters have some defects as compared to the best few. But the particular balance of defects is different for each converter. The LynxTWO, for example, to me was among the best dynamics wise, but that jitter sort of thing (or whatever it is) I was talking about before is more noticable with it than with some of the other converters. On the other hand, I thought it had less midrange mud (or maybe it would be better to say, less "murkyness") than a lot of the other converters.

Anyway, I think the main point to take from all this is they all sound different, and how they compare with each other depends a lot on how you subjectively weigh the various differences (i.e. what sorts of defects you find more objectionable than others).

Hope this at least answers part of your questions. Don't know what else I can tell you.

[3daudioinc]

Here's my two cents.

I was shocked at how different they all sounded. And the differences that you are hearing on the CD only represents a portion of the differences that we heard in the studio. In the studio, the worst converters rated a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10, and those were the ones that you wouldn't want to pass your audio through. The worst sounded like transistor radios to me--just horrible. The best were great, at least two of which I would rate a 10--not imagining anything that I would change at all. But that was with each on input using its own clocking. When we listened back to them all clocked internally on the SADiE, the ratio in difference between the worst and best changed from 1 to 10 to about 3.5 to 7.5. The useless ones were simply not as good, but not completely unacceptable. The great ones were still better but not by as great a margin as before. That was probably the biggest shock of the testing.

But the biggest revelation of all was that many of the converters sounded quite acceptable, most of them in that 4 to 7 range in the middle. The difference that caused the top five (and to me there were clearly five winners that just transcended everything else, without question) to stand out was not a technical superiority. Well, maybe for spots 4 and 5 it was. They just sounded better, clearly better. But the top 3 transcended technology. When I was listening to them, I forgot that we were comparing converters. It was just a song, with a singer and a guitar, and the music was flowing effortlessly and reached out and touched me. The technology stood out of the way of the music and allowed the music to communicate, to reach out and engulf the listener in a delightful musical experience. The top two favorites of mine made me forget about everything but the music. When the song was over, I remembered "Oh, I was supposed to be evaluating--not enjoying myself."

To me, that was a huge discovery.

Sure the middle of the pack sounds like a recording. A guitar sounds like a guitar. A snare sounds like a snare. But you can't lose yourself in the music. You're still bound by the technology.

That was my epiphany* from the ADC listening experience.

And yes, those top two converters are expensive. And yes, they are worth every cent.

*epiphany--a. A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something.
b. A comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization.

[Haigbabe]

Interesting comments Lynn.

I thought a lot of them were perfectly acceptable (with their own little quirks of course!) at the stage I was hearing things, ie via CD.

There were some stand-outs that had me drawn in though.

On the A CD, I really really liked the Weiss.

Also the Drawmer and the Radar. (Not S-N)

The Prism was good.

The Masterlink and the Digimax to me were the best of the "budget group". A pleasant surprise.

On the B disc, these opinions changed a little with the Manley joining in once the tubes and trannies were removed. Also the PT 192 sounded better than before.

The 888 which I didn't mind on CD A, now was wet and flabby.

The Lucid had been ok for me on CD A but was now below par for me on CD B.

The old XT aint such a bad thing sonically either!

I'll post again when I've had a better listen but these were first impressions.

Best regards,

Haigbabe

[Mur]

I record all vintage/tube/analog ..conversion to digital is strickly for consumer, so I've been listening to this on typical home and car systems (and it's impossible to tell the difference between most of the converters on those systems) ..probably a good thing, people with Digi 001 can feel good about their converters ..or they can move up the ladder if they want.. AD/CD can be a roadmap.

[old raunch]

Hi! Well, I got the adcd and nearly burnt my head off listening to it. I went in thinking, arrogantly, that I would hear big differences immediately. When I first listened to A3 and A4 I thought "hoo boy, am I in trouble". What ended up working for me was to listen for a while and when listening fatigue set in, I was able to pick things out much easier. As a fan of tube audio and colouration-type solid state designs, I thought I would prefer those types of sounds on the AD convertors too-not always, as it turned out. Although I will continue to reference to the cd, here are my early picks as favourites:
Kerosene Brothers:
1-Weiss ADC 1 MkII
2-Prism AD-2
3-Manley Slam! (direct)
4-Cranesong Hedd 192 (no process)

Jonell and Mark:
1-Prism AD-2
2-Weiss ADC 1 MkII
3-Troisi Design DC 224-96 ADC(Huh?)
4-Manley Slam! (with tubes and trannies)

Big Band (I had to re-listen a few times):
1-Weiss ADC 1 Mk II
2-Prism AD-2
3-Manley Slam! (direct)
4-Cranesong Hedd 192 (no process)

Nice surprises: Troisi Design DC 224-96 ADC,
Lucid Technology AD 9624, both sounded way better than I would have thought. Better than many more expensive pieces.

Outright shocks: The Digi 001, Alesis ADAT XT, and Panasonic SV 3800 never bothered me. Never. My blind comments written down would typically say something like "smeared but pleasant." I would eventually be able to consistently pick out the ADAT XT.

Please keep in mind that I am one of the most opinionated people on earth. Buy the CD! I would love to read about other opinionated people's faves. Especially if they disagree with me. It makes me think.

Hey Lynn-what was the mystery converter?

John Heals

[3daudioinc]

Originally posted by old raunch:
Hey Lynn-what was the mystery converter?

It's a mystery to me.

[old raunch]

I dunno Lynn, I can't seem to find a converter listed for A63. Can you ask someone?
Yer pal, John