A/D converter recommendations?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Margaret von B. <margaretvonbremovethis@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>Where's the current SOTA in analog to digital converters? It will be used to
>archive all sorts of vinyl on HD, tape and CD-R. I have Apogee Rosetta
>800-192 already lined up. How does this rank?

The Rosetta is probably the best of the budget units, although you should also
look at some of the lower end Lavry units in that price range.

Your major question is whether you want 96 ksamp/sec sampling or not. And
the one case in which you _would_ want it is for recording vinyl because you
can do more powerful decrackling with the ultrasonic information available.

On the other hand, every penny you spend on better converters is a penny
you take away from your budget for cartridges and arms.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <BlHte.47573$j51.5869@tornado.texas.rr.com> margaretvonbremovethis@satx.rr.com writes:

> Where's the current SOTA in analog to digital converters? It will be used to
> archive all sorts of vinyl on HD, tape and CD-R. I have Apogee Rosetta
> 800-192 already lined up. How does this rank?

I can't imagine needing anything better for your purpose, but if you
insist, you might take a look at what Lavry has to offer. Or you could
look at the EMM Labs DSD converter (I think it only comes as an
8-channel unit). But don't get silly about this. Vinyl can only be so
good.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/index_html.html
http://www.superaudiocenter.com/Products.htm


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Your major question is whether you want 96 ksamp/sec sampling or not. And
> the one case in which you _would_ want it is for recording vinyl because you
> can do more powerful decrackling with the ultrasonic information available.

Aaaaah. Thank you, Scott; that makes sense and I wouldn't have thought
of it.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:13:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>Serious overkill given the dreary technical characteristics
>of the source.

Vinyl is perhaps surprisingly challenging to transfer. The
mechanical stuff is just flat *impossible* and the conversion
to voltage is wacky at best.

But, given the difficulties of the velocity sensitive
transducers upstream of A/D conversion and the *huge* out-of-
band data important to post processing, this may actually
be a case where retaining ultrasonics has a clear mandate.

I have come around to believe that an inaudible transfer to
16/44.1 can be done from vinyl, and I had to be dragged to it
kicking and screaming.

But post processing needs a more complete picture, warts and all,
including all artifacts, in order to be able to remove the
artifacts. (High slew rate stuff wasn't from the cutter head, etc.)

Chris Hornbeck
"'Cause secretly I'm timid." -Liz Phair

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> I have come around to believe that an inaudible transfer to
> 16/44.1 can be done from vinyl, and I had to be dragged to it
> kicking and screaming.

Wow! That can't be all that long ago. What happened to
change your opinion (as I remember it was fairly strong)?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:54:12 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>> I have come around to believe that an inaudible transfer to
>> 16/44.1 can be done from vinyl, and I had to be dragged to it
>> kicking and screaming.
>
>Wow! That can't be all that long ago. What happened to
>change your opinion (as I remember it was fairly strong)?

I'm no less wedded to my models than anyone else, or really
any more agnostic. I only differ from the various newsgroup ideologes
semantically. "It's in everyone's eggs." Like that.

I could be charitable to my fragile (not!) ego and say that
my current hardware and aging ears have conspired, but the
bare truth is that I found a better model and adapted my
thoughts to it. I've quoted it recently; do I need to post
it again? You, of all people, would likely remember the
reference. And besides:

"You see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to
hear" - Nilsson, _The Point_

But, yeah, it takes both, the model and the experience.
Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck
"It is as if the outer world were woven into our mind and were shaped
not through its own laws but by the acts of our attention."
- Hugo Muensterberg 1916

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> I've quoted it recently; do I need to post
> it again? You, of all people, would likely remember the
> reference.

It's that incipient Alzheimer's thing. I'd appreciate a repost.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

check out metric halo uln2 96/24
and then their dsp option.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

SSJVCmag <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:
>On 6/20/05 7:04 PM, in article d97i2e$n8e$1@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
><kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> Your major question is whether you want 96 ksamp/sec sampling or not. And
>> the one case in which you _would_ want it is for recording vinyl because you
>> can do more powerful decrackling with the ultrasonic information available.
>
>How hi is useful?

Most of the methods used to detect a click are proprietary, but most of
them rely on looking for very fast risetimes. With a faster sampling rate
(and a wideband preamp), the bandwidth of the signal is unchanged but the
bandwidth of the noise is much greater. You now have sharper and more
well-defined noise pulses that are easier to find.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:55:06 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>It's that incipient Alzheimer's thing. I'd appreciate a repost.

Sure nuf:

"> So, louder components are also represented better in a 24 bit
system.
> Are THESE aforementioned things something we can ALL agree on?

Yes. What must be remembered, however, is how the
inaccuracy is perceived. Many think that the increased
resolution results in less perception of some kind of
stairstep effect. That is not the case. The preceived
situation with an N bit converter done properly and going
through the A/D and then the D/A process is _exactly_ the
same as an infinite resolution conversion at both stages
with a digital adder in between just adding in a noise
signal comprised of a random variable with values of 0 or
2^-N at each sample time. What is heard is additive noise
and only that iff the conversion is done without correlation
between the value of that bit and the value of the sample.
This is practically achievable."

And at that point I was through the looking glass.
Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"It is as if the outer world were woven into our mind and were shaped
not through its own laws but by the acts of our attention."
- Hugo Muensterberg 1916

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in
news:kj7hb118f89mjr448cdqqmvebf4usqcuje@4ax.com:

> Yes. What must be remembered, however, is how the
> inaccuracy is perceived. Many think that the increased
> resolution results in less perception of some kind of
> stairstep effect. That is not the case. The preceived
> situation with an N bit converter done properly and going
> through the A/D and then the D/A process is _exactly_ the
> same as an infinite resolution conversion at both stages
> with a digital adder in between just adding in a noise
> signal comprised of a random variable with values of 0 or
> 2^-N at each sample time. What is heard is additive noise
> and only that iff the conversion is done without correlation
> between the value of that bit and the value of the sample.

Let me try a simplification of this to make sure I grasp it.

The difference between good 16 and 24 bit converters is 8 bits (48 dB)
worth of noise vs signal below 96 dB.

> This is practically achievable."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Carey Carlan wrote:
> Chris Hornbeck <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote in
> news:kj7hb118f89mjr448cdqqmvebf4usqcuje@4ax.com:
>
>> Yes. What must be remembered, however, is how the
>> inaccuracy is perceived. Many think that the increased
>> resolution results in less perception of some kind of
>> stairstep effect. That is not the case. The preceived
>> situation with an N bit converter done properly and going
>> through the A/D and then the D/A process is _exactly_ the
>> same as an infinite resolution conversion at both stages
>> with a digital adder in between just adding in a noise
>> signal comprised of a random variable with values of 0 or
>> 2^-N at each sample time. What is heard is additive
noise
>> and only that iff the conversion is done without
correlation
>> between the value of that bit and the value of the
sample.
>
> Let me try a simplification of this to make sure I grasp
it.
>
> The difference between good 16 and 24 bit converters is 8
bits (48 dB)
> worth of noise vs signal below 96 dB.

Actually, the difference is more like 5 bits, because
practical audio converters (i.e., those that don't dissipate
> 100 watts and/or live in a nitrogen bath) with more than
about 21 bits worth of resolution simply don't and can't
exist.

>> This is practically achievable."

I don't think that actual 24 bits of resolution is
achievable with the required bandwith, and in a reasonable
operational environment.

Furthermore, unless you're recording near explosions of
goodly accumulations of high explosives or the like, there's
nothing in the natural world for you to record that could
exploit that kind of resolution.

The real world of music recording and/or playback is more
like 14 bits on a good day, not 24.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

>>>This is practically achievable."
>
>
> I don't think that actual 24 bits of resolution is
> achievable with the required bandwith, and in a reasonable
> operational environment.

Me either. I didn't say it was. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein