converters, etc...

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

Nate Najar wrote:
> so i got my apogee tdif/adat converter to work. apparently you need to
> run the adat cable both ways even though you're only sending the signal
> one direction.

Yes, but you're sending the clock in the RIGHT direction. Apparently
something in the "play only" configuration can't pick the word clock
out of the ADAT signal, so it's necessary to send its word clock back
to whatever needs it. You need to do that when connecting an ADAT to a
Mackie recorder or console, making the Mackie the word clock master,
since the Mackie isn't designed to derive word clock from the ADAT
data. Good that you got it working.

> the tascam converters must be better than the m audio (we
> recorded to da88 so I wonder if he used external converters) since i'm
> going digital from da78 into protools butthe signal is a lotmore clear
> and open than when i analog dumped it last night.

I wouldn't be surprised. TASCAM designed that series to be used by real
pros. And it's quite likely that Clinton had decent outboard A/D
converters. The D/A converters in your DA-78 are pretty darn good, too.
If you're not throwing a lot of plug-in doodads on to your tracks when
mixing, I'll bet you'd be pleased with what you hear if you connect the
analog outputs of your DA-78 to the line inputs of your Mackie Onyx and
mix analog. You chould shoot the main mix stereo output to your
computer through the Firewire card for editing and "mastering."

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

"Nate Najar" <nate@natenajar.com> wrote in message
news:1126839077.792582.99200@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> first thing i notice, the tascam converters
> must be better than the m audio (we recorded to da88 so I
> wonder if he used external converters) since i'm going
> digital from da78 into protools butthe signal is a
> lotmore clear and open than when i analog dumped it last
> night.

I'll bet you money that regardless of converter quality,
just about any analog->analog transfer will not sound as
good to most people as a digital->digital transfer. This is
especially if both transfers are done even slightly
casually.

When you do a digital->digital transfer you don't have to
set levels, and when you do an analog->analog transfer you
do. It's very, very likely that the digital->digital
transfer will be louder, and it will eliminate the
possibility of clipping or excessive noise due to low
levels. The only exception would be where there are digital
gain controls in the signal path, which is pretty rare.

The converters for the analog->analog transfer could be
stone perfect, but due to the likely differences in level
setting, the digital->digital transfer will sound better to
just about everybody.

Of course, there are a ton of other reasons why
digital->digital transfers should be used wherever possible,
but just because the digital->digital transfer sounds better
doesn't necessarily impugn the equipment used for the
analog->analog transfer.

For example, listen here to the results of up to 20
sucessive analog->analog transfers with precise level
matching: http://64.41.69.21/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm
..