On May 4, 12:09=A0pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "ScottW" <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:d4e6a9c0-3b32-47ef-a763-9eb8da2a76c0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 4, 7:50 am, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "ScottW" <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:2c20ef45-9143-4968-b3dc-10003832552f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On May 3, 9:19 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:>
> > "ScottW" <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > [snip]
>
> > I can't comment on Benchmark though, haven't heard one. I'll probably
> > have to buy one to find out.
> > Same with the Behringer. Thats why its intriguing, the crapshoot
> > expense isn't much.
>
> > So I'd still be interested in gear you're aware of with these new
> > DACs.
>
> > > Hires masters are another story.
>
> > ?
>
> > ScottW
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---=AD=AD-----------------
>
> > I mix and master in 24/88, and it sounds better. I don't know whether
> > having
> > a good DAC causes me to make better mixes, but at least, I can enjoy
it
> > more
> > :) Also, since the mix is not normalized until it's ready to be
> > downsampled, the DAC has to deal with numbers closer to the internal
> > grunge.
>
> > The Behringer stuff has been extensively covered in the recording
forums=
..
> > Many like it, and many hate it. Lots of breakage. The way I see it,
most=
> > "project studio" musicians are not sensitive to sound quality the way
we=
> > are, so many of the loves can be discounted.
>
> Like this
one?http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=3Ddigital&n=3D108=
244&review=3D1
>
> >The hates, on the other hand,
> > seem to be informed.
>
> =A0Yet it's one of a few devices with a relatively new AKM DAC.
> I'm still waiting for you to identify some alternatives.....
>
> ScottW
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-=AD---------------
> I won't be the one to know. These days, I'm a laggard.
So are all the CD player mf'ers it appears.
> From the s/n, it's
> not at the top of the AKM line. It's about 10 dB below the newest AKM,
whi=
ch
> claims 123 dB.
Seems to be a bit of a specs war going on. Often the improvement
isn't in the product but the measurement capability. Test equip and
setups have their own noise floors. I know the NF measures of our sat
transceivers improves quite a bit in the RF anechoic chamber.
>=A0BTW, the Cirrus converters have innovated in the
> antialiasing filter, and received some very favorable comments for it.
> Basically, they moved away from the brick wall still used by AKM, going
fo=
r
> a much slower rolloff. Check out this table. It'll give you a few more
> numbers to look for:http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/techs/T2.html
thanks
>
> The Cirrus converters are used in Sound Devices recorders and Audiofire
> interfaces, both of which have received exceptional press.
Which audiofire model uses a cirrus DAC? I don't see the DAC
reference in their spec summary and none of dynamic range specs
are close to above
and the comments here on the recorder quality is a bit disturbing.
http://www.zzounds.com/item--PRSINSPIRE
ScottW
|
