Are you guys using AD/DA conversion? What's best?

[Kubi]

Honestly, for me a recommendation from a handful of engineers I truly respect, plus my own listening tests and a few hours of working with the gear, have always been more important than measurements... so if I am shopping for any gear, I call John Rodd, Ronan Chris Murphy or my mastering engineer, Stephen Marsh, for recommendations. Then I either rent the recommended unit, or buy it knowing I can return for a full refund, and use it for a while. Haven't looked at specs in years.

[BradLyons]

Honestly, for me a recommendation from a handful of engineers I truly respect, plus my own listening tests and a few hours of working with the gear, have always been more important than measurements... so if I am shopping for any gear, I call John Rodd, Ronan Chris Murphy or my mastering engineer, Stephen Marsh, for recommendations. Then I either rent the recommended unit, or buy it knowing I can return for a full refund, and use it for a while. Haven't looked at specs in years.

Yep! Specs don't tell squat about how something sounds.

[HCMarkus]

Dishonest specs don't tell anything at all.

Specs about tube mic pres and compressors tell little of value.

Legit specs can tell a lot when it comes to converters and amplifiers, which should not in any way color sound.

[monkey man]

Good call, HC. Slew rate for instance.

I've given the initial question more thought, and I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm still not convinced of a few things. It's probably worth mentioning that foremost in my mind when I explained my point of view was the fact that, to some extent at least, judgements of individual components of mixes are relative to the overall (for instance) frequency response of the system (room, monitors/amps, converters). I imagined these judgements being made (mics, EQ and so on) with at least a modicum of conservatism in key areas, most prominently the high end and perhaps the super-lows, in recognition of the fact that it's generally only mastering houses/engineers who are best able to pass judgement on how to skew overall mix responses. This "back it off a little" approach is one I've always had; perhaps I'll become more bold at some future date should I come into more pro gear, but so far at least, for the little I've done, it's worked. I mixed my first 7-song demo using a $30 pair of HD-140 SLs, but the aforementioned approach saw the ME compliment me on the integrity of the high end. "Bloody good mixes", he called them, accusing me of being a "sick puppy". He was obviously a fool as everyone knows puppies have four feet and I have four hands. Still, I'll take the positive feedback as vindication of my approach.

To distill it down a little, a judgement made about, say, the best mic for a given situation is made against the same overall "response", for want of a better word, of the system as any other choice in mixing and recording. Again, I'm implying that it's at least in part all relative. Assuming that sensible choices are made under a particular set of conditions (say, a -2dB response drop off at 15kHz), such as conservative high-end EQ'ing, I don't yet see why a slight prominence or deficiency in said range wouldn't easily be corrected by an ME.

As far as choosing different mics or adjusting their placement is concerned, I can't imagine this being affected much except in the extreme scenario of the comparison of really bad converters with something super-spiffy. Kubi has real-world experience in this area though, so I'll just have to keep trying to imagine it I suppose. Certainly, the accuracy/faithfulness of reproduction of subtle reflections, especially those much lower in level, isn't difficult to imagine varying perceptibly between differing converters. It's a classic pattern I guess of higher-end gear's ability to capture/reproduce detail, one we see in monitors, converters, amps, preamps, mix buses, processors, effects and so on.

[Phil O]

Yep! Specs don't tell squat about how something sounds.

Actually, if you know what you're looking at (and for), specs can tell you a lot. The problem is that manufacturers often hand pick which specs to publish and which to keep to themselves, and testing procedures can spin specs in your favor if you're sly. I always look at specs. I just don't make final decisions based solely upon them.

Phil

There we go. I'm disagreeing with Brad again. Now we're getting back to normal.

[BradLyons]

LOL Phil---well what I mean is, specs are specs...but it's when you listen to it that you really know.

[monkey man]

The frequency response charts without scales are classics.

[mhschmieder]

Hah! Those still show up a LOT in low-end gear, by B**rand names that shall remain anonymous.

I also get a kick out of uncalibrated specs that are measured at 1 kHz and show very attractive S/N and crosstalk figures...

[donbray]

Sorry for my ignorance but what is the "Audio Test" referred to by Kubi?
Thanks
Don

[Kubi]

http://www.katsurashareware.com/pgs/audiotest.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[monkey man]

Hah! Those still show up a LOT in low-end gear, by B**rand names that shall remain anonymous.

I also get a kick out of uncalibrated specs that are measured at 1 kHz and show very attractive S/N and crosstalk figures...

Yes! Cherry picking at its worst.

Those guys should join the IPCC.