Topic: V3 A/D vs 722 A/D - can you tell the difference?

[JasonSobel]

hey folks, a few days ago, I ran a comparison between the V3's A/D converter, and the internal converter on a 722.
big thanks to Simon for letting me borrow the 722!!

I did the comp at this show:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Club d'Elf
March 15, 2007
The Lizard Lounge
Cambridge, MA

Dave Tronzo - slide guitar
Jerry Leake - tablas & percussion
Vicente Lebron - congas & percussion
Mike Rivard - bass & sintir
Dean Johnston - drums
Tom Halter - trumpet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here's the info on the two sources:
(on-stage) Microtech Gefell m200 > Grace Design Lunatec V3 (S/PDIF out) > Tascam HD-P2 (@ 24 bit, 96 kHz)
(on-stage) Microtech Gefell m200 > Grace Design Lunatec V3 (analog out) > Sound Devices 722 (line-in @ -5dB, 24 bit, 96 kHz)

notes:
the mics were placed on-stage, in an ORTF configuration
these 24 bit, 96 kHz files are identical to the original files, no editing has been done
mics cables were canare starquad
analog interconnect from V3 > 722 was Nick's "hydra" silver-clad cables
the 722 line-in input level was set for -5 dB.  That was done so that the 722 levels would be identical to the V3 digital levels.
(see this thread for more info on that: http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,80074.0.html)
if it matters, the 722 is running firmware v2.10, and it's got the 2.0 hardware updates

and of course, no editing was done to either source.

as for the levels, in all 4 comparison tracks:
the difference between the "A" sample and the "B" sample RMS average level of left channels are either 0.03 or 0.04 dB
the difference between the "A" sample and the "B" sample RMS average level of right channels are either 0.05 or 0.06 dB
this should definitely be close enough to provide an accurate comparison


there are four samples from each source.
source A and source B
each clip is a minute long
clip "A1" is the exact same minute long segment as clip "B1", etc, etc...
you can download the clips here:
http://www.turtleside.com/misc/v3-722-comp/
or, alternative, you can download them via ftp with this info:
ftp.turtleside.com
user name = comp722vsV3@turtleside.com
password = clubdelf

the files are 24/96, so each FLAC file is ~20 MB.
151MB for all 8 files

so, please go ahead and download, compare, and post.
in addition to voting in the poll, please post with your listening gear that you used, and any additional thoughts you have about the two sources.
and of course, if anyone is interested in grabbing the whole show in 24/96, let me know.  as I'll probably only be posting the 16/44.1 version on archive.org

enjoy 

[cshepherd]

Converting to 16 bit for CD player 

 

[hammerhorror]

I slightly preferred source B over source A. There wasn't as much as a difference as I thought there would be between the two sources, but the low end sounded better to my ears on source B, and that is what swayed my decision. I thought that the highs and mids were very similar in both sources.

My guess is that source B is the Sound Devices A/D due to the low end boost I perceived.

Playback: Squeezebox 3 > Onkyo TX-SR604 > Infinity TSS-750

Thanks for this comp. I am in the process of deciding if I would like to run my V3 in front of a Sound Devices 7 series recorder.

[PH]

very nice test. my ears tell me that B is the V3 and that it sounds better.
Great recordings to use for this test too.

I like B for the clarity on the low end. A seems a little less focused.
they sound virtually identical other than low freqs.

I'm using a very HQ playback system with active monitors and listened in 24/96

Cheers, Phil

[PH]

This is purely an opinion, but I have found the differences in all sorts of AD converters to be minimal providing you feed it a clean amplified signal.
This is especially true with 2 track units. While there are obviously subtle differences, they mainly occur in the low freq region and can only be percieved noticably with a clean playback system.

Once you get into the realm of multi-Ch converters, such as the Rosetta, Benchmark, Mytek stuff, those differences are more noticable but that seems to be more dependent on the master clock than the quality of the conversion. The two go hand in hand, but with 2 ch ADC's, the master clock doesn't really make much of diffference since it's only two tracks to align.

There have been several comparisons between modern converters, such as RME Fireface vs Apogee Rosetta. Many preferred the much cheaper and more versatile Fireface to the Apogee.
I think the more important aspect in the signal chain is the preamp used and even more important is the mic used. If you start out with good gear and give the AD's good signal, it's going to sound great, no matter what AD you use. YMMV.....
Phil

[F.O.Bean]

well, first off, let me say GREAT recordings to Jason and crew

Secondly and onto the adc comp. My opinion comes from running the 481/3>v3 sound and also the 481/3>v2/3>722 and i LOVE both combos but I think I can tell which is which....I think A is the v3 because it has a bit more brightness and B has a tad more lowend and honestly seems to come alve a bit more than A.

I think A is a v3 and B is the V3>722 tape

Also, id be happy with EITHER recording FWIW

[mmedley.]

Very nice comp. Thanks for doing it. I'm pretty damn sure I know which is which.

[thegreatgumbino]

Posting purely to track the thread.  I plan on downloading when I get home later this week.  Thanks for the comp, Jason.  +T

[JasonSobel]

great responses, people.  I'm not going to let the cat out of the bag just yet.  maybe we'll get a few more people to chime in with their thoughts before I tell everyone which is which.
personally, I agree with:

There wasn't as much as a difference as I thought there would be between the two sources, but the low end sounded better to my ears on source B

and

they sound virtually identical other than low freqs.

and

I think the more important aspect in the signal chain is the preamp used and even more important is the mic used. If you start out with good gear and give the AD's good signal, it's going to sound great, no matter what AD you use. YMMV.....
Phil

clearly, the mics and the pre-amp have a much bigger influence over the sound.  while most of us can differentiate between the two sources, I don't think we'll find anyone making the case that the difference between these two A/D's is "huge"

[it-goes-to-eleven]

I'm in the B camp.

The first thing I noticed (within seconds) was the difference in high freqs in sample 1 when they kick up in the right channel at 12 seconds. At that point I found A to be somewhat more bright and slightly more grating. As B1 came to that point, I found it to be smoother. I was able to repeatedly pick A1/B1 out of blind tests by listening for just that.

I also noticed the bass differences but it was the high freqs I listened for/noticed first.

I have the impression that the shaker in the left channel (sample 1) has more air around it and retains more detail when things 'get busy' in source B.  My gut says that is in general true of B over A. But I did not do blind tests for that so who knows..

In addition to the vr4's, I did some headphone listening (squeezebox > hd280).

[willndmb]

i like B better myself
and think its the V3

my ears are not the best for this kind of stuff but my ears tell me they liked B better in this comp
playback was a gateway with plugged in speakers 

[SClassical]

I prefer B more than A...... Don't know if which one is V3 or 722, though.... 

[Brian Skalinder]

Looks like I'm the loner at the moment preferring A. 

My comments...

I hear tighter, more defined LF in sample A.  The LF in B sounds a touch more extended, with a broader/deeper sense of space, perhaps contributing to it seeming not as defined as A.

I found the HF in B not quite as smooth as and a touch "spittier" than A.  I didn't find either fatiguing (which I often do), but I think that has to do primarily with the recording captured on-stage v. in the audience.  (I often find the HF in audience recordings fatiguing, less so for on-stage.)  While I found the B's HF a bit spittier, I also heard - as with the LF - a broader/deeper sense of space in the HF.

I found the MF very similar in detail, maybe a bit more up front in B, and definitely hear a broader sense of space in B - more depth to the soundstage, a stronger L/R stereo image.

With respect to the overall soundstaging width/depth, B definitely came through as both broader and deeper, but...A sounded more coherent to my ears.  What do I mean by "coherent"?  This is always difficult for me to explain.  Exaggerating in an attempt to make my point:  B almost sounds like a bunch of instruments in different locations on stage, but all playing individually in their own space, with little connection to my ears between them, while in A I hear the instruments in different locations (though not as broadly/deeply as B) but they sound as though they're playing together as a cohesive unit instead of individual instruments.

All in all, I found it pretty easy to distinguish between the two in ABX (even using my crappy PC > headphone listening since I've dismembered my office playback).  Bottom line, I think they both sound mighty fine!  But for this comp, I preferred A and am guessing it's the V3.

FWIW, my playback:

24/96 (original files):  PC crappy headphone output > AKG K501 headphones
24/48 (resampled w/ R8Brain Free at highest setting):  PC > Squeezebox* digi-out > Sony STR-DA3000ES > Von Schweikert VR-1s

* The Squeezebox won't handle natively 24/96, so I decided I'd rather have R8Brain do HQ resampling than rely on the SB for its on-the-fly resampling to 24/48.

[Nick Graham]

You'e not alone Brian - I too preferred A over B. There is definitely more bottom end in B, but almost unnaturally so...not quite bloated, but not natural sounding.

I'd guess A is the V3 A/D.

[cshepherd]

I thought source B had slightly better dynamics and space, but source B's treble proved to be a little fatiguing.  I vote for A.  I'm not sure which one is which, but thanks for posting the comp.

Chris

[JasonSobel]

thanks for the responses, everyone...
I'll post which is which tonight.

[sygdwm]

I prefer source A and I think its the V3, but i didnt dislike B at all. they both sound great. i can hear a difference, subtle as it is.

playback: pioneer 563a*>sony3000es>b&w604s2/velodyne vx10

*i resampled to 24/48 because my deck does not pass a digital signal over that sample rate.

[JasonSobel]

ok everyone, I'm spilling the beans. 
first of all, another big thanks to Simon for letting me use the 722 for a while.
and if you're still interested, I have no plans to take the files off my server.  so go check it out 


spoilers below, so I f you haven't checked this out yet and you'd still like to do a blind comp for yourself, read no further...












































source A = V3 (S/PDIF) > HD-P2
and
source B = V3 (analog) > 722

some very interesting results here.
16 people voted in the poll.  25% preferred source A (V3's A/D), and 75% preferred source B (722's A/D)
everyone who preferred the straight V3 correctly identified it as the V3's A/D.
of the 12 people who preferred source B, 5 thought it was the straight V3, while 7 correctly identified it as the V3 (analog) > 722 source.
so, not sure what to make of the statistics, it's probably not even statistically significant.  as always we've got to trust our own ears as to what we prefer.

while I've enjoyed reading the responses, I mostly did this comp for myself, to see if I could personally justify the cost of a SD unit.  while the SD boxes are nice, small, and rugged, at this point, I can't justify the extra cost involved (I think ~$1400, after selling the HD-P2).

[OFOTD]

Thanks Jason for taking the time to put this together.  +T (480 no less )

I found it quite informative and was not surprised by the results as much as I was at how close both AD sections were.  I wonder how my ACM V3 would stack up in the test?

[sygdwm]

I wonder how my ACM V3 would stack up in the test?

i imagine it would crush 'em.

[Jamos]

I'd like to hear a test like this including the Edirol R-09 as well. 
To see how the little guy stacks up against the big boys.

 

Thanks Jason for doing the comparison...always interesting to hear these kind of things.

[Jamos]

The sound quality changed drastically when listening to the complete piece. You can definitely hear the high noise in the R-09 recording. I used the use my M1 was the back up...So I actually can say that my R-09's A/D is worse than my M1.

Do you think that it's the A/D that doesn't sound as good, or is it just the added noise of going line in through the R-09's analog stage vs. only hearing the V3?

[branas]

Thank you for the great comparison.

As a side note, I think it's interesting so many of us have Squeezeboxes   

[F.O.Bean]

Thank you for the great comparison.

As a side note, I think it's interesting so many of us have Squeezeboxes   

so which one did you prefer

[bombdiggity]

Thanks for doing this. 

Interesting indeed. 

Personally I did hear some difference.  Overall Source 1 seemed a bit more "flat"/"clearer", Source 2 a little more "lively".  There seemed to be some difference throughout the range. 

Surprising the output level was the same given the difference I feel in the energy. 

Whether one might be thought more natural and the other having a little added color and then which one prefers seems a matter of taste. 

[F.O.Bean]

Lets get this thread going again. Its been 5 years now

I ran a v3 and 722 at the same time, and I preferred the 722's ADC over the v3's ADC