Topic: UA-5 vs. AD-20

[cgrooves]

Wondering how the pre & a/d compare between a digi mod edirol UA-5 and a denecke AD-20 if running into a bit bucket @ 16/44.1

I am aware of all of the advantages of the ua-5 over the ad-20 (16 or 24 bit, matrix / multi-mic capability, phantom power, etc.)

I'm just wondering about your opinions on the sonic comparisons between the two units when running 16/44.1

(I know that Denecke brags about the 20 bit a/d being a perfect companion to a 16 bit recorder.  I would probably run the ua-5 @ 16 bit since the recorder is just going to truncate the 24 bit signal anyway.)

Thanks in advance.

[poorlyconditioned]

Wondering how the pre & a/d compare between a digi mod edirol UA-5 and a denecke AD-20 if running into a bit bucket @ 16/44.1

I am aware of all of the advantages of the ua-5 over the ad-20 (16 or 24 bit, matrix / multi-mic capability, phantom power, etc.)

I'm just wondering about your opinions on the sonic comparisons between the two units when running 16/44.1

(I know that Denecke brags about the 20 bit a/d being a perfect companion to a 16 bit recorder.  I would probably run the ua-5 @ 16 bit since the recorder is just going to truncate the 24 bit signal anyway.)

Thanks in advance.

OK, I'll offer my opinion: The (stock) UA5 is pretty good.  The AD20 is not very good.

Why?  Well, IMO the AD20 has low noise, but it just sounds "flat".  It does not have the detail I had hoped.  I bought one tried it for one show, and immediately sold it.  I traced the circuit.  It uses a discrete transistor front end, followed by an opamp.  Normally this would be good, but the transistor circuit is very crude.  It has a differential pair, but no additional features, like a constant current source, that would reduce distortion.  The opamp stage is OK, as is the ADC.  I was tempted to modify the transistor circuit, but I think my time is better spent on other projects.  So, I believe the AD20 offers low noise (good for film people), but not good sound quality.  I would rather live with (a bit more) noise of the UA5, but nicer sound.

  Richard

[F.O.Bean]

i would personally add a modsbm1 instead, they can be had for about 300 modded and sound way better than both IMO, especially if just doing 16-bit

[willndmb]

i have run a ad-20 and ua5
i liked both but the ua5 i like much more

[Diamond_D]

i have run a ad-20 and ua5
i liked both but the ua5 i like much more

agreed. The ad-20 was fine, but it always seemed "dark" to me. The highs were there, but there was just something about the sound, maybe "dull" would be a better word. It's tough to describe, but the UA-5 is more pleasing to my ear. And now that the UA-5 is becoming so much more affordable, it's definitely worth it.

[Chuck]

I agree with Richard on the AD-20. Since the stock UA-5 goes for $200 or less now, the AD-20 about the same or more and you need a PS-2 or over phantom power infront of the AD-20, it's a no-brainer to go for the UA-5.

[T-90]

man....my shit sucks 

[poorlyconditioned]

man....my shit sucks 

No worries. Every step is an (expensive!) improvement .

I'm just telling my experiences using various gear.  The thing is my "ears" get more expensive over time.  Just when I think something sounds good, I hear an improvement when I change.  And the voices () keep telling me to mess with things...

  Richard

[Kyle]

i have run a ad-20 and ua5
i liked both but the ua5 i like much more

agreed. The ad-20 was fine, but it always seemed "dark" to me. The highs were there, but there was just something about the sound, maybe "dull" would be a better word. It's tough to describe, but the UA-5 is more pleasing to my ear. And now that the UA-5 is becoming so much more affordable, it's definitely worth it.

I wonder if the sound issues have more to due with the truncation of the 20bit word to 16bit  - no dither or noise shaping -

[T-90]

man....my shit sucks 

No worries. Every step is an (expensive!) improvement .

I'm just telling my experiences using various gear.  The thing is my "ears" get more expensive over time.  Just when I think something sounds good, I hear an improvement when I change.  And the voices () keep telling me to mess with things...

  Richard

qft...i really cant decide what to upgrade next.....first i think the pre-a/d, then i think mics, then i think the pre-a/d again, then i think about a pmd660, then i think about the mics again.....i think i have ocd  

[Diamond_D]

qft...i really cant decide what to upgrade next.....first i think the pre-a/d, then i think mics, then i think the pre-a/d again, then i think about a pmd660, then i think about the mics again.....i think i have ocd  

IMO, the C4's are capable mics, and upgrading your pre/AD around them and the JB3 is a very reasonable idea, but upgrading the mics by a few steps and still running them into the AD-20, well you may not get the most of more expensive mics from that rig. Going to a PMD-660, or a higher quality pre/AD first, you can see how you like the C4's paired with that, then choose to upgrade your mics next in the future.

[TNJazz]

i have run a ad-20 and ua5
i liked both but the ua5 i like much more

agreed. The ad-20 was fine, but it always seemed "dark" to me. The highs were there, but there was just something about the sound, maybe "dull" would be a better word. It's tough to describe, but the UA-5 is more pleasing to my ear. And now that the UA-5 is becoming so much more affordable, it's definitely worth it.

I wonder if the sound issues have more to due with the truncation of the 20bit word to 16bit  - no dither or noise shaping -

This is a good point actually.  Has anyone run an AD-20 into a 24 bit recorder to see if there's an improvement in the sonic quality?

I don't think it's a bad box, but it's dependent on the mics you use too.  Some mics will not flatter it.  I've heard a couple of recordings that did though...

[cgrooves]

i have run a ad-20 and ua5
i liked both but the ua5 i like much more

agreed. The ad-20 was fine, but it always seemed "dark" to me. The highs were there, but there was just something about the sound, maybe "dull" would be a better word. It's tough to describe, but the UA-5 is more pleasing to my ear. And now that the UA-5 is becoming so much more affordable, it's definitely worth it.

I wonder if the sound issues have more to due with the truncation of the 20bit word to 16bit  - no dither or noise shaping -

This is a good point actually.  Has anyone run an AD-20 into a 24 bit recorder to see if there's an improvement in the sonic quality?

I don't think it's a bad box, but it's dependent on the mics you use too.  Some mics will not flatter it.  I've heard a couple of recordings that did though...

Found this information, which is relevant to the subject at hand.  It appears that the 20bit pairs up well with a 16bit recorder based on the following:

Although the AD-20 uses a true 20-bit A-to-D converter chip (AKM5351, a slight improvement from the AKM5350 found on the ADA1000 converter), its actual dynamic range is just around 98dB. This means that although there may be more signal in the noise, the S/N ratio is really only giving you about 16.5 bits of real information above the noise floor. Oddly enough this works to our advantage when used with 16-bit gear (like CDs and DAT decks) because there is already a natural 'dither' in the 16th bit as it is being recorded from the AD-20. There is no need to add additional dither noise to the signal because the signal is already hanging right off the edge of 16-bits.

If the AD-20 truly delivered 20-bits of real information (that would probably require a so-called 24-bit converter!) then a 20-bit to 16-bit truncation would result in the quantization noise that the human ear would find offensive. In this case, an A-to-D would require additional dither noise to be added just beyond the 16th bit to randomize the signal such that the 16th (truncated) bit was not perfectly quantized.

Summarizing, the AD-20 will sound great with your 16-bit DAT or MD recorder due to the natural dither in the A-to-D converter. And if you go through the effort of capturing 20 or 24-bits (e.g., with a Zefiro ZA2 in a digital audio workstation) then you'll still gain a few extra dB and perhaps a bit more signal below the noise floor.

[jlykos]

I ran the AD-20 for a while and thought it sounded fine to me.  I agree with the "flat" sound, but that is what I liked about it.  The A/D is pretty good in it, the preamp is not so good.  The main issue with it is that it cannot handle very high SPL levels and clips like you wouldn't believe in those circumstances.  I still have not heard too many UA-5 sources so I cannot really comment on that.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

man....my shit sucks 

No worries. Every step is an (expensive!) improvement .

I'm just telling my experiences using various gear.  The thing is my "ears" get more expensive over time.  Just when I think something sounds good, I hear an improvement when I change.  And the voices () keep telling me to mess with things...

  Richard

qft...i really cant decide what to upgrade next.....first i think the pre-a/d, then i think mics, then i think the pre-a/d again, then i think about a pmd660, then i think about the mics again.....i think i have ocd 

I think you have 2 options regarding this:

DL XXX mic > PS2 > AD20 sources as well as C4 > XXX sources from Llama and compare.  If you sell your AD20>PS2 and add some loot, you can have a UA5 or nicer Pre>AD.  See how that sounds to you, there are lots of these sources around.  The C4s are a great starter mic, worth keeping for a while until you upgrade your Pre>AD.  But then again, you might decide to go with better mics into the PS2>AD20 depending on what you hear in your comps. 

I would suggest upgrading your preamp, then your mics...

Terry