Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Battery Boxes, Preamps, Mixers, ADCs, and Processors => Topic started by: Karl on April 12, 2006, 04:47:15 PM
-
Has anyone done comparisons of a digi-mod UA-5--running line-in to JB3 vs optical in to JB3?
Here's my issue. I have two jb3's. BOTH have busted optical in jacks (one of them can still run line-in). Side note: it makes me mad that the jb3's opti in jack is so cheap.
If I can't get the opti in's fixed, then I will just have to run line-in from UA-5. How much of a noticeable difference in sound quality is there? I don't like how the UA-5 does an extra A/D conversion. That would mean that the signal would do an A/D, then a D/A, then another A/D inside the JB3.
thx
-
I have ran ua-5 > laptop and then rca out to jb3 as back up. There was a noticeable difference in the two sources; however, the jb3 back up was not bad at all, if the laptop had failed I wouldnt have been too disapointed. I still feel there are more important factors: how the PA and room sounds, location, and obviously the mics you use. an extra a>d/d>a and analog chain won't prevent a great recording from taking place. However, if you are a perfectionist with an audiophile grade playback that is used to years of high-end recording equipment, you may be diggin up the cash to find another jb3.
-
You're going to have some degradation, but it's just one of a number of factors, and it less importnat than the mics, placement, sound in the room, etc. The issue is more the A>D in the JB3 than the A>D>A in the UA-5.
As far as the cheap optical input on the JB3 goes, it's a double edged sword. Field recording like we use it for is NOT what the JB3 was designed for. The optical in is plenty sturdy enough to do what it was actually designed for. Plus, keep in mind that if the JB3 weren't cheap, it wouldn't be inexpensive, either.