How Much Difference Does A Converter Make?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 січ 2025
- In this video I discuss how much difference a converter makes. It's a subtle difference but I positive difference none the less. By simply converting audio from digital to analogue and back to digital, we can audibly hear an improved difference and that's just conversion. No processors in the chain at all.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✅ Ask a question for the next video ► www.audioanima...
✅ More videos from this series ► • Your Questions Answered
✅ Mixing & Mastering Services ► www.audioanima...
✅ About Paul Ashmore ► www.audioanima...
✅ My Equipment ► www.audioanima...
✅ Previous Work ► www.audioanima...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
SUPPORT AUDIO ANIMALS AFFILIATE LINKS
✅ Sweetwater ► www.sweetwater...
✅ Plugin Boutique ► www.pluginbout...
✅ Waves ► www.waves.alzt...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
● Website www.audioanima...
● Instagram: / audioanimals
● UA-cam: / audioanimalstv
● Facebook: / audioanimalsstudio
The Burl really has that low end... And the highs are more pleasing to me. Thank You for this comparison.
@smattie3889 that's exactly why I use them as my mastering converters in all my studios. They become as much a part of your sound as the units in the chain.
it's because of the transformers that are built in
Thank you!@@AudioAnimalsStudio
Agree the Burls had a cleaner yet deep low end and there was more clarity in the highs. The low end of the Ferro was actually nice, but there seemed to be some distortion or mud in the low mids, and a bit of what I'd call haze in the upper mids. But nice nonetheless. For a recording/summing set up, the Ferros would be great. For critical work like mastering, might go with something else. I've done the converter thing testing/demo thing. Had the Burl B2 AD at one point. Always wanted to try the DAC. Had the Dangerous AD+ at one point, which is really incredible and balanced across the frequency range. I have settled on Prism ADA-8RX. Its what I like to sound like. Also like the AD of the new Prisms (Orpheus, Lyra, Titan) with the DAC of the ADA-8RX. Lynx Hilo is my routing box and alternate converters. Would love to hear the Burls against something like a Prism Lyra 2.
I would never have believed that there was such a big sound difference between converters of the same "level"; so much so that, to my surprise, even listening to it on UA-cam makes it very noticeable. It's great that you added the unprocessed version, it makes it even clearer what each device does and their differences.
@patricioandres2562 even putting a converter inserted over the mix bus with nothing added to the chain makes a good difference. Turning 1s and 0s into analogue at some point always has a benefit. How much benefit depends on the converter. Some cheap converters will have a worse effect.
I love what the Burl does to the low end. The mids and highs sound a little more 3D as well. I wonder if a similar sound is possible if you would add a transformer circuit in front of the Ferrofish.
My thoughts as well..
Thank you for taking the time to compare these products! I was genuinely surprised by how significant the difference in sound is. As others have noted, the Burl offers a richer low end, smoother highs, and a more three-dimensional quality overall. To ME, it definitely sounds better. Ultimately, it’s up to each of us to decide if those differences justify the price.
What you're hearing isn't the converter, it's the transformer saturation in the Burl.
@@Cautionary-Tales-Band the transformer saturation is inside the burl. The converter as a whole when you class the converter as the entire unit includes this.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio sure but a converter with a transformer is a converter with transformer :D transformer gives a more analog sound. However sometimes (sorry not schooling you but the readers) you DO NOT want the transformer sound. In HOUSE music for example I very often like a converter without the transformer. It gets to THICK with them. But for DNB or HIPHOP I usually love it using my crane song egret.
@ast4127 this is why you have multiple converters in a studio, not a single converter.
But too clarify i liked the bottom end in the BURL too! :D
@ast4127 exactly what this video is designed to point out. There's a difference between all converters. Some very small. Some larger due to transformers. The difference can be heard when routing through them. As heard in this video. Knowing what the difference is is why we will select a specific converter for a specific sound.
lol, these days if you're worried about converters your worried about the wrong thing. But frankly if a converter adds low end like everybody seems to think with the Burl's, to me that means the Burl is a worse converter. If extra bass is needed add it in the mix or during recording from the source.
Exactly, hair splitting nit picking audiophiles who freaking can’t mix and think changing the converters will help is hilariously ridicules. Paying 5 grand for 0.2 % improvement shows me the tiny weeny of an unskilled engineer with golden ears 😂
The ultimate converter is a converter that makes zero change. That's what you truly want from a converter. However if you want a converter that is as much a part of your sound as any other unit in your chain a burl is going to do that for you. Which is why I use them in the mastering chain.
Yea was thinking the same thing. If the Burl added some weight and depth it could be done in the mix too…….. so its just a “colorbox”. Thus it just confirmed that the mix lacked weight and depth. 😊
Cheers
@ We are getting close to the old Gearslutz threads soon :D Only threads with more mixed opinions were the analog summing threads... Or well. Isreal vs Palestine..!
@ast4127 oh please no. I want to keep this channel as far from the gearslutz toxicity as I can. A nice space where we can have grown up discussion about audio with a valid opinion. Not the I have an opinion on a piece of gear I've never used and I'm going to shout the loudest so it must be true. Please let's not get to that place.
The Burl's had more heft and vibe. Almost like a subtle saturation. There's also some smearing or detail loss, but in a pleasant way that sounds like a record. The Ferrofish sounds more controlled and tight, with etched details, and tighter stereo image. Little bit less energy in the lowend, but I think it's more true to the source. That can be easily compensated for too. I think they both have their place for different purposes and flavors. Good to have both in the studio.
@@DavidPeck Yes, Burl, Dangerous and Apogee have a ‘sound’ to them. Where RME, Ferrofish and Focusrite are more a clean type converter imo.
when I went from a motu 828 converter to my Cranesong Hedd 192 it was a major difference. I use a SSL six as my mixer to the Hedd then AES out to the RME HDSPe.
question?? ihave a new 828 if i would use a converter where in the chain is it place ?? my in and out from 828 are for my ssl fusion and spl vitalizer ,
Fascinating. First off, kudos to your approach to comparisons. Truly top marks. This modality facilitates good comparisons. I usually try on a couple headphones and some subpar monitors... And also on a tablet and phone. That's what I did here.
My perspective is that these are not "do I want Ferrofish or Burl as my only converters", which your price comparison seems to imply a value judgement. But rather, the assessment is "can i get by with reasonably awesome Ferrofish clean converters forever, or might I eventually need to add a character-driven Burl converter to my arsenal for some use cases".
Final verdict from this keyboard judge dude is that the Burl's greatest strength is it's greatest weakness. And, Ferrofish can accomplish the task well and truly well (albeit with not much character).
The only one of these I have personally is the "No Converter" :-) But, to me the Ferrofish sounds qualitatively what I get from my "clean" converters (Aurora n) relative to the No Converter. With Aurora (and what I hear here for Ferrofish) is a mortar that pillows and fills in between the bricks of the basic No Converter track. The Ferrofish heightens and elevates the individual instruments, but doesn't really add much character and doesn't modulate the tonality much from the No Converter.
The Burl is gorgeous in the first example. Smokes the Ferrofish. The No Converter isn't even up for discussion here (or anywhere in this discussion). In the first example, the Burl makes the kick more... I think plentiful (maybe bountiful) might be the word. The snare is leashed, tamed and made luscious while also fattening it, rather than sterile No Converter or Ferrofish examples. Burl also made the keys' resonance somehow moar delicious. Here the Burl tames peakiness and delivers some gorgeous fills into the stereo spread for keys. I'd choose to use Burl if presented with the first track.
In the second example I was channeling heightened detail and Ferrofish won the day. The Ferrofish seems kinda "frequency flat". Which was a GOOD thing here. Ferrofish wasn't flat from a dull or veiled perspective, but rather flat from a uniform and true-to-source perspective. Here the deliciousness of Burl was exacerbated beyond deliciousness, veering nigh unto cloying and cloistered. Like being trapped in an elevator lift for 14 floors with an olde lady redolent of a heady perfume. Nice for a moment, but waaay too much overall across the loop. I'd choose Ferrofish here if I was presented with the second track.
So, yeah. Leaving aside the back-of-the-envelope price calculations, I'd suggest that a well-rounded mastering and mixing studio needs a high quality Clean converter, and a high quality Character converter. And that studio will undoubtably know when each is most appropriate for the circumstance immediately at hand. I've personally only got clean ones, and rely on colour outboard devices to fill that gap. But I dream of a Burl (or actually JCF to be honest because Burl is too weighty) option in the future.
@@ThisGuyDude I love your perfumed old lady in the elevator comparison 🤣
I listened again with better speakers and the difference is quite clear. The Ferrofish is great but if money was no option I would shootout the Burl against the Dangerous converters. The Burl is definitely my favorite in this test a clear winner for me. By the way when using the converters this way, only DA-AD you’ll need to mix into it because it changes the mix in a different but better way imo. I definitely going to try this with my converters, I don’t think it’s necessary but I’ll give it a shot, I mix analog so I go DA-AD on everything anyway but for mixing in the box this is a massive improvement. Thanks for sharing this Paul, this is a very good comparison video 👌🏼
IM SO GLAD YOU DID THIS COMPARISON. THIS PROVES TO ME THAT MY HEAD IS IN THE WRONG PLACE I HAVE THE FERROFISH AND WAS STRONGLY CONSIDERING BURL AD CONVERTER. I NEED TO FOCUS ON MIXING MY MUSIC MORE THAN AQUIRING MORE GEAR. THESE PIECES OF GEAR WONT MAKE ME A BETTER MUSICIAN NOR WILL IT MAKE MY MIXES SOUND BETTER IF MIXING IS MY WEAKEST LINK. THANKS FOR THE REVIEW, THIS REALLY HELPED ME PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE AND SAVED ME $2500
@@jltbk5420 great to hear. It'll help improve your sound minimally. Could you spend that money better somewhere that'll improve your sound greatly. 100% yes.
would've been interesting to hear a null test
Great test. The one thing I’ve learnt is not listen for the frequency response of a converter, but the feel of the timing. Does it feel effortless and smooth or hard and rigid. When one listens for that you can’t unhear it. Don’t be fooled by slight changes in frequency response as they are very minimal these days. Timing/feel is everything in a converter. I once tested a prism Orpheus against a cheap Focusrite convertor. Frequency response was almost identical but in a Blind test I could always pick out the prism because when listening to a drum fill the Focusrite sounded stiff and rigid like a tense drummer vs a smooth a relaxed pro drummer. That opened up my understanding about convertors. My only thought is the clock/jitter that does this?
@SkynetRecordings spot on. Exactly. I'm no converter expert but I know what feels good and what doesn't.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio that's what say main producer in Sweetwater studio - I would always pick what sound better instead what sound realistic (in term of converter clearance). But this subtle difference is mabey big for high end studio. As much you goes higher in equipment , difference is less so difference is bigger in 500-1000 than 1000-5000 euro range. To get that 5% better from Burl , I assume you should have everything high- end ,from room acoustic to the end of chain. If your room is "playing" with Burl , you drop your money. Make room to be reference at first and also your monitors. If they lie to you , than buying Burl is wasted money . P.S. if someone need more AD/DA and want Burl, you have "black" version of Burl which is (almost) double less compare to their "green" version where hearable difference should be (almost) none. Burl must say "green" is still hallmark to justify their price, but "black" will do same job almost the same.
Finally someone making a good point 😊
Music is all about feel and emotion, if there is something important then it’s a good arrangement and captured performance. A lot of people get way too surgically detailed on the unimportant stuff. A good production is key and should only need some icing and sparkles on the cake.
@@Chaos-Dynamics Yes indeed. This is what people describe as “Musical” Another reason when listening to gear or plug ins, how does it make you feel! Does it sound alive and musical, we are after all creating and selling emotions not frequencies.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio I believe this is why plug in compressors fall short, they never create the right grab, control and rhythmical timing which equates to a dead feeling ;)
Burl it's the winner !
The Ferrofish is very impressive. It seems the bring the music a bit more to life. It's hard to explain.
With that said, the Burls have an almost 3d like effect. More depth, the bass comes out more without getting in the way.
Thank you for the comparison, Paul.
@@MarkVO this is exactly why I choose to have burls on the mix bus and master chain and ferrofish over the mix.
Thanks for the comparison. I really like your channel 😊 Would appreciate if you broaden the genres to also include more organic music like jazz, folk, traditional songwriter or flamenco so we can get a sense of what these converters do to "non computer based music" 🙏
@bjorncardenas7608 thank you. The issue with that is you get copyright strikes on your video if you are using audio you haven't created or licensed yourself. Even using royalty free audio will get you strikes. So I have to be very selective of the audio i use.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Ah, I see what a pity. Thanks for the reply! 👍
I've spent a fortune on converters over the years and know they definitely have a sound. My Burl ADC has a very distinct sound - especially if it's hit hard - a bit of lovely saturation - the low end always gives it away
The Burl definitely has its own special, very musical, high end sound - love how the transients come alive! Even heard that on my iPhone headphones. :D While the Ferrofish is just perfectly inaudible - amazing for 800 quids. Both do a fantastic job at what they're supposed to do and are both totally worth their price imho. Thanks for the comparison - well done!
So interesting that so many want to have colouration in the converters… I feel that if I had the burls connected to my monitoring - it would throw me off…
Well, I have to say. I didn't hear any difference when you inserted the Pulse 16. But when you inserted the Burl, the whole track got some weight and depth.
@martinsnelaudioenhancement Ferrofish would argue that's the biggest compliment you could give them. Exactly what you want from these converters. What goes in comes out.
The Burl really makes the whole sound round! Big difference in my book.
Neutral vs Coloured. I've always used RME adc to get neutral (and hopefully exact) input capture or for inserts, then leave the coloured finishing options to mastering, which is a better choice since they will likely have a selection to choose from to better suit the track.
You can hear the Burl adds it's own musicality/timing to the track, and it's a wonderful thing
I have a Pulse 16 for my mix outboard and I love it, not for the sound but because it is invisible and solid as a rock.
Si no puedes sacar un master tan bueno con el Ferrofish como con el Burl, tons ahí no es.
The Burl captured more lows while the highs on the Ferrofish sounded more faithful to the original signal.
One thing most comparisons miss imho is one-way conversion, e.g. when you're recording. When I did a shootout like this between 3 different A/D converters on different price levels, there was quite a big difference, way bigger than when ADDA looping an already recorded signal. I suspect this is due to manufacturers matching their filters for good signal reproduction. Would be interesting to hear a comparison of just the A/D side of things. E.g. by adding a third, dedicated D/A converter to the test and then running the signal into the ferrofish and the Burl A/Ds.
Oh my goodness… drop in transformer coloring box that is built from used market priced trafos for fraction of cost, wire it with diy crush n blend on both in and out stage, and you’re done. But probably a non-coloring mastering EQ will do the job, even in the box. 5000 bucks…
Ferrofish is excellent, just like many others, if you have ears and creativity. But good to know that Burl is a coloring box. :)
Remember none of these companies is making converter chips…burl is known to color the sound through transformers not converter
True! I learned that when I purchased a RMI ADI-2 PRO FS. Great box BTW but in blind test we did we could not HEAR a difference VS the Macbook Pro minijack out. Hear I say, we did not measure. Im sure in a measurment there might be differences. But I learned they use the same D/A chips!
I do think LAVRY makes their own? Yes/No?
@@ast4127 i guess they do neither……and don’t get me wrong there is difference in chips too. In my opinion things should be measurable, especially when you are talking tech stuff like converter, avoiding selling magic and mojo
@@ast4127i guess they do neither
Also remember that the converter chip is not the ultimate defining factor in the sound. The supporting circuitry, particularly the clock, also plays a massive part. Even the physical layout and spacing of the design makes a difference. Prism Sound spent around 7 years playing with the AKM demo board and actually improved upon the specs AKM said the chip could achieve. This was prior to the AKM fire, whereafter they reverted to an alternative brand for the ADA-128.
You are right that Burls transformers play a part in their sound, adding a familiar "weight" or low end feel to the sound, but their op amps make a bigger and more noticeable difference. In the BDA4M and DAB4M models, these op amps are changeable to a much cleaner sounding result.
Brilliant video! I was juuuuuust getting suckered into looking at a Lavry Sativr on the second-hand market. But the difference is not enough to justify. It is there though, you can clearly hear it. Personally I sold my B2 ADC cause I found the gain staging too finicky. I've stuck with the Dangerous AD+ as it sounds clean all the way up until clipping, kinda more forgiving for a noob ME. As for DAC, I'm just sticking with the onboard converters on my RME UCX II, which sounds great to my ears. The big question mark for me is which clock source do I use? The RME has legendary clocks, but there's something to be said about using the clocks from the ADC as that's kinda (IMO) the more important converter when using a big analog chain like yours.
Nice comparison, thank you!
Hi Paul, have you checked whether the differences are greater when the AD stage of the converters is clipped, as some engineers do?
@MathewJerryKalapura the burls clip better. Which is why I use the burls in the mastering chain and over the mix bus when mixing. The ferrofish never clip when mixing.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Just saw your reply to one of the comments below talking about comparing converters, it would be amazing if you can compare the clipping too!
@MathewJerryKalapura oh yes that would be fun. Clipping some cheap converters compared to expensive. I've noted this down.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio That's awesome! Not comparing to clipping but just conversion + built in headphone monitoring, I did notice a huge improvement when I compared the RME Babyface Pro FS (my current interface which I absolutely love) to a Prism Sound Lyra 2 and Avid MBox. The frequency extension, stereo width and general clarity in the Prism and MBox were so much better when compared to the Babyface. The Babyface is amazing in terms of portability and stability (no issues at all since 2019, when I bought it, solid conversion too).
i was wondering on your opinion, bouncing a master mix internally or printing the master mix out/in through the converter.
@henrychu1975 well this is exactly what this video shows. What you are hearing is the difference made by passing a mix through converters over the mix bus. This of course depends on the converters.
Wow, this has always felt like a test I’ve been curious about. I’ve been particularly interested because there’s a B2 ADC available near me at a good price. Thank you so much!
@minwoo9153 the Burls are brilliant. I highly recommend them. Good for clipping too.
I do prefer the Burl but I agree it is not 39 times the difference price to performance.
I was so surprised the difference was when switched to all Dangerous music AD+ and D-Box+ I thought I got new speakers the difference is worth it!!!
The burl sounds more analog, like a record IMO. Other is def nice tho...question why are you doing it at 96 kz
@mrmorpheus9707 that's just an image for the purpose of the video so you can see visually which is which.
Was waiting for this one . . . Thank you
@@niozikpro5812 it's an interesting one
@@AudioAnimalsStudioindeed . . . It is not night and day indeed . . . Thank you so much . . .
Boy oh boy the level match is amazing
Can you please try some shootout with Hifi converters like Topping . . . SMSL against this crew !? If possible of course. Thank you once again
@niozikpro5812 I am going to be doing this kind of video with SX Pro at some point this year. We're going to get a load of converters together. Cheap to mad expensive and round trip them multiple times to test the results that come out. I don't know if they stock Topping but we can try get some into the comparison.
I have the dangerous ad+ and convert 2. Definitely a game changer!!!
can someone explain to me what is being "added" to the sound when run through the converters (other than the burl's transformer)? people are talking about this massive difference in sound quality and that transients are clearer, but how is this actually accomplished? in theory isn't it just decoding/encoding the same zeros and ones that the daw is? if the file exists in the daw, isn't the "no converter" version the most lossless and correct? how can you "improve" pcm data that already exists?
I can understand from the perspective of tracking audio signals how there could be better or worse methods for capturing the A/D conversion, but in this case aren't we just listening to a conversion cycle of an already digitized file? what we're responding to is actually like, tasteful degradation of the original source and box tone, no?
truly trying to learn/understand here. am i missing something?
In this case, it is all on the analog side in this case. Not unlike how someone might use a summing mixer or console to add slight flavor.
@@chipsnmydipso what qualitative improvements are actually being made by the converters? I don’t really understand your answer in response to my questions.
@@seansmeedcomposer1734 There is no improvement from the perspective of digital data. You are getting slight pleasant coloration from the analog stage of the converters (transformer included, but not exclusively).
@ I see, that’s what I figured.
@@chipsnmydip can you please describe "slight pleasant coloration", like1%?, 2% or more than 15% audible difference? Because I'm listening on HD600 with RME RME ADI-2 DAC and maybe I hear something, but not sure that I'm not imagining things. Because, if I don't feel anything on $2000 equipment, then what's the point?
it's the transformers, not the converters. you don't need a converter for transformers.
Exactly 👍🏼
Thanks! Next video is the LAVRYS then? I only kept one hardware but going back into my DAW there is difference, HOWEVER, bouncing a track to a stereo file IN THE BOX there is ALSO a difference...
How does the Lynx Aurora N compare to both converters?
less dig harshness with burl, pulse 16 is clean but no added caricature raw file is harsh across all sound examples. burl has a sound and can be pushed into or soft clipped. if you're doing alot of in the box work the burl would help.
Pulse 16 beautiful i love it sounds more open
Sounds the same.
Any perceived increase in bass is negligible and could be achieved with gentle eq.
So so subtle but the Burl hybrid circuit with a proprietary transformer, the BURL AUDIO BX1 really makes the difference.
Could you show how to go out and back with the Burl’s
I have the Ferrofish A32 on my list for awhile now!
@@deiwar2994 you can't argue with 32 channels of conversion at that price.
The burl sounds better. If ur gonna spend that much on a burl, might as well get the dangerous mix bus 2.
In my AirPods the difference I hear is the low mid to low transients and/or saturation. One keeps the transients and the other rounds it out
Looks like the difference was between converter and no converter
Honestly Paul Thank you SO much for making this. I have been considering a Pulse for awhile, but I dont want to downgrade from the current flagship RME converters
@Rhuggins I highly rate the ferrofish converters as a very affordable way of adding 32 channels of conversion. I tested them relentlessly against my lynx converters and they came out very much equal. At which point I was like ok I'm impressed we'll go with them.
@ holy shit. You’re one of the very few I just trust implicitly, because I know you have great taste and are detail oriented. I’m much the same way. So if you think that the Ferrofish wouldnt be a downgrade then that will be my next purchase. Are you talking about the A32 Pro or the regular Pulse 16
@Rhuggins I have the silver face pulse DX and pulse. The a32 is supposed to be an upgrade to these, but I haven't tested yet. I would imagine they are a slight improvement. I believe they just released a small desktop 8 channel version at around £500. Tell you what. Why don't I send you the ordinal audio and the ferrofish audio. Then you can print through your RME and directly compare. This way you'll know 100%. Just drop me an email and I'll send them to you. Email is on the audio animals website under contact.
@@AudioAnimalsStudiointeresting, which Lynx did you compare them with?
@ wow thank you that is so generous! Id be happy to send over a passthrough file afterwards of the RME conversion, if youre curious to see how it holds up!
Bass end seems more 'alive' on the Burl, but it's a tiny, wee difference. Worth the monstrous price ratio? I dunno, but if I could afford it I'd have the Burl in a heartbeat.
Thanks for the video.
Well well well, in my opinion, the converter is not a "sound box", then you will never get away from coloring. I think the more neutral the converter is the better, then the decisions for the sound are natural. Ferrofish is a bit closer to the source, so I choose it myself.
Greetings from the land of ice and snow
Rauno
@RaunoPaananenAudio this is why you have more than one converter in your studio. Much of the time i want that colour. Sometimes, I don't. It's better to have options if you need it. No point having 2 converters that sound identical is there?
@@AudioAnimalsStudio That's true. Some hardware colors more than others. And it always depends on the material you are working with.
definitely more 3d with the converters
I have the burl ADC and 2 ferrofish pulses. was waiting on the RME M1620 but it took to long to come out. I enjoy the burl especially when I turn the input knob down to negative -20db to drive the circuit and get those subtle harmonics.
@@Javarrockamore yeah there's a lot more you can do with the burls.
Burl sounds better, better low and high end. It's the most exciting.
By the way, do you clip your burl converters sometimes?) If so, can you make a video please?
@77advanced I'm not a huge fan of clipping converters, however when I do clip it sounds great.
I have the B2 bomber ADC
Thanks for this I have the ferofish and are very pleased. request pls do a elysia karacter video if you have the unit
Very subtly, the Ferrofish harmonically shifts things up just a tiny tad, put on enough elements and it can neuter low end extension. Still would buy it tho but it's probably something I'd have to actively compensate for. Meanwhile the Burl elegantly retains the low end while adding excitement and harmonics, also able to clip them for mastering purposes. Both do sound better than the non-converted signal to my ears tho.
I've seen similar low end "issues" on a ADC only Burl setup fed from another brand's DAC, which makes it seem like the Burls are really designed to go in pairs, but BOY do they cost a lot!!!
I'm also interested to know how were the clocks ran on these two setups, were they on their own internal clocks ran on two separate computers or one of the clocks was the master?
Converters definitely make a difference. It's subtle, for sure. I went from UA Apollo X to Apogee Symphony MKII SE and RND MBC and the difference is honestly pretty significant.
What do u use the end for? Vs the apogee?
@@jamondru Im selling an Apogee Symphony MK2 SE let me know if you are interested
hey ma i got the apogee mk2. regular burt added a clock to it and it sounded even better i wonder it. will sound the same to the SE model ?
I think it's not more low end, it's a phase difference in the low end
Could be imagination, but I can hear the difference of the Burl even on my 2021 iPad Pro M1 (more depth).
I read a couple of comments talking about the difference between going through a converter and not true a converter. In my opinion this doesn’t make any sense unless only electronic instruments are used. Anything else would need to go through a converter first to capture it anyway 🤷🏼♂️
@@Chaos-Dynamics think of it this way. You are mixing a song in the box. You add a converter to the mix bus such as a burl. The video highlights the difference in terms of the printed mix.
@ Ahh okay, thanks for clearing that up. So a hybrid mixbus is the idea 🙂
Paul. That is so minimal but I do hear a difference only when I am playing super attention but nothing I would cry over. Haha. Did you see that new RME M-1620 pro in AVB and Dante yet?
@@braxal6983 i haven't seen it yet. But Dante interests me.
So would the ferrofish would be level up for me? I am going in and out on my apollo x8 right now. I was thinking about the burls for a long time now, but the price is a big nono. I go into ssl bus +, fusion, spl vitalizer and back in. Would the ferrofish make things better or is the apollo in comparison to the ferrofisch (16 outs not in the math) at least equal in sound? Cause like u said: there is really such a little, little difference between burls and ferro.
@@jameshaesslon what i will do is upload the audio files to my website. You can then download and check the difference between your own converters and assess if there is a noticeable difference.
Very interesting comparison! Thank you!!!!! (It's a pity that there are no comparisons at all of the three main (for me) giants = Avid MTRX2(2023)(DAD AX64) Apogee SymphonyMk2SE and PRISM SOUND ADA-128 = it's a great pity!) Thank you for your very valuable work!!!
@АлексейВискалов-и6х this will be coming. Later this year I'll be working with SX pro to put together a huge shootout of converters. Cheap to expensive.
i have to say that the burl does sounds better,the separation on the instruments is better,sounds bigger,with more punch in the low
Love my burls.
It’s not necessary but it def makes a difference.
I always mix thru them if I’m mixing hybrid.
If I do itb. I keep everything itb lol.
You coild probably make the ferrophish sound the same w some saturation as im sure you knkw theres a transformer in the burls.
What about your audio interface? It has converters.
Is it only the conversion or also the word clock that makes a difference?
If you stay in the box, does a word clock makes any difference?
@vicneve1169 not something I'd considered. I'd need to get back to you on this one.
If you stay in the box with the DAW, word clock makes no difference, same goes for any audio interface doesn't change/do anything better then doing offline render itb.
@@hiltonstroud1399 I experienced a big difference also when I stayed in the box. The only thing that is not in the box is the SPL 500 series headphone controller. Does that mean that the word clock only had impact on headphone controller?
@ The SPL 500 series headphone controller is not affected at all, it has no digital connectivity. However if it's feed analog io from your Audio Interface, the Audio Interface DAC and wordclock would have difference on the sound you hear but not the offline itb render.
When offline render occurs, wordclocks, dac's etc don't affect the sound at all. It's only when you playback after render you are listening throuhg that DAC and that sound will have smallest affect of course.
So many get confused thinking better Audio Interface or word clock will give ITB offline render better sound when that's just not true, and also it won't give any better performance either. It's all internal on the CPU. Hope that helps.
@hiltonstroud1399 thanks! Now I know I don't have to worry about that anymore:-)
Please fix the typo in the thumbnail! 😊
BURL smash it
❤️✌🏽😃
Burl.. Vs RME ?
Burl vs. RME ADI-2 - exactly, that's the interesting question.
The Burl seems to really pull it together. Didn’t care for the ferrofish. Of course its extremely subtle, but for me…the burl.
For tracking sure Ferrofish is enough for mixdown not. Burl compared to a ADI-2 from RME and a RND MBC would be nice.
This is a converter comparison, a Rupert Neve MBC doesn’t have a converter. If a Ferrofish converter isn’t good enough for mixing for you then you should stop mixing because you’re clearly talking bullshit 😂
@@Chaos-Dynamics MasterBusConverter - you must have mixed that up with the MasterBusProcessor.
The MBC is a stereo compressor/limiter/clipper with AD conversion. It doesn't even have got an analogue output mate.
It cost roughly 3500€ which is an incredible deal for limiter AND converter. Included a simple saturation/EQ setting called 'Silk'.
@ Sorry about the confusion, you’re right. I mixed that one up with the Portico II Master Bus
@@Chaos-Dynamics No worries, have a nice day!
Thought the kik sounded better on FF
Okay, yeah with the Burl i hear some slight difference in the low end. To me, it sounds like it VERY gently "focuses" the low end, can we not achieve that with quite a few units tho?
To me that doesnt justify the price, i mean how many analog units out there are known to "tighten the low end" and in an even nicer way than these converters? Probably hundreds
@@SomberSkies_000 I could add the Wes Audio NG bus comp and turn iron on and it'll achieve a similar sound. This could be an interesting test.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio Id watch that
I have the ferrorish mx to extend the adat I/o to and from my ssl board an the dangerous music to go back into my interface.
Burl Rules !
Gotta disagree with ya on this one Paul! Great test but the Ferrofish feels thinner than the original sample, and definitely less substantial than the Burls. Iv'e been waiting to hear a great sample of these as I've been considering buying them and this definitely sealed the deal that I"ll skip on them for now. The Burl's sound quite different, and arguably quite a bit better than the source in a few ways. For people in stereo mastering rooms, it's a no brainer. And I don't even love the Burls either. HEDD, Hilo, and many other options for high end stereo AD/DA are a bit overpriced to be sure, but they definitely don't sound the same as that ferrofish.
Personally, I just feel burls sit in a league of their own. Which is why I use them in all my mastering chains. They become a part of your sound as much as any other unit in the chain.
There is absolutely no meaningful difference, and if you do a proper ABX test, you won't be able to tell them apart. You can even go way cheaper than Ferrofish, and you still won't be able to ear any difference
If this tiny difference defines someone’s engineering skills then they don’t have any 😂
Easily hear the difference. Ok a fgew questions. Can a plugin replicate this? If this something analogy in the hardware - ie is it a DAC ADC thing or something a bit of analog hardware could do. I think I could do this in a plugin, but appreciate it would speed up the workflow.
@@richertz the closest plugin to achieving this is something like the Kazrog true iron. A worthwhile video could be exploring this question.
The only sound to replicate on the Burl ultimately is the Transformers that's what's part of the Burl sound, and of course the clipping if one does that. There is a plugin from Threebody Technology that is modelling the Burl ADC called Green AD which currently prob closest to. There is some other transformer type plugins out there that could do similar but not exact of course. True Iron, P42 Climax, TBT Transformer.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio that would be interesting. I’ve got the Acustica Ash plugin I think that might have something. I use a Topping DAC that’s really clean but I assume as with others like the Lavry blue that I’ve used is you are using it for other uses than the e actual DAC itself.
sound exactly the same via youtube on my m1 mac mini with noisy apple tech.
so I'm not the only one. Not to mention that UA-cam degrades the quality of audio.
Burl all day and I would have for you to drive the burl to show its true potential
@gaboonschoolofmusic9848 100% there's a lot more you can do with the burls to obtain more of a sound.
If you can’t tell the difference without using the transformer, because that’s the reason to have it , there is a reason you have a MTRX and the bomber burls ADC and DAC . Ok if I’m wrong are you going to sell the burls for the Ferrofish? I don’t think so lol 😂. But the ferrofish definitely is great sounding machine .
@ramonfelizjr no way. There's a reason I have burls in my mastering chain. It is for their sound. But to install 32x burls you are talking £96,000. I love my gear but I'm not spending £96k on burls. Hence why after much testing I installed ferrofish converters.
Couldn’t these differences be made with plugins?
Burl affected the snare too much for my taste.
This is the first time I feel that the test you conducted is almost nonsensical. I’m a great admirer of your work, but I think you really missed the mark this time. In this case, you didn’t compare two converters, nor a cheap one with an expensive one, but rather one with a couple of extra transformers and one without. Yes, there is a quality difference between the two converters-of course there is-but the biggest difference comes from the transformers. This comparison makes no sense. Compare a FerroFish converter with an Avid MTRX Studio instead. Now that would make sense…
@mixfactortv that's not what the test is though. The title is how much difference does a converter make. Not burl vs ferrofish. That's just added so you can compare. The test is the audio passing through converters and not passing through converters and how much difference they make. I chose to show both converters because they are so vastly different in what they are.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio
But it's just the ANALOG Stage/Circuitry going In OR Out that you are comparing, NOT the actual DIGITAL part of the CONVERSION.
IOW, it's just the difference in the ANALOG sections & Circuitry of each A/D & D/A converter that you're comparing.
Sure, it's semantics because EVERY "Converter" MUST have BOTH Analog AND Digital circuits, but...
It's more akin to comparing a Neve Mic Preamp to an API Mic Preamp, not the "DIGITAL" sampling circuitry of a Converter.
In addition, ANY Listening Comparison MUST BE Unsighted (Double Blind) in order for the comparison/test to be valid.
Make the raw files available for Download from a Cloud Storage service (Google Drive, etc) and only identifying them as "A", "B", & "C" without the converter's names. You can reveal what each one was at a later date.
Then download the Free Foobar2000 media player software combined with its "ABX Comparator" plugin. These will allow you to perform a randomized and completely Blind/Unsighted listening test where you can choose which file is what converter or no converter. It logs and displays your results at the end of your listening "rounds".
If you can positively identify each one at least 10 out of 10 times consistently with no errors, you have valid and meaningful results and "the differences are real world". Otherwise your results are just subject to be random chance/odds, i.e. guesswork.
A sighted/non-blind test is subject to Confirmation and Expectation Bias as has been proven in many documented experiments and studies...especially when their are "popular" or "high end" or "high price" pitted against "lower tier" and lower price offerings.
Search for:
"seanolive blogspot /2009/04/"
"Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests"
@bbfoto7248 I'd rather do the video like this, to be honest. This way, everyone can hear simply how much difference a converter makes when compared to no converter. The content you are after is something I've mentioned many times and is being done on a far greater scale.
I found it super useful fwiw. It's a comparison of sounds not "apples-apples". It's useful to hear the round trips the ADDA contribute vs the direct path.
@@jjaymerica this guy gets it.
....the last 10% are so expensive as the 90% before...
i hear the differenz (yes, no bass) on my smartphone.
burl more lively/3D comes more define/upfront.
question: Are the BURL convertors still using old chips or are they updated now?
@@Freakeasy_chicago unsure on this. Will need to ask burl. Mine are a couple of years old.
Why do you have a Burl system if there isn’t a massive difference? I hear an insane difference the Ferro Fish sounds flat and mushy the Burl sounds 3-D life like and the transients move in a life like fashion clearly it’s not just transformers it’s the circuitry and integration of the chips with that circuitry. I would say Motu 16A is better than the Ferrofish!
@stayinspired2027 you answered your own question. That's why I have burls in my mastering chain in every studio.
No audible difference on UA-cam
Burl all the way sounds much better. The ferrofish sounds sterile in comparison.
that's cuase Burl has Transformers in it.
Nothing u could not compensate when u mix imo...
This only confirms that the Ferrofish is a great pick for my needs!
@aleksamrkela831 exactly why I included the comparison between burl and ferrofish.
The difference is minimal!
sorry but this does not make sense
@dirko2000 if you Google what an AD/DA converter is you have a better understanding of this video.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio if you google "transformer" for me we have a deal ;)
@@AudioAnimalsStudio if you google what a transformer is and what it does to sound we have a deal :)
Either everyone here is a bat, or my setup stinks. I can't hear a damn thing.
Don’t worry, if you don’t have a tiny weeny and golden ears you won’t be part of the audiophile always nitpicking club who don’t understand that music is made by musicians not by the engineers 😂
@@Chaos-Dynamics I listened to it on my JBL 308Ps twice. First with full range and then with 12dB high-pass @ 90Hz (just in case there was too much low-end rumble in my small room corners.) Still could not hear a damn thing. I guess I need a hearing check.
@ Neh, if your mixes translate and you’re happy with the results skip the hearing test and keep doing your thing. We’re not mixing for forensic analysis or surgical perfectionism 😉
@ I listened on better speakers and I hear a big difference, so much that I would make different mix decisions. On the kick samples it’s clear to hear the difference. Otherwise use good cans it’s a night and day difference imo. Listen to it again, don’t focus just listen 🎧
I'm curious, how you're gonna hear a difference between 2 converters if you're working on a mix or mastering a song?
Unless you're playing the final mix through a converter and record it on a different device, how you're going to hear the converter on the final mix?
Also, you took into consideration the fact the YT reduces the audio quality to 16Bit, 160kbps Opus?
I dont have the cash for Burl...but if I did...I wouldn't be persuaded by what can only be described as a track from the demo button from an 80s Casio. To showcase the quality of a converter, you will 100% need to hear it on an acoustic instruments recording ( a well recorded one preferably with human voice that the human ear has evolved to listen to in incredible detail) that isn't edited to within an inch of it's life and doesn't contain the same overly processed samples every 2 beats.
I really don't want to be a dick about this, that isn't my intention...I know that copyrighted material can be problematic at best on UA-cam, but with that set up you have, we really need to be hearing quality source material in order to evaluate what is and isn't going on (even with UA-cam compression artefacts). As I alluded to above, a raw vocal take is probably one of the best sources.
@stephenfleming8030 send over your royalty free unreleased audio that won't get a copyright strike and I'll be happy to include it. Until then, moan at UA-cam not me.
@@AudioAnimalsStudio touché, but I hope you see my point. As I said, my intention was not to be a smug prick about it, so apologies if it came across that way.
@stephenfleming8030 no worries. But seriously if you have audio you want to license to me to use in these videos please do so.