Trying always to improve the nuances of my delicate acoustic music recordings ... (for so many years). At the moment it would be hard for me to find better microphones, preamps, compressors, EQ etc. - that I have now for this purpose.

For many years I use Forssell AD DA converters (MADC-4, MADA-2 etc.)

I remember that I bought DAD converter some years ago and when the first Forssell AD converter arrived to me, I sold DAD immediately, Forssell sounded quite better ... I also had Mytek Brooklyn, that was not far away from Forssell sound. And quite few people wrote many years ago that even the first AD Forssell prototype sounded better than for example Lavry Gold AD.

But still - things are being always improved ... So I wonder if there can be still better sounding AD converter today than Forssell converters.

Better in the sense of pristine detailed sound quality of the original recording being brought to the digital level.

Not sure if "all in one" converters can reach the sublime top (like Merging, DAD, Prism etc.).

On the other hand 2 ch AD DA of Acousence (that for example Mr. Plus praises a lot) cost 9000 EUR - that's already a bit crazy (and I would need 6-8 AD channels And when I was recently in correspondence with them, they wrote (in other words) that Forssell converters are a kind of "old shit" - not sure if they ever tried them ...

Anyone has some direct experience here? Or is there nothing yet that can clearly surpass the sound quality of Forssell converters? Or maybe it is ?

Sorry i haven't heard the Forsell so can't compare but found the Acousence sublime for acoustic music, as in very transparent yet musical, so i f you have a chance to try them i'd say it's definitely worth a comparison.

There are many great converter threads on GS that answer this question 10 times over. Some include a link to a great audio comparison of a few top-tier converters, including the Forsell. I found several of the other options to be so good that the Forsell (still great, no doubt) to live in the middle of the pack.

i stopped bothering about converters after i had orchestrated a very extensive listening comparison, together with several manufacturers, people from our industry, an university, a bunch of studio owners and a few friends...

as all other gear, converters are a matter of taste.

Yes, in principle, the converters are supposed just to transparently transform the analogue sound to the digital domain? Without changing it, "improving", etc?

Probably the high quality one are doing it and to reliably recognize the difference between few good ones would not be (blind) easy?

Some add transformers etc. that in principle change the sound a bit (Burl, Acousence etc.) and somehow adds something to the sound? (this rather other type of gear are supposed to do?).

And 9000 EUR for for example Acousence 2ch AD DA sounds a bit crazy?

But I was told (and even read some direct experience) that adding high quality external clock (like Grimm etc.) can yet improve the sound of the converters (more clarity)?

of course there are minor differences between converters (as much as between preamps or any other piece of gear) but imo they are (mostly) irrelevant - IF someone thinks they are relevant, i suggest s/he buys a few different models and uses whatever sounds best in any given situation.

and regarding external wordclock generators/distributors: alleged improvement of sound quality stemming from the use of them is just another myth. they are (mostly) about hooking up gear that needs to get sync'ed (say in a multiroom facility) but which is not connected via digital audio.

While external clocking making something better or worse is subjective, it's demonstrable that the sound changes. I've done it repeatedly, and not only do a/b comparisons not null, but the sound difference is audible.

I won't say that a change is guaranteed with every combination of converter and clock, but in my tests, it's real.

Between converters there may be minor differences but not between preamps, mics, compressors, eqs etc - there are huge differences sometimes

I think trying to determine winners and losers among today’s high-end converters through a comparison test is pointless and just a sign of inexperience. The only way to evaluate them is by using them in your daily work over an extended period and deciding whether they align with your own taste.

I think so - in case of high end converters, the real sound difference (created and surrounded by microphones, preamps, instruments, music, acoustics) may be minimal and maybe even not recognisable by blind test ...

Well, if you really think that there is no substantial sound difference between some preamps and other pieces of gear (comps, eq, microphones etc.), then maybe it is worth to try (or better not to say anything before you try) Unless you do just some routine commercial recordings where nobody cares.

Among various analogue compressors, EQs - there is often a huge difference, the same regarding preamps (at this very moment I am testing and comparing Pueblo Laguna, JR, Forssell SMP-2, Earlybird 4 atd.) - oh, the sound differences are really big ...

And microphones - better not to say anything ...

Converters - using Forssell AD DA , I have not tried any other for many years ...
While comparing to Lavry , Mytek or DAD some years ago, Forssell sounded always clearly better.

I heard from people using Forssell converters that after connecting Grimm clock, the sound has audibly improved ... hmm, may try ... (rather than thinking of AD DA converter for 9000 EUR

it's (probably) you who haven't ever been participating in a properly conducted comparison of gear (which was designed to show largely linear behaviour)...

...buttgen, we're on gs so it's about subjective things, expectation bias, taste etc.

anyway, my point remains: if you're into finding an optimum solution for various situations, get several converters: they each will show a slightly different behaviour which you may favour depending on program...

You simply have to decide what’s best for you. Pick the one you vibe with and can afford and get to work.

Well, you cannot suddenly collect many converters just to try That's why I am asking about somebody's possible experience ...

You have to put yourself in a position to hear a few you like at once. Conduct a shootout. Nobody’s experience is going to be the same as yours.

Agreed. This is why I'd started a similar thread when I was searching for a top shelf converter. The responses helped me put together a short list which I could then audition. But as the other guy is suggesting, there's no substitute for trying these products in your own studio, if you're able.

I am the proud owner of an Acousence adda191 reference in a special version - I also have 2x IN/OUT so I can switch between two set-ups at my leisure...

And I have a 10Mhz clock input...

And yes, my Acousence adda191 still costs more than 9000,-€ ...
And yes - it's worth it...

A small example - when I play vinyl with the Acousence it sounds like the original - if that's what you want, but you can also set the converter so that it sounds different ...

But that doesn't mean that you can also work well with other transducers...

I got Grimm CC1 and I must say there is an audible sound improvement (clarity and natural sound) when Forssell AD connected to it.

I recently heard recordings made with Nagra 6 and was quite surprised by the (high) quality! For acoustic music, it sounded really nice!

after many shootouts and many converters bought/sold, I am happy to have finally found the most suitable converter for my sound and that is the Merging/Neumann sound

no DIs, external pres, or clocks needed. Just pure, high quality sound.

Good to know about the GRIMM on the Forssell. I have the MADA AD/DA and I also have a Lavry Sativr. I love the saturation aspect of the Sativr, but honestly the sound of the Forssell is simply great. If the GRIMM improves the Forssell, then I think it is a "straying at gnats" situation between the Forssell/GRIMM combo and other converters that some might think are better than the Forssell.

Some say not to use an external clock, but if it sounds better with one, that is all that matters.

Several info points:
ACOUSENCE 191 can be purchased as a/d converter only for much more reasonable money than $9000. I recall I paid around $3600. World’s best converter. Buy it today.

Nagra VI still the lowest jitter recorder. (Except for Nagra D)

A well designed clock will not benefit from using an external clock.

Maybe you bought it in some of your past lives ...

Today:

adda191m 6400,- EUR
upgrade to “arfi-reference-DAC” 970,- EUR
Analog volume control and controller 1450,- EUR

=> 8820,- EUR + 19% VAT = 10495 EUR

(this is what they wrote me)

And for normal recording you normally need 4-6 AD channels ...

Top quality dedicated clock can improve the converter sound audibly + if you have more converters you need it for synchronization.

Hello Ivo,

I bought a ACOUSENCE 191 unit that is a 2 channel
a/d converter ONLY. No dac included.

That is why the price is different. ACOUSENCE will configure a unit any way you like because they are a boutique house of sound.

Record and mix on the spot like a man with the best analog console sending the output to 2 channel ACOUSENCE.

Then the record is finished.

I will ask them to send some AD to try ... If they send, I will make some recording samples of few instruments, just changing the AD. If someone will clearly and blindly recognise some sound difference and will easily say which is which (Forssell and Acousence) based on few blind samples, I will consider buying

If not (which I think may be the case), I will just relax

care to set up a proper test and provide evidence?

imo if an external clock generator does lead to a difference in sound of the slaved unit, something must be awfully wrong...

Creating “natural sound” is a neat trick from any electronic device, and I should hope the “sound” was “audible”

Indeed, converters at this level almost certainly have excellent clocks so going external would be unnecessary.

In theory, an external clock should not be better. But I also trust ISedlacek. (He clarified his post in a post below this one.)