I think you still don't understand my point - I am not clocking one Forssell AD with Grimm, I have 4 Forssell converters and they have to be connected to one clock otherwise digital artifacts are coming if using more than one of them ... So far I had them clocked to the internal clock of RME AES 32 card. After I synced them to Grimm, the sound was really better than if clocked with RME.

I have not tried yet to compare the sound of one Forssell AD alone vs clocked to Grimm ... there is no meaning in that for me, I need all of them to be properly clocked.

Admittedly I don't know the Forsell's clocking I/Os but wouldn't you rather daisy chain all units off of the first one? Or does it not have WC output?

If that's not possible, I'd still be curious to hear what a single Forsell sounds like, using its own clock, relative to external clocking from the Grimm -- for the sake of conversation, not because you need it.

I used to have it like this (source clock = AES 1 and other units connected to that out/in) but in connection with the basic RME it did not work reliably, often some digital artifacts happening etc. Only when I set the central clock as internal (RME), it was ok ...

I listened to your latest album, Zen. I would say the sound of your unamplified instruments is a bit lacking in naturalness compared to the track below so maybe you could ask them what they use?

https://youtu.be/JlFiffLj2Rc?si=tBBKC1TuMJ6PE_yC

Nothing is ever perfect and there are always many options and also tastes and preferences. But somehow the track you sent - to me that flute sounds very unnatural, thin (almost mono) with synthetic reverb around .. I will better not ask them

Less natural than yours?

https://youtu.be/5a9MtZn4VQE?si=ICdex6c6JGtFUHhQ

Hi
I've used many converters over the years, it's only an opinion of course, it is subjective to a degree, but I have found the WEISS DAC1MK3 DA to be truly fabulous as is their AD.
Best
Andy

We should, of course, only be talking about the a/d converter, not a dac here in this thread.

A dac does not influence the recorded sound.

RE: post # 64--referenced flute sound is thin and lacks body.
Poster rexnfx clowns here with his commentary.

The OP posted he felt his acoustic recordings lacked that last ounce of nuance, having listened to his latest release I would agree. What is your opinion, perhaps you can offer something constructive instead of disparaging remarks?

if we want to assign a significant role in terms of sound* to preamps, ad-converters, da-converters, amplifiers etc. (which behave largely linear when used under 'normal' conditions) and argue that they differ significantly**, we must (logically) accept that there can be no 'best 'device, but that different devices are particularly suitable for different situations - that however is a matter of taste so i don't see much of a point in discussing subjective attributions of sound to gear, neither in this or any other thread...

* i don't!
** do they?

Exactly as you said ! There is definitely no "best something" in general (preamp, microphone etc.) but very good something for a particular purpose (instrument, setup, idea etc.) = better than something else at that moment and for the present idea. Some preamp/microphone could be great for something but the other better for something else (and vice versa). Some may be bad for everything

As for AD, for me the best would be the one that would keep all the details of the original and translate 1:1 to digital domain ... without adding something or removing something ...

Please, follow the topic of the thread (AD converters)

I have not received any reply from Acousense for 2 months, so it seems these things are not needed for me

I just tried a simple and straightforward thing: passed several tracks of various instruments via pure DA AD Forssell chain.

And then listened to the original and "processed" tracks. It was absolutely impossible to tell which is which during many repeated blind switching tests - in all cases.

So I think there is nothing to worry about or to think about something else. These converters obviously do exactly what a converter is supposed to do: to perfectly convert the original sound to analog or digital domain.

This is what a converter is supposed to do.

To change or "improve" the sound - the converters are not doing their job but they smuggle additional job there that other devices should do).

By that I think I stop looking for "better" converters because no better converters could exist. If something converts the source exactly, something else cannot convert the source "more exactly"

If I want to change or improve the sound, there are another devices for that.

I am not surprised. I have the Forssell MADA-2 and Lavry Sativr. I do like the saturation feature on the Lavry. But other than that, I do not see it as being better than the Forssell.

There are probably so many other things to invest in to improve audio.

George Massenburg has bought the ACOUSENCE converter set. A multi-channel version--the System 193.

https://acousence.de/en/producttype/studio-en/

But if some converter already sounds 100% transparent, no other converter can sound any better only the same good or worse (if it changes the sound)

I think your flute sounds just fine, and i would keep making music and stop fussing over converters, my two cents

Yes and no. Good practice was, if you need to distribute clock, the. At least have ONE interface as master, so that one is on internal clock.

Today with Merging Hapi, Anubis etc. it does not make any difference at all. Audio over IP has forced designers to implement their clocking decently is my educated guess.

Depends on gear and environment.

TBH these days yeah, not so much an issue, I think Dan Lavry was talking about everyone running the same Crystals (man.)

I'm a bit confused, you started this thread because you felt your existing ADDA chain lacked that last essence of realism compared to your live music performances and now without changing anything, the problem is fixed?

Perhaps he was making a scientific claim but not necessarily feeling that the world has yet produced such an animal.

He did make a change: added a Grimm CC1 clock somewhere halfway this thread and was happy after that.

I'll just add - it's a mess when people post examples of completely different recordings of completely different instruments - even type of instruments - and comment about "naturalness"...

Any of those converters are good, I don't think any of those converters cause "lack of naturalness", but we can always obsess...

Ivo's recordings are fine, some of the best in the genre.

Love it when those who can't hear differences criticise those who can, some sort of inferiority complex perhaps.

It must be you who (if not simply trolling) know very little about the sound, the sound of flutes specifically...

First of all - the example you posted (and on top of it, a Youtube video in a high-end thread about the high-end converters - where the differences are minute) is a rather mediocre and shrill mono close recording of a western metal flute, drenched in not so nice reverb.

The example of Ivo's music you posted is some "ethnic" bamboo flute, played non-traditionally, I'd guess a sort of shakuhachi or a bansuri.

Ivo's recording is a close one, but full and velvety, much nicer than the other example you posted and represents the recorded instrument well, if one knows it is not the western concert flute.

About the differences - when recording a flute, even standing a few centimeters in another spot the sound can change dramatically, also the height of mics, the angle of the instrument/mics, etc.

Especially for the close recordings - the differences are dramatic and nothing like the small differences between the converters.

Even before changing the mic, preamp or converter - only trying different positions can cause the sound to be either shrill, nasal, loosing certain range, or full bodied, or even too full bodied, etc.

Recording native american style flutes is especially interesting - when you find the right spot they are soooo sweet, but when not in a good spot - thin, shrill, no velvety low mids...

Those instruments project in interesting ways.

For a really great recording in the similar style (New Age - meditation) you posted - the legendary recording with a single stereo mic inside the Great Pyramid - only natural reverb - no esoteric converters (only esoteric surroundings ) - probably directly to tape recorder - Paul Horn - also a western metal flute, but so much nicer than in your example - the playing, feeling, sound, all of it - I would ask him about the details of recording - but I already know the "secret" answer - the player and the acoustics):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=885G...VAJdJF&index=4

Anyway. I won't feed the troll here anymore.

Enough said.