A question on mastering convertors re Hugh's Converter Measurement list.

[w oxo cube]

Hey all.

I'll preface the following question with an admission of not fully understanding the subject in anywhere near the depth of many of you on here. So with that caveat...

From Hugh's measurements I notice that the very reasonably priced Focusrite Clarett + outperforms some units costing over 5 times the amount. The Lynx Hilo being one.

Are we to take from this that the Clarett + is the better sounding unit for capturing audio? Or at least the Clarett is genuinely worthy of a place in a pro mastering setup?

Best
OX

[Hugh Robjohns]

From Hugh's measurements I notice that the very reasonably priced Focusrite Clarett + outperforms some units costing over 5 times the amount. The Lynx Hilo being one.

Yes and no...

The actual A-weighted AES17 figures are:

A-D — Hilo 121.3dB vs Clarett+ 118.0dB
D-A — Hilo 120.4dB vs Clarett+ 124.0dB

So the Clarett+ is roughly 3.5dB better on the D-A side, but the Hilo is 3.5dB better on the A-D side.

It's also worth remembering that I measured the Hilo in 2012 — when those specs were remarkably good — and the Clarett+ in 2021.

Converter technology and design experience have come on a long way since over the last decade, with D-A converter performance improving quite markedly. It's also the easier converter to implement, so I'm not surprised the Clarett+ wins there.

The A-D side has always been the most difficult and challenging for any designer, and Lynx's superb engineering achievement still reigns supreme.

Overall, then, I dont think it's surprising that lower cost products like the Clarett+ are now catching up with high-end gear from a decade ago, at least on the D-A side. Top notch A-D conversion still remains a challenge, and is still expensive to do really well.

As it happens Lynx have also just announced a new version of the Hilo which I'm sure will perform even better and push the benchmark higher again.

Are we to take from this that the Clarett + is the better sounding unit for capturing audio?

No, the numbers clearly show the Hilo has the advantage on the A-D side where audio is captured!

Or at least the Clarett is genuinely worthy of a place in a pro mastering setup?

I've long stated my belief that anything measuring an AES17 score of 118dB(A-wtd) or more is of professional mastering quality. So the Clarett+ certainly rates as mastering-capable in my book.

However, given the incremental rise in converter performance generally over the last decade, it could be argued now that the benchmark for top-end pro mastering should really be an AES17 figure of 120dB (A-wtd) — a figure easily achieved with several RME or Merging interfaces to my certain knowledge, and probably many more, including Cranborne, Lavry, Benchmark etc.

[w oxo cube]

Hugh - Thank you for this, very understandable and enlightening explanation.

I often find it difficult to make sense of the numbers as they perform in the real world.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Real world performance is more nuanced than the raw arithmetic of the AES17 figures, but the latter do offer a fair and consistent assessment of the overall technical performance for comparative purposes.

When it comes to interfaces, lots of other practical factors are as, if not more, important — number of mic preamps, DI inputs, digital I/O, cue headphone mixes, driver support, yada yada yada...

[Wonks]

Though if you are purely mastering, and not recording and/or mixing, using supplied digital files, then it's the D/A stage that's important in the interface (you aren't using and A/D stages).

Room treatment and good monitors are of higher importance though as without them, you are unlikely to hear the details a better D/A stage is able to give.

[Nazard]

Funnily enough, the factory checklist sign-off for my Hilo was exactly 11 years ago today, so I have had mine almost 11 years. It excels in the configuration, flexibility and different inputs/outputs plus it has superb analogue circuitry and can be set up exactly as you wish. The firmware updates have been outstanding.

From what I gather, the Mk II has some extra features and no doubt some theoretical performance improvements, but not enough for me to consider an 'upgrade'. But if anything unfixable happened to my exisiting one, I would definitely buy another Hilo.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

Analogue is still used quite a lot in mastering studios. Some have have moved ITB entirely but it could be argued that ADC quality is even more critical. (as plug ins have improved as well in the last years, especially in the analogue emulation area.) So the ADC needs to be good enough to make the use of the DA/AD chained analogue kit worthwhile.

Whereas no DA/AD is as 'transparent' as it gets. If that is the order of the day.

ADC being a stage where sonic degradation can creep in. Analogue stage pass through, AD filtering and jitter. Although at mastering level ADC typically should sound pretty close to straight wire.

I use both still. Some kit has not been replaced by a plug in yet. On the other hand I have a few plug ins that are exceptionally good as plug ins and the hardware is not making much economical sense to even consider.

£16,000 for a second hand Sontec 432C vintage hardware. I will stick with the Burgess Macneal (the electronic designer) approved 432D9 that I use as merely one example.

If you have the monitoring and room to discern, you can really hear what the golden plug ins are and also the not so golden.

Mastering is a lot about what not to use and do, as what to use and do.

[Wonks]

I forgot about analogue outboard! Of course you're right. the A/D stage is important with analogue outboard, though I doubt most outboard can quite match the s/n ratio and low noise level of the interface itself.

[Hugh Robjohns]

We don't know what kind of mastering the OP is interested in, but most mastering does involve some use of outboard analogue, so the A-D capability is usually important.

The Clarett+ A-D is undoubtedly very good quality, better than some 'mastering converters', but inevitably there are even better at higher cost.

[w oxo cube]

Very interesting reading these comments - I do have a room that measures well and very good monitors. I'm looking to feed out and back into the interface via 3 separate hardware units.

Mic pre amps are not of any real importance as I don't use them day to day and have a decent pre amp.

So the real question I'm trying to work out is would someone with great ears in a good listening environment prefer the sound of a 4k convertors hands down over say the Clarett +

Thanks

[Hugh Robjohns]

I very much doubt it... especially if you're processing through analogue gear too.

The D-A in the Clarret+ is nigh-on as good as it gets. The A-D is very good, but not the best... but you could, at some point, add a separate top notch A-D and connect it digitally if you decided you needed to. Most pro mastering houses gave several different converters for different character anyway (mostly for their clipping behaviour).

[SafeandSound Mastering]

Even in 2004 EMU 1820M approached 120dB dynamic range. Noise is the last thing of concern just 1 analogue tube comp/EQ might be -85dB-ish noise floor making -120dB of noise floor in conversion pale into insginifcance.

1820M I recall as spongey sounding and thick in lower mids, almost muddy compared to a Benchmark DAC1-HDR.

What you see written about much less is jitter specs.

Conversion does sound quite different, specs say it should not and yet the sound is quite clearly different, broadly flat freq response, broadly silent, miniscule crosstalk etc.

When I went from Benchmark DAC-1 HDR to Crane Song Solaris Quantum it was rather surprising how much more focused sounding and tight the Crane song was. Transients including clicks were presented forensically, remarkably so, very useful indeed. In comparison the Benchmark was very thick sounding, in a word bassy.

It was not the Crane Song lost a lot of bass it was just so much more defined, clear, real and solid, amazing transients and soundstage, really that you literally could hear more detail. In fact it it took 3 months to get used to. I guess an audiophile would call it analytical. The detail was nearly distracting intiially until I became accustomed to it.

I am really happy with my Crane Song Solaris. It was not even that expensive when I bought it, not for what you get, in fact I think it is still good value at current price, as I have heard nothing like it. It was compared to £9,000.00 Lavry DAC's.

I did wire in the DAC-1 HDR in again (Still have it spare) a couple of years back listened for 1-2mins and pulled it back out, pretty much the same differences i had remembered.

I am glad I have heard these clear jumps in clarity as I went through gear
as it means money was well spent. There will be a bit of interaction from impedance differences from the different analogue stage interactions but no mastering type DAC's are terrible in this regard.