[DougD]

  My lack of respect for delta sigma DACs is only slightly exceeded by the same for sigma delta A2D converters - they are suitable for cheap (oops, inexpensive) prosumer stuff.  How much is it worth for a user to digitize their vinyl??  Think about it.  If they were making original recordings, it would be worth a bit more.  Easy to do for Bifrost money or less, and amazing in the context of all of the other insipid stuff out there.
 
To do a real multi-bit megacomboburrito deal recording at balanced in at 24 bit 250-500KHz sampling rate AES/EBU out (USB is for children and feral wannabe engineers) as good as the stuff I made (Gain 1) for Mobile Fidelity is going to cost like an Yggy.  But it will be really *** good.  How many people really need that?  Wants and needs are different.

 
An excellent framework for thinking about this.
 
My collection of vinyl, and interest in vinyl to digital conversions, is Bifrost-sized. It's not Yggy-sized. If I thought that vinyl/analog was the ultimate high-fidelity storage and technology for delivering music content to the consumers' ears, that would justify a larger commitment and budget. Or the best tradeoff of cost & quality. But, personally, I do not believe either of those is true as broad generalizations. And I'm not creating any original content. So an Yggy-in-Reverse would be out of my budget range. (N=1)
 
However, I think we can take "megacomboburrito A2D converter" off the guessing list for what the 2016 Manhattan project is all about.

 

[wink]

..... and feral wannabe engineers ......

I can remember back in the days when we had pan toilets and the people who came every week to replace the full cans with empty ones called themselves "sanitation engineers" .      

 
You could say they had a Schitty job.     

 

[Baldr]

Below is a reprint of what I have said re Schiit's delta sigma vs multibit d/a converters:
 
Our DACs below $400 and below are Delta Sigma. Audio is the red-headed stepchild of electrical engineering in general, several prestige notches below say, microwave rf or computer hardware design. Delta Sigma DAC chips are the delight of “audio” chipmakers. They come complete with cookbook “how to make” data sheets and reference designs to copy. They are also cheap. We could not design a $100, or even $150 digital to analog converters without them. DS designs are so easy to make that the result is that are many of them (not all) on the market designed by digital unsophisticates, even occasionally morons. The keyword is cheap and easy.
 
All of our converters at $600 and above are multibit and multirate. By multirate, we mean oversampling. I do not believe in making non oversampling (NOS) converters. The required NOS analog “brick wall” filter has multiple poles and is very prone to ringing and horrendous phase shift. Our multibit converters are also upgradable (as well as our $400 DS Bifrost) as technology becomes available. Although our policy is to make no sonic claims for any of our products, my clear preference, not only for headphone systems as well as speaker systems is multibit. Many agree. Unfortunately, they are far more expensive to develop and build, particularly when proper instrumentation and weapons grade DACs are used. This is opposed to the cost constrained “audio DAC chips” marketed to the “audio” sector. (Read DS) Multibit DACs are capable of converting a literal copy of the input data. DS ones cannot.
 
As the digital architect of the Mobile Fidelity Gain I system, co-anchored with Nelson Pass, I know it to be true that this difference applies to sigma delta A/D conversion systems as well x 10.  A brief perusal of resale values for Gain I vs Gain II Mobile Fidelity media on eBay bears this out.
 
Whoever records with what hardware - it is none of my business.  We are currently not in the business of building A/D converters.  It is the fact that I have designed dozens of D/A and A/D converters, of both flavors over the last 36 years or so which informs the above opinion.
 
It is the post 9617 above which was written in an economic vein.  This the end of my technical engagement on this matter here.
 

 

[bigro]

   
Yes, this is also true.
 
The point is this: pretty much all the ADCs in the current recording production chain are sigma-delta.  The statement that it's not suitable for pro use is pretty silly given how pervasively it is used by pros.  The professional recording engineers (for the most part...I don't know of any exceptions, but there probably are) have decided to use sigma-delta, and made that decision quite some time ago.
 
Even Mobile Fidelity, previous users of R2R in their Gain 1 system, has gone SD/DS (DSD) with their Gain HD system (used for analog tape master transfers):
 
"From there the signal is directly coupled to MFSL's 4X DSD A/D converter which samples at 11.2 MHz or 256fs, or 256 times the CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz. The 4X DSD file is then downsampled to 1X DSD for the SACD layer and the 4X DSD file is also downsampled to 44.1 kHz for the CD layer. "
 
Source: http://hometheaterreview.com/mobile-fidelity-details-new-dsd-mastering-technology/

Edited, Mike Chimed in and said what I was thinking but in a far better way and with experience to back it up.
 
The conversation started with a way to get records that are not available in a digital format to a digital format and if there is a better way schiit can do it.I suspect there are not many here who have a need for a AD converter with a million inputs and 7 different ways of getting it to a Computer. That's like going to buy a porsche and the dealer shows you a 15 passenger Van. Sorry not looking for the big box that you can pack a bunch of people and stuff in and has 13 TV's the entertain the family, 5 coolers and 38 cup holders and has the turning radius of a tractor trailer. Nope, Looking for a small purpose built machine with 2 seats, twin turbo and a power switch (or engine) in the back .
 
I you are happy with those SD A/D Converters out there that's great there are a butt load out there. and no one is telling you not to buy.  I for one think that Mike, Jason and the Schiit team can put something out that will easily best a lot of the bargain pro gear out there.
 
 
 

   
An excellent framework for thinking about this.
 
My collection of vinyl, and interest in vinyl to digital conversions, is Bifrost-sized. It's not Yggy-sized. If I thought that vinyl/analog was the ultimate high-fidelity storage and technology for delivering music content to the consumers' ears, that would justify a larger commitment and budget. Or the best tradeoff of cost & quality. But, personally, I do not believe either of those is true as broad generalizations. And I'm not creating any original content. So an Yggy-in-Reverse would be out of my budget range. (N=1)
 
However, I think we can take "megacomboburrito A2D converter" off the guessing list for what the 2016 Manhattan project is all about.

Yeah there is a reason that Yggy is still a dream... the wife.  Ohh boy I am going to die for that one.
No it's Cost. Its on a future wish list. A Bimby sized Unit with Bimby Sized pricing would be the sweet spot. Is there a Huge Market for this? I am Not sure but a MB A/D converter that is in the Bimby price range would definitely be unique and within a comfortable price range.

 

[AudioMan612]

   
There are a lot of other companies Making Dacs and headphone amps. Schiit still managed to make theirs Unique and profitable.
 
Most pro gear lack the detail and finesse of hi fi gear with the exception of some studio recording gear. Amps and speakers are made to play loud first and foremost . noise floors are ussually not an issue so the gear can be noisy, again unless  you are in a studio. and a lot of the money is in building rugged chassis. The Abbey road Studios in England use HI FI Bowers and Wilkins Diamond series loud speakers.
 
Have you looked at any of the "pro audio" AD converters?? Sorry seems like off the shelf AD converters with a bunch of crap bundled together. You might as well get a Crosley USB TT at that point.
 
The same reason why we buy Schitt Dacs is the same reason why the an AD converter designed by schiit sounds like a good idea. There is a significant investment and a lot research that goes into an analog rig as well as lots of tuning and care. That in all honesty can show up a lot of digital systems. If I have a record that has not found its way to CD via a studio, Then My means of getting it to a digital form should have the same thought and research put in to. Sorry you can keep most of that pro gear. Unless you shell out big bucks most of the stuff is nothing special.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.  I'm not talking about pro gear for live venues, I'm talking about studio gear.  There's not much use for ADCs at a live venue unless you're recording the show (I have run sound at small shows in the past, and I work in the pro audio industry, though I want to go into the Hi-Fi industry).  The ATC SCM25A Pro's in the studio we have at work can put out as much detail as just about anything.  For analog to digital conversion, we have an Antelope Audio Orion 32 and a Burl B2 Bomber ADC (both of which have excellent sound quality).  We've also got a Universal Audio Apollo Twin, which is a really nice portable interface.

So yes, I have looked at pro audio converters.  That Antelope interface of ours does 32 tracks of DAC and ADC at 192kHz 24 bit with excellent quality for under $3000.  Schiit's gear is about the same value of what we get with a lot of our pro gear.  That's what they're known for, having very good quality for the price.  My point is that the ADC market has a lot more companies offering products at similar price-points, so it would be an interesting challenge.
 
My passion is Hi-Fi, but I have very much valued my time in the pro audio industry (I do research and development for AEA Ribbon Mics and Preamps).  It's really opened my eyes to how records are made, the kind of equipment used, and how it is used.  Things are very to-the-point.  I think that's a large part of why Hi-Fi is sometimes looked down upon by engineers and technicians in pro audio.  There is a lot of snake oil and expensive equipment out there that is just for suckers, and you see this much more in Hi-Fi.  Also, I've noticed that there are plenty of pro audio companies who have successfully reached into the Hi-Fi market (Grace Design, Benchmark Media, Antelope Audio, Manley, among others), but far less going the other way (Audeze somewhat did it with their LCD-X and LCD-XC headphones, and now they are trying to enter the microphone business (I'm excited to throw their stuff on a testing rig when I get the chance), and I know that there are others, I'm just too tired to remember them right now).  Then again, there are companies who are pretty equally known for both markets, such as Shure and Sennheiser.

  I've met a couple guys who still still record on magnetic tape and master in the analog realm... buncha weirdos

Yep!  I know a good handful.  We currently have a handful of tape machines in our office.  The primary ones are an Otari 24-track, and a Studer 2-track, but we've also got an MCI-24 track, an MCI 8-Track, a Sony 24-Track, and an Ampex 2-track.  We might eventually get a Studer 24-track, which would be amazing.  Some of our machines belong to the company, while others belong to employees.  They're quite nice, and they certainly do have a character to them.

 

[wink]

I want a Yggdrasil Uber........    

 

[artur9]

  The vast majority of recordings made today are done so using sigma delta ADCs.

Are these devices selected by the same people/companies that butcher music?  Then I don't think holding them up as a paragon of fidelity is a winning argument.

 

[bigro]

 
Sorry, I should have been more clear.  I'm not talking about pro gear for live venues, I'm talking about studio gear.  There's not much use for ADCs at a live venue unless you're recording the show (I have run sound at small shows in the past, and I work in the pro audio industry, though I want to go into the Hi-Fi industry).  The ATC SCM25A Pro's in the studio we have at work can put out as much detail as just about anything.  For analog to digital conversion, we have an Antelope Audio Orion 32 and a Burl B2 Bomber ADC (both of which have excellent sound quality).  We've also got a Universal Audio Apollo Twin, which is a really nice portable interface.

So yes, I have looked at pro audio converters.  That Antelope interface of ours does 32 tracks of DAC and ADC at 192kHz 24 bit with excellent quality for under $3000.  Schiit's gear is about the same value of what we get with a lot of our pro gear.  That's what they're known for, having very good quality for the price.  My point is that the ADC market has a lot more companies offering products at similar price-points, so it would be an interesting challenge.
 
My passion is Hi-Fi, but I have very much valued my time in the pro audio industry (I do research and development for AEA Ribbon Mics and Preamps).  It's really opened my eyes to how records are made, the kind of equipment used, and how it is used.  Things are very to-the-point.  I think that's a large part of why Hi-Fi is sometimes looked down upon by engineers and technicians in pro audio.  There is a lot of snake oil and expensive equipment out there that is just for suckers, and you see this much more in Hi-Fi.  Also, I've noticed that there are plenty of pro audio companies who have successfully reached into the Hi-Fi market (Grace Design, Benchmark Media, Antelope Audio, Manley, among others), but far less going the other way (Audeze somewhat did it with their LCD-X and LCD-XC headphones, and now they are trying to enter the microphone business (I'm excited to throw their stuff on a testing rig when I get the chance), and I know that there are others, I'm just too tired to remember them right now).  Then again, there are companies who are pretty equally known for both markets, such as Shure and Sennheiser.

Yep!  I know a good handful.  We currently have a handful of tape machines in our office.  The primary ones are an Otari 24-track, and a Studer 2-track, but we've also got an MCI-24 track, an MCI 8-Track, a Sony 24-Track, and an Ampex 2-track.  We might eventually get a Studer 24-track, which would be amazing.  Some of our machines belong to the company, while others belong to employees.  They're quite nice, and they certainly do have a character to them.

Those are multi thousand dollar ADC's .I am sure they are good. But I think you are missing the point, just because there are companies out there making something, does not mean it cannot be done better or in a different way. Apple Did not have that attitude when Big Blue ruled the world. No one cares what IBM is up to any more even in the Enterprise Level IT world. There was mention of the GAIN I ADC. The person responsible for that ADC (Baldr) is part of the Schiit team. The Thetas (Baldr designed as well) are Highly regarded DACS the GAIN I ADC's seem to hold just as high regard, if not higher. I don't get the argument that the In House Team at Schiit would not be able to produce a product that hits far above it's price point and on the higher end of things just knock the ball out of the Park

 

[madwolfa]

 
The vast majority of recordings made today are done so using sigma delta ADCs.

 
That doesn't mean most of them don't sound like schiit. But to be fair, I'd rather attribute this to poor mastering techniques (read: loudness war), than to ADC technology.

 

[watchnerd]

  I've met a couple guys who still still record on magnetic tape and master in the analog realm... buncha weirdos

 
Between the maintenance and even getting access to tape, that's a missionary level of effort.  

 

[watchnerd]

  For analog to digital conversion, we have an Antelope Audio Orion 32 and a Burl B2 Bomber ADC (both of which have excellent sound quality).  We've also got a Universal Audio Apollo Twin, which is a really nice portable interface.

 

 
All of which use sigma-delta ADCs. Actually the Apollo uses a DSP chip. 

 

[Matias]

You can have multi-thousand ADCs with tons of channels, each of them a relatively mid-priced ADC in itself. I believe he was refering to one big 2 channel ADC Yggy, which is way overkill for what studios usually use. Ayre QA9 would be a similar example, although SD and not MB.

 

[watchnerd]

  Are these devices selected by the same people/companies that butcher music?  Then I don't think holding them up as a paragon of fidelity is a winning argument.

 
It's pretty much everybody.  The people who make horrible recordings with lots of post-production loudness (which has nothing to do with the ADC choice) to people who are making Grammy-winning jazz and classical albums.  2L, a Nordic classical label, has had 23 Grammy nominations (3 this year), has amazing fidelity, uses sigma delta ADCs.  Justin Bieber's latest album, which sounds like crap to me, was also made on sigma-delta ADCs.
 
My main points are these:
 
1. Sigma-delta is widely used in professional gear.  The idea that it is unsuitable for professional use isn't borne out by what the pros actually use.
 
2. It's use in the production chain is pervasive.  Any recording made recently (like the last 5-10 years) has likely been touched by it.

 

[watchnerd]

There was mention of the GAIN I ADC. The person responsible for that ADC (Baldr) is part of the Schiit team. The Thetas (Baldr designed as well) are Highly regarded DACS the GAIN I ADC's seem to hold just as high regard, if not higher. 

 
Actually, Mobile Fidelity no longer uses the GAIN 1 system.   They've moved on.
 
They've been using the GAIN 2 system in production since 2003. The digital portion was designed by Ed Meitner.
 
The new GAIN HD system has been in use at MoFi since 2015.

 

[earnmyturns]

   
It's pretty much everybody.  The people who make horrible recordings with lots of post-production loudness (which has nothing to do with the ADC choice) to people who are making Grammy-winning jazz and classical albums.  2L, a Nordic classical label, has had 23 Grammy nominations (3 this year), has amazing fidelity, uses sigma delta ADCs.  Justin Bieber's latest album, which sounds like crap to me, was also made on sigma-delta ADCs.
 
My main points are these:
 
1. Sigma-delta is widely used in professional gear.  The idea that it is unsuitable for professional use isn't borne out by what the pros actually use.
 
2. It's use in the production chain is pervasive.  Any recording made recently (like the last 5-10 years) has been touched by it.

In the areas of engineering I work in, it's been common for the pros to become so skill at using suboptimal tools that they'll stick with it for decades, and defend them to the death, even though something better is now available. My (outsider) impression of the recording industry is that it is not competitive/dynamic enough to open up opportunities for those who use newer, better tools, especially given that the distinctions we are talking about in this thread are subtle (and non-detectable by most users anyway). In more dynamic industries like mine, old fogies stick to their ancient tools at their peril.