R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down

Author Topic: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)  (Read 14570 times)

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« on: August 25, 2008, 01:39:18 PM »

Just curious if a lynx aurora clocked with a Big Ben could hang with the AD-16x.

Obviously, the 16x is tops for AD conversion.  The thing is, I don't necessarily need 16 channels of DA-16x... more like two as I really only intend to mix itb.

Hence my question.  Would the difference between these two setups be THAT noticable?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com
Logged

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2008, 02:50:16 PM »

I wouldn't say that the AD16x is tops for conversion, but it's very respectable.

If you need a clock to clean up your converter, then the answer should be obvious.  Buy the better converter rather than the converter that needs a fix to get it in the ballpark.

Just because you get the AD16x does not mean that you need the DA16x.  If you only need 2 channels of DA, you could do something like the Lavry Black or other 2 channel unit.  Your interface should have no trouble working with two different models.
Logged
Nathan Rousu

mixwell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2008, 03:46:12 PM »

There are very noticeable differences between them. They are both excellent converters, and the difference is Left and Right, not "better" or "worse" so I think its really worth a shot to try both with your music and the rest of your equipment so as to make an educated choice about the purchase. The Lynx has no calibration setting and comes out of the box calibrated to -16DBFS, so any tests against the AD16x MUST BE MATCHED to -16DBFS, OR YOU WILL BE DOING A TEST UNDER FALSE PRETENSES!!!!

It erks the hell out of me when I hear, "the Lynx was fuller and had more frequency range" and "The AD16x sounded Pinched next to the Lynx" these are examples of people not talking into consideration that the Apogee comes STOCK set to -18DBFS [MORE HEADROOM LESS INPUT GAIN] so if you cannot properly cal these things to your monitor controller, its all a wash in my opinion, as calibration has everything to do with tone, dynamic range and the overall response.

The Big Ben brings the Lynx slightly closer to the sound of an AD16x, as it brings up the bottom a bit and does seem to give you some frequency headroom for transients, but the Big Ben does not substitute and/or replace the power supply and analog circuitry in "X" converter. To my ears the BB adds +/- 3dB of harmonic content to the Lynx's ruler flat response, so it does change the response with "synchrolock" OFF. Your better off just getting the AD16x if you like the sound of the AD16x, and if 16 AD/DA seems to fit your studio better, the Lynx Aurora is a deal thats hard to pass up given its performance.

If you only need 2-channels of DA for monitoring, there are plenty of them out there, I would recommend the Apogee Mini-DAC as a "turn-key" solution with an AD16x.

peace


Logged

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2008, 12:57:24 PM »

mixwell wrote on Mon, 25 August 2008 20:46

There are very noticeable differences between them. They are both excellent converters, and the difference is Left and Right, not "better" or "worse" so I think its really worth a shot to try both with your music and the rest of your equipment so as to make an educated choice about the purchase. The Lynx has no calibration setting and comes out of the box calibrated to -16DBFS, so any tests against the AD16x MUST BE MATCHED to -16DBFS, OR YOU WILL BE DOING A TEST UNDER FALSE PRETENSES!!!!

It erks the hell out of me when I hear, "the Lynx was fuller and had more frequency range" and "The AD16x sounded Pinched next to the Lynx" these are examples of people not talking into consideration that the Apogee comes STOCK set to -18DBFS [MORE HEADROOM LESS INPUT GAIN] so if you cannot properly cal these things to your monitor controller, its all a wash in my opinion, as calibration has everything to do with tone, dynamic range and the overall response.

The Big Ben brings the Lynx slightly closer to the sound of an AD16x, as it brings up the bottom a bit and does seem to give you some frequency headroom for transients, but the Big Ben does not substitute and/or replace the power supply and analog circuitry in "X" converter. To my ears the BB adds +/- 3dB of harmonic content to the Lynx's ruler flat response, so it does change the response with "synchrolock" OFF. Your better off just getting the AD16x if you like the sound of the AD16x, and if 16 AD/DA seems to fit your studio better, the Lynx Aurora is a deal thats hard to pass up given its performance.

If you only need 2-channels of DA for monitoring, there are plenty of them out there, I would recommend the Apogee Mini-DAC as a "turn-key" solution with an AD16x.

peace





Thanks a bunch Adam... that's very helpful.  I think I'll just save a bit more and get the AD-16x.

That said, if I'm running Nuendo and mixing itb, my concern is latency in tracking.  Several people have mentioned to use direct monitoring.... though that was when I was considering the Lynx Aurora.

With the setup of the AD-16x, Rosetta 200, and FW interface... would the latency be low enough in tracking to negate the need for direct monitoring?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com
Logged

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2008, 01:24:18 PM »

smj wrote on Tue, 26 August 2008 10:57

With the setup of the AD-16x, Rosetta 200, and FW interface... would the latency be low enough in tracking to negate the need for direct monitoring?



The latency amount depends completely on the quality of the drivers for the aforementioned interface.

Many interfaces now offer their own type of direct monitoring through a software controlled console panel.  IMHO, this is a far superior option than trying to do low latency monitoring through a DAW host.
Logged
Nathan Rousu

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2008, 04:43:46 PM »

PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 26 August 2008 18:24



The latency amount depends completely on the quality of the drivers for the aforementioned interface.

Many interfaces now offer their own type of direct monitoring through a software controlled console panel.  IMHO, this is a far superior option than trying to do low latency monitoring through a DAW host.


Ok this is the part I don't understand.... as this new system is in it's conception stage as I'm slowly changing over from an HDR setup.

What exactly do you mean by "drivers"... is that hardware you install in the computer or the I/O?  Can you suggest a good driver?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com


Logged

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2008, 07:25:39 PM »

smj wrote on Tue, 26 August 2008 14:43

PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 26 August 2008 18:24



The latency amount depends completely on the quality of the drivers for the aforementioned interface.

Many interfaces now offer their own type of direct monitoring through a software controlled console panel.  IMHO, this is a far superior option than trying to do low latency monitoring through a DAW host.


Ok this is the part I don't understand.... as this new system is in it's conception stage as I'm slowly changing over from an HDR setup.

What exactly do you mean by "drivers"... is that hardware you install in the computer or the I/O?  Can you suggest a good driver?


For a hardware audio interface that gets the digital signal into your computer, the manufacturer of that hardware needs to write a piece of software called a driver.  The 'driver' software tells the computer what the interface is and how to work with it, allowing the computer and its programs (Pro Tools, Logic, Nuendo, etc) to know how to access the interface device and the audio it's sending and receiving.

So, if the manufacturer of whatever audio interface you chose to use has done a good job of writing the driver software, you should get stable performance at low latencies.  If not, you will get poor performance at low latencies.

Does that explanation help?
Logged
Nathan Rousu

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2008, 10:57:33 AM »

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 27 August 2008 00:25



For a hardware audio interface that gets the digital signal into your computer, the manufacturer of that hardware needs to write a piece of software called a driver.  The 'driver' software tells the computer what the interface is and how to work with it, allowing the computer and its programs (Pro Tools, Logic, Nuendo, etc) to know how to access the interface device and the audio it's sending and receiving.

So, if the manufacturer of whatever audio interface you chose to use has done a good job of writing the driver software, you should get stable performance at low latencies.  If not, you will get poor performance at low latencies.

Does that explanation help?


Yes it does... thank you.  Some other questions if I may:

1) I think I could assume Apogee has it together in terms of the driver/latency relationship.  Supposing we used the firewire cards for both units, can you comment on the the Lynx vs Apogee Ad-16x from a latency standpoint?

2) The lynx unit is advertised to have it's own direct monitoring ability via it's software controlled console panel... I don't see anything written about the Apogee AD-16x... does it have that feature as well?

3) Is the firewire option adequate as far as an interface goes... or is there a better option?  I will be using a PC w/Nuendo.

Ok I'm done!  Thanks again!

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com
Logged

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2008, 11:17:57 AM »

smj wrote on Wed, 27 August 2008 08:57

Yes it does... thank you.  Some other questions if I may:

1) I think I could assume Apogee has it together in terms of the driver/latency relationship.  Supposing we used the firewire cards for both units, can you comment on the the Lynx vs Apogee Ad-16x from a latency standpoint?

2) The lynx unit is advertised to have it's own direct monitoring ability via it's software controlled console panel... I don't see anything written about the Apogee AD-16x... does it have that feature as well?

3) Is the firewire option adequate as far as an interface goes... or is there a better option?  I will be using a PC w/Nuendo.

Ok I'm done!  Thanks again!


I have not used either the Apogee FW card option and only have minutes of demo experience with the Lynx.  But I know a number of folks who have both and have commented on each.  

1)  I would search any number of forums out there for what people are saying about Apogee drivers.  On various forums, I've been seeing a lot of negative comments about / problems with their drivers.  They're new at the interface game, so I suspect they thought it would be easier to code drivers than it is.  My personal opinion there is be cautious and my advice is research the drivers and your computer combo for any known problems and fixes.  

One major problem is that they rely on Apple's own FW drivers for audio rather than coding their own.  Other mfgrs have learned that you need to write your own core level FW drivers to get proper performance.  So the fact that they are still using the Apple drivers puts up a red flag for me.

2)  I have seen the Lynx control pannel and it is indeed very functional for direct monitoring.  I've only seen the Apogee FW card option setup in their advertisements.  But based on what I've seen there it does seem to have a console to do direct mixes, it just looks a little limited.  Mind you have I have the Metric Halo console application that I'm comparing everything to...

3)  The FW option could be adequate, depending on your needs.  Other popular options are the RME and Lynx interfaces where you can connect your converters via AES and use their more substantial software control panels and drivers which have a much more solid reputation.
Logged
Nathan Rousu

mixwell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2008, 02:16:33 PM »

Ok, here's the deal;

The Lynx [when outfitted with the LT-FW card] will give you a "control panel" to allow the "hardware monitoring" capability, which basically spits the inputs [AD] right back through the outputs [DA] pre-software, as the software is really what induces the latency of Round Trip Audio [AD/DA through the input channel]

FW is an extremely limited format, as there is something like 4 ms of latency inherent in the technology, but it is workable, if not, I wouldn't have it in my project studio. Sure there is some residual latency with converter, {both Apogee and Lynx are FAST converters in this regard] due to DSP Nyquist filtering and such, but its SO residual you might never experience it.

The Driver, the Software, and the Computers speed, all deal with this issue of latency, and its all different, so its not easy to find the perfect marriage for Software and Hardware with you're chosen setup, but companies are trying: EXAMPLE, Apple/Logic and Apogee Symphony. Symphony is optimized for Logic so as to get the LOWEST THROUGHPUT latency available using PCI-e [which is DOUBLE the bandwidth of PCI and almost QUADRUPLE the amount of bandwidth in FW!] I still think either Lynx System or Apogee X-FW system is a professional means that will do the same thing respectively [with Hardware monitoring]

The Apogee PC FW drivers are horrid [unless you have the right FW chip set noted in the manual], I recommend against going Apogee FW [unless your on a Mac because the drivers actually work when you need them to]

With the FW system and AD16x, you'd only get 8 channels of hardware monitoring as the Apogee "fire-mix" software is only capable of monitoring 8 input channels, [kind of built for the Rosetta 800] but you can create as many sub mixes of those eight channels to any pair of 8 channels. Kind of limited but works never the less.

I think the BEST option with a PC/Nuendo rig would be the Lynx AES16 PCI card with either Lynx Aurora 16 and two Lynx 1605 AES cables, or the AD/DA16x system with Lynx 1603 cables. You'll be able to do hardware monitoring with the AES16 as well.

Logged

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2008, 01:59:41 PM »

smj wrote on Wed, 27 August 2008 15:57



Yes it does... thank you.  Some other questions if I may:

1) I think I could assume Apogee has it together in terms of the driver/latency relationship.  Supposing we used the firewire cards for both units, can you comment on the the Lynx vs Apogee Ad-16x from a latency standpoint?

2) The lynx unit is advertised to have it's own direct monitoring ability via it's software controlled console panel... I don't see anything written about the Apogee AD-16x... does it have that feature as well?

3) Is the firewire option adequate as far as an interface goes... or is there a better option?  I will be using a PC w/Nuendo.

Ok I'm done!  Thanks again!

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com


1&3) apogee's firewire is not a good low latency solution. even the tecs at apogee steared me clear of it when asked this question. go with symphony. my latency with the symphony card is so low you don't notice it. i am using a mac pro 8 core with 8 gb ram logic 8. the buffers are at the lowest setting. no issues at all running complex mixes. there is a low latency button that turns off plug0in delay compensation and playing virtual instruments including triggering drums is nearly instant.


2) yes apogee comes with a hardware mixer built in and software interface to control it for true zero latency input monitoring. meastro...I only use it when tracking vocals.
Logged

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2008, 03:26:19 AM »

mixwell wrote on Wed, 27 August 2008 19:16

Ok, here's the deal;

The Lynx [when outfitted with the LT-FW card] will give you a "control panel" to allow the "hardware monitoring" capability, which basically spits the inputs [AD] right back through the outputs [DA] pre-software, as the software is really what induces the latency of Round Trip Audio [AD/DA through the input channel]

FW is an extremely limited format, as there is something like 4 ms of latency inherent in the technology, but it is workable, if not, I wouldn't have it in my project studio. Sure there is some residual latency with converter, {both Apogee and Lynx are FAST converters in this regard] due to DSP Nyquist filtering and such, but its SO residual you might never experience it.

The Driver, the Software, and the Computers speed, all deal with this issue of latency, and its all different, so its not easy to find the perfect marriage for Software and Hardware with you're chosen setup, but companies are trying: EXAMPLE, Apple/Logic and Apogee Symphony. Symphony is optimized for Logic so as to get the LOWEST THROUGHPUT latency available using PCI-e [which is DOUBLE the bandwidth of PCI and almost QUADRUPLE the amount of bandwidth in FW!] I still think either Lynx System or Apogee X-FW system is a professional means that will do the same thing respectively [with Hardware monitoring]

The Apogee PC FW drivers are horrid [unless you have the right FW chip set noted in the manual], I recommend against going Apogee FW [unless your on a Mac because the drivers actually work when you need them to]

With the FW system and AD16x, you'd only get 8 channels of hardware monitoring as the Apogee "fire-mix" software is only capable of monitoring 8 input channels, [kind of built for the Rosetta 800] but you can create as many sub mixes of those eight channels to any pair of 8 channels. Kind of limited but works never the less.

I think the BEST option with a PC/Nuendo rig would be the Lynx AES16 PCI card with either Lynx Aurora 16 and two Lynx 1605 AES cables, or the AD/DA16x system with Lynx 1603 cables. You'll be able to do hardware monitoring with the AES16 as well.




Thanks again Adam for a very informative response.

To be honest, I don't know what 4ms of latency feels like.  With my Tascam MX-2424... I don't notice any latency issues nor do my band mates.  I can't say for sure whether a FW setup causing 4ms of latency would be taking a step back or forward compared to my current rig.

Still, I might go with the Lynx AES card anyway.

That said... my direct monitoring path would then be:

A/D converters ---> AES PCI card ----> D/A converters????

Ok... one other (stupid) question.  Can the analog outs of whatever D/A converter I choose be plugged directly into my monitors... or do they have to hit my console first?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com
Logged

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2008, 03:33:29 AM »

brett wrote on Thu, 28 August 2008 18:59

[
1&3) apogee's firewire is not a good low latency solution. even the tecs at apogee steared me clear of it when asked this question. go with symphony. my latency with the symphony card is so low you don't notice it. i am using a mac pro 8 core with 8 gb ram logic 8. the buffers are at the lowest setting. no issues at all running complex mixes. there is a low latency button that turns off plug0in delay compensation and playing virtual instruments including triggering drums is nearly instant.


2) yes apogee comes with a hardware mixer built in and software interface to control it for true zero latency input monitoring. meastro...I only use it when tracking vocals.


Thanks Brett,

Being a future PC/Nuendo user, it doesn't appear I can use the Apogee Symphony stuff as there doesn't seem to be any mention of PC/windows support on their site... is that correct?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com
Logged

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2008, 12:10:01 PM »

smj wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 08:33

brett wrote on Thu, 28 August 2008 18:59

[
1&3) apogee's firewire is not a good low latency solution. even the tecs at apogee steared me clear of it when asked this question. go with symphony. my latency with the symphony card is so low you don't notice it. i am using a mac pro 8 core with 8 gb ram logic 8. the buffers are at the lowest setting. no issues at all running complex mixes. there is a low latency button that turns off plug0in delay compensation and playing virtual instruments including triggering drums is nearly instant.


2) yes apogee comes with a hardware mixer built in and software interface to control it for true zero latency input monitoring. meastro...I only use it when tracking vocals.


Thanks Brett,

Being a future PC/Nuendo user, it doesn't appear I can use the Apogee Symphony stuff as there doesn't seem to be any mention of PC/windows support on their site... is that correct?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com



unfortunately no, there is an appogee/logic partnersip with apple going on there. your best option would probably be a lynx specific card with an AES to the apogee stuff. RME is also a good option for pc although it has been a long time since I used a pc for studio work.
Logged

mixwell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2008, 02:31:52 PM »

smj wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 02:26

mixwell wrote on Wed, 27 August 2008 19:16

Ok, here's the deal;

The Lynx [when outfitted with the LT-FW card] will give you a "control panel" to allow the "hardware monitoring" capability, which basically spits the inputs [AD] right back through the outputs [DA] pre-software, as the software is really what induces the latency of Round Trip Audio [AD/DA through the input channel]

FW is an extremely limited format, as there is something like 4 ms of latency inherent in the technology, but it is workable, if not, I wouldn't have it in my project studio. Sure there is some residual latency with converter, {both Apogee and Lynx are FAST converters in this regard] due to DSP Nyquist filtering and such, but its SO residual you might never experience it.

The Driver, the Software, and the Computers speed, all deal with this issue of latency, and its all different, so its not easy to find the perfect marriage for Software and Hardware with you're chosen setup, but companies are trying: EXAMPLE, Apple/Logic and Apogee Symphony. Symphony is optimized for Logic so as to get the LOWEST THROUGHPUT latency available using PCI-e [which is DOUBLE the bandwidth of PCI and almost QUADRUPLE the amount of bandwidth in FW!] I still think either Lynx System or Apogee X-FW system is a professional means that will do the same thing respectively [with Hardware monitoring]

The Apogee PC FW drivers are horrid [unless you have the right FW chip set noted in the manual], I recommend against going Apogee FW [unless your on a Mac because the drivers actually work when you need them to]

With the FW system and AD16x, you'd only get 8 channels of hardware monitoring as the Apogee "fire-mix" software is only capable of monitoring 8 input channels, [kind of built for the Rosetta 800] but you can create as many sub mixes of those eight channels to any pair of 8 channels. Kind of limited but works never the less.

I think the BEST option with a PC/Nuendo rig would be the Lynx AES16 PCI card with either Lynx Aurora 16 and two Lynx 1605 AES cables, or the AD/DA16x system with Lynx 1603 cables. You'll be able to do hardware monitoring with the AES16 as well.




Thanks again Adam for a very informative response.

To be honest, I don't know what 4ms of latency feels like.  With my Tascam MX-2424... I don't notice any latency issues nor do my band mates.  I can't say for sure whether a FW setup causing 4ms of latency would be taking a step back or forward compared to my current rig.

Still, I might go with the Lynx AES card anyway.

That said... my direct monitoring path would then be:

A/D converters ---> AES PCI card ----> D/A converters????

Ok... one other (stupid) question.  Can the analog outs of whatever D/A converter I choose be plugged directly into my monitors... or do they have to hit my console first?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com



You can patch two channels of DAC right into your powered monitors no problem.

Just remember any attenuation in your listening environment, must happen ITB, Which....is not the best way to work [YMMV] So I think patching the stereo outputs of your ITB mix to two channels on the console, might work for you....There is no wrong answer here, so depending on how you like to work, and what your console can do and its master section and AUX return compatibility, this patch can be made any which way the wind blows....

We have an ACA stereo input on our patch bay, [Active Combining Amplifier] which is another way into the 2-buss summing amplifier in our console. So lets say I have two channels of Stereo program material from the computer I want to play along side...say: the JH-24 tape machine patched into the 24 channels on the console. I now have to use the ITB fader to control signal strength, whereas patching into the input channels gives me another way to boost or lower the signal, post converter.

With that said, it would seem a monitor controller with an on-board DAC right before the speaker attenuation makes the most sense if your going with the AD16x, if you plan on mixing to a stereo pair ITB. I myself find using two channels of DAC to record and mix my projects unsatisfactory. If you have a console, perhaps you should use the console, instead of the computer. Just use the computer like a tape machine.  

For 2-channels of DAC, you could also go with the Mini-DAC and attach it to the Lynx AES16 which is going to give you 16 Digital outputs, that you have yet to decide on, so you could patch AES signal to the Mini DAC there and you would do that with the multi-way AES cable for the AES16 on top of the 1603 Lynx AES cable for the AD16x.

Side note: Symphony is Mac Only, Optimized for Logic. And I disagree that the Apogee zero latency software is not useful and I would still recommend it..I think its just that the drivers suck for PC with Apogee fire wire card....If you have the wrong chipset that is......On a Mac its the beez kneez.....I'm using it right now to listen to my GTR going direct without opening Logic. As well, with the AES16 Hardware monitoring, you can sub mix virtually ANYTHING! It will do the same: SPIT inputs right back out the DA, pre software.  
Logged

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2008, 08:26:43 PM »

mixwell wrote on Sat, 30 August 2008 19:31



Just remember any attenuation in your listening environment, must happen ITB, Which....is not the best way to work [YMMV] So I think patching the stereo outputs of your ITB mix to two channels on the console, might work for you....There is no wrong answer here, so depending on how you like to work, and what your console can do and its master section and AUX return compatibility, this patch can be made any which way the wind blows....




The problem with my console is that it's digital... and out dated.  With the new setup, I will be recording at 96k... and my console only does 48k... so I could only use it to monitor analog sends.

If I patch anything into it to use the console for monitoring only... the audio is going to pass through the A/D converters on the console.  They might prevent me from hearing all the goodness of upgrading to new converters in the first place.

I may get a monitor box like the SPL MTC 2381... or one of the Dangerous Monitor Boxes.  There's a variety of good ones out there... but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

Thanks again all... this has all been really helpful... complicated... but helpful!

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com
Logged

brett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1114
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2008, 02:24:31 AM »

yes you can use meastro to control monitor volume indepedant of the mix bus but no knob or remote to do so, using the mouse for it woukd get old. I did it this way for years with my motu setup and the cue mix on the 424 card. the apogee interface is similar. getting a benchmark dac1 was a God send. i monitor analog now from outs 1&2 of my rosetta800 with dedicated box with speaker switching but will be puting it post analog summing mixer and after a korg mr1000 to hear what is going in and comming out of my final recording device.


4ms latency is enough to bother a drummer, vocalist or guitarist when using a loop.... in/fx/out. for just playback and mixing you'll be fine.

and  apogee firewire was usable for lower latency settings only up to 10.3.9 from what techs`at appogee told me... that was when 10.5 was about to come out. things could have changed. call them, their techs are straight shooters. always gotten honest advice and good service from them. ymmv
Logged

breathe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2008, 09:19:39 AM »

The Lynx sounds very clear, which is exciting to hear on a lot of music (nothing that benefits from an aesthetic of mystery), but the bass response is pathetic, and the hi-hi mids are really pokey.  I've since moved to the Apogees and I honestly wish I could have done every project I did on the Lynx on the Apogee instead.  Before I got rid of my Lynx Fletcher tried to convince me that I could address most of it's problems with a better master clock, but having had a bit of experience with different clocks I think I can safely say that they don't do much to improve the performance of the converter's filters.

Nicholas
Logged

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2008, 10:06:02 AM »

I suddenly just wondered if I would be screwed when I go to record my group if everyone wants their own monitor mix and I only had 2 channels of D/A.

Usually what I do is send the drums on one channel, the bass on another.... etc. Each person in turn has their own multichannel headphone amp.

If I needed say four independent monitor sends while tracking... is there a workaround if I only had 2 channels of D/A?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com
Logged

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2008, 01:45:14 PM »



Hi Sean,  Again this is where a console comes in handy... so you can split off the separate mixes on the way into the box.  Really no need for that once the bed tracks are laid.



Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

mixwell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2008, 11:45:50 PM »

smj wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 09:06

I suddenly just wondered if I would be screwed when I go to record my group if everyone wants their own monitor mix and I only had 2 channels of D/A.

Usually what I do is send the drums on one channel, the bass on another.... etc. Each person in turn has their own multichannel headphone amp.

If I needed say four independent monitor sends while tracking... is there a workaround if I only had 2 channels of D/A?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com


If you're using the AD16x with your console, you can use the digital outputs of the AD16x which has ADAT or AES, to create pre-software sub mixes [that is...if your console has ADAT or AES] and you can set the AD16x to standard routing [ALL analog inputs pass the ALL outputs meaning the ADAT OR AES [choice of one] AND the Option card...you'll get a mirror of the analog to digital conversion, and you can use the digital console and its AUX sends to create sub mixes to separate headphone boxes.

I would use the 2 channels of good D/A for your monitoring ONLY in the control room, and you can make that POST RECORDER, that's latent and completely separate of the musician CUE. This would let EVERYONE hear what they are supposed to the WAY they are supposed to, with as little issue as possible. Even though there is an AD/DA conversion with your console, its still WAY LESS LATENCY IF ANY to your artists and the cue boxes they are using.

Hope this helps

Logged

mixwell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2008, 11:57:41 PM »

breathe wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 08:19

The Lynx sounds very clear, which is exciting to hear on a lot of music (nothing that benefits from an aesthetic of mystery), but the bass response is pathetic, and the hi-hi mids are really pokey.  I've since moved to the Apogees and I honestly wish I could have done every project I did on the Lynx on the Apogee instead.  Before I got rid of my Lynx Fletcher tried to convince me that I could address most of it's problems with a better master clock, but having had a bit of experience with different clocks I think I can safely say that they don't do much to improve the performance of the converter's filters.

Nicholas


Did you turn the Lynx PLL [Synchrolock] off when you clocked the unit elsewhere?

I think the OCX [oven controlled clock] makes the most difference [in a good way] to the Aurora when Syncrolock is OFF, Although the Big Ben absolutely brings up that bottom octave and gives the Rosetta 800 a run for the money.

I must say I have noticed quite a difference between the Rosetta 200 when its clocked from my DA16x. I have also noted a mighty extreme difference with the OCX-V and 10M is clocking our RADAR V as opposed to its internal clock, which is no slouch of a clock. Actually, its the best master clock in our building.

We've been using the Grimm Master Clock and its EVEN MORE EXTREME to my ears than the 10M was with our RADAR V. I guess they both had attributes, but the Grimm makes the RADAR gain 10 pounds below the belt. Its got a deeper low end extension, it seems to be MUCH clearer and low end became "heavier" for sure. It became more focused and it brought the clarity way up overall.

The OCX-10M combo did something to the Cymbals that should be illegal in 25 states.
Logged

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2008, 12:18:30 AM »

mixwell wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 04:45


If you're using the AD16x with your console, you can use the digital outputs of the AD16x which has ADAT or AES, to create pre-software sub mixes [that is...if your console has ADAT or AES] and you can set the AD16x to standard routing [ALL analog inputs pass the ALL outputs meaning the ADAT OR AES [choice of one] AND the Option card...you'll get a mirror of the analog to digital conversion, and you can use the digital console and its AUX sends to create sub mixes to separate headphone boxes.

Hope this helps




Hi Adam... some great ideas.  Unfortunately my console only has tdif I/O and 2 channels of AES/EBU... so there's no way I could use the AD-16x directly.

More and more now I think my setup will have to be the Aurora 16, clocked with Big Ben and into the Lynx AES16 PCIe card.  Fast, flexible, and can all be had for less than the AD-16x/DA-16x with the AES PCIe card.

Based on the comments sonically, the Aurora can still hang with the Apogee stuff.  

It definitely seems adventageous to have 16 channels of D/A when you need them the more I think about it.

Apparently the latency with the Lynx AES PCI card is around 0.5ms... I really can't see how that would be inferior to the setup I currently have... latency wise and sonically?

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com

Logged

smj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 426
Re: AD-16x vs Lynx Aurora (w/Big Ben)
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2008, 12:29:16 AM »

rankus wrote on Tue, 02 September 2008 18:45



Hi Sean,  Again this is where a console comes in handy... so you can split off the separate mixes on the way into the box.  Really no need for that once the bed tracks are laid.




Thanks Rick.  I guess the only way to do this with 2 channels of D/A and the limited digital I/O of my console... is to use an analog splitter snake.  16 channels to the A/D converters to record... 16 channels to the console (analog in) for monitoring.  

It would be nice to not have to shlep my console around everytime I record my group... as I usually record in my church which is much better than my basement.

Hence... I think I might go with the Aurora afterall... it seems to solve all of these issues and can still sound amazing without breaking the bank!

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 21 queries.