R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Apogee vs. Apogee  (Read 1546 times)

Yellowguy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Apogee vs. Apogee
« on: May 09, 2005, 11:45:52 am »

There has been some threads on converters lately, but my searches have not been fruitful, regarding my particular qeiry.
What I am curious about is if anybody has compared Rosetta 800's to the 16X models, and what may be the differences. (yes, I'm aware that one is 8 in 8 out and the others are.... well you get my point)
When checking their website, the only difference I can seem to find, is that they brag more about the clock in the AD-16X. Does the Rosetta have an inferior clock?
What would be other differences?
Bottom line, which should I get? BTW I don't want to hear it about the Prisms etc, Apogee is as expensive as I can go.

Regards

Marco Manieri

PaulyD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 867
Re: Apogee vs. Apogee
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2005, 12:58:42 pm »

Late summer last year, I called Apogee tech support and asked if connecting a Big Ben to the word clock input of the Rosetta 800 would yield the same sonic results as the AD-16X/DA-16X devices. They said no, citing improved analog filters in the xx-16X devices. They also make it clear that the C777 clock in the xx-16X devices is the same clock used in the Big Ben and is superior to the Intelliclock of the Rosetta devices.

Paul

Yellowguy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re: Apogee vs. Apogee
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2005, 01:57:28 pm »

PaulyD wrote on Mon, 09 May 2005 18:58

Late summer last year, I called Apogee tech support and asked if connecting a Big Ben to the word clock input of the Rosetta 800 would yield the same sonic results as the AD-16X/DA-16X devices. They said no, citing improved analog filters in the xx-16X devices. They also make it clear that the C777 clock in the xx-16X devices is the same clock used in the Big Ben and is superior to the Intelliclock of the Rosetta devices.

Paul


Thanks for the info Paul. Do you know if it actually sounds any better?

Marco

PaulyD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 867
Re: Apogee vs. Apogee
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2005, 02:51:07 pm »

I've never compared a Rosetta side-by-side with the xx-16X devices. fwiw, I went with a Mini-Me and a DA-16X and have been very happy with both. They were just a gigantic improvement over the built-in converters in my MOTU 2408 mk II.

Paul

gwailoh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
Re: Apogee vs. Apogee
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2005, 05:05:21 pm »

Here's what Michael Cooper wrote in Mix (http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_apogee_adx_dax_2/index.html):

"With an A-weighted dynamic range of 120 dB, the AD-16X's converters conveyed a strong sense of realism. In A/B tests, they provided significantly greater depth, focus and high-frequency detail than the Apogee Rosetta 800's A/D converters. The Rosetta 96's A/Ds, on the other hand, provided a hair more depth and fluidity in mids and highs than the AD-16X's converters. The differences were extremely subtle, but sounded as if the mics were moved a couple inches closer to the source (without added proximity effect) from a couple feet away to reveal a tad more nuance."

Hope this helps.

snakecained

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: Apogee vs. Apogee
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2005, 08:35:17 am »

I would say the 16x are 5% better than the Rosetta 800.

Small, but noticable with the right signal path.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up