|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 28, 2017 20:19:16 GMT -6
Here's a question about this whole topic is it fair to say some designs of converters are good for tracking and some are good for mixed down because they're more transparent ?
I know people say it's a converter you want to tbe just transparent but remember there's different preamps made for different results some are very neutral for classical music to capture the room etc... some are larger than life (Neve) for example.
I think a lot of it is preference they can use the same parts and some people could buy us the analog section colder to get more clarity somebody buys it warmer to get more class say life into it some use analog for the nyquest filtering some use a digital some on chip him off chip .
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 28, 2017 20:27:54 GMT -6
Here's a question about this whole topic is it fair to say some designs of converters are good for tracking and some are good for mixed down because they're more transparent ? I know people say it's a converter you want to tbe just transparent but remember there's different preamps made for different results some are very neutral for classical music to capture the room etc... some are larger than life (Neve) for example. I think a lot of it is preference they can use the same parts and some people could buy us the analog section colder to get more clarity somebody buys it warmer to get more class say life into it some use analog for the nyquest filtering some use a digital some on chip him off chip . Yeah. Just think it's different philosophies. I know people talk about Burl sounding like tape...i mean, I guess that comes from the (what I perceive) as more bottom and top end. But if I've got my mix where I want it and I'm applying coloring on the master bus, I don't like the idea of the converter adding saturation. I guess if it's doing something that you think is "betterizing" it, that's a positive though.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 28, 2017 20:32:52 GMT -6
I think popmann mentioned that he had never noticed the "sheen" of the Burl until he pushed the input harder than normal...so maybe I was coming in too hot. I know there was a misnomer that the attenuator had something to do with driving the transformers, but it was actually after the transformers and was actually just an output attenuator. Having to gain stage the final step kinda makes me nervous.
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Jan 28, 2017 20:33:13 GMT -6
Here's a question about this whole topic is it fair to say some designs of converters are good for tracking and some are good for mixed down because they're more transparent ? I know people say it's a converter you want to tbe just transparent but remember there's different preamps made for different results some are very neutral for classical music to capture the room etc... some are larger than life (Neve) for example. I think a lot of it is preference they can use the same parts and some people could buy us the analog section colder to get more clarity somebody buys it warmer to get more class say life into it some use analog for the nyquest filtering some use a digital some on chip him off chip . Yeah. Just think it's different philosophies. I know people talk about Burl sounding like tape...i mean, I guess that comes from the (what I perceive) as more bottom and top end. But if I've got my mix where I want it and I'm applying coloring on the master bus, I don't like the idea of the converter adding saturation. I guess if it's doing something that you think is "betterizing" it, that's a positive though. Yes I'm fond of the idea of creating my own color however I still think even without transformers they can manipulate the analog circuitry to be more harmonic or less harmonic in certain areas and in the digital filtering I remember hearing a pure analog filter at the very top cut off frequency will sound different than a pure digital filter and Dave Hill uses both
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 28, 2017 20:35:02 GMT -6
True. And I'm not saying the Symphony doesn't sound better than the BF Apollo, but I was talking to someone that had looked at the new Symphony and mentioned it was spooky similar to the Apollo design.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 28, 2017 20:45:36 GMT -6
In my defense, every track I've heard done with the Symphony had a quality I noticed. I liked that quality more than the quality I knew of the Apollo. I've also heard a few tracks done with an Apollo and the same track run through the Symphony, and it was improved. Of course I'd enjoy putting them side by side, but from everything I've heard, the Symphony sounded better to me.
John, You've used both I think. Which do you refer?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 28, 2017 20:54:18 GMT -6
True. And I'm not saying the Symphony doesn't sound better than the BF Apollo, but I was talking to someone that had looked at the new Symphony and mentioned it was spooky similar to the Apollo design. other way around, ua copied apogee with the double converters
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 28, 2017 21:05:04 GMT -6
In my defense, every track I've heard done with the Symphony had a quality I noticed. I liked that quality more than the quality I knew of the Apollo. I've also heard a few tracks done with an Apollo and the same track run through the Symphony, and it was improved. Of course I'd enjoy putting them side by side, but from everything I've heard, the Symphony sounded better to me. John, You've used both I think. Which do you refer? Really not sure. The Mki Symphony is selling used so cheap I'm tempted to pick one up just to see. My problem is that my Apollo is all the UA DSP I have, so if I ever went another direction, I'd have to either keep the Apollo or buy a satellite which makes things less of a swap. Maybe category5 can comment.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 28, 2017 21:33:25 GMT -6
It's cat5 who told me Apollo bf copied apogee but maybe I am misremembering I popped the top on the mkii and sent cat5 a bunch of pics a couple of days ago!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 28, 2017 21:51:50 GMT -6
I've talked to him since you sent the pics.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 28, 2017 22:26:39 GMT -6
Really not sure. The Mki Symphony is selling used so cheap I'm tempted to pick one up just to see. My problem is that my Apollo is all the UA DSP I have, so if I ever went another direction, I'd have to either keep the Apollo or buy a satellite which makes things less of a swap. Maybe category5 can comment. That's one reason why I stretched this month to get a new Apollo. They offered a free quad satellite. I don't use that many UAD plugs, and don't track with them often either, so I can keep the satellite for UAD plugs, and sell the Apollo 8 if I felt a better sound was available without much extra money needed to make up the difference. I'm really sensitive to noise though, so a Mk I probably wouldn't be right for me. My rack is right next to me, and I'd hear it while mixing. I would have guessed that UAD had something up their sleeve, like an Octo Apollo, because with the high dsp count plug-ins, a DUO has serious shortcomings.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jan 28, 2017 22:39:49 GMT -6
Well, the attenuator DOES allow you to drive the transformer BY being after it....Think about it slowly now.... Signal flow, John.... I don't think there's such a thing as a "transparent" ADC. That's Rich's point, and I "get it"....actually, without a really clean analog desk, what do we know "transparent" anyway? I couldn't be happier with the Burl. It's made this a little too easy maybe.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 29, 2017 5:12:15 GMT -6
I recall cat5 saying when ua switched from the sf Apollo to the bf the double conversion was copying another design. I thought that was symphony mki but I know he's a big fan of the Aurora too so maybe it was that and I am confused. As has been said above after a certain level these conversion distinction conversations split hairs, while the bf Apollo is good, for me the symphony mkii is gooder. Sure, I know that's subjective but the sonic difference is also palpable when you hear it first hand: not night and day but more presence, dimension and liniarity would be how I would characterize the symphii edge. Any shoot out with the Apollo bf or sf peeps comment on its mid forward bump or analoguy quality, I always felt UA did that deliberately to give it a tape like quality. When I had the BLA mod done to my sf that bump was very diminished and it sounded flatter and more linear. Of all the interfaces I have had I am liking the symphony mkii best and as cat5 pointed out Aurora just dropped a mkii at Namm but no idea what that sounds like or costs. The other main buying point for me with this symphony mkii was the 8x8 configuration : what I needed now and could afford. As I have an Octo UA card and OB press and didn't use Console for plugs while tracking losing the Apollo wasn't an issue. I thought about keeping it as with the adat i/o, could have run them together but I couldn't afford that bye bye bf. Bottom line all the gear we've discussed gets the job done:use which you prefer and/or can afford and get on with it
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 29, 2017 10:40:52 GMT -6
btw owner sent along the purchase info and I was able to re register at apogee, so I wonder if I have the balance of the one year warranty in place or not ?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 29, 2017 11:18:50 GMT -6
Well, the attenuator DOES allow you to drive the transformer BY being after it....Think about it slowly now.... Signal flow, John.... I don't think there's such a thing as a "transparent" ADC. That's Rich's point, and I "get it"....actually, without a really clean analog desk, what do we know "transparent" anyway? I couldn't be happier with the Burl. It's made this a little too easy maybe. Don't be obtuse. I'm saying that people thought that by turning the attenuator down, they would get less drive from the transformers. Think about that slowly.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 29, 2017 14:12:03 GMT -6
I know I had read that and re-quoted it but what I at least originally understood was that you could, in effect, saturate the transformer with the signal and that that was before the converter in the burl. I know you could certainly effect what you could call the thickness or the sound by that adjustment so now I don"t understand what exactly was going on inside the burl to do that Thx JohnKenn :0 !
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 29, 2017 14:14:40 GMT -6
The only way you can saturate the transformers in the Burl is to come into it hotter. Then you can turn down the output with the attenuator.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 29, 2017 14:22:49 GMT -6
It's kind of 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
Some people thought the knob itself 'drove' the transformer. It's the opposite, but the same effect. Something's gotta ramp the signal up to the transformer and something's gotta pull the level back down. The Burl supplies the latter function so whatever's before it has to do the former.
It has a significant effect on the sound, especially when using it as a catch converter for a mix. I always preferred it around -12 or -18.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 29, 2017 15:55:48 GMT -6
But thats what I'm saying...that attenuator - to my knowledge - comes AFTER the transformers...so in no way will it change the sound. Only the volume level.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 29, 2017 16:01:20 GMT -6
But thats what I'm saying...that attenuator - to my knowledge - comes AFTER the transformers...so in no way will it change the sound. Only the volume level. No, because as you hit the transformers harder on the way in, they saturate more (and of course raise the volume up) and then the attenuator brings that (more saturated) signal back down so you're not clipping the AD. It's just lowering the volume on the signal, however saturated you chose to make it (meaning how hard you were pushing into that transformer) so it's at an acceptable level for the AD. Think about it like an output attenuator on a mic pre. If you slam the input transformer and create that harmonic saturation goo, lowering the output level of that signal doesn't UN-saturate it, it just takes that saturated signal down in volume. Edit: you're right that the attenuator itself doesn't change the sound, (like in the mic pre example) but it's what allows you to hit the transformer harder. If it wasn't there and you came in hot to that transformer, you'd also just be clipping the AD that's after it.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 29, 2017 16:49:54 GMT -6
Ya that range that you are talking about Ragan I remember for me anything beyand-18 and it was just too rich and they way you describe t is what I had understood, for me it was like driving the transformers on the warm tb12, just with a converter behind it ?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 29, 2017 18:36:11 GMT -6
But thats what I'm saying...that attenuator - to my knowledge - comes AFTER the transformers...so in no way will it change the sound. Only the volume level. No, because as you hit the transformers harder on the way in, they saturate more (and of course raise the volume up) and then the attenuator brings that (more saturated) signal back down so you're not clipping the AD. It's just lowering the volume on the signal, however saturated you chose to make it (meaning how hard you were pushing into that transformer) so it's at an acceptable level for the AD. Think about it like an output attenuator on a mic pre. If you slam the input transformer and create that harmonic saturation goo, lowering the output level of that signal doesn't UN-saturate it, it just takes that saturated signal down in volume. Edit: you're right that the attenuator itself doesn't change the sound, (like in the mic pre example) but it's what allows you to hit the transformer harder. If it wasn't there and you came in hot to that transformer, you'd also just be clipping the AD that's after it. I completely understand, but this is what I'm saying - the knob does not change the sound. Sound claim "I like it better at -14" etc. but regardless of where that knob is, the sound will remain the same - it won't get more or less saturated. I get what you're saying, but I know I've read people talking about how the attenuator makes it some magic knob.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 29, 2017 18:39:14 GMT -6
Ya that range that you are talking about Ragan I remember for me anything beyand-18 and it was just too rich and they way you describe t is what I had understood, for me it was like driving the transformers on the warm tb12, just with a converter behind it ? Again. You are not driving the transformer. If you were sending more volume from the source, that's how you drive the transformers. Maybe I'm just not getting it...but the signal path is source-->input transformers-->attenuator-->AD. The only reason for the attenuator is to make sure you don't flip the AD.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 29, 2017 18:44:42 GMT -6
No, because as you hit the transformers harder on the way in, they saturate more (and of course raise the volume up) and then the attenuator brings that (more saturated) signal back down so you're not clipping the AD. It's just lowering the volume on the signal, however saturated you chose to make it (meaning how hard you were pushing into that transformer) so it's at an acceptable level for the AD. Think about it like an output attenuator on a mic pre. If you slam the input transformer and create that harmonic saturation goo, lowering the output level of that signal doesn't UN-saturate it, it just takes that saturated signal down in volume. Edit: you're right that the attenuator itself doesn't change the sound, (like in the mic pre example) but it's what allows you to hit the transformer harder. If it wasn't there and you came in hot to that transformer, you'd also just be clipping the AD that's after it. I completely understand, but this is what I'm saying - the knob does not change the sound. Sound claim "I like it better at -14" etc. but regardless of where that knob is, the sound will remain the same. I get what you're saying, but I know I've read people talking about how the attenuator makes it some magic knob. Well yeah, you're right, kind of. But if you're recording level stays the same, say you're printing your mix and you're at RMS -18 with peaks at -6, and you add Burl attentuation while keeping the print level the same, the sonics change because you are in fact driving the transformer harder. So yeah, if nothing else is happening and you just attenuate down wth the Burl, you'll just get a quieter print. But that's not what people do. They actively choose how much hair to put on the signal by choosing what level to hit the Burl with and attenuating down before AD allows them to do that. But If someone thinks that just by attenuating down the output, with a 1073 or a Burl or whatever, they're gonna get a more driven signal, yeah, they're confused about gain staging.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 29, 2017 18:47:08 GMT -6
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is this misperception that the attenuator is a "saturate" knob.
|
|