|
Post by jtc111 on Oct 23, 2018 9:50:01 GMT -6
My advice? Ignore the specs. Find devices with the features you want that make your workflow easier. That matters a lot more than specs that you'll never obtain in the real world. I think you've misinterpreted my intention. I'm not laying claim to the specs as being the determining factor. Specs just happen to fit on a spread sheet easier than the other things that go into the decision. Yes, workflow is absolutely critical. In fact, Vincent R. and I were kinda-sorta having a discussion about that last night. Neither of us loves the UAD Console software and we were discussing alternatives. The Apogee 2x6se specs out well on paper but I favor simplicity and the software looks overly complicated to me and could land that particular unit in my "No" column. It would be lovely to get every option into my home and evaluate it for a time but that's simply not feasible and would add a significant amount of money to the cost since I'd have to pay for shipping to return the units I didn't want. In the end, I have to rely on my own research which will include watching every video I can find on a product, reading the online operating manuals, seeking opinions from knowledgeable people who have experience with the product, etc. ...essentially, gathering as much information from reliable sources as I can and making a better educated guess rather than simply rolling the dice. When I first started buying gear 16 years ago, due to a combination of my own ignorance and having to overly rely on what salespeople told me, every purchase was a crap shoot and that led to more bad purchasing decisions than I'd like to remember. There's plenty I'm still ignorant about but because I do more homework and have a more finely tuned BS meter, my purchasing decisions have been much better in recent years and it's been a long time since I've made a truly regretful purchasing decision where I wound up with a piece of gear that was all wrong for me. So I absolutely understand specs aren't the be-all-end-all when it comes to making a decision. It's A factor, not THE factor, which is why I said the chart "might be helpful to some," which implies it won't be helpful to all. For those who find the information helpful, here's an updated chart with some requested additions. The Radar info might be sketchy because the numbers were harder to find.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Oct 23, 2018 11:36:06 GMT -6
Unfortunately that's about the only way to gauge if something *sounds* good in your setup. A lot of guys naturally assume that these interfaces *sound* the same no matter what's hooked up, but the reality is that some input might sound great with a low impedance source, but sound terrible with a high impedance source and so forth.. Or some might have too much ground current and the noise floor hops up considerably when plugged up with another device but not with others. All said, one product might sound great in one person's setup, while that same product might not sound good in another person's setup. Some of that is evident in the threads here and over at GS where some folks swear by a certain product's sound quality, while others are saying it's terrible. I've gotten some of that with my own converter design too, but thankfully it's 99% good feedback.. There's tons of minuscule things that conspire to change the reality of a product's usability. I'd still suggest that pretty much any converter that isn't part of a "starter pack" at GC is probably much better than anything older than ten years, and it boils down to what features you need to increase your workflow as to which one you should try out first.. So start a spreadsheet of needs/wants based on features and choose from there. As usual I’m going to agree with you pretty much with one important distinction ( you guys should have all been in the car with us driving around Nashville listening to us discuss gear and design) to your last paragraph; that exception is unless your looking for a particular sound. The RADAR V has a sound, a sound I love, I could live with an old UA 2192 or Lavry. Technically yeah a new RME is probably a better converter, but I’ll keep the RADAR! God I would love an ADA II with Nyquist cards and PTHD card. one FS on Reverb right now for 8grand. Just wish they weren't so expensive. By man, huge Radar converter fan too. Great sound.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Oct 23, 2018 12:10:25 GMT -6
For those who find the information helpful, here's an updated chart with some requested additions. The Radar info might be sketchy because the numbers were harder to find. I appreciate this comparison. It might be helpful to put this into a Google Sheets where other boxes and specs could be added. I would like to see the Metric Halo options included, if possible. I do see this as just one aspect towards a decision, but it's an interesting starting point when you are trying to decide what you even want to listen to. To suggest otherwise is a bit unrealistic. So, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 23, 2018 12:39:02 GMT -6
I’ll add that the Echo does have spdif, but I’d prefer not to use for this if I don’t have to. My stereo reverb hangs out there. But maybe if I add something that has a dedicated stereo out - the Echo doesn’t so I have to use outs 1 and 2 for my monitors. Cheers, Geoff The Tascam UH-7000 is going to have a much better sounding DAC than the Echo interface, I can tell you that for a fact. I suffered along with some Audiofires for at least 7 years before I was finally able to upgrade. I thought the Tascam sounded even better than the silver Apollos. I used to have 3 Layla 24/96s They're horrible by any modern standard.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 23, 2018 12:45:07 GMT -6
The Tascam UH-7000 is going to have a much better sounding DAC than the Echo interface, I can tell you that for a fact. I suffered along with some Audiofires for at least 7 years before I was finally able to upgrade. I thought the Tascam sounded even better than the silver Apollos. I used to have 3 Layla 24/96s They're horrible by any modern standard. I feel like Echo Audio owes me payments for the pain and suffering I endured. What a freaking nightmare. Worst 7 audio years of my life. I actually did produce some good material with them, however, which points to converters not being the issue. In terms of comfort and monitoring quality, though, I felt like my ears were fighting in Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 23, 2018 12:56:47 GMT -6
For those who find the information helpful, here's an updated chart with some requested additions. The Radar info might be sketchy because the numbers were harder to find. I appreciate this comparison. It might be helpful to put this into a Google Sheets where other boxes and specs could be added. I would like to see the Metric Halo options included, if possible. I do see this as just one aspect towards a decision, but it's an interesting starting point when you are trying to decide what you even want to listen to. To suggest otherwise is a bit unrealistic. So, thanks! Actually a sheet like that is not all that helpful. Almost any modern converter is going to have printed specs that are at a point where you shouldn't be able to tell the difference. The difference between e.g. 100.5 dB and 124 dB dynamic range may LOOK impressive but you won't hear it. Same thing with THD specs. The important stuff, the stuff that actually makes a difference, is stuff that never gets printed on spec sheet, like what is the spectrum of that THD? There are a lot of reasons that meaningful specs never get printed, some of them quite rational (too complex, too confusing to the average customer, too difficult to espress clearly in the format of a spec sheet.)
Ideally, you need to be able to audition the gear yourself, second best is anecdotal evidence from well trusted sources.
One thing missing from this sheet that probably would be useful is what type of audio connectors. For example, a set of damn DB25 breakout cables for an Orion 32 can easily set you back an extra $1,000, more if you need length. DB25 I/O is a SIGNIFICANT hidden expense.
|
|
|
Post by jtc111 on Oct 23, 2018 13:52:06 GMT -6
Actually a sheet like that is not all that helpful.
I only made it to be helpful to me alone. I'm nowhere near the end-stage of a decision and I couldn't even tell you that I'm going to absolutely upgrade in the near future (I'm nothing if not patient these days). I made no claims to its usefulness and anyone is welcome to take the information and use it however it benefits them, or to disregard it completely. Sharing that chart was an afterthought, not the intent. I modified it from the original as a courtesy to those who found some use for it. For my own purposes, I'm sure information will be added as I go deeper into my research. What you saw was only a starting point in the process.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 23, 2018 15:34:19 GMT -6
Actually a sheet like that is not all that helpful.
I only made it to be helpful to me alone. I'm nowhere near the end-stage of a decision and I couldn't even tell you that I'm going to absolutely upgrade in the near future (I'm nothing if not patient these days). I made no claims to its usefulness and anyone is welcome to take the information and use it however it benefits them, or to disregard it completely. Sharing that chart was an afterthought, not the intent. I modified it from the original as a courtesy to those who found some use for it. For my own purposes, I'm sure information will be added as I go deeper into my research. What you saw was only a starting point in the process. Don't worry about it. It's more a comment on the general worthlessness of (most) printed specs than a comment on your sheet per se. An I/O connector column would be useful though.
The problem with THD specs is that they don't reflect the ratio of harmonics in the distortion, or the "order" of the harmonics. Even order harmonics are more consonant than odd. Lower order harmonics are much less audible than upper order harmonics. Therefore a device with a relatively high amount of low, even order will have less objectionable, less audible distortion than a device with high, odd order harmonics. In fact low order even harmonics are often interpreted as a "fuller, warmer" type of sound compared to something that's much technically much cleaner.
The problem with expressing THD properly is that to do it right requires a half page graph of distortion vs frequency. And most customer wouldn't even have the knowledge to interpret the graph.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 23, 2018 18:10:40 GMT -6
I only made it to be helpful to me alone. I'm nowhere near the end-stage of a decision and I couldn't even tell you that I'm going to absolutely upgrade in the near future (I'm nothing if not patient these days). I made no claims to its usefulness and anyone is welcome to take the information and use it however it benefits them, or to disregard it completely. Sharing that chart was an afterthought, not the intent. I modified it from the original as a courtesy to those who found some use for it. For my own purposes, I'm sure information will be added as I go deeper into my research. What you saw was only a starting point in the process. Don't worry about it. It's more a comment on the general worthlessness of (most) printed specs than a comment on your sheet per se. An I/O connector column would be useful though.
The problem with THD specs is that they don't reflect the ratio of harmonics in the distortion, or the "order" of the harmonics. Even order harmonics are more consonant than odd. Lower order harmonics are much less audible than upper order harmonics. Therefore a device with a relatively high amount of low, even order will have less objectionable, less audible distortionb than a device with high, odd order harmonics. In fact low order even harmonics are often interpreted as a "fuller, warmer" type of sound compared to something that's much technically much cleaner.
The problem with expressing THD properly is that to do it right requires a half page graph of distortion vs frequency. And most customer wouldn't even have the knowledge to interpret the graph.
Either way, I'm really interested in what it would take to become a customer that would know how to interpret the graph. I'm glad for the inquisition.
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Oct 24, 2018 14:40:33 GMT -6
Would the little RME unit be a step up? Or not? Just in terms of conversion quality. I have to dig a little deeper on the ins and outs of the stuff mentioned above. Workflow may be the deciding factor. The Tascam doesn’t let you bypass the pres for example. But from what I gather the pres are really good so maybe not a big deal. It also lacks inserts, but again not a deal breaker. The Echo also has Adat connections. Thanks for the input guys, Geoff If you are talking about the RME ADI-2 Pro FS (basically a high-end DAC with two mic pres built in): The converters offer 124 dbA signal to noise. This is a very nice spec and would make a suitable mix/master monitoring, plus a killer home audio system. But at $2,000, you could buy an Apollo x6 and get that same spec and whole lot more. You could still connect that with your old unit. Actually I was thinking of this one link
Im guessing the unit you are referring to would be a step up, but how much? I’ll have a look. At it though. Cheers, Geoff
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 24, 2018 14:48:34 GMT -6
I don't know if anyone is interested, but I checked and I might have enough parts to build my last two converter sets.
|
|
|
Post by mythundreamt on Oct 26, 2018 8:05:38 GMT -6
Heard too much good about your stuff to not bite - PMing you. Hope you still have them.
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Nov 17, 2018 21:23:05 GMT -6
I don't know if anyone is interested, but I checked and I might have enough parts to build my last two converter sets. Sent you a note. I'd like to learn more.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Nov 25, 2018 17:20:32 GMT -6
Some ADAT boxes to consider: Clarett OctoPre, Presonus DP88, Midas XL48, maybe the Audient ASP8xx ones (they don't have DAC outputs which is a bummer) the "little RME" is a great interface as far as I can tell. A producer friend of mine uses that as his main interface and he loves it. Monkeyxx---Looking online you seem to have spent a lot of time test driving lo to mid priced converters. (Much more than I'd ever care to do!) I'm looking to expand my Symphony 8X8 with 8 more channels at a reasonable price via light pipe. Decent, usable pres would be a plus for things such as HH, room mics etc, but I'd also love to be able to bypass the mic pres and use my own. I think I've got things narrowed down to the Audient 880, Clarett Octopre, and the Presonus DP88. Judging from comments you've made am I correct to assume that you'd recommend the DP88 for my needs? That's the one I'm leaning towards and this weekend they can be had from around $600. Any thoughts or ideas would be welcome!
|
|
|
Post by bram on Nov 25, 2018 18:23:06 GMT -6
from comments you've made am I correct to assume that you'd recommend the DP88 for my needs? That's the one I'm leaning towards and this weekend they can be had from around $600. Any thoughts or ideas would be welcome! I’ve been using the DP88 alongside BF Apollo 16 and x8. No complaints sound-wise. The I/o options I believe are a cut above the other options in the same price range (bypassing the pres for example). Btw I paid considerably less than $600 for mine new on eBay. I’d shop around a bit for a good price if you decide to go the DP88 route.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 26, 2018 7:35:02 GMT -6
Some ADAT boxes to consider: Clarett OctoPre, Presonus DP88, Midas XL48, maybe the Audient ASP8xx ones (they don't have DAC outputs which is a bummer) the "little RME" is a great interface as far as I can tell. A producer friend of mine uses that as his main interface and he loves it. Monkeyxx---Looking online you seem to have spent a lot of time test driving lo to mid priced converters. (Much more than I'd ever care to do!) I'm looking to expand my Symphony 8X8 with 8 more channels at a reasonable price via light pipe. Decent, usable pres would be a plus for things such as HH, room mics etc, but I'd also love to be able to bypass the mic pres and use my own. I think I've got things narrowed down to the Audient 880, Clarett Octopre, and the Presonus DP88. Judging from comments you've made am I correct to assume that you'd recommend the DP88 for my needs? That's the one I'm leaning towards and this weekend they can be had from around $600. Any thoughts or ideas would be welcome! Yes, I have a small passion for converters and interfaces that is sort of hard to explain, I just like them I guess. I paid full price for my DP88 since I was an early adopter, but sometimes you can find big deals on them open box, B stock stuff like that. The ability to bypass the mic pres is a huge selling point for the DP88. The mic pres are decent enough for utility stuff like you said. Just clean, no nonsense. The clarett gives you line level trim on the line inputs, which means it's not a full bypass, but the trim can come in handy for say, hybrid mixing, gain staging. I also rate the Clarett conversion sound pretty highly. The Audient lacks DAC outputs which is a bit of a setback for me, and the price is a bit high. I've heard them sound great though from people I respect. If you're looking at the DP88 I can give it a pretty strong recommendation. I have always liked the conversion on these mainly for tracking. They use a Burr Brown chipset which is similar to the Tascam UH-7000 and the Audient ASP880, if that gives you an idea of the broad school of what they're comparable to (good company.) A clear but slightly "friendly" sound, god that's vague, it's so hard to describe these qualities. I use my DP88 mainly for drum tracks these days, but for quite a while it was my main tracking ADC and I have always been pleased with the results. I have mine ADAT connected to my Presonus Quantum which is my main interface these days. So yeah, I'm pretty chuffed with the Presonus top end stuff.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 26, 2018 9:10:57 GMT -6
My advice? Ignore the specs. Find devices with the features you want that make your workflow easier. That matters a lot more than specs that you'll never obtain in the real world. Neither of us loves the UAD Console software and we were discussing alternatives. The Apogee 2x6se specs out well on paper but I favor simplicity and the software looks overly complicated to me and could land that particular unit in my "No" column. What problems are you having with the UAD Console? The latency is creates? General work flow issues? I'm curious to know.
|
|