|
Post by fusionhead on Mar 11, 2021 13:37:02 GMT -6
Hi folks, due to an eventual move to a smaller space, as well as concerns about longer term Mac OS compatibility, I may soon need to finally retire my beloved Tascam DM-3200 digital mixer and replace with a more compact audio interface.
I currently have 11 outboard mic preamps, and need a few more mic inputs, either outboard or built into the interface. So I am looking for a single rack unit interface with 16 analog inputs. 4 mic inputs + 12 line in would be perfect. And a fast connection, Thunderbolt would be nice, but fast USB2/3 acceptable. Something around the $2-3k mark would also be nice.
So why is this so hard to find? The only two models I have found that offer this many inputs seem to be: 1. MOTU 16A ... 16 line ins, DSP with FX and processors, TB2 and USBs, but no preamps (I would need to invest in more outboard) and missing some nice features of other MOTU interfaces (e.g. A/B monitor switch, talkback). 2. UA Apollo x8p. ... 8 mic/line/DI, plus 8 line ins, DSP that runs UAD plugins, TB2, great unit but too pricey.
Most other units with high number of inputs only offer 8 or 12 (e.g. 4 mic, 8 line). I realize most offer expansion via ADAT or other inputs (e.g. Focusrite Clarett 8Pre, RME Fireface UFX II, MOTU, etc.). But I’d really like a single unit that gives me 16 inputs onboard. Why are there not more options out there? Certainly there must be folks like me that need just a few more line inputs, and how hard could it be to provide that, even through DB25 connection like the Apollo x8p does?
Any tips, advice, or options would be much appreciated, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Mar 11, 2021 13:44:27 GMT -6
I think at 16 channels you tend to tip into the market for larger rigs where they’re using multi-channel convertors but not necessarily an all in one interface. Thinking about stuff like Lynx Aurora, Avid, Apogee, Mytek, Lucid etc.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 11, 2021 13:52:16 GMT -6
Get the 16a and add 4 more channels of mic inputs. Bada Bing.
|
|
|
Post by fusionhead on Mar 11, 2021 14:06:13 GMT -6
I think at 16 channels you tend to tip into the market for larger rigs where they’re using multi-channel convertors but not necessarily an all in one interface. Thinking about stuff like Lynx Aurora, Avid, Apogee, Mytek, Lucid etc. Thanks. And yes, exactly, that’s what I’m finding. And that pro quality also puts you into an elevated price category (include RME in that list). I can’t justify the cost, unfortunately. Beyond which, many of them may offer large channel counts, but they also often do not include some of the nice ‘home studio’ usability features that MOTU and UA offer.
|
|
|
Post by fusionhead on Mar 11, 2021 14:14:24 GMT -6
Get the 16a and add 4 more channels of mic inputs. Bada Bing. Thanks, at this point it does seem the A16 might be the best option. But it requires me to buy or build 3 to 5 more external mic preamps (e.g. CAPI kits plus 500 series rack, or an ADAT interface like Focusrite), so the total cost will also be higher than if there were a single interface solution with a few more inputs. So I might need to wait this out a bit to see if MOTU or Focusrite announce new expanded models, or if UA announces a more affordable alternative to the x8p (unlikely).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 14:19:07 GMT -6
The Lynx Aurora N destroys the MOTU and UAD Apollos, which themselves are much better than the RME Firefaces. All are very usable. buy what you like the sound of.
I wouldn’t touch anything with a fan if you don’t have a machine run or if it uses thunderbolt. There is nothing better than Lynx with great drivers and Lynx is dedicated stereo converter good. Otherwise you need to get a PCI-E card (RME MADI, Audinate Dante) and a multichannel converter (Lavry, Prism, Burl, DAD, SPL if you’re cheap, Ferrofish if you want to go really cheap)
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 11, 2021 16:00:36 GMT -6
Get the 16a and add 4 more channels of mic inputs. Bada Bing. Thanks, at this point it does seem the A16 might be the best option. But it requires me to buy or build 3 to 5 more external mic preamps (e.g. CAPI kits plus 500 series rack, or an ADAT interface like Focusrite), so the total cost will also be higher than if there were a single interface solution with a few more inputs. So I might need to wait this out a bit to see if MOTU or Focusrite announce new expanded models, or if UA announces a more affordable alternative to the x8p (unlikely). I'd rather spend a little more and have CAPI preamps over any interface preamps. Seems like a no brainer, especially if you have the skills/time to build.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Mar 11, 2021 16:27:41 GMT -6
Thanks, at this point it does seem the A16 might be the best option. But it requires me to buy or build 3 to 5 more external mic preamps (e.g. CAPI kits plus 500 series rack, or an ADAT interface like Focusrite), so the total cost will also be higher than if there were a single interface solution with a few more inputs. So I might need to wait this out a bit to see if MOTU or Focusrite announce new expanded models, or if UA announces a more affordable alternative to the x8p (unlikely). I'd rather spend a little more and have CAPI preamps over any interface preamps. Seems like a no brainer, especially if you have the skills/time to build. Yeah, or any of the (more than decent) non-boutique four channel boxes out there could help you hit your budget.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on Mar 11, 2021 17:26:00 GMT -6
Because they sell more smaller boxes for one. Unless an interface is modular large I/O count doesn’t make sense. First the manufacturer has to tie up time and money developing a bunch of different boxes, then they have to stock them as do dealers.
Anybody remember the heat issues with the original Aurora 16? Lots of people who think you should be able to just stuff a bunch of gear in a rack with out worrying about cooling, that gets hard to do when the box is stuffed with no room for air flow.
If an 8ch box in a 32 ch system goes down you still have 24 channels to work with, 8 ch in a 32 ch box goes down your screwed.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Mar 11, 2021 17:28:47 GMT -6
I have the same requirements, and I landed on a Motu 16a/828ES combo. Picked both up used and have a total of 1725 into the combo. I have a nice selection of outboard pre's, so I don't really need the interface pre's on the 828ES, but they are decent enough, I guess. Get a four banger like a Sebatron or build some CAPI's or an Access 312, or...there's so many choices these days.
A couple of things to note. The Apollo 8p is not a 16 input device. It's 8 mic/line/DI OR 8 line ins, not both. If you need 16 channels of AD, then you'll need the X16.
The Motu 16a doesn't have a main stereo out, so you'll burn two channels on monitoring, unless you have a dedicated monitoring DA that you can input via digital. I think the X16 does have a dedicated stereo DA. UAD likes to brag about the X16 having superior DA, but it's really only on the main outs. The line outs have the same DA as the others.
I have considered a Lynx Aurora (N), but they are expensive. I just don't know if it's going to be THAT much better than the Motu stuff. And whenever someone says something 'blows it out of the water' (no offense Dan), I usually take that hyperbole with a grain of salt. It could very well be true, but one persons 'blows it out of the water' could be another persons 'minuscule difference'.
The general rule of thumb these days is conversion is all good once you get away from the rock bottom cheap stuff.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on Mar 11, 2021 17:37:42 GMT -6
I have the same requirements, and I landed on a Motu 16a/828ES combo. Picked both up used and have a total of 1725 into the combo. I have a nice selection of outboard pre's, so I don't really need the interface pre's on the 828ES, but they are decent enough, I guess. Get a four banger like a Sebatron or build some CAPI's or an Access 312, or...there's so many choices these days. A couple of things to note. The Apollo 8p is not a 16 input device. It's 8 mic/line/DI OR 8 line ins, not both. If you need 16 channels of AD, then you'll need the X16. The Motu 16a doesn't have a main stereo out, so you'll burn two channels on monitoring, unless you have a dedicated monitoring DA that you can input via digital. I think the X16 does have a dedicated stereo DA. UAD likes to brag about the X16 having superior DA, but it's really only on the main outs. The line outs have the same DA as the others. I have considered a Lynx Aurora (N), but they are expensive. I just don't know if it's going to be THAT much better than the Motu stuff. And whenever someone says something 'blows it out of the water' (no offense Dan), I usually take that hyperbole with a grain of salt. It could very well be true, but one persons 'blows it out of the water' could be another persons 'minuscule difference'. The general rule of thumb these days is conversion is all good once you get away from the rock bottom cheap stuff. I don’t know I was threatening to sell the kid so I could replace the Radar V with more channels of Mytek Brooklyn +. It is that much better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 18:35:13 GMT -6
I have the same requirements, and I landed on a Motu 16a/828ES combo. Picked both up used and have a total of 1725 into the combo. I have a nice selection of outboard pre's, so I don't really need the interface pre's on the 828ES, but they are decent enough, I guess. Get a four banger like a Sebatron or build some CAPI's or an Access 312, or...there's so many choices these days. A couple of things to note. The Apollo 8p is not a 16 input device. It's 8 mic/line/DI OR 8 line ins, not both. If you need 16 channels of AD, then you'll need the X16. The Motu 16a doesn't have a main stereo out, so you'll burn two channels on monitoring, unless you have a dedicated monitoring DA that you can input via digital. I think the X16 does have a dedicated stereo DA. UAD likes to brag about the X16 having superior DA, but it's really only on the main outs. The line outs have the same DA as the others. I have considered a Lynx Aurora (N), but they are expensive. I just don't know if it's going to be THAT much better than the Motu stuff. And whenever someone says something 'blows it out of the water' (no offense Dan), I usually take that hyperbole with a grain of salt. It could very well be true, but one persons 'blows it out of the water' could be another persons 'minuscule difference'. The general rule of thumb these days is conversion is all good once you get away from the rock bottom cheap stuff. The MOTU 16a has a very good DA and an okay AD. DA is an ES9016 with LME opamps and it sounds really good and isn’t sharp, grating, warmed over like most ESS converters. The cheaper MOTU AVB sound a little different, warmer, and less detailed. The volume control is floating point and on the ESS chip itself. The AD on all of them is much worse than the DA and this is very audible to me. The AD is warmer and less detailed than the DA. It audibly hurts the sound on an DA -> AD -> DA loopback vs DA. The opamps on the AD are worse than the LMEs on the DA and the AD use gross multichannel digitally controlled analog volume control chips for attenuation outside the pad. This negatively affects the sound. You go from 3d expansive warm sound with a ton of depth to warmer sound with less depth on any MOTU loopback. The Lynx Aurora N has an equally good AD as it does DA ime. DA -> AD -> DA is much less harmful than any MOTU. The Hilo is very similar with maybe a tiny bit more detail (better parts and less crammed on the board) and mostly just a little different sounding. The Lynx thunderbolt drivers are also more reliable and easier to use after the initial setups than the MOTU’s weird web browser IMO. I have to factory reset my MOTU once every couple of weeks. I still think the MOTU AVB stuff is some of the very best bang for buck around. It just is cost reduced on the AD a bit vs all over like an RME Fireface or any Focusrite product. So in short for my opinion, Lynx DA mostly different and little cleaner ime but not a great deal better, Lynx AD much clearer. But you might not want that clarity or care at all, and it might hot be worth 3000 dollars to you. I’m in the MOTU Nation now but will leave it after upgrades to my computer, mics, and monitors.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Mar 11, 2021 21:10:49 GMT -6
I have the same requirements, and I landed on a Motu 16a/828ES combo. Picked both up used and have a total of 1725 into the combo. I have a nice selection of outboard pre's, so I don't really need the interface pre's on the 828ES, but they are decent enough, I guess. Get a four banger like a Sebatron or build some CAPI's or an Access 312, or...there's so many choices these days. A couple of things to note. The Apollo 8p is not a 16 input device. It's 8 mic/line/DI OR 8 line ins, not both. If you need 16 channels of AD, then you'll need the X16. The Motu 16a doesn't have a main stereo out, so you'll burn two channels on monitoring, unless you have a dedicated monitoring DA that you can input via digital. I think the X16 does have a dedicated stereo DA. UAD likes to brag about the X16 having superior DA, but it's really only on the main outs. The line outs have the same DA as the others. I have considered a Lynx Aurora (N), but they are expensive. I just don't know if it's going to be THAT much better than the Motu stuff. And whenever someone says something 'blows it out of the water' (no offense Dan), I usually take that hyperbole with a grain of salt. It could very well be true, but one persons 'blows it out of the water' could be another persons 'minuscule difference'. The general rule of thumb these days is conversion is all good once you get away from the rock bottom cheap stuff. The MOTU 16a has a very good DA and an okay AD. DA is an ES9016 with LME opamps and it sounds really good and isn’t sharp, grating, warmed over like most ESS converters. The cheaper MOTU AVB sound a little different, warmer, and less detailed. The volume control is floating point and on the ESS chip itself. The AD on all of them is much worse than the DA and this is very audible to me. The AD is warmer and less detailed than the DA. It audibly hurts the sound on an DA -> AD -> DA loopback vs DA. The opamps on the AD are worse than the LMEs on the DA and the AD use gross multichannel digitally controlled analog volume control chips for attenuation outside the pad. This negatively affects the sound. You go from 3d expansive warm sound with a ton of depth to warmer sound with less depth on any MOTU loopback. The Lynx Aurora N has an equally good AD as it does DA ime. DA -> AD -> DA is much less harmful than any MOTU. The Hilo is very similar with maybe a tiny bit more detail (better parts and less crammed on the board) and mostly just a little different sounding. The Lynx thunderbolt drivers are also more reliable and easier to use after the initial setups than the MOTU’s weird web browser IMO. I have to factory reset my MOTU once every couple of weeks. I still think the MOTU AVB stuff is some of the very best bang for buck around. It just is cost reduced on the AD a bit vs all over like an RME Fireface or any Focusrite product. So in short for my opinion, Lynx DA mostly different and little cleaner ime but not a great deal better, Lynx AD much clearer. But you might not want that clarity or care at all, and it might hot be worth 3000 dollars to you. I’m in the MOTU Nation now but will leave it after upgrades to my computer, mics, and monitors. Nice write-up man! You make me want the Lynx now. I was seriously going to jump to the new UAD stuff, but ultimately decided to stay with Motu because they give you more options, midi I/o, digital I/O, etc. The Lynx on the other hand, costs a fortune and all you get is 16 I/O ADDA. No stereo outs, no ADAT in. Well, I suppose you can buy another card for that, but $$$. Been thinking about grabbing a Dangerous AD instead. I’ve got their DA.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 11, 2021 21:40:46 GMT -6
One reason I think is because the chips are often all in one: all the channels and mic preamps and routing are built onto one chip. And those chip makers make it like a recipe to follow to make a box out of it. For example, I’ve looked into it and I can make sense of it: one manufacturer is kind of trying to get the engineer to the finish line. However If you want to have a bunch of high end chips and routing, and everything working as one, that’s a much more complicated puzzle. Waaay over my head. You need to know a lot more, software and hardware side. Side note: I just looked at a list of devices using AKM chips, wow! So many.. that fire hopefully doesn't mess things up too long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 23:31:18 GMT -6
The MOTU 16a has a very good DA and an okay AD. DA is an ES9016 with LME opamps and it sounds really good and isn’t sharp, grating, warmed over like most ESS converters. The cheaper MOTU AVB sound a little different, warmer, and less detailed. The volume control is floating point and on the ESS chip itself. The AD on all of them is much worse than the DA and this is very audible to me. The AD is warmer and less detailed than the DA. It audibly hurts the sound on an DA -> AD -> DA loopback vs DA. The opamps on the AD are worse than the LMEs on the DA and the AD use gross multichannel digitally controlled analog volume control chips for attenuation outside the pad. This negatively affects the sound. You go from 3d expansive warm sound with a ton of depth to warmer sound with less depth on any MOTU loopback. The Lynx Aurora N has an equally good AD as it does DA ime. DA -> AD -> DA is much less harmful than any MOTU. The Hilo is very similar with maybe a tiny bit more detail (better parts and less crammed on the board) and mostly just a little different sounding. The Lynx thunderbolt drivers are also more reliable and easier to use after the initial setups than the MOTU’s weird web browser IMO. I have to factory reset my MOTU once every couple of weeks. I still think the MOTU AVB stuff is some of the very best bang for buck around. It just is cost reduced on the AD a bit vs all over like an RME Fireface or any Focusrite product. So in short for my opinion, Lynx DA mostly different and little cleaner ime but not a great deal better, Lynx AD much clearer. But you might not want that clarity or care at all, and it might hot be worth 3000 dollars to you. I’m in the MOTU Nation now but will leave it after upgrades to my computer, mics, and monitors. Nice write-up man! You make me want the Lynx now. I was seriously going to jump to the new UAD stuff, but ultimately decided to stay with Motu because they give you more options, midi I/o, digital I/O, etc. The Lynx on the other hand, costs a fortune and all you get is 16 I/O ADDA. No stereo outs, no ADAT in. Well, I suppose you can buy another card for that, but $$$. Been thinking about grabbing a Dangerous AD instead. I’ve got their DA. UAD has new stuff beyond the X? They’re easy to use like RME. The Dangerous AD looks super cool to print a mix through. So does the new Lavry AD and the new Burl discrete opamps look cool. I mean people pay 1000-2000 for two channels of ad or da. 4000 for 16 channels of Lynx or 8 channels of Prism isn’t that bad of a deal when you think about it then. The question is if it’s financially worth it or just audiophile ocd? I don’t know when so much popular music today is produced horribly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 23:42:49 GMT -6
One reason I think is because the chips are often all in one: all the channels and mic preamps and routing are built onto one chip. And those chip makers make it like a recipe to follow to make a box out of it. For example, I’ve looked into it and I can make sense of it: one manufacturer is kind of trying to get the engineer to the finish line. However If you want to have a bunch of high end chips and routing, and everything working as one, that’s a much more complicated puzzle. Waaay over my head. You need to know a lot more, software and hardware side. Side note: I just looked at a list of devices using AKM chips, wow! So many.. that fire hopefully doesn't mess things up too long. Lynx is all Cirrus with separate chips for separate channels and no codec chips. The same with the Lavry Blue and Dangerous Convert 8. MOTU, Apogee, UAD and others split the channels of an ESS DA chips but still get better sound than most stereo hifi manufacturers. Other multichannel interface manufacturers like RME, SPL, and Focusrite use multichannel parts too. They’re all made to a price point vs Lynx and Burl type offerings. The multi channel interfaces have to cram a ton of functionality into a 1-2 unit for a couple thousand bucks Max. You get what you pay for.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 12, 2021 8:52:33 GMT -6
One reason I think is because the chips are often all in one: all the channels and mic preamps and routing are built onto one chip. And those chip makers make it like a recipe to follow to make a box out of it. For example, I’ve looked into it and I can make sense of it: one manufacturer is kind of trying to get the engineer to the finish line. However If you want to have a bunch of high end chips and routing, and everything working as one, that’s a much more complicated puzzle. Waaay over my head. You need to know a lot more, software and hardware side. Side note: I just looked at a list of devices using AKM chips, wow! So many.. that fire hopefully doesn't mess things up too long. Lynx is all Cirrus with separate chips for separate channels and no codec chips. The same with the Lavry Blue and Dangerous Convert 8. MOTU, Apogee, UAD and others split the channels of an ESS DA chips but still get better sound than most stereo hifi manufacturers. Other multichannel interface manufacturers like RME, SPL, and Focusrite use multichannel parts too. They’re all made to a price point vs Lynx and Burl type offerings. The multi channel interfaces have to cram a ton of functionality into a 1-2 unit for a couple thousand bucks Max. You get what you pay for. When I designed my converters, I built in a stuffing option on the PCB to use the TI DAC chips in either their stereo (one chip, stereo out) or dual mono (a chip for each L and R) configs. I never believed that they would be very different in a functional environment but there were some vocal people here on the forum as well as IRL that simply couldn't stand the idea of the single chips being used in stereo mode. They MUST be used in dual mono mode for best noise and resolution I was told by people who claimed to have golden ears. I tried both. Couldn't hear a difference. Tracked sweeps from each one and they nulled almost perfectly. Either my A/D was masking the differences or there wasn't enough difference to matter. Nulling down to -100 and beyond is practically nothing. I acquiesced and did the two-chip solution but nobody would have noticed if I hadn't. A lot of times these types of specs are normalized out of what is essentially noise. Mathematical results that nobody would ever attain.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Mar 12, 2021 9:24:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dreamsambas on Mar 12, 2021 13:48:11 GMT -6
Anyone have opinions about those Ferrofish 16's? I've read some positive reviews on that other forum, but that doesn't mean much..
They're on sale right now at Sweetwater for pretty cheap.
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Mar 12, 2021 13:58:33 GMT -6
Get the 16a and add 4 more channels of mic inputs. Bada Bing. Thanks, at this point it does seem the A16 might be the best option. But it requires me to buy or build 3 to 5 more external mic preamps (e.g. CAPI kits plus 500 series rack, or an ADAT interface like Focusrite), so the total cost will also be higher than if there were a single interface solution with a few more inputs. So I might need to wait this out a bit to see if MOTU or Focusrite announce new expanded models, or if UA announces a more affordable alternative to the x8p (unlikely). At that point, it seems work it to have just a line in converter and get some additional pres. Are you recording 16 inputs often? I have the same requirements, and I landed on a Motu 16a/828ES combo. Picked both up used and have a total of 1725 into the combo. I have a nice selection of outboard pre's, so I don't really need the interface pre's on the 828ES, but they are decent enough, I guess. Get a four banger like a Sebatron or build some CAPI's or an Access 312, or...there's so many choices these days. A couple of things to note. The Apollo 8p is not a 16 input device. It's 8 mic/line/DI OR 8 line ins, not both. If you need 16 channels of AD, then you'll need the X16. The Motu 16a doesn't have a main stereo out, so you'll burn two channels on monitoring, unless you have a dedicated monitoring DA that you can input via digital. I think the X16 does have a dedicated stereo DA. UAD likes to brag about the X16 having superior DA, but it's really only on the main outs. The line outs have the same DA as the others. I have considered a Lynx Aurora (N), but they are expensive. I just don't know if it's going to be THAT much better than the Motu stuff. And whenever someone says something 'blows it out of the water' (no offense Dan), I usually take that hyperbole with a grain of salt. It could very well be true, but one persons 'blows it out of the water' could be another persons 'minuscule difference'. The general rule of thumb these days is conversion is all good once you get away from the rock bottom cheap stuff. I don’t know I was threatening to sell the kid so I could replace the Radar V with more channels of Mytek Brooklyn +. It is that much better. How much are Kids going for on the used market these days? Spendy.... Anyone have opinions about those Ferrofish 16's? I've read some positive reviews on that other forum, but that doesn't mean much.. They're on sale right now at Sweetwater for pretty cheap. They have a pretty good return policy. You might also want to ask you sales guy if they have one in the gear library and if they do, have they ever taken it on a test drive.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 12, 2021 14:24:36 GMT -6
Anyone have opinions about those Ferrofish 16's? I've read some positive reviews on that other forum, but that doesn't mean much.. They're on sale right now at Sweetwater for pretty cheap. Never heard of them but took a quick look. They're just converters, not interfaces. You still need something to interface with either ADAT or MADI for the computer.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on Mar 12, 2021 14:48:26 GMT -6
Thanks, at this point it does seem the A16 might be the best option. But it requires me to buy or build 3 to 5 more external mic preamps (e.g. CAPI kits plus 500 series rack, or an ADAT interface like Focusrite), so the total cost will also be higher than if there were a single interface solution with a few more inputs. So I might need to wait this out a bit to see if MOTU or Focusrite announce new expanded models, or if UA announces a more affordable alternative to the x8p (unlikely). At that point, it seems work it to have just a line in converter and get some additional pres. Are you recording 16 inputs often? I don’t know I was threatening to sell the kid so I could replace the Radar V with more channels of Mytek Brooklyn +. It is that much better. How much are Kids going for on the used market these days? Spendy.... Anyone have opinions about those Ferrofish 16's? I've read some positive reviews on that other forum, but that doesn't mean much.. They're on sale right now at Sweetwater for pretty cheap. They have a pretty good return policy. You might also want to ask you sales guy if they have one in the gear library and if they do, have they ever taken it on a test drive. Not enough,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 17:54:37 GMT -6
Lynx is all Cirrus with separate chips for separate channels and no codec chips. The same with the Lavry Blue and Dangerous Convert 8. MOTU, Apogee, UAD and others split the channels of an ESS DA chips but still get better sound than most stereo hifi manufacturers. Other multichannel interface manufacturers like RME, SPL, and Focusrite use multichannel parts too. They’re all made to a price point vs Lynx and Burl type offerings. The multi channel interfaces have to cram a ton of functionality into a 1-2 unit for a couple thousand bucks Max. You get what you pay for. When I designed my converters, I built in a stuffing option on the PCB to use the TI DAC chips in either their stereo (one chip, stereo out) or dual mono (a chip for each L and R) configs. I never believed that they would be very different in a functional environment but there were some vocal people here on the forum as well as IRL that simply couldn't stand the idea of the single chips being used in stereo mode. They MUST be used in dual mono mode for best noise and resolution I was told by people who claimed to have golden ears. I tried both. Couldn't hear a difference. Tracked sweeps from each one and they nulled almost perfectly. Either my A/D was masking the differences or there wasn't enough difference to matter. Nulling down to -100 and beyond is practically nothing. I acquiesced and did the two-chip solution but nobody would have noticed if I hadn't. A lot of times these types of specs are normalized out of what is essentially noise. Mathematical results that nobody would ever attain. Yeah I’m with you there. Most of this stuff past a certain level of quality sounds more different than better. Nobody for the life of me can tell me that because the Bricasti M1 has two ad1955 and three power supplies (L, R, and digital), that that’s why it sounds so different from the Lavry DA11 (one AD1955 and different AD opamps from the Bricasti), and the Dangerous Converts 2 (one AD1955, OPA2134, and THAT buffers). They’re all awesome and were more likely all just voiced differently based on the preferences of their designers. But there does seem to be a big difference in detail with cheaper chips like the ak and cirrus codecs vs the CS 4398 and AK 4399 and 4490. Whether this is due to the products being more cheaply made altogether, worse filters, worse parts used in the ics, I have no idea. The RME ADI-2 Pro next to the Firefaces is not subtle.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 13, 2021 5:52:35 GMT -6
Never used motu, have had all 3 Apollo’s 8, including bla mod, b2, 2192, rme and symphony mkii, now have the Lynx Aurora n.
You definitely hear the difference in detail, linearity, soundstage and depth. Considering, all the money spent elsewhere, the more expensive arguments seems a false economy to me now.
Lynx has a demo policy listedin its website, I’d really encourage you to utilize that. The Lynx tb2 drivers are solid, tb3 for m1 big Sur macs still in beta, hardware seems to work fine, it’s GUI, ncontrol , seems a little glitchy still.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Mar 13, 2021 7:20:19 GMT -6
Never used motu, have had all 3 Apollo’s 8, including bla mod, b2, 2192, rme and symphony mkii, now have the Lynx Aurora n. You definitely hear the difference in detail, linearity, soundstage and depth. Considering, all the money spent elsewhere, the more expensive arguments seems a false economy to me now. Lynx has a demo policy listedin its website, I’d really encourage you to utilize that. The Lynx tb2 drivers are solid, tb3 for m1 big Sur macs still in beta, hardware seems to work fine, it’s GUI, ncontrol , seems a little glitchy still. Didn’t you just switch from a Symphony to an X Apollo not too long ago? Didn’t know you switched to a Lynx. Expensive in Canada?
|
|