Lynx Aurora (n)

Restarted software now no levels at all. It also says the internal clock is 192khz. Interface display says 44.1.

True that the tech will change however micro SD will likely just gain speed and capacity for quite some time to come. Lynx typically has a life-cycle or update schedule of about 10 years. It is kind of an interesting move, though. Sort of like a standalone recorder idea? I only used it when doing location recording for a confidence backup which did save me.

They have some YT vids on the routing style. It threw me at first but I understand it now. Just click the desired output at the bottom of n control so it is highlighted. From there, all the controls of the channels above pertain to the highlighted output.

Bingo.

Yeah, the SD thing is cool. Kinda reminds me of my old Alesia HD24. But, they really dedicated a lot of front panel real estate to it. I paid for buttons I don’t want. I’d rather have those buttons be monitor controls. I want a mute button!

Glad you like N so far. I had driver issues on the big Sur driver but the Catalina driver works perfectly.

Check out the videos there are 5 and they are well done.

As said above N control does default to 1-2 bring out, you can change that in the settings, generally just click so the element you want to be the output, say headphones and the input will go there.

Agreed on SD adds expense, I’ll probably never use it. To bad you can’t defeat it and reassign front panel bottoms, perhaps they will make some software changes at some point.

Bottom line, it’s the Aurora N sound and it’s usefulness, tracking /mixing, as you describe that sold me.

I don’t think it’s broken. If I didn’t have the Lynx to A/B, I’d have just thought the song was over compressed. Interesting you had those converters in for a test and chose Motu. I will try to A/B with Motu today.

Until you directly ab the X with the N, it’s easy to debate, not afterwards.

I don’t think the X sounds bad, but I picked out the N in a second, the extra spaciousness, detail, linearity and depth.

I know, I have lost some Hf hearing, but I found with X there was a point where I couldn’t hear into the low mids as much as I would have preferred and I don’t find that same sense with N and that mixing then becomes clearer and easier.

Anyway, gear talk is cheap:), Lynx had a demo program if anyone is curious, it would be best to use the Aurora in your own studio where everything else would be constant in terms of what you are used to.

I did more than just AB the Hilo, Symphony MK2, Apollo X and MOTU 1248. As I used to work as a TEA for several audio sectors (not just pro audio) I also did a partial analysis of the lot.. I didn't go as in depth with the Aurora but I did what most would class as a simple A/B.

If ANY converter at this level sounds dramatically different it rings alarm bells like no other. Don't get me wrong I am sensitive to these things too but the whole point is to convert A/D and vice versa with as little damage as possible, it SHOULD sound neutral / flat. If something sounds obviously superior for ANY reason I'll want to know why, we could have excess jitter which can fool best of us into thinking things sound wider with better separation and what it's really doing is screwing up the audio.

Thankfully I know the HILO at least didn't do that but in terms of statistical measurements the Apollo and Hilo weren't that far apart. As the Aurora is adapted from the HILO I'd gather it wouldn't be all that different.

I was actually interested in taking another look at the Aurora and consolidating my two interfaces, these couple of threads have actually turned me straight off that idea. Sometimes your favourite tunes aren't mixed or engineered as well as one would think, sometimes muddy bass is just a muddy bass. The real dilemma is deciding which one is right.. 

Umm okay, so your saying a flat frequency response, noise outside the range of human hearing and THD that's also undetectable should sound completely different from each other? If we were talking Burl here I'd completely agree, for your average clean / flat I/O interface prove it..

No, we've been through this one before and I'll refrain from creating another 20 page thread on the matter because it's all been said. I'll quote  Svart though:

"But the truth is that the differences between well-designed pieces of professional gear are painfully small, and you're only splitting hairs." This is from someone who you know has created audio interfaces.

realgearonline.com/thread/8726/ject-digital-9038-chip-impressions?page=3

Budget doesn't mean what it used to, this isn't the 80's or 90's. Manufacturing processes, QA etc. has become far more efficient and generally cheaper. A low-mid range interface you can buy today in terms of specifications would wipe the floor with anything from 30 years ago, despite UA's marketing budget and even if we're nowhere near the theoretical maximums of the chipsets, if its been analysed through the analog I/O then we are still talking small increases. That's a worst case scenario..

I'm not saying that they don't sound different, there's reasons for that but they should NEVER dramatically sound different unless there's A) a complete flaw in their design that would should up on analysis equipment B) the device is faulty C) they have purposely designed the converter to add things like harmonic distortion (Burl).

Yes the analog front end (alongside drivers etc.) is generally where cheaper equipment lets things down, still just to repeat myself one last time a full I/O measurement would be heavily affected IF the analog front end wasn't up to scratch. If UA's stats are even half true, if they haven't blatantly lied about how they measure things and the measurements I posted in that link are somewhat correct then this isn't a "low budget" under performing interface. It should be as good or better than the equivalent comparisons..

What many are actually saying is they prefer interface X and that's fine.. When we get into the subject matter of which one is more accurate however, that's a different matter.

No they both just didn’t want to pay for good modern parts and would rather spend the money on advertising and building market share but maybe that’s the reason they can afford the programmers? Why does MOTU use JRC4580 and digitally controlled analog volume control chips on the ADs of even their most expensive products? Cost. Why are their drivers wonky as all hell compared to RME, Lynx, and UAD? Cost. Why is UAD made in China with 1970s opamps? Cost. Why in the name of God are there Lelon caps in the RME Firefaces, which are also made in China? Those are absolute junk. They’re dirt cheap and RME needs to keep the price down.

I’ll chime in with a couple things here, as I switched from an mkii Apollo16 to the Lynx (n) a few months ago. First of all, n control is a little buggy, but I rarely use it. Lynx sent me a different version to try, and it’s been fine for my needs. I am on Big Sur and occasionally have issues, but a simple restart of the unit solves it. I’m only recording myself and doing remote mixing, so no real issues here. If I was tracking live bands I might switch back to an older OS just to avoid any hiccups. As far as sound goes, I’ll agree with what most have said here. It’s no contest between the Lynx and Apollo. Granted I was on an older Apollo, but it’s incredible how much better the Lynx sounds. And as far as trickery or voodoo or whatever, I can say that my mixes translate wonderfully and everything I’m recording sounds much more solid and clear. I don’t know exactly why, and I don’t really care. My goal is always sonics, and this really really works in that department. Yes, to some those subtle differences aren’t worth it, but to me they are. As far as price goes, the lynx isn’t too far off from the newer Apollo models after their price increase. It really depends on what you need, but honestly no going back for me!