Apogee Symphony vs. Ross Martin 1794

You're a GASser, John.

You mean like the Burl you just sold?

You guys selling off your Burl B2??? You think it's just the transformers in front of a clean converter causing the goodiness? When I get things back together I'm going to run a mix through my outboard chain into the B2 and then into the VP28's and the Avid Omni and see the difference.

cool MJB is going to love it!

I'm hoping against hope that cowboycoalminer gets his super beast before he sells the B2, then we can get his rather highly valued opinion on them head to head? Also very curious to JK's results with the VP's in front of the symph.

Well, thank you

So...I just got the Symphony and did some listening comparisons.


INITIAL REACTION - It's really, really close between the Symphony and the RM. Absolutely two fantastic sounding units - slightly different flavors.
The Symphony has more bottom end - seems a little more rolled off on top in comparison to the RM. Maybe more lower mids too - like 300-600 hz. (I know this is kind've nerdy - but trying to describe what I'm hearing. Seems to be a little thicker overall.)

Been listening to a mix I did (the song you're talking about, Cowboy)...when I listen through the RM, there are peaks in the vocals that bother me a little. A little sharp. When I listen with the Symphony it's smooth as silk. Now - I have no idea which is more true. Mixing with the RM, I have found myself having to add a little more top in my mixes - when it sounded a bit bright in the mix position, it usually translated well in the outside world. Listening to that mix here on my monitors through the RM, it sounds a little bright to me. Through the Symphony it sounds pretty damn perfect. Makes me think that the Symphony might be a little more accurate.

I'm listening as I type...I mean - really - it's really, really six and one half dozen of the other. Hmmm

As it sounds like a lot of us have been chasing the same dreams, I thought a recent discovery/conclusion might be of interest (in particular for John and Cowboy as recent Burl sellers). I think I finally reached the end of the road in the great search.

Like a lot of you, I’ve spent a previously unthinkable amount of time grappling with conversion - I suspect it is because when I started engineering, i held it’s importance in very low regard relative to mics and compressors. I had also read way too many posts on loopback tests, technical specs and shootouts.

Three years ago, I sold a lovely array of great analog gear due to a move and a massive reduction in square footage. This was done at the same time UAD began their improved V.2 offerings but before the Apollo was released - it was a bit of a leap of faith that the box would be sufficient and an all digital solution was achievable, but I decided to go for it.

Much like John has referenced in other posts, I always seem to be oscillating between two poles - one the one end if convenience and uninterrupted work flow - at the other: new creative thinking and fresh experiences. I had hoped digital had reached a point where the I could enjoy the simple flow with out too much sacrifice. Well, three years ago, I was wrong. I started over, adding in pieces to recapture what I had lost and sold.

Fast forward to early summer and my first chance to play with the UA Unison stuff. I thought this was a fairly substantial improvement and maybe it was time to try again. Initially, the differences between monitoring pre and post conversion left me convinced the process could never rise above the conversion of the stock Apollo, so I went ahead and got the BLA mod (thanks to Cowboy for some useful input via PM on GS). Upon its return, I thought the improvements were significant - enough so that I was ready to give all digital another shot, However, this time, after a proper comparison. I was also able to fairly closely match my analog gear with V.2 UAD versions - the first time I had that ability.

I set up using either a U48 or a KM84 going into a Radial JS3 Splitter. The chain was basically Neve > 1176A > 550A. Chain 1 was all plugs and BLA Apollo conversion. Chain 2 was all analog and BLA conversion. Chain 3 was all analog and 2192 conversion. The first round, I thought it would be novel to get a good sound in the digital chain, then set the analog gear to match (it seems like shootout are usually done the other way around, naturally disadvantaging the second party).

Predicable answer - the analog with 2192 was superior. Less predicable - the all digital was very close, and the analog to BLA Apollo was weakest, having the higher noise floor without the “halo of goodness” as I have been thinking of it. I found myself wishing I could use the Unison emulations with the 2192.

A few days later, I woke up in the middle of the night with a fairly unconventional and somewhat stupid idea - what if I took the output of the UAD channel and reconverted it with the 2192? It seemed pretty batshit stupid, but I rationalized it by thinking of the loopback tests, the importance of the analog stages of good conversion units, the amount of re-amping and summing that goes on, etc.

I ran the same three way splitter tests, but this time one of the channels was handled via the Apollo’s console routing.

Well, I’ll be damned. There it was. Detail, low noise and the pretty halo. I waited a couple of weeks and did some more tracking, lest I find myself falling victim to simply hearing what I hoped i would hear, but dang - it actually worked. Enough so that I have again sold all of my analog gear - this time comfortably so.

I’m not going to say I’ll never buy cool vintage stuff again - I’m not a person of faith, but music is the closet thing I have to church, and old V72’s and 1066’s have always struck me less as tools and more like religious artifacts from our fading holy temples. But as far as arriving at a very satisfying combination of sound and flow? I think I’m there.

Short addendum - I agree with Cowboy regarding the Burl - I had one for about a year - while it could be glorious, I did not enjoy having to pay attention to the variable gain options on the input - it was just one step too many. Conversely, I adore the 2192, despite my best efforts to get rid of it. it is just “right.” Remarkable piece.

After listening for several, several hours...there's not enough difference in the two DA's to justify the extra expense IMHO. I also didn't consider that I wouldn't be able to use the symphony in USB mode for higher sample rates (without the thunderbolt box). And - since I was using spdif to connect to the Apollo in order to use the symphony ad, I couldn't track above 48. That was the deal breaker. Just returned it and came back home with another Burl. $200 lesson learned. But I HAD to know

From what @smallbutfine says, it's even better. I might put in an order for one. I've got some projects due in 2016.

I think, that 200 you spent might be worth it for you in the mid term at least.

Settling your mind, is a cool thing

cheers

Wiz

that's actually an 8 out DAC only, I'd go with 4 of these on the DA side if i believed it would actually happen? The killing of any competition would have to be filmed in super duper slow motion lol.

John, I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding this.  I think you're saying that there's not enough difference between the Apollo and the Symphony DA, is that correct?  If so, I find that surprising, I thought the DA was the Apollo's weakest link.  Or am I remembering incorrectly?