|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 14, 2016 23:37:11 GMT -6
Hmm diy? Looks really cool. I do like diy but this might be a little much for me. I think I'm gonna go Burl. I can always use that as a master clock, and I like what I've heard with the Apollo clocked to a Burl. It's not DIY. It's a full-fledged product. I only have a couple left from the last batch though. I posted in some of your product threads / classified. It had to do with the Svart box and my questions was if it was standalone DAC and how it would improve my monitoring setup over the SF Apollo outputs... People say the Apollo monitoring is so colored and not true to source material but when different publications measured the inputs and outputs they were very flat according to AP tests... Feel free to PM me regarding Svart box if you would like so I don't crowd the thread up. Thanks! Apollo I/ O measurement link : Scroll down to " Technical Specifications " gray box www.soundonsound.com/reviews/universal-audio-apollo
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 17, 2016 18:29:13 GMT -6
I think any high dollar converter can be used, almost without any thought or distinction, for recording.
Where I really draw the line is the DAC for monitoring, that seems to be a really sensitive area for me. As part of the monitoring chain, it bears some personal evaluation to find the most suitable fit.
And I certainly will not promote cheap conversion for serious audio.
Had to bump this thread, hadn't read it until just now.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 17, 2016 18:32:50 GMT -6
It's not DIY. It's a full-fledged product. I only have a couple left from the last batch though. I posted in some of your product threads / classified. It had to do with the Svart box and my questions was if it was standalone DAC and how it would improve my monitoring setup over the SF Apollo outputs... People say the Apollo monitoring is so colored and not true to source material but when different publications measured the inputs and outputs they were very flat according to AP tests... Feel free to PM me regarding Svart box if you would like so I don't crowd the thread up. Thanks! Apollo I/ O measurement link : Scroll down to " Technical Specifications " gray box www.soundonsound.com/reviews/universal-audio-apolloI had the SF Apollo and the svartbox is absolutely an upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Nov 17, 2016 18:53:49 GMT -6
svartbox, imho se magnifique!!!
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 18, 2016 2:31:23 GMT -6
I think any high dollar converter can be used, almost without any thought or distinction, for recording. Where I really draw the line is the DAC for monitoring, that seems to be a really sensitive area for me. As part of the monitoring chain, it bears some personal evaluation to find the most suitable fit. And I certainly will not promote cheap conversion for serious audio. Had to bump this thread, hadn't read it until just now. What is your current converter setup? Are we talking lynx hilo money for monitoring or are we talking mastering like lavry, Dangerous, Forssell?
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 18, 2016 2:32:06 GMT -6
I posted in some of your product threads / classified. It had to do with the Svart box and my questions was if it was standalone DAC and how it would improve my monitoring setup over the SF Apollo outputs... People say the Apollo monitoring is so colored and not true to source material but when different publications measured the inputs and outputs they were very flat according to AP tests... Feel free to PM me regarding Svart box if you would like so I don't crowd the thread up. Thanks! Apollo I/ O measurement link : Scroll down to " Technical Specifications " gray box www.soundonsound.com/reviews/universal-audio-apolloI had the SF Apollo and the svartbox is absolutely an upgrade. Was new Monitors or separate monitoring DAC is a bigger improvement for you in your room?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 18, 2016 7:46:12 GMT -6
I think any high dollar converter can be used, almost without any thought or distinction, for recording. Where I really draw the line is the DAC for monitoring, that seems to be a really sensitive area for me. As part of the monitoring chain, it bears some personal evaluation to find the most suitable fit. And I certainly will not promote cheap conversion for serious audio. Had to bump this thread, hadn't read it until just now. What is your current converter setup? Are we talking lynx hilo money for monitoring or are we talking mastering like lavry, Dangerous, Forssell? I use UA Apollo as my main interface, with Presonus DP88 and Steinberg UR824 connected via ADAT (only one at a time) and Tascam UH-7000 connected via SPDIF. I record with all of them, but my main reference DAC is the Tascam UH-7000. I sometimes also use an Emotiva DC-1 for listening. These also double as monitor controllers, since they fit on my desk, and have front panel controls. I could be OK monitoring off of the Apollo or UR824, but I find my UH-7000 and DC-1 just give me that little extra clarity that I'm looking for. I can hear differences in the ADC capture of the different interfaces for tracking, but I have found that any of them will work for me, as stated earlier. I'm pretty confident that if someone handed me a Symphony, Burl, Lynx and so on that I'd be just as happy with my tracks in the end. Apollo was my big purchase though, so I'm sticking with it. I find that the Presonus, Steinberg and Tascam converters all compare favorably to the Apollo, with the Tascam possibly being the very best. Cheaper conversion that I decided wasn't quite there includes Echo Audiofire, Behringer ADA8200, and the little Scarletts. Some of these are "almost there" to my ears but I just have to be picky when it comes to audio. Doing some back to back A/B/C testing with all of these in the room at the same time was pretty eye opening. Of course none of this matters if you're in a room that's not acoustically treated at the listening position. You've got to be able to reliably hear the difference to make any sort of comparison.
|
|