|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 12, 2013 18:21:31 GMT -6
Opinions? Meaning...ones that sprout from real world use? As you all may or may not have gleaned, in the switching of platforms last year, I left one piece unbought (sic)--a 2ch overdub tracking AD. Reason being the only real use is, well tracking my own stuff...and having finished a record at the end of 2012, this was a writing year for me as an artist. They're coming together...have some EOY cash...while it will likely be a couple months before I start actual real tracking, I thought it might be time to take care of this "hole".
Original plan for the cutover was to get a 2x2 that went over SMUX ADAT so I could use them also as an IO loop for the analog rack during mixing. I've since gotten a Benchmark DAC1 to feed the monitors full time...so, while the loop would still be nice, it would have to work over SMUX and not SPDIF/AES. So, looking like a 2ch AD is likely the best way to finish this off.
I see them for sale periodically...and as an electric guitarist with a lot of nice amps--always wanted a 512c, since it was always my fave on amps. I never afforded it to myself because frankly the difference is nuance--and I'm not a big fan of API amps on vocals, acoustics, piano, bass/EP DI--stuff I cut here. I never tried it on the Hammond/Leslie, but based on the sound of amps, it would prolly sound good there. Point being-I KNOW I love the modern API amps on amps...but, also know I don't care for them on much else. I tend not to buy pieces that are super fixed function and nuance of improvement.
What's funny is the "reviews", and I use that word loosely, on the net of the AD side of the API. The funniest was how over at the purple site someone talked about Eric Valentine hating them and saying his MOTU was better. Funny, because someone ELSE with the last name Valentine did that "review"...who as far as I can see--just a dude. What Eric DID say was he never found expensive converters worth the hassle with the TDM rig. Fair enough.
My thought being, if the AD sounds good, you can technically access it a number of ways--through the mic amps, DIs, OR ClassA line amps, OR directly into the attenuators, so you can drive whatever as hard as you want and pull it back down prior to conversion. Seems like a killer swiss army knife of a unit--pres bring one thing...classA line amp bringing another with external pres...or direct into attenuators feeding the AD directly for the "cleanest" path.
Part of me says "buy the Burl--you know the AD itself sounds better"...but, if you look at the fact that if I track 15 tracks on something**, prolly 8-10 are Egtrs and Hammond...so the API likely will sound better simply due to the preamps...AND it's cheaper used...to add to that, I've been doing demos with the Multiface AD at 88.2, and things sound, well-killer. I'm less looking for this as a sonic upgrade as I am a future proofing thing--there are cheap SPDIF boxes everywhere. As I move more and more ITB, and said box gets smaller...seems like as long as I have a nice DA to feed the monitors (check) and a nice 2ch overdub AD, I'm solid to track to a f'n iPad if that day comes and have it sound the same.
Anyway, long winded way to ask if anyone's got real world experience with the A2d's converters. If not, I guess I can just get them both from VK for eval and take one back...but, the used prices of the a2d are more appealing obviously.
**I don't track drums here, in case anyone was wondering
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Dec 13, 2013 4:41:18 GMT -6
I Am John Galt uses an AD2. He hangs out in the Apollo thread on the Purple site. Might hit him up for a real world account. I use the B2 and can vouch for it. Can't see how you'd be disappointed with it. And it's defiantly not a one trick pony as are most converters. Hitting the input harder or softer makes for sonic pallets. Truly the best purchase I've made yet, a rock solid foundation on which all the rest of my gear sits upon.
Ha, must be in a lyrical mood this morning. Haven't had my coffee yet..
|
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Dec 13, 2013 4:46:31 GMT -6
Universal Audio 2192?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 13, 2013 7:35:41 GMT -6
I don't have experience with any of those converters, but I do feel like I should say something. I've used a number of *other* converters and I have to admit that I never really thought about the converter quality as long as the converter was a *good* quality one. I think the differences between the good converters, Burl, Apogee, Alphalink, etc, is much smaller than the difference between a good converter and a pro-sumer converter like MOTU and the other cheap ones.
In other words, I wouldn't stress about it. Get the best thing you can afford, as long as it's a quality converter, and I bet you'll never have an issue.
Secondly, the mic, the singer's positioning, the room, the preamp, the compressors, the settings, etc all make much more of a difference even when settings are flat, than the difference between the high-end converters.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 13, 2013 11:25:27 GMT -6
I Am John Galt uses an AD2. He hangs out in the Apollo thread on the Purple site. And he's selling it...maybe I should take that as a sign--ha. Svart...I couldn't agree with you more--except the part about MOTU. Vs SSL? Ha. Lynx? Double ha. I am of the opinion most any AD with a line level input (not trivial these days) sounds close enough at double rate I don't care. Which is why the two units here are classA tranformer line amps FEEDING an AD. IMO, that's always been the issue with AD vs tape. Tape machines didn't use dogshit cheap IC line amps to feed the headstack. The affect of tape itself isn't the only difference in analog and digital. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 13, 2013 11:54:00 GMT -6
I Am John Galt uses an AD2. He hangs out in the Apollo thread on the Purple site. Tape machines didn't use dogshit cheap IC line amps to feed the headstack. Actually.. A few of the well known ones did. They just used the opamps correctly, unlike most low end gear which has given the opamp a bad name. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 13, 2013 14:14:27 GMT -6
Ok...fair enough...point being there was never in the history of recorded music prior to digital tape "a colorless" and linear top to bottom (dynamic range) input channel. Yet the compression and frequency response AND hiss is actually the medium. So, we threw out TWO components--the tape and the input amp, when one of them held all the "flaws" one was trying to get rid of--SNR, said compression and frequecny alterations, linear, time limited, and destructive workflow.
Can we agree on that? We replaced the medium with an ADA chip, basically, and ignored the other circuitry involved and any non linearity it may bring. Nothing inherently WRONG with throwing out both sources of "color" (man I hate that term)...but, I add SOOO much ITB--and it doesn't MATTER how colorful or not a preamp I use. I mean, MAYBE if I had 12 different colors to sit around and match mics to amps and drive them hard and attenuate to solid digital level...there are likely numbers of solutions, but none I like as much as simply putting a nice sounding input block on AD. The thing that intrigues me about the API is that they say they've voiced the converters to match "the API sound of the pres" with an extended smooth top and less low mids, which sounds like a great default EQ for digital. In fact, what I love about 88.2 is that the top extends--or more accurately, maybe it's simply not jagged sounding...and it has less "mud" in the low midrange.
I'm a little afraid from the clips I've head that the Burl went for more of a Neve'y heavy "niceness"...anyway, I'm sure the answer is gonna be to either get both in here for the first week of overdubs...or pick one, run with it and switch to the other if it's not my speed. I'm really just SO not picky about the conversion itself at 88/96. I think everything sounds fine. However, whenever I've had to use units where there was a cheap mic amp in line, they've always sounded...LESSER at any rate. Stands to reason that a nice line amp may have the opposite effect. If everything just sounded "a little better" to the degree that a lousy mic amp makes it "all a little worse"...
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 14, 2013 14:12:27 GMT -6
Cowboy...curious...you running the Burl at double rate or single?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 15, 2013 10:55:29 GMT -6
I'm not sure the converter is the right place to add character. There are a number of transformer and tube line stages that sound way better than any converter I've heard. Line stages are a pretty big deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 15, 2013 12:07:07 GMT -6
Well...that IS the difference in these two (versus a 192 or RME or Apogee, etc)...the line stages before the chip. While the boxes are functionally "AD converters"...the box in each case is a ClassA transformer based line amp and analog attenuator feeding into an AD chip.
The other in the category would be the JCF stuff that "borrowed" one of the old tape deck line amp designs for the ins...anyway--the paradigm (right or wrong) is simply that on the nice tape machines there were two components to that sound--the tape itself, but also the line amp that fed the tape. So...they're giving the ADA similar line amps. Good in theory....and Cowboy's comparisons between the Burl and Symphony certainly show it...subtle as it is, grand scheme.
Anyway...I think the dynamic thing appeals to me. In that...at least with Burl's last design (UA 2192) it was one ofthe most linear AD ever--at nominal levels...and then it started to bark as you pushed it...that seems ideal to me. I don't think the ideal converter should be linear up to 0 and then unusable. I grew up with the idea that the harder you push something, the tone changes...
|
|
|
|
Post by IamJohnGalt on Dec 15, 2013 12:08:35 GMT -6
I did sell my A2D but not because I didnt love it. The conversion is way better than I expected and the pres....well you all know how they sound. I have a 2192 for critical AD and unfortunately two cascaded Apollos can only accommodate one SPDIF IO.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 15, 2013 12:18:53 GMT -6
So, that's another vote for Burl....he kept the 2192 and sold the A2d.  ...honestly, I just don't know why Burl isn't making a 2x2...sort of direct replacement for the 2192. That really WAS my intended when I started this conversion so I could use it as an loop out to the analog rack during mixing, too. Or why UA doesn't continue making and supporting the design they own and obviously many love. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 15, 2013 12:56:40 GMT -6
Well they sort of do - two separate units for $4600 or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 15, 2013 22:41:49 GMT -6
Yeah, but then they have to clock off each other (and then what daisy chain the interface clock?) and no SMUX over ADAT...no WC distribution like the 2192...the old one was a small studio in and out solution. The new ones are just aimed for someone needing one or the other...for the same price roughly as the original 2192. I'm just saying...I have no doubt he's taken the sound up a notch...but, the functionality lost a lot in the translation. I'm sure he's got data or the idea that people are just tracking with them...or capturing mixes...or buying the DA to feed monitors...I'm sure I'm the oddball that actually sees the beauty of the 2192 design. Gave you a stable clock with what 6 outs to clock a small studio...in and out over SPDIF, AES, or SMUX/ADAT...so kinda whatever connection at whatever rate you want in and out...all in 1U. I've seen the inside of those new ones....looks like he has room enough for a 2x2 in it to me...but, I also won't pretend to know shit about electronics. I see nearly half and empty rack box...and know the power supply can be shared...ehh... I got a spontaneous mix gig that's sucking my attention at the moment. I'll get back to my own gear drama next week.  |
|
|
|
Post by IamJohnGalt on Dec 16, 2013 7:49:39 GMT -6
Yeah, but then they have to clock off each other (and then what daisy chain the interface clock?) and no SMUX over ADAT...no WC distribution like the 2192...the old one was a small studio in and out solution. The new ones are just aimed for someone needing one or the other...for the same price roughly as the original 2192. I'm just saying...I have no doubt he's taken the sound up a notch...but, the functionality lost a lot in the translation. I'm sure he's got data or the idea that people are just tracking with them...or capturing mixes...or buying the DA to feed monitors...I'm sure I'm the oddball that actually sees the beauty of the 2192 design. Gave you a stable clock with what 6 outs to clock a small studio...in and out over SPDIF, AES, or SMUX/ADAT...so kinda whatever connection at whatever rate you want in and out...all in 1U. I've seen the inside of those new ones....looks like he has room enough for a 2x2 in it to me...but, I also won't pretend to know shit about electronics. I see nearly half and empty rack box...and know the power supply can be shared...ehh... I got a spontaneous mix gig that's sucking my attention at the moment. I'll get back to my own gear drama next week. youre right. The 2192 is a monster of functionality. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 16, 2013 14:13:01 GMT -6
Yeah, that's why the 2192 what originally my plan...it's simply the single piece that says I can get in and out of and clock whatever PCM system I ever need to use--and they all sound the same. I have a nice medium sized mixing rig now...but, as I play the back nine, so to speak...I know I need the ability to track overdubs and have mix capable DA...and of course a smallish but nice analog rack I own now. I could mix on an iPad9 or something down the road--who knows? That would be kinda cool--just have a long data cable and you put it wherever you are in the studio--it's not remote controlling...it's actually the DAW. Maybe they even figure out some wireless buffering that doesn't suck...but...not gonna put money on that--why I have a little rackmount analog cue mixer along with the pres/eq/comps.
Have digital IO...will track the same at whatever sample rate you can run.
There's really no current unit made like that...the Symphony 2x6 is the closest, but no WC distribution...and it requires a computer to configure the IO. As soon as that's not supported....well...maybe there will be some kind of button combos to switch routings...regardless-I'd be more apt to buy a cheap used Rosetta200 is I simply want "decent and functional". One popped up here for $600 a while back...almost bit...
|
|
