|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 20, 2018 17:27:55 GMT -6
Yes, I think you only get 32+ with PT using avid interfaces ?
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Jul 20, 2018 18:22:27 GMT -6
Speaking as a 16A owner, ouch. Listening to a dropbox link on an iMac's speakers from the living room couch may not be the most critical listening, but the drop-off between those files is pretty marked. Could you elaborate on what you mean by drop off? I hear differences, too, for sure. Immediacy, transient detail, hold on, let me grab an old copy of Stereophile for additional adjectives... I pretty much judge converters monitoring the bus out of the desk then hitting the tape monitor button to monitor post-DAC and see if I can detect a difference. Those are the descriptors that sound most like what tells me I'm hearing the DAC not the live output. Could be the Apogee adding that, but that's not my experience with decent converters, they mostly preserve it better or worse. Or maybe I should listen through something besides an iMac...
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 20, 2018 18:44:34 GMT -6
The 32 limit is with vanilla not HD I think ! Isn’t it still 32 with a third party interface on PT HD? Looks like it, yes. From the Avid site: Pro Tools | Ultimate software supports up to 64 channels of I/O with HD Native hardware through DigiLink, and up to 32 channels of I/O through Core Audio and ASIO
But I think if you have the Native box (or HDX), third party interfaces such as Focusrite Red and Antelope Orion/Goliath "emulate" HD and you get the extra channel count.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 20, 2018 19:03:46 GMT -6
Could you elaborate on what you mean by drop off? I hear differences, too, for sure. Immediacy, transient detail, hold on, let me grab an old copy of Stereophile for additional adjectives... I pretty much judge converters monitoring the bus out of the desk then hitting the tape monitor button to monitor post-DAC and see if I can detect a difference. Those are the descriptors that sound most like what tells me I'm hearing the DAC not the live output. Could be the Apogee adding that, but that's not my experience with decent converters, they mostly preserve it better or worse. Or maybe I should listen through something besides an iMac... Cool. Not sure I totally understood most of that, but yeah, it’d be cool to hear yer thoughts once you monitor proper.
|
|
|
Post by petertjed on Jul 26, 2018 14:52:29 GMT -6
I have read this thread a few times, cause I'm still looking for a replacement for my bla 002r sig. So the conclusion is that the apogee is a little more colored, and if you use a lot of outboard gear and summing the motu 16a is a good/ maybe a better choice. And when you use an external clock the sound & depth will be better? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Btw is there a difference between the symphony mk1 vs mk2 in sound?
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 26, 2018 15:11:04 GMT -6
I have read this thread a few times, cause I'm still looking for a replacement for my bla 002r sig. So the conclusion is that the apogee is a little more colored, and if you use a lot of outboard gear and summing the motu 16a is a good/ maybe a better choice. And when you use an external clock the sound & depth will be better? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Btw is there a difference between the symphony mk1 vs mk2 in sound? External clock, sound will be different... better is objective... cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 26, 2018 15:18:14 GMT -6
I have read this thread a few times, cause I'm still looking for a replacement for my bla 002r sig. So the conclusion is that the apogee is a little more colored, and if you use a lot of outboard gear and summing the motu 16a is a good/ maybe a better choice. And when you use an external clock the sound & depth will be better? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Btw is there a difference between the symphony mk1 vs mk2 in sound? External clock, sound will be different... better is objective... cheers Wiz You mean subjective?
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 26, 2018 15:26:02 GMT -6
I have read this thread a few times, cause I'm still looking for a replacement for my bla 002r sig. So the conclusion is that the apogee is a little more colored, and if you use a lot of outboard gear and summing the motu 16a is a good/ maybe a better choice. And when you use an external clock the sound & depth will be better? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Btw is there a difference between the symphony mk1 vs mk2 in sound? I don’t find them miles apart. The Symphony mkii is maybe more refined sounding, but you’ll go broke trying to fund all that conversion if you’re running hybrid/summing. I didn’t find the difference worth the money, but I’m not making gold records. I’m running racks of outboard and a SumBus 16 Channel summing mixer. Motu makes the most sense for me.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 26, 2018 15:37:04 GMT -6
External clock, sound will be different... better is objective... cheers Wiz You mean subjective? Yes, sorry subjective cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 26, 2018 16:13:52 GMT -6
Not certain where the idea of the motu having an ob and summing edge came from ? I run my 16 channels into my delta and a fair bit of ob just fine and use 3 patchbays like wiz.
I bought a couple of db25 to trs snakes: works fine.
Actually the main difference is he uses motu and I use Symph mkii.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 26, 2018 16:37:02 GMT -6
Not certain where the idea of the motu having an ob and summing edge came from ? I brought the 16A up initially as a potentially suitable option for adding HW inserts to my Apogee Symphony MK1 rig using ADAT I/O. The perceived edge, if any, is in the specs, configuration flexibility, and price point. Particularly what you get from a price point. If I were starting from scratch building a 32x32 I/O Pro Tools system, the 16A would be my primary choice if buying new.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 26, 2018 16:53:42 GMT -6
Well obviously you need to get what makes sense to you. I just don’t see any significant difference using ob and summing but maybe I am misunderstanding you?
I have everything on my bay so can do anything I want with signal.
Wiz and I both use logic and it’s utility I/o plug certainly facilitates that.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 26, 2018 17:13:16 GMT -6
Not certain where the idea of the motu having an ob and summing edge came from ? I run my 16 channels into my delta and a fair bit of ob just fine and use 3 patchbays like wiz. I bought a couple of db25 to trs snakes: works fine. Actually the main difference is he uses motu and I use Symph mkii. I assume he meant price/performance ratio, especially if you’re looking at 16 or more i/o. Obviously, they function the same.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jul 26, 2018 17:40:05 GMT -6
“ and if you use a lot of outboard gear and summing the motu 16a is a good/ maybe a better choice. “
Was responding to this, as I didn’t see how that was true or not essentially the same?
I understand motu is cheaper so if you want lots of channels, you save money and if the sonic difference is close enough, then motu is a viable option.
|
|
|
Post by petertjed on Jul 27, 2018 8:23:18 GMT -6
I based my conclusion, on the next quotes from this thread, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Btw I'm summing with a manley 16x2 and all of the 8 outputs from my 002R are going trough AML ez500-1073 eq's.
Indiehouse: I heard the Symphony as being a little warmer sounding, and the Motu being a little less so.
Jeromemason: I ran into this with Randy when we outfitted his place with 2 16a's in place of his Apogee 16X's. What he thought was crispy or brittle was actually more top end information which after using saturation plugs or some of his incredible tube gear, really sounded great.
Indiehouse:That’s kinda what I’m thinking. If I want to round off the top, or warm things up, I’ve got plenty of outboard that can do that. The Zulu alone is perfect for doing that. What I can’t add is depth/dimension. I don’t hear one as being significantly more 3D than the other.
Jeromemason: When I started clocking from the BLAMKIII I noticed quite a bit more depth and detail.
Svart:I like the Motu files better anyway. There's less "hmmph" in the low end on the hard strums and less nasal peakiness in the high mids.
The Motu sounds a lot more like my Alphalink than the Symphony.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 15:48:25 GMT -6
I can't say I spend much time benchmarking / ripping open / looking at drivers anymore but checking out diffmaker results (from various) users for correlation and the difference between the original and converted sample here's the results.. (Lower generally means worse)..
So as a benchmark "reference" DAC the Lynx Hilo mostly always comes out on top..
Lynx Hilo: Corr Depth: 41,8 dB (L), 43,7 dB (R), Difference*: -59.1 dBFS (L), -59.2 dBFS (R) MOTU 16A Corr Depth: 43,4 dB (L), 45,6 dB (R) Difference*: -51.1 dBFS (L), -50.1 dBFS (R) Apogee Symphony MK2: Corr Depth: 36,3 dB (L), 37,9 dB (R) Difference*: -56.8 dBFS (L), -58.2 dBFS (R) MOTU 24AO: Corr Depth: 36,3 dB (L), 37,9 dB (R) Difference*: -56.7 dBFS (L), -58.0 dBFS (R)
The 16A is an odd one, in some ways it's better than the benchmark and in other's it's worse than the rest??
Just as a side notice lets compare it to something rubbish:
RME Babyface (didier.brest) Corr Depth: 9,2 dB (L), 10,8 dB (R) Difference: -28.8 dBFS (L) -29.8 dBFS (R)
So, to back up what I personally found.. The Hilo is from listening tests better than both of them (by how much is very debateable), not much of a shocker though and I can't tell much of a difference from MOTU's flagship 1248 and the Symphony (I do prefer the 1248 hence why I bought it)..
But not all of the MOTU line is built the same, so if you want to compare apples to apples it should be the 1248 vs. Symphony.! I have one and again for me, you're really not missing out on anything.. It's not like I care about the cost either, I had a MK1 and if the Apogee's were that much better (or <Insert manufacturer here>) I'd probably still go for it.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jul 27, 2018 17:58:35 GMT -6
I can't say I spend much time benchmarking / ripping open / looking at drivers anymore but checking out diffmaker results (from various) users for correlation and the difference between the original and converted sample here's the results.. (Lower generally means worse).. So as a benchmark "reference" DAC the Lynx Hilo mostly always comes out on top.. Lynx Hilo: Corr Depth: 41,8 dB (L), 43,7 dB (R), Difference*: -59.1 dBFS (L), -59.2 dBFS (R) MOTU 16A Corr Depth: 43,4 dB (L), 45,6 dB (R) Difference*: -51.1 dBFS (L), -50.1 dBFS (R) Apogee Symphony MK2: Corr Depth: 36,3 dB (L), 37,9 dB (R) Difference*: -56.8 dBFS (L), -58.2 dBFS (R) MOTU 24AO: Corr Depth: 36,3 dB (L), 37,9 dB (R) Difference*: -56.7 dBFS (L), -58.0 dBFS (R) The 16A is an odd one, in some ways it's better than the benchmark and in other's it's worse than the rest?? Just as a side notice lets compare it to something rubbish: RME Babyface (didier.brest) Corr Depth: 9,2 dB (L), 10,8 dB (R) Difference: -28.8 dBFS (L) -29.8 dBFS (R) So, to back up what I personally found.. The Hilo is from listening tests better than both of them (by how much is very debateable), not much of a shocker though and I can't tell much of a difference from MOTU's flagship 1248 and the Symphony (I do prefer the 1248 hence why I bought it).. But not all of the MOTU line is built the same, so if you want to compare apples to apples it should be the 1248 vs. Symphony.! I have one and again for me, you're really not missing out on anything.. It's not like I care about the cost either, I had a MK1 and if the Apogee's were that much better (or <Insert manufacturer here>) I'd probably still go for it. I admit to being illiterate when it comes to numbers like these. I honestly don’t have the inclination to learn about it. BUT, I always thought the 16a and the 24Ao shared the same converters? And the 1248 for that matter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 18:51:11 GMT -6
I can't say I spend much time benchmarking / ripping open / looking at drivers anymore but checking out diffmaker results (from various) users for correlation and the difference between the original and converted sample here's the results.. (Lower generally means worse).. So as a benchmark "reference" DAC the Lynx Hilo mostly always comes out on top.. Lynx Hilo: Corr Depth: 41,8 dB (L), 43,7 dB (R), Difference*: -59.1 dBFS (L), -59.2 dBFS (R) MOTU 16A Corr Depth: 43,4 dB (L), 45,6 dB (R) Difference*: -51.1 dBFS (L), -50.1 dBFS (R) Apogee Symphony MK2: Corr Depth: 36,3 dB (L), 37,9 dB (R) Difference*: -56.8 dBFS (L), -58.2 dBFS (R) MOTU 24AO: Corr Depth: 36,3 dB (L), 37,9 dB (R) Difference*: -56.7 dBFS (L), -58.0 dBFS (R) The 16A is an odd one, in some ways it's better than the benchmark and in other's it's worse than the rest?? Just as a side notice lets compare it to something rubbish: RME Babyface (didier.brest) Corr Depth: 9,2 dB (L), 10,8 dB (R) Difference: -28.8 dBFS (L) -29.8 dBFS (R) So, to back up what I personally found.. The Hilo is from listening tests better than both of them (by how much is very debateable), not much of a shocker though and I can't tell much of a difference from MOTU's flagship 1248 and the Symphony (I do prefer the 1248 hence why I bought it).. But not all of the MOTU line is built the same, so if you want to compare apples to apples it should be the 1248 vs. Symphony.! I have one and again for me, you're really not missing out on anything.. It's not like I care about the cost either, I had a MK1 and if the Apogee's were that much better (or <Insert manufacturer here>) I'd probably still go for it. I admit to being illiterate when it comes to numbers like these. I honestly don’t have the inclination to learn about it. BUT, I always thought the 16a and the 24Ao shared the same converters? And the 1248 for that matter?
Generally the higher the number the better..
I meant the entire line but I'll share what I think I know..
So, this is how I understand it (please someone correct me if I'm wrong).. Every one of the new line (1248, 16A, 24AO, 8M) uses the ESS sabre 32 Ultra DAC's (ES9016) and the Cirrus Logic CS5381 for ADC then we have the 24AI that uses whatever (with the specs out of whack with the rest it's something different)..
But the 1248 uses something different for the headphone out (which is it's weak link as an FYI), it also has very slightly better spec's for the XLR inputs (probably circuitry) over the line in's across the range.. So they're the same but not the same??!
You see a lot of these diffmaker tests could of been borked, diffmaker is for sure not the defacto standard in interface testing.. For example one of those could of been clocked to an external unit which will mess things up.. Yes I know many that thinks external clocking makes things sound better but this is the one area that is a fallacy.. I'm sure svart can back that up (or call me an idiot)..
I did do a quick diff test with the MOTU 1248 and Symphony MK1 I owned and they were pretty much slap bang the same.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jul 27, 2018 18:55:21 GMT -6
so basically this guy didier.brest made up his own "scientific" test is that right? It's just this one guy's made up test for these figures?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 19:03:22 GMT -6
so basically this guy didier.brest made up his own "scientific" test is that right? It's just this one guy's made up test for these figures?
No, I think the tests were first done by NMS.. Essentially diffmaker is a piece of software that correlates degredation between a file before it's been through the washer and after.. Reason I mention "washer" is because it's not just used for AD/DA loopback tests.
It's created by a company called Liberty instruments, there's an AES paper on it and all sorts.. It's not a bad test (not something I'd use at work like) if everything is done accuratley.. But a lot of these sample outputs could be incorrect, I know didier took it upon himself to process the audio through matlab to try and keep things somewhat useful.
Still, you never know..
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jul 27, 2018 19:05:33 GMT -6
so basically this guy didier.brest made up his own "scientific" test is that right? It's just this one guy's made up test for these figures?
No, I think the tests were first done by NMS.. Essentially diffmaker is a piece of software that correlates degredation between a file before it's been through the washer and after.. Reason I mention "washer" is because it's not just used for AD/DA loopback tests.
It's created by a company called Liberty instruments, there's an AES paper on it and all sorts.. It's not a bad test (not something I'd use at work like) if everything is done accuratley.. But a lot of these sample outputs could be incorrect, I know didier took it upon himself to process the audio through matlab to try and keep things somewhat useful.
Still, you never know..
Yeah "specs" are interesting. It's also interesting to note what people claim to hear, since it always seems to be opposite. There almost seems to be no reliable standard for quality of digital audio, either objective or subjective. I guess that means we should try to make some music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 19:15:55 GMT -6
No, I think the tests were first done by NMS.. Essentially diffmaker is a piece of software that correlates degredation between a file before it's been through the washer and after.. Reason I mention "washer" is because it's not just used for AD/DA loopback tests.
It's created by a company called Liberty instruments, there's an AES paper on it and all sorts.. It's not a bad test (not something I'd use at work like) if everything is done accuratley.. But a lot of these sample outputs could be incorrect, I know didier took it upon himself to process the audio through matlab to try and keep things somewhat useful.
Still, you never know..
Yeah "specs" are interesting. It's also interesting to note what people claim to hear, since it always seems to be opposite. There almost seems to be no reliable standard for quality of digital audio, either objective or subjective. I guess that means we should try to make some music.
I'm mainly an audio programmer nowadays, but I have run a few listening tests in my time.. From this I gained a hypothesis, one consistant thing was everyone could hear quality, let's say you play them a track samples at 8Khz everyone but Bob (who doesn't like anything) would notice the quality issues..
So I don't believe we "hear" differently BUT.! We all have our strong preferences, like food for e.g. my best friend loves sprouts and I hate them.. Some like extra bass, some hate it, some love saturation, some love a bit of a smeared stereo image because it makes the track "glue" whilst others prefer clarity..
It's like saying, would you like some extra mids with you breakfast? Hell no, mids suck.! So yeah, spec's are cool but ultimatley mean very little.. It's like the MRX816 being so popular, it was about as well specified as a DAC from the 90's but everyone went nutty for it..
Trying to join the world of science and art is very tricky.. There are explanations for everything except why someone hates sprouts.!
Completely irrelevant, but thought I'd share anyway ..!
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jul 27, 2018 19:29:17 GMT -6
Yeah "specs" are interesting. It's also interesting to note what people claim to hear, since it always seems to be opposite. There almost seems to be no reliable standard for quality of digital audio, either objective or subjective. I guess that means we should try to make some music.
I'm mainly an audio programmer nowadays, but I have run a few listening tests in my time.. From this I gained a hypothesis, one consistant thing was everyone could hear quality, let's say you play them a track samples at 8Khz everyone but Bob (who doesn't like anything) would notice the quality issues..
So I don't believe we "hear" differently BUT.! We all have our strong preferences, like food for e.g. my best friend loves sprouts and I hate them.. Some like extra bass, some hate it, some love saturation, some love a bit of a smeared stereo image because it makes the track "glue" whilst others prefer clarity..
It's like saying, would you like some extra mids with you breakfast? Hell no, mids suck.! So yeah, spec's are cool but ultimatley mean very little.. It's like the MRX816 being so popular, it was about as well specified as a DAC from the 90's but everyone went nutty for it..
Trying to join the world of science and art is very tricky.. There are explanations for everything except why someone hates sprouts.!
Completely irrelevant, but thought I'd share anyway ..! Yeah I think that's a very good analogy. People's minds prefer different things. Even if their ears are maybe a little different too. A fun one is "Tone Words" like "bright," "Warm," "Dark" stuff like that. People apply those almost seemingly at will, and often at odds. I happen to like sprouts and mids myself. Alas, I am but a humble wanker in the fields of audio and food.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jul 28, 2018 3:20:37 GMT -6
Trying to join the world of science and art is very tricky.. There are explanations for everything except why someone hates sprouts.!
Without any context, this is the best straight-up quote I've read in awhile.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 8, 2018 7:29:13 GMT -6
|
|