|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 14:03:03 GMT -6
If I were going to try to do a test like this, I suppose I would try to compare the following: 1. 16 channels summed through a simple passive summing mixer like the Folcrom. Just wires and resistors. There would also be no analog makeup gain. It would go out of the Folcrom and right back into two channels of the converters and then makeup gain would be done digitally in the DAW. 2. Just as a sort of control (which I realize is not strictly correct in this scenario) I'd run those same 16 channels out of each DA and loop those 16 channels back into each respective AD (all 16 channels) and then sum those digitally in the DAW. 3. Sum all 16 channels digitally (also as a control-ish point of comparison) but then loop back the two channel mix from DA to AD and back into the DAW. 4. Do a typical digital sum of all 16 channels entirely within the DAW. No DA/AD loopback. That way there's no analog gain going on whatsoever. It seems like it would just remove one more analog-domain variable from the equation. The various loopbacks described above are basically just an attempt to create more of an apples to apples comparison which accounts for whatever variances the DA and/or AD conversion may be adding or subtracting. There's probably ways that this could all be picked apart too, but I'd be interested in seeing the results, nonetheless. Man I forgot about the Folcrom! That is a blast from the past. I remember hearing some mixes Mike Shipley did through that set up 20 years ago or so that blew me away(using cranesong flamingo pres for makeup gain). That would be the perfect summing mixer for this test! Just to add a couple of more options, what do you think about running a mix that goes Folcrom > Mic Pres and then another that just hits the mic pres with no folcrom. That may give us some insight into a summing mixer vs silver bullet/fusion style boxes. Would definitely be interesting! Yeah, there would be nothing wrong with adding those two scenarios as well. I was mostly just trying to isolate analog summing down to its true essence and eliminate all analog gain stages to compare analog and digital summing on a more even playing field. But someone doing such a test might as well go ahead and add those other two scenarios you mentioned just to compare them.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 13:53:21 GMT -6
Ok. It just seems like you're picking at small details that I don't believe would change the outcome at all. But one note.. "just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other" I don't know how much clearer it needs to be than totally nulling the audio. ANY small differences would not allow total nulling. Just a fraction of a dB of any frequency or a degree or two of phase difference and you'd ruin the nulling. I can't overstate how sensitive these null tests are to level and phase. So to get it to finally null he starts soloing pairs(1-2, 3-4, etc..) and bouncing them one at a time(are we even summing at this point?). The first thing that came to mind when I saw that part of the video is that this potentially negates the impact of cross talk happening across 16 channels spread out in a summing mixer.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 13:41:32 GMT -6
I hear what you're saying but, correlation not necessarily meaning causation, there could be other aspects correlated with those same mics that are the actual cause of the "magic". It's entirely possible that the type of circuit or transformer, that is necessary to work with the AC701, is the real cause of the magic. It could be that the capsules, made during the same time period that the AC701 was used, were voiced in a certain way particular to that time period or manufacturing method, and are thus the real cause of the magic and not the AC701. I'm not saying I'm an expert on any of this stuff, but I know enough to know that if Klaus is saying the AC701 doesn't matter that much, that gives me real reason to sit up and pay attention to what might be possible. There are some really cool mics that used the AC701, and it's very intriguing to think what might be possible with a M49 reissue or reissues of other AC701-based mics. Certainly possible. But IME, unlikely. Is there another tube that can 1:1 replace the AC701k? Maybe there is. I have yet to hear of significant success stories with that in mind, and I think that would have surfaced on the horizon if there was. There are a ton of 54's, 269's, 49's, 50's that need re-tubing. One would think that if there were a direct replacement, that they would be getting some interest. I have not heard of it. But again, I don't know all on the tube fronts. To the best of my knowledge, Klaus replaces AC701's with.....guess what? I agree that "why hasn't this been done before?" is a reasonable question to ask in regards to skepticism about all of this. I still am skeptical. However, my skepticism got turned down by a not unappreciable amount when I read that quote from Klaus. I think I'd trust that guy over maybe just about anybody when it comes to this stuff. If he's saying what he said, I'm willing to listen in ways that I might not if it was just Neumann throwing some marketing speak out there about how they've found a 1:1 replacement. The problem that Neumann will have is that, even if they do achieve a 1:1 replacement for the AC701, they'll be putting it in a brand new mic, which introduces additional variables which will make it nearly impossible to satisfy any detractors. The real test would be to replace the tube in an old mic with a new and provide before and after tests. Even that, though, would invite gotchas like "the mic was in a slightly different location than before" or "it was a different performance" or whatever. I'm still interested though.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 13:29:45 GMT -6
You miss the point. The fact that it can null completely at any point is the takeaway. If it was different at all it would never null at any point under any test. Maybe I haven't spoken clearly enough here so I'll try again. I understand the point quite well and am open to the idea that he may in fact be 100% correct. I just contend that the methodology and the execution could have been better to the point of removing all doubt. A video that wouldn't require a bunch of disclaimers up front and after. That's all. Anyway...dead horse at this point but that's my gripe...not that I believe summing is doing something magical, just that I don't think this is the best example to make a determination one way or the other. I just want to see someone do it better and maybe they will? I would volunteer to do it but I don't know what brand he used since he didn't disclose it and I'm not aware of any summing mixers that advertise as being really transparent or clean. If I were going to try to do a test like this, I suppose I would try to compare the following: 1. 16 channels summed through a simple passive summing mixer like the Folcrom. Just wires and resistors. There would also be NO analog makeup gain. It would go out of the Folcrom and right back into two channels of the converters and then makeup gain would be done digitally in the DAW. 2. Just as a sort of control (which I realize is not strictly correct in this scenario) I'd run those same 16 channels out of each DA and loop those 16 channels back into each respective AD (all 16 channels) and then sum those digitally in the DAW. 3. Sum all 16 channels digitally (also as a control-ish point of comparison) but then loop back the two channel mix from DA to AD and back into the DAW. 4. Do a typical digital sum of all 16 channels entirely within the DAW. No DA/AD loopback. That way there's no analog gain going on whatsoever. It seems like it would just remove one more analog-domain variable from the equation. The various loopbacks described above are basically just an attempt to create more of an apples to apples comparison which accounts for whatever variances the DA and/or AD conversion may be adding or subtracting. Numbers 2 and 3 above probably don't actually matter much, but what the hell. The comparison between numbers 1 and 4 are what I'd really be interested in. There's probably ways that this could all be picked apart too, but I'd be interested in seeing the results, nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 12:08:32 GMT -6
Correct (& probably Russian)! Dr Bill?
I'm not a mic guru like Klaus, and I really have zero experience changing out an AC701 to a different tube since they are soldered in. The only thing I keep coming back too as I think about this is that every mic that's been tubed with an AC701 has been magic. Absolute magic. SD, LDC whatever.... That's a bit too coincidental for me to say that the tube is not that much of the sound. Color me disappointed with Neumann not using a 701, but trying to keep an open mind.... I hear what you're saying but, correlation not necessarily meaning causation, there could be other aspects correlated with those same mics that are the actual cause of the "magic". It's entirely possible that the type of circuit or transformer, that is necessary to work with the AC701, is the real cause of the magic. It could be that the capsules, made during the same time period that the AC701 was used, were voiced in a certain way particular to that time period or manufacturing method, and are thus the real cause of the magic and not the AC701. I'm not saying I'm an expert on any of this stuff, but I know enough to know that if Klaus is saying the AC701 doesn't matter that much, that gives me real reason to sit up and pay attention to what might be possible. There are some really cool mics that used the AC701, and it's very intriguing to think what might be possible with a M49 reissue or reissues of other AC701-based mics.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 9:26:08 GMT -6
If what Klaus says about these tubes is true, and I have no reason to disbelieve him, it seems that would potentially open the door to reissue any of the Neumann mics that used the AC701.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 29, 2022 7:36:46 GMT -6
I did summing for a few years and while I was certainly adding vibe with outboard compressors etc, I will confess to have held the view that “voltage on copper” summing had to be doing something too. I think I stand corrected on that. I am certainly looking forward to LUNA getting latency compensated channel inserts .. That said … this video also throws some light on LUNA Neve and API summing (which I like) … and of course they are not modelling bare copper but rather transformers and op amps Yeah, once hardware inserts becomes a reality with Luna, I will likely get another Apollo(s) and changeover the normalling in my patchbays from Apollos being normalled to my console to, instead, having the Apollos normalled to my outboard gear so that I don't even have to patch anything in. Add all of that in with the sort of integrated console emulation thing that UA has going on inside Luna, and it could be a pretty cool setup.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 28, 2022 21:35:26 GMT -6
Sky lights. Keep the body clock right. Agreed. Daylight is nice.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 28, 2022 6:47:11 GMT -6
It’s like it’s shifted up an octave. That’s not completely accurate but it’s like the bottom isn’t as big and maybe it’s more detailed up top. Tried the SR-5? Where does that fit in, frequency response wise? The SR-5 seems like it's made to be a direct competitor to the Beyer M 160.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 23, 2022 22:45:59 GMT -6
I get that the wave guide is more narrow vertically than it is horizontally, but doesn't the wave guide still narrow the horizontal field to one degree or another, at least when compared to a monitor with no wave guide? I too prefer, if possible, a wider sweet spot that I can move around in, which is why I was concerned that the Neumann would actually have a narrower sweet spot than I was used to. But it sounds like you're saying that the KH310 has a wider sweet spot than normal? I'm confused. Edit: I went and read your review. I do see that you're saying these have a wide sweet spot. This still confuses me, as I would think any wave guide at all would narrow the field to one degree or another. In any case, it's good to know that a narrow sweet spot doesn't seem to be a concern. Waveguides widen the dispersion by increasing coupling of the diaphragm with the forward air volume as well as the reduction in baffle diffraction. This smooths the frequency response to reduce beaming in addition. I guess an analogy is blowing through a straw. The air front is very focused, with a gentle dispersion vs. blowing through a funnel backwards which immediately disperses the air front. Not doubting you on how they work. I just assumed that the geometry of an inset tweeter (into the waveguide) meant that the angles narrowed accordingly, but apparently not. Good to know. I know Ericn likes the dome mids, and I trust his opinions. The 310 is still on my list. The rest of the list is comprised of Dynaudio (Lyd 48, Core 47, Core 59), because I just like Dyns, but I'm still thinking about the 310s.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 23, 2022 20:17:12 GMT -6
So, let's place an order on something that isn't described or defined? We still don't know anything about the tube or other specifics? Yeah, there will be a mad scramble anyway, amongst dentists and collectors, but there's no way I'd want to put up that kind of money ahead of time without knowing anything about the specifics of the build. Also, as much as I'd like to own one for romantic reasons, I can't actually justify spending that kind of money. Or I should say, I don't "think" I can justify spending that kind of money. I guess you never know. I'd certainly have to sell some shit. $9k-ish is a lot for ONE mic.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 23, 2022 15:28:53 GMT -6
The thing that worries me about the KH310 is the wave guide. I know the wave guide is seen as a benefit to a lot of people, due to the wave guide's ability to vertically and horizontally narrow the dispersion field in order to reduce first reflection issues in a small or low ceiling room. However, I've have a large room (24x30) with pretty good treatment, and I would actually be worried that I would end up with a narrower sweet spot than I'd prefer. The waveguide on the tweeter is horizontally wider. Less reflections from above or below. I also think with a treated room, reflections from a distance will be much less of a problem than a narrow sweet spot. I much prefer a wider sweet spot that I can move around in within reason. I get that the wave guide is more narrow vertically than it is horizontally, but doesn't the wave guide still narrow the horizontal field to one degree or another, at least when compared to a monitor with no wave guide? I too prefer, if possible, a wider sweet spot that I can move around in, which is why I was concerned that the Neumann would actually have a narrower sweet spot than I was used to. But it sounds like you're saying that the KH310 has a wider sweet spot than normal? I'm confused. Edit: I went and read your review. I do see that you're saying these have a wide sweet spot. This still confuses me, as I would think any wave guide at all would narrow the field to one degree or another. In any case, it's good to know that a narrow sweet spot doesn't seem to be a concern.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 23, 2022 15:19:20 GMT -6
Old thread. I know. However, I've got some debt paid down and I was looking at finally pulling the trigger on some Lyd 48s or possibly even something else more expensive, if I can swing it, like the Core 47, Core 59, or the KH310. Anyway, your comment about a dome mid on the Lyd 48 piqued my interest. Is this correct? I'm no expert on this stuff, but the mid on the Lyd 48 looks like a cone to me. I'm just wondering because the Neumann KH310 has a dome mid, I believe, and that gets rave reviews. I know that I certainly like soft dome tweeters, so the subject of a dome mid interests me, in general. Whew - boy, do I love my KH310s. They sound so natural to me. I've still never heard the LYD48s, but I'm sure I would like them, too. But seriously, wow on these KH310s. The thing that worries me about the KH310 is the wave guide. I know the wave guide is seen as a benefit to a lot of people, due to the wave guide's ability to vertically and horizontally narrow the dispersion field in order to reduce first reflection issues in a small or low ceiling room. However, I've have a large room (24x30) with pretty good treatment, and I would actually be worried that I would end up with a narrower sweet spot than I'd prefer, if I'm not being forced to make a tradeoff via the wave guide. But maybe I fundamentally misunderstand the way the wave guide is working on the KH310?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 23, 2022 12:40:00 GMT -6
I got the LYD 48 yesterday (in white). I didn't have time to do a proper burn in as suggested by Dynaudio. I just wanted to hear them. Initial thought: It's a bit hard to believe these came from the same company that made the Air 6 monitors. I was expecting them to be a bit different but I was kind of shocked by how different they are. The biggest change is the mids. The LYD 48 has all the mids (and then some) that I felt were a little light in the Air 6. The lows were about the same, possibly a little more low end. The high end felt a little veiled on the LYD 48 in comparison. I think it's because the mids are so much more present. A rough guess would be that frequencies between about 200hz-1khz are more present in the LYD 8. I played a lot of reference tracks on both and switched back and forth. Most references sounded good on the Air 6. At least half the references sounded kind of bad on the LYD 48. I think problems in the mid-range are much more apparent on the LYD. The Air 6 are more pleasant to listen to and they are better for hearing the tail of a reverb. The LYD 48 masks that detail a little due to the mids. It's interesting how some of my references sound "honkey" on the LYD 48 but fine on the Air 6. I'm not sure which is more accurate but i think the LYD will help make a few mid-range mix decisions easier. That's just a first reaction without having them properly setup on stands. My stands were made for the Air 6 so the LYD 46 has to be raised 5 inches to match, due to the horizontal positioning. I'll be burning these in over the weekend. I do think they will work out well. The detail in the mids showed me some real problems on current mixes already. I wonder how much different they will sound once I burn them in? Anyone notice a real difference or is that sort of "snake-oil"? Well come to the world of 3 ways with a Dome mid. A quick look at the Air 6 looks like it uses a variant of Dyns Esotec tweeter, a very very special tweet that most agree works better in a 3 way where as the LYD48 uses a more standard Dyn. Over time the LYD should open up but it’s not going to sound like the Esotec, however it mesh better with the standard Dyn mid. While not my favorite affordable mid dome the Tange Band copy can be found in some $15000 speakers so yeah no suprise you find it an improvement. As for discovering flaws in reference material, a friend was over the other day and wanted to hear the Questeds, well his taste was 90’s radio hits, stuff that didn’t sound bad in the Car Lifehouse, Vertical Horizon, adult contemporary brain worms, hey I found myself singing along in the car. Well those $75 Skanspeak mid domes showed all the edges almost buzzing distortion on the vocals, the guy said they must be broken, well 12min of listening to Rumors and Abbey Road had the guy thinking he didn’t want a good pair of speakers, he prefer to see the emporer as wearing robes than naked. Nice review keep us updated. Old thread. I know. However, I've got some debt paid down and I was looking at finally pulling the trigger on some Lyd 48s or possibly even something else more expensive, if I can swing it, like the Core 47, Core 59, or the KH310. Anyway, your comment about a dome mid on the Lyd 48 piqued my interest. Is this correct? I'm no expert on this stuff, but the mid on the Lyd 48 looks like a cone to me. I'm just wondering because the Neumann KH310 has a dome mid, I believe, and that gets rave reviews. I know that I certainly like soft dome tweeters, so the subject of a dome mid interests me, in general.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 22, 2022 2:21:23 GMT -6
Studio will never get fully unlocked. Because protools ultimate or whatever it's called now, can run natively. If you want the best protools has to offer that's the software you get. You don't need hdx hardware to run ultimate. So there is not point in making studio way better. You don't need it but I wouldn't dare not to use it, AFAIK the major benefit is compensation for input and output delay. Also I have a lot of HW and whilst everything is phase aligned on a HDX system I've heard of too many issues with third party interfaces.
I might be a bit tin foil about the situation but after the mess that Pro Tools Native 9 / 10 caused with third party interfaces I'm not sure I'd trust it. Feel free to correct me though because as said I certainly prefer Pro Tools to Logic. I could swallow an Ultimate perpetual easy enough, when the HW gets involved it's a no go..
It sounds like we have similar thinking on this. The only way I'd consider any of this is if I could find and purchase a perpetual license for a not-crazy amount of money. And then I might consider eventually getting a core card IF I could find a used one or whatever in the $1500 price range that Blackdawg mentioned. But $5k for a core card, plus more for the software? No thanks. As for the interfaces, yeah I have similar fears. Now if running through a core card, third party interfaces like the Aurora don't scare me so much. But running a third party interface natively with PT does scare me because of the issues with hardware inserts that you mentioned. That is unless someone can convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 22, 2022 2:11:43 GMT -6
I'm not trying to convince you to switch Bill, it has no bearing on me. Avid has made it extremely difficult to justify getting back into their ecosystem, DAW's like Logic etc. have also made it difficult in terms of music production.
It's a bit like a mixing desk for me, I really enjoy working with them but from the outside looking in I can't come up with a good enough reason to go in that direction. But if I'd fully invested in HDX then there wouldn't be much point in switching. Unfortunately I bought into the native stuff too early and originally it didn't work out too well, nowaday's however there's more than one decent alternative. If Avid made Pro Tools Studio the best it possibly could be with third party interfaces I could be persuaded, until that happens it just seems like additional cost.
Anyway, I wouldn't say that I love Logic but it certainly does the job.
Quint , I was curious also. I got quoted $1900.00.. Studio will never get fully unlocked. Because protools ultimate or whatever it's called now, can run natively. If you want the best protools has to offer that's the software you get. You don't need hdx hardware to run ultimate. So there is not point in making studio way better. But you do need Ultimate, or now Flex that replaces it, if you DO want to use HDX hardware. With the new subscription plan, Flex is $100 a month. I don't love that at all. In the previous format, a renewal would just be several hundred a year, not $1200. Which is why I'm asking what it would cost to buy a perpetual license now, while you still stand a chance of finding one in stock somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 22, 2022 1:58:21 GMT -6
I love hardware and gear as much or maybe more than the average AE, but IMO, HDX is far and away the most important piece of gear I have. To each his own! In my world, PT is far more full featured than Logic. It all depends on how you use em. As mentioned before, no offense to ANYone who uses and loves Logic. But it's not for me, no matter how cheap it might be to run or how expensive HDX might be to run. I'm not trying to convince you to switch Bill, it has no bearing on me. Avid has made it extremely difficult to justify getting back into their ecosystem, DAW's like Logic have also made it difficult in terms of music production.
It's a bit like a mixing desk for me, I really enjoy working with them but from the outside looking in I can't come up with a good enough reason to go in that direction. But if I'd fully invested in HDX then there wouldn't be much point in switching. Unfortunately I bought into the native stuff too early and originally it didn't work out too well, nowaday's however there's more than one decent alternative. If Avid made Pro Tools Studio the best it possibly could be with third party interfaces I could be persuaded, however until that happens it all just seems like additional cost.
Anyway, I wouldn't say that I love Logic but it certainly does the job.
Quint , I was curious also. I got quoted $1900.00.. That seems to be in the ball park of what I've seen, and it's usually bundled with a core card. But I have gotten the impression that one could buy a perpetual license in a standalone fashion, and possibly at a cheaper price, if you know who to talk to, than the ~$2000ish figure I've seen around.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 22, 2022 1:43:04 GMT -6
The costs being thrown around in the last few posts are all for renewals though, correct? What would it cost to buy a new perpetual Ultimate license, provided you could still find one in stock anywhere at this point? Technically, there are no more perpetual Licenses. You can't buy one new per say. But if dealers have any left on the shelf you can. Once you have it. You can just pay the upgrade fee for support/updates every few years as you see fit. Right, I understand that. But that's why I'm asking what it would cost to buy a perpetual Ultimate license, if you could find one. What are some of you paying for one? The prices being recently discussed in this thread seem to be associated with renewals and not with purchasing a license for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 21, 2022 18:19:11 GMT -6
The costs being thrown around in the last few posts are all for renewals though, correct?
What would it cost to buy a new perpetual Ultimate license, provided you could still find one in stock anywhere at this point?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 21, 2022 11:47:27 GMT -6
At this point, you kinda have to thank Mixerman for shitting on 192s so hard when he was the internet’s most famous (anonymous) engineer. They’re a bargain now! Neck and neck with the old Auroras for pennies on the dollar. Yeah I can't complain! I use them for inserts and my HAPI for the main bus and other more "important" things. Works great. Next unit will likely but a full 16x16 Avid I/O analog. My only complaint is they take up a good amount of space. The Lynx and Orion HD are tempting with 32ch in 1u. I do think when I finally if ever get a Sumbus I'd consider an Orion HD to drive that. I've read of issues with the Orion not being sample accurate as inserts but for just the final outputs to a summing mixer it would be fine. Did you find a perpetual Ultimate license somewhere, or did you just go with the new Flex? If you went with the perpetual, what did it cost?
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 20, 2022 20:06:00 GMT -6
Cool but I don't have any Avid HW, investing X into MRTX + a HDX card seems a bit wasteful just to use a DAW. Carbon doesn't have enough I/O.. It's nice and simple with my current DAW setup, I bought Logic for about 200 and that's it.. Nothing more to it (ever). Also dropped the UA platform, don't need it with that amount of HW. I can see the allure of a Pro Tools setup but cost and necessity wasn't in its favour. Yeah, I can't really justify paying $10k for a 16 channel MTRX or HD I/O plus a HDX card and the PT software. Granted, I could probably find this stuff on the used market for less money, but still... Anyway, if I ever decided to move away from my Apollo/Luna setup, I'd either go PT native with 32 channels of Lynx Aurora (n) or just go straight native with Reaper and the aforementioned Auroras.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 20, 2022 7:23:40 GMT -6
Yeah, I'm absolutely sure it's something I don't want. If it's anything like some other plugins I've had, you'll get it and not even know you had it.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 19, 2022 17:53:52 GMT -6
I hear what you're saying, but I also have reason to trust Lynx to keep up with this kind of stuff and provide firmware updates accordingly. I gotcha. That works until AVID doesn't want it to work anymore. It's happened before. I'm betting that it will happen again. . You know....AVID is AVID. I'm ok with that.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 19, 2022 14:04:02 GMT -6
Word just in via Thrill Factor/Another website... Expected availability of M49 RI, around September. Around $8500 Street. Interested deemed reliable, but nor guaranteed. Chris Damn.... I might have to sell some shit.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 19, 2022 14:02:09 GMT -6
If I were going to go all in on HDX, I'd be looking hard at the Lynx Aurora (n) converters. Not that I'm currently considering it, but if I ever did decide to dump UAD/Luna, I would totally be going the Lynx route, and use that with PT Native or HDX. Those new Aurora (n) interfaces check a lot of boxes. The one box they DON'T check is the AVID box. Although they may work perfectly today, and probably tomorrow....they may not in the future, and as is the case with AVID, they (AVID) decide on and off to make changes that render 3rd party hardware obsolete and/or problematic. This has been the case in the past, and is a major reason (along with good interfacing options, and sounding great) that I've stuck with AVID hardware/interfaces. IME - for better or worse - step outside that box, and you're on your own. I hear what you're saying, but I also have reason to trust Lynx to keep up with this kind of stuff and provide firmware updates accordingly.
|
|