|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 19, 2018 11:34:43 GMT -6
Are algorithms improved across the board from RX6 Adv. (denoise, declip, click, etc..) or is the update mainly just the new intelligent modules? The algo's across the board are most definitely better! All the modules sound better, much better to me! Jerome
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 19, 2018 11:31:55 GMT -6
Well, Carnhill is supposed to be winding bobbins to be exactly like Neve, and that's what makes Neve so special is DC flowing and gapping of the core. One cool thing I might do and probably will do is get the Hairball transformers and also get a pair of Carnhills that are contrast of the Hairballs and put them on a switch..... Just being able to get a different flavor if I want it.
I was looking at most La3a schematics and the input transformers are just there to keep the impedance in check and to mate the comp with whatever you throw at it. I know that Lundahl makes a 1:4 line level tranny, I bet it would give the comp a little more definition..... This intrigues me because I'd never thought about messing with this when you first mentioned these, I just know I loved how La3a's sound on electric and acoustic guitars..... But, it'd be cool to build a little circuit off to the side that takes the wet comp before the output trannies, runs that through the Sowters (to me Sowters make anything sound BIG) with some level, saturating the hell out of them, maybe build in an air component on that side board as well and finally just take all that and put it on a mix knob to lay over the original La3a sound.
Maybe not air, but having a sub circuit that treats guitars well, maybe helps to smooth them out and boost's the freq's associated generally with where guitars are happy to mix in over the pre tranny output..... I know when I'm mixing the one thing I'm always having to do, and it's on every single mix I get, is I have to put JST's Clip on the electrics. I hate using EQ and would rather just use filters, so I use Clip to give me that power and saturating top end to help my electrics cut and sit without having to crank eq knobs. So I think what I'll do is build myself a little sub circuit on this that does all that for me and I can mix it over the La3a's pre tranny output. Should be fun!
And sorry if that post sounds like I'm rambling because I'm in a hurry and I'm just typing what's coming out of my head. Let me know where to send the money and thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 18, 2018 23:07:11 GMT -6
Just let me know Chris when you're ready to ship these out. I hadn't been following the thread and haven't heard from you threatening to break my legs so I figured you were not ready to ship them out yet, but, I really want mine I've been itching to run my electrics through LA3A's for a long time now. Also, and it's probably been mentioned, but will you either give a schematic or info on the transformers setup? I'm going to go with Carnhill's, maybe even Sowters.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 18, 2018 23:02:24 GMT -6
I love RX6 and have a Standard license of it plus a bunch of other Izotope plugs. Is it really another $199 for an upgrade to RX7 Standard? Was hoping for something a little closer to $100...or maybe I’m mis-reading. Well I'm not sure? I only have the Advanced versions of Izotope, but if the rendering algorithms and those new modules are in there, then hell yes it's worth whatever they're asking. No joke, RX7's sonic improvement over previous versions really is THAT good! Let me know if you can't figure it out, I'll fire off an email to my contact at Izotope with your question. And that goes for all you guys, if you need to know something from Izotope that you can't find out there anywhere, just hit me up and I'll find out whatever your question is! Jerome
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 18, 2018 22:50:19 GMT -6
Let me just start this with saying #1 Yes, I am endorsed by Izotope, but before these fine folks put their faith behind me, I was putting my faith and extremely hard earned dollars behind them! Next, when it comes to ground breaking innovation and just flat out quality, this new version of Izotope's RX is about as groundbreaking and a (how the F$*# did they do that!?!?!?) as I've seen!
First, let me start out with the new module that completely blew my mind. It's called Music Separation and by golly that's what it freaking does, and how it does it I have no earthly clue. You load a mix up, load this module up, and say after a few listens maybe you want to pull the vocals up a db or down a db..... Or you want to pull the bass up (without increasing the kick/kick sub I might add!) maybe you want the drums to be more punchy and louder, you can actually pull up the percussion I mean it's honestly like having stems! It will blow your mind. Also, you can obviously render sections with this module as well, so I'll let your minds wander and think of all the amazing possibilities with that!
This new version of RX is not only packed with new features, but it's processing has gotten much much better. I know you're probably saying (if you're an RX user currently) "better?!? it was freaking amazing to begin with Jerome!" well I'm telling you, the processing is leaps better and more realistic/pure than previous versions.
I'll let you guys go do the trial so you can experiment with RX7's awesome power on both individual instruments and full blown mixes, but I'll throw one little gem I discovered that would make me want to buy RX7 for it only. That's the De-Clip module. Let's say you've got a mix done and it's perfect, you've done your own mastering (Hopefully with Izotope's Ozone 8 Advanced btw! It's freaking amazing) and you want to go just one more step further, one more step that makes your final mix/master have all the dynamics, loudness and tone you've worked really hard to get, well, if you will just run that mix/master through the De-Clip module, use it's "suggest" function and process your whole mix through it, what you're going to instantly hear is your mix/master just be churned into butter baby. If you mix punchy and bright, you'll actually hear your mix/master retain all that but you'll newly discover this beautiful smoothness "butter" up your mix. It's just a last pit stop to make your mix that much better. It even makes the mix feel more glued, and it's an amazing sounding glue. Not a compressor or limiter glue, it's unique and it'll put a smile on your face.
So go get the trial guys! You can burn up your credit cards on hardware/gear all you want, but this software is worth every single penny and will do more for your mixes/masters/instrument integrity/fixes/creations 1000x more than any 1 piece of hardware dollar for dollar.
Also, anyone just wanting to see what it will do with your mix/master or instrument/voice- just message me and send me whatever you got and what you'd like to see RX7 do and I will be glad to do that for you! No problem!
Jerome
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 14, 2018 14:43:23 GMT -6
I've been wondering about the Heritage RAM 2000, but there aren't many of them in the wild yet. Also curious about the SPL 2381. I like its cue mix blend features, but the form factor seems a little yucky to me. The Dangerous Monitor ST still seems to get a lot of attention. And I know jeromemason really digs his Antelope Satori. I've been relying on my Metric Halo internal monitor controller for years now, and nothing is going to beat that in my system in terms of sonic quality when using its native D/A. But I would really like to add better analog cue monitoring to my way of working. I'm tired of monitoring my cue mix through the MH digital onboard mixer. The Satori is more than a monitor controller..... It's a hybrid mixing DREAM. The features that box has, the sound of it and every single thing it does clearly were implemented from suggestions from guys like me, wanting the sound and features at arms length that consoles like an SSL6000E has. When I worked on that console you didn't have to move from the center section after you got your mix set up. Meaning, you went through each channel and worked the eq, compression, gates and sends, once you had that, you would have your submix VCA's, buss comp, monitor selects, aux listen's, submix listens etc. and it allowed you to work quick. The Satori is set up to work really similar. You're just doing all your mix set up ITB, sending those submixes to it's summing mixer (which you can listen to each stereo submix) and then out to your buss eq and finally your buss comp. It also has M/S and mono listen which I use the M/S a ton when I'm balancing the mix, it lets me instantly hear if I've got any phase problems and also let's me get an overall picture of how bright/warm, punchy the sides are, and flipping into mono lets me know if the mix is going to collapse, which then I flip back over to M/S and work out why it's doing that. Also having ability to make cue sends, summing mixer output level (lets you drive your buss eq's or not), assignable talkback.... tons of features and a GUI integrated as well. It's truly a great box and the sound of it is just pristine.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 8, 2018 0:20:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 7, 2018 11:47:15 GMT -6
Sorry I can’t be of any help, but how you liking the 828es? Any different than the 16a you had? I had them at different time, so couldn’t really tell. I’m really happy with mine, though. I might check them out later down the road when they start popping up second hand. Exactly..... In 6 months you'll be able to pick up the X16 for the price of the entry level. I've always waited, even when I got my 16a, I waited until I could get an open box deal and back then I only paid $1,100 for it. Same thing with the Apollo's.... They'll lose quite a bit of their value when guys that put them on credit cards need to pay those balances off, they'll sell them for the balance owed just to wipe away the red and get in the black.... Happens everytime.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Sept 2, 2018 23:22:54 GMT -6
I still use the SSL channel strips and 1073/1081 T-Racks plugs on every mix. Honestly the the SSL channel is my go to plugin to throw on a track when I'm roughing in a mix.... The filters work great, the compressor automatically gives whatever you're sticking it on a little punch, even if it's not compressing any, at least lighting up the meter, just seems to be a really good plugin to get started with and most of the time it stays until I PRINT. I've used the Waves version and UAD and there's something I just like about the T-Racks version. The Neve stuff, if you hit the mic input and give it some drive it can make acoustics sound pretty damn big.
Very underrated plugins.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 29, 2018 18:26:06 GMT -6
I can tell you for certain, since you run a hybrid rig, you need a HW SSL type buss comp. The Audio Scape is the one. Then send it to me and let me mod it like mine and you'll never look back.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 28, 2018 2:19:50 GMT -6
Space layering will get you to where you want to be.
Honestly the answer is so simple people usually think there is some massive trick that is involved but it's really just a matter of using the real world and applying it to your goal via space/reverb plugins.
If you want something to be behind the scenes first of all (and you mentioned it) you need a sense of where the listener is standing/seated. Like in the movie "The Aviator" he wonders why the planes look like they're hardly moving and realizes it's because there is nothing behind them to give sense of motion, or in this case distance. You're going to use that analogy in reverse. The vocal, acoustics, electrics, piano basically anything that can seem to be close to a listener, you want to bring a dry representation of them to the listener. Balance and eq these so they blend together, but at least one needs to be a focal point for the up close reference. Also like mentioned above, volume. You don't want these dry components being to forceful or "loud" so make sure that compression is used enough to hold them still. Maybe let the vocal move more dynamically and keep these dry instruments synched down. Be careful with the bass, for what you're trying to do I'd pull out like the Pro-Q, HPF at around 40hz (24db slope) then place a node right about 300hz with a medium Q and pull maybe 3db-4db out. Now that you have the stage set, it's time to get the lush background of the "pipes" or whatever it is you're wanting to do this to.
Try to imagine first, the room in which the listener is seated in. Something like a medium room, not too much decay, but just some space or ambience, put this directly on the stereo track, not a send this is our "listening space". Now, create an aux track. Next imagine the area from the listening room to the point in which the "pipes" start. Imagine yourself at the bottom of that mountain, imagine all the surrounding structures, trees... anything like that and imagine what type of decay or reflection you'd from that point. Start with just a general Hall and start to manipulate the decay, pre delay and feedback until you feel like you're standing at the bottom of that mountain. Once you have that, make another aux track and direct the output of the "bottom of the mountain" aux track directly into it. Now, imagine what it could sound like if someone where yelling short bursts of words at you from up there (if you get a chance, check out Hofa's IQ Verb, it allows generic samples to be played into the verb you're creating.) Now I would go with something maybe like a Chamber or a Hall and roll the top end back to like 4k-6k. Start working the decay time, size and pre-delay (very important here, almost use it as a delay.)
Now this may sound like it would be this massive wash and you're never hear any discernible audio, but if you take your time, really imagine yourself in each of those locations and properly adjust the parameters of the Verbs, eq and compression, what you should get is a very distant sounding "pipes" behind all of that drier, brighter and compressed up close instruments. Also try panning the drier stuff hard left/right/center and the "pipes" pan the left and right of the final aux track as if you stretched your arms out at the speakers and created a triangle from your seat to each of the speakers. Probably in the neighborhood of <65 65>
I hope this helps and at least gets you thinking and closer to what is in your head.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 25, 2018 15:55:37 GMT -6
Cubase had a Country kit for the drummer thing they put out and I remember it having some really killer sounds. I guess you'd have to trigger on a recording track and then use the Slate sample maker to create a sample.... You could just use the .wav, but, if you do like a 6-10 velocity of each drum and use the Slate sample maker thing it'll create those velocity layers and it will sound way more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 24, 2018 22:57:08 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure it's all in the routing matrix. If I'm not mistaken you need to assign what all you want going to "Main Out 1-2"
Like I said, I don't have this box but from the little research I did on their website, it looks like they're assigning a batch of outputs to the Main's. It could be that you have to open the mixer up and create the mix of all the analog outs there and then assign the mixer's mix, to the Main Outs. Bottom line is it's all in that matrix, keep doing trial and error until you figure it out or do a heavy read of the manual. I know Motu documents situations like these and gives examples in their manual, also you might try a YouTube search of "Motu 828es Monitor Out Routing" I bet someone goes into depth on how they did it.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 24, 2018 20:45:49 GMT -6
c0rtland - you've got to find your own path and what works for you. There is no "right" or "wrong" way. I disagree with many of the posts on this thread - BUT - I mix pretty differently than a lot of successful guys out there. One thing is for certain - even after almost 30 years and well over 10,000 tracks, I'm still learning every time I sit down to mix. A wise engineer once said "you never finish a mix, you just give up on it"....and I think that's true. You'll continue learning. Tips and tricks from others can help, and may point you in a direction that works for you, but there is no substitute for "putting in the 10,000 hours" it takes to master a craft. Keep mixing. That's the only solution. No shortcuts. So true.... Take little nuggets here and there and if they work verbatim, awesome, but what lead me to being a good mixing engineer was by finally taking the nuggets I'd learned from some major mixing guys and use them if I liked it verbatim, but if I wasn't successful with their technique I would use it and modify it to my own workflow.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 20, 2018 22:04:46 GMT -6
Boy the Avid gets it's ass handed to it royally.
To me I feel like I want that detail. I don't want my converter to do any rounding or analog unless I'm totally aware of it and unless I've chose the converter for that reason. When you get into these converters people buying them are buying them thinking "get audio in and out of the computer" not a "sound" For me I want the purest and more detailed representation of what is coming off the mic's and preamps. To me I think this is a lot like people going from tape to digital were back in the days, once everyone got caught up to the transparency of digital you started seeing a lot more emphasis being put on preamps that gave color.
Converters, especially since the ESS chips hit the market are revealing another layer of detail, and honestly I think Apogee does a little fineness to soften it a little. IMO more and more studios will upgrade to newer converters and when they're cutting the records perhaps the hi end on eq's won't get cranked as much, or the upper mids won't get pulled out so much. Maybe we will get to a point where the converter is more and more of a straight wire of communication for the audio, IMO that will allow engineers to impart more mojo and not so much EQ, perhaps for filtering than EQ as well. Maybe more emphasis on the quality of preamps and other signal processing. To me I like the idea, it makes me feel like we can get to another level of high definition, just so long as people are aware of it. A learning curve yes, but I think the benefits on the other side of the lesson will bear some good fruit.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 20, 2018 20:53:33 GMT -6
Thank you for this. I sold my RME UFX a few months ago while I could still get more than I paid for it. I've been considering either the MOTU 828es or the RME UFX II or +. The MOTU has more features while the RME costs twice as much. I've used RME for a long time and their drivers have never let me down, so you've really helped my decision. That’s one thing you have to give RME credit for truly rock solid drivers. They may not be the fashion of the moment, but they don’t suck and their rock solid. That ADI-2 Pro and ADI-2 DAC are pretty damn sexy I think retailers sell out of the DAC anytime they get a batch too, Hi-Fi and Pro guys are all over that box. I would throw in here, I'd isolate the driver thing to Windows, because on a Mac, the Motu boxes are solid. The issue I believe with the Windows drivers are that Motu is using a generic audio driver and with more and more pro guys going to Windows they surely need to take it seriously and get a driver system in place that is as solid as their Mac approach.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 20, 2018 11:36:19 GMT -6
A very Interesting thread, so what's the conclusion? I have read good things about JCF Audio, of course an other price range, but which chips are inside those convertors? Yeah, JCF is head and shoulders above even Apogee, $$$ wise, boutique converters. The only person I know that's had any experience with them is noah shain but I think he may of sold his. I would imagine the D/A A/D chips are extremely similar. It's mostly going to be the setup on the front and back end of the conversion that makes those converters expensive. I think the company that is the biggest bang for your buck would be Dangerous Music's converters. Something like the A/D + that has the ability to switch in transformers and hide the overs..... that's definitely things that are worth paying for, and they do sound great. When you get into your main conversion though, the 2 buss aside, I think you want to look for what is the purest form of getting things in and out of the computer and what is the most inexpensive way to do that. The reason is because like Johnkenn said, he not sure he'd do anything different, and my guess is he wouldn't had, if anything he may of left somethings on the table because of the softer top of the Apogee..... If you're not hearing what's up there you can't work on it. Motu gives and takes probably the purest I've heard. It doesn't do anything or take anything away, and for me I don't know what else I'd want. If I heard more information in the top end from the Motu than I did from the Apogee I would want that, I can manipulate that top end however I want and I also can hear if there are any issues with it, a lot of the mediums used for playback these days, if you put a mix out with a phasey top end it absolutely drives those compression codecs nuts, makes them do all sorts of crazy to your mix.
|
|
|
TS500
Aug 16, 2018 13:32:26 GMT -6
Post by jeromemason on Aug 16, 2018 13:32:26 GMT -6
Wow, that's a killer deal if they sound good.
How was the build?
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 23:48:41 GMT -6
By all accounts, I should consider the Motu stuff cheap sounding, because it’s significantly less expensive than UAD or Symphony. But my ears tell me it doesn’t sound cheap. I think we are witnessing a paradigm shift in the quality/cost equation for pro audio. All technologies, regardless of type, are expensive at first, but then become more affordable with maturity and optimization. It's a beautiful thing. Finally we are getting to the point that processing is fast, you absolutely don't need a PT HD system with 3 accel cards plus a UAD system. You can easily put down $1,800 for an iMac that is more than adequate and a UAD Octo and be just fine. Then we get into boxes like these Motu's, the best way to describe them is they seem to record, send and playback audio at a resolution that seems totally pure, no hype, just pure. They have a great soundstage and what's even more great that Motu has done, they've made boxes like the 828es, 16a and Monitor 8 to give a project studio a total solution for under $4k, and, it's all tied into one driver, one "box" the computer see's. You actually don't even need the AVB switch to run that set up I listed, one cat 5 cable, SMUX into the monitor 8 and a TB cable from the 828es. You've got a monitor controller, two preamps for quick overdubs, 8 line outs to your simple summing mixer, Midi, SMPTE (828es.) Then you've got 16 analog I/O for your outboard, of which is sending and receiving through some top shelf DAC and ADC chips (16a.) And out of the the 828es you go Smux into the monitor 8 which your Hearback/Aviom replacement and directly interfaces into the MOTU AVB system. That's just a basic setup that would allow someone needing to scale back and maybe pay some bills off with the expensive gear they're floating, a way to keep quality at a premium but also compete in today's market. You could do an AVB hub and make it even more streamline as well. So, I'm with you man, it's exciting to see this quality and functionality coming at prices that allow us to pay cash, no credit cards and keep working while that setup pays for itself in a couple of months. Or for some, it leaves a pile of cash on the table to put into outboard, now with companies like Stam, and DIY, you're able to get on the playing field with cash there as well. I think finally the market has found a way to come down to the shrinkage in budgets we face without sacrificing quality.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 17:40:53 GMT -6
Well, the 1632 is a bit different than the 1612 and 1642 though.... It is what Apogee uses going into the AKM ADC on their boards. Motu uses DIP opamps for differential, the 1632 is a differential so there could be some differences there. Same family, but I can hear a pretty significant difference in the OPA1612 and OPA1642.
I definitely like the NE553x chips more than the JRC455x chips. In a tube screamer I get it, and back when it was the amp of the day, I get it, but they've come lightyears from when that chip was king. The only chip I hate have to deal with is the NE5534's..... I'm not sure if the compensation cap does anything, but I know it won't work unless you've got it. Those chips came before I got into this, but was the NE5534 supposed to be an upgrade to the NE5532?
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 17:04:34 GMT -6
Ok.... But ESS didn't offer that in the ES9016/ES9018 and now in the new version they do, so that's what I am referring to. Have you sat down and listened to boxes with these different chipsets? I am speaking in the manner I'm speaking in because I've sat and listened and own the different ones, so I can tell you there are differences. Maybe you have sat and listened I have no idea. I do know that with the newer technology to build these chips the accuracy and abilities are allowing them to decrease distortion and anomalies etc. It's the same reason an OPA1612 sounds better than a JRC4558 on a pair of monitor outputs. Same basic setup, just newer technology in creating them.
How could you possibly tell chipset performance differences without proper (usually very expensive) analysis equipment (or at least FFT's / CORR's)?
Sorry John, I'll stop taking up your thread real estate.. My ears? Also most surrounding circuitry that designers go by is what is suggested in the data sheet, at least when I look at schematics and glance at the data sheet the set up is nearly the same. I won't argue that having better quality opamps and coupling caps make differences, but there again is my point that those are usually newer technology. OPA2134's replaced JRC4558's and NE5532's for the longest time, now it's the OPA16XX series, and they absolutely sound better. I'm just trying to understand what the huff and puff here is?
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 14:13:41 GMT -6
The newer technology chipsets are exponentially getting better with today's technology. In the same footprint of the legacy versions they're able to include things like distortion compensation and digital filters, along with more precision in making the chips which definitely makes them sound better. There were 16-bit sigma delta's well before the turn of the millenium using distortion compensation and digital filters, in fact that's the way Sigma delta works..
If you have 1-bit Sigma for example you'd have to oversample 415 to reach 16-bit and that ain't practicle. So they introduced such things as a noise shaping block containing a difference amp, comparator and Integrator (hence what I said before) and you'd have a digital filter that spreads the quantization noise outside audible frequency bands (as I said before)..
I can of course explain the entire thing if there's interest, but there's plenty of information on basic ADC design out there.
AD/DA's aren't like analogue ciruitry, there is no inherent preferences.. They either get it right or they don't, it's like saying my Samsung SSD sounds better than my Kingston SSD. There was a time where jitter correction technologies could be attributed to some sound differentials, but when the likes of JetPLL got in the mix and especially with technology today even that's at best questionable.
Ok.... But ESS didn't offer that in the ES9016/ES9018 and now in the new version they do, so that's what I am referring to. Have you sat down and listened to boxes with these different chipsets? I am speaking in the manner I'm speaking in because I've sat and listened and own the different ones, so I can tell you there are differences. Maybe you have sat and listened I have no idea. I do know that with the newer technology to build these chips the accuracy and abilities are allowing them to decrease distortion and anomalies etc. It's the same reason an OPA1612 sounds better than a JRC4558 on a pair of monitor outputs. Same basic setup, just newer technology in creating them.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 13:33:18 GMT -6
I recently sold my RME UFX while I could still sell it for more than I bought it for, so I'm looking for a new interface. In the interim, I have an RME ADI-2 Pro and a SvartBox, so I'm not suffering for conversion. The 828es has absolutely every feature I'm looking for, but I'm worried about the Win 10 drivers. Both here and on GS I keep reading about problems that may be related to drivers. The alternative I'm considering is the UFX II but it's more than twice the cost of the 828es. I've used RME for many years and I appreciate stability and love the flexibility of TotalMixFX, this is making the decision really hard for me. I recently setup a semi complex system for producer in town. He uses Win 10 and we set up two 16a's, AVB'd into each other and one TB cable to the comp. At first I will admit it was not easy getting it up and going, but it didn't seem to have to do with the drivers as more it was to do with understanding how to route in the AVB section. Mac does it different, it seems like you plug these to a Mac and they just go, but Win, because of all the updates it can cause problems. One way we fixed that for him was to just turn off auto updates for his Win machine and then he just checks once a week I believe to see if Motu's drivers are in line with Windows updates. If not you wait until they are. I think eventually all interfaces are going to face this issue because of how more and more companies are going to the virtual patchbay and setup. Since we got him up and running I believe he's only had one issue that caused him downtime and to fix it, it was simply uninstalling Motu's drivers and reinstalling them. All the routing is saved on board but I would back it up to an external flash anytime you change just in case. Honestly if you have to completely remove Motu from you rig and reinstall the saved routing scheme puts it right back and you're up and going. I run Mac, so that's all I know right now, but it seems like from what I'm reading it's all the same thing, it has to do with updates. Also I think Motu uses basically a generic driver with Windows, but still, he is running all his I/O and from what I understand his is rock solid.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 12:10:23 GMT -6
What's the obsession with audio chipsets (I noticed this on GS as well)? What exactly do people believe they will hear between X and Y? (genuinely curious), quantization errors are placed in a summed voltage integrator and filtered into non-audible spectrums / decimated, SNR's / noisefloors are inaudible below roughly 96(ish) dB.! Jitter rejection, sure I could get that but nowadays not much of an issue. If you had 130dB of dynamic range popping straight at you, well lets say it wouldn't be pleasent. It's really cool that something like an ES9016 only uses a 100mw's worth of power but I'm not sure that many care about it. The newer technology chipsets are exponentially getting better with today's technology. In the same footprint of the legacy versions they're able to include things like distortion compensation and digital filters, along with more precision in making the chips which definitely makes them sound better.
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Aug 15, 2018 12:07:45 GMT -6
Got a reply from Motu: “The 828es employs the ESS Sabre32 Ultra™ DAC.” Clear as mud. Actually, reading the descriptions on the ESS it’s, it looks like the Ultra is the 9016...whomp whomp. It's the ES9016..... They have a D/A schematic they use for all the ESS boxes, they use that same schematic for the DAC section and just incorporate it into the main board, so it wouldn't make sense for them to redraw for the 9038 without announcing a new line of other boxes..... It'd be kinda dumb for them to do that. But, here's the main point, the ES9016 is still a 32bit hyperstream chip. The sound of it is really incredible and for all the features that box has, and to have the ES Sabre Dac's along with the CL ADC's...... It's just a no brainer. The biggest no brainer though is this; if that box will do everything you need, it incorporates all the features you need and them some, you enjoy the sound of the DAC, and is it going to allow you to work and provide your client the quality fitting the bill then again it's a no brainer. I believe these boxes present to your ears what is going to be presented to your listeners ears. If there is ear fatigue because you can hear more of the spectrum that means you can hear what would give your listeners ear fatigue...... If the Apogee is softer in the top, yes, that's pleasing, but, that also means you're not going to work on problematic areas of the mix (this does depend if you bounce ITB or use a standalone ADC.) Bottom line, I'd go get that box, sell that Apogee, put money in your pocket from the sale and keep on working.
|
|