Black Lion Sparrow vs. Lynx Aurora

[living sounds]

Here it is:

www.scherer.de/Download/AuroraSparrow.zip

To ensure reproducibility I've 1. used several synthesizers controlled via midi, and 2. recorded signals coming from mic to tape first - so the performance won't change. Signals have been matched in loudness.


The converters are labled 1 and 2, and they are they same throughout all files. In case of the synth recordings there's only one file for each test, but the sequence (1 then 2) is the same.


There is a test with the input of the conveters clipped 6 db to see how they react.


In case of the tape recordings the recording quality is less than stellar, the tape machine was calibrated badly, there's tons of hum etc. (and I've only really grabbed some instruments that were at hand), but the relative difference of the converters is clearly audible. I've done some cutting and levelling, but the treatment of the actual, relevant audio was the same on both files.


I'll do a 10 generation re-recording test as well, but later.

So, which one do you prefer, and for what reasons? I'll reveal which one is which in a few days.

Have fun!

[audiovisceral]

on laptop quick listen i much much prefer 2. more air, detail, smoothness, dynamics, texture, clarity imo. makes me smile. are they volume matched?

both sound good but with a big difference. i'm guessing 2 is sparrow and i wish they'd make an 8 or 16 channel version if so. if not, more reason to get that aurora i've been looking at.

only advantage i hear to 1 is it seems maybe faster, more percussive, focussed

great test and methodology. thanks. this should be informative for a soon-to-be-upgrader.

[living sounds]

"In case of the synth recordings there's only one file for each test, but the sequence (1 then 2) is the same."

But you could cut them in half and label the first one "1" and the second one "2" if you like.

Originally Posted by audiovisceral

junopad mbase microcon are not in pairs (?)

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by living sounds

"In case of the synth recordings there's only one file for each test, but the sequence (1 then 2) is the same."

But you could cut them in half and label the first one "1" and the second one "2" if you like.

yeah i noticed/edited while you were replying i guess.

[living sounds]

"Signals have been matched in loudness."

:-)

Originally Posted by audiovisceral

are they volume matched?

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by living sounds

"Signals have been matched in loudness."

:-)

lmfao. oh god, i really need to work on my reading ...

best a/d a/b comparison method i've seen on here

[desotoslo]

interesting. my 56k won't permit me to try out the clips. let's hear more opinions!

[BorrelNote]

2 is definately the best...more and faster transients...so I guess more true to the original...

Thanks for the trouble to make the test !!! Much appreciated :)

[living sounds]

I thought people would be all over this...

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by living sounds

I thought people would be all over this...

think everyone's tired of the blind a/b's. no offense, but they do get tedious after awhile. i'm starting to prefer tests where people just tell straight out. info not quizzes. *shug*

also the sparrow isn't i don't think in any practical way competing with the aurora. if it was adda, maybe ..

[danielbest]

2 sounds much more better, but... even do, i feel that 2 is louder than 1 thought.

[desotoslo]

The sparrow holds interest for many. Let us hear more comparison :)

[Ray Sr.]

Converter1 sounds better to me. More punch in clipping 1 file.

[living sounds]

What do you want compared? What are your findings regarding the files already posted?

Originally Posted by desotoslo

The sparrow holds interest for many. Let us hear more comparison :)

[desotoslo]

Originally Posted by living sounds

What do you want compared? What are your findings regarding the files already posted?

Why the two files of course

I am unable to download the file right now. I'm on dialup

I'm hoping more people will chime in...

the sparrow may be really quite a nice thing.

david

[spokbeats]

clipping 1 wins - seems to distorts more smooth
junopad 2 wins for me - no big difference 2 is a little wider 1 is more in the middle
mbase 1 wins - the knock of 1 is little bit smoother ? o_O
microcon 1 wins - got the low end acting nicer :)
tape 1 wins - the voice is a tiny bit more present. the second is better on guitars its more clean and transparent


i think one is the sparrow you can hear the transients acting better on hot and percussive signals and i thing that has something to do with the higher input voltagelevel and the 33db of headroom this guy is talking about in the gearwire interview...

what was the interface you are using? and did you clocked the aurora with an external clock?

nice compare!

[living sounds]

spokbeats got it right:

1 is the Sparrow
2 is the Aurora


In comparison, the Sparrow seems to sound more open, closer, nearer to the source, there's more of a perception of movement of air on vocals and the transients sound more natural on the (acoustic) drum. Is it the ability of the Sparrow to move a lot of current? Probably yes. Playing synthesizers live the difference is obvious, it feels more alive. You probably need a good listening environment to notice this.

The Aurora has a little more of a "sound" to it, the signal comes out slightly more strained, compressed, aggressive in comparison, but this may be perceived as punch as well on many sources and work well in the mix. It has nothing to do with the "coloration" cheap converters add.

I've tried clocking the Aurora to the Sparrow as well, and, as theory predicts, this wasn't a good idea.


I'll use the Sparrow prefferably for acoustic sources, especially in sparse arrangements. The Aurora will be used for anything else.

Both converters are miles ahead of the harsh and thin sound of most midrange converters/audio interfaces and good enough to make great sounding recordings.

[desotoslo]

Great. Thanks so much for shedding some light on the elusive sparrow.

How would you characterize its sound?

I had an Apogee Duet for a few days, and I honestly did not like it. It sounded very good, but to me it was shrill in the high end... so much so that I found it fatiguing. Which is unfortunate cuz otherwise it was very nice for the mula.

Would the Sparrow be a neutral converter?

[living sounds]

Neutral in that it captures the source very accurately.

I don't know the Duett, but "shrill" is something I'd never associate with Apogee...

Originally Posted by desotoslo

Great. Thanks so much for shedding some light on the elusive sparrow.

How would you characterize its sound?

I had an Apogee Duet for a few days, and I honestly did not like it. It sounded very good, but to me it was shrill in the high end... so much so that I found it fatiguing. Which is unfortunate cuz otherwise it was very nice for the mula.

Would the Sparrow be a neutral converter?

[theblotted]

i thought 2 was more "analog/console" sounding, for lack of better terms. things stick out more. from a converter/sound fidelity stand point, this sounds "better".

OTOH, 1 is not as open or clear; but GELS MUCH BETTER. much more musical, and sounds more like what i'd expect to hear from a record.

i chose 1.

in a similar A/B test between Apogee & Aurora, my friend and i both agreed Apogee was better. not that Aurora was bad, but it just didn't have the musicality that moves you... which is what this whole things is really about.

[Audiop]

Hi!

1) how did you match the levels?

2) to what tolerance?

Even if the levels are precisely matched it's still an A/B test and we as remote listeners have no original to compare to so it's impossible to value the absolute performance.

A high resolution digital file (as an original) looped thru DA and AD would be interesting. Then we could listen to the original file and at the file that has taken a roundtrip.


/Peter

[living sounds]

I've matched the levels afterwards since there's no way on either device to change input sensitivity. I've used sine sweeps for this, tolerance is 0.1 db. You may not be able to compare it to the source, but the differences are obvious and the same across the board. It's especially obvious on the acoustic stuff. Notice, for instance, how the harmonica sounds far less shrill and more pleasant on the Sparrow. This has always been my experience from working with the devices as well.


A round trip will only reveal something with a very high quality recording. And you'd need a better DA than the Aurora to really evaluate it. All I've noticed with round trip tests with the Aurora using program material is a slight drop in the high end.

Originally Posted by Audiop

Hi!

1) how did you match the levels?

2) to what tolerance?

Even if the levels are precisely matched it's still an A/B test and we as remote listeners have no original to compare to so it's impossible to value the absolute performance.

A high resolution digital file (as an original) looped thru DA and AD would be interesting. Then we could listen to the original file and at the file that has taken a roundtrip.


/Peter

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by living sounds

I've matched the levels afterwards since there's no way on either device to change input sensitivity. I've used sine sweeps for this, tolerance is 0.1 db.

Sweeps? I assumed you used a fixed sine recorded on the tape with the other material?

You may not be able to compare it to the source, but the differences are obvious and the same across the board.

Yes but not obvious to the one that can not hear before and copare with after. ;)

It's especially obvious on the acoustic stuff. Notice, for instance, how the harmonica sounds far less shrill and more pleasant on the Sparrow. This has always been my experience from working with the devices as well.

But if the harmonica does sound shrill? or the mic.. or the tape.. yada yada. I have no idea. I'm not interested in gear that makes some sources sound better.. becasue then some other sources will sound worse. Transparency please! :)

A round trip will only reveal something with a very high quality recording.

So use that if that is the case.

And you'd need a better DA than the Aurora to really evaluate it. All I've noticed with round trip tests with the Aurora using program material is a slight drop in the high end.

I have made roundtrips with some CD material and could not detect any difference listening with Sennhesier HD600. Some extremly well recorded Vivaldi, some Eva Cassidy and some Pink Floyd DSOTM.

I also used SACD listening live to the stereo (hi rez stuff, class A amps with low distortion drivers in well treated room) and put the Aurora in the chain. No difference here either. The material here was live direct to DSD/SACD and analog master to DSD/SACD. IOW recordings with HF content that would be gone in a red book CD.

Now, I can not say for sure that the Aurora is transparent in all set ups, with all material to all ears but so far I have not seen anything scientificall that indicates that the converter audibly collors the signal passing thru it.

After the summer I will arrange a strict blind test of several converters in a top notch studio with several seasoned testers/listeners. I will report back then.




/Peter

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by living sounds

In comparison, the Sparrow seems to sound more open, closer, nearer to the source, there's more of a perception of movement of air on vocals and the transients sound more natural on the (acoustic) drum. Is it the ability of the Sparrow to move a lot of current? Probably yes. Playing synthesizers live the difference is obvious, it feels more alive. You probably need a good listening environment to notice this.

I've meaured Aurora with as low as 100ohm load and I needed to go that low in order to rasie the distortion significantly (-110dB instead of -120dB). In typical loads of 10k I can't see that the Aurora should have problem deliver current.

With a 1k load there was almost no difference to 10k.

For this test I hade the level at -12dBFS.



/Peter

[living sounds]

I played the sine sweeps back from the DA, not from the tape machine.


The Sparrow sounds better across the board IMO. At least on everything I've used it so far. Like someone said, the Aurora sounds somewhat more like a console, which would make sense due to the different opamps used in the two devices.

Eva Cassedy recordings are anything but high end. "Dark Side Of The Moon" isn't something I'd use for this test either. The SACD of Beck's "Sea Change" would be a good choice.

Originally Posted by Audiop

Sweeps? I assumed you used a fixed sine recorded on the tape with the other material?




Yes but not obvious to the one that can not hear before and copare with after. ;)




But if the harmonica does sound shrill? or the mic.. or the tape.. yada yada. I have no idea. I'm not interested in gear that makes some sources sound better.. becasue then some other sources will sound worse. Transparency please! :)




So use that if that is the case.





I have made roundtrips with some CD material and could not detect any difference listening with Sennhesier HD600. Some extremly well recorded Vivaldi, some Eva Cassidy and some Pink Floyd DSOTM.

I also used SACD listening live to the stereo (hi rez stuff, class A amps with low distortion drivers in well treated room) and put the Aurora in the chain. No difference here either. The material here was live direct to DSD/SACD and analog master to DSD/SACD. IOW recordings with HF content that would be gone in a red book CD.

Now, I can not say for sure that the Aurora is transparent in all set ups, with all material to all ears but so far I have not seen anything scientificall that indicates that the converter audibly collors the signal passing thru it.

After the summer I will arrange a strict blind test of several converters in a top notch studio with several seasoned testers/listeners. I will report back then.




/Peter

[living sounds]

Hey, like I said, the Aurora sounds fine. It's just not the end of the line. And my advice would also be not to measure but use your ears and see how the differences pan out in a mix context with processing applied. That's where it really gets interesting.

Originally Posted by Audiop

I've meaured Aurora with as low as 100ohm load and I needed to go that low in order to rasie the distortion significantly (-110dB instead of -120dB). In typical loads of 10k I can't see that the Aurora should have problem deliver current.

With a 1k load there was almost no difference to 10k.

For this test I hade the level at -12dBFS.



/Peter

[Audiop]

I played the sine sweeps back from the DA, not from the tape machine.

How did you do that? Sorry for chasing you like this I'll give you a rest soon! ;-)

How did you generate the sweep?

Why did you use a sweep instead of a fixed sine?

What did you use to measure the level (software meter, mixer meter, a fluke DVM..)?

If you generated some test tone and calibrated the DA you still don't know the difference in level between the AD's during recording.

The question I ask these questions is becasue I know how easy it is to do mistakes and to come to wrong conclusions because of that.


About the records..

I also used a vivaldi recording that is absolutely spectacular (well recorded cembalo is a good instrument to use as test material). I used some of Ray Kimbers ISo Mike recordings, live direct to DSD.

Terry Evans direct to DSD and an other album analog master tape to DSD.

So I made sure to use material with wide range of dynamics, frequencies and type.


/Peter

[living sounds]

I generated the sweep in Audition I think. Then imported it into Reaper where I made all the tests as well as the calibration. I used sweeps to make sure there are no frequency related differences, but a 1k sinewave would have worked fine as well.
I also made sure afterwards that the recordings are matched in level via rms and peak tests in Audition.



BTW, have you read the AES paper about DSD?

[Audiop]

I don't know what paper you are thinking on?

I'm not a member, do you have the paper or a link?


/Peter