Lynx Aurora 16 vs Behringer ADA8000

[revstate]

i don't know if this has been said before in this thread, because it is way too boring to read through all of it.

but... um... how do we know that A and B were even the gear they were claimed to be?

that's very unscientific in my opinion. A and B could both be the same piece of gear, or two completely different pieces of gear, and we have no way of knowing. even if the person doing the test had video footage, that could be faked. even if we were in the room with him while it was being done, that could be faked.

every time one of these A-B tests come up on this forum i always think the same thing...

everyone lies ^_^

[Scott Cairns]

Ive bought the ADA8000 based on this thread and other reviews/comments I could find. Im very happy with it.

I should say though, im only using it as a DAC. I have an Apogee A/D for the front-end, but the ADA8000 does a great job of giving out DAC for my monitors and other audio stems.

For some perspective, here's my chain;

API 512c
Purple Action compressor
Apogee (ADC)
DAW
ADA8000 (DAC)
Adam P11A monitors
treated room

[Barfunkel]

I didn't listen to the clips or anything nor do I have anything to say about the converters used in the test since I've never used either one.

But...

These kind of isolated tests prove nothing really. We are talking about professional tools here. If you've ever used any kind of a tool you'll probably know that it takes a lot of time to learn which tool to use and when and why certain tools are better than others. If you are a carpenter and you are given 2 hammers to test they'll probably feel pretty equal after hammering a few nails, unless they have truly enormous design flaws. You'll only know which one is better after using them for a long time. Maybe one of them only lasts for 20 hours, maybe one of them give's you blisters after prolonged use, maybe one of them doesn't break the nails as often. Maybe both of them are good, one is good with small nails, one with big. The point is, there is no way to tell after using them a few times.

It's the same thing with audio tools. Unless there are huge differences there's no way to tell which one really is better by hearing a few clips. They are converters for god's sake, you are not comparing grand pianos to 100$ Casios, you are comparing tools that have very few differences, differences that you might not even notice at first, only after doing hundreds of recordings you notice that hey, acoustic guitars really do sound better with this converter or something.

Maybe Behringer really is better, I don't know. But comparisons like these are meaningless, it might just as welll be that for this particular recording Behringer actually is a better choice because it's artifacts support the music better than the Aurora's. It's like comparing synthesizers by choosing one similar sounding preset from each and deciding which is a better synth with that. It doesn't make any sense, it doesn't prove anything. It's just an isolated incident, which has very little to do with how the tool is actually used in your work.

[RonT]

I have a ADA8000 setting in the ract that will not come on anymore. I changed the fuse in it but before it went out worked fine. The converters in my 1884 sounded better but I LOVE the color the Rosetta Adds to the Conversions both ways

Anyone knows what could be wrong with the 8000?

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by RonT

I have a ADA8000 setting in the ract that will not come on anymore. I changed the fuse in it but before it went out worked fine. The converters in my 1884 sounded better but I LOVE the color the Rosetta Adds to the Conversions both ways

Anyone knows what could be wrong with the 8000?

Usually it's the power supply/power transformer. Do a search here:

DIY - Index

[CrankyRayHanky]

These kind of isolated tests prove nothing really. We are talking about professional tools here....It's the same thing with audio tools. Unless there are huge differences there's no way to tell which one really is better by hearing a few clips. They are converters for god's sake, you are not comparing grand pianos to 100$ Casios, you are comparing tools that have very few differences, differences that you might not even notice at first, only after doing hundreds of recordings you notice that hey, acoustic guitars really do sound better with this converter or something.

Maybe Behringer really is better, I don't know. But comparisons like these are meaningless,

??? Defintitely meaningful if I can get a $179 converter to provide even close to- or better?!- results than a $2k piece

I'm getting one and spending my big cash on preamps

For over $2k whatever piece of gear I get better blow my head off, not just give me this imaginary 'I think it has better clarity' illusion
I can hear the differences in cheap, mid level and hi end preamps- I wonder about the possible slight upgrade in converters vs the price you pay if it is worth it

[ricfoxx]

Behringer ad8000 here with my 192 and the ad8000 holds its own. Check my myspace and the song pump ya brakes was done using the ad8000 and a digi 002 using a mackie 8 bus for pres. Honestly I wish I hadn't dump the cash for pthd1 because it is not as powerful as a le rig with pt8 and a quadcore but that's another story!

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by Barfunkel

I didn't listen to the clips or anything nor do I have anything to say about the converters used in the test since I've never used either one.

But...

These kind of isolated tests prove nothing really. We are talking about professional tools here. If you've ever used any kind of a tool you'll probably know that it takes a lot of time to learn which tool to use and when and why certain tools are better than others. If you are a carpenter and you are given 2 hammers to test they'll probably feel pretty equal after hammering a few nails, unless they have truly enormous design flaws. You'll only know which one is better after using them for a long time. Maybe one of them only lasts for 20 hours, maybe one of them give's you blisters after prolonged use, maybe one of them doesn't break the nails as often. Maybe both of them are good, one is good with small nails, one with big. The point is, there is no way to tell after using them a few times.

It's the same thing with audio tools. Unless there are huge differences there's no way to tell which one really is better by hearing a few clips. They are converters for god's sake, you are not comparing grand pianos to 100$ Casios, you are comparing tools that have very few differences, differences that you might not even notice at first, only after doing hundreds of recordings you notice that hey, acoustic guitars really do sound better with this converter or something.

Maybe Behringer really is better, I don't know. But comparisons like these are meaningless, it might just as welll be that for this particular recording Behringer actually is a better choice because it's artifacts support the music better than the Aurora's. It's like comparing synthesizers by choosing one similar sounding preset from each and deciding which is a better synth with that. It doesn't make any sense, it doesn't prove anything. It's just an isolated incident, which has very little to do with how the tool is actually used in your work.

Actually it's interesting how many variables come down to table when audio recording is the subject . As matter of fact , I'm always amazed for this long pallete of opinions and statements that different people may have .

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by ricfoxx

Behringer ad8000 here with my 192 and the ad8000 holds its own. Check my myspace and the song pump ya brakes was done using the ad8000 and a digi 002 using a mackie 8 bus for pres. Honestly I wish I hadn't dump the cash for pthd1 because it is not as powerful as a le rig with pt8 and a quadcore but that's another story!

Neat ! Congrats .

[Malki]

i knew b was the aurora, it just sounded bigger. a sounded small in comparison like it was muffled or something. and im listening on compouter speakers.

[Erik Thomas]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

Results Time (drum roll.....)


A = Behringer Ada8000
B = Lynx Aurora 16

(For the record, 15 either mistook the Behringer's for the Aurora's or preferred them, 4 picked correctly or preferred the Auroras)

+1 Thank you.

The stereo imaging has significantly greater resolution in B than in A . IMO, the thing to do is not to trick your ears by trying to listen to certain hyped frequencies... you have to listen "through" the music and pick out the one with the best transparency and imagery. In all examples.. B...Killed A without question. The lower quality of A, is not heard when you hear it by itself...but when next to a more pro level converter, it is apparent...

[Audiop]

Passing the mix via multiple channels will put the inferior converter in a better position as compared to a busy two-channel mix.

The intermodulation distortion will be higher with more complex material and more obvious with a lesser converter.

This is not about "stacking" but simply shortcomings of analog stages when it comes to amplitude linearity.


/Peter

[microwave]

Just wanted to thank you very much for taking the time and for your unbiased attitude. This was a real eye opener on the law of diminishing returns.
BTW - I didn't post my guess - I was too thrown off by how subtle the differences are, but for the records I got it grandiosely wrong.

[RusRant]

As someone who recently had an Aurora 8 and ADA8000 side by side, while tracking my band recently, I will go on record as saying there is not a big difference in sound between these two, IMO. They are very close in both AD/DA, both are very transparent.
That said, if I was running a professional studio day in and day out, I would pick the lynx over the Behringer unit all day long. The quaility of build is worth the difference in price for reliabilty reasons. Don't always assume if it cost's more it will sound better. Reliability usually comes at a higher build cost. That said, for most home or project studios, the behringer is hard to beat.

[Erik Thomas]

^ true to that...the Behringer certainly is not bad, especially for the cost. Its pretty remarkable what a few hundred dollars can buy you these days.

However build quality and overall conversion the Lynx is superior, as it should be.

[alexstobbe]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

Results Time (drum roll.....)


A = Behringer Ada8000
B = Lynx Aurora 16

(For the record, 15 either mistook the Behringer's for the Aurora's or preferred them, 4 picked correctly or preferred the Auroras)

Wow!

I was planning on buying an Apogee Rosetta 800 and getting rid of my "useless Behringer"... so much for that. I'm amazed. It's pretty sad that so many of us are guilty of not using our ears.

[8inthemorning]

Me too, I preferred A over B!!

[The Listener]

I instantly prefered the expected candidate - Lynx, but who cares when the results are already out. It is a minor difference, but important when you really use it and not just re-recording full mixes.

I like Lynx "sound" over most others in that range, but I don't own one.

I had Behringer ADA8000 for some time and sold it eventually, since I was not using it much. If I would need more inputs on the cheap I would not hesitate to grab another one, but it is nothing special sound-wise. No upgrade over your average sound cards like E-mu, RME, Presonus, TC, Steinberg, Motu, Echo, etc. It is in the same quality range, usable, but nothing special. When dealing with subtle material that requires even more accuracy, smoothness, really low noise floor, etc. it is even more obvious that you could do better with something else... on re-recording full mixes the differencies would never be so obvious than on let's say recording a solo flute in an acoustic space or something similar... but that doesn't mean that you could not do something nice even with that Behringer...

----
a hint to those who don't hear the difference - just listen to the first example - when heavy guitars kick in - B stays smooth and true to the source, A distorts and becomes a tad more agressive - some might like that "enhancement"... The first impression is also of more deep and enveloping sound in B, more similar to the source. But your ears can become quickly fatigued and confused after repeated listening... the fresh first impression is the most important! A bit more distortion in loud and agressive parts can be detected a bit more easily even after repeated listening.

[_Ludovico]

I don't want to be a smart ass, but I wonder what a Lynx rep would have to say about this test.

Anyway, as we know for the most part the "ear" factor is subjective. Is there a way, with some very precise spectrum analyzer or whatever to look at the frequencies, before and after conversion, to see the "coloration" the converters can add?

I'm also not a fan of this kind of test using something already mixed going D-a then back to D. Wonder if the test would be different if everything was done withe lynx first (tracking, mixing, so on) and then with the Behringer.

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by _Ludovico

I don't want to be a smart ass, but I wonder what a Lynx rep would have to say about this test.

Anyway, as we know for the most part the "ear" factor is subjective. Is there a way, with some very precise spectrum analyzer or whatever to look at the frequencies, before and after conversion, to see the "coloration" the converters can add?

I'm also not a fan of this kind of test using something already mixed going D-a then back to D. Wonder if the test would be different if everything was done withe lynx first (tracking, mixing, so on) and then with the Behringer.

There are some threads over here regarding "stacking" theories - preamps as well as ADs .
Might be good to give it a search .

[norman_nomad]

Glad to see this thread keep chugging away. thumbsup

I hope some of you found it valuable.

FWIW I'm still using the Aurora and enjoying it. After multiple tests I found it sounds most transparent at higher sampling rates. I use it primarily at 96k.

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

Glad to see this thread keep chugging away. thumbsup

I hope some of you found it valuable.

FWIW I'm still using the Aurora and enjoying it. After multiple tests I found it sounds most transparent at higher sampling rates. I use it primarily at 96k.

Yeap , this thread will last for years to come !
;-)

Regarding Aurora , I was thinking about get one but ain't no more. I'll stick with my fireface 800 .

[Lemonsqueezer]

I am a sucker for gear. This is the right forum for it. But only after a few months on the forum I came to the conclusion that on a forum named "Gearslutz" you are going to get a heavily biased opinion in general.

Fortunately there are a few that remind me of this. This thread gave me another long needed reminder.



I don't want to be a gearslut anymore

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by Lemonsqueezer

I don't want to be a gearslut anymore

That's wise man

[science]

The best thing about these threads is how pissed off people get when the "results" don't support their desired outcome, and how hard they try to discredit the whole thing.

Seems to usually be the same kind of people who make comments like "no mixer under $xx,xxx will sound good". There's nothing wrong with owning high end or expensive gear, and I'm guilty of it myself, but you don't have to be a ********* about it. Not everyone has tens of thousands of dollars to flush on recording gear, or wants to even if they can afford or justify it.

Then again, this is the internet... home of the easily bruised cyber-ego.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by _Ludovico

I don't want to be a smart ass, but I wonder what a Lynx rep would have to say about this test.

Probably "Use it at a higher sample rate" since as norman_nomad and I (and others) have mentioned in other threads the Aurora performs better at higher rates.

Anyway, as we know for the most part the "ear" factor is subjective. Is there a way, with some very precise spectrum analyzer or whatever to look at the frequencies, before and after conversion, to see the "coloration" the converters can add?

Yes, you can run some measurements that shows frequency response, noise, distortion, waveform and what not. The Aurora has excellent results on all standard tests.

I'm also not a fan of this kind of test using something already mixed going D-a then back to D. Wonder if the test would be different if everything was done withe lynx first (tracking, mixing, so on) and then with the Behringer.

Can be. If a converter (AD) has a poor filter implementation you can get aliasing distortion with high bandwith material which wouldn't be there if you feed it a signal that has allready been PCM converted.


/Peter

[fossaree]

Originally Posted by science

home of the easily bruised cyber-ego.

I loved your statement
;-)

[tascamwiz]

I just came across this thread and wanted to weigh in with my own experiences as a Design Engineer. I have 25+ years of experience with analog/digital circuit design........my career up to the mid 90's was mainly focused on analog audio/video and signal transmission. I transitioned over to Computer/IT Engineering during the 90's boom years where I still am up to the present.

Consider the following:

From WWII up to the early 1990's, analog systems, electronics, circuits, and products experienced consistent and predictable improvements in performance, quality, lower cost, consistency, etc. Many of these advances were made possible because of improved materials, methods, computer modeling, etc. Low noise, extended frequency response, consistent performance, and continuing new features defined analog technology up to the early 90's....especially audio products.

The interesting thing to understand about analog electronics is that designing analog circuits is every bit the art form that is painting, playing a musical instrument, or being a master Chef.....being good at designing analog circuits is a skill based on LOTS of experience just like any other art form. And just like any other form of art, a "Master" is worth more than someone who is not.....ie a Master Chef is a demonstrably better cook (and makes more $$$) than the guy who slings hash at the local diner.

Analog systems by their very definition are natural because nature is itself inherently analog. Weather, water, wind, geology, chemical interaction/reaction, nuclear physics, gravity, etc.....all inherently natural systems based on laws of nature which are inextricably tied to analog principles.

The point I am trying to make in relation to audio technology is that up to the mid 90's, a state-of-the-art music recording studio was based on analog technology. The costs associated with designing and building an analog recording studio is astronomically high based on the aforementioned reasoning.....a Studer A-827 2-inch 24-track tape machine is pure analog art, so is a Neve, SSL, Harrison analog mixing console. These products cost $200K+ because of the immense amounts of expensive R&D and artistry that went into their design. Circuit Engineers that work on products of this caliber make significant $$$ salaries.

Obviously, these types of products and recording performance were WAY beyond the affordability of most people except for rock stars, studios, and big business.....there were a lot of lower cost recording products to be sure, but, nobody back in the day EVER mistook a track recorded on a SSL-4000G/Studer/Ampex/MCI/Otari with something recorded on a Tascam M-520/Fostex reel to reel. There were clear lines between analog products of different classes and everyone understood where the lines were.

With the digital recording boom beginning in the early-mid 90's, audio recording manufacturers saw a way to provide high-performance recording products to a wide cross section of consumers at lower costs......AND MAKE HUGE PROFIT MARGINS. Profit margins are what it is all about in the end. The business model of selling maybe 50 $100K 2-inch analog machines vs selling 20,000 ADATS.....no comparison. A lot of companies saw digital technology as an endless gold mine....it was for a while....but in the end they were/are wrong and Behringer products are a good example of why they are wrong.

The Behringer ADA-8000 is a simple little box consisting of a torodial transformer powering a standard design linear PS connected to a simple circuit card consisting of a Wavefront AL1401AG/AL1402G 8-ch ADAT transceiver pair front-ending Wavefront AL1101G/AL1201G AD/DA converters. Add a TL074C op-amp in the analog outputs + 8 off-the-shelf design mic pre's and you have what amounts to be a simple, cost effective and good sounding digital audio converter.

Regardless of what Behringer may have done in the past, the idea that they ripped off such a simple and easy to implement design is non-sense. Looking at the reference design docs at http://www.wavefrontsemi.com/UserFil...ta%20Sheet.pdf , it is apparent that the good sound (I have 8 of them) of the ADA8000 is mainly due to the fact that the Wavefront chips are highly integrated, require no complex clocking circuits(low jitter), and are designed to work together without requiring extensive skills in digital circuit design and topology layout. It is this concept at which I arrive at the point of this post.

Digital audio development is at a point of maturity where the business drivers to increase product sales comes mainly from the marketing department AND NOT the Engineering department. There is minimal artistry at the product development level in making modern digital audio products. Everything is based on "cookbook" circuit recipes and off the shelf sub-assemblies. There are software tools that automate almost all of the design process. Product companies all use the same design software. There is digital magic and artistry going on at companies like TI/Burr-Brown, Analog Devices, AKM, etc., but, the silicon that they innovate is the same silicon that Behringer, RME, DigiDesign, Lavry, and everyone else uses. The more consistent the chip companies make their silicon, the fewer differences between products there are, and the more dependent the product companies become on marketing hype and spin vs real technical differentiation.

The funny part of all this is that their "get rich quick" digital visions of the 90's barely lasted 10 years. Their profit margins are evaporating because they have no real advantage over competing products, and in any sort or honest comparison, well.....this thread is a good example.

I have personal experience that shows 95% of audio production people and musicians cannot tell the difference between so-called high-end digital products and "regular" digital products using standard double-blind comparison methodology.

I have a rack of 8 Apogee AD-8000's that were all damaged due to a ruptured pipe leak at a local studio. The owner gave them to me free as they were worthless to him. I decided to have a bit of fun with them, so my 2008 winter project was to strip out the damaged Apogee circuit boards and replace them with Behringer ADA-8000 guts. I built my own led driver boards to run the front panel meters and indicators using standard driver ic's & schematics available anywhere on the internet. I even built a led flashing circuit that flashes the clock led's in sync across all 8 units. (They are clocked with a real Apogee Big-Ben). The back panels are a bit rough, but I've only got about $1000 invested in all 8 of them. The first thing people comment on when they see my control room is that big purple rack of Apogee AD-8000's....and they do look cool with all those led meters bouncing and lights flashing.....and they sound GOOD not because they are Apogee or look like an Apogee product, but, because the Behringer design is simple and works well. I had a guy bring in a couple of Motu HD-192's for a session last week and he was conviced the "Apogee's just sound more fluid, smooth, and detailed" and that he was going to sell the Motu's......until I told them they were Behringer's.......he would not believe me until I opened one up to prove it.

So my point of this rambling reply is to buy what sounds good. If that happens to save you a lot of money, fine....put the difference into better acoustics, mics, outboard gear....you know, analog stuff.....your recordings will sound a LOT better and the people that listen to your CD could care less that you did not use a Pacific Microsonics DA converter during mastering.

[fossaree]

Wow !

Excellent ;-)

Thank you for your pretty mature post !

[BrianHanke]

Thanks for a fantastic post, tascamwiz!