Lynx Aurora 16 vs Behringer ADA8000

[DONNX]

From my experiences with low end to high end gear. 90% of time you get what you pay for.

Sometimes, rarely there are exceptions.

[Bang]

The test I posted is flawed in that it doesn't really tell you much about the converter since there is no source file, like the tests Norman posted.

I'm going to post more tests today with a given source file doing a D/A/D trip through the Lynx and Behringer, both with and without Big Ben. The idea is that whichever sounds most like the original, wins. Thus far with Norman's test, its gone both ways. Some said the A sounded more like the original, some said the B.

However, I'm still curious why the Behringer output is so low. Doesn't make sense to me.

Be back in a bit.

[Bang]

Ok. Lets do this.

at this link
Index of /damon

you'll find the following files:

Original

Lynx

LynxBB

Behringer

BehringerBB

Again, if you want to make this a blind test, do it.

Overall, this is my take. The Aurora is an amazing converter. On its own clock, it is so close to the original its not really worth worrying about. Its very transparent, and the bottom end and imaging is very near identical.

When you add the BB aka Big Ben to the Aurora, things change. The low end extends and the highs soften. This is less transparent then the Aurora's own clock, but to me it sounds good and I've used this combo for years. Whatever that Big Ben does to the low end, I can't recreate it with EQ. On a whole mix the low end with the Big Ben just sounds bigger. I use the BB as a harmonic enhancer. But if you want ultra transparency, the Aurora's clock is great. This goes against what I've said previously about the Aurora clock, I had previously suspected that it was harsh on the top end. Its not.

The Behringer isn't as close to the original. The BB version is less close, and shows off the low end extension again. Both Behringers lack clarity and center imaging compared to the original, and neither keeps the proper stereo imaging perfectly intact. However, for the money, its one hell of a converter, and sounds great for what it is.

I'll try to get an AD DA 16X in here for comparison. Since these use the 777 Big Ben Clock, I suspect they will extend the low end. We'll see.

[Audiop]

I dig your approach.. or how I should put it.

Even if total transparency is not the goal it makes a whole lot of sense doing loop/bypass tests to learn about the gear.




/Peter

[norman_nomad]

Ok. I finally listened to the original files that Bang posted. I listened on my Adam P22a's... here's my thoughts.



Behringer1 is internal clock: I immediately recognized the top end bump and wash out that I hear in the other samples I posted. At first the top end can sound a bit alluring in comparison to the Aurora - you will hear more room ambiance/attack/etc, but there is a lose of clarity at the same time.


Behringer2 in Big Ben: I'm kind of amazed at how much the clock changed the sound here. I don't know how the Big Ben does what it does... it's crazy. Anyways, I hear a low end extension and a high-med emphasis that sticks out a lot in the snare and hats. I actually don't like the high mid emphasis because I think it accentuates the Behringer high bump. The lows change for the better in my opinion. The track sounds a lot more "present" than w/out the clock.



Lynx is Aurora with Big Ben: The first thing I noticed is that everything below roughly 2k feels way more solid. The Aurora captures the "meat" that the Behringer doesn't quite get. The top end isn't quite as "exciting" but I'm guessing it's more accurate. This file is easier to listen to and seems to keep the middle together very well. My only compliant is that maybe the top is a bit foggy? I'd have to hear the original to know for sure.

[Bang]

the better test is at

Index of /damon

my first test was flawed... because there is no source to compare..

In the "damon" folder you'll find originals and D/A/D pass throughs. In this test, to my ears, the Aurora on its own clock is very transparent, way more then the Behringer and with it clocked to a Big Ben.

[elamberth]

I have no doubt that with the right monitors, you can hear a difference between the Aurora/ Behringer, esp. with a good clock. This also may be important for certain clients if you are running a commercial studio. But this thread has really quenched my lust for new converters. I have an RME ADI-8, Yamaha i88x, and mindprint DI-Port for 18 ch. of I/O. The i88x and DI-Port sound a hair better than the RME, and after all of this, although I have been satisfied sound wise, I'll stop wondering about better converters that I have not heard.

It also begs the question of how relevent the increase in sound quality is if you need monitors and equipment that the average listener will not have access to. Also, when was the last time you listened to a song that was written/ performed well and said "If only they had used X converters then they would really have something!" Come to think of it, when was the last time you criticized a piece of recording gear while listening to a CD or the radio?

[BobSchwenkler]

Originally Posted by elamberth

Come to think of it, when was the last time you criticized a piece of recording gear while listening to a CD or the radio?

Perhaps not a specific piece of gear, but certainly quite often the sound of a recording resulting from the type or quality of gear used (whether it was used out of choice or because it's what was available).

And of course very few people listen on monitoring systems like the ones many of us use, but I think most of us could discern a lot about the quality of a recording even when monitored through speakers at a grocery store.

The topic of why we should worry about the details when many consumers will be listening to mp3s on earbuds has been discussed pretty thoroughly on this board. There are always going to be people who have varying degrees of interest in the details of recording (or any other art). Both sides of the spectrum are still going produce amazing art as well as shitty art, and all of this is going to be subject to the preference(s) of the consumer(s).

[lucey]

Modern AD converters are plenty good for recording and mixing if you know how to use them. Personal preferences will always still apply.

The quality of the work, however, can always be heard, no matter the delivery quality.

DA is always important, you can't work what you can't hear. Being a good mixer is always most important. Well, that and good tracks to mix!

[WinterSun]

Good thread, an eye-opener!

I do have a funny antidote about Behringer, though. I was working at a music shop when I was living down in Atlanta, and one day the fire alarm went off and we evacuated the building. It turned out that a Behringer bass amp head spontaneously caught itself on fire! Luckily someone was there to put it out. Makes you think twice about putting a Behringer in your studio. Of course this was dealing on a much higher wattage than an A/D converter, but still!

(that reminds me, I better keep a closer eye on that Behringer headphone amp of mine :)

[elamberth]

Oh, absolutely one will have quality/ taste issues with many (all?) aspects of a recording when listening to it, but I guess I was trying to say that it's really more the people doing the performing/ rcording than the specific microphone/ converter, etc. Although I know that has been said often here...

[BobSchwenkler]

Perhaps sort of juvenile... but I'm excited I can type the word shit and not have it edited out!

[Bobalou]

well i would guess if you dont care to utilize the B product as your main converters, you would have to consider it if you were looking to add 8 more channels for drums via ADAT to a system like PTLE

does it even make sense to look at the digimax/Octopre's/Maudio/etc at that $700.00 -$1000.00 price point with an ADA8000 sittin there at $200.00?

and oddly, what is Behringer doing from a build perspective that the above companies or others arent, to offer such low pricing?

[audiovisceral]

Originally Posted by Bobalou

does it even make sense to look at the digimax/Octopre's/Maudio/etc at that $700.00 -$1000.00 price point with an ADA8000 sittin there at $200.00?

and oddly, what is Behringer doing from a build perspective that the above companies or others arent, to offer such low pricing?

the ada8000 is limited to 48 khz. if that's okay for you it's a bargain.

behringers are mass-produced in china on a quantity scale much greater than those other companies and using the cheapest parts available. their product designs are mostly clones of other companies' work, keeping design costs down. their quality control is also very poor.

but when it works, it works.

[Sugarnutz]

A friend of mine turned me on to a couple of youtube videos a few years back looking at Behringer's Chinese plant. The plant was actually very modern, built from the ground up by Behringer. I am not saying that Behringer is all that great, I only own a headphone amp from them that eh......works, but you would be surprised at the number of major players in all industries that have plants in China now. For a casual musician at home who can't afford anything else I guess Behringer serves a purpose, but I ain't rushing out to buy their gear, Dad taught me better than that.

[emreyazgin]

Isn't it also important what the takers of this A-B test were using as their DA's for listening your wavs?

[Gearhero]

Originally Posted by DONNX

From my experiences with low end to high end gear. 90% of time you get what you pay for.

Sometimes, rarely there are exceptions.

Right that's what seems to be the consensus of this board. I don't think there is a converter over $2000 that people don't like. Where as when you get to the prosumer converters most seems to agree they are sub par and toys. I am really confused about the results of this test. I thought that bad converters could easily be spotted.

[My Tiny Circus]

...and don't forget that Behringer were fined big bucks by the FCC for using regulatory compliance data from one product for a whole range of products which at best, had never been tested or worse, had been tested and failed. I've got three bits of Behringer rack gear and have used it without problems but I know where I'd go looking first for EM noise and other unpleasantness and it won't be my Great River !

Originally Posted by audiovisceral

the ada8000 is limited to 48 khz. if that's okay for you it's a bargain.

behringers are mass-produced in china on a quantity scale much greater than those other companies and using the cheapest parts available. their product designs are mostly clones of other companies' work, keeping design costs down. their quality control is also very poor.

but when it works, it works.

[BobSchwenkler]

Originally Posted by emreyazgin

Isn't it also important what the takers of this A-B test were using as their DA's for listening your wavs?

It would matter in some contexts, but in the context of determining the differences through one's own monitoring system I don't think it matters too much. Most people are going to make sonic judgement calls through their own DACs and monitors whether it's mic selection, guitar, placement, performance, converters, preamps, etc.

[Gearhero]

I don't understand how so many people could have picked the behringer with it's inferior analogue stage. Everyone says that even if the ADA is the same the analogue stages really plays an important role.

I am really confused guys can someone help me understand this. Everyone keeps talking about how important buying great converters are. If it's so important why can't people distinguish between a clearly cheap and inferior design with a great design.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Gearhero

I don't understand how so many people could have picked the behringer with it's inferior analogue stage. Everyone says that even if the ADA is the same the analogue stages really plays an important role.

I am really confused guys can someone help me understand this. Everyone keeps talking about how important buying great converters are. If it's so important why can't people distinguish between a clearly cheap and inferior design with a great design.

Our hearing apparatus don't know what the gear cost. ;-) The ear cares for some basic performance, if that is met..

Something telling is that expensive gear often wins in open tests but in blind tests it evens out. Wonder why.. :-)


/Peter

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Gearhero

Right that's what seems to be the consensus of this board. I don't think there is a converter over $2000 that people don't like. Where as when you get to the prosumer converters most seems to agree they are sub par and toys. I am really confused about the results of this test. I thought that bad converters could easily be spotted.

Some guys in my circles did blind tests with a Squeeze Box, a Lavry DA10 and Benchmark DAC-1.

First they felt DAC-1 and SB was identical and the DA10 inferior. After some more listening they conlcuded that SB was best sounding.

This was done blind so no bias!

As for low priced stuff being toys, please take this test:
Converter loopback test


/Peter

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by Gearhero

I don't understand how so many people could have picked the behringer with it's inferior analogue stage. Everyone says that even if the ADA is the same the analogue stages really plays an important role.

I am really confused guys can someone help me understand this. Everyone keeps talking about how important buying great converters are. If it's so important why can't people distinguish between a clearly cheap and inferior design with a great design.

They picked it because they liked it better.

Remember we're building songs not building. Don't get too caught up in specs. Let your ears/heart/gut guide your choices.

If you get stuck in the "expensive is always better" paradigm... well... you'll probably be a favorite with the pimps, but it won't serve you when it comes to making music.

[living sounds]

Record a whole song and mix through the respective converters with outboard, use a lot of processing and the differences will be very clear.
Also, people often prefer the sound of cheaper converters because of the midrange distortion added, which might come over as more "beef" on a single unprocessed track. Record 20 of those tracks and mix them and the perceived "beef" becomes a midrange / high end nightmare.

[Gearhero]

Originally Posted by living sounds

Record a whole song and mix through the respective converters with outboard, use a lot of processing and the differences will be very clear.
Also, people often prefer the sound of cheaper converters because of the midrange distortion added, which might come over as more "beef" on a single unprocessed track. Record 20 of those tracks and mix them and the perceived "beef" becomes a midrange / high end nightmare.

Can you post any level matched blind examples of the stacking? Is stacking theory really true? Everyone on this board talks about the effects of stacking cheap converters but I haven't ever heard an example.

[Jidis]

Well the power switch on my ADA just bit it (stays on now). Funny though, it's been stored for a long while and hadn't seen much use. Set some mics outside the back door to listen to the "fireworks" and it wouldn't turn off afterward.

Still a fan of it anyway.