Callout: Kittonian - Apogee/Lynx Shootout

[smashbrand]

This is a test for Kittonian to showcase his amazing abilities to determine if hardware inserts inside of PTHD are being made through Apogee 16X or Lynx 16 converters.

I have a full (simple) Rock mix complete that consists of the following tracks.

8 Drum
1 Bass
6 GTR
3 Vox
2 Keys
6 Aux (verb/delay/par comp)

Right now its setup through the Apogee 16X (AD/DA). I also have a Lynx Aurora 16 I will swap out for the apogee.

Anyone have any advice before I start printing mixes to make this as fair as possible?

Originally Posted by kittonian

1. I was in no way trying to "smear Apogee's name" and was only answering your question

2. I encourage you, as an owner of the 16X series, to go ahead and try and use hardware inserts with those converters in PT|HD without having to manually calculate for delay times. You can't. Yes, you can enter values into the delay boxes in the I/O window depending on the sample rate you choose and per A/D and D/A, however you will still be manually calculating delay times per channel when you go to mix using both plug-ins and outboard gear as inserts, AND, no matter what you calculate, it will never be able to be calculated to the point of perfection because not only would it be virtually impossible to do without some serious test/measurement gear but even if you had the ability to calculate it perfectly there aren't enough entries in the channel delay values to input all those decimal points. This has to do with any other converter besides the Lynx and Digi not being hard coded to PT|HD's hard coded values. It goes for Apogee, Prism, Radar, and any other converter that has a direct PT|HD interface. Now, if you can't hear the phase problems when you just enter those values into the boxes, then I wish you the best and I'm sure you'll be very happy. I have a feeling if I A/B'd you the difference between what you get with other 3rd party converters and what you're doing with the 16X's, you'd be shocked. Believe me, don't believe me, the truth is what it is and I've actually done the test (oh and I owned the 16X series prior to the Lynx Aurora's).

I'm pretty well versed in this subject.

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by kNasty

This is a test for Kittonian to showcase his amazing abilities to determine if hardware inserts inside of PTHD are being made through Apogee 16X or Lynx 16 converters.

?

[Firefox]

I'd sugest you record the mix back into ProTools... as opposed to bounce-to-disk .... as bounce-to-disk can sometimes have inconsistencies when playing back automation.......

any chance the converters you use to record the mix could stay the same... to avoid that variable? Just a thought...

[smashbrand]

Originally Posted by Firefox

I'd sugest you record the mix back into ProTools... as opposed to bounce-to-disk .... as bounce-to-disk can sometimes have inconsistencies when playing back automation.......

any chance the converters you use to record the mix could stay the same... to avoid that variable? Just a thought...

Actually the mix was done on digi 192's in a studio. I am just doing the mixing for the session.

So I can do a full mix with the apogee >> DAW, then again, LYNX >> DAW. Using hardware inserts on half of the tracks, everything out to the 1608 console, then back in >>DAW.

That has multiple conversions both ways and should be about as fair as I can make it.

[George Necola]

can you please shorten the input and output of 2 converter channels and just play/record/play/record the same sample of mixed music trough it?

like 30 times?

then we can hear how the DA/AD degrades the sound.

cheers

[smashbrand]

I hope to have this up tomorrow night. Working on finishing the mix now.

[Firefox]

Originally Posted by George Necola

can you please shorten the input and output of 2 converter channels and just play/record/play/record the same sample of mixed music trough it?

like 30 times?

then we can hear how the DA/AD degrades the sound.

cheers

You're missing the point.

If you read the kittonian post quoted in the original post.... he is claiming that using Apogee 16x converters with X-HD cards in a ProTools HD rig as hardware inserts in a mix will lead to disastrous phase problems (and Lynx Aurora converters used in the same way wont)

The issue (kittonian insists that exists, and others such as myself think do NOT) is not about absolute quality of converter..... it is about any "phase" problems (or lack therof) of using Apogee 16x converters as hardware insert converters.

[kittonian]

I am not going to participate in this exercise so please don't waste your time.

I will say that I have never stated anything about "disastrous phase problems". What I have said time and again is that you cannot exactly match the built in delay compensation in PT|HD with any 3rd party converter besides the Lynx Aurora16 with the LT-HD set in advanced routing mode. There will always be phase offsets if it's not perfectly in time with how PT|HD is hard coded.

You can come close and if close if good enough for you by all means do your thing. Close isn't good enough for me and the Aurora allows me to forget about my converters and just use PT|HD to make records, no matter what sample rate I choose to work at or how I wish to arrange my hardware inserts.

I see no good reason to choose to use converters that could even potentially cause problems AND I certainly don't see the benefit in purchasing converters that are more than twice the price of the Aurora and that have coloration in the low mids. For me, I'll stick with my Auroras and my HD|3 rig. Works perfectly, sounds amazing, and allows me to play with whatever toys I want without considering if something is calculating properly.

[smashbrand]

blah blah blah. You have stated time and time again you can easily hear the difference. I think you are nervous that you may just pick the Apogee's. I have no issue with the Lynx they are great converters, however I have issue with you saying repeatedly you can hear phase issues on an insert and that if you were to A/B the difference is clear. If it colors the low mids that much you should easily be able to pick the Lynx and keep your credibility.

So here is your chance. If you choose not to participate I will be in every thread you are in talking about this subject (Lynx) with a link to this thread until you decide to step up.

It's vendors like you who bring mis-information to this great site.

Audio files up tonight at some point.

[badmark]

Originally Posted by kittonian

I am not going to participate in this exercise so please don't waste your time.

Originally Posted by kNasty

If you choose not to participate I will be in every thread you are in talking about this subject (Lynx) with a link to this thread until you decide to step up.

Thanks kNasty, you've given me the chance to use the Homer emoticon

[monkeyxx]

oh oh me too!

.


.

[monkeyxx]

nevermind.... I just like posting that emoticon

[Firefox]

Originally Posted by kNasty

blah blah blah. You have stated time and time again you can easily hear the difference. I think you are nervous that you may just pick the Apogee's. I have no issue with the Lynx they are great converters, however I have issue with you saying repeatedly you can hear phase issues on an insert and that if you were to A/B the difference is clear. If it colors the low mids that much you should easily be able to pick the Lynx and keep your credibility.

So here is your chance. If you choose not to participate I will be in every thread you are in talking about this subject (Lynx) with a link to this thread until you decide to step up.

It's vendors like you who bring mis-information to this great site.

+ 1



thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup



hmmmm.... what is that? Is it the sound of someone (kittonian) backpedalling furiously!!?!?!?

[George Necola]

no, I do not miss the point. I just ask for an additional test... :D

Originally Posted by Firefox

You're missing the point.

If you read the kittonian post quoted in the original post.... he is claiming that using Apogee 16x converters with X-HD cards in a ProTools HD rig as hardware inserts in a mix will lead to disastrous phase problems (and Lynx Aurora converters used in the same way wont)

The issue (kittonian insists that exists, and others such as myself think do NOT) is not about absolute quality of converter..... it is about any "phase" problems (or lack therof) of using Apogee 16x converters as hardware insert converters.

[smashbrand]

Here is the first set of files. Will get George's up as well later.

Half of the session tracks are using HW inserts via PTHD. The original song was recorded somewhere else on digi192 converters, just mixing here.

For mixing I used Apogee AD/DA16x's then swapped out the converters for Lynx Aurora 16's --> 1608 console --> Recorded back into the DAW. The same session, same mix, just the converters swapped out and re-recorded into the DAW. Normally I would insert off the console however for this test half of the HW inserts where ITB using the respective converters with no additional delay compensation added.

http://getanalog.com/sample/sample1.wav
http://getanalog.com/sample/sample2.wav

kittonian, which is the Lynx and why?

[Quint]

Hmmm.... This could get interesting. I anxiously await.

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by kNasty

Here is the first set of files. Will get George's up as well later.

Half of the session tracks are using HW inserts via PTHD. The original song was recorded somewhere else on digi192 converters, just mixing here.

For mixing I used Apogee AD/DA16x's then swapped out the converters for Lynx Aurora 16's --> 1608 console --> Recorded back into the DAW. The same session, same mix, just the converters swapped out and re-recorded into the DAW. Normally I would insert off the console however for this test half of the HW inserts where ITB using the respective converters with no additional delay compensation added.

http://getanalog.com/sample/sample1.wav
http://getanalog.com/sample/sample2.wav

kittonian, which is the Lynx and why?

i can guess what is what... but need to know more about the setup.

#1. the Aurora was clocked with external clock from the Apogee for example? a Big Ben? or another masterclock?
#1.5 the Apogee DA-16X AD-16X were clocked internally or with other external clock? maybe the Lynx SynchroLock(TM) for example?

#2. in the Aurora was SynchroLock(TM) dissabled? enabled?
#3. do you have good/clean AC power in your studio? what brand & model of power conditioner? balanced power? none? voltage regulator?
#4. shielded AC power cables? ¿same AC power cable for Aurora and Apogee 16X?
#5. the clock settings in the Protools HD were?
#6. the same HD cable was used for Aurora and Apogee to connect to the PTHD?
#7. what brand/reference were the DB25 to analog cables used? same ?
#8. what brand is the 1608 console ?
#9. do you have photos of your studio or this test? can you upload some?

anyway...
sample1.wav sounds much better = more details, more harmonics,
sample2.wav clear as mud.

the difference in the highs its absurd, in the mids theres also a small 3D diference.

[badboymusic]

Ooh, can I play?
I do hear a difference too in the low end and I actually prefer #2.
I agree with Dubai, #1 is brighter, but it sounds a little sterile to me because of that.
I'd like to have the sound of #2 and mix a little of the mud that Dubai mentioned out.
I couldn't begin to tell you which is which.

But, there most definitely is a difference between them.

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by badboymusic

Ooh, can I play?
I do hear a difference too in the low end and I actually prefer #2.
I agree with Dubai, #1 is brighter, but it sounds a little sterile to me because of that.
I'd like to have the sound of #2 and mix a little of the mud that Dubai mentioned out.
I couldn't begin to tell you which is which.

But, there most definitely is a difference between them.

i dont hear sterile here...
what DAc do you have? clocked internally? what cables? what loudspekers? what software do you used to play the files?

i like 1, you like 2,
score goes 1:1.

diference vs. no diference = 2:0

i decided to listen again...
agree that snare lacks a bit of mid bass and punch, "sounds thin" in sample1.wav, but has a nice clear mids, airy touch i like more...

would be great to hear this test also with Metric Halo ULN-8 or several ULN-2D in stand alone mode through AES/EBU.

for gutars i like Sample1, more detailed.
for punch sounds "snare/kick" i like Sample2, warmer and stronger.
for bass i like Sample1.wav, sounds more electric & detailed.

Sample2.wav sounds lower, heavy.

if i had to choose only one?
Sample1.wav and would mix diferent. just change the faders a bit and EQ less dB in the highs, and more in the midbass.

would be interesting to do same test backwards...
Mix with the Aurora and change to the Apogee.

[smashbrand]

Originally Posted by Dubai

i can guess what is what... but need to know more about the setup.

#1. the Aurora was clocked with external clock from the Apogee for example? a Big Ben? or another masterclock?
#1.5 the Apogee DA-16X AD-16X were clocked internally or with other external clock? maybe the Lynx SynchroLock(TM) for example?

#2. in the Aurora was SynchroLock(TM) dissabled? enabled?
#3. do you have good/clean AC power in your studio? what brand & model of power conditioner? balanced power? none? voltage regulator?
#4. shielded AC power cables? ¿same AC power cable for Aurora and Apogee 16X?
#5. the clock settings in the Protools HD were?
#6. the same HD cable was used for Aurora and Apogee to connect to the PTHD?
#7. what brand/reference were the DB25 to analog cables used? same ?
#8. what brand is the 1608 console ?
#9. do you have photos of your studio or this test? can you upload some?

anyway...
sample1.wav sounds much better = more details, more harmonics,
sample2.wav clear as mud.

the difference in the highs its absurd, in the mids theres also a small 3D diference.

Ill do my best to answer these.

1. No both using their respective internal clocks. That can make a big difference IMO. I think the Lynx with a big ben is a nice combo, however its on its own here.

2. Enabled

3. Probably not the best. I have a dedicated line ran to a fuse by a technician, on a trip lite conditioner. It's not a twenty thousand dollar optimal solution however I don't get any ground hum, etc issues. A tech that API sent in was pretty surprised as the signal off the console in that it was pretty clean.

4. Yes and yes.

5. 48.00

6. Yes

7. Redco - Mogami

8. API - API 1608 Recording Console

9. I will upload a couple here, nothing of high quality on this computer.

[kittonian]

OK, what the hell. I'll take a shot. I will say that this is certainly not a test that is properly setup for this type of comparison for the following reasons:

1. All we are talking about is the resulting sound from using hardware inserts in PT|HD with either the Aurora16 with the LT-HD (set in advanced routing mode) or the Apogee 16X with the X-HD card.

2. This test should've been done with a single stereo track (not a full mix), long delay compensation enabled, and a hardware insert. Nothing more. There are way too many variables in this equation.

That all being said, I'm going to say that #1 is the Lynx and #2 is the Apogee. The way I back up that conclusion is that there is more low mid mud in #2 and the volume is a bit louder.

Apogee's converters are calibrated slightly hotter than industry standard which is why they usually win the shootout tests. The true shootouts are where all converters are calibrated to the exact same specs with proper measurement tools and the variables are limited as much as possible.

Truly I have no idea which is which because of the coloration the 1608 imparts, what was done with regards to EQ and compression throughout the mix, etc. This is why I will state once again that this was really not a fairly setup shootout. For all I know you bumped the volume and the low mids on #2 a bit to be sneaky and I've probably answered in the opposite of what it really is. I'm not saying you did this but I wasn't in the room ensuring that everything was done above board.

Whether or not I will choose to continue to participate has no bearing, but I suggest if you really want to try and prove your point and allow others to take a shot at guessing which is which, you do the following.

1. Get a stereo drum track that lasts for about a minute (do not process this track in any way)
2. Setup a hardware insert using the i/o panel in PT|HD to a stereo compressor
3. Make sure long delay compensation is enabled
4. Do a single roundtrip conversion to/from that compressor using the Apogee 16X and then do the same thing with the Aurora (Synchrolock enabled)
5. Record to disk in realtime so we avoid the BTD issues

Do not adjust the volume of the resulting audio files, nor down sample them in any way. That's the best way I can think of to check the phase consistency while limiting the variables in the equation.

[smashbrand]

You got it right. However I think we can both agree you cannot here a single additional phase issue in #2 that would not be present in #1. That was my main point . A very very very good engineer was here yesterday, he said no way "I cannot tell a difference in phase, although he did tell a difference in the converters.

Does apogee add color, yes/ Does it create crazy phase problems that can easily be A/B'd vs the lynx, no not at all. Because if you can pick the tracks that have the HW inserts Ill call up and buy something from you right now, no joke.

So IMO this was and still is a fair shootout as your claim was "Now, if you can't hear the phase problems when you just enter those values into the boxes, then I wish you the best and I'm sure you'll be very happy. I have a feeling if I A/B'd you the difference between what you get with other 3rd party converters and what you're doing with the 16X's, you'd be shocked". No where did it say A/B them outside of a mix, with an ideal stereo track. IMO you want to A/B them right in the thick of things, just as an EQ setting may sound great on a GTR until it hits the mix. Same goes for a converter that may or may not create phase issue.

Thank you for participating.

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by kittonian

I will say that this is certainly not a test that is properly setup for this type of comparison for the following reasons:
...

i disagree totally.
i think its well done, and multitrack its even better.

a test well done, there are audible diferences.

Originally Posted by kittonian

...
That all being said, I'm going to say that #1 is the Lynx and #2 is the Apogee. The way I back up that conclusion is that there is more low mid mud in #2 and the volume is a bit louder.

Apogee's converters are calibrated slightly hotter than industry standard which is why they usually win the shootout tests.

few dB off Calibration does not affect coloration.
ive done personal anti-calibrated tests, to hear if i change my mind.

also if converter 1 its brighter, and a few dB hotter, the highs will sound overloaded/saturated if the AD or the console does not have enough headroom.
so far so good with this test.

usually apogee win becouse calibration? forget it.

in the apogee wins against Lavry Gold test, is becouse the clock, the analog circuit in Lavry Gold seems better, but the clock worse. Clock wins over Analog Circuit.
Found: Lavry Gold AD122-96MKIII vs. Apogee AD-16x

the Rosetta800 vs. Burl Audio B2:
apogee loses becouse the analog circuit design, and maybe the clock also.
Found: Apogee Rosetta800 A/D vs. Burl Audio B2 ADC

in this test theres no 16X,
Big A/D converter test session
but the Aurora loses, becouse the analog circuit & the clock.

in this test:
A-D Conversion Test & Redux
the Aurora wins becouse the analog circuit design, against Apogee 16X and Rosetta800 all with Big Ben.
...
if wins for a lot of people its becouse the coloration of the analog circuit "the transfomer emulation circuit" or the clock, not the becouse the dB, that can be easy calibrated by any user.
...
Apogee 16X has an easy built in calibration method,.
Auroras dont have calibration, exept the newer VT "variable trim".

they sound close enough in calibration, none sounds overloaded, saturated or clipped.
but havent measured with software each sample, or with WaveLab or Adobe Audition File analyzer.

Originally Posted by kittonian

...
The true shootouts are where all converters are calibrated to the exact same specs with proper measurement tools and the variables are limited as much as possible.

A good test is when i hear diferences easy.

its impossible that a behringer ada8000 sounds exactly like Aurora + Big Ben,
by logic theres something wrong there, does no matter if levels are perfect 0.01dB.

RMAA Audio Rightmark tests can measure the diferences, its impossible that a behringer ada8000 measures like Aurora ...
if they sound the same its becouse theres something wrong in the test.
Lynx Aurora 16 vs Behringer ADA8000

you say #2. its louder, but i hear #1 its louder... in the highs.
= my speakers are louder in the highs, yours are louder in the mid bass or not bright enough.
that does not mean that file #2 must be louder.
like you say, theres always variables.
easy to measure with T-Racks 3 RMS meter.

Originally Posted by kittonian

...
Truly I have no idea which is which because of the coloration the 1608 imparts, what was done with regards to EQ and compression throughout the mix, etc. This is why I will state once again that this was really not a fairly setup shootout. For all I know you bumped the volume and the low mids on #2 a bit to be sneaky and I've probably answered in the opposite of what it really is. I'm not saying you did this but I wasn't in the room ensuring that everything was done above board.

here the 1608 sounds transparent, not a straignt OFC wire,
but not a behringer or emu 1820m coloration.

Colors have diferent quality levels.
for example TFT vs. LCD vs. Plasma vs. LED TV.
blacks are totally diferent.
and Reds, most colors are different too.
but its the same signal.

Originally Posted by kittonian

...
Whether or not I will choose to continue to participate has no bearing, but I suggest if you really want to try and prove your point and allow others to take a shot at guessing which is which, you do the following.

seems theres a personal war goin on, started in another thread ive never read.

Originally Posted by kittonian

...
1. Get a stereo drum track that lasts for about a minute (do not process this track in any way)
2. Setup a hardware insert using the i/o panel in PT|HD to a stereo compressor
3. Make sure long delay compensation is enabled
4. Do a single roundtrip conversion to/from that compressor using the Apogee 16X and then do the same thing with the Aurora (Synchrolock enabled)
5. Record to disk in realtime so we avoid the BTD issues

Do not adjust the volume of the resulting audio files, nor down sample them in any way. That's the best way I can think of to check the phase consistency while limiting the variables in the equation.

in other words... go analog through digital inserts, & return to digital without any EFX, "DA-->AD"

compare original file vs. the DA-->AD loop, with phase 180° changed, and see what nulls more?
...
thats not a phase or latency compensation test, thats also a THD test.
...see for example:
http://audio.rightmark.org/
RMAA software
...
use the files generated by audio rightmark.
for the analog Loop.
and analize the recorded files with RMAA software...
if theres something wrong, should be easy to see.

you could also analize phase problems with a Nugen Visualizer Phase Meter or Adobe Audition Spectral Phase View,
and generate different test tones, with Adobe Audition or AP.com Test Tone Generator, or RMAA.
but with...
RightMark Audio Analyzer test : Lynx Aurora 8
Aurora analog circuit design its more ruler accurate...
and Apogee 16X has colored sound becouse the "perfect" transfomer emulation circuit.
both have diferent THD levels.,IMD Levels, maybe Frequency level diferences too.

RMAA can also measure the APÏ 1608.
like this test:
Index of /temp/Random Stuff/interface-test
...
but if you want to measure phase... or latency compensation
it would be harder...

you are mixing latency delay problems, with phase problems, with converter THD.
software problems with HD card problems, with digital cable problems.

when you try to null 180° phase and the file is not time aligned, there will be phase problems, easy to hear.
could be converter, or the HD card, or software configuration DAE problems or version problems.

to minimize the variables, test can be done with a digital Loop only (AES/EBU) or Inside the DAW first, to avoid the analog circuit / clock variable.
just digital cable quality variable, or the HDCard variable.

to measure latency compensation... and how affects phase in the sound files in the DAW only:
just copy or record the exact same audio in 2x tracks, stereo preferable.
could be extracted from CD or recorded Stereo Overheards, etc..,
a more dynamic, less procesed file would be more interesting than a heavy loudnes war file.

when listening, change phase 180° in just 1x stereo track, and there should be perfect null in the master.
-infinite. or -144dB if 24-Bits.
you can use a Bit meter plugin also... like izotope ozone, or ssl x-ism.
or a high resolution zoomable dB / Frequency meter like Nugen Audio Visualizer.

then insert 1x Voxengo Latency Delay plugin...in 1 track only.
Audio latency compensation plugin - Latency Delay - Voxengo


if delay compensation its working ok, and Voxengo is set to 0.0.0.0, there should be perfect null again.

then change 0.0.0.1 sample at a time in the voxengo plugin, to hear the phase problems created with just 1 or 2 samples of time difference inside the DAW. no converter or HD card variables, just DAE and software variables.

then make the digital loop, through AES/EBU to detect digital cable problems, clock problems or HDcard problems.
then make the analog loop. to detect "converter latency delay compensation" problems.
one step at a time.

[steveschizoid]

Originally Posted by Dubai

you say #2. its louder, but i hear #1 its louder

There is an audible difference, the two converters lived up to their reputations.

#2 is louder. If you are hearing number one as louder, you have a monitoring issue.

Originally Posted by Dubai

few dB off Calibration does not affect coloration

No, but it does tend to impact people's judgement of "quality" - hence the loudness war!

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by Dubai

#1.5 the Apogee DA-16X AD-16X were clocked internally or with other external clock? maybe the Lynx SynchroLock(TM) for example?
#2. in the Aurora was SynchroLock(TM) dissabled? enabled?

Not sure why you need to know all those details ... unless you were kidding. Was that post a parody?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that SynchroLock (will they sue if we don't ™ it?) is not a clock, but rather a mechanism for synchronizing TO a clock. That is, it's basically just Lynx's way of saying they really like their PLL design. You can't sync another device to it.

JSL

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by jslevin

Not sure why you need to know all those details ... unless you were kidding. Was that post a parody?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that SynchroLock (will they sue if we don't ™ it?) is not a clock, but rather a mechanism for synchronizing TO a clock. That is, it's basically just Lynx's way of saying they really like their PLL design. You can't sync another device to it.

JSL

Actually, Synchrolock is much more than that. It manages all the digital connections (i.e. all AES/EBU connections) including slaved devices via WordClock when the Aurora is the master clock source and locks them all to the lowest possible jitter rate. This is why Synchrolock starts flashing slowly and then faster and faster until it is a solid light which means it's achieved lock. It quite powerful.

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by jslevin

Was that post a parody?

Originally Posted by kittonian

Actually, Synchrolock is much more than that. It manages all the digital connections (i.e. all AES/EBU connections) including slaved devices via WordClock when the Aurora is the master clock source and locks them all to the lowest possible jitter rate. This is why Synchrolock starts flashing slowly and then faster and faster until it is a solid light which means it's achieved lock. It quite powerful.

that SynchroLock(TM) its a bit unstable...
the same hardware can sound good, or dont...
is not temperarure sensible like TCXOs.
but its sensible....
the Lynx AES16 soundcard has the same clock technology... according to Lynxstudio.com

if the pc motherboard has HPT (High Precision Timers) desactivated in the Bios or does not have at all, the clock sounds worse with "high jitter".

easy to see when the PCI frequency detector moves, it should be 33.3MHz, in my new board with HTP activated its 33.6MHz steady, my older board was 33.4MHz steady.
with HPT desactivated in the Bios, it moves 33.1/33.2/33.3Mhz not steady, and that affects the SynchoLock(TM) VCXO, also affecting the sound.

in some Auroras it happens the same, some sound like bad timers, i can guess its probably the Dirty AC Power or some other EMI, RFI, CMRR interference.
for example in the Lynx vs. Antelope test.. it sounds like a bad Aurora...
Lynx Aurora clocked with INT AND EXT with Ishochrone.

in some tests sounds more jitter, and others sounds less jitter.
...
the ones i have & heard have problems in the mid range... even with HPT and clean power,
they sound collapsed in the mid range, like Fun House mirrors.

easy to hear in some songs, like 2Pac - California Love, Seal - System Album, and some others (maybe ill start to make a list) + decent speakers,
with speakers that have crossover problems in the mid range cannot be heard, for example M-Audio BX8a Grey version, or EX66.

for the price its amazing, but i like the big midrange of other clocks.
...

in this test Sample2 sounds like the analog circuit of the Apogee, but sounds like more jitter than Sample1.
Sample1 sounds less jitter, and cleaner analog circuit, thats is what makes me doubt what is what.
i like Sample1.wav much more anyway...

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by steveschizoid

There is an audible difference, the two converters lived up to their reputations.

#2 is louder. If you are hearing number one as louder, you have a monitoring issue.

No, but it does tend to impact people's judgement of "quality" - hence the loudness war!

not necessary monitoring issue...
when i listen the same song with different clocks, the song sounds different.
the lower the jitter, the highs become higher, like suddenly harmonics appear from nowhere, and feels louder, bolder, fuller, but its the same file.

in my equipment Sample1 sounds almost as loud, and louder in the highs,
more transparent, and detailed.
but the Sample2.wav has +2dB more RMS in some parts near the end of the song.

Sample2 its louder measuring with TRacks3 RMS Meter, but i like Sample1.
also the software used for playback affects the sound.

[badboymusic]

Originally Posted by Dubai

also the software used for playback affects the sound.

I couldn't agree more, everything affects everything. We never know what is affecting what we hear, but we can compare them as a reference, which makes it a valuable comparison IMO.

#1 had more highs and less low mids. Since I prefer smoother and warmer, I liked #2 and would mix into #1 some more low mids that I liked in #2.

#2 had more low mids and less highs, so the reverse is true.

I didn't hear any phase issues with either converter (which is the OP's main point) So, IMO you could get a great result out of them both.

[Firefox]

Due to the fact that on the most common version of the Lynx Aurora 16 converter you can’t adjust the audio levels on it - this test is somewhat flawed… . but I was still able to draw some interesting conclusions from it, with some careful listening. (I’m assuming you don’t have the VT version of the Lynx? It would be interesting if you were willing to calibrate the 16x converters to exactly match the Lynx, then redo the test…… or do a different test….. )

regardless -

Fact: the Apogee AD16x and DA16x are +/- 0.2dB from flat from 5Hz to 20KHz. (that is two TENTHS of a db)

Apogee Electronics > Products > X Series

Sales guys who don’t sell Apogee (but who do sell competing products) love to spread the * incorrect statement * that that Apogees “have a bump in the lower midrange”. They DO NOT.

However, in my opinion, I think the story came about because the 16x converters do not have the * weak * lower midrange that so many other converters suffer from {including, in my opinion (having heard this test) - - - the Lynx Aurora 16}

NOTE - this has nothing to do with frequency response. It has more to do with impulse and phase response, something that the Apogee 16x converters excel in. I’ve done plenty of blind, level matched tests to various other converters to come to this conclusion.

In the example shown in this thread… the Apogee 16x aren’t creating the ‘mud’ as kittonian called it - they are merely better representing the true sound….. and if I was doing this mix with the 16x I’d address those bottom end issues. The advantage is that I’d end up with a mix that would better translate to any other system.

In addition, when I listened to the test files from this thread in an excellent studio (very well acoustically treated room) with full range monitoring - the Apogee version of this test definitely had more punch, authority and articulation in the bottom end. (as we’re talking about bottom end here)
The Lynx converters were missing this - again this has to do with impulse and phase response, not frequency response. The Lynx version sounded more ‘whimpy’ in the bottom end to me, and lacked a certain amount of ‘cojones’

My final point:
Sure - the Apogees cost more than the Lynx - but comparing these converters - you get what you pay for. If you need really, really incredible sounding converters, then pony up the cash and buy them. If you are more concerned about “bang of the buck” then that is a whole different discussion than absolute sound quality.