Lynx Aurora users chime in

[shanabit]

Tell me your likes and dislikes about the Auroras. Im looking at diff options as far as A/D and D/A goes. I have a lot of synths and some outboard and my line mixer bit the dust so Im looking at the options. I had all my keys going into the line mixer and out of that to my MOTU 828MKII inputs. MOTU 828MKII is OK but not stellar.

Already read some threads. Looking for user opinions. Ive looked at the Echo Audiofire 12, MOTU HD192 and 24i/o, Apogee AD 16x. Im trying to better the conversion yet still give me enough I/O at the same time
16 minimun BTW. Thanks

[thermos]

No dislikes, except I wish the Lynx aes card has a zero latency monitoring similiar to what motu has, where you can listen to all the tracks and mix and pan them with no latency. Its kinda B@ that you can't actually (only 4 tracks at a time, no panning options). But oh well, nothings perfect. Other than that, they are amazing.

[beruang]

I've been using my Aurora 16 and AES 16 for about 8 months under nuendo for audio tacking-stellar results and seems very stable.

I monitor from a console so thats not an issue for me but i heard the same thing about the limited buss sends for live monitoring.

I have also had really good luck with tech support from them when purchasing the item new and working with them to resolve and issue that turned out to be in another piece of software, not the Lynx stuff.

Seems from my experience to be a nice company, the product is good, and the firewire converters are due out in march or something like that, if mobility is an issue as well.

mike

[shanabit]

Thanks, anyone else?

[thephatboi]

I think the Lynx Auroras are the best bang for the buck in converters right now. I tested them alongside my Apogee AD/DA16x combo and the Lynx is on par, here's what I heard:

the apogees have that built in "analog" sound which actually amounts to them being a bit bumped in the mid-low areas making them sound a bit more punchy and warm.
However that sound is not always helping you, like when you have tracks that are already fat sounding you are actually adding mud. The Lynx sound really flat to me and very fast and clear, for sure more neutral than my apogees, and the fact that they got 16 in AND out in a single rack with no fan that interfaces with protools and has the exact same latency as a 192 is just fantastic. I actually think apogee should look at what lynx has done for their next products. It is actually a pain in the a$$ to have two separate units, AD and DAs because you also cannot do inserts across a track like the lynx can. My only complaint about the lynx is it for sure sounds better with a really good clock, but most of us are using an ext. clock anyway, all my tests were clocking both lynx and apogees from a big ben clock so keep that in mind. Lynx has a home run with the auroras and already alot of people are dumping their 192s and getting the lynx. Apogee: time for a revamp???

[Jeff19]

Personally I'm looking for the development of the Apogee 8X ADDA

8 channels AD in and 8 channels DA out, in one rackspace with the quality of the 16X series.

[Matthew Murray]

I might be able to offer a unique perspective, having owned the Aurora 16 and then switching up to the 16x series in order to make use of Symphony.

I didn't expect a big boost in quality from the switch as I'd already read countless reports that they were fairly on par. That much is true. I was however working on the exact same material at the time that I switched, and I did notice a marked difference in the way it sounds. If you're doing rock/blues or anything that needs a bit of meat to it, you might dig the Apogee sound better. That's not to say that the exact same tone can't be achieved with the Aurora's ... but you'd be mixing/processing differently in order to bring in some of that ballsy sound that seems to come automatically with the Apogees. I don't even know if I'd define it as "more bottom end" ... but I guess that's appropriate. It's more like an enhancement of the energy in the bottom ... I don't feel I end up with MORE bottom end ... it's just tighter or better defined? Here we go with words again...

I have no idea how to describe it, but we noticed something happening to the stuff we were tracking the moment we switched, something good. I don't think I'd want to go back to the Auroras after this.

Either way, both boxes are very close with regard to fidelity/quality and can get you to the exact same destination, though the journey you take to get there might be slightly different.

[e-cue]

The Aurora's are kick ass, well thought out units.

Pro's:
•They sound great- very transparent. This is especially obvious when you bus a lot of inputs to it and a/b the source vs. the return. It's difficult to hear any difference, unless you clip them.
•1 space, instead of 2 like several others that have less i/o
•They work with Pro Tools hooking directly into the HD card without being, well, Digidesign. They have the same latency as 192's so they can easily be throw in the middle of an existing setup.
•They don't have a ****¡ng fan to make noise. When did it become okay for us to have so much fan noise/computer noise in out control rooms? Wasn't this the reason machine rooms were created in the 1st place?
•2 power functions and a delay of the power switch so it doesn't get accidentally shut off
•There some kinda internal mixer doohickey I never use.
•Cost. I expected these to be at least $500 more.


Con's:
•There's no analog trim for calibration. I was told a benefit of this was to not influence the signal path. It doesn't matter to me since they are all calibrated from the get go to a reference level I normally cal to anyway. It sortah a pro since you know your calibration won't drift.
•The metering could be better. There is some sortah PC platform program you can use for metering, but I'm mac and I've never tried it.
•You have to sortah trick PT into getting 16 in and 16 out of one of the Aurora 16's. This is a limitation of PT since it see's the Aurora's as 192. PT can also give you an error when you run digittest with them.

Originally Posted by thephatboi

My only complaint about the lynx is it for sure sounds better with a really good clock, but most of us are using an ext. clock anyway, all my tests were clocking both lynx and apogees from a big ben clock so keep that in mind. Lynx has a home run with the auroras and already alot of people are dumping their 192s and getting the lynx. Apogee: time for a revamp???

My experience is that the Lynx sounds better set to internal vs plugging any external clock into it. Blind with the Big Ben, Sync, and a house blackburst (Nanosync), internal sounded very slightly better to me with 48 i/o all being used at once.

[True North]

I have owned and used both Apogee and Lynx convertors. I currently run 2 x AES16 cards with 1 x Aurora 16 and 1 x Aurora 8 (24 i/o). There is a difference in sound between the Apogees and the Aurora's. I don't want to say that the Apogee's are more 'tape' sounding, because I don't think that is accurate, but they are slightly more colored than the Aurora's.

It depends on what you are looking for. I personally do not look to my convertors to add 'character' to my recordings and I don't beleive that is the intended goal of most convertors. Indeed, you can spend many thousands more trying to buy transparent convertors (i.e. Prism). If your convertors are 'coloring' your recording right out of the gate, I view that as a limiting facotr. YMMV

I would prefer to have control over what gets colored or augmented and when and I have specific tools to acheive those goals. Either way they are both great convertors that will both get the job done, good luck.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by e-cue

The Aurora's are kick ass, well thought out units.
You have to sortah trick PT into getting 16 in and 16 out of one of the Aurora 16's. This is a limitation of PT since it see's the Aurora's as 192. PT can also give you an error when you run digittest with them.

It's not really a "trick". You have to set the Aurora to advanced routing mode. Then PT will show 2 192 i/o's just as if you had 2 192 i/o's plugged into your HD system. The gives you 16x16 analog and 16x16 AES/EBU simultaneously up to 192khz, in the exact configuration as plugging in two 192 i/o's.

In order to fully utilize the Apogee 16X units you have to set those into advanced routing mode as well (unfortunately the design of the X-HD does not allow for outboard gear as inserts when doing this - to use outboard gear as inserts with the Apogee units you lose all the digital i/o and Apogee suggests investing in a Digi 192 digital i/o in addition to their 16X's).

Lynx does not have this limitation and is not only fully calibrated but also has the exact same latency as the 192 i/o's which in turn enables you to work flawlessly in PT without having to manually compensate for any delays.

PT always gives an error when running DigiTest with any 3rd party converter (this includes Apogee, Lynx, etc.). It's because DigiTest was designed for Digi's hardware. It's not a problem to test the HD cards, only to test the converters which you don't need to do anyway when you aren't using 192 i/o's.

[Doublehelix]

Originally Posted by thermos

No dislikes, except I wish the Lynx aes card has a zero latency monitoring similiar to what motu has, where you can listen to all the tracks and mix and pan them with no latency. Its kinda B@ that you can't actually (only 4 tracks at a time, no panning options). But oh well, nothings perfect. Other than that, they are amazing.

This is coming in the next software/firmware revision. I had that confirmed to my by Lynx.

I love my Aurora/AES-16 combo as well. Amazing!

[jhamburg]

I've had two Aurora16's for about a month and have been very satisfied with the results so far.

I've got the LTHD card and it's worked flawlessly so far.

I haven't had the chance to compare clocks but it's working for me right now. I'll do so some tests when I can afford a new clock.

cheers,

joel

[vocomotion]

I had a Rosetta 800 (and X-HD card) and recently replaced it with a Lynx Aurora (and LT-HD card). I love my Aurora! Firstly, you have many more hardware inserts than on a Rosetta. The sound is great. I do hear the difference between the "analog" sound of the Rosetta and the Aurora. I prefer the uncolored Aurora sound, more clean more open.

Install and config of the Aurora were a piece of cake! No weird routing buttons like the Rosetta has (I had that think for a couple years and never really understood how to use those buttons).

--> freddie

[shanabit]

thanks guys

[sjaudio]

Originally Posted by kittonian

It's not really a "trick". You have to set the Aurora to advanced routing mode. Then PT will show 2 192 i/o's just as if you had 2 192 i/o's plugged into your HD system. The gives you 16x16 analog and 16x16 AES/EBU simultaneously up to 192khz, in the exact configuration as plugging in two 192 i/o's.

Joshua,
Since Pro Tools looks at the Aurora 16 as being two 192's, can you still use two of them on one HD card?

[3rdeyeKnight]

Originally Posted by e-cue

The Aurora's are kick ass, well thought out units......

......My experience is that the Lynx sounds better set to internal vs plugging any external clock into it. Blind with the Big Ben, Sync, and a house blackburst (Nanosync), internal sounded very slightly better to me with 48 i/o all being used at once.

Yep. Just for a simple test one day, I unhooked the BNC cables from the Big Ben/Aurora connection and reconfigured the Aurora to internal clock settings and whuddayouknow?....Kickin more ass now.

Bye bye Big Ben.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by sjaudio

Joshua,
Since Pro Tools looks at the Aurora 16 as being two 192's, can you still use two of them on one HD card?

You can use two on one card, but only if each Aurora is set to 16x16 mode, and NOT 32x32 mode. 32x32 mode will take up one HD card, as each HD card has a max of 32 i/o.

[sjaudio]

Ok,
I feel really dumb asking this, but that's 32 channels in and 32 channels out right? Not 32 total channels of audio?

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by sjaudio

Ok,
I feel really dumb asking this, but that's 32 channels in and 32 channels out right? Not 32 total channels of audio?

Right, 32 in and 32 out.

[sjaudio]

Thanks for the clarification.

[kittonian]

Thanks zboy, you are absolutely correct. I didn't get to post an answer quick enough.

The cool thing is, most people running HD rigs (at least in my experience) are at least running an HD|2 rig which means you can hook up 2 Aurora 16's and have 32x32 analog and 32x32 digital all running at the same time simultaneously. Pretty cool stuff.

[conmix]

Hi there,

I have a PT HD3 setup with a digi 192 interface and is considering adding another Digi 192 interface for my outboards until I see these posts about the Auroras. The Aurora 16 seems like a perfect substitute purchase and more bang for the money than adding another digi 192. I would like to ask if there is SRC (selectable) available for the digital inputs on the Aurora.

Also, if I add an Aurora to my setup, would it be better to clock both interface to an external clock ie. BB or clock the Digi 192 to the Aurora.

Thanks.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by conmix

Hi there,

I have a PT HD3 setup with a digi 192 interface and is considering adding another Digi 192 interface for my outboards until I see these posts about the Auroras. The Aurora 16 seems like a perfect substitute purchase and more bang for the money than adding another digi 192. I would like to ask if there is SRC (selectable) available for the digital inputs on the Aurora.

Also, if I add an Aurora to my setup, would it be better to clock both interface to an external clock ie. BB or clock the Digi 192 to the Aurora.

Thanks.

The Aurora does not have SRC capabilities. Before I bought mine I was concerned about the same thing, but then it ended up not mattering one bit because most of this digital gear that you'd need SRC for (480L, PCM91/81, etc.) sounds better when using the analog i/o (IMHO of course). For things like the POD XT Pro, TC Intonator, etc. those already operate at up to 96k OR you can always use the analog i/o if you need higher sample rates.

Personally I need a master clock for my studio because I have so many devices. I chose the Big Ben and I have the Aurora slaving to that. However, if you don't "need" a master clock the internal clock in the Aurora is fantastic and you could use that as the master and slave the 192 to the Aurora.

Hope that helps!

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by conmix

Hi there,

I have a PT HD3 setup with a digi 192 interface and is considering adding another Digi 192 interface for my outboards until I see these posts about the Auroras. The Aurora 16 seems like a perfect substitute purchase and more bang for the money than adding another digi 192. I would like to ask if there is SRC (selectable) available for the digital inputs on the Aurora.

Also, if I add an Aurora to my setup, would it be better to clock both interface to an external clock ie. BB or clock the Digi 192 to the Aurora.

Thanks.

I don't believe the Aurora can do sample rate conversion itself, you'd need to down or up sample once you get into the computer.

As far as clocking, using the Aurora as the master clock is better, unless you have a BB, in which case you should clock both the Aurora and the 192 to that.

edit: Kittonian beat me to it

[conmix]

Thanks Kittonian & zboy,

That clears up my concerns. I'll probably continue to use the Digi 192's SRC digital inputs for my hardware synths' digital output and use the Aurora's analog & digital I/O for additional effects inserts.

thumbsup