Lynx Aurora 16

[gigpiglet]

so in this case, i am forced to NOT use advanced routing mode.. so that i can get all my 32 analogue i/o..
bummer...
but what "problems" will i face with 2 auroras in standard mode on HD1?
what should i be aware of?

[kittonian]

You won't be able to use outboard gear as inserts as the ports and the latency will not be correctly setup according to how ProTools is hard-coded. Other than that, you'll be fine, although using 32x32 simultaneously with delay compensation enabled will most certainly use up most of the HD1's resources, especially at high sample rates.

As I've said many times in the past, an HD1 is a starter rig in the world of PTHD. If you really want to use the rig with multiple converters, long delay compensation, high sample rates and high end TDM plug-ins, an HD2 Accel is the minimum and an HD3 Accel is a much better idea.

[crufty]

quick question....I've really searched and searched and can't figure it out; i even emailed lynx and didn't get an answer back.

is it possible to get 32x32 w/lynx aurora 16's without PT...on one pcie card, on mac?

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by crufty

quick question....I've really searched and searched and can't figure it out; i even emailed lynx and didn't get an answer back.

is it possible to get 32x32 w/lynx aurora 16's without PT...on one pcie card, on mac?

The only way you can enable advanced routing mode on the Aurora is if either the LT-HD or the LT-FW LSlot card is installed. When using a PCI/PCIe interface you have to get the audio to and from the DAW and thus the A/D is sent to the AES outputs and into the computer. Likewise the AES input is sent out the D/A.

While typing this response I am wondering if perhaps you are confusing 32 channel mode (better known as advanced routing mode). When we say 32 channels we are talking about 16 channels of analog and 16 channels of digital. Since you are using the AES side of the Aurora to transmit the digital audio to and from your DAW it would be impossible to free up all 32 channels of I/O.

[lildrummerboy70]

I have an Aurora 16 with the LT-HD card and a PTHD3 rig. I keep this Aurora 16 in 32 channel mode. Can I get another Aurora 16 (not in 32 channel mode) to connect to the AES ins and outs of the the first Aurora 16?

[crufty]

Originally Posted by kittonian

While typing this response I am wondering if perhaps you are confusing 32 channel mode (better known as advanced routing mode). When we say 32 channels we are talking about 16 channels of analog and 16 channels of digital.

Not sure...

Trying to figure out how, in a Logic/Mac system, one would hook up 2 auroras, and to what card it would be hooked up to.

[sysexguy]

Either a LT-FW card in one of 2 Auroras or 2 AES-PCIe cards (one to each Aurora). Cabling appears more costly with the AES option.

Andy

[Full Clip Audio]

I read up to page 8 and when the bickering started becoming the majority of the content I decided to avoid the last few pages. For that reason, I apologize if the question has been answered.

I started off with a 192 and 96 I/O . In a recent upgrade we added an Apogee A/D and D/A 16x and are considering the Auroras next. I have been quite happy with the quality of the Apogee converters but I have one REALLY annoying issue. Because PTs insists that the real 192 be hooked up to the first slot, it insists on using the Digi 192 converters as the default path for auditioning audio and playing audio outside of Pro Tools. There seems to be no way to change this! I have the Apogees as my main outs to my monitoring system when working in Pro Tools but there is no way to use them in the scenarios I mentioned! It is EXTREMELY annoying.

Is this going to be an issue with the Aurora 16s as well? I am considering them as an alternative to the Apogees for another rig but I am not happy about that particular issue.


Simply.... is it possible to use the Lynx converters during auditioning, RTAS functions and when playing audio back outside of Pro Tools with a real 192 hooked up? While we are at it... has anyone figured out a way around it with the Apogees?

Thanks!

[dbjp]

Originally Posted by Full Clip Audio

I read up to page 8 and when the bickering started becoming the majority of the content I decided to avoid the last few pages. For that reason, I apologize if the question has been answered.

I started off with a 192 and 96 I/O . In a recent upgrade we added an Apogee A/D and D/A 16x and are considering the Auroras next. I have been quite happy with the quality of the Apogee converters but I have one REALLY annoying issue. Because PTs insists that the real 192 be hooked up to the first slot, it insists on using the Digi 192 converters as the default path for auditioning audio and playing audio outside of Pro Tools. There seems to be no way to change this! I have the Apogees as my main outs to my monitoring system when working in Pro Tools but there is no way to use them in the scenarios I mentioned! It is EXTREMELY annoying.

Is this going to be an issue with the Aurora 16s as well? I am considering them as an alternative to the Apogees for another rig but I am not happy about that particular issue.


Simply.... is it possible to use the Lynx converters during auditioning, RTAS functions and when playing audio back outside of Pro Tools with a real 192 hooked up? While we are at it... has anyone figured out a way around it with the Apogees?

Thanks!

Pro Tools will recognize the Aurora as 2 192 i/o's. So you'll have no problems.

[Full Clip Audio]

Originally Posted by dbjp

Pro Tools will recognize the Aurora as 2 192 i/o's. So you'll have no problems.

Hmm. It sees the two apogees as ONE 192 but it insists that the real 192 go first or it doesn't function properly. If it will still be an issue I will just sell the 192 and get another aurora but I would prefer not to.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by lildrummerboy70

I have an Aurora 16 with the LT-HD card and a PTHD3 rig. I keep this Aurora 16 in 32 channel mode. Can I get another Aurora 16 (not in 32 channel mode) to connect to the AES ins and outs of the the first Aurora 16?

Why would you want to? Just put the 2nd Aurora16 in 32 channel mode and connect it to the first Accel card.

To answer your question, yes of course it will work to connect the AES/EBU i/o together with the first Aurora16's AES/EBU i/o but the latency won't match with the 192's at that point.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by crufty

Not sure...

Trying to figure out how, in a Logic/Mac system, one would hook up 2 auroras, and to what card it would be hooked up to.

The best way is to get two AES16e cards (if you are on a Mac Pro with PCIe slots) and two Aurora16's. That'll give you 32x32 analog and both units will interface via their AES/EBU ports. We carry a package for the AES16e that includes the cables needed to hook up the Aurora to the AES16e card.

Using two Aurora's with LT-FW cards is definitely not something I recommend due to the FW bus limitations and lack of power.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by Full Clip Audio

Hmm. It sees the two apogees as ONE 192 but it insists that the real 192 go first or it doesn't function properly. If it will still be an issue I will just sell the 192 and get another aurora but I would prefer not to.

With the Aurora it's going to depend on which card the Aurora is connected to and how the flex-cables are setup. Do you need two Aurora16's to make it happen? No, but unless absolutely necessary, I usually recommend running all the same conversion and it sounds like you're not very happy with using the 192's.

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by kittonian

Why would you want to? Just put the 2nd Aurora16 in 32 channel mode and connect it to the first Accel card.

To answer your question, yes of course it will work to connect the AES/EBU i/o together with the first Aurora16's AES/EBU i/o but the latency won't match with the 192's at that point.

Okay, you are really beating this 32-channel mode into the ground.

First, there is nothing wrong with 16-channel mode. Most folks aren't going to use hardware inserts, they're just using the i/o for recording and monitoring, period. 16-channel mode is a more fluid and intuitive setup for those users —*which again, I maintain is MOST users.

Now you have basically ignored this guy's question. He doesn't have a second LT-HD card, he wants to just use a second Aurora 16 as the converters in front of the digital i/o provided by the first one. There is no real reason for him not to do this — it's all going to look weird in the Hardware Setup no matter what he does.

JSL

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by jslevin

Okay, you are really beating this 32-channel mode into the ground.

First, there is nothing wrong with 16-channel mode. Most folks aren't going to use hardware inserts, they're just using the i/o for recording and monitoring, period. 16-channel mode is a more fluid and intuitive setup for those users —*which again, I maintain is MOST users.

Now you have basically ignored this guy's question. He doesn't have a second LT-HD card, he wants to just use a second Aurora 16 as the converters in front of the digital i/o provided by the first one. There is no real reason for him not to do this — it's all going to look weird in the Hardware Setup no matter what he does.

JSL

If you re-read my second sentence, I directly answered his question.

No matter what you may wish to believe, the proper way to use the Aurora16 with PT|HD is in advanced routing mode. Because you or anyone else chooses to use it in 16 channel mode is your own choice, but both the port layout and latency does not match with the PT|HD software.

Will it work? Yes
Should you do it? Not in my opinion

Oh and btw, here's yet another reason that it's not a good idea to hook things up like that. If you are doing it to gain an additional 16 channels of A/D or D/A and you are using both converters at once, the timing of the recorded tracks will be different as the audio on the first one goes through A/D->LT-HD->ProTools. The other one goes A/D->Cabling->AES/EBU->LT-HD->ProTools.

Also, to state "most folks aren't going to use hardware inserts" is not the case. In fact, most people who are using PT|HD these days are doing so with long delay compensation enabled and outboard gear hooked up to their system. Maybe you aren't one of them, but you would certainly be in the minority.

Using things the opposing way a manufacturer designs them can cause other issues that perhaps haven't yet revealed themselves. Once again, this is why it's been discussed to ship the Aurora16's with the LT-HD cards already set to advanced routing mode. Bottom line is that there are a number of scenarios where things won't "work as expected". It's when problems rear their heads and you can't figure out why, that you have downtime and cause customer concern.

[moogus]

Is anyone here running an Aurora 16 with the LT-FW with Sonar? What drivers are you using? I cant get mine to work with the WDM drivers so Im using ASIO, which is fine except I cant run my AES16 in the same session to record mixes back into sonar (via a HEDD). Has anyone else had this problem?
Any help would be much appreciated.



M@

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by kittonian

You won't be able to use outboard gear as inserts as the ports and the latency will not be correctly setup according to how ProTools is hard-coded. Other than that, you'll be fine, although using 32x32 simultaneously with delay compensation enabled will most certainly use up most of the HD1's resources, especially at high sample rates.

I thought the problem with not using advanced routing mode is just with analog outs 9-16 because they are mirrored from digital outs 1-8, which are not compensated for. I understand that analog 1-8 are still compensated for perfectly. This is what was told to me by lynx on the phone.

I'm still in the HD1 camp, and have two interfaces (96i/o and Aurora 16) hooked up to one card.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

I thought the problem with not using advanced routing mode is just with analog outs 9-16 because they are mirrored from digital outs 1-8, which are not compensated for. I understand that analog 1-8 are still compensated for perfectly. This is what was told to me by lynx on the phone.

I'm still in the HD1 camp, and have two interfaces (96i/o and Aurora 16) hooked up to one card.

This is true with regards to the i/o screen but the timing is read differently when recording a track through the AES ports as opposed to the analog ports. It all has to do with how PT software is hard-coded to work with the 96 and 192 i/o's.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by kittonian

This is true with regards to the i/o screen but the timing is read differently when recording a track through the AES ports as opposed to the analog ports. It all has to do with how PT software is hard-coded to work with the 96 and 192 i/o's.

Would that mean that you could just add the correct latency manually in Pro Tools to the AES ins 1-8, and you'd be good to go? I don't really record through the AES ins, and honestly haven't really even used them yet in my setup. I don't have a lot of gear with AES i/o (I think only my A2D had AES).

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

Would that mean that you could just add the correct latency manually in Pro Tools to the AES ins 1-8, and you'd be good to go? I don't really record through the AES ins, and honestly haven't really even used them yet in my setup. I don't have a lot of gear with AES i/o (I think only my A2D had AES).

Technically yes, but calculating that exact number down to the longest decimal point is virtually impossible. You can get really close but it'll most likely never be exact. Whether or not that ends up mattering to you is based on how you record and what you find yourself hearing back.

[Third Eye]

Cool, good to know. I'll be adding a card soon, so using a workaround will not even matter soon. It's super easy to hit a wall with only a HD1. Thanks!!

[Dog_Chao_Chao]

Originally Posted by kittonian

Also, to state "most folks aren't going to use hardware inserts" is not the case. In fact, most people who are using PT|HD these days are doing so with long delay compensation enabled and outboard gear hooked up to their system. Maybe you aren't one of them, but you would certainly be in the minority.
.

Im actually moving Hd just because my outboard is growing so much that I cant stand the work arounds i have to do in LE to use it proplerly. So for me, using the outboard via insert without any latency problems is all I care about now. I also have a uad card running and a apogee rosetta 200 and rmes.
My question is: should I get a master clock or should I use the new aurora thats just coming in to clock everything else? Any expected problems with the UAD and aurora16 in terms of ADC?

Thanks

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by Dog_Chao_Chao

Im actually moving Hd just because my outboard is growing so much that I cant stand the work arounds i have to do in LE to use it proplerly. So for me, using the outboard via insert without any latency problems is all I care about now. I also have a uad card running and a apogee rosetta 200 and rmes.
My question is: should I get a master clock or should I use the new aurora thats just coming in to clock everything else? Any expected problems with the UAD and aurora16 in terms of ADC?

Thanks

The Aurora's internal clock is great and there is absolutely no need to spend any money on an external clock, unless you have a bunch of digital gear that demands the need for one.

[lildrummerboy70]

Originally Posted by kittonian

Why would you want to? Just put the 2nd Aurora16 in 32 channel mode and connect it to the first Accel card.

To answer your question, yes of course it will work to connect the AES/EBU i/o together with the first Aurora16's AES/EBU i/o but the latency won't match with the 192's at that point.

Hey kittonian,
Thanks for the response. The reason I was asking is twofold. First, every HD card that has an interface plugged into it has an extra DSP chip being used compared to an HD card that does not have an interface plugged into it. Second, if the method I was describing would work I would not have to buy another LT-HD card and Digilink cable.

I do not have any Digi 192s, so I don't care if my Auroras don't match the latency of 192s. I do care that my Auroras (in the hypothetical aforementioned setup) latency match each other's.

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by lildrummerboy70

Hey kittonian,
Thanks for the response. The reason I was asking is twofold. First, every HD card that has an interface plugged into it has an extra DSP chip being used compared to an HD card that does not have an interface plugged into it. Second, if the method I was describing would work I would not have to buy another LT-HD card and Digilink cable.

I do not have any Digi 192s, so I don't care if my Auroras don't match the latency of 192s. I do care that my Auroras (in the hypothetical aforementioned setup) latency match each other's.

Gotcha. Well, here's a few notes for you.

1. With an HD3 Accel setup, the most stable way to run the system is by setting the playback engine to (3) DSP 48 Voices. If you need more voices on a specific project, just increase it when you need it. This way, the PT engine is spread out across all 3 cards and uses a single DSP chip per card. Putting an interface on each card does not increase that DSP usage.

2. You do care that the Aurora directly matches the 192 because PT software is hard-coded internally to match the exact settings of the 96 and 192 i/o. This is why the Aurora is so great to use with PT|HD. That LT-HD card makes the Aurora match up and thus work pretty flawlessly with the HD rig.

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by kittonian

Because you or anyone else chooses to use it in 16 channel mode is your own choice, but both the port layout and latency does not match with the PT|HD software.

It's not going to match in any event -- they are different devices with different ports.

Will it work? Yes
Should you do it? Not in my opinion

Yes, well, saying that is one thing. Re-posting this advice 45 times, as though it's life-or-death, is quite another. It actually is of no consequence for most users.

Oh and btw, here's yet another reason that it's not a good idea to hook things up like that. If you are doing it to gain an additional 16 channels of A/D or D/A and you are using both converters at once, the timing of the recorded tracks will be different as the audio on the first one goes through A/D->LT-HD->ProTools. The other one goes A/D->Cabling->AES/EBU->LT-HD->ProTools.

There you go again ... ah, yes, the well-known horrors of the latency of an AES snake.

Can we be serious here for a minute, rather than auto-replying to everything?

First, let's clarify for the newbs, we're not talking about "overdub latency" which is what makes it impossible to use a DAW sometimes. We're talking about the latency of an A/D converter, which is indetectable by the human brain. It is the latency that has been introduced by every digital signal processor since way before the Lexicon LXP-1.

Oh, but even that is an exaggeration. Joshua is not fretting over that latency — no, he's fretting over the difference in latency between two different A/D converters. And just how big is that difference, Josh? Give me an exact number.

Also, to state "most folks aren't going to use hardware inserts" is not the case. In fact, most people who are using PT|HD these days are doing so with long delay compensation enabled and outboard gear hooked up to their system.

I have no studies for you, but I literally know nobody who is doing this. Everyone I know is using outboard strictly during tracking and/or while mixing out of the box. I know there are some folks, including a couple very well endowed studios, who are making great use of hardware inserts, but they are greatly in the minority from what I can tell.

Most folks prefer to mix entirely ITB, even if only to simplify their workflow. Lots of other folks use outboard while mixing ITB, but they do it without using hardware inserts. In fact, quite a few Pro Tools users couldn't even begin to tell you about the hardware insert feature.

What I honestly think is that a lot of your customers are telling you that they are doing this, or that they intend to do this, because they know that that's what you'd approve of and they want you to think they are doing the Right Things.

Once again, this is why it's been discussed to ship the Aurora16's with the LT-HD cards already set to advanced routing mode.

You keep saying this, and I can't figure out why. Let me translate that sentence for you:

• Lynx has always shipped in 16-channel mode by default
• one dealer has been telling Lynx to ship the units in 32-channel mode
• so far, Lynx has not listened to that one dealer.

The fact it's been discussed doesn't mean a damned thing. I can call up Lynx and discuss adding a bottle opener to the Aurora right now. Does that mean that everyone should run their Aurora with a bottle opener on it?

(It actually does mean that, but that's not my point.)

My take: If you're only using it for 16 inputs and outputs, Aurora 16 works just fine in 16-channel mode, which is the default, and which is more intuitive to use within Pro Tools.

And I too can post it 45 more times, if that would make it more true.

JSL

[IntenseJim]

Holy shneet, Josh is on a roll. He is like your own personal tech support at your beck and call.



thumbsup

[crufty]

Originally Posted by kittonian

The best way is to get two AES16e cards (if you are on a Mac Pro with PCIe slots) and two Aurora16's.

thanks! why lynx doesn't have a webpage with common configs is beyond me. its easy to guess but hard to know.

thumbsup

[kittonian]

Originally Posted by IntenseJim

Holy shneet, Josh is on a roll. He is like your own personal tech support at your beck and call.

thumbsup

Just trying to help out as usual. There were lots of questions today and I figured since I had a bit of time I'd try and get to them all.

------------

JSlevin,

I'm not quite sure why you're so up in arms arguing with me today. Believe me, I am not the one who suggested shipping the Aurora16 in 32-channel mode. It was brought up by Lynx during a discussion I was involved in.

I'm only trying to explain the correct way to use the Aurora with the LT-HD card when connecting to a PT|HD rig. Like I said, use it however you wish. If it works for you great. Why on earth you want to get upset about whether or not using it 32-channel vs. 16-channel mode is better seems a bit silly don't you think?

[jslevin]

The question is not why I'm taking issue, the question is why you insist that there's only one "correct" way to configure it.

I'm only trying to explain the correct way to use the Aurora with the LT-HD card when connecting to a PT|HD rig.

There it is again ... "the correct way."

What you are explaining is one workable configuration, not the only correct one.

For the majority of users, 16-channel mode works better, is more intuitive, and would never pose any problem or deficiency of any kind.

JSL