Some Interesting Observations - Converters - Digital Cable..

[crypticglobe]

Hey guys. I haven't been around much lately because I have been CRAZY busy. That's a good thing though. Plus... I took a week off to go down to Long Beach Mississippi to serve on a chain saw team helping clear homes and properties after the Hurricane. Hard Work, but very rewarding. You just can't believe the damage down there. But... back to the topic at hand...

So.. I am preparing for the big Club Cubase/Nuendo event next week. I have begun testing the new RME AES-32 with the Lynx Auroras that will be the combination we use for this event. Because the AES-32 has a unified driver with the RME HDSP MADI it allowed me to do some really interesting testing.

First I tested the audible difference between my Universal Audio 2192 using Lightpipe and AES. I had both connected, and I was basically able to switch back and forth because I had lightpipe (via the ADI-648) to the MADI card, and AES (via the AES-32).

Well... though I have sworn there was no audible difference (all devices were being clocked to the 2192) between lightpipe and AES in the past... in this case... after VERY careful listening, I did find that the AES connection seemed to provide a slightly wider/deeper result than the ADAT connection. It was VERY, VERY close, but the difference was there for sure.

I tested this same concept using the Lynx Aurora (because this one does have the ADAT card in it). Again... I noticed a very slight difference with the AES sounding slightly wider/deeper. It became a little more pronounced in this case though because I was able to stream 16 channels and compare the sum utilizing ADAT and THEN AES. There is definitely a difference.

Next... is where my biggest suprise came though. Due to a tip from a friend, and an AES paper to back it up I have long used 3 strands of Cat-5E for My AES 8 channel runs. It has always worked perfectly, is a LOT cheaper than standard digital snakes, however it's fairly messy. For this rig, I decided to build high quality snakes with digital rated cable from Mogami. Once I got it all hooked up, I decided to try another listening test. I set up channels 1-8 on the Lynx Aurora with the CAT-5e rig, and channels 9-16 with the Mogami Digital Snake. I then setup an A/B through my Central Station so that I could switch from outs 1 & 2 to 9 & 10 quickly. There was a HUGE Audible difference!!! It made me sick to my stomach. The Mogami cabling made the signal FAR more clear on the low end, and it just souned fuller. The CAT-5E runs sounded anemic in comparison. I even switch out the analog cabling to be sure there wasn't something else at work here. Nope... there IS a difference!!

What made me the sickest... was... now... I have to replace all my AES runs with the Mogami. It's gonna be expensive, but the upgrade in sonic quality is more than worth it. I would love it if some of you ultra-smart types might chime in as to why you think this is true?? Aren't we talking about zero's and ones here with clocking resolved via BNC?? Should the two cables sound the same???!?!? I am confused!!!

In all instances, all digital devices were clocked the exact same way... via BNC word clock with the UA2192 as the master. This was done very scientifically with all variables eliminated. What I was hearing was truly a difference in digital cables!!

At any rate.... I bought my UA2192 because I tried every single converter out there with money as no object and found it to sound the best! I still think it does. But 32 channels of them.... is VERY cost prohibitive. I gotta say the Lynx Aurora's sound AMAZING, and for 16 i/o at 192K.... it's a great price point. It's hard to top the 2192, but I sure haven't been wincing when I switched from the 2192 to the Lynx in tests, especially at 192K. I think they really sound great.

As you all know I have long been an RME sound card user/supporter, and the preliminary report in on the AES-32 (from me) is that it SMOKES!!! Same reliability and features as we have always gotten AND it works great in combination with the HDSP MADI!!!

Anyway.. all this to say... that I am really suprised to have to admit it... but the truth is to my ears... that even digital cables DO matter.

Feel free to flame away..... LOL....

p.s. The RME AES-32 is not quite on the market yet. I was able to get a couple in advance for this event...

[jdunn]

I believe you. I use some pretty expensive Nordost Moonglow cables on my mix bus chain, or when overdubbing, etc....

Some may scoff, but it can't hurt.

[NathanEldred]

A lot of mastering guys that I know are using the Canare 110 ohm AES cable, even for analog usage (I use it too and have it to be excellent). I think it's the 206 type of Canare. I also believe it's cheaper than Mogami, so it might be worth your time to test it or look into it.

[jdunn]

And I've heard of people who refuse to pass audio through a Canare cable. Some say the Mogami sounds better. Maybe you should listen to both. I don't know that I could hear the difference. Perhaps.

Anyway, the AES/EBU 110 ohm cable is used to wire entire studios, analog and digital. Usually the Mogami though from what I've heard. At least out here in LA it's more popular from what I've heard.

[lucey]

on the digital cable A/B ... must be jitter, if everything else is the same.

Originally Posted by jdunn

And I've heard of people who refuse to pass audio through a Canare cable.

Do you mean their analog? or digital?

For analog, Canare Quad is dark and low-mid muddy compared to Mogami ez-id, which is lean but nice and open on top. Canare is best for live use, where rejection is more imporant than sound quality. It's very low noise.

Cardas 2x24M is better than both Cardas or Mogami and not too much $. Clean lows, big mids and nice highs, but it's bulky. Above that the prices get prohibitive for most things. We use Acoustic Zen silver analog and digital cables on all the main mastering lines, and Cardas 2x24M copper for mic lines in the tracking room.

[Slogun]

This "confirms" (lack for a better word here) what I suspected as well.

I used to feed my MiniDAC via Apogee's own AES cable from my Rosetta200. Now I have expanded my rig with a Rosetta800 as well and I can't afford to buy the AES D-Sub yet so right now I'm feeding my MiniDAC via a consumer lightpipe from the R800. It actually feels like I've lost some clarity/definition in the sound?!

Really hope it's not my ears givin' up on me

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by lucey

Do you mean their analog? or digital?

For analog, Canare Quad is dark and low-mid muddy compared to Mogami ez-id, which is lean but nice and open on top. Canare is best for live use, where rejection is more imporant than sound quality.

Is the Mogami ex-id a quad cable? If not, it's probably not fair to compare a high capacitance quad cable to a low capacitance dual conductor. Also, a dual conductor 110ohm cable, that is designed to pass information in the megahertz is going to sound completely different than most any analog counterpart. There is serious and rigid requirements for the build of the digital cable. Not sure if a blanket statement regarding everything brand X to everything brand Y is valid. It's like comparing a Trident 65 to a Trident A range and saying that the A range isn't up to snuff because the engineer heard the 65 and didn't like it compared to his API. Just my $.02.

[j 2]

Steve Steve Steve

I don't know if you remember me but I used to post on the UA forum (the older one) and Nuendo's.

I myself had been an RME user all this time (5 years - Hammerfall to DSP to Fireface) and just recently Brian McCall and 'Fred Z' (Synthax's West rep), out here in LA told me I should wait on the AES32. So.....I couldn't wait, and I got the Lynx AES16. Enough people have raved about this card, and no one had said anything about the RME yet...until you.

But from my a/b's between my cards, the Lynx makes the Fireface sound like a toy. The difference isn't exactly subtle, it is more like "do you want smeared fun digital audio, or unmasked real digital audio"...? I'll let you guess which one produces which.

On the topic of digital cables sounding the same - you're out of your mind. I am definitely one to admit that I had a similar attitude way back when, but EVERYTHING matters. Do not assume anything in this world, especially with digital 1's and 0's. Until you actually sit down and take the time to audition all these scenarios -- different mic cables, different snake cables, different speaker wire, different power conditioners, different digital cabling...you won't be able to tell yourself the truth. I need the truth so I took the time over the span of these last couple of months.

I'm not about to give you the answers in one post, but I will point out a few things that disturb me.

* I take it you're still using Nuendo, which I have also been using for 6 years now. Moved onto Sequioa/Samplitude. Nuendo is masking the audio, so if you want to be a better engineer and take pride in what you produce, get out of "Post-Production Software" land and get real. Mastering houses are using Sequioa and SADiE for a reason.

* About the 2192: I myself have not auditioned the UA unit, but from people that I know and respect, they've told me it colors the sound and might sound great, but it's simply not producing what we all would like in our monitoring chain - transparency.

* Your main monitoring...is off a Central Station? That thing sent a mechanical relay to one my speakers when I hit "MONO" (not DIM) and it un-dimmed my speakers while the attenuator was way past where it needed to be. These are famously impossible to find speakers I might add. Further insult to injury, I did a shootout between multiple CS units earlier this year and 4 units all sounded different, not to mention that the A, B, and C sections are totally not passively identical. I had an exec from PreSonus come by GC Hollywood so I could show him the difference, his response: "Well it still sounds good for $400!" C'mon Steve

* Apogee has definitely lost many points in my department when the truth matters, but for some reason everyone still just 'believes' them. They hyped the Big Ben with marketing (which they'll confess took NO marketing), and so now everyone has a Big Ben because it's a clever name and looks pretty....sounds more like MONSTER's campaign strategies. I did a shootout between the Big Ben, RME's built-in clock, and the latest Antelope OCX (do a search here).

jdunn: Is it 3080 or 3173 ?

- -

[crypticglobe]

Originally Posted by j 2

Steve Steve Steve

I don't know if you remember me but I used to post on the UA forum (the older one) and Nuendo's.

I myself had been an RME user all this time (5 years - Hammerfall to DSP to Fireface) and just recently Brian McCall and 'Fred Z' (Synthax's West rep), out here in LA told me I should wait on the AES32. So.....I couldn't wait, and I got the Lynx AES16. Enough people have raved about this card, and no one had said anything about the RME yet...until you.

But from my a/b's between my cards, the Lynx makes the Fireface sound like a toy. The difference isn't exactly subtle, it is more like "do you want smeared fun digital audio, or unmasked real digital audio"...? I'll let you guess which one produces which.

On the topic of digital cables sounding the same - you're out of your mind. I am definitely one to admit that I had a similar attitude way back when, but EVERYTHING matters. Do not assume anything in this world, especially with digital 1's and 0's. Until you actually sit down and take the time to audition all these scenarios -- different mic cables, different snake cables, different speaker wire, different power conditioners, different digital cabling...you won't be able to tell yourself the truth. I need the truth so I took the time over the span of these last couple of months.

I'm not about to give you the answers in one post, but I will point out a few things that disturb me.

* I take it you're still using Nuendo, which I have also been using for 6 years now. Moved onto Sequioa/Samplitude. Nuendo is masking the audio, so if you want to be a better engineer and take pride in what you produce, get out of "Post-Production Software" land and get real. Mastering houses are using Sequioa and SADiE for a reason.

* About the 2192: I myself have not auditioned the UA unit, but from people that I know and respect, they've told me it colors the sound and might sound great, but it's simply not producing what we all would like in our monitoring chain - transparency.

* Your main monitoring...is off a Central Station? That thing sent a mechanical relay to one my speakers when I hit "MONO" (not DIM) and it un-dimmed my speakers while the attenuator was way past where it needed to be. These are famously impossible to find speakers I might add. Further insult to injury, I did a shootout between multiple CS units earlier this year and 4 units all sounded different, not to mention that the A, B, and C sections are totally not passively identical. I had an exec from PreSonus come by GC Hollywood so I could show him the difference, his response: "Well it still sounds good for $400!" C'mon Steve

* Apogee has definitely lost many points in my department when the truth matters, but for some reason everyone still just 'believes' them. They hyped the Big Ben with marketing (which they'll confess took NO marketing), and so now everyone has a Big Ben because it's a clever name and looks pretty....sounds more like MONSTER's campaign strategies. I did a shootout between the Big Ben, RME's built-in clock, and the latest Antelope OCX (do a search here).

jdunn: Is it 3080 or 3173 ?

- -

Sounds like you are trying to start a debate with me. lol. I own Samplitude, but use Nuendo exlusively. I also stand by everything I said.

The Central Station is what I use at my home base studio. I am out in other studios alot where I use Nuendo like a big tape machine.

I disagree with you on many levels...but I don't have the time or passion to debate all your points.

I will say that a recent comparison of the Lynx AES-16 vs the RME AES-32 left me finding them to sound absolutely identical when using the same converters and same clock source. Pick your feature set... both are excellent cards.

As to comparing the Fireface to a Lynx card... again.. .sure slightly different levels of conversion... but dramatically different feature sets. Pick what works best for you... ya know??

As to the "sound" of cables. I am not crazy (at least about that). It was absolutely plain as day to me and several others. There WAS a real difference.

All that said... It's only my opinion... but I stick to it. Call me anything you like.

p.s. I musta got one of the "good" Central Stations because mine sounds great (compared to everything out there but the Crane Song.... and it works for me).

[j 2]

I'm definitely not trying to start anything except to maybe open your mind, because I'm hoping the ears aren't the issue.

a statement like: "a recent comparison of the Lynx AES-16 vs the RME AES-32 left me finding them to sound absolutely identical ..."

..makes me understand where you're coming from a lot more.

The Central Station is great, RME's products are the best sound cards out there, the UAD Precision Equalizer is an AMAZING plugin, and Nuendo just ends up sounding better than everything!

right....?

You took what I meant about digital cables the exact opposite way I intended. Most digital cables do not sound "the same" and they can produce dramatically different results from my extensive testing of Apogee, RME, Canare, Monster (and Hosa, vomit) . But I'm glad you are at least catching this sooner than later. I'm kinda from the camp of Nuendo nuts that thought all this RME, ADAT cables, and Central Station 'convenience' was a good monitoring chain, but you might still not be getting it. The A - B - C sections on the CS don't sound identical to each other, period. The A/B's you are performing will be untrue.

From an experienced Furman owner and user, I can assure you anything you have plugged into that Furman in your rack is suffering and translating into BS, which then gets routed through god knows what cable into your 'good' Central Station.

Might want to try Antelope's OCX and a nice 2200 for those NS10's to start. But I'm not your dad and I'm only trying to help honestly.

[funka]

Do you mean that digital transfer is not reliable ?...
I have done some tests(digital transfers) and with S/PDIF interface, the transfered file was strictly the same as the original(a CD track, I made a mix/paste in Cool edit to substract the original and the transfered one, and the difference was a ZERO !).
Otherwise, A/B switching with a DAC1 and a masterlink(S/PDIF and AES), there is no audible difference(as I think there is absolutly NO difference).
I have not made any test like that with ADAT, but I think there is no way that the digital transfer can be with loss...
The only source for those audible differences can be the "receiver", in your case, the UA or the CS...or both? because of Jitter in UA, analog problems in CS...But the digital numbers that are coming at the inputs of the UA(either ADAT, AES or S/PDIF...)should be exactly the same 0 & 1.
No ?

[crypticglobe]

Mr Dunn,

Your attitude is very condesending my friend. I will field a couple of these veiled insults though just for the fun of it:

Originally Posted by j 2

Central Station 'convenience' was a good monitoring chain, but you might still not be getting it. The A - B - C sections on the CS don't sound identical to each other, period. The A/B's you are performing will be untrue.

1. A & B sound absolutely IDENTICAL on my Central Station. I know this because when I first got it I tested it HEAVILY. That was one of the things I tested (I tested it by physically pulling the cables from "A" and putting them in "B" while listening to a direct signal from the CD player I have been using for years in my studio. Trust me... they are identical...

Originally Posted by j 2

a statement like: "a recent comparison of the Lynx AES-16 vs the RME AES-32 left me finding them to sound absolutely identical ..."

..makes me understand where you're coming from a lot more.

2. Ok... it doesn't get much more condesending than that. So what you are saying is that using the same digital cables to the same converters (all with the same clock) and having both AES cards installed, and sending the identical signal to and from the converters and listening carefully while physically pulling the AES cable from one card and placing it on the other to see if the card has any effect on the sound is not a valid and scientific test??? They are both AES cards... and I had just established that Digital Cables made a difference. I was curious to see if there was any difference in the SOUND of the cards. It's possible. In this case, there was no discernable difference between the two with both slaved to the same house clock.

Originally Posted by j 2

From an experienced Furman owner and user, I can assure you anything you have plugged into that Furman in your rack is suffering and translating into BS, which then gets routed through god knows what cable into your 'good' Central Station.

3. You have no idea what my gear is these days (and I am certainly not using NS-10's) and for you to insult me coming across like you know waaaayyyyy better than me how to setup proper power distribution, etc. is just funny. The picture on my home page is NOT in my studio. I work in lots of studios. You shouldn't jump to conclusions. Oh... and by the way... the studio I am in, in that picture was designed and set up by Mr Brian Tankersly himself. Maybe you should go school him some.... Oh yeah... and the "God knows what" cable is all Mogami in my studio with REAN TT patchbays. I wired it all myself... and I did a DAMN good job.

4. In the thread above... you bashed the 2192 because "people that you know and respect" told you it sucked. That is crazy dude!! I tried the UA in my own studio that I know well in a fair test up against Mytek, Apogee, Lynx, Lavry, and others... and I chose it. It sounded best "to me". You have never even used one and yet you want to come on here and talk to me like I am some 17 year old that just got a digi-001 and was going on about how great sounded?!?!!? Unbelievable!!! lol!! :D

Bro.... you can take your arrogant nonsense and kindly shove it where the sun don't shine. When you and I have worked on some sessions together and we have built up a mutual respect.... then maybe it won't rub me the wrong way when you give me some constructive criticism (assuming I am fan of YOUR work). After all there is ALWAYS more to learn. But... since I have no idea who you are, you delivered your comments with an arrogance that is so over the top it freaks even ME out, and your work could be on the top of my "hate" list of modern productions for all I know... I am going to decline to even seriously consider for 1/2 a second anything else you have to say.

I stick to all my findings... especially the ones about how these products mentioned SOUND... because I know what I hear. I don't always know WHY it sounds the way it does... but I KNOW what I hear... and I get to the bottom of why so I can reproduce (or not reproduce) when it's called for.

Have a nice day.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by crypticglobe

There was a HUGE Audible difference!!! It made me sick to my stomach. The Mogami cabling made the signal FAR more clear on the low end, and it just souned fuller. The CAT-5E runs sounded anemic in comparison. I even switch out the analog cabling to be sure there wasn't something else at work here. Nope... there IS a difference!! ...I would love it if some of you ultra-smart types might chime in as to why you think this is true?? Aren't we talking about zero's and ones here with clocking resolved via BNC?? Should the two cables sound the same???!?!?

While it does sound like you went to great lengths to ensure the signals were level-matched, it sounds from your description like you were still aware of which signal was which when you switched from one to the other. I.e., it wasn't a true "blind" test.

Therefore it is entirely possible that what you heard was at least in part a result of expectation bias (a perceptual phenomenon in your brain) rather than actual (demonstrable & repeatably so) differences in the sound of those cables.

Just something to be aware of.

[crypticglobe]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

While it does sound like you went to great lengths to ensure the signals were level-matched, it sounds from your description like you were still aware of which signal was which when you switched from one to the other. I.e., it wasn't a true "blind" test.

Therefore it is entirely possible that what you heard was at least in part a result of expectation bias (a perceptual phenomenon in your brain) rather than actual (demonstrable & repeatably so) differences in the sound of those cables.

Just something to be aware of.

Totally fair Bob! And I really did take that into account. I will do it again and have someone switch that cables up and not tell me which is which. However, there was a difference that was marked enough that there was no question in my mind. Usually when my mind is playing tricks like that on me...I will end up admitting I just can't be sure. There was none of that here... just in the low end alone there was a dramatic difference that could not be denied.

Thanks for the sanity check though!! It's always good to have one.

[Nordenstam]

Interesting thread!


Hope you can tolerate a shot from the sideline from another lurker. Just wanted to point out one thing:

Originally Posted by crypticglobe

1. A & B sound absolutely IDENTICAL on my Central Station. I know this because when I first got it I tested it HEAVILY. That was one of the things I tested (I tested it by physically pulling the cables from "A" and putting them in "B" while listening to a direct signal from the CD player I have been using for years in my studio. Trust me... they are identical...

2. ... using the same digital cables to the same converters (all with the same clock) and having both AES cards installed, and sending the identical signal to and from the converters and listening carefully while physically pulling the AES cable from one card and placing it on the other to see if the card has any effect on the sound is not a valid and scientific test???

To be a valid test, the switching between the sources must be seamless and instantaneous. Even a .1 second gap will be enough to erase your "sonic footprint" memory. The brain is not made to memorize sound. The only way to compare any sounds are by seamless A/B switching. Switching cables takes far too long to give any useable tests.

To claim 'scientific', it needs to be a double blind test.


Sorry to interupt the conversation..



Cheers,

Andreas / Norway

[Max]

Originally Posted by j 2

* Apogee has definitely lost many points in my department when the truth matters, but for some reason everyone still just 'believes' them. They hyped the Big Ben with marketing (which they'll confess took NO marketing), and so now everyone has a Big Ben because it's a clever name and looks pretty....sounds more like MONSTER's campaign strategies. I did a shootout between the Big Ben, RME's built-in clock, and the latest Antelope OCX (do a search here).

jdunn: Is it 3080 or 3173 ?

- -

Jordan,

Those are strong accusations. What exactly is it that Apogee has said that is not truthful?

[crypticglobe]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Interesting thread!


Hope you can tolerate a shot from the sideline from another lurker. Just wanted to point out one thing:



To be a valid test, the switching between the sources must be seamless and instantaneous. Even a .1 second gap will be enough to erase your "sonic footprint" memory. The brain is not made to memorize sound. The only way to compare any sounds are by seamless A/B switching. Switching cables takes far too long to give any useable tests.

To claim 'scientific', it needs to be a double blind test. I encourage others to try the same tests and see what they get. For now... I am back to recording music....


Sorry to interupt the conversation..



Cheers,

Andreas / Norway

I totally agree with this. For a test to be valid to the point where the testers impressions can be relied upon as reproducable to others interested... double blind is the only scientific and valid way.

However... I am convinced. I don't expect that to convince everyone else... and I did of course say "flame away".... but I am still 100% convinced.... and I have done a lot of product evaluations in my time... I am no Lynn Fuston.... but I ain't a Newbie either... I am sure about my findings.

[j 2]

Allright.

Steve,

You obviously took what I said very very seriously, and it affected you (at least that's what I see from such a long defensive reply).

If your site is one of your "calling cards," it might help to keep a reputable and recent photo on it, or have a list of gear (like every music/mastering/independent studio has). I'm glad Brian helped but honestly, I could care less who designed it with you when you back a product like the Central Station.

Maybe they've made a quantum leap with their product since I showed them 7 months ago how more than 3 units sounded different, but I highly doubt it. You exaggerated 90% of what I said, like the UA2192 statement of how it is NOT transparent (that's all I said). The fact that Nuendo isn't phase-accurate and you're admitting it was 'your choice' to make this your primary software is fine. I spoke with Lars about N3 when it was debuting at AES last year for 20 minutes.

I'm not on this forum to make friends with people that are using Central Stations and just now finding out that AES is the most reliable cable in the digital world. You brought up the possible work I've done, not me. You've taken this personally and much farther than it should've gone.

Name dropping is so 2004. But since it helps you sleep at night, I was just over at Jay's listening to Lindsey Lohan's lastest single.

Also, I'm not Mr. Dunn

[j 2]

Hi Max,

The fact that "no one is doing what the Big Ben does and it'll be another 2 years until someone catches up" kinda makes me go out and want to look for answers by myself. Then when it's PAINFULLY obvious that the Antelope sounds better than the Big Ben -- better meaning more phase accurate, clearer, less 'digital' sounding or harsh, and emotionally evoking -- I contemplate and start to ask more questions. I'm seeking the truth, not propaganda or encouraging pretty ads.

Just yesterday I finally got around to caring about some more cables in my chain, most importantly AES. I bought 5 Wyde-Eye AES cables from Coast over the past month or so and I just bought a Canare yesterday.....need I say it. The Canare isn't "better or worse", but definitely more dynamic, flatter and I'd have to say accurate to the source. Don't get into a discussion about how I went about comparing the cables and double-blind nonsense because it's a waste of your time. If I want to mix with your AES cable (which I've been doing for some time now), I'll have to keep in mind that it's hyping the phase and making everything a little bigger/brighter and neat (like a SONY stereo does, or the common Smiley-Face EQ sound)....but is that accurate? Furthermore, I just compared all 3 Monster lightpipe cables to the GP lightpipe I got from you guys awhile ago......what the hell. Monster's 'Lightspeed 100' outperformed your lightpipe, way clearer and more in phase. I went on to compare it to their LS 200 and THX home theater cable -- unbelievably better.

Our long discussion about the Mini-Dac and Lucas claiming how superior the design is to the DAC-1 -- a more high-end chipset, resulting in 'better' sound, amongst other things -- and the noticeable effects of the Big Ben on anything, makes me tilt my head and wonder what I've been doing all this time; trusting marketing and name dropping. "Sound Amazing" makes perfect sense to me - let our products work for you, so you have 'our sound' covering the sound you're trying to get.

I can either work around what's to be expected in your product line or I can avoid it altogether until the very last stage, since it is "the standard." However, I'm curious as to how this sound is cleaner, more precise, flatter, and more accurate or (enough nerd talk) better in comparison to other manufacturer's converters?

Needless to say, I'm considering all Lavry and Benchmark.

[Max]

Jordan,

You are dangerously close to revealing your inexperience. Taking a private conversation out of context on a forum does nothing but confuse the issues. Nothing I or Lucas have said to you was exaggerated or untruthful. We were trying to educate you on how to do a proper listening test, on how to try and get objective results. I am sorry that you do not understand or cannot come to terms with what you are hearing, but you cannot blame Apogee for that. It is up to you to use proper methodology when doing listening tests in order for your results to be credible. Claiming things are hyping phase (what does that mean anyway?) or filtered, EQ'd etc., without the tools or methods to come to those conclusions objectively is just ignorant.

If you like the way something sounds better than something else, thats fine. But to claim that Apogee is being disingenuous, based on listening methods we explained to you were severely flawed, is laughable.

[tony666]

Some of you guys are definitely loosin it overhere

Hope you can read this message , with all those digital cables crossing the atlantic fuuck

[j 2]

Note-to-self: a sales job at Apogee is easier than Congress.

I'm dangerously close from revealing some actual truth which is obviously nowhere near your approval for anything objectively found by the tests I conduct. You don't need 10,000,000 record sales to understand sound, however you do need an incredibly clear conscience... it would be hard for me to maintain this directing sales for a corporate entitity known the world over.

In the big picture, grand scheme of things - nearly everything is subjective. Be that as it may, it's no different in the audio world, sales. A company subjectively advertises their product based on the company's subjective research and development. Certain people gain interest (subjectively) based on the feeling they get from the ad, some even purchase it. Others ask the one's who bought it - how is that thing? - and now subjectivity enters into the consumer side of the communication path, which is far worse than the 'controlled environment' side of the company's megalomania.

Word spreads, in an uncontrolled manner. One person says this (given their credentials), another person says that (given more or less credentials). This happens in every combination imaginable throughout the day, every day, all over the world and we're supposed to just revert back to who the company says is using their product ? I don't see one Apogee logo on Bob Ludwig's Mastering Technology page. I'm sure it could've taken them 3 seconds to throw one up there but it gets clearer and clearer why they haven't.

(This is the last time I'm ever comparing these two products)...however..Given the noticeable difference in sound of the Mini-Dac and DAC1, the Mini-Dac specs (from the pdf) are practically identical to those from Benchmark's DAC1 page, except actually claiming to have more dynamic range.

You're right. All of my tests are flawed. Every test done through each piece of gear calibrated with 0.00 differentiation between channels down to -105dB won't give me for all 'objective' purposes, the truth. I'm doing something wrong that is definitely revealing my inexperience and proving ingorance while allowing 2 out of a billion people to laugh at my findings.

Are we done..

[SiliconAudioLab]

Originally Posted by j 2

...Are we done..

Hope so.

[crypticglobe]

Originally Posted by j 2

Allright.

Steve,

You obviously took what I said very very seriously, and it affected you (at least that's what I see from such a long defensive reply).

If your site is one of your "calling cards," it might help to keep a reputable and recent photo on it, or have a list of gear (like every music/mastering/independent studio has). I'm glad Brian helped but honestly, I could care less who designed it with you when you back a product like the Central Station.

Maybe they've made a quantum leap with their product since I showed them 7 months ago how more than 3 units sounded different, but I highly doubt it. You exaggerated 90% of what I said, like the UA2192 statement of how it is NOT transparent (that's all I said). The fact that Nuendo isn't phase-accurate and you're admitting it was 'your choice' to make this your primary software is fine. I spoke with Lars about N3 when it was debuting at AES last year for 20 minutes.

I'm not on this forum to make friends with people that are using Central Stations and just now finding out that AES is the most reliable cable in the digital world. You brought up the possible work I've done, not me. You've taken this personally and much farther than it should've gone.

Name dropping is so 2004. But since it helps you sleep at night, I was just over at Jay's listening to Lindsey Lohan's lastest single.

Also, I'm not Mr. Dunn

Mr Dung (or whatever your name is),


Tee Hee. Nuendo is not Phase Accurate? LOL! Tell that to Mr Chuck Ainley who has produced some of the finest recordings my ears have heard in a while.... on Nuendo.

Oh well... bro.. if you can't read back on your own posts and see that you come across like a flamingly arrogant s.o.b. who has placed himself FAR above me in the food chain (in his own mind)... then sir may I kindly suggest you hop on down to the nearest Walmart and pick up a Mirror.

My website is an afterthought. Almost all of my work comes from Word of Mouth. I haven't touched it in a while. I have it in my signatures so people can find me and e-mail me if they like. My own studio is not a commercial studio and I only do mixes and a few overdubs here. I guess when I run out of business... I will try adding my gear list and a good photo of me in a g-string and see if that helps.


Cheerio.

p.s. I prefaced all of my comments in the last thread as "for fun". I was having fun with ya bro... still am. I just don't get that serious... LOL... but then I DON'T hang out with guys that think they are too GOOD to hang out with guys that use Central Stations and have to drop names to gain supposed legitimacy either. Guess you probably wouldn't hang with Mike Shipley either since he uses amp modelers.... HEE HEE!!! It's like shooting fish in a barrell... too easy.. too much fun... must stop... please may the ghost of slipperman help me... I have gone off the deep end...... Ok... I am done with this guy.... next??? Was there a topic here? Who started this stupid thread anyway?!?!?

JMTC

[SiliconAudioLab]

Steve check your PM

[ToddS]

Originally Posted by j 2

Note-to-self: a sales job at Apogee is easier than Congress.

I'm dangerously close from revealing some actual truth which is obviously nowhere near your approval for anything objectively found by the tests I conduct. You don't need 10,000,000 record sales to understand sound, however you do need an incredibly clear conscience... it would be hard for me to maintain this directing sales for a corporate entitity known the world over.

In the big picture, grand scheme of things - nearly everything is subjective. Be that as it may, it's no different in the audio world, sales. A company subjectively advertises their product based on the company's subjective research and development. Certain people gain interest (subjectively) based on the feeling they get from the ad, some even purchase it. Others ask the one's who bought it - how is that thing? - and now subjectivity enters into the consumer side of the communication path, which is far worse than the 'controlled environment' side of the company's megalomania.

Word spreads, in an uncontrolled manner. One person says this (given their credentials), another person says that (given more or less credentials). This happens in every combination imaginable throughout the day, every day, all over the world and we're supposed to just revert back to who the company says is using their product ? I don't see one Apogee logo on Bob Ludwig's Mastering Technology page. I'm sure it could've taken them 3 seconds to throw one up there but it gets clearer and clearer why they haven't.

(This is the last time I'm ever comparing these two products)...however..Given the noticeable difference in sound of the Mini-Dac and DAC1, the Mini-Dac specs (from the pdf) are practically identical to those from Benchmark's DAC1 page, except actually claiming to have more dynamic range.

You're right. All of my tests are flawed. Every test done through each piece of gear calibrated with 0.00 differentiation between channels down to -105dB won't give me for all 'objective' purposes, the truth. I'm doing something wrong that is definitely revealing my inexperience and proving ingorance while allowing 2 out of a billion people to laugh at my findings.

Are we done..

Wow. I for one would love to know what truth it is you are close to revealing. It seems to me that Max, who is well respected on this forum for being above board and credible, has called you out on some BS and you have nothing to come back with except that he's a good salesman. Did you do proper listening tests? There is more to it than calibration as has been discussed somewhat here and in many places on Gearslutz in the past.

As for Bob Ludwig using Apogee....

"Apogee has made several "must-have" products and I've owned them all. The first was the AD-500, which was a true 18 bit converter in the days that most "16 bit" converters were usually really only 15 bits or less.It had the first implementation of the "soft limit" which was a very musical limiter which helped achieve more exciting results with very little trade-off in distortion. For me, this was the first time I ever heard good bass from an analog to digital converter. I purchased every incremental upgrade that the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters offered.

The next major breakthrough was the introduction of the UV-22 dithering algorithm. I was the first person to master commercial releases using a special beta version of UV-22 when I did all the Virgin Rolling Stones re-issues. I begged Apogee to let me use it because it really was ground breaking technology. When Apogee finally released the product in the form of the UV-1000 both Doug Sax and myself wanted to be the first to own it. Apogee solved this problem by Giving Doug serial # 1-W and me serial #1-E (west coast, east coast!).

I've owned several AD-8000 units and PSX-100's with all the special cards or attachments. I presently use the Apogee AD & DA-16X converters in my arsenal.

The most recent "must-have" product is of course the Big Ben master clock. The Big Ben makes an audible improvement in even the most high-end recording/mastering chain and it can make a tremendous improvement in otherwise mediocre gear. Congratulations on an amazing 20 years!”

BOB LUDWIG
(Gateway Mastering)
Mastering Engineer

From Apogee's website http://www.apogeedigital.com/20th/

hmmm....

[logichead]

The long awaited return of Walters?!!?

....H

[chap]

Jason,
After reading this thread, it appears that you are here to save the world, to tell us that day is night and everything we've been doing is wrong. To top it off, there's a conspiracy!
The Giant Corporation - Apogee (19 employees?) is behind it all. You're right, I took Big Ben apart last night and..........it was filled with SAND!

For those of us who routinely use multiple digital devices concurrently, Big Ben is a must.
You can have a semantic roar about single converters using internal clocks etc........but with multiple devices (every studio I work in has many) Big Ben solves many problems.

There are many snake oil manufacturers out there but Apogee is not one of them.
Uing subjective words like 'harsh' etc., only amplifies the notion that you are on some crusade. Maybe find a different dragon?

Good hunting,

chap

[j 2]

Who's Jason...

I started this 2nd rant because Max chimed in with his typical 'protection of his company and job' festivities.

Not snake oil, but you might want to re-evaluate what it is that Apogee is doing with their cables, converters and the lastest box to simply amaze people - Big Ben.

Amazement is something a child experiences when they get a present for their birthday or candy when they've been good. Both rewards will establish memories in their underdeveloped mind that make them happy...We're not children. Amazing recordings are usually acheived through great musicians (fewer every day), vintage mic's/micpre's (hard to maintain), proper recording techniques (yea right), and an 'amazing' R&D'd sound at every step of the process? I have found this amazing sound to distract me from the real qualities of my signal, based on the fact that I have speakers that reproduce REALITY. I don't have speakers that sound like speakers. Phase-tricks, low end curves and sweetening of the high end makes some speakers sound more real -- it makes me and my monitoring chain annoyed.

Is it not obvious that if a company wants the most amount of return for a product, that the 'science' behind their products will never be truly and wholeheartedly as close to science as humanly possible? Why do you think Apple even exists? To make computers user-friendly. The processors used at NASA aren't the ones being used by Apple, but Jobs's marketing campaigns sure look futuristic. Most Apogee people are Mac guys. Hmmmmm. Think back to being amazed as a child of whatever it is that amazed you, then get rid of the fact that you were ignorant as a child, as is everyone, and re-evaluate your signal path. If you've done this time and time again (kudos), and you're still using Apogee anything, you're cheating. As long as you're aware of what's actually happening and you can sleep at night, may you make many records that fulfill your amazement desires.

Even Bob Clearmountain said, [it's almost like cheating]. Totally understandable.

[chap]

Jordan Jason - I'm very busy (because of my ears) anapologize for misspelling your name.

Max is right on in asking you to back it up.
I don't care about amazement. I care about what's amazing me (the music) being accurately reproduced, recorded etc...

Apogee's do a fine job of that. For you to bring such a convoluted 'science' based theory
and compare them to Macs (I also use them) makes me wonder what you are talking about.

It ain't music and it ain't science and it doesn't have anything to do with ears.

Use your ears and you will hear that they work.

chap