Mytek 8x192 & UAD 2192

[bass man]

Hi

I have uad 2192 converters and since I am looking for more chanels I am considering Mytek 8 x 192 . Is mytek in the same league as the UAD for conversion only ?
Anybody had a chance to work with both of them ?

Thanks

[Zeljko]

Hi, I have both. While UA 2192 is more analog sounding, and Mytek more clean and neutral,I'd say that Mytek is in the same league, no doubt about it...

My 2c

[bass man]

Hvala Zeljko ; )

[bass man]

Anybody else with different opinion ?

[RubbaDub]

You can listen to both of them head-to-head on Mytek's own site:

MYTEK DIGITAL USA

It was those comparison files that convinced me to buy the 2192 recently (love it). But I think Mytek is pretty much in the same "league." It has advantages over the 2192 in transient response and clarity and highs so it could be a good compliment to the 2192. But the 2192 just sounds like music.

[robertshaw]

sonically they are way different but clocking the UA to the 192
will be great. The 192 from a component perspective is comparable
but different sounding on it's own. an other option is Lynx aurora
clocked to the UA they sound great too. It depends on how picky you are

[bass man]

Thanks .

Well I already have the apogee rosetta 800 and I use the UAD2192 on the master buss when I mix with my Thermionic phoenix . So my idea was to reduce the setup to mytek 8x192 only which would be fine for multi track recording but is it as fine as my UAD for printing the mixes thats the question ...
Another thing is if I can connect the mytek to the RME multiface or digiface via ADAT ?

[bass man]

Originally Posted by RubbaDub

You can listen to both of them head-to-head on Mytek's own site:

MYTEK DIGITAL USA

It was those comparison files that convinced me to buy the 2192 recently (love it). But I think Mytek is pretty much in the same "league." It has advantages over the 2192 in transient response and clarity and highs so it could be a good compliment to the 2192. But the 2192 just sounds like music.

Thanks for the samples !

Well I am not sure if mytek can replace my UAD based on this samples . I like the UAD samples more ....

[Denis Goekdag]

The only multi-channel convertor I've heard that has a similar, flattering top-end "sheen" (or roll-off plus peak, whatever it really is...) as the UA 2192 is the Meitner ADC/DAC 8 MKIV series.

[bass man]

Originally Posted by Denis Goekdag

The only multi-channel convertor I've heard that has a similar, flattering top-end "sheen" (or roll-off plus peak, whatever it really is...) as the UA 2192 is the Meitner ADC/DAC 8 MKIV series.

well for 17.000 $ + for 8 channels I hope it sounds good ....

[priko]

I had the UA192 and never like it for 2 buss mastering. I prefer the Mytek 8192 over it. The + of the 8192 is that you can do sommation. For 2 buss, the Forssell MADA2 is a must.

[bass man]

Anybody knows if its possible to connect the mytek with adat card to RME Multiface or Digiface and use all 8 CH ADDA @ 48khz?

[2pulse]

Originally Posted by Zeljko

Hi, I have both. While UA 2192 is more analog sounding, and Mytek more clean and neutral,I'd say that Mytek is in the same league, no doubt about it...

One sounds analog and one sounds neutral?

For a converter to sound analog, I take this to mean the DAC output sounds just like the analog signal prior to ADC.... if that's the case, then does "neutral" mean something other than the above?

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by 2pulse

One sounds analog and one sounds neutral?

For a converter to sound analog, I take this to mean the DAC output sounds just like the analog signal prior to ADC.... if that's the case, then does "neutral" mean something other than the above?

LOL, I think they are trying to say the UA sounds softer and more colored like a transformer or tape would provide...somehow the word analog and coloration have become synonomous. That doesn't mean that it sounds most like the original signal pre converted...not a lot of people do that test (which IS the true test of converter quality IMO), probably because they don't even have a console or tape machine to compare the A/D/A path to a non converted signal, so everything has to be digitized. The Mytek is easily on par with the 2192, I think the soundscape and imaging is bigger on the Mytek, and the transients are definitely faster and more defined.

[johnnyc]

Take listen for yourself

******//www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-...back-test.html

[MandyC]

I know the 2192 quite well...anything over -14 is colored..sort of like pushing your mix past +4 on a decent console..things change the harder you push...I just found that I didn't want this in a converter...I prefer fast open and decently representative bottom to top all the way up to say -3

[johnnyc]

For me listening to the clips the 2192 doesn't sound as accurate as some of the other high end converters, but the tone is just fantastic.

[RubbaDub]

Originally Posted by johnnyc

For me listening to the clips the 2192 doesn't sound as accurate as some of the other high end converters, but the tone is just fantastic.

Yep. If you want accuracy, go Mytek. If you want fantastic tone, go UA. I think the Mytek would be nice for breaking out to a summing mixer, or drum overheads depending on the cymbal sound you're going for, or recording classical, or general recording of many mic's simultaneously with a high quality neutral sound. I think the UA is best for all non-classical recording if you want it to sound like great music, along with the option to hit it with less level and get more neutral accuracy - and a great d/a to boot.

[bass man]

It seems like the mytek / uad combo would be a good option . I like the musicality of UAD and since I am ITB mytek could be maybe to trasnparent for mixbuss .... I think I am going to keep the UAD and maybe change the Apogees for the MYtek ...