Lucid adda9624 x Mytek adda9624 x Lynx Aurora8

[thermos]

I had the Lucid ad 96/24 and now have the Aurora. FWIW, I had the Jim William's mod on the Lucid which made a huge difference. I think the Aurora A/D sounds better though. And certainly has more headroom. I think out of those 3 products you should go with the Mytek.

[iziphonics]

I checked all of them. Now I own Mytek and Aurora (+ API A2D). I was not really impressed by Lucid, it's an OK converter, but not even close to Lynx or Mytek. It's difficult for me to say which one is better- Mytek or Aurora. They are different, but both really great! If you are after a mastering converter, propably the Mytek would be the best choice, but if you also need an universal box I'd give Aurora a try. Actually I use Aurora more and more now...

[Alécio Costa]

Thanks!
I have been informed tha the Lucid Da box was discountinued.
I am focusing at the MYtek ADDA96 box or at the Aurora8, which could be used with my PT HD rig for tracking and mixing.
But still have an eye at the rather expensive Hedd 192.

[thermos]

Just got my Hedd 192. Oooh, really obvious improvement over the Aurora. I just took the same song I had piped through the Aurora, and put it through the Hedd with the same settings. That thing is no joke. On a side note, so far it seems to choke around the same point as the Aurora (in terms of A/D clipping) which I thought was interesting.

[Sunbreak Music]

Originally Posted by thermos

Just got my Hedd 192. Oooh, really obvious improvement over the Aurora. I just took the same song I had piped through the Aurora, and put it through the Hedd with the same settings. That thing is no joke. On a side note, so far it seems to choke around the same point as the Aurora (in terms of A/D clipping) which I thought was interesting.

The Aurora has been known to take a beating well.

[Alécio Costa]

Cool!

[peeder]

Just a note that converter headroom is simply a matter of calibration setting. On better converters you often have little screw knobs (20 turns etc.) that you can calibrate to whatever you want...0VU = -14dbFS, -18, -20...

[thermos]

Originally Posted by peeder

Just a note that converter headroom is simply a matter of calibration setting. On better converters you often have little screw knobs (20 turns etc.) that you can calibrate to whatever you want...0VU = -14dbFS, -18, -20...

Does that actually affect at what peak level the A/D breaks up though? Doesn't seem to.....

[Sunbreak Music]

Originally Posted by thermos

Does that actually affect at what peak level the A/D breaks up though? Doesn't seem to.....

I think peeder thought we were talking about headroom vs. clipping.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by thermos

Does that actually affect at what peak level the A/D breaks up though? Doesn't seem to.....

Well it's possible to overextend the calibration so you actually overdrive the analog section before you reach 0dbFS. That isn't generally a good idea unless you like the sound of that analog section being overdriven. On top of that you can get straight digital clipping.

I would calibrate to 0VU = -18dbFS, and if that still overdrives the analog section before 0dbFS, I'd be fairly well stunned.

Are you certain it's the converter breaking up and not the output stage of what you are driving it with?

[thermos]

Thought I'd add, just for the hell of it. The Hedd is not god's gift to clipping masters. The Aurora seems better in that respect. I have been getting about a db more of nice clean clipping out of the Aurora without it cracking, whereas with the Hedd it not only seems to crack earlier, but sounds a little rough before the cracking point (which the Aurora does not). I did try different calibrations and am NOT clipping the analog path anywhere.

Regardless, I'm keeping the Hedd as the converters definitely sound airier and more 3d. I also prefer clocking the Aurora to the Hedd than using the Aurora's internal clock when mixing/tracking (sorry Peeder, no debating me here). And I certainly ain't going to debate on the merits of clipping.


If I find I'm wrong, I will gladly delete/modify my post. But for those of you who care out there (maybe none of you?).........

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by thermos

Just got my Hedd 192. Oooh, really obvious improvement over the Aurora. I just took the same song I had piped through the Aurora, and put it through the Hedd with the same settings. That thing is no joke. On a side note, so far it seems to choke around the same point as the Aurora (in terms of A/D clipping) which I thought was interesting.

How did you perform this test? I've owned the HEDD for sometime now & have recently got an Aurora 16 in on demo. I've been comparing the round trip conversion firstly with my ears & then with some null tests against the digital source file feeding the conversion loop. You can read about my findings over on Brad's forum here

You have to be careful with the Aurora's when comparing them to the HEDD, as the Aurora has an extra 4db on the D/A output & -4db on the A/D input making them hard to directly compare level matched.

Matt

[thermos]

I just did a round trip with the same stereo mix/master using each units internal clock. Tried to level match as best I could, I enjoyed the sound of the Hedd more. BUT.....I like your thread on Brad's forum, for all I know the Aurora could be more accurate.

I really do prefer the sound of the Aurora clocked to the Hedd as well, it seems to remove a veil but not in an overly jittery way. Anyway, just preference again. But I was surprised the Aurora could take a lot more of a beating before cracking. The Tape, pentode, triode knobs definitely help with that though.