Universal Audio 2192 Opinions

[alberta_pete]

I'm thinking of picking up a Universal Audio 2192 for recording and basement mastering. I've seen a few mastering studios that use em. I've been offered a pretty good price on a new one.

I'm looking for a high quality converter that's not super transparent. I don't like apogee.

Any opinions? UA are not exactly known for their digital prducts. Any idea who designed this box? Was it internal UA or did they have some help?

Pete

[rowdy322]

I have this unit and it is fantastic and highly overlooked IMO.It is huge sounding and very punchy.

[echorec]

Originally Posted by rowdy322

I have this unit and it is fantastic and highly overlooked IMO.It is huge sounding and very punchy.

+1

[Jan Folkson]

Originally Posted by rowdy322

I have this unit and it is fantastic and highly overlooked IMO.It is huge sounding and very punchy.

+2

[Jan Folkson]

Originally Posted by rowdy322

I have this unit and it is fantastic and highly overlooked IMO.It is huge sounding and very punchy.

+2

[entropy]

+ 3

I preferred the UA2192 over the Apogee Rosetta 200 sonically (personal opinion, I just liked the lo mid detail/punch of the UA. Apogee make a damn fine sounding unit but the UA works well with what I do and after playing with it for 2 weeks, I couldn't send it back).

[xj32]

I agree in my tests it "Handed most other converters their lunch on a plate"!!!!


Seriously it is a great converter!

PV

[s0nguy]

+4

You will never regret it!

-s0nguy

[meteor]

+5.

[Kyle Ashley]

+6

[Jim vanBergen]

+7
I don't do mastering, but the converters sound great and the clock is ROCK SOLID.

[Matthew Murray]

Anyone used the 2192's clock AND the big ben? Think they're in similar classes?

[lorenzo]

+8

[thethrillfactor]

-1

The A/D's try too hard to sound analog and D/A is much too blurry.

Nice clock though.


Also the switches in the front can be confusing.


The Hedd 192 which is comparable sounds better.

Just as big sounding and more open.

Haven't heard the new D/A though.

The older one i didn't care for.

Excellent clock.

[Matthew Murray]

Thrill -- which A/D do you like better, the 2192's or the AD-16x's ?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Matthew Murray

Thrill -- which A/D do you like better, the 2192's or the AD-16x's ?

2 different sounds.


The 2192 has a tone through it that gets imparted on the sound.


The Apogee AD16X's are not like your farthers Apogee's.


They are more neutral than you would expect.


Probably the most neutral they have made to date.


So basically you have to decide what fits more in your sonic philosophy.

[bebsi]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

-1

The A/D's try too hard to sound analog and D/A is much too blurry.

Nice clock though.


Also the switches in the front can be confusing.


The Hedd 192 which is comparable sounds better.

Just as big sounding and more open.

Haven't heard the new D/A though.

The older one i didn't care for.

Excellent clock.

The only decent AD/DAs I had my hands on were the UA 2192 and the Hedd 192. In comparison, the UA 2192 sounds more natural and makes a great interface for tracking/overdubbing etc. .. but you've got a point about it trying hard to sound analog. I like it, though.

The Hedd 192 on the other hand is a nice tool for mastering, especially with its extra features, but it would not recommend using it as your main AD. The coloration - even with all knobs at zero - is quite strong and not really to my liking..

[Sui_City]

Has anyone compared the 2192 to Lavry Blues?

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

Has anyone compared the 2192 to Lavry Blues?

Further away from each other.


Color versus neutrality.

[Sui_City]

figured as much.

thanks thrill

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

Has anyone compared the 2192 to Lavry Blues?

Yes actually,for a couple weeks.
The 2192 has output amp circuitry in the vein of an 1176..
very nice convertorsthumbsup
I used em on an all acoustic record to good effect.
very nice color..and you can hit em' pretty hard before digital crunch.

..but I didn't any more color at that stage
I went with the Lavry's ..cleaner,wider, more depth,etc.
pretty subtle,but after 2 weeks I could really hear the difference.
and the clock won over the big ben and the 2192[W/PT HD 192's]
I have loads of color boxes already..
Tape,outboard ..etc

[Sui_City]

thanks 'badge

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by bebsi

The only decent AD/DAs I had my hands on were the UA 2192 and the Hedd 192. In comparison, the UA 2192 sounds more natural and makes a great interface for tracking/overdubbing etc. .. but you've got a point about it trying hard to sound analog. I like it, though.

The Hedd 192 on the other hand is a nice tool for mastering, especially with its extra features, but it would not recommend using it as your main AD. The coloration - even with all knobs at zero - is quite strong and not really to my liking..

I don't know how you can reach the conclusion of "all knobs at zero" still has an effect. It is possible to demonstrate through measurement that the HEDD effect knobs are literally "out of the circuit" when turned down. And what about that little bypass switch in the middle of the unit :-)

BK

[Ghost Logic]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I don't know how you can reach the conclusion of "all knobs at zero" still has an effect. It is possible to demonstrate through measurement that the HEDD effect knobs are literally "out of the circuit" when turned down. And what about that little bypass switch in the middle of the unit :-)

BK

I think he meant that the analogue signal path of the HEDD imparts some coloration to the signal--can't really say if this is true or not (that the analogue signal path of the HEDD colors the sound to a noticeable extent--perhaps compared to a Lavry Gold or a Prism?) but I will say that we are absolutely loving the HEDD 192 with the new converters--just an unbeleivable piece of gear and gives us mixes with the clarity of all digital and the warmth of analogue all in one.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Ghost Logic

I think he meant that the analogue signal path of the HEDD imparts some coloration to the signal--can't really say if this is true or not (that the analogue signal path of the HEDD colors the sound to a noticeable extent--perhaps compared to a Lavry Gold or a Prism?) but I will say that we are absolutely loving the HEDD 192 with the new converters--just an unbeleivable piece of gear and gives us mixes with the clarity of all digital and the warmth of analogue all in one.

I think what separates the men from the boys in converters is the sonic integrity of a complete D/A/D signal path. Since this is a lossy path you really have to have the best of conversion. The new HEDD DAC was a great contributor to improving my D/A/D signal path. When (if) I have a very large budget I'll shoot it out against a Lavry Gold alternative. That would be 10 grand or more, woudln't it? :-(

BK

[krid]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

The Apogee AD16X's are not like your farthers Apogee's.

They are more neutral than you would expect.

Thrill, did you try the Apogee Rosetta 200 ?

I have the DA16X and I am looking for a 2 channels AD/DA.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by krid

Thrill, did you try the Apogee Rosetta 200 ?

I have the DA16X and I am looking for a 2 channels AD/DA.

Right now a Lavry Gold A/D with a Blue or Black DA would be my choice.


If on a budget the HEDD 192.

[philip]

Originally Posted by Sui_City

Has anyone compared the 2192 to Lavry Blues?

I tried the blue lavery, UA 2192 and rosetta200 a year ago or so and as a DA the rosetta was best. As ADDA the rosetta was in it's own league.

It was really hard to tell the difference between the mix from my studer direct or through the rosetta. (blindtest)

[krid]

Originally Posted by philip

I tried the blue lavery, UA 2192 and rosetta200 a year ago or so and as a DA the rosetta was best

And as a AD, which one did you prefer ?

[Bob Olhsson]

It's important to understand the relationship between coloration, mixing and mastering.

Using coloration on some elements of a mix and not others increases the contrast between elements.

Using coloration on groups of elements or on the entire mix reduces the contrast between elements.

Gear that sounds great while you've still got the control available during a mix doesn't always sound great for mastering although sometimes it can be just the ticket.