Lynx L22 vs. Aurora 8, RME fireface, etc.

[chipwits]

Talked with Paul at Lynxstudio regarding the Lynx L22. He said that the A/D converters in it are comparable to the Aurora 8's A/D. He said that the Aurora 8 was originally designed off the L22 to sound every bit as good as the L22 (was their goal). But he did say the Aurora 8's D/A was definitely better than the L22.

Since I only need 2 channels of A/D for my small personal home studio I was thinking about just going with this Lynx L22 and perhaps later adding a Lavry Black to it for better monitoring (if needed). I am mixing/summing entirely within the DAW.

He also stated that the fact that it is an internal converter versus external didn't impact the quality of the sound.

He said the L22 uses better converters than the RME Fireface 800, Behringer ADA8000.

I was going to go with Lynx Aurora 8 but I really want to save some money. With the Lynx Aurora 8 I'd have to invest like another $1000 in cables and interface card. $3000 versus $700 solution.

I'd like some feedback if possible of anyone that has A/B'd the LynxTwo or L22 to converters such as the Aurora 8, RME Fireface and/or the ADA8000.

Just sharing my conversation I had with Paul for any interested. Recommendations appreciated.

Btw, please correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't I use this as an interface card for the Aurora 8 (via AES), vs. buying the Lynx AES 16.. i.e. if I later decide I want the Aurora?
James

[jcschild]

HI,

not sure on the Lynx 2 to aurora.
however i can tell you they both are better than the fireface.
in ad/da

the fireface has far better routing ability.
the behringer isnt even worth talking about.

Scott
ADK

[DAWgEAR]

I have used a Lynx Two and recently installed an AES16 + Aurora. I have had both the Lynx Two and the AES16 installed simultaneously.

IMO, the Aurora clocked internally and passing through the AES16 sounds best. It's subtle, and whether it's worth a couple thousand dollars extra is a subjective call. I needed more I/O.

The Aurora clocked from the AES16 sounds almost as good, as does the Lynx Two using its own clock by itself. The differences are subtle, IMO.

The Lynx Two clocked externally from the AES16 is significantly thinner and slightly more harsh on the top end. I like it less than the Lynx Two clocked internally, but it may be a preferable in certain ways as the "thinness" makes the imaging seem more clear.

The Lynx Two and L22 do not use the Synchrolock technolgy that the AES16 and Aurora use.

My "testing" was not blind, so take that into account for what it's worth.

The above pertains primarily to D/A conversion.

Given that the L22 is essentially the same technology as the Lynx Two, I think you would be pretty happy with it.

Based on my findings, I would suggest that if you later decide to get a standalone D/A converter, consider using the L22 as the clock source, or at least having the option to switch back and forth to decide for yourself which you prefer.

[thermos]

The Lynx slays the Rme FF 800. But yeah, the routing is not nearly as good as the ff.

[dejacky]

Does Lynx Audio have any I/O solutions for laptop computing users?

[chipwits]

Well if there is a PCMCIA AES card it could be interfaced with Lynx Aurora I would think. Perhaps there is a firewire interface for Lynx Aurora also?

James

[dejacky]

Originally Posted by chipwits

Well if there is a PCMCIA AES card it could be interfaced with Lynx Aurora I would think. Perhaps there is a firewire interface for Lynx Aurora also?

James

Where can I get this pcmcia card. Link please or DIE?!

[chipwits]

Hehe. I was just speculating there might be some PCMCIA offering AES. Well I did a search and found one (there are probably many more):

http://www.zzounds.com/item--EMU1616M

This thing looks pretty cool actually. They claim they use same converters as in protools rig, but I don't know if it sounds as good. I have no idea about this unit though, first I've seen of it. Don't know how well it would work with Aurora, if its clock is any good, drivers etc..

Might want to ask Paul (tech support) at Lynx for a recommendation for PCMCIA card for Aurora.

james

[Oldone]

Originally Posted by DAWgEAR

I have used a Lynx Two and recently installed an AES16 + Aurora. I have had both the Lynx Two and the AES16 installed simultaneously.

IMO, the Aurora clocked internally and passing through the AES16 sounds best. It's subtle, and whether it's worth a couple thousand dollars extra is a subjective call. I needed more I/O.

The Aurora clocked from the AES16 sounds almost as good, as does the Lynx Two using its own clock by itself. The differences are subtle, IMO.

The Lynx Two clocked externally from the AES16 is significantly thinner and slightly more harsh on the top end. I like it less than the Lynx Two clocked internally, but it may be a preferable in certain ways as the "thinness" makes the imaging seem more clear.

The Lynx Two and L22 do not use the Synchrolock technolgy that the AES16 and Aurora use.

My "testing" was not blind, so take that into account for what it's worth.

The above pertains primarily to D/A conversion.

Given that the L22 is essentially the same technology as the Lynx Two, I think you would be pretty happy with it.

Based on my findings, I would suggest that if you later decide to get a standalone D/A converter, consider using the L22 as the clock source, or at least having the option to switch back and forth to decide for yourself which you prefer.

Have you tried running the Aurora from just the Lynx II? Why did pick up the AES16? I thought it was possible to just add the Aurora to a Lynx II. Yes, No?

[DAWgEAR]

Originally Posted by Oldone

Have you tried running the Aurora from just the Lynx II? Why did pick up the AES16? I thought it was possible to just add the Aurora to a Lynx II. Yes, No?

It is possible, but that requires a Lynx Two/Aurora interface kit which I did not buy since I was going with the AES16. So, no, I have not tried that. Also, with the Aurora 16, you lose the I/O on the Lynx Two: the Lynx Two can handle 16 channels max. (The Aurora 8 does not present that problem.)

I picked the AES16 because (like the Aurora) it has Synchrolock jitter attenuation. With the AES16 you can (i) have the AES16 be clock master and the Aurora will use the Synchrolock jitter attenuation or (ii) you can have the Aurora be clock master and the AES16 will use the Synchrolock jitter attenuation. I seem to prefer the latter slightly.

With the Lynx Two, if you have the Aurora be clock master, the Lynx Two will use wide range PLL, but not Synchrolock (since the Lynx Two/L22 do not have Synchrolock). Of course you can have the Lynx Two use its internal crystal to be clock master and the Aurora will use the Synchrolock; this is probably preferred based on my experience, but that is a subjective call.

As I mentioned, my limited testing with the Lynx Two externally clocked yielded results that I liked less (subjective) than when it was using its own clock. Presumably this is due to the use of the PLL.

Also, the fact that Lynx was recently running the special whereby you got free cables with the purchase of an Aurora + AES16 helped me decide to go with the AES16.

[Oldone]

Wow, that's some great data. Thanks. I may sell the Lynx II and jump over to the AES16 as the interface.

Last question, have you heard anything about a Lyxn PCIe card?

[DAWgEAR]

Oldone, before taking any action, and assuming you are interested in Lynx, give Paul at Lynx a call and inquire about all this stuff. He and the other folks at Lynx were very friendly and helpful in fielding my sometimes not-so-educated questions.

The gist of my findings is that the Lynx Two using its own crystal clock sounds "fuller", and when clocked from the AES16 it sounds "thinner". One man's "thinness" is another man's "clarity", but I hear a definite difference. You might prefer one or the other. For what it's worth, of the two scenarios, the "fuller" sound of the Lynx Two using its own clock sounds closer to the Aurora using its own clock. I did not run a blind test, but I am confident that I would be able to distinguish these two sounds.

Between the Lynx Two using its own clock and the Aurora + AES16 combo (both have Synchrolock), the differences are much more subtle. IMO, the Aurora sounds better, as one would expect, but it's not blatantly jaw-dropping like the difference I heard when I upgraded from an M-Audio Delta 66 to the Lynx Two a few years back.

By better, I mean slightly better detail and imaging, slightly more defined bass, slightly smoother highs. Again, I did not run a blind test, but I am not so sure that on varied material I would be able to consistently distinguish Lynx Two(internal clock) vs Aurora(master)>AES16 vs Aurora>AES16(master); especially the latter two. They are all fairly close.

YMMV.

Re: PCIe, it appears that there is no news at the moment.

http://www.lynxstudio.com/forum/foru...D=1123&KW=pcie

[amost]

Paul is great people, been very happy with my Lynx Two but I guess I'm going to take the PCIe plunge so kind of bummed about losing the Lynx but I'm sure something will turn up over there.

[jaffa]

Had a Lynx L22 and a Metric Halo ULN-2 and a Fireface 400 over the past month or so and can honestly say that the Lynx and Fireface were very close soundwise (with the ULN lagging behind!). I don't get this idea that the Lynx is in another league to the Fireface. I love the Lynx, it's a rock solid, high quality card which is still inside my G5 but a) there aren't enough ins/out and you will need something like the ADAT or Lslot expansion to interface with something like the Aurora (which by the way looks like it will be having a Firwire card by the end of the year, according to Lynx) b) to my ears the Lynx was 'brighter' than the fireface, which made it sound more open. The Fireface was truer to the original sound. c) How can you seriously listen to someone who works for a aprticular company and take as read what he says. No matter how good/straight a guy he is he just can't promote other people's card's ahead of the company he works for.

Neither unit sounds as clean as my Lavry blue A/D or as smooth for D/A as my Benchmark DAC but both are good, solid units to make great music with. What's been said about the Totalmix software though is spot on, it's a fantastic tool for sending sub-mixes with monitored reverb to singer's through the headphone out and has a far more elegant interface than the Lynx.

Plug one of em' in and get recording!

Steve

[thermos]

I disagree with the above post, in that if I sent a 2 channel mix out of the fireface D/A and back in to the A/D, there was definitely loss. In no way would I call it true in that sense. With the Aurora it is very indiscernable, running the same test. I don't wish to upgrade my converters at all now.

[hkapoor]

Originally Posted by thermos

I disagree with the above post, in that if I sent a 2 channel mix out of the fireface D/A and back in to the A/D, there was definitely loss. In no way would I call it true in that sense. With the Aurora it is very indiscernable, running the same test. I don't wish to upgrade my converters at all now.

Frankly,

I've been reading all the forums in the world I could to get myself a decent audio interface. Budget is not a constraint but a factor worth considering.

I did this test last night with RME fface which I bought with 14 days refund policy. The giuy above who claims that rme gives loss when rerouting theo/p back into i/p is definitely doing smthing wrong there. I had 6 sessions of rerouted track going back into the i/p. The final sixth recording was as detailed and transparent as the original imported file.

I have the option of returning RME and get lynx two. but I'm really liking RME for it's solid performance.

tutt