Apogee Rosetta 200/800 thought

[jrides]

Anybody using these. What's your opinion based on your experience with the current Rosetta line? Just got one to use as ad/da for my mpc 2500.

[evilpeezy]

I use a rosetta its okay, not the best by no means but it will get the job done.

[jrides]

My mpc is limited to 16/44.1, so I wouldn't pay much more for a converter in this use.

You ever try the dithering? Can you speak on that or the soft limiting?

[evilpeezy]

The soft limiting is very transparent it almost never allows clipping. I got this for my MPC and MV because it has a warm bottom to the sound which makes the drums sound more fat. So if you are using this for the purpose of tracking your MPC it is perfect for tracking and getting a good fat sound to it. I would use a clean pre-amp tho going into the rosetta.

[jrides]

Interesting, interesting. Warm low end on the 200/800? I will have to see if I come to the same conclusion. I hadn't planned on any preamp action going in necessarily, but was gonna track out thru a couple 1073's, or API 312's.

If the 200 does somehow positively impact my drums thumptasticness, that would be a nice side effect. Then I will probably be glad I didnt get that Rosetta AD/DA, as I read they sound different from the new line.

Now that you have put that idea out there, I'm wondering if I should get the 800. If the low end theory holds up, I could probably use a set to my benefit. I aleeady have clean converters on the spot. My operation at the present time, is highly drum centric. They are the single most important aspect of it actually. This could be very interesting.

Thanks for the input!
All other comments regarding experience with these units are still welcome.

[evilpeezy]

It is definately not clean at all. It is good gor drums. My drums have more weight. My lynx aurora always makes my intruments sound clean and kinda lifeless, but on vocals it shines. I got the rosetta years ago and it still shines. You will want to calibrate it also. I would recommend leave the soft limit on seeing that its pretty transparent and can be sure the source wont clip.

[Charlie-O]

Rosetta 800, with firewire card here. FAirly Transparent all around. I use a Trak 2 for soft saturation and soft limiting. I think apogees FX are pretty transparent
as stated earlier. But it can be pushed, and the saturation is a cumalitive effect. It adds up.

BAck on topic, the Rossets series are perfectly capable.

[madehumble]

I have a Rosetta 200 and find it to be true to the source.

Sent from my Desire HD using Gearslutz.com

[evilpeezy]

I disagree, i dont find it true to the souce. It has some warm saturation going on, but the soft limit is transparent. If you want true to the source get a lynx aurora.

[Elogical4now]

I have a Rosetta 200 with the Symphony card in a Mac Pro. I use to have an MPC 2500 before I sold it. The sound was great.

If I were you I'd just grab the one that works best for your studio setup. You cant go wrong with the 200 or the 800.

[jrides]

Originally Posted by Elogical4now

I have a Rosetta 200 with the Symphony card in a Mac Pro. I use to have an MPC 2500 before I sold it. The sound was great.

If I were you I'd just grab the one that works best for your studio setup. You cant go wrong with the 200 or the 800.

Thanks for the response.
I already have converters for general purpose recording. I copped the Rosetta 200 just to see if it was an upgrade to the MPC 2500 converters... or really to see if there was any value of using different converters than found on the 2500. These were not to be used as my main converters. However, if I find that I hear what evilpeezy does, I might find reason to move up to the 800. They wouldnt be my main converters but "special purpose" converters, if that makes sense. We will see. The 200's wont be here until next week, and I will see how I like them. I may end up just going with the 2500 converters. I don't dislike what I can do with them at all. This is moreso experimentation really.

It would be nice if evilpeezy was right though. That would be an added bonus. (and reason to keep them)

[madehumble]

Originally Posted by evilpeezy

I disagree, i dont find it true to the souce. It has some warm saturation going on, but the soft limit is transparent. If you want true to the source get a lynx aurora.

I disagree with you back, I have worked with the Lynx Aurora Converters on many occasions and find them to be good but not great. More on the sterile side. I still think the Rosetta has a better sound in my opinion and also is more true to the source.

This is the whole truth and nothing but the truth in what I am about to say. Recently I talk to someone in Apogee's tech support because I wanted to know if Maestro 2 was coming to the Rosetta 200. Somehow we started talking about the Ensemble and he told me the Rosetta converters were better, which I knew already. So I told him that, one time I read on Gearslutz that the Rosetta 200 and the Rosetta 800 had slightly different converters. And this was his answer:

"Yes they do have slightly different converters and the Rosetta 200 being more recent has slightly better converters than the 800"

I have heard the difference in them myself, and always thought the 200, had a more open sound. I'm gonna find that old thread and congratulate the member who said they were different, in that old thread. That guy was before his time.

[evilpeezy]

Aurora has a sterile sound, we can agree on that. Rosetta by no means is transparent and true to the source. It is colored in a good way. I have Mytek, Prims Orpheus and a Lucid converter. No way no how after listening to several A/D conversion tests of the same Korg M3 track in is the Rosetta true to the source.

[Doc Mixwell]

The Rosetta 200 is being used here, next to a Symphony I/O. I have concluded that the Rosetta has a nice euphonic touch, a crisp detailed top end, as well as some smooth mid range love, but generally speaking I don't think its the most colored/harmonic/huge change through a device. It is pretty modern, clear and clean, but as you really listen to the sound, you can discern its opinion, like any ADA converter. You really want to watch your gain scalings with the modules on the Rosetta 200 and not push the headroom at all. Leaving the headroom wide open, has made a difference in its audible character, to my ear.

[madehumble]

Originally Posted by evilpeezy

Aurora has a sterile sound, we can agree on that. Rosetta by no means is transparent and true to the source. It is colored in a good way. I have Mytek, Prims Orpheus and a Lucid converter. No way no how after listening to several A/D conversion tests of the same Korg M3 track in is the Rosetta true to the source.

You are the Converter Don with all those converters. I guess we can agree to disagree. Also great collection of converters!

[madehumble]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

The Rosetta 200 is being used here, next to a Symphony I/O. I have concluded that the Rosetta has a nice euphonic touch, a crisp detailed top end, as well as some smooth mid range love, but generally speaking I don't think its the most colored/harmonic/huge change through a device. It is pretty modern, clear and clean, but as you really listen to the sound, you can discern its opinion, like any ADA converter. You really want to watch your gain scalings with the modules on the Rosetta 200 and not push the headroom at all. Leaving the headroom wide open, has made a difference in its audible character, to my ear.

Roc, thanks for your input. And I agree, if one really listen to the Rosetta 200, you will see it is not as colored as one might think.

[prologicmusic]

Rosetta here. Had the API A2D and Lynx up for a while, but ultimately chose the apogee in the end. Why? To me it sounded the best.

[madehumble]

Originally Posted by prologicmusic

Rosetta here. Had the API A2D and Lynx up for a while, but ultimately chose the apogee in the end. Why? To me it sounded the best.

To me also man.

[jrides]

Originally Posted by madehumble

To me also man.

You compared to the A2D as well? Or are you cosigning the lynx part?

[jrides]

Originally Posted by evilpeezy

Aurora has a sterile sound, we can agree on that. Rosetta by no means is transparent and true to the source. It is colored in a good way. I have Mytek, Prims Orpheus and a Lucid converter. No way no how after listening to several A/D conversion tests of the same Korg M3 track in is the Rosetta true to the source.

Can you give me a breakdown of likes/dislikes best uses for the guys you listed? I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion on these guys. You seem to have an interesting perspective.

[evilpeezy]

For Drums, I always run it through my rosetta. I just love the sound of it on drums. My mytek blah, Lynx is sterile and transparent so I use it mainly for guitars or if I have one of my tube mics/pres. The Prism is used 99% of the time for vocals. Just worth every dollar. TRUE to the source. Lucid I use for vocals also. Its not sterile but not transparent either and has a very good sound to it.

[madehumble]

Originally Posted by jrides

You compared to the A2D as well? Or are you cosigning the lynx part?

No, the Rosetta part. Sorry about the confusion.

[evilpeezy]

If I was you would get a Lucid. I like the conversion a bit better. My favs in order

Prism
Lucid
Rosetta
Aurora
Mytek

[madehumble]

Originally Posted by evilpeezy

If I was you would get a Lucid. I like the conversion a bit better. My favs in order

Prism
Lucid
Rosetta
Aurora
Mytek

I totally agree....with this list.

Sent from my Desire HD using Gearslutz.com

[jrides]

Originally Posted by evilpeezy

If I was you would get a Lucid. I like the conversion a bit better. My favs in order

Prism
Lucid
Rosetta
Aurora
Mytek

Well I go the tracking # for the 200 on Wed. Its for a drum machine so I really can't justify spending more than Rosetta money. That was already in motion before I started this thread. I was just interested on your perspective on the other ones.The Priasm's are more my speed at the moment.