mytek chosen by David Chesky of audiophile label Chesky Records

[fafalio]

dear friends, mytek is the only that puts in its web space a comparison with others high end converters as prism or lavry.
i have listened to it.
what do you think about?
do you hear in prism sound and lavry a motivation to be four/five time more expansive than mytek?
best regards,
Alessandro.


MYTEK DIGITAL USA

[staudio]

I was at a session with David Chesky where they were comparing the Prism Dream AD to the Mytek 8192 ADDA. I got to hear both converters and the analog source. I thought both were equally great, and of course the cost differences make my choice easy. Mytek baby!!!!

[Dave Bear]

I wonder how Lynx Aurora 16 would stack up

betting its in the same ball park for much less $$

betting money in a double blind test the Lynx would hold its own

[Stefanizzi]

Originally Posted by staudio

I was at a session with David Chesky where they were comparing the Prism Dream AD to the Mytek 8192 ADDA. I got to hear both converters and the analog source. I thought both were equally great, and of course the cost differences make my choice easy. Mytek baby!!!!

I've read very often stories like this. Enjoy your Mytek and be happy. You saved a lot of money! If you carefully avoid to try a Dream AD-2 at your own studio your happiness will last many years.

Regards

[staudio]

Originally Posted by Stefanizzi

I've read very often stories like this. Enjoy your Mytek and be happy. You saved a lot of money! If you carefully avoid to try a Dream AD-2 at your own studio your happiness will last many years.

Regards

I am sorry you are upset by what I said. I hope you understand I was not passing a negative judgement on the Prism. I was just relating a personal experience that is relevant to the topic of discussion. I hope you feel better.

Regards

[staudio]

I believe that what you do with a tool is more important than what tool you use.

[Stefanizzi]

Originally Posted by staudio

I am sorry you are upset by what I said. I hope you understand I was not passing a negative judgement on the Prism. I was just relating a personal experience that is relevant to the topic of discussion. I hope you feel better.

Regards

I feel good, no problem! I appreciate your contribution.thumbsup

Have a nice day!

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by Dave Bear

I wonder how Lynx Aurora 16 would stack up

betting its in the same ball park for much less $$

betting money in a double blind test the Lynx would hold its own

Betting you have absolutely no reason to think that, except that you dearly wish it to be true. There is a small nation of people on this site who desperately want to think of the Aurora as a boutique converter — all depends on how you define "boutique," I guess. It's great, but it really doesn't deserve a mention if you're going to start batting around Mytek, Lavry, Apogee, Prism, iZ.

I have both the 8X96 and the Aurora 16. The Aurora is a very nice converter and a tremendous value, but it absolutely does not stand up to the Mytek.

Frankly, it's not particularly close — nor should it be, considering the Mytek is about twice the price.

JSL

[Unknown soldier]

I'm guessing a lot depends on the budget - if you project requires the utmost quality and the demand is for that, then it makes sense to spend $9K for prism converters...if not, then I doubt the difference in quality is worth an extra $7700 or so (talking the comparative 2 channel stereo versions....)

[David Rick]

Originally Posted by Dave Bear

I wonder how Lynx Aurora 16 would stack up

betting its in the same ball park for much less $$

betting money in a double blind test the Lynx would hold its own

This will certainly depend on whose ballpark it is. What's a "minor difference" for some people is a "major improvement" for others. Most of the time, we can't even agree on what a converter set is supposed to do: Should it sound like a tape machine, or like a wire?

In my experience, converter comparisons are quite tricky to do on an "apples-to-apples" basis. Level mismatches of a few tenths of a decibel are sufficient to skew the preference in favor of the louder unit. Then there's the big question: who gets to be the clock master?

Choice of source material is critical as well. For DAC's, one begins with the usual set of audiophile demo tracks, only to find that many of them mask the differences one wants to hear. For ADC's, the only thing I've found that works is to A/B with a live performance feed, and then you end up with a DAC in the chain as well.

In a recent comparison of the DAC in a Prism Orpheus and a Lynx II, I found that I heard all sorts of tonal differences... until I noticed that level matching by ear had left the Lynx 0.8 dB louder. The Lynx had a lot more bass "slam". When I readjusted the relative levels using a tripod-mounted sound level meter, the differences went away.

The next thing I noticed, was that the Orpheus had a wider and more distinct sound stage. Hearing one of my recent projects through it was a bit disconcerting, because what I thought was a nice ensemble blend actually had a hole in middle that I didn't hear through the Lynx II card. I actually liked the Lynx better, but of course that's what I'd mixed through! Until then, I had been running each DAC off its own clock. On a hunch, I clocked the Lynx from the Orpheus, and the Lynx's image width became a lot closer to that of the Orpheus. Chalk one up for the Prism clock design.

The remaining difference was that on certain recordings the Orpheus sound stage had a sense of depth, while the Lynx II sound stage sounded flat. But I could only hear this on two or three of the dozen reference tracks I was using. It had to be something with significant room ambiance, or a really top-notch artificial reverb. Every track that worked for this turned out to be at least ten years old. Apparently, I'd inadvertently built a Pro-Tools detector!

Out of interest, I also tried comparing the Orpheus DAC to the output of a Pioneer Elite series DVD player. I heard the same depth difference, but it was more subtle. (By necessity, the DVD player was the "clock master", with the Orpheus locked to S/PDIF.)

I realize that I haven't specifically addressed the Aurora 16 or the Mytek unit that you asked about. I can't, because I haven't heard either one. I don't really think the comparisons on the Mytek website are valid. You're hearing complete A/D/A chains and there's no reference for what's actually correct. You simply have to be in the room with the units in question to know what's right.

Finally, I have to mention that buying an expensive converter set isn't just about the sound. There are other factors, like how it interfaces with the rest of your system, ease of use, perceived reliability, and how much you trust the manufacturer's service organization.

The Mytek 8x192 and the Prism Orpheus both made my short list. When you factor in the cost of an AES/EBU card for your computer, they are actually pretty close in price. I respect both Michal and Ian as engineers. Both companies have demo programs. But when I considered which company I wanted to be on the phone with when something went wrong on a remote, the choice was easy.

By the way, that's why the recently discussed DAD unit fell off my list: they had essentially no US distribution for something like a year and a half, and a dead link on their web site. I love boutique gear as much as the next Gearslut, but that was over my threshold.

David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

[fanriffic]

Originally Posted by David Rick

.. But when I considered which company I wanted to be on the phone with when something went wrong on a remote, the choice was easy.

..and it was..?

[Stefanizzi]

Originally Posted by David Rick

This will certainly depend on whose ballpark it is. What's a "minor difference" for some people is a "major improvement" for others. Most of the time, we can't even agree on what a converter set is supposed to do: Should it sound like a tape machine, or like a wire?
[...]
David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording

As usual, Mr. Rick gave us a thoughtful and intelligent contribution reached through deep knowledge and experience. I wish the poster will now take advantage from this report.

Regards

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by David Rick

In a recent comparison of the DAC in a Prism Orpheus and a Lynx II, I found that I heard all sorts of tonal differences... until I noticed that level matching by ear had left the Lynx 0.8 dB louder. The Lynx had a lot more bass "slam". When I readjusted the relative levels using a tripod-mounted sound level meter, the differences went away.

The subject of loudness and channel matching on a stereo source can be a bit of a conundrum. My own desire is to have the stereo image balanced. But then there is the matter of the program source not having equal dynamics-which common if not a given. In fact, I can't imagine a stereo source having perfectly balanced dynamics, by RMS or by peak evaluation.

So, on what did you base your balancing-by what made the system sound best or what the reality was? Or were both the same? I'm surprised that anything would yield a "lot" of difference by adjusting something by 0.8 dB.

So-I'm not at all disagreeing with you. My comments really go to my own perceptions, and how other people, like yourself, come to their perceptions.

There is a question here, somewhere, and I hope you can figure it out and answer it! It has something to do with expecting the same dynamics from each channel in a stereo source.

[Unknown soldier]

Originally Posted by Stefanizzi

As usual, Mr. Rick gave us a thoughtful and intelligent contribution reached through deep knowledge and experience. I wish the poster will now take advantage from this report.

Regards

I like the tone of this guy - over embellishment and a slight back hand to finish the job. If I didn't know any better, I'd think I'm in the presense of royalty. Or perhaps I'm mis-interpreting the message? Hope so....

[David Rick]

Originally Posted by JEGG

There is a question here, somewhere, and I hope you can figure it out and answer it! It has something to do with expecting the same dynamics from each channel in a stereo source.

I think the source of the confusion is that I was not talking about Left/Right stereo balancing at all. I was talking about calibrating the levels of two different DAC's to produce identical output levels. You really can't trust a listening preference test until you've done this.

David

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by David Rick

I think the source of the confusion is that I was not talking about Left/Right stereo balancing at all. I was talking about calibrating the levels of two different DAC's to produce identical output levels. You really can't trust a listening preference test until you've done this.David

Very important point David. But also one that is VERY hard to do correctly. Identical pink noise out of monitors, then calibrated with a very high precision SLM, ie not you average Tandy job.

Because I know most of the assessments of converters on this and other boards haven't done this, I relegate them all to the wonderful field of anecdotal evidence. Who really cares if Chesky uses A or B converter anyway. There are hundreds of other important and capable engineers and listeners using some other device.

I never listen to converters to compare them. Converters are best assessed on their cold hard specs for clock accuracy and jitter. These two specs alone will determine if the converter is quality. Its not rocket science. Listening is overrated and unreliable for converter assessment.

[Søren Bendixen]

Originally Posted by fafalio

dear friends, mytek is the only that puts in its web space a comparison with others high end converters as prism or lavry.
i have listened to it.
what do you think about?
do you hear in prism sound and lavry a motivation to be four/five time more expansive than mytek?
best regards,
Alessandro.



MYTEK DIGITAL USA

It helped me choose Mytek 8x192

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by fanriffic

..and it was..?

Prism. I don't know that that's what he chose ... but that's the answer as he presented it.

JSL

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

I never listen to converters to compare them. Converters are best assessed on their cold hard specs for clock accuracy and jitter. These two specs alone will determine if the converter is quality. Its not rocket science. Listening is overrated and unreliable for converter assessment.

Well, well, I am not sure about it. Specifications may not mean everything. And there is also an analogue part in each converter - and it is not a pure math ... Except measurable noise etc., the real sound, depth, transparency and "musicality" can be perceived and compared only through a pair of sensitive human ears.

Quite a few converters passed through here and I heard quite different sound rendering from each of them: Digi 001, Apogee Rosetta, Lynx, Mytek 96, Lavry Blue, Forssell stereo AD, DAD AX-24 .... And to my ears this is also the scale of sound quality, while for example the overall sound difference between Lavry Blue and AX-24 is HUGE. And Lavry Blue is an excellent converter, of course ... But DAD is most probably one of the very best available today, simply stunning and ears pleasing ...

The samples on Mytek site are mostly quite old. I don´t know whether the present stereo 192 AD is a way different from the previous stereo 96 AD, but changing the stereo 96 for Lavry Blue was quite a substantial sound quality leap for me few years ago.

I would take the claimed similarity between Mytek and Prism Dream AD with a grain of salt

and Mr.Stefanizzi may be most probably right :

Originally Posted by Stefanizzi

I've read very often stories like this. Enjoy your Mytek and be happy. You saved a lot of money! If you carefully avoid to try a Dream AD-2 at your own studio your happiness will last many years.

Anyway, the importance of AD converter quality is sometimes quite underestimated, but to my experience it is the same essential as microphone and preamp: what is the use of great microphones and preamps when the extra sophisticated nuances and details are not well translated and captured into the digital domain ?

One can also say - the room, players, microphones, position etc. are far more important than the converter. Sure, with top class converter alone you cannot do much. BUT - if you have set all that mentioned perfectly, still the converter is the final gate through which all this will pass and it can retain, limit or spoil all that. Yes, very good recordings were made with mediocre converters. But the truth is simple - if they would have used much better converters, the result would have sounded yet much better ...

[Stefanizzi]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

[..] Anyway, the importance of AD converter quality is sometimes quite underestimated, but to my experience it is the same essential as microphone and preamp[..]

I totally agree with you.

Regards.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by jslevin

I have both the 8X96 and the Aurora 16. The Aurora is a very nice converter and a tremendous value, but it absolutely does not stand up to the Mytek.

Frankly, it's not particularly close — nor should it be, considering the Mytek is about twice the price.

JSL

and the 8x192 is even better than it's predecessor

[fanriffic]

Originally Posted by jslevin

Prism. I don't know that that's what he chose ... but that's the answer as he presented it.

JSL

..yes you're right,just re-read his post..which i obviously didn't do very well first time around

[KROK]

Originally Posted by lucey

and the 8x192 is even better than it's predecessor

I picked up a Mytek 8X192 a while ago, and whether I am tracking to tape and then dumping or if I am going AD directly into the computer, it makes me smile everytime I use it.

Before I picked up the Mytek I was clocking everything with a Hedd 192. Now I clock my Hedd 192 off of the Mytek and the Hedd sounds even more amazing now!

Great product....not to mention the customer support that I have gotten from David & Michal has been top notch.

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Specifications may not mean everything.

No, but with A/D and certainly with D/A its clock stability and jitter immunity that make up the main sonic quality of the converter. These two things can be well specified. Jitter immune DAC's have revolutionised playback of digital audio in the last 5 years.

And there is also an analogue part in each converter - and it is not a pure math ... Except measurable noise etc., the real sound, depth, transparency and "musicality" can be perceived and compared only through a pair of sensitive human ears.

True, but the "real sound, depth, transparency and musicality" comes from good clocking and jitter immunity. There is no magic analog stuff getting in the way, or at least there shouldn't be apart from preserving the source signal on the way in. You don't want colouration in a converter.

Quite a few converters passed through here and I heard quite different sound rendering from each of them: Digi 001, Apogee Rosetta, Lynx, Mytek 96, Lavry Blue, Forssell stereo AD, DAD AX-24 ....

David Rick's careful experiments resulting in different conclusions due to tiny changes in level would make thorough testing exhaustive and probably not tolerable. This is why listening can be problematic to assess something that can be indicated reliably, certainly in first pass, in specs.

But DAD is most probably one of the very best available today, simply stunning and ears pleasing ...

This statement is referring to two devices, an A/D and a D/A. Any comments on say one of them at a time. Its probably got both a great DAC (jitter immunity) and a wonderfully accurate and stable clock on the A/D side and nice filters .

Anyway, the importance of AD converter quality is sometimes quite underestimated, but to my experience it is the same essential as microphone and preamp

Cannot agree with this, although of course its important, I am not saying its not, but I am challenging the idea of "listening" as a reliable test of converter quality. Listening can certainly exclude the typical computer interfaces, or DAC's inside CD players right away, and a quick glance at the clock stability specs will confirm the story.

Put another way, I would be very suprised to hear that one converter with worse clock stability sounds better than one with a better clock. Ditto with the DAC end.

One can also say - the room, players, microphones, position etc. are far more important than the converter. Sure, with top class converter alone you cannot do much. BUT - if you have set all that mentioned perfectly, still the converter is the final gate through which all this will pass and it can retain, limit or spoil all that. Yes, very good recordings were made with mediocre converters. But the truth is simple - if they would have used much better converters, the result would have sounded yet much better ...

All true, of course.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

True, but the "real sound, depth, transparency and musicality" comes from good clocking and jitter immunity. There is no magic analog stuff getting in the way, or at least there shouldn't be. You don't want colouration in a converter.

Yes. But then why even the most "transparent" (by design intention) top end converters sound a bit different from each other (and the difference does not necessarily consist of more or less distortion - jitter)

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

David Rick's careful experiments resulting in different conclusions due to tiny changes in level would make thorough testing exhaustive and probably not tolerable. This is why listening can be problematic to assess something that can be indicated reliably, certainly in first pass, in specs.

Probably, but still - my approach is : if the general sound difference between two devices is such microscopic that you can distinguish it only after very laboratory scientific adjustments, it is not worth to consider for a practical studio life. But if under normal AB conditions the overall sound difference is quite obvious and continuous, then it is something to ponder about ...

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Really "huge"?.

DAD - Lavry Blue ... Yes ... For monitoring, I feel like having upgraded my speakers ... finally full bass, natural smooth highs etc.
AD - similar difference ... Yes, it surprised me a lot ...

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

This statement is referring to two devices, an A/D and a D/A. Any comments on say one of them at a time. Its probably got both a great DAC (jitter immunity) and a wonderfully accurate and stable clock on the A/D side.

Most probably. I was explained about quite a new special conversion model AX-24 works in (going through high sample rates even in 44k ), but being not a technical expert , I cannot render it accurately here (I forgot). But what I can hear very accurately here is the sound ...

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Cannot agree with this, although of course its important, I am not saying its not, but I am challenging the idea of "listening" as a reliable test of converter quality. Listening can certainly exclude the typical computer interfaces, or DAC's inside CD players right away, and a quick glance at the clock stability specs will confirm the story.

For me it is relatively simple. I know all my instruments, room , mics, vocal etc. intimately well. When I hear the violin recording rendering the violin with slightly thin edged HF, lesser depth etc. (when one convertor used) and then the same instrument with natural highs, natural room depth (as I hear in reality), it makes a difference for me. And if it projects in a similar way for all the other sources present, then there is nothing to think about further, I think. And specifications are secondary in this case (for me) . And after I hear all this, impossible to return back ... And the overall sound difference may be at least as huge as when changing the preamp ...

[mytek]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Well, well, I am not sure about it. Specifications may not mean everything. And there is also an analogue part in each converter - and it is not a pure math ... Except measurable noise etc., the real sound, depth, transparency and "musicality" can be perceived and compared only through a pair of sensitive human ears.

Quite a few converters passed through here and I heard quite different sound rendering from each of them: Digi 001, Apogee Rosetta, Lynx, Mytek 96, Lavry Blue, Forssell stereo AD, DAD AX-24 .... And to my ears this is also the scale of sound quality, while for example the overall sound difference between Lavry Blue and AX-24 is HUGE. And Lavry Blue is an excellent converter, of course ... But DAD is most probably one of the very best available today, simply stunning and ears pleasing ...

The samples on Mytek site are mostly quite old. I don´t know whether the present stereo 192 AD is a way different from the previous stereo 96 AD, but changing the stereo 96 for Lavry Blue was quite a substantial sound quality leap for me few years ago.

I would take the claimed similarity between Mytek and Prism Dream AD with a grain of salt

Hi Ivo- I think you had a very early rev of stereo96adc, it's actually a fact David Chesky picked Mytek 8x192 and they now use two of these, they did this after few session while running parallel other brands. You are in Czech Republic, right? It'd be no problem to arrange a 8X192 demo sent from our office in Warsaw.

Regards, Michal, MYTEK DIGITAL USA

[Roland]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

I never listen to converters to compare them. Converters are best assessed on their cold hard specs for clock accuracy and jitter. These two specs alone will determine if the converter is quality. Its not rocket science. Listening is overrated and unreliable for converter assessment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot (if not most) modern convertors are of the samplerate converting type, these by their very nature are jitter immune. A lot of the talk about jitter comes from comments made by Bob Katz in an article about the problems of jitter, however, even he points out that jitter isn't a problem for any well designed or samplerate converting DA.

Regards


Roland

[lucey]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

Cannot agree with this, although of course its important, I am not saying its not, but I am challenging the idea of "listening" as a reliable test of converter quality. Listening can certainly exclude the typical computer interfaces, or DAC's inside CD players right away, and a quick glance at the clock stability specs will confirm the story.

Put another way, I would be very suprised to hear that one converter with worse clock stability sounds better than one with a better clock. Ditto with the DAC end.
.

But how would you know? You dont listen.

I'm always amazed with your crowd and their distrust of their own ears over numbers ... this is music making right?

Quality at high levels is always present so always subjective ... all great converters are great, but are they great for your chain, your process, your music?

[videoteque]

Originally Posted by lucey

but are they great for your chain, your process, your music?

... your ears???


Couldn't resist.

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by lucey

But how would you know? You dont listen.

My central thesis is that in the case of a converter only, Brian, nothing else in the chain, is that listening is not reliable as David Rick carefully described above. I shared his varying conclusions when doing very careful listening, unless the volume is absolutely equivalent.

This is all I am saying, that I find specs for converters more indicative of quality.

I'm always amazed with your crowd and their distrust of their own ears over numbers ... this is music making right?

"My crowd", give me a break. I listen very carefully to every other piece of gear, that is all purely analog, when comparing sound quality. Mics, pres, cables. But when it hits the digital domain, specs rule in my book and start to make good sense and correlate highly with sound quality.

Quality at high levels is always present so always subjective

Huh?

... all great converters are great, but are they great for your chain, your process, your music?

These converter qualities are independent of my music or my chain or my anything. This is cold hard accuracy at sampling an analog voltage waveform and producing it again from the numbers. Nothing to do with music, I'm afraid. Remember, I am only talking A/D and D/A.