the sweetest converters i've ever heard... and the tracks to prove it

[peeder]

Hey I did a mix of ubk's demo song...

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/work-...mixes-ubk.html

Come tell me the opportunities for improvement you see...

[demel]

*****

[u b k]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

guess UBK will also not do it, right?

i'd be happy to do it, except i don't have q-clone. one of the problems i think you'd face is that, if my understanding is correct, transformers introduce non-linearities into the sound. q-clone doesn't do non-linear iirc.

two other things come to mind: on the one and only occasion when i was in the presence of q-clone, it was used to emulate a vintage 550a module. it didn't come remotely close to affecting the tone in the same way as the hardware, although it did a very respectable job of behaving similarly in terms of eq curves. iow, it seemed to 'grab' the same stuff, it just didn't have the sweetening on top that we were hoping to hear.

i think people truly overestimate the role of the transformers in the sound and underestimate the role of the conversion itself here. before these things got the final thumbsup for production, rich was doing mods. he settled on one he felt clarified the mids, and i had to do it. it was one surface mount resistor, about 1/4 the size of a pinky nail clipping. it changed the tone of the whole path noticeably, it made the conversion truer to the source in the 1-3k range.

the apoges may test flat, but i tell you in all honesty the burls sounded like the console, with a little bit more love. no hype, no exaggeration, just some vague special sauce. the apogees, otoh, did not, they were very different in every respect. again, i'm not here to bash apogees, people love them and it's a perfectly valid sound to want in your arsenal. but *they do have a sound*, and it is not subtle, not to me at least.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[WunderBro Flo]

By feeding the Apogee Mix through the Burl we caould hear in seconds if it changes the sound - so if the burl´ed apogee mix sounds like the original burl mix, it´s the burl that changes the sound. if it still sounds exactly like the apogee mix, then the burl REALLY is the truer ADC (which I doubt). The other way would also work, send the burl mix through the apogees and let´s hear if that results in a "lesser quality" sound that the apogee here is "accused of".

doable?


Thanks & rock on!
Pat

[WunderBro Flo]

Originally Posted by u b k

he settled on one he felt clarified the mids, and i had to do it. it was one surface mount resistor, about 1/4 the size of a pinky nail clipping. it changed the tone of the whole path noticeably, it made the conversion truer to the source in the 1-3k range.

.

well actually dipping the lower midrange by a db is a move that almost always results in a clearer midrange above it. the question now is: is this added clarity the same as dipping the lomids or is the burl rulerflat and achieves the added clarity through some other way. cause maybe just changing this resistor simply changed the freq response down there and that might be all that´s to it. might! might not!
that´s why I wanna find out, cause I do not believe in unexplainable "magical" soundimprovements. it all comes down to freq balance, harmonics/distortion and phase relationships. no more, no less.

rock on!
Pat

[u b k]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

doable?

totally doable! i just need to get my hands on another burl, which i think i'll be able to do when they come off the production line, maybe another week or so. i think it'd be instructive for everyone to hear exactly what the burl does and doesn't do to the sound.

as for low mid dips equaling mid clarity, trust me: there's no way in *hell* i would've given rich positive feedback on a mod that screwed with the low mids. i was extremely resistant to changing anything at all, but i had to admit it seemed to be a change that clarified the mids without making any other sacrifices. the level may have shifted, but we're talking one or two tenths of a db at most. it was the character of the sound that changed.

analog circuits are all voodoo to me, so magic is a concept i'm comfortable with. why any two pieces of gear that measure ruler flat still sound different is a mystery to me, and why those changes have an impact on me emotionally is an even deeper puzzle. i'm as moved by the hifi sheen of dsotm as i am by the gritty junk of a stax 45; i go by the gut at all times, and while i don't understand my gut, i trust it implicitly.

be well!


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[guittarzzan]

Did I miss this somewhere in the thread?

What's the street price on this thing?

tks.

[GilWave]

Originally Posted by guittarzzan

What's the street price on this thing?

+/- $3000

[guittarzzan]

I prefer the minus sign instead of the plus sign. How much is it with the minus sign?

[guittarzzan]

One gripe I have to say about this post is that imo, distorted guitars suffer worse than anything else when going straight to disk. I know some will disagree, but anyhoo, it would have been nice to have some distorted guitar track(s) to listen to and make comparisons.
The ONLY reason I would buy this unit would be if it helped with the smearing, artificial crap that plays back after I record a medium-high gain to high-gain guitar track. Even backing down the gain and leaving lots of headroom in PT, my digi 192 converter just seems to turn my guitar tracks into mp3 files instantly. All other instruments I'm happy with the 192.
Two questions for you or someone at Waves Dist.:
-Any chance of posting a couple clips of some distorted guitars done with the Burl and at least one other higher-end converter like a Lavry etc?
-The claims made at the Burl website basically state that this is the end all of converters. There are converters that cost triple what the Burl does. Has this thing ever even been a/b'd with something like the PRism Dream and the likes of others in that range?
If it holds it's own with those ones, then $3000 is a great deal. If it doesn't, some of the claims at the site should be a little more humble imo.

[GilWave]

Originally Posted by guittarzzan

How much is it with the minus sign?

$2999.

[guittarzzan]

Do I have to enter a discount code at the web site to get the $1 off deal?

Seriously though, in regards to my previous post. Has this thing REALLY been compared to the true, high end converters?

[guittarzzan]

bump for some answers.

Has this thing been actually a/b'd with stuff like the Lavry gold and ones in that league? The claims on the web site pretty much state that it's the best, most musical converter on the planet. With converters costing 3x as much, I'm curious how it really stacks up against those. Is this thing really a revolutionary breakthrough in price/performance or are we just saying it's better than some of the Apogees?

[thephatboi]

They both sound nice in their own ways. I would have liked to hear an Apogee AD16x self clocked compared to the Burl as oppposed to the Rosetta (not as "analog" as the ADx) clocked to the Burl. I think they might have been closer. I Think the Burl sounds great though, for sure a nice tool for more analog like recording. I agree with a previous poster that ALL converters impart a sound, "choose your poison" is exactly the words I have used. So have more than one converter just like you do pres, use the fat one for the the drums, use the flat one for the strings etc.....

UBK: any chance of hearing a 2 track mix through the Burl and then through an AD16X SELF CLOCKED? Then you are really comparing apogee's best with the burl. Thanks for the post. Sounds great.

[Santa Fe]

Hi UBK - thanks for the review and an afternoon of high drama reading this thread.... yikes! Quick question on the suitability of the Burl for folk/acoustic applications. Understandably, one's sonic preferences come into play, but is the Burl 'better' suited to rock-oriented material? I have the 2192- and haven't got things up and running yet - would you recommend one unit over the other for my application? Thanks! -Chris

[u b k]

Originally Posted by thephatboi

UBK: any chance of hearing a 2 track mix through the Burl and then through an AD16X SELF CLOCKED?

not unless someone who has the apogees wants to spend a day geeking out with me. thumbsup


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Santa Fe

Quick question on the suitability of the Burl for folk/acoustic applications. Understandably, one's sonic preferences come into play, but is the Burl 'better' suited to rock-oriented material?

the song in this thread has soft drums, acoustic guitar, clean rhodes, quiet vocals... call me crazy, but that seems pretty acoustic to me!

i love the 2192, it's a lovely converter. the burl is more open on top and has greater depth, but it's the same price and you only get a/d. i'd only advise someone to step up from the 2192 if their room and instruments and mics and pre's are completely beyond reproach and they still want to sweeten the tones, because that's the only way i could justify upgrading those converters.


gregoire
del
ubk
.

[Natural Mystic]

@ ---> guitarzann... I know what you mean! It's been said that the two hardest things to record digitally are bagpipes and distorted electric guitars. It has something to do with the complex harmonics of those instruments. That being said the most pleasing electric guitar tracks I ever recorded were through a TG-2 and the UA 2192. I'm very interested in hearing the Burl!

[Marjan]

Originally Posted by heyman

So, the individual tracks hit the Burl for conversion...

Then you gave us a stereo mix with the Burl and the Apogee's..

Like I said in my previous post, I like the burl's and I heard a diffrence.

How wide would that gap be if we heard one version of everything tracked and mixed thru the apogees and one tracked and mixed thru the Burl?

I would say the gap would be even wider..

very interesting..

Exactly...

On top of that, as previously stated (once again) the Rosetta 800 was clocked off the Burl.

[Marjan]

Originally Posted by Plush

In my type of work, I do not require, nor do I want, the converter to change the sound in any way.

We chose dCS for this reason.

Perhaps not just for that reason...
You also could pay for it.

I suppose many people go for colour because the truly transparent converters like dCS are not exactly affordable for the mere mortals or even full blown pros.

So in many cases it's a question of choosing the colour you dislike the least.

Personally I love both 'types'.

[lblstudio]

First time posting on this thread and I only read through the first and last pages, but to me, I like the UBK's Apogee mix better. To me, the Apogee sounds more natural and the Burl sounds more Hifi. I also think the separation is better on the Apogee.

Some of this may be placebo effect because I am listening through a Rosetta 800. Hey, it's important to feel good about your gear! I do hear a noticeable difference between the two mixes, though, and like the Apogee mix better.

[cooker]

Same with me, first time reading though thread did catch my eye when it was first posted. I find it hard to say which is better but difference is obvious. I do think that if you make entire project with burl you'll get more glue into the sound which many may prefer over the apogee's more transparent results. Also Burl is more punchy.

[Mr.HOLMES]

I am into a new ADC solution too and came across here.
Just to say for everybody who not checked?

The burl rough file is in its average 1.8 db louder as the apogee file.
So also I would be interested how the mixes could be recorded?????

I just thought it would be a pure ADC solution not DAC too isn't it, or do I get the burl wrong???

EDIT:
You have recorded the whole mix though the burl again....WOW

Andreas

[tommy_asakawa]

Thanks, Gregoire - the Burl sounds great and a piece of gear worth owning!

Nice tune, too!

[TimmyP1955]

The Apogee had better rendition of pitch (notes didn't sound flat), and the meter felt better. It gave a much more satisfying musical experience.

[theblotted]

Originally Posted by TimmyP1955

The Apogee had better rendition of pitch (notes didn't sound flat), and the meter felt better. It gave a much more satisfying musical experience.

might i ask, what are you using for monitoring and ADDA?

[DONNX]

Apogee.

[lakeshorephatty]

Its interesting how people's perceptions and perspectives differ.

I say this because some peoples perspective on a device like this relates purely to the performance heard and how it makes them feel. Other people link their perception of the product into their ideals/methods for audio, and others still for the OP's posting methods, and seem to contribute very little to the discussion of the actual results.

Earlier in the thread you will see me posting about the slight differences between the posted files and how they weren't particularly important to me. I've revisited this thread quite awhile later because I was compelled to. It wasn't that it placed a kernel of an idea in my head and changed my perception. My perception of what I currently have AD/DA-16x, has slowly changed through a more involved project I am working on. As I eliminate some of the larger more obvious variables that don't help to cumulatively get to the sounds I want to hear, there are smaller parts of the picture that don't seem right. I'm starting to find that my converters, as praised as they are, are not the right "perscription" for me to hear the audio in the way my brain loves it.

I think the perpose of this is that its pretty evident that there is a lot to wade through in any thread, but mostly that relates to people having dramatically varying tastes, perspectives, and reasons for their opinions. Its unfortunate sometimes opinions are more logic based than based on the audio making them feel great, or it feeling "natural". We humans do let logic seep into even areas as abstract as music.

For the creation of equipment, we couldn't have what we have without logic, but in the analysis of whether that equipment is good or not, logical tests are a great baseline but the last 5% of the equation always relates to subtle areas of perception, and how that perception makes you feel. I think some people have found this zone and are closer to "music zen" than others. There's nothing wrong with this, we're each on our own path and we all won't get to the same spot in the end.

That said I think the designer of this product is more in tune with my musical sensibilities than the ones that designed the converters I own. Listening back with my current level of experience I couldn't believe what I heard. Music borders on the abstract at all times. You have to take a complex input to your mind and place descriptives on it, then react to those. If I had to use some I couldn't believe how the apogee gave me the feeling of a "recording" but the burl went more in the direction of "a performance happening around me". These things become evident as my perception changes. As an example. I find with the drums for instance the apogee does what i find mine does. It gives a resolution and a sound that seems slightly spikey for my tastes and each element seems like an element (cymbals are cymbals, toms are toms etc) whereas with the burl sound, much truer to what my ear hears as "a drum kit" so i don't seperate the elements so easily and focus on them. They blend and glue.

Just some food for thought. I have to go to work now!

Russell

[lakeshorephatty]

I'm at work now. I guess in the end what I am edging at is that if someone designs their products first to a quantitatively found baseline, then fine tunes based on qualitative factors relating to their tastes, then depending on their tastes they could be light years closer to my desired product than one based entirely on measurable results. This may be an opinion no-one shares with me, but as a mechanical engineer this equates to form/fit/function in the way that i would use them in my "day job". They are an integral part of making a superior "thing" in my line of work, and in something as abstract as music they could be monumental.

Russell

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by lakeshorephatty

I'm at work now. I guess in the end what I am edging at is that if someone designs their products first to a quantitatively found baseline, then fine tunes based on qualitative factors relating to their tastes, then depending on their tastes they could be light years closer to my desired product than one based entirely on measurable results. This may be an opinion no-one shares with me, but as a mechanical engineer this equates to form/fit/function in the way that i would use them in my "day job". They are an integral part of making a superior "thing" in my line of work, and in something as abstract as music they could be monumental.

Russell

Well said! thumbsup