Apogee vs. Lynx when dumping from Tape

[soupking]

Hi GS,

I have an MCI JH24 with 16-track heads. For most organic recording purposes, I'm looking to develop my studio as a hybrid system of tracking to tape and dumping to digital for editing.

I have an MCI JH110 for mixing to analog format, but for the most part, I like the editing flexibility of working ITB for mixing.

We currently have an Apogee Mini-Me which is awesome for quick stuff, but I was wondering if one 16-channel converter is better for this process than the other.

Would it differ much in terms of dumping versus recording straight to software? If so, ignore this thread. I've read the +/- of both converters.

TGIF,
-soupking

[Doc Mixwell]

Soup;

Would it differ much in terms of dumping versus recording straight to software?

Are you referring to using multi-track as opposed to printing the 2-track [and then editing] with your Mini-Me?

My opinion is that BOTH sets of verters are awesome. Its tough to say which set will be better for you're purpose, given your aesthetic and really, it will be of benefit to try both with your rig. They are much different texturally and at some point the choice becomes only about texture, as each box will encode your tracks with great clock and great conversion, but of course there are very distinct differences in feature sets between the Lynx Aurora 16 [AD/DA] and the Apogee AD16x. Lets think about this for a second. The Lynx is a 16 Channel AD/DA in 1 RU for 3K. WOW, thats a deal if it sounds awesome right! Well, it sounds more than awesome! It eats all of this pro-sumer stuff in my opinion, with a flatter response and more "weight" to the audio overall. Getting 16 channels of smoking AD AND DA conversion with AES I/O anywhere else is a different story. Its a GREAT value for what it is and the way it sounds. However, it does not have adjustable +4 reference calibration, which I think is a pretty important factor for proper gain scaling with various analog equipment, including a tape machine.

Its set from the factory cal [-16DBFS] which might be perfectly fine with your analog equipment. I suspect it would. Here is where you ask you're self how important it is to have DA that is of equal quality, which will more than likely lead to you using the DAW as a 1:1 tape machine/razor blade. The AD/DA16x units are the best of the Apogee crowd, as they have the most flexible reference calibration settings [precise .01DB or 1DB steps] they share the C777 Big Ben Clock, they have Standard or Split path routing with X-Option card installed, soft limiting [turn it off if you don't need it, after you calibrate the AD stage].......If these features mean more for your studio than having 16 DAC, than perhaps the Apogee is the better choice for you. In the end, I think you'd be happy with either [given my experience] so its going to be a matter of taste versus the features you need.

[Niv]

a thousand words of non-sense. who really cares about flexible reference calibration? who can´t help himself on that is not to help anyways.

digitalization always means a huge bit of loss, by irony even the more the more expensive the converter since you will be disappointed especially by the biggest/most expensive boys again. IF you have ears and taste, if not, luck is with you creeeping upwards the marketing stairs. apogee or lynx is not such difference, though there is one. i´d prefer the apogee since it tries to hide the digital touch while the lynx just tries to translates transparent/original - which seems the wrong approach here since analog and digital are very different, i would say opposite worlds in the recording room. people say aurora the more "honest" conv, but what means that? who cares if it all sounds like shit, something good analog stuff just roughly digitalized and now sounding cold and harsh. throw away the computer.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by Niv

a thousand words of non-sense. who really cares about flexible reference calibration? who can´t help himself on that is not to help anyways.

digitalization always means a huge bit of loss, by irony even the more the more expensive the converter since you will be disappointed especially by the biggest/most expensive boys again. IF you have ears and taste, if not, luck is with you creeeping upwards the marketing stairs. apogee or lynx is not such difference, though there is one. i´d prefer the apogee since it tries to hide the digital touch while the lynx just tries to translates transparent/original - which seems the wrong approach here since analog and digital are very different, i would say opposite worlds in the recording room. people say aurora the more "honest" conv, but what means that? who cares if it all sounds like shit, something good analog stuff just roughly digitalized and now sounding cold and harsh. throw away the computer.

wow... who peed in your cornflakes?



i would go for the apogees, myself.

[soupking]

Cool, thanks guys. I knew that was going to be a question pretty much like comparing two kinds of vanilla but...I'm pretty naive in this realm and it's a lot of money to invest.

verdict:
I think the mini-me kicks ass. If I didn't have it, I'd go fo the Aurora due to 2-way flexibility. But since I have it, I'll probably just have to wait.

I just bought a tape machine, bear with me. I'm a f'n piano player. This studio sh1t is colorful as a tattoo.

[Nu-tra]

I use the aurora with my mci jh24 and I think its great. I'm already getting the analog sound and dumping it into the lynx. Transferring tape to the apogee might affect your tape sound "TO ME" the apogee sounds like it has a low mid bump. If I was to transfer tape I would want a cleaner/flatter converter. This all subjective of course. You can get the aurora for about $2600 from full compass but that is without the card.

[Niv]

the lynx turns the analog brown into a pissy yellow, the apogee at least into some light orange. its subtle, it won´t change instruments or lyrics. but its there/missing overall. but you won´t notice til the needle has you.

[adoucette]

im going with lynx, not only do you get 16 in and 16 out with a single unit, but its more expandable than the apogees I believe.. for example, I dont use protools HD, yet anyways, too expensive.. I used Nuendo 3, so for now I am going to use Aurora 16 with FW-LT card to send to computer via firewire, then in the future if I choose to go over to HD, I can buy the HD card for the aurora and use these converters with HD

[T_R_S]

Niether SSL Alpalink AX thumbsup

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Niv

a thousand words of non-sense. who really cares about flexible reference calibration? who can´t help himself on that is not to help anyways.

digitalization always means a huge bit of loss, by irony even the more the more expensive the converter since you will be disappointed especially by the biggest/most expensive boys again. IF you have ears and taste, if not, luck is with you creeeping upwards the marketing stairs. apogee or lynx is not such difference, though there is one. i´d prefer the apogee since it tries to hide the digital touch while the lynx just tries to translates transparent/original - which seems the wrong approach here since analog and digital are very different, i would say opposite worlds in the recording room. people say aurora the more "honest" conv, but what means that? who cares if it all sounds like shit, something good analog stuff just roughly digitalized and now sounding cold and harsh. throw away the computer.

Never worked in a pro room have you? At least not one with an analogue board. I'd be pretty screwed if I couldn't line up the converters in our rooms. There are ways to work round it, but working round things is what you do in your personal room, not what is expected from a professional studio.

You're really quickly becoming the most ignorant loudmouth on this board, do you realise that? Even the other opinionated loudmouths like nickynicknick and allencollins actually have a point, most of the time. You really don't have a clue.

[Niv]

you´re not "professional" in the sense of term, dear honky. what you describe is just beaurocratic bullshit. if there ain´t a problem in that realm then lining up/down signals. btw, most studios suffer from too much technical comfort and perfection, a record should tell a story, and problems are the biggest inspirer in that world. basicas darling, very lifes basics.

[wurly200]

I would go with the Apogee if you can afford it.

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

Soup;

Its set from the factory cal [-16DBFS]

Aurora says that but it is not true. It is around -16dBfs but it can be as much as -15.5dBfs on one channel and -16.5dBfs on another channel.

That is the way are Lynx was from Aurora.

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

Soup;
The AD/DA16x units are the best of the Apogee crowd, as they have the most flexible reference calibration settings [precise .1DB or 1DB steps]

The Apogees are actually .01dB or 1dB steps.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Niv

you´re not "professional" in the sense of term, dear honky. what you describe is just beaurocratic bullshit. if there ain´t a problem in that realm then lining up/down signals. btw, most studios suffer from too much technical comfort and perfection, a record should tell a story, and problems are the biggest inspirer in that world. basicas darling, very lifes basics.

I'm guessing I'm just feeding the troll here..but hey, I like a challenge.

firstly, let's sort a couple of things out. "Bureaucracy" (it's ok, took me 3 attempts to spell it) - is "An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action" to give the most appropriate interpretation here. Not really anything to do with what we're talking about. I may be, according to you, describing "technical bullshit" but again, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know why it wasn't bullshit.

"Sense of term" - assuming you mean "sense of the word", which sense of "professional" are you referring to? to make a comment like that, you have to qualify it - otherwise it's like saying "you're as stupid as" without actually saying what you're as stupid as.

Now we've got the "basics" out of the way, let's talk about your real issues. I've had afternoons in people's spare rooms, having great fun making and recording music on a variety of gear that according to the market is deemed "semi-pro". Whilst the material might not have been worth releasing, for some styles of music the recordings might have been. Great. No problem with that.

However, as a "professional" facility - in the sense of the word, I mean "working for people for money", "providing a service for clients" and whatever else you interpret the word to mean, some things matter. They expect the gear to work for example. If had a mixing desk that crackled all the time, a pro tools rig that constantly crashed, and microphones that were knackered, then said to the client "a record should tell a story, and problems are the biggest inspirer in that world. basics darling, very life's basics." not only would I be out of a job, but the studio wouldn't stay in business very long. Sure, problems happen (and can inspire good things, that knackered mic might just be the sound you're looking for), but nothing kills inspiration quicker than technical problems that hold up a session.

THAT'S professionalism to me. Just 'cos a studio is "professional", doesn't mean it has to be soulless. The company I work for has a great reputation for comfy, homely studios that work very well. I could name several rooms that are comfy, homely and technically deficient. People only go there for the cheap rates they offer..and then often only as a last resort.

Coming back to the original point that started the argument, if I couldn't line up converters in the way you can with the apogees (speaking from personal experience here - our studios have apogees and 192s) then I'd have problems - analogue boards drift slightly, and I need to make sure the output levels to and from the rig are repeatable for recall purposes. Again, how inspirational would you find it to go to a studio to find your mix recall sounds terrible because your studio couldn't do the things it needed to do to make it work - it's ok though - because "a record should tell a story, and problems are the biggest inspirer in that world. basics darling, very life's basics". Yeah right.

You've already stated in other posts your equipment at home (why you're talking about lynxes and apogees when you're recording a $100 Marshall I don't know...I doubt the converters are the weak link in this chain) so that's fine - I don't want to come off as being snobbish, my home system isn't much more fancy - but I'd suggest if you DON'T want to sound totally ignorant, you wouldn't dismiss things like line-ups as "bureaucratic bullshit". You may not know WHY it matters, and to you it probably doesn't - again, I'd have no problem with that, my system at home has fixed lineups on the conversion and I've recorded elements of released records with that - but if you've not experienced it, then maybe don't comment on it.

If you're going to bother replying to this post - why not prove you're not just trolling, keep the lame insults out of it and give me a reasoned argument why you're right, and back up your comments with some sort of qualitative examples. Go on - prove me wrong - tell me your professional experience, how long you've been working on this stuff, or if you're not a working engineer or producer, then how much time you've spent in these studios making music. I'm happy to be proved wrong on any of my assumptions....but I suspect you're just going to respond with something along the lines of your earlier posts.

Gotta go now, cab's here....today's "professional" session went very well...lots of creative recording got done, partly the success was down to the minimal technical issues...and everyone left happy with the results and the levels of service. THAT'S my definition of professional, what was yours again?

[adam miller]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Gotta go now, cab's here....

Dude, haven't you heard? Addison Lee is a bureaucratic impediment to artistry. Real assistants take the night bus.

[Bierce85]

psycho monkey:

I think you just wasted however much time it took out of your life to write that giant response to a couple of moronic posts. In the same amount of time you could've eaten a muffin or done something else enjoyable.. Good post though.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Niv

a thousand words of non-sense. who really cares about flexible reference calibration? who can´t help himself on that is not to help anyways.

digitalization always means a huge bit of loss, by irony even the more the more expensive the converter since you will be disappointed especially by the biggest/most expensive boys again. IF you have ears and taste, if not, luck is with you creeeping upwards the marketing stairs. apogee or lynx is not such difference, though there is one. i´d prefer the apogee since it tries to hide the digital touch while the lynx just tries to translates transparent/original - which seems the wrong approach here since analog and digital are very different, i would say opposite worlds in the recording room. people say aurora the more "honest" conv, but what means that? who cares if it all sounds like shit, something good analog stuff just roughly digitalized and now sounding cold and harsh. throw away the computer.

Don't do this for a living eh?

Got Prism ADA, UA2192, Lynx and few cheap ones here. All different. Got an MCI 16 track . Got a superb ATR102 half inch. Got a 1970's Neve console. Got loads of nice outboard. Heard it all sounding great and crap. How? Depending on me!!

Throw away the computer? What? And earn 20k a year? Tops? You gotta be kidding.....

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Niv

you´re not "professional" in the sense of term, dear honky. what you describe is just beaurocratic bullshit. if there ain´t a problem in that realm then lining up/down signals. btw, most studios suffer from too much technical comfort and perfection, a record should tell a story, and problems are the biggest inspirer in that world. basicas darling, very lifes basics.

Well - I'm afraid he is. And pretty good and Pro he is too. I should know - I've hired him. Making records (ie rock, pop, hip hop whatever) CDs is but a small %age of the recording industry...... and one of the smallest earning. Professional? No - what you're talking about is ill founded elitism. The playground of the ignoramus Im afraid.

Gonna call me none pro' too? I wouldn't fancy your chances on that one..... unless you want to make yourself look VERY stupid. Now I'm gonna eat a muffin.

[Niv]

Originally Posted by Bierce85

psycho monkey:

I think you just wasted however much time it took out of your life to write that giant response to a couple of moronic posts. In the same amount of time you could've eaten a muffin or done something else enjoyable.. Good post though.

absolutely. except it would be a good post, it isn´t. its bigload of nothing, usual illusion of a wannabe. if you were a pro in the sense of the term, you´d just smile at me and go further like i do.

[soupking]

Wow...

I guess we'll call it even. Time to get off the computer.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Niv

absolutely. except it would be a good post, it isn´t. its bigload of nothing, usual illusion of a wannabe. if you were a pro in the sense of the term, you´d just smile at me and go further like i do.

Well done, you've just proved me right. Bye bye troll.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

Niether SSL Alpalink AX thumbsup

What he said..
24 I/O in one box and they do what they should.

One thing that strikes me odd is lot's of converters compare different converters but actually surely we should compare JUST the original with the converter. Whichever sounds most like the original is doing it's job best, no?

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by wurly200

I would go with the Apogee if you can afford it.

Aurora says that but it is not true. It is around -16dBfs but it can be as much as -15.5dBfs on one channel and -16.5dBfs on another channel.

That is the way are Lynx was from Aurora.

Really? I'll have to run tones this afternoon, because that is simply not what I have found to be the case. They are said to be set calibrated at -16DFBS. I do not disbelieve a company like Lynx, nor do I disbelieve what I have seen with my own two eyes, nor will I disbelieve you when you post such a finding. Perhaps there is more to your test that would equate to such a problem.

The Apogees are actually .01dB or 1dB steps.

That's what I meant, thanks for the clarification!

Anyway, anyone who doesn't think reference calibration won't matter in a PRO studio [where there is analog equipment in use, which is always the case NO MATTER WHAT] is kidding themselves. My personal opinion is that audio engineering is about attention to detail, and this is certainly "attention to detail" of epic proportion. I believe that anyone who bats eyelashes with this concept, simply does not understand why you would want to take the +4 reference calibration into consideration when you use analog equipment. And in the end, if you don't care about it, it probably won't matter to the outcome of your record, but it will most certainly matter to the outcome of mine.

[Niv]

c´mon, its about such administrating, less sound-wise detail when you have 20 devices comparable regarding sound issues. but not if it comes to a decision between a few driven by the will for finding the best match for a special task soundwise.

you sit in your vain "pro" world and counting peanuts darling, sorry. i just found thats not the proper differenciation of a high priority relating to the threads quastion.

but sure you wanna make money by telling people to buy the whole arsenal if they can´t become "pros" by just have taste, ears and talent. f.o. "hey you´re pro when you cound peanuts features, really nerdy pro talk". makes me tired.

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by Niv

a thousand words of non-sense.

Ok not a thousand words, but the other part is right about your post.

peace

I'm have no more time to feed the troll

[Niv]

sure. its nothing new that the truthspeaker is called the "troll", or the satan or what your tradition lines preferred. we saw the movies.

[dbjp]

Did you test your Aurora Adam?

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by dbjp

Did you test your Aurora Adam?

Its currently in progress. I can only tell the Intern to work so fast before he slows down to the point of no return! I'll be back with Screen Shots and Meter Bridge Pics soon.

[Bassmankr]

If you plan on using your MCI analog desk for mixing (ever) in a hybrid setup then your converter and interface choices need to be made with TOTAL I/O CHANNELS NEEDED and budget in mind first, then available gear/brands filling those requirements come into play.

There are other options to consider besides Lynx and Apogee if going the many channels I/O needed route. The Alesis HD24XR (24 analog and lightpipe I/O)($1250 to $1300 used price on ebay, $1650 new), with a RME 9652 PCI interface (24 lightpipe I/O)($300 used on ebay) or RME Raydat 9652e PCIe interface (32 lightpipe I/O). Jim Williams does a mod of the Alesis for $750 to bring it up to/better than a Radar unit soundwise per his words. The Alesis unit will also serve as a 24 channel remote recorder (some extra value for your investment). In my opinion its the best quality bang for the buck deal for lots of conversion. I have not heard the Lynx or Apogee along with the Alesis (stock or modded) to say which is better. In a hybrid setup and using an analog desk, this path allows the most channels in expandability short of multiple MADI cards. The RME 9652 PCI will allow 3 cards in your computer for 72 I/O lightpipe plus another 6 I/O spdif. The RME 9652e PCIe allows for 2 cards in your box for 64 I/O. I'm fairly sure both the Lynx and Apogee are nowhere near that total I/O with their AES/EBU outputs (RME AES/EBU interfaces are very limited with total I/O channels compared to their ADAT lightpipe and MADI interfaces), but hopefully some of the Lynx/Apogee/SSL guys can chime in on their max I/O and config options so you have good info on all the choices.

My current setup is 3 RME 9652 PCI cards in the main recording box, 2 Alesis HD24XR's, an 8 channel EMU 1820M in a Soft Synth box (linked via lightpipe to the recording box), and a couple of ADAT decks that could be pressed into use if needed for extra conversion. Just using the RME's lightpipe I can bring 72 channels from the box into the analog desk (my AMR desk will handle 116 inputs not counting the 8 auxes or multiple 2 channel I/O's). I've got lots of outboard so this setup gives me the most flexability for a hybrid setup.

You should also consider another method that fellow slutz member Skip Buroughs suggested (a search on him will turn up the relevent posts) where one of his hybrid setups involves no desk, just using high end mic pres and a signal level converter. Using Skip's method I bet you could get by with a nice 8 channel computer I/O setup (just transfer from tape in 8 channel blocks) which may open the door budget wise for the very top end converters.

Guess I'm trying to say there are other serious options to consider than your post asks about.

[soupking]

Originally Posted by Bassmankr

Guess I'm trying to say there are other serious options to consider than your post asks about.

Totally, thanks man. I'm a piano player who decided to build a studio.

"Meanwhile, after he got his PHD is psychoaustic engineering..."

I totally understand that there's more than meets the ear. That and after finally installing my third patchbay I realize you never want to upgrade, EVER, unless you have to. So I can dig buying an Alesis and having Audio Upgrades do their thing.

However, I am curious about the SSL Alpalink AX. Typically since I'm not a big routing studio, I've gravitated from SSL as they don't really seem to offer much outside their cleanliness and their extreme well thought out flexibility for mixing. I'd just buy more Quad Eight before SSL if I wanted more outboard in terms of amp/comp tech. However, this is dealing with routing so I might have to consider. It'd cost more but, sounds like a good applicable use for SSL technology.

Thanks everybody!!!

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Niv

c´mon, its about such administrating, less sound-wise detail when you have 20 devices comparable regarding sound issues. but not if it comes to a decision between a few driven by the will for finding the best match for a special task soundwise.

you sit in your vain "pro" world and counting peanuts darling, sorry. i just found thats not the proper differenciation of a high priority relating to the threads quastion.

but sure you wanna make money by telling people to buy the whole arsenal if they can´t become "pros" by just have taste, ears and talent. f.o. "hey you´re pro when you cound peanuts features, really nerdy pro talk". makes me tired.

What part of this paragraph did you read by the way?

"You've already stated in other posts your equipment at home (why you're talking about lynxes and apogees when you're recording a $100 Marshall I don't know...I doubt the converters are the weak link in this chain) so that's fine - I don't want to come off as being snobbish, my home system isn't much more fancy - but I'd suggest if you DON'T want to sound totally ignorant, you wouldn't dismiss things like line-ups as "bureaucratic bullshit". You may not know WHY it matters, and to you it probably doesn't - again, I'd have no problem with that, my system at home has fixed lineups on the conversion and I've recorded elements of released records with that - but if you've not experienced it, then maybe don't comment on it."

direct copy and paste from my post above...where I'm talking about sitting at home making music on semi-pro gear...hardly sitting in a pro world! right now I'm just sitting at my little LE rig, having a cuppa before continuing an ITB mix at home, in a slightly-acoustically-dodgy spare room. Again, hardly mollycoddled pro setup.

If we ignore the fact for the moment that most of your quoted post isn't actually in english, and consider the sentence "the proper differenciation of a high priority relating to the threads quastion" - translated into English, I'm guessing you mean "calibration shouldn't be the highest priority to the original post". Well, if you could be bothered to read the OP, you'd see he mentions he has what at one point was industry standard analogue equipment. Lineup and calibration is totally relevant. It wouldn't be relevant to me right now, sitting at home in my home studio. It wouldn't be so relevant to an ITB or hybrid commercial mix room. but for interfacing with analogue desks and tape machines? Totally relevant. Again, you've probably got no experience of that world, but darling I assure you it is.

Every post is showing just how little experience and understanding you have of this....and what you DON'T realise is that your ideals of the renegade artist recording on a knackered old 4-track, talent trumping technique and equipment, and what the rest of us are describing can co-exist happily. It's just not relevant to the OP.

Soupking - sorry for the repeated hijacking of your post!