The Lynx vs. Behringer ADA 8000 thread.

[RiF]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

I dont know what they have done in this comparison but my RME FF 400 completely wins against the conversion of the Behringer.

RME Fire Face 400 via ADAT to Behringer ADA 8000 (Slave)

As soon as I switch over to the Behringer the image is not that great anymore. Reverb tails fall to early - delays do not sound rich and detailed.

The base range at the B. smears.
The Behringer sounds harsh in direct AB comparison.

Can you give more detailed information on how exactly you did the AB comparison?
What I understand is, that you switched a sound source from going out of the FF400 (A) to the ADA8000 (B), right? Where did the outputs of both went into? Did you do a loopback recording?

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by RiF

Can you give more detailed information on how exactly you did the AB comparison?
What I understand is, that you switched a sound source from going out of the FF400 (A) to the ADA8000 (B), right? Where did the outputs of both went into? Did you do a loopback recording?

[RiF]

Ahhhh... OK. I just want to make sure that nothing else affected the difference. I have two ADA8000's and my "tests" did not reveal what you described.

[SoSueMe]

Did someone else do the switching? Were the levels properly matched? You can't assume this if the faders are equal at the console. Were both converters utilizing their own clocks? No, based on the diagram. Not a fair test.

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by RiF

Ahhhh... OK. I just want to make sure that nothing else affected the difference. I have two ADA8000's and my "tests" did not reveal what you described.

In this case you should try to listen with great Headphones such as the AKG K 701 - not only what I said above- it also damages the imaging.
It totally lacks space and dimension....

BTW- I had to correct HF by linear phase EQ that I can listen to it.

It would be a wonder if it beats out a converter that is 5 times more expensive than the ADA 8000 .....the Lynx is even 11 times more expensive.
You can exactly hear what Bob Katz is telling in his Book "Mastering Audio" about cheap converters.

This leads me to the conclusion:

1.
I cant believe this Lynx vs. Behringer TEST they did there must be something wrong with it.

2.
It speaks bad for Lynx if the test holds true- see above I cant believe it.

3.
Or it now says that RME is a super cool deal vs Lynx converters.
But I cant believe that Lynx is bad stuff as well.

Must say RME invents its converters, clock, PLL... all in HOUSE... they don't buy third party stuff. I would be shocked if this doesn't make difference. The difference is huge....

And if the difference from one ADA 8000 to the next is that huge that your unit can hold its own with a Lynx Aurora it speaks for the bad build quality of the company Behringer.... In first I thought WOW not bad for the money... but after I listened the second day I have to say its just alright you hear music....

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by SoSueMe

Did someone else do the switching? Were the levels properly matched? You can't assume this if the faders are equal at the console. Were both converters utilizing their own clocks? No, based on the diagram. Not a fair test.

In my world it was a fair test.

1. The levels where matched believe me we checked it more than one time.
2. The B ran as master but also on its own clock - no difference.
3. Someone else did the switching as well.
4. We also toked the console out this makes the B. sounding even more awful.

Why do people believe a 160 Euro Gear can do the same performance as an 800 Euro converter??

[RiF]

I tested with AKG-500 cans and ADAM A7X's and used a loopback with many iterations which I compared to the original to "see" how multiple conversions will affect the sound quality. The biggest challenge had been to really really really volume-match both signals. Even 0.1 dB in difference made the louder one sound "better" to me. And the Behringer unit has stepped input gain knobs that are not fully calibrated for exact stereo pairing or even across all channels :-(. So the noticeable (to my personal old ears, nothing more!) difference between the original and the ADA8000-converted had been a very very slight increase of high end on the ADA8000 which sounded good, even "better", but not true to the original. But so subtle that I am ignoring it until then.
Going through Digi 002R converters, doing the very same test, revealed more obvious degradation of the signal (less high-end, transients got softer), but nothing dramatic to be honest.

What I want to say is that converter shootouts are very personal experiences (including mine), might or might not apply to other people and are mostly far from an absolute measurement.

[RiF]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

Why do people believe a 160 Euro Gear can do the same performance as an 800 Euro converter??

Looking at the price tag is not really a "blind test", isn't it?

BTW, the FF400 (800 EUR) is a fully-featured audio interface, while the ADA8000 (160 EUR) is just a converter (plus something they call "preamps").

And I compared a 350 EUR Squier Classic Vibe Tele to a 1200 EUR US Fender Tele and liked the Squier better :-).

[Mr.HOLMES]

Ok maybe I am wrong and I step into the fletcher munsion thing as well-like BK told me in the mastering section - he thought he found the holy grain in conversion and it was just 0,2 db louder....

I will do the test again, and I will only use RME Loop Back to make sure there is no console etc.....but not today.... maybe I am wrong.... but I would be very surprised if my first tests would have been so much wrong...

I just cant still believe it that the ADA 8000 is that good as promised in the thread....LYNX VS BEHRINGER ADA 8000!!!

[RiF]

I am not saying that the Behri is THAT GOOD and kills every Lynx/Mytek/Apogee out there, I just think that it's not THAT BAD and well worth more than what the price tag might suggest.

But maybe doing a multi-iteration-loopback and at least normalizing the results could be good to just double check.

PS: And do yourself a favor and really do a BLIND A/B test. Let somebody switch back and forth randomly 10 times and have him/her write down your guesses. You might be as surprised as I am when doing such tests. I am wrong so often when doing this (this applies to audio gear and drinks like Whiskey types alike :-)).

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by RiF

I am not saying that the Behri is THAT GOOD and kills every Lynx/Mytek/Apogee out there, I just think that it's not THAT BAD and well worth more than what the price tag might suggest.

But maybe doing a multi-iteration-loopback and at least normalizing the results could be good to just double check.

PS: And do yourself a favor and really do a BLIND A/B test. Let somebody switch back and forth randomly 10 times and have him/her write down your guesses. You might be as surprised as I am when doing such tests. I am wrong so often when doing this (this applies to audio gear and drinks like Whiskey types alike :-)).

Sure we did it blind as well - but you can be right if there where just minimal level differences the RME would just have been always the better one.

I will check the levels tomorrow with fresh ears and will let you know what I think I hope the B doesn't proof me wrong.

[mikeyman]

get that thing modded by Black Lion Audio and be happier

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by mikeyman

get that thing modded by Black Lion Audio and be happier

No I wont the new revision has much better op amps in it.
And it still is to proof if I am wrong or not with the original unit.

[RiF]

Which new revision?
I am just aware of pre and post 09/2009 models (where the later one is useless to me).
I hope that there's a new one where they fixed that mute-bug.

[Dpro]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

Must say RME invents its converters, clock, PLL... all in HOUSE... they don't buy third party stuff. I would be shocked if this doesn't make difference. The difference is huge....

Ah excuse me, RME did not and does not invent their converters. They use AKM's( I believe) which are not made by them.

[popmann]

What am I missing? What does this comparing of RME to Behringer have to do with Lynx?

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by popmann

What am I missing? What does this comparing of RME to Behringer have to do with Lynx?

Did you read my opening post?
I guess no???

BTW confused their FW technology with the ADs they use their own FW technology....
Sorry...

RME: Support TechInfo

[popmann]

Still no idea what the tie in is...I read it...now re read it. Maybe you're referencing some other shootout I'm not following. Either way...I don't know why it surprises you that Berhinger sounds worse than an RME. isn't that a $800-900 interface versus the worlds cheapest 8x8 ADAT mic pre unit?

Not sure the connection to $2500-4k AES based conversion systems like Aurora+AES16e combos would be...

[SoSueMe]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

In my world it was a fair test.

Are you an expert in the field of psychoacoustics? If not, do you know how to properly set up a scientific test in order to produce a relatively significant and valid outcome with a specific amount of confidence in the results? Contrary to popular belief, it's not as easy as it looks, and so many just throw these tests together, hastily trusting the outcome from them.

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

1. The levels where matched believe me we checked it more than one time.

How were they matched? By ear? They need to be matched within 0.1 dB with equipment capable of that resolution over the entire range of human hearing.

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

2. The B ran as master but also on its own clock - no difference.

In theory there should be a difference, but whether it's heard is up for speculation.

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

3. Someone else did the switching as well.

Was this person another engineer? Did this person record the results? Did he/she tell you what was being switched to? When switching, did they "label" the unit? For example, this is unit "A," and this is unit "B"? Did he/she ever do a "fake" switch, meaning that they told you they switched, but actually didn't?

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

4. We also toked the console out this makes the B. sounding even more awful.

This statement raises even more questions as to the validity of this test. In reality, there should not be that much of a difference. One unit sounding "awful" over the other sounds like there's a serious flaw somewhere. That said, there is a lot of room for error here.

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

Why do people believe a 160 Euro Gear can do the same performance as an 800 Euro converter??

Because in this day and age it's very easy to build A/D/D/A conversion for very little cost with no perceivable aural difference when compared to much higher priced converters. Yes, the associated analog electronics within the entire device can play a part, but if minimized or designed for transparency, cost becomes a mute point. Here's one example: A/D Comparison - Steinberg MR816 vs Lavry AD11

For the next test, assuming you can effectively match the levels, and you do a valid double-blind comparison, I suggest you take it a step further based on how you have everything connected here:

1. After the the switcher is done taking down the results, have them leave the room. Then, switch the inputs on the console without touching anything else and without telling the switcher you did this. Have them come back in the room and repeat the test. Have them write the results on another page, keeping in mind that the inputs were switched for this test.

2. Make sure all cables and lengths are indentical between units. Bypass any patch bays; run cables directly to/from the converters. Make sure they are using the same level matching (+4dBu, for example).

3. Have them sync to their own clocks. Does the Behringer have a clock output? If so, you could have the Behringer be the master and the Lynx be the slave in another test.

I don't own either units, by the way. I'm just trying to help you to set up a valid test to remove as much perception and bias as possible.

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by SoSueMe

Are you an expert in the field of psychoacoustics? If not, do you know how to properly set up a scientific test in order to produce a relatively significant and valid outcome with a specific amount of confidence in the results? Contrary to popular belief, it's not as easy as it looks, and so many just throw these tests together, hastily trusting the outcome from them.


How were they matched? By ear? They need to be matched within 0.1 dB with equipment capable of that resolution over the entire range of human hearing.


In theory there should be a difference, but whether it's heard is up for speculation.

Was this person another engineer? Did this person record the results? Did he/she tell you what was being switched to? When switching, did they "label" the unit? For example, this is unit "A," and this is unit "B"? Did he/she ever do a "fake" switch, meaning that they told you they switched, but actually didn't?

This statement raises even more questions as to the validity of this test. In reality, there should not be that much of a difference. One unit sounding "awful" over the other sounds like there's a serious flaw somewhere. That said, there is a lot of room for error here.

Because in this day and age it's very easy to build A/D/D/A conversion for very little cost with no perceivable aural difference when compared to much higher priced converters. Yes, the associated analog electronics within the entire device can play a part, but if minimized or designed for transparency, cost becomes a mute point. Here's one example: A/D Comparison - Steinberg MR816 vs Lavry AD11

For the next test, assuming you can effectively match the levels, and you do a valid double-blind comparison, I suggest you take it a step further based on how you have everything connected here:

1. After the the switcher is done taking down the results, have them leave the room. Then, switch the inputs on the console without touching anything else and without telling the switcher you did this. Have them come back in the room and repeat the test. Have them write the results on another page, keeping in mind that the inputs were switched for this test.

2. Make sure all cables and lengths are indentical between units. Bypass any patch bays; run cables directly to/from the converters. Make sure they are using the same level matching (+4dBu, for example).

3. Have them sync to their own clocks. Does the Behringer have a clock output? If so, you could have the Behringer be the master and the Lynx be the slave in another test.

I don't own either units, by the way. I'm just trying to help you to set up a valid test to remove as much perception and bias as possible.

Thanks for your Help.
I cant guarantee that I match by ear + - 0,1 db who can?
And I guess they did not in the lynx vs behringer thread as well.

But I am willed to learn....can you elaborate this point?
Because believing Bob Katz in his book it is not easy to design a great converter----

Because in this day and age it's very easy to build A/D/D/A conversion for very little cost with no perceivable aural difference when compared to much higher priced converters.

[SoSueMe]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

Thanks for your Help.
I cant guarantee that I match by ear + - 0,1 db who can?
And I guess they did not in the lynx vs behringer thread as well.

But I am willed to learn....can you elaborate this point?

I haven't looked at that thread.

I'm no expert in matching levels at the mix position, but I would assume that if you used a decent measurement mic at that position, supplying a pink noise output to the monitors, and using a meter via hardware or software that could detect 0.1 dB increments, it would entirely be possible. Otherwise, it's just guesswork and will show an unfair advantage to one of the units.

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

Because believing Bob Katz in his book it is not easy to design a great converter----

Perhaps that's why the really high end "great" units cost >$8K. I would expect those to sound better, but again would hold judgment until I could properly test them myself. Anyone want to lend me one?

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by SoSueMe

Perhaps that's why the really high end "great" units cost >$8K. I would expect those to sound better, but again would hold judgment until I could properly test them myself. Anyone want to lend me one?

I dont own such a unit but I guess you already know that.........

[mikeyman]

if the Bheriger sound as good as a Lynx ill eat my shorts

[RiF]

Originally Posted by mikeyman

if the Bheriger sound as good as a Lynx ill eat my shorts

Depending on how long you did wear those shorts it might be a better idea to say: "...I'll buy one of those and safe some money" .

PS: ...and this thread is not about the Lynx at all, although the thread title might make you think so.

[dogma]

Nor is it really about the ADA8000 - I've been looking at grabbing one to add some digital and analog i/o as I'm on MH 2882 2d which doesn't work on windows and I'd really like to work and need to and presently can't work in windows land because of my interface and nothing else. I've looked at the BLA mod. For $500 I' hard pressed to think of anything near its reputed quality - maybe someone with the premium mod can chime in?

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by mikeyman

if the Bheriger sound as good as a Lynx ill eat my shorts

I see whats the problem here I am relating to this thread which I still cant believe... and therefore I want to compare rme vs behringer.

Lynx Aurora 16 vs Behringer ADA8000

[popmann]

Thank you...finally I get it. I took one listen on crappy speakers and picked the Aurora as preferred.

However...I do think that while converters matter, if you're looking for some kind of night and day "wow factor" from DA, particularly DA in a big multichannel unit...you're going to be sadly disappointed. I never did see what mixer it was sent out to...but, that will have a certain homogenizing effect, too. Which is why I LIKE analog mixers. It's like recording Egtr to tape, I cranked it, stuck a 421 down, plastered the level into the red=fab guitar tone. With digital? I have a Royer121>MilleniaHv3>SpeckASCT chain that it takes...now, I do get a little better...and arguably with that chain going to tape, might even be better--point is, that as many things as digital made cheaper for "the little guy", it made other things MORE expensive.

Someone recently posted a really nice mix done on a cheap Berhinger Eurodesk...better than most of the ITB mixes I hear around here. Is that person a genius mixer? Maybe. Is it that he's working on a more forgiving and musical platform? Yes.

I digress...except to say that it was clear to me in that thread which was which...but, I know what to listen for an expect from conversion. If you are expecting the difference to be a huge night and day "professional versus not"--you won't find it.

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by popmann

Thank you...finally I get it. I took one listen on crappy speakers and picked the Aurora as preferred.

However...I do think that while converters matter, if you're looking for some kind of night and day "wow factor" from DA, particularly DA in a big multichannel unit...you're going to be sadly disappointed. I never did see what mixer it was sent out to...but, that will have a certain homogenizing effect, too. Which is why I LIKE analog mixers. It's like recording Egtr to tape, I cranked it, stuck a 421 down, plastered the level into the red=fab guitar tone. With digital? I have a Royer121>MilleniaHv3>SpeckASCT chain that it takes...now, I do get a little better...and arguably with that chain going to tape, might even be better--point is, that as many things as digital made cheaper for "the little guy", it made other things MORE expensive.

Someone recently posted a really nice mix done on a cheap Berhinger Eurodesk...better than most of the ITB mixes I hear around here. Is that person a genius mixer? Maybe. Is it that he's working on a more forgiving and musical platform? Yes.

I digress...except to say that it was clear to me in that thread which was which...but, I know what to listen for an expect from conversion. If you are expecting the difference to be a huge night and day "professional versus not"--you won't find it.

You describe what I wrote in my opening post.
But I have to apologize a little bit.

I measured the Outputs of the RME vs the Behringer an guess what!
The RME was always 0,3 db louder.

Now I compensated for that 0,3 db and.

Total subjective:

The RME has a wider soundstage and better imaging and a tat more depth.
But that was my impression in the wrong test as well, but the differences are not that huge anymore.

The RME sounds more clean the Behringer is adding some kind of distortions.

But I will double check this and post files as well in the next few days.

[popmann]

But...I could clearly hear the difference in the Lynx in less than stellar environement...yet you're using transitive logic to say you couldn't hear a difference there, so Berhinger=lynx...and Berhinger does not equal your RME...therefore RME is better than Lynx?

I just don't get how you're trying to tie in a relationship, better or worse to a converter that you don't have there to compare...