The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Lynx Aurora 16 vs Behringer ADA8000
Old 15th October 2008
  #1
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Lynx Aurora 16 vs Behringer ADA8000

A bit of an unfair fight? Maybe. You get to be the judge. stike

Here’s how I did the test:

I took a song that I had mixed entirely ITB and spread 16 channels of inserts across all the tracks as you might if mixing OTB. There was no outboard in the signal path however, so this is simply a 16 channel in/out test.

I did the test this way for a couple of reasons.

1. I didn’t have a 16 channel outboard mixed cued up to test.
2. This method allows you to compare the converted files to the original in a way you couldn’t if comparing a “console” mix to the converted mix.

Each channel was carefully and painstakingly calibrated to within 0.1db of one another using a scope with a 1k test tone at -20db.

Each converter is clocked internally and is coupled with an RME Adat card in the case of the 2 x Behringer Ada8000’s and RME AES card in the case of the Lynx Aurora 16. Both test are run at 44.1k, 24bit.

So which is which?


Wav files: https://www.yousendit.com/download/Y...b0JveE5jR0E9PQ

Mp3's attached for posterity.

ADDITIONAL SONGS IN WAV FORMAT FOUND STARTING ON POST #30
Attached Files

Original ITB Mix mp3.mp3 (2.78 MB, 37513 views)

Converter A mp3.mp3 (2.78 MB, 39696 views)

Converter B mp3.mp3 (2.78 MB, 38424 views)

Old 15th October 2008
  #2
Lives for gear
 
bitman's Avatar
?
Old 15th October 2008
  #3
Lives for gear
 
BradM's Avatar
Just to clarify... this is a loopback test that seeks to evaluate the potential sonic degradation from passing 16 channels of audio through one DA-AD loop?

I'm listening now. I love this stuff.

Okay I'm only listening to the MP3's on headphones. I really don't hear any significant differences through the computer. Maybe a little something I don't like about A...it sounds a tad closed in.

A: Behringer
B: Aurora

Brad
Old 15th October 2008
  #4
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad McGowan View Post
Just to clarify... this is a loopback test that seeks to evaluate the potential sonic degradation from passing 16 channels of audio through one DA-AD loop?
Not quite. It's 16 channels spread out over the entire mix as "hardware" inserts except I'm not running through any hardware (reasons stated above).

The inserts were stemmed out as follows....

OH - 1&2
Kick - 3&4
Snare - 5&6
Toms - 7&8
Drum Buss - 9&10
Bass - 11
Guitar Buss 12&13
Vocals - 14
Master Buss - 15&16

So basically the converters are touching all parts of the mix.
Old 15th October 2008
  #5
Lives for gear
 

Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by norman_nomad View Post
this is simply a 16 channel in/out test.
... This method allows you to compare the converted files to the original in a way you couldn’t if comparing a “console” mix to the converted mix.

Each channel was carefully and painstakingly calibrated to within 0.1db of one another using a scope with a 1k test tone at -20db.

Each converter is clocked internally and is coupled with an RME Adat card in the case of the 2 x Behringer Ada8000’s and RME AES card in the case of the Lynx Aurora 16.

So which is which?
have downloaded the WAVs.
to me they sound too similar,
i think that, when that happens its becouse the audio cables have slow velocity of propagation VP or high capacitance, or the shields are not good enough, not copper or OFC or etc...

or... the AC line has high resistence "too far away from the main transformer" or EMI or RFI or ground loops.
or all, or combinations.
http://www.furmansound.com/video.php?id=11

anyway still there are tiny small diferences, in the audio files:

here, the A sounds a tiny weaker in the mid bass,
the B has a stronger mid bass layer
ITB its in between both, similar to A, but
that added mid bass benefits the chorus in :51 vs. the sound of in the ITB.
but that added mid bass mudds a bit the bass in :18, and makes the kick a tiny bit fat.

maybe behringer has improoved the ADA8000,
but when i had one, i could hear -90dB of noise AD nothing plugged,
& when i plugged DA to a QSC MX-1500a, i could hear the harddrive!
that was a big surprice becouse the ADA8000 its optical ADAT!
i guess that happened becouse a bad power supply design, sensitive to RFI & EMI.

do you have FURMAN IT-20ii or AR-15ii or Monster MPP7000 or AVS2000?
normal AC strips?
what brand & model of cables do you use?
have you tested the AC line with a Voltimeter/multimeter ?
its 120v ?

you will like this test:
Rosetta VS Fireface in AB test:
toxicity loop
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/921823-post98.html
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/922228-post114.html
A is the Apogee Rosetta 800
B is the RME Fireface 800


please post the Aurora & behringer toxicity loops...
Old 15th October 2008
  #6
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Hey Space2012... thanks for listening and commenting.

Thing is... if the audio cables and power cables were the weak points and truly affecting the audio, wouldn't the A and B file sound significantly different than the ITB box which has no conversion at all?

If you're interested, I use: Generic AC cables and Mogami Snakes for the test (The Mogami snakes are the digital wire which has lower capacitance, although the cable length is only 10ft, so it probably doesn't make much of a difference). I have a volt meter but haven't checked the wall for 120, although it's an industrial building so the power is pretty beefy. I don't use any power conditioning units. I haven't noticed any noise issues related to power in my place.
Old 15th October 2008
  #7
Lives for gear
 
DONNX's Avatar
 

my guess is

A. aurora
B. beringer

Wait??? A for Aurora and B or Berhringer.heh

I actually liked the ITB better than B. But not A.


Thanks
Old 16th October 2008
  #8
Lives for gear
 

A aurora
B Behringer

headphones
Old 16th October 2008
  #9
Lives for gear
 
PlugHead's Avatar
 

I listened to them both. Differences are EVER so slight, I don't think it's even worth mentioning (well - the image was a bit more collapsed on B, and there was just a tiny bit more 'grain/grit' to the sound)

I'd guess:

a) Aurora
b) Behringer

That said, I'm glad I listened: it reaffirms what I learned at AES last year at one of the private 'listening' sessions. Although we should strive to get the best converters we can afford, it's totally a matter of inches not miles, and I now focus on better mic's and pre's before I spend a handsome chunk on converters (again)...

Thanks for the test! thumbsupthumbsup
Old 16th October 2008
  #10
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Good. Some more votes. For those voting, what are you hearing? (if you haven't already mentioned it in your post).
Old 16th October 2008
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Question where does that ITB comes from ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by norman_nomad View Post
if the audio cables and power cables were the weak points and truly affecting the audio, wouldn't the A and B file sound significantly different than the ITB box which has no conversion at all? .
thats why i ask, to do the Toxicity loop.

where does that ITB comes from ?
same cables? same AC line ?

loops cannot perform better than the source.

recordings with aurora sound diferent,
for example:
Barron Studios: Houston’s Recording Studio » New 47 Mic Shootout
aurora converters
1&3 completely unprocessed
http://www.recordwithbarron.com/imag...Vox%20Solo.zip

http://www.recordwithbarron.com/imag...Mix%20Test.zip

http://www.recordwithbarron.com/imag...0and%20Vox.zip
Old 16th October 2008
  #12
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by space2012 View Post
thats why i ask, to do the Toxicity loop.

where does that ITB comes from ?
same cables? same AC line ?

loops cannot perform better than the source.

recordings with aurora sound diferent,
for example:
Barron Studios: Houston’s Recording Studio » New 47 Mic Shootout
aurora converters
1&3 completely unprocessed
http://www.recordwithbarron.com/imag...Vox%20Solo.zip

http://www.recordwithbarron.com/imag...Mix%20Test.zip

http://www.recordwithbarron.com/imag...0and%20Vox.zip
The original files were tracked at a couple different studios. One with Digi 192's and the other with Mytek converters... so it's fair in this regard. The same gear is not "doubling" up during the mix.

Converter shoot outs that use different takes are different then what I am doing. My test completely isolates almost all other variables so that you are able to listen to just the converter.

I will gladly do the Toxicity loop... it looks however that there is only the mp3 original file available. I'm assuming the OP used the wav for the loop back and posted the mp3 for file size reasons. Do you have access to a full wav version of the song?
Old 18th October 2008
  #13
Lives for gear
 
DONNX's Avatar
 

any answers ??
Old 18th October 2008
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by norman_nomad View Post
I will gladly do the Toxicity loop... it looks however that there is only the mp3 original file available. I'm assuming the OP used the wav for the loop back and posted the mp3 for file size reasons. Do you have access to a full wav version of the song?
finally,
Attached Files
File Type: zip t.zip (4.98 MB, 750 views)
Old 18th October 2008
  #15
Gear Head
 
Paulonbass's Avatar
 

Damm, thats pretty close. Almost too close

I don't know but I think on certain parts B sounds a little better. Could be that my ears are playing tricks on me though.

Using K240 headphones.
Old 18th October 2008
  #16
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by space2012 View Post
finally,
Damn... now I feel hell of bad... yesterday I unhooked the Behringer's to pack up for sale... if I can find the time I'll hook them back up to run the Toxicity loop... at the very least I can run the loop through the Auroras which are now hooked up and running...

Before I unhooked the Behringer's I did run a few commercial CD mixes through them with the idea that I'd do the same once the Aurora's were hooked up... so I'll be able to give you some A/B files with different songs also...
Old 21st October 2008
  #17
Gear Nut
 
phil's Avatar
 

A: Behringer
B: Aurora

but very slight differences for me...
Old 21st October 2008
  #18
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Hey folks. I promise I'll post the answers soon. I'm going to try and post some stereo wav files later today, so there is more material to audition.
Old 21st October 2008
  #19
Lives for gear
 

A aurora.

A had much greater apparent volume, punch, clarity etc. and that typically hyped aurora high. but, fwiw, listened to mp3s on laptop speakers.
Old 21st October 2008
  #20
Lives for gear
 

It was a while ago since I posted/listened but I needed 5 sek to know which i THINK is the aurora.

If A is not Aurora I will be very surpriced. The difference is not subtle. B sounds muddy and flat. I hope I'm wrong, than I will buy the behringer.
Old 21st October 2008
  #21
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Thanks for the responses thus far. The commentary has been interesting.

I will post some commercial CD wav files later today.

I will keep the file orientation the same. In other words, if A is the Aurora, then ALL A's will be the Aurora. If B is the Aurora, then ALL B's will be the Aurora.

This should give everyone many different listening chances to make their best educated guess.
Old 21st October 2008
  #22
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

Yeah I would need WAVs to even consider this.

Realize that MP3 is so aggressive a process that it's almost random as to what's going to sound better through it. More harmonically rich content may sound better through WAV but be savaged by MP3, whereas duller crap might survive MP3 just fine.

Another issue is what was monitored when setting up the mix or tracks: it will be optimized for. In this case, ITB, so whatever is most transparent one would imagine would have an edge.
Old 21st October 2008
  #23
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peeder View Post
Yeah I would need WAVs to even consider this.
Consider yourself considered. Wav's were attached in the first post.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/Y...Qk5EbUx2Wmc9PQ



Quote:
Originally Posted by peeder View Post

Another issue is what was monitored when setting up the mix or tracks: it will be optimized for. In this case, ITB, so whatever is most transparent one would imagine would have an edge.
Indeed. Transparency is the virtue here.
Old 21st October 2008
  #24
Lives for gear
 
sahiaman's Avatar
 

Very close in tone. I didn't hear many difference besides two things. The one that poped out first was a difference in each mix. There is an underline modulation thats a bit different in each track. And you can hear it by itself in the last few seconds (sounds like a sword hitting another sword under the snare). I'm assuming it was an effect where the modulation is different everytime you play? This was very easy to notice.

Now for the fun part, in the begining there is a high pitched pericing noise in the first few seconds, of each mix. Like an old tv turning on. Anyway, its more obvious in the "converter A", basicly it hurts me just like it does in the ITB mix. Whereas in "converter B" it doesn't hurt as much. That makes me think that converter B is Behringer. And converter A is the Lynx.

Very cool test, thanks for taking the time. I'll listen to the new ones you just put up now.
Old 21st October 2008
  #25
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahiaman View Post
Very close in tone. I didn't hear many difference besides two things. The one that poped out first was a difference in each mix. There is an underline modulation thats a bit different in each track. And you can hear it by itself in the last few seconds (sounds like a sword hitting another sword under the snare). I'm assuming it was an effect where the modulation is different everytime you play? This was very easy to notice.

Now for the fun part, in the begining there is a high pitched pericing noise in the first few seconds, of each mix. Like an old tv turning on. Anyway, its more obvious in the "converter A", basicly it hurts me just like it does in the ITB mix. Whereas in "converter B" it doesn't hurt as much. That makes me think that converter B is Behringer. And converter A is the Lynx.

Very cool test, thanks for taking the time. I'll listen to the new ones you just put up now.
Very good ears. There is a modulation noise that is a part of the backup vocal track. That modulation noise is random and thus different every time I mixed down the track.

The files are not the new ones... they are the wav files from the original post.... I won't be able to post the new ones till later today.
Old 22nd October 2008
  #26
Gear Nut
 

A is Aurora...
Old 22nd October 2008
  #27
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

I sure hope B isn't the Aurora. If A is the B-word I might buy one!
Old 22nd October 2008
  #28
Gear Nut
 
myrtlebacker's Avatar
 

Just by visual inspection, A is truer to ITB than B. Assuming that more expensive converters = truer converters:

A Aurora
B Behringer

(sadly not different from anybody else, damn )
Old 22nd October 2008
  #29
to me, the A sounds more similar to ITB than the B. so i assume that A is aurora.
Old 22nd October 2008
  #30
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
File set 1 of 3

Alright kidz... Here's where the fun begins.

I'm giving you 3 more listening examples, thus 3 more chances to guess which converter is which.

I'm going to maintain my file coding system.

So if the answer is A = Lynx, B = Behringer, then that will be TRUE for ALL files.

~likewise~

If the answer is B = Lynx, A = Behringer then that will be TRUE for ALL files.

Get it?

So let's have at it...
Attached Files

Beck - Original.wav (4.65 MB, 26302 views)

Beck - A.wav (4.65 MB, 27918 views)

Beck - B.wav (4.65 MB, 27649 views)

Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump