Not so fast there. Tracking through each of them would be another story. Don´t know how, but certainly.

Ruphus

Salmon, the source clip is unpostable... because the source is LIVE.. its the live sound coming out of the console in real time. I mix to the console, then back to another DAW to record the two track mix. This test was the front end of that second DAW.

I don't really use any tube or tape emulation. This was a rough mix and the final mix WILL use a lot of outboard though, mainly dbx and distressor comps, Midas eq, etc..

Steve
www.bangrecording.com
www.blacklinerock.com

Hate to keep bringing this up, but I'd *really* like to hear the Lavry and Apogees clocking internally.

I am enjoying the music as well, nice job.

After listening to it again. I think the Lavry's have more dimension, the bass is not as fat but I think it has more depth. I can see why people like both converters. Just from this thread it seems to me that Apogee's impart a grainy type of sound (especially to the guitars) and the lavry's sound smooth. People interpret it different ways. The apogee's I can see why people love them. They sound huge and what might seem grainy to others may seem warm and analog sounding to some. While the smoothness of the lavry's may sound thin to some. I guess dealing with high end converters it really does come down to taste. I don't own either but I guess I like that smoothness. Thanks Bang for all A/bing you have done. I would also like to hear the mix with the Lavry's internal, but I understand if you can't.

I think as you start to pile track upon track you will notice the difference more. Less clarity, narrowed stereo image etc with a less quality converter.


I think it is a handy starting point for noobies. They all seem fixated on getting great conversion which generally results in a lacking front end (mics and pres). I think something like this might help them invest in some better mics and preamps.


cool stuff though...

Thanks for sharing Bang!

I chose number 2 first. I was surprised. I found it most smooth and beefy. I think the main thing I liked is it felt most "pro" and most "musical" to my ears.

When I did the comparisons of the samples on the Mytek website I felt the same way , however I liked the Myteks even more than the Apogee. But I have always felt like the Lavry's are a little too clean if that makes sense when I have heard samples. Of course that may be a fault of the samples I have heard or the way they were done, but every time I notice the same thing. The tracks just don't feel as "glued" to me. They are very clear and pricise but I prefer to listen to the apogee and the Mytek. Juat a preference I suppose.

If the Apogee is "grainy" then I like the grain It is kinda like seeing a movie that was done on film and then brought over to digital as apposed to a film done digital from ground up. In that case I like the grain. I don't like being able to see every blemish on the actors face. I guess my film preference has converted over to my audio preference also. Musicality over precision. However "musicality" is something differenct to every person.

Thanks Bang, keep em coming.

PS Big thumbs up for Mackie

At this point things have been broken down and I can't check the internal clocks, although I did listen to them on internal clocks myself... what I heard was less smooth top end and less 3D then when clocking with the 777 clock. That 777 thinga magigy is a real winner.

And I don't hear grain in the apogee, I hear music. If you all heard the original mix you'd get it... sounds 98% of what the live sound off the console sounded like. The Lavry made it a tiny bit smoother then reality. The Mackie added a bit of more low mid stuff which gave it some weight, but too much if you ask me.. Still I'm a big Onyx fan now, everyone should get one of those 800Rs, if not for the A/D, then for the pres alone. They are fantastic.

Steve
www.bangrecording.com
www.blacklinerock.com

Your right bang. You are the only one who can here the mix before it goes through the A/D. If you say the apogee's are 98% of what it sounded out of the console then cool. I would love to own all three. All three mixes sound great. Maybe grainy was not the word to use. The larvy just sounds smoother and the apogee bigger.

Really suprised to hear the Mackies faired that well! I'm gonna have to check these out! Thanks Steve! heh

You guys kill me... uhhh, hello... what are you using for D/A's? Don't you think that the D/A you're using might be contributing to what you're hearing as well as the A/D? Monitors have different responses that can often mediate or exacerbate the anomalies you might experience with different conversion systems... never mind the effect that different amplifiers can have on different monitors if you're using passive monitors.

That, and E-V-E-R-Y clock, internal, external or existential will impart it's own sound which may or may not be to your liking... and is not part of the sound of the original equipment.

Now I've heard the 'Big Ben' do a wonderful thing to Apogee's Rosetta 800... and I've heard the Big Ben do something pretty cool to the Lynx 'Aurora-16' and totally make my RADAR-V sound like ass... as in it totally changed not only the tones but fukked with the balance of my mix in a huge way... now maybe it would have been a positive if I had started the mix with the Big Ben in place... but I didn't. We hooked up the Big Ben after the mix was ready to print and it totally killed the vibe, balances, size, dimension, and emotion of the mix that was up on the desk when the clock was added... but like I said, I've heard it help other stuff in no small way so I wouldn't take anything conclusive from the previous statement just a matter of observation.

If you want a fairer test you need one variable, and that's all... in other words, the listeners should all be in the same monitoring environment... same D/A, same monitors in the same room or you're talking about a variable impression of a variable event.

The clocking system isn't a variable, it's a large part of the sound of any/all of these units!! If you want to do a secondary test with and without an external word clock that's a different story, otherwise you really need to evaluate all of these converters running on their internal clock to get the full picture of how they actually sound. By using only one clock in the process in many ways you're imposing one manufacturer's view of the world on the other manufacturer's products... and it's all well and good that you might want to do that, but understand that it is what you're doing.

thanks for the perspective fletcher. these types of tests are fun but i wouldn't put my $ behind them as to a buying decision. surprised the big ben made radar sound worse though... and you gotta admit the mackie deal was kinda frightening

I find the experiment useful--after all, every recording eventually gets subjected to a degrading process in turned into a CD or MP3. That process affects each original recording about equally, and it is only the end result that will matter to final listeners. Now, I wish listeners would buy CD's instead of MP3's for obvious reasons. But, comparing various recordings all in one format or other other provides enough of a picture to suggest listening to certain consumer products at home may be worth doing, rather than just blowing them off.

i think they all do need to be clock internally as well, or this clock did work well with the mackie. i would like to hear the lavry internally clocked against the apogee.

i know the answer posting this.... btw, nice mix and song bang. any of the convertors would of been just fine.... but since you mixed it, you know what you want to use.

here are my impressions of this test:
1. it was a tad lighter in the lower end. the highs were smoother than 2 and further back.
2. step up from 1 in the lower end. sounds more hyped. kinda bright highs.
3. step up from 2 on the lower end. similar top to 2 but not as foward. less transient detail [not a bad thing IMO]

weird how you ordered them. pretty much the main difference is the bass guitar stepping up more in order and gradually locking in with the guitars more.

personally, i would of picked the mackies i hate to say it. 2 sounds too hyped for my tastes [of course more "modern"] and its has this weird seperation between the center and sides. and number one was just too thin sounding and lost detail of the bass notes being played audible in the other two, although i liked its highs the best. if i could combine the bottom of the mackie and the top of the lavry.

in reality, i probably just like the bottom being more prominent in a mix than 1 and more like 3 and if 2 sounded like what comes off the board, i would of suggested a tad more bass to link up with the guitars more and add more feeling.

then again, its late and im not listening loudly, bass could be just right in 2... or even better i need to listen in my truck sadly enough, i know how so many things sound in there too well.... and i love the way it sounds. its my listening room.

anyways, nice song. good to hear something heavy where someone actually SINGS.

2 takes the least effort to listen to everything and sounds like the last 16x big ben post someone did so i say it's apogee. 1 sounds cheap. mackie came to mind within 10 seconds. 3 seems to have a different warmth to it but not as easy to listen to as 2. i listened on dell/harmon kardon computer speakers.

OK, might be that I am biased slightly against Mackie due to sound of their converters on some older products. I could always hear (easily) difference between something put through Mackie compared to Apogee, Mytek or Weiss from same generation converters.

My point was that as there were no distinctively worse conversion in this test it made me wonder how and why is it possible.
To me there were no doubt that track nr.2 is best sounding, but again it can be unfair judgement due to fact that I personally like flavors of Apogee conversion and use it daily, so my brain is probably better prepared to 'recognize' that particular sound.

Bang

Test was fun. And I like your music very much, this is something we do -Rock.

GYang

You know probably more and better this subject, but in my particular case listening were carried out through 3 various conversions (HEDD, Apogee, Benchmark) on 3 different monitors (ADAM S3A, Dynaudio 15A + 1 pasive pair reference audiophile Focals) + 2 reference headphones.
Although each setup brought a whole world of differences to sound of same track NOTHING PRINCIPALLY CHANGED in final evaluation what I liked more.

GYang

P.S.

After Tracktion, seems that we have next Mackie's addition to very affordable, but excellent sounding products. And that rocks for sure!

Yes bro.. I understand. Of course I also realize that converters are getting better...and..cheaper. A company like Mackie has the resources to suss this technology to it's fullest.

Despite the current pole position of Mackie in terms of current favor...they have been innovative in this business more than once....

I am currently looking at new converters myself and it a scary thinking about dropping 2k...when the same quality might be available for 1k next week.

Hi, bang. Sorry, when you said 16-bit mixes and mentioned DA-16x, I thought that was a digitally mixed source, converted to analog, and run through each test piece. The takes appear the same, and files were identical size, so all from recorded source, right (or are you guys just that tight!!! heh )? Was that analog everywhere before the converters (tracked to tape)? Can you give us a quick rundown on your setup?

Thanks,
Salmon

wow i can't believe i thought the mackie was the most natural sounding...

then again i don't know sh!t about rock....I'll blame it on that

Some quotes about one:

1. I don't know. But theres something about it I don't like.

1. was the worst sounding

1. no bottom, must be mackie

1. Mackie ?

1. 2d... not so good spatial info, bottom doesn't match to the other wavs

1. Is Mackie

1: Mackie

1 was pretty close to 3, with less low end

1. Felt like it was about .6db less from 100Hz and down, the kick didn't have quite the same low end thump. Top end was good, not quite as clear as 2.


Okay, it's the Lavry. But that does not make it better. I mean, everyone noticed that it had much less lowend compared to the others. Is that normal? Is that desireable?
Not really eh? heh

Bang, so what are you going to buy ? The Apogee Rosetta 200 ?

i prefered it but I thought it was the apogee.... and i don't know **** about rock

I'm going to pick up an Apogee AD 16x. Think it'll fit me well. Plus I hear they taste great.

Steve
www.bangrecording.com
www.blacklinerock.com

Steve,

How different was the Mackie on its internal clock?
I was surprised by the overall lack of difference in all three of these... that alone would be enough to convince me to get a 800R, who cares if another was slightly different/better, considering the price difference.
However we really need to take into consideration the clock. IMO clock is one of the most important parts of an A/D's sound. If the Mackie is a totally different beast without the 777 then frankly this test doesn't say anything spectacular about Mackie engineering at all... clock engineering is a big and careful part of the task! And price!

Oh yeah, and what WAS your DAC? And what console? I kinda have a feeling that the overall similar character of these three may be due to the character of these two elements... perhaps your DAC or console is limiting the high-end extension in the first place so none sounds particularily larger in that area than the others, which is something I would have expected.

Steve,

Too bad you didn't hold on to that Panasonic WZ-AD96 a little longer and see how it sounded against the others you tested!

Bob

You took the words right out of my mouth Bob. I had done an A/B between the Ramsa and the Lynx a week or two ago and the Ramsa cleary held on to the GRIT of the guitars in a nice way, although the Lynx had a great fatness to it as well.

Steve
www.bangrecording.com
www.blacklinerock.com

one thing to keep in mind however is this is just two tracks... and not an accumulation of tracks going in from sources. the stereo thing on 2 is freaky tho.

This test demonstrates exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. The Rosetta 200's imaging is much better in my opinion than the other two, all of the instruments sound natural and well positioned and there is no smear.

The Lavry sounds as if the track has been anesthetized. The Mackie is better than expected, but I 'm betting that is also due to the Apogee clock. I have heard what Big Ben does to a MOTu box and its amazing, although still not as good as the real thing. Imagine if it had been an AD-16X instead of a Rosetta....that might have been embarrasing.

I could not agree more. I think this is a good wakeup call for some in our little Gearslutz community. I'm betting nobody here would have believed these results if you told them in advance.

Thanks, Steve. This was a great excercise.

It's still probly unfair to do the comparrisons all clocked externally. Would love to try this again using internal

Help. I can't stand this Vodoo anymore.
Of course a clock is not unimportant.
Of course the DA is not unimportant.
Of course your monitoring chain is not unimortant.
Of course your room is not unimortant.

But I still think, that if you buy a piece of gear that costs three or four times the price, you should be able to hear a significant improvement in every nonscientific situation!

If you need three other 5 other pieces of gear to make a comparison fair enough for the Gearslutz community, everyone should stop making tests and should leave this to the measuring rooms at big universities etc.

Come on guys, of course there is always an explanation why the incorrect setting made the test totally useless. But sometimes it's just time to except that some of us have become blind on the "cheap gear" eye.

I still think that in THIS test with THIS music the Lavry was unrealistic compared to the others. That should not happen to any gear in this price region! No matter which DA, no matter which clock. Sorry!