The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
WAVs Posted: A/Ds- Apogee vs Lavry vs ... Mackie???
Old 1st July 2005
  #91
Lives for gear
 
SoZo's Avatar
Ok one more critical listen with my Big Ben on.

1. Flat, 2D, nice, bright, but very smeared. I see why people like Lavry for the harmonics in the upper mids but not resolved harmonics.

2. Amazing imaging, fastest, open, most resolved. Everything in its own space. Listen to the K's on the vocal, the cymbals in the back of the room, and the snare has phase and lowermids.

3. almost ok imaging, grainy in the mids, cheap, allot of sibilance, digital sounding but solid.


Apogee is by far the best. Totally amazing sorry.
Old 1st July 2005
  #92
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSweetener
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!
Define significant?

I've found that every inch of improvement is exponetially more expensive than the last inch of improvement... but as always... YMMV.
Old 1st July 2005
  #93
Gear Maniac
 

I don't quite understand the reasoning behind using the same clock for all of these.. theres a fairly good chance the mackie is weaker than the others in clocking
Old 1st July 2005
  #94
Lives for gear
 
nukmusic's Avatar
 

Steve, I thought this test was a true A/D test? "music source directly into the converters" But thanks anyway dude, I still got a good outlook on the gear. I was very surprised that I could hear the differences on my so called "WACKIEs" heh Many others posted the very similar conclusions as my post.

But as I said before #2 was the clearest mix, but my first impression was that is was too clear and compared to the other 2. But #3 was the thickest(fuller) mix, which I did like and would have picked out of the 3..........maybe cause I love the low end in hip-hop. #1 was almost as thick as #3, but with less low end.

Wish there was server space to upload wav files:
I would suggest we all upload test files to create a similar thread like "THE LISTENING SESSIONS web page"

Some of us that have keyboard workstations(Motif, Triton, Fantom, etc, etc) could record 1 minute stereo files of the UNEDITED "factory loaded demo songs" through whatever A/D converters they have in their studio. Then upload the wav files, along with the info on what gear was use(keyboard, demo name , converter, recording meduim, etc,etc). From there we should be able to compare the files because the demo song will be the same(per that keyboard).
Old 1st July 2005
  #95
Quote:
Originally Posted by username
I don't quite understand the reasoning behind using the same clock for all of these.. theres a fairly good chance the mackie is weaker than the others in clocking
Because the person testing this was doing it for himself not you or I, he was just nice enough to include it here.

He had a 777 and wanted to see what these units sounded like in his environment. In the end every piece of gear we own has to fit in with our needs, our tastes and the gear we already have so this test was valid for him. Everyone should stop complaining about the validity of the test and just thank Steve for including us.

Thanks Steve....

Old 1st July 2005
  #96
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new
Because the person testing this was doing it for himself not you or I, he was just nice enough to include it here.

He had a 777 and wanted to see what these units sounded like in his environment. In the end every piece of gear we own has to fit in with our needs, our tastes and the gear we already have so this test was valid for him.
What he said.

If I'm trying to find a good A/D and I already own a 777 clock via apogee and I've ALREADY proven to myself that the 777 clock will improve the sound of external converters, then it would be silly for me to run the a/ds on their own clocks because thats not how I'd run them if I used them here. I accomplished what I set out to do.

Steve
www.bangrecording.com
www.blacklinerock.com
Old 1st July 2005
  #97
Gear Addict
 
carlsaff's Avatar
 

Honestly, after having used my Lavry Blue AD for about 3 weeks, I'm still waiting to be completely wowed. It's a quality converter to be sure, but I'm not hearing the warm, natural tone that others have claimed. I find the results to be accurate on some signals, but almost too "smooth" (the smearing others have mentioned) on others, and the "clarity" in the high end almost seems due to hyped response in those frequencies, resulting is all kinds of artifacts I don't enjoy (essy vocals come across even more agressively essy than usual, etc.).

I'd be lying if I said that the results here were surprising based on my own experiences.

Waiting for the Benchmark ADC-1 to come out, then I'll AB that with the Lavry and the Rosetta. If I like either of those more, I'll probably sell the Lavry. In the meantime, still feeding the Lavry as many signals as I can, and listening listening listening...
Old 1st July 2005
  #98
Lives for gear
 
matucha's Avatar
Having lavry AD (blue) after m-audio delta card is great. Though most of my friends had very hard time to hear/recognize any difference between these two!!! 10times more expensive thing didn't beat delta card to the ground that way.
Working with it for some time now, I'm more and more pleased with it. It was no instant thing and might turn some from keeping it. But guess what, things are getting better, whatever I sculpture with eq and compression holds itself more solidly and I work in different way, I can correct things without bad artifacts... that's it, it works for me with no regret. After long time I finaly can make vocals/voices to sound full smooth and crispy and not cheap. And I can get the silibance just right (I was unable to do that with m-audio)

So I'm very surprised what I hear here. Just based on this test, I'd picked the R200 without a blink of an eye instead of Lavry.
Old 1st July 2005
  #99
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

im still really taken back how "holey" number 2 sounds... not holy... but the information between C and LR seems to disappear that both 1 and 3 maintained, but then you say it sounded most like the mix coming off the board. when you flip between 1 and 3 the soundstage stays even across the field, but 2 its like it got sucked in at the 9 and 3's.

i do think this test does show how a clock can make things a LOT more even amongst convertors.
Old 1st July 2005
  #100
Lives for gear
 
Albert's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphajerk
im still really taken back how "holey" number 2 sounds... not holy... but the information between C and LR seems to disappear that both 1 and 3 maintained, but then you say it sounded most like the mix coming off the board. when you flip between 1 and 3 the soundstage stays even across the field, but 2 its like it got sucked in at the 9 and 3's.
To me that sounds like the mix though, not like there is a hole in the converters. I can hear the separation better and a little bit more of the reverb on voice than in the other mixes. That sounds intentional to me. If mix #2 sounds the most like the mix off the board to Bang, then that means the other two converters are smearing L&R information in towards the center at the 9's and 3's. I think the soundstage of mix #2 sounds the most defined and deep of the three.
Old 1st July 2005
  #101
Lives for gear
 
TheSweetener's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletcher
Define significant?

I've found that every inch of improvement is exponetially more expensive than the last inch of improvement... but as always... YMMV.
Yeah right. But for example, the difference between my API preamps and some other mid price stuff is not heaven all hell, but I expect everybody in the studio to hear it at least in an A/B test.

The results with these posted files (thanks Bang by the way!) are not that clear. Many different opinions, many votes for the mid priced converter.

What we have here is a lot of pro audio guys going into the Mackie direction in a blind test.
I just found it funny, that nobody (or not many) were able to say: "It's Lavry, but for me it sucks!" or "It's Mackie but it's cool" heh

Nothing against Lavry here. And I will keep on testing every gear myself in my own room. It's just a nice thing to wake up from gearcloud 7 sometimes. Hey, perhaps I don't need the SupiDupi converter and pay the holidays that I've promised my girlfriend?
Just kidding. I'll buy the slutty one!
Old 1st July 2005
  #102
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlsaff
Honestly, after having used my Lavry Blue AD for about 3 weeks, I'm still waiting to be completely wowed. It's a quality converter to be sure, but I'm not hearing the warm, natural tone that others have claimed. I find the results to be accurate on some signals, but almost too "smooth" (the smearing others have mentioned) on others, and the "clarity" in the high end almost seems due to hyped response in those frequencies, resulting is all kinds of artifacts I don't enjoy (essy vocals come across even more agressively essy than usual, etc.).

I'd be lying if I said that the results here were surprising based on my own experiences.

Waiting for the Benchmark ADC-1 to come out, then I'll AB that with the Lavry and the Rosetta. If I like either of those more, I'll probably sell the Lavry. In the meantime, still feeding the Lavry as many signals as I can, and listening listening listening...
I tested Lavry Blue for couple of days and I was not impressed compared to any of 3 Apogees we had in studio (old 800, 200 and AD-16 X). Clocked on its own or by Big Ben, something in its character was not pleasing my ears.
Only DCS and Weiss offered some nuances that were considered as improvement over Apogees, but definitely not to such degree to pay huge difference for it. Prisms and Myteks are not on par with them, although I can understand that some people prefer them over other brands.
For me Lavry is in same league as Rosetta, but for what I do Apogee is better choice in most cases (the price does not count here).
Mackie is really surprise, but clock issue has to be checked additionally.

GYang
Old 2nd July 2005
  #103
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert
To me that sounds like the mix though, not like there is a hole in the converters. I can hear the separation better and a little bit more of the reverb on voice than in the other mixes. That sounds intentional to me. If mix #2 sounds the most like the mix off the board to Bang, then that means the other two converters are smearing L&R information in towards the center at the 9's and 3's. I think the soundstage of mix #2 sounds the most defined and deep of the three.
either way its going... its bizarre. i dont hear better seperation in 2 except between L C R... 1 and 3 sound more even across the stereo spread. am i the only one hearing this? its like when you put 2 on, someone poked two black holes in the stereo image.

anyway, its just subtle... but im hearing it. i could listen to any of the 3 and be fine.
Old 2nd July 2005
  #104
NL5
Lives for gear
 
NL5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletcher

I've found that every inch of improvement is exponetially more expensive than the last inch of improvement... but as always... YMMV.
It's called the law of diminishing returns - not unique to the audio world. heh
Old 2nd July 2005
  #105
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSweetener
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!

i respectfully disagree with this, especially the "no matter which clock" part. clock is HUGE when it comes to conversion.

if you swap the st. ives for a sowter in a 1073, it will sound different. if you swap the telefunkens for generic tubes in a tube circuit, it sound different. if you fu©k with the timing belt on your car, expect different performance.

to be clear, i'm not taking any position (yet!) on whether the lavry sounds good or bad, accurate or flat. i'm simply saying that to change such a fundamental part of the circuit and judge it on that basis isn't a fair cop, nor a particularly wise approach if your goal is to evaluate each of these converters on its own merits.

of course, i've never been one for extensive scientific testing. i trust my gut, my instinct, implicitly. when i listen too hard, i can fool myself. but if i relax and just *feel* the music, my body lets me know with the quickness what's working and what isn't, and there is no science in the world that can override that.

finally, here's my heresy for the day: it's possible to make a great sounding record with almost *any* mid-level converter on the market today.


gregoire
del ubik
Old 2nd July 2005
  #106
Lives for gear
 
TheSweetener's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
i respectfully disagree with this, especially the "no matter which clock" part. clock is HUGE when it comes to conversion.

if you swap the st. ives for a sowter in a 1073, it will sound different. if you swap the telefunkens for generic tubes in a tube circuit, it sound different. if you fu©k with the timing belt on your car, expect different performance.

to be clear, i'm not taking any position (yet!) on whether the lavry sounds good or bad, accurate or flat. i'm simply saying that to change such a fundamental part of the circuit and judge it on that basis isn't a fair cop, nor a particularly wise approach if your goal is to evaluate each of these converters on its own merits.

of course, i've never been one for extensive scientific testing. i trust my gut, my instinct, implicitly. when i listen too hard, i can fool myself. but if i relax and just *feel* the music, my body lets me know with the quickness what's working and what isn't, and there is no science in the world that can override that.

finally, here's my heresy for the day: it's possible to make a great sounding record with almost *any* mid-level converter on the market today.


gregoire
del ubik

I never said that "the clock does not matter". I just said that eventhough you use a (high quality) external clock expensive ADs should sound better than cheap ADs.

In all the other points I fully agree with you!
Old 2nd July 2005
  #107
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b i k
i respectfully disagree with this, especially the "no matter which clock" part. clock is HUGE when it comes to conversion.
Yes, but it had already been established that the Lavry sounded better with the Apogee clock in the thread that preceded this one (just a reminder...EVERYONE picked the Apogee clock over the Lavry on internal, before it was revealed which was which).

My guess, having heard the Lavry and the Apogees in other listening tests, is that without the Apogee clock, the Lavry would have sounded even worse, same with the Mackie. The fact that Steve had done this test and already determined that the Apogee 777 clock made everything sound better makes using the Apogee clock for the purpose of comparing A/D's perfectly valid.

What nobody has mentioned yet is that the Rosetta 200 is not even Apogee's top of the line converter. The AD-16X is even better. Kinda scary....
Old 2nd July 2005
  #108
Gear Addict
 
krid's Avatar
 

I think that the Rosetta 200 clocked to the Apogee C777 is equal to the AD 16 X.
Old 2nd July 2005
  #109
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphajerk
either way its going... its bizarre. i dont hear better seperation in 2 except between L C R... 1 and 3 sound more even across the stereo spread. am i the only one hearing this? its like when you put 2 on, someone poked two black holes in the stereo image.

anyway, its just subtle... but im hearing it. i could listen to any of the 3 and be fine.
no I hear it too. this is why I thought #3 had more air. more space to breathe.
#2 to me still sounds good but a bit "constricted".
Old 2nd July 2005
  #110
Gear Head
 

I also thought #3 sounded a little brittle, although it also seemed to bring a lot of clarity.

#2 seemed the least clear. I wrote "blurry" in my notes.

I think I liked #1 the best. The low end seemed to really come out.

I don't have any of these three units so cannot guess which is which.

Steven
Old 2nd July 2005
  #111
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Bell
I also thought #3 sounded a little brittle, although it also seemed to bring a lot of clarity.

#2 seemed the least clear. I wrote "blurry" in my notes.

I think I liked #1 the best. The low end seemed to really come out.

I don't have any of these three units so cannot guess which is which.

Steven
That's pretty funny since it has already been revealed which is which....
Old 2nd July 2005
  #112
Gear Addict
 

I love how AFTER we know what is what, people come out of the woodwork claiming the opposite of what those that did the blind test chose....
Old 2nd July 2005
  #113
Lives for gear
 
Albert's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddS
I love how AFTER we know what is what, people come out of the woodwork claiming the opposite of what those that did the blind test chose....
Yeah, I noticed that too.
Old 2nd July 2005
  #114
Gear Maniac
 

My order from best to worst---

1.Apogee
2.Mackie
3.Lavry

I think the Apogee portrayed the smoothest sound out of all of them. I think there is alot of similarity between the Mackie and the Apogee. The Lavry sounded really bad to me. It had a stuffy, lower-mid feel to it. I love these tests, and I think we all owe Bang a big thank you for always putting up great stuff like this, and for even taking the time to do it. Thanks Bang!

By the way, I think I might be the first one to comment on the actual song, but it's great!
Old 3rd July 2005
  #115
Lives for gear
 
atticus's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddS
I love how AFTER we know what is what, people come out of the woodwork claiming the opposite of what those that did the blind test chose....
I love how the majority of ToddS's posts are in praise of Apogee...
Old 3rd July 2005
  #116
Lives for gear
 
atticus's Avatar
BTW, the Apogee track is printed hotter then the Lavry track but about a half of a db. If we are to do true blind testing the levels should be matched
Old 3rd July 2005
  #117
Gear Maniac
 
Stixxs's Avatar
 

I didn't think this was about everyone protecting their investment, as much as getting an idea of what each product sounds like, (albeit an mp3).

I'd upgrade in a second if it warranted the $. My preference would be the Apogee,

...but negligible.

-Stixxs
Old 3rd July 2005
  #118
Lives for gear
 
robot gigante's Avatar
I'm glad someone else noticed about the volume levels.

I use a HEDD and an AD8000SE, so you think I'd be swayed toward Apogee at the least but I wasn't. The big 250hz ish low mid bump on the Mackie sounds like it could be trouble once you start stacking tracks done through it if it makes that big a difference on the stereo mix.

And I'm guessing that Atticus uses... Benchmark??
so there are a couple of us at least that aren't trying to defend our investments.
Old 3rd July 2005
  #119
Lives for gear
 
atticus's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robot gigante
I'm glad someone else noticed about the volume levels.

I use a HEDD and an AD8000SE, so you think I'd be swayed toward Apogee at the least but I wasn't. The big 250hz ish low mid bump on the Mackie sounds like it could be trouble once you start stacking tracks done through it if it makes that big a difference on the stereo mix.

And I'm guessing that Atticus uses... Benchmark??
so there are a couple of us at least that aren't trying to defend our investments.
I use all kinds of stuff, as I don't work for Benchmark anymore. I do have a line on a new job though...
Old 3rd July 2005
  #120
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticus
I love how the majority of ToddS's posts are in praise of Apogee...
What does that have to do with anything, except you trying to stir up trouble? As I have explained on many occaisions, I was not originally an Apogee fan, mostly because there were so many on this forum that were blatantly anti-Apogee. It was not until I actually listened to the Apogee clock on my Prisms that I realized many of the readers were being brainwashed by the likes of you and not listening to the products.

I have done all of the listening, and as a result, I believe that the Apogees are amazing boxes that sound better than the rest. I imagine that bothers you since when looking back on YOUR posts, its appeears that your job with Benchmark was among other things, being an Apogee attack dog. So many readers have called you on your tactics when it comes to this so I guess it should be no surprise that you are doing it again. I just hope the readers here are savy enough to see through the attempts to respin this thread after the fact. A real disservice to the Gearslutz community.
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