The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Apogee 16adx impression
Old 7th February 2007
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokemusician3 View Post
To call the Apogee 16 adx clear or neutral is b.s yea maybe compared to some other converter. I think a lot of these companies are purposely trying to warm up the sound with their converters, like I tried that ADI-2 converter and that thing was twice as bad as the Apogee but sure enough there are a thousand people on this forum who would sware how clear they are.

What happened is word got out that digital is cold so all these manufacturers are trying to fix that by warming up the sound with their conversion.

Call the Apogee's great call them whatever you want but please don't call them clear, accurate, neutral etc. because that's just not so.
I switched my whole PT HD3 rig from 192's to all apogees about a year ago. 1 ADx and 3-DAx's.+ big ben The first few months I felt the same way. They are very tubey sounding. and yes I lost lots of edge and "cut". but honestly I thought they were MAYBE better than 192's . Honestly Digital is really pretty bad. no matter how much you try to convince yourself it is "OK" It really is just dog poop in the street. I have to use a SSL G + pultecs + a old red 3 + ATR spitz refurb just to listen to my own mixes.....And the sound is still duty. or dog ppop in the streets... but what can I do, I am commited to TRY to make better sounding records for gods sake.....

Just a point..... the business is really about personality, attitude...........a fender strat or les paul have you! Recording gear is used to capture a sound "artistically" Not just " accurately". We use these tools to give producers artists and the audience a certian desired attitude. Hence would you really want to see a naked girl photographed with all her freckles and maybe pimples. No you want the photo air brushed so the photograph can take you more into THE fantasy...

in the end its about "ART"... what can I do to get the audience more involved in my work...

yes the apogee's are a bit soft.. but they do have more headroom, lower distortion and good drive........do I like them no as i said digital is poop...
Old 7th February 2007
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Tone Laborer's Avatar
It sounds like it might be time for a vacation.- I enjoy making digital music through apogee. The future's so bright I gotta wear shades.
Old 7th February 2007
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tone Laborer View Post
It sounds like it might be time for a vacation.- I enjoy making digital music through apogee. The future's so bright I gotta wear shades.
Your actually right....I just finished 6 days of mixing...good call...
Old 7th February 2007
  #34
Dan
Lives for gear
 
Dan's Avatar
 

I thought the Prisms were the "Holy Grail."

Yeah, you should go out an buy a few of the Prism converters. Don't wait to hear them, just do it. They're about 12 grand, so they must be good.

Old 8th February 2007
  #35
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokemusician3 View Post
To call the Apogee 16 adx clear or neutral is b.s yea maybe compared to some other converter. I think a lot of these companies are purposely trying to warm up the sound with their converters, like I tried that ADI-2 converter and that thing was twice as bad as the Apogee but sure enough there are a thousand people on this forum who would sware how clear they are.

What happened is word got out that digital is cold so all these manufacturers are trying to fix that by warming up the sound with their conversion.

Call the Apogee's great call them whatever you want but please don't call them clear, accurate, neutral etc. because that's just not so.
though i respect your opinion i just couldn't disagree with you more.

comparing to a stem mix that went DAW>through analog processing (fatso, other comps, etc.), and then calibrated to within .1dB, i listened to a DA 16X and Digi 192, clocked to each other's clock and to an Isochrone.

in the 'transparent' (as in closest to analog source) category, the the 16X DA on internal clock won hands down. i could easily tell which was which repeatably. maybe it wasn't as apparently 'clear' or 'punchy' as when clocked to the Isochrone, but IMHO the original source was alot more faithfully reproduced by the 16X on internal clock, than the 192 on any clock, or the 16X on any clock other than its own.

have nothing to do with Apogee BTW.

but no doubt beauty is in the ear of the beholder...
Old 8th February 2007
  #36
Lives for Jesus
 
stevep's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAngelo View Post

do I like them no as i said digital is poop...
This is why i track to the Studer 820 and the mix doesn't hit ProTools till the final mix

soon i will have a 1/2" 2 track then we wont even turn on Ptools for most sessions

I do like my 16 Xs ......... when i use the DAW....... which is getting less and less.........







Old 8th February 2007
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelAngelo View Post
I switched my whole PT HD3 rig from 192's to all apogees about a year ago. 1 ADx and 3-DAx's.+ big ben The first few months I felt the same way. They are very tubey sounding. and yes I lost lots of edge and "cut". but honestly I thought they were MAYBE better than 192's . Honestly Digital is really pretty bad. no matter how much you try to convince yourself it is "OK" It really is just dog poop in the street. I have to use a SSL G + pultecs + a old red 3 + ATR spitz refurb just to listen to my own mixes.....And the sound is still duty. or dog ppop in the streets... but what can I do, I am commited to TRY to make better sounding records for gods sake.....

Just a point..... the business is really about personality, attitude...........a fender strat or les paul have you! Recording gear is used to capture a sound "artistically" Not just " accurately". We use these tools to give producers artists and the audience a certian desired attitude. Hence would you really want to see a naked girl photographed with all her freckles and maybe pimples. No you want the photo air brushed so the photograph can take you more into THE fantasy...

in the end its about "ART"... what can I do to get the audience more involved in my work...

yes the apogee's are a bit soft.. but they do have more headroom, lower distortion and good drive........do I like them no as i said digital is poop...
The whole digital sounds like "poop" argument is getting terribly old. I love 2inch tape just as much as the next guy, but I don't turn on my DAW and sigh deeply because it doesn't sound like tape. It will never sound like tape... infact they are continuing to grow apart, aurally speaking. I love the fact that it sounds nothing like tape. The whole digital sounds like "poop" argument is nothing but a bunch of perpetually whinging by jaded old engineers with an inability to get with the times. Its a terrible lack of perspective on their behalf to realise that in this wonderful world of art, every aesthetic is just as valid as the next... Its the same lack of perspective that drags this sector of the industry into formality, into the musical equivalent of a picture framer.
Old 8th February 2007
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DISCERN View Post
The whole digital sounds like "poop" argument is getting terribly old. I love 2inch tape just as much as the next guy, but I don't turn on my DAW and sigh deeply because it doesn't sound like tape. It will never sound like tape... infact they are continuing to grow apart, aurally speaking. I love the fact that it sounds nothing like tape. The whole digital sounds like "poop" argument is nothing but a bunch of perpetually whinging by jaded old engineers with an inability to get with the times. Its a terrible lack of perspective on their behalf to realise that in this wonderful world of art, every aesthetic is just as valid as the next... Its the same lack of perspective that drags this sector of the industry into formality, into the musical equivalent of a picture framer.
Well If you don.t mind the sound of someone scratching glass next to your eardrum . then its all good. Actually production flexibility has always outweighed sonic integrity...Lets not say it sounds good lets just say we have to deal with it. i do my best to make it sound as "Listenable as possible" . Of course you can do what bose does design a system that makes digital recordings not hurt as much... Now thats a solution.... Lets design playback equipment that is less revealing of the digital artifacts...... Like my car stereo, everything sounds good in it ....The tweeters are facing the inner carpet......

Actually I am not a old man , actually I spend most of my waking hours figuring out how to make it sound better.....I have been mixing digital for 18 years... but it still knd of makes you want to just shut it all off....in comparasion.....have you heard a record lately?
Old 9th February 2007
  #39
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by raal View Post
though i respect your opinion i just couldn't disagree with you more.

comparing to a stem mix that went DAW>through analog processing (fatso, other comps, etc.), and then calibrated to within .1dB, i listened to a DA 16X and Digi 192, clocked to each other's clock and to an Isochrone.

in the 'transparent' (as in closest to analog source) category, the the 16X DA on internal clock won hands down. i could easily tell which was which repeatably. maybe it wasn't as apparently 'clear' or 'punchy' as when clocked to the Isochrone, but IMHO the original source was alot more faithfully reproduced by the 16X on internal clock, than the 192 on any clock, or the 16X on any clock other than its own.

have nothing to do with Apogee BTW.

but no doubt beauty is in the ear of the beholder...
Please don't take offense to this but all you're saying is the Apogee 16adx is better than the 192. But who ever said the 192 was accurate or clear or the standard for neutral digital converters. I believe you when you say that the Apogee is clearer than the 192 but that's still not saying anything.
Old 9th February 2007
  #40
Lives for gear
 

Are you drunk MichaelAngelo? It would certianly be an excellent excuse the verbal brain-vomit you are typing.

If it makes you want to shut it all off, its probably a sign. It is time to shut it all off and quit while you are still very very far behind, atleast that way we would be spared from your self indulgent dribble. It amuses me that other very well acclaimed engineers and producers (like Michael Wagener for example) openly say that they prefer digital over analog because of its aesthetic qualities. They don't seem to have any trouble at all creating absolutely stunning mixes in the digital realm. I guess we know what (*ahem* or who) the problem is.


At least we now know who inspired your moniker...



Michael Angelo from the band nitro is the epitome of self-indulgent dribble. He couldn't play an entertaining piece of music if his life depended on it, but of couse he thinks he is the saviour of all things musical. A fitting personal hero, you are filling his shoes nicely.
Old 9th February 2007
  #41
Lives for gear
 
mixerguy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DISCERN View Post
Are you drunk MichaelAngelo? It would certianly be an excellent excuse the verbal brain-vomit you are typing.

If it makes you want to shut it all off, its probably a sign. It is time to shut it all off and quit while you are still very very far behind, atleast that way we would be spared from your self indulgent dribble. It amuses me that other very well acclaimed engineers and producers (like Michael Wagener for example) openly say that they prefer digital over analog because of its aesthetic qualities. They don't seem to have any trouble at all creating absolutely stunning mixes in the digital realm. I guess we know what (*ahem* or who) the problem is.


At least we now know who inspired your moniker...



Michael Angelo from the band nitro is the epitome of self-indulgent dribble. He couldn't play an entertaining piece of music if his life depended on it, but of couse he thinks he is the saviour of all things musical. A fitting personal hero, you are filling his shoes nicely.


best
post
ever


Old 9th February 2007
  #42
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokemusician3 View Post
I only tried the soft clip compression for a few seconds and wasn't very impressed with it and that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about the company attempts eagerly to affect or color the sound you put in and I disagree with the philosophy of purposely affecting the sound with a converter. What I put in should come back out, that's all a converter is supposed to do in an ideal world IMO.

Having owned Digi 192's, Radar Nyquist, Lavry Blue's, Apogee ADA 16X's and analog tape machines, I have come to this conclusion...

When transferring from 2" or 1/2" to digital, it's always somewhat of a sonic "let-down". None of these converters capture the source perfectly. They all change things (some more subtly than others) in their own way. What you get out is not exactly what you put in.
Old 9th February 2007
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokemusician3 View Post
I only tried the soft clip compression for a few seconds and wasn't very impressed with it and that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about the company attempts eagerly to affect or color the sound you put in and I disagree with the philosophy of purposely affecting the sound with a converter. What I put in should come back out, that's all a converter is supposed to do in an ideal world IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlocascio View Post
Having owned Digi 192's, Radar Nyquist, Lavry Blue's, Apogee ADA 16X's and analog tape machines, I have come to this conclusion...

When transferring from 2" or 1/2" to digital, it's always somewhat of a sonic "let-down". None of these converters capture the source perfectly. They all change things (some more subtly than others) in their own way. What you get out is not exactly what you put in.
And you get back exactly what you put into a 2 inch machine?

LOL

Of course you don't.

If anything sounds coming back off of a tape machine are more colored (distorted, altered, changed) than a sound going into a quality converter.

I am not saying that this means tape does or does not sound good mind you.

My only point is that there is no medium that is 100% accurate to the source, it is the laws of physics at play after all.

So just hit the record button on what you got and make the best sounding music you can. I have recorded some pretty good stuff on ADATs and (as much as I hate to admit it) I have recorded some absolute slop on 2 inch.... who would a thunk....

Old 9th February 2007
  #44
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new View Post
And you get back exactly what you put into a 2 inch machine?

LOL

Of course you don't.

If anything sounds coming back off of a tape machine are more colored (distorted, altered, changed) than a sound going into a quality converter.

I am not saying that this means tape does or does not sound good mind you.

My only point is that there is no medium that is 100% accurate to the source, it is the laws of physics at play after all.

So just hit the record button on what you got and make the best sounding music you can. I have recorded some pretty good stuff on ADATs and (as much as I hate to admit it) I have recorded some absolute slop on 2 inch.... who would a thunk....


I agree that there is no recording medium that is 100% accurate, but I think you missed the point. The reason I mentioned tape is because it was used as the source for digital transfers and it's easy to compare the transfer to the source in this scenario. I was by no means trying to say that analog is more "accurate" than digital.

Strictly speaking sonics, I'll take tape (with all of it's "imperfections") over digital any day.
Old 9th February 2007
  #45
Lives for gear
 
numrologst's Avatar
brokemusician3-

you still never let us know what else you tracked through the converters...Transfer from cd isn't th best judge.

Also what are you listening back with as far as d/a goes?

All my digital stuff now is apogee and i think my digital recordings have never sounded better
Old 9th February 2007
  #46
Gear Addict
 
huarez's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokemusician3 View Post
Someone reading these forums who's looking into purchasing a top notch converter might really appreciate what I'm saying. The intent is not to ruffle anyone's feathers but to give a side that seems to be missing or drowned out by all the fervor and hype.
I disagree, I think your are more confusing than revealing on this subject. I spend a lot time with a/b comparing different converters such like 2192, Hedd 192, Lavry Gold and those apogees. Enough to find out that those apogees give excellent performance at any price range. Above the air is very thin. And that at a conversion price per channel about 200 Bucks. You might not like them, but they are far away beeing as bad or coulored as you are trying to tell us.
Old 9th February 2007
  #47
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokemusician3 View Post
Please don't take offense to this but all you're saying is the Apogee 16adx is better than the 192. But who ever said the 192 was accurate or clear or the standard for neutral digital converters. I believe you when you say that the Apogee is clearer than the 192 but that's still not saying anything.
no offense taken, and i agree that 192s are no great shakes. have not compared 16X to the likes of Weiss or Lavry Gold, but i have to say IMHO they get quite a bit closer to the analog source in sound and stereo image than 192s on their own clock, or themselves on an Isochrone, or 192 clock. also have HEDD 192 but haven't had a chance to compare them. not a night and day difference from what i can tell so far though, except for the processing on the HEDD. no doubt there are better verters out there, but i assure you the cost isn't the same.

there is someone on this forum that sold his Prisms in favor of 16X, and also on this forum there is mention of a cost no object record mixed on an 88R in england, that actually chose Digi 192s over the usual high end contenders, so there you have it.

a renouned ME whose name i won't menion (not authorized to) is of the opinion that Pacific Microsonics is superior in the transparency to Lavry Gold, Weiss, DCS, Prism, etc. etc. -- in fact he says he cannot reliably tell the difference between the PM @192kHz and the analog source. he can with the others, so how close is close enough, and for what application will they be used?

my point is, i would not at all consider 16X a very colored converter, and far from 'terrible' as you mentioned on your first post. just another 2¢, and again your opinion is highly respected.
Old 11th February 2007
  #48
Ted
Gear Maniac
 

A lot of this has to do with how well gear plays with other gear too. This can make a big difference in the outcome. I think the AD16x is a good converter. I wasn't as impressed with the DA16. They definately have a bump in the low end that multiplies when they're together. Now that being said, the bump in most cases is a favorable bump. I also agree there is a bit of graininess engineered in as well that in a lot of cases helps glue things together. This can become a problem if you need them to be completely clean though. They have a sound. We're using all Prisms however I will probably add 1- AD-16X to have the ability to go in that direction when necessary. The Prisms pretty much give you a clean slate to work with and have outstanding depth and imaging.

We recorded my C7 and A'B'd between the Prisms and the Apogee. The Prisms rendered almost exactly what was put in. The Apogees gave the piano an Elton John edge which sounded quite good until you don't want that sound. The good thing about the Prisms is you can take the accurate sounds and bend it any direction you want to after the fact given the proper outboard. The Apogees definately take you a direction quicker which is also nice but I wouldn't always want to be stuck with that sound being we do lots of different types of music here.

Once again, it all depends on what you're doing and what you're needs are. All of these newer converters do a thing just like different types of tape and tape machines do a thing. It's not an either/or conversation, it's simply what you like and need. Personally I never have fallen for the this or that or analog vs. digital conflicts. We use whatever it takes to get the best job done which happens to be a little bit of all of it. That being said, we do prefer the Prisms for their sound, accuracy, and predictability, however often, with rock stuff, we turn right around and totally adulterate all of that with outboard in mix but the end results are different in an excellent kind of way because the Prisms just seem to get more of everything in and back without imparting their will. YMMV

Best,
Ted.

The O/P should probably take a different approach if he doesn't want to get eaten alive...
Old 11th February 2007
  #49
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted View Post
We recorded my C7 and A'B'd between the Prisms and the Apogee. The Prisms rendered almost exactly what was put in. The Apogees gave the piano an Elton John edge which sounded quite good until you don't want that sound.
hi ted. just wondering if the apogees you did this with were 16 or 16X. thank you.
Old 11th February 2007
  #50
Ted
Gear Maniac
 

Yes,

They were the 16Xs.

Best,
Ted.
Old 11th February 2007
  #51
Lives for gear
thank you sir.

recording on Digi 192s and playing back on 16X DA, all on 16X clock has given me some pretty neutral results. of course YMMV, and i have not tried Prisms.

that's one of the bad things of living in mexico. not too much to pick from, and bringing stuff in for evaluation purposes only is just not worth it. so i usually buy before i try, GS has been a real lifesaver and i'm thankful. the list of stuff i've bought because of feedback here that i don't regret having bought is growing, but back to topic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted View Post
We're using all Prisms however I will probably add 1- AD-16X to have the ability to go in that direction when necessary. The Prisms pretty much give you a clean slate to work with and have outstanding depth and imaging.
may i suggest you also try listening to 16X DA with your Prism ADs. i found the DA and clock had alot more to do with the sound than i'd expected, the clocks being 192, 16X and Isochrone. the AD was a 192 on the tests we performed. i'd look forward to hearing your opinion on different AD/DA and clock combinations if convenient.
Old 11th February 2007
  #52
Lives for gear
 
thephatboi's Avatar
 

I agree with what Ted said above. I have the AD/DA16x combo and love them for what they are: they are a bit colored in the mid lows though, as I have said in other posts making them punchy but with the potential to add a bit of mud when used on tracks that are already fat and don't need that proposed "analog tape" sound. I suggest the Lynx aurora clocked by a big ben or antelope isochrone if you want "cleaner" flatter. I have both apogees and lynx now and use them for different purposes, almost like selecting mic pres. If I had to choose one though I would still keep the apogees as they sound big, maybe they are not flat but I can deal....

ps. I sure wish apogee would make a 16 in, 16 out 1 space unit like the Lynx auroras so we could do track inserts and save rack space ( and $), come on apogee it's time....
Old 11th February 2007
  #53
Ted
Gear Maniac
 

Thanks Raal,

One thing for sure, the Apogee clock, or any good clock, makes the 192's sound a lot better. The Prism clock made them sound WAY better. The biggest difference in the Apogee, Prism, and Radar, is their imaging, depth and clarity. When we shot them out the 192 had a hard time staying up with the others in these areas especially on delicate material. The solo grand piano and solo drum set in a live room told the whole story. The Prisms cleary connected everything together exhausting every last bit. All the "air" was present and uncolored. This is why they are described as deep and wide so often. They simply repaint the picture.

On the piano the Apogees were wide and sounded very good but did not capture all of the nuances. They also had some intended disortion, coloration, and a bit of a bump as described earlier. The piano easily verified this as it's so complicated to reproduce. On the drums the Apogees sounded very good with their ability to glue sounds together and make them punchy but they did not capture all of the air. The Radar converters, which I recently owned, sounded great on everything with only a slight edge going to the Prisms however they don't play well with PT. These will be worth checking out when they come out with their stand alone box.

Do you have to have Prisms to make a good record? Nope. Apogees? Nope. Can you make a great record with 192's? Of course. If the songs, production, and players, are all on the same page everything works despite the gear. On the other hand we felt the Prism's ability to capture about everything would pay off once you got a high track count going. You simply have more to work with. Where they really pay off is when you get down to the MP3, you actually still have a lot left. The first rock mix we delivered to the artist to check out via MP3 was frightening... In the car the snare was somewhere around the middle of the hood.
It was very involving like tape is.

What's the point? Don't try to make a square peg fit in a round hole. Buy what is best for your needs. Everybody's needs are different. Making it even more complicated is the way this gear works together with different loads, cabling, power, etc. It's almost impossible to have a specific opinion about what's going to work with what outside your own room. There are simply too many variables. If your gear works for you then you're in good shape. If it doesn't, call Fletcher or whoever and try the stuff out in your own room. This is why this policy exists. He and others figured this out a long time ago. It's not about being right or wrong, it's about what works for you.

Don't waste too much time dwelling on it though otherwise the guy in his garage who's not concentrating on any of this because he doesn't know any better might shock the crap out you when he comes up with a brilliant recording of a great song.

Here is an example, all cut in a garage in Stillwater, Ok on a Digi 001. In fact the danger posed to Craig was not to ruin it by mixing it through better equipment...

http://www.myspace.com/colourmusic

Listen to the song, "Yes".

These guys are well on their way, national ad deals, the whole bit...

Best,
Ted.
Old 11th February 2007
  #54
Ted
Gear Maniac
 

Here is another example of humble gear, in a small room out of Norman OK, being driven by massive talent and some great songs. Once again Craig's approach in mixing was to leave the rawness and beauty in place without imposing his or our gear's will upon it.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...endID=19296269

Listen to, "Put Your Trust in"

This whole record is great and converters have little to do with it.

Best,
Ted.
Old 11th February 2007
  #55
Gear Addict
 

funnily enough

did a quick test on a string session up at the Todd-AO stage on the CBS lot - with a 50 piece string section, pretty normal setup with 32 channels of grace pres, the apogees were damn, damn accurate with the imaging. Maybe tonally a little warmer than the prisms or the genex converters but at 96k they sound fantastic. At 192 the more pricey boys definitely win, but the hard drive space when tracking orchestral stuff....the agony...
Old 11th February 2007
  #56
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted View Post
The Radar converters, which I recently owned, sounded great on everything with only a slight edge going to the Prisms however they don't play well with PT.
oops. could you expand on that a little?

Quote:
If your gear works for you then you're in good shape. If it doesn't, call Fletcher or whoever and try the stuff out in your own room. This is why this policy exists. He and others figured this out a long time ago.
fletcher and co. are good friends as well as others here, but bringing stuff into mexico is a serious nightmare. 'handling' by the customs agency alone is at least $600USD (if you do things fast and there's no storage involved, which usually isn't the case). that doesn't include shipping and taxes (even if it's a temporary importation, you pay 15% tax on anything you're billed on in this country). sending it back out is the same deal.

i've considered going to LA and booking a room for about a week just to do shootouts with rental gear. it would be alot cheaper in the end (and more fun), but time doesn't permit this for now. would like to take lavry blue, prism 8 channel, aurora, mytec, 16X and 192s for a spin, and others i'd like to A/B are HEDD, lavry gold, weiss, prism (2 channel), DCS, Pacific Microsonics II, maybe EMM and Grimm along with an ATR 102 1/2". oh and don't forget the new korg MR1000.

spkrs.: different Focals with sub, the new Barefoots, Adam S3As with sub. did i miss anything?

FWIW now i really want to hear the Prisms but the ADC thing is a pet peeve of mine. not in love with nudging, so i kept the 192s on inserts,
and 16X to go to a folcrom. sorry for the ramble but i feel better now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted View Post
Listen to, "Put Your Trust in"
wow... that piano kills. really great song and performance. thank you for the links.
Old 12th February 2007
  #57
Gear Addict
 

My impression of the Prism is that it loses energy in the midrange. The AD and DA-16X maintain the energy in the low mids much better than the Prisms...I would not call it color as that makes it sound like they're doing something akin to a tube mic pre, which they're not, there's just not as much loss in the low mids. I used to own a pair of Prisms; bought a Big Ben and noticed immediate improvement, then shot the prisms out double blind against the AD and DA -16X. Sold the Prisms.
Old 12th February 2007
  #58
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddS View Post
My impression of the Prism is that it loses energy in the midrange. The AD and DA-16X maintain the energy in the low mids much better than the Prisms...I would not call it color as that makes it sound like they're doing something akin to a tube mic pre, which they're not, there's just not as much loss in the low mids. I used to own a pair of Prisms; bought a Big Ben and noticed immediate improvement, then shot the prisms out double blind against the AD and DA -16X. Sold the Prisms.
thanks ToddS. was there any way for you to A/B to an analog source? there've been so many reports here on 16X - from very colored, to neutral, and somewhere in between.

when i did my little test (recorded on 192, played back on 16X DA, all clocked to 16X), comparing to the analog source, the stereo image was really very accurate (as mentioned by londontown) and the sound was quite close to the original. not so with 16X on any clock other than its own, or 192 DA on any clock, though it did get closer when clocked to 16X. so what i'd like to know is if someone has A/Bd Prisms and 16X and others similarly and their findings. when clocked to an Isochrone, everything sounded very 'fast, clear, punchy, pristine' til compared to the analog source. though the sound was pleasing, it wasn't close to the original IMO.
Old 12th February 2007
  #59
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddS View Post
My impression of the Prism is that it loses energy in the midrange. The AD and DA-16X maintain the energy in the low mids much better than the Prisms...I would not call it color as that makes it sound like they're doing something akin to a tube mic pre, which they're not, there's just not as much loss in the low mids. I used to own a pair of Prisms; bought a Big Ben and noticed immediate improvement, then shot the prisms out double blind against the AD and DA -16X. Sold the Prisms.
No loss in the low mids is ridiculous, the Apogee's are adding something (something you like) and it's not all that subtle either.
Old 13th February 2007
  #60
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
No loss in the low mids is ridiculous, the Apogee's are adding something (something you like) and it's not all that subtle either.
I disagree with your assessment of the AD16X, but I wouldn't say that your opinion is ridiculous, because you may hear things differently than I do. However, I have also shot the converters out in blind tests along with the analog source (a "real" analog source, not a CD) and found the Apogees to be very neutral. But the only thing I find ridiculous here is your stubborn determination to convince others that they're not hearing what they are hearing.

-Duardo
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