The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
2192 vs Rosetta Digital Converters
Old 1st September 2007
  #1
Lives for gear
 

2192 vs Rosetta

Sorry guys couldn't resist doing this.....

one room mic
one pre amp
one split signal after preamp
one rosetta
one 2192
one guy hacking some drums
no comp, no eq

here's my opinion....there are close when listening to one track....the only way for me to describe the difference is the 2192 seems to have a more pronounced midrange and smoother bottom...also (really asking for it here...) 2192 seems to capture a perfomance differently...there isn't more depth just more depth in the right places...again the difference is small on one track, but i think over 20 to 30 tracks it would become a large variable..I don't know for sure. I will know soon. BTW tracked a bunch with the rosetta....love it....just think I may have found a new love. Any comments or bashing welcome. Cheers.

Nick
Old 1st September 2007
  #2
i love my 2192
Old 1st September 2007
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
I love my 2192 heh
Old 1st September 2007
  #4
Lives for gear
 
HIGHENDONLY's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickynicknick View Post
Sorry guys couldn't resist doing this.....

one room mic
one pre amp
one split signal after preamp
one rosetta
one 2192
one guy hacking some drums
no comp, no eq

here's my opinion....there are close when listening to one track....the only way for me to describe the difference is the 2192 seems to have a more pronounced midrange and smoother bottom...also (really asking for it here...) 2192 seems to capture a perfomance differently...there isn't more depth just more depth in the right places...again the difference is small on one track, but i think over 20 to 30 tracks it would become a large variable..I don't know for sure. I will know soon. BTW tracked a bunch with the rosetta....love it....just think I may have found a new love. Any comments or bashing welcome. Cheers.

Nick
What monitors did you use? Both converters add a little color, listen to the files you recorded on both of them threw a lavry or other transparent converter to really hear whats going on. How long have you owned both of the units? Use the 2192 for a month and than try the rosetta again. I think you need to mix alot of tracks and have some good time spent with a converter to really hear the difference.
Old 1st September 2007
  #5
Lives for gear
 
jamwerks's Avatar
 

Rosetta VS 2192

While you're at it, it might be interesting seeing what happens if you invert the clocks to see what that changes.......
thumbsup
Old 2nd September 2007
  #6
Lives for gear
 

...clocks...good idea....HighEnd....thanks for the lecture...I'm giving you my opinion of a new piece of gear....everybody in here knows that you the longer you use a piece of gear the more you get to know it...I'd be open to you trashing my opinion...not cool to lecture...are you insecure about something? BTW WTF difference does my set of monitors (genelec) make when I'm A/B ing something? I'm telling you the difference I hear between two converters on the same set of speakers...please enlighten me
Old 2nd September 2007
  #7
Lives for gear
 
HIGHENDONLY's Avatar
 

Yea i'm insecure about my looks not my gear. But my girlfriend is helping me out there on the looks Anyone smart knows that to compare 2 converters, you need a good set of monitors in a great room running the tracks back threw a high quality transparent converter. Someone correct me if i am wrong.
Old 2nd September 2007
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Andrew Kinsey's Avatar
 

The DA converter is also really important when comparing different AD converters.

If you are doing any kind of listening test its allways better to clock the DA with the corresponding AD as master.

Old 2nd September 2007
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Bierce85's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HIGHENDONLY View Post
Yea i'm insecure about my looks not my gear. But my girlfriend is helping me out there on the looks Anyone smart knows that to compare 2 converters, you need a good set of monitors in a great room running the tracks back threw a high quality transparent converter. Someone correct me if i am wrong.
to properly compare two AD converters you must be able to A/B them with a real life source, not something played back through another converter. this is the only way to truly judge their transparency. you can test any way you want if you're just trying to figure out which one you like better.

Bill
Old 3rd September 2007
  #10
Lives for gear
 

you guys are ridiculous...mind numbing really....I HAVE GOOD SPEAKERS! AHHHHHHHHGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the 2192 sounds better to me. My comparison is sound!!! real source ... gggeeeeeeeeeezzzzzz! are you guys really high end??...I'm going now...gbye.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #11
Lives for gear
 
crypticglobe's Avatar
2192. Nothing beats it.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Traxx's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickynicknick View Post
Sorry guys couldn't resist doing this.....



Any comments or bashing welcome. Cheers.

Nick
Considering how you started this thread, i don't see why you're upset..Far as your findings in your test, thats great. I bet the 2192 is a great piece, i don't doubt it one bit. So where is the anger coming from? People are just giving their opinions on your test..
Old 3rd September 2007
  #13
Lives for gear
 
HIGHENDONLY's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickynicknick View Post
you guys are ridiculous...mind numbing really....I HAVE GOOD SPEAKERS! AHHHHHHHHGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the 2192 sounds better to me. My comparison is sound!!! real source ... gggeeeeeeeeeezzzzzz! are you guys really high end??...I'm going now...gbye.
Yes, most of us who post in the highend section are highend. I have a Lavry gold, is that highend enough for you?
Old 3rd September 2007
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Bierce85's Avatar
 

Lavry gold? thats consumer ****. I wouldnt record a garage band with anything less than an EMM Labs!
Old 3rd September 2007
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bierce85 View Post
Lavry gold? thats consumer ****. I wouldnt record a garage band with anything less than an EMM Labs!

Ummmm....Don't you think that's a little harsh? The Lavry Gold although not as transparent and/or accurate as the EMM, has a very nice sound that really works with rock music (IMHO). I like the EMM on my monitoring chain and also for certain mastering tasks when total transparency is desired, but I wouldn't be so quick to dub the Gold as "consumer sh!t", as it is useful in tasks where the EMM can be somewhat lacking.

The Lavry Gold is in my opinion a great A/D.

Last edited by Empire Prod; 3rd September 2007 at 06:24 AM.. Reason: I wasn't being nice
Old 3rd September 2007
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrox247 View Post
Ummmm....Don't you think that's a little harsh? The Lavry Gold although not as transparent and/or accurate as the EMM, has a very nice sound that really works with rock music (IMHO). I like the EMM on my monitoring chain and also for certain mastering tasks when total transparency is desired, but I wouldn't be so quick to dub the Gold as "consumer sh!t", as it is useful in tasks where the EMM can be somewhat lacking.

The Lavry Gold is in my opinion a great A/D.

Also if you are going to dish it out like that here on Gearslutz, you might want to ditch your MySpace link.
Wasn't he(Bierce85) being fecetious with his comment?
Old 3rd September 2007
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmacko View Post
Wasn't he(Bierce85) being fecetious with his comment?
I don't know. There was no JK or smiley faces. Either way it's a good idea to clear the air for the newbies.
Old 3rd September 2007
  #18
Gear Head
 
oscarrabin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrox247 View Post
I don't know. There was no JK or smiley faces. Either way it's a good idea to clear the air for the newbies.
And by newbies you mean... mentally ********, right??!!!!

Hey, patrox247. Do you know when I realized you were mentally ********? When you told me you like Coldplay!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, well. At least we drove the Canadian away. See ya, cheesecakes!!!!

PS -- This is for patrox247...
Old 3rd September 2007
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oscarrabin View Post
And by newbies you mean... mentally ********, right??!!!!

Hey, patrox247. Do you know when I realized you were mentally ********? When you told me you like Coldplay!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, well. At least we drove the Canadian away. See ya, cheesecakes!!!!

PS -- This is for patrox247...

heh
Old 3rd September 2007
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Bierce85's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrox247 View Post
Ummmm....Don't you think that's a little harsh? The Lavry Gold although not as transparent and/or accurate as the EMM, has a very nice sound that really works with rock music (IMHO). I like the EMM on my monitoring chain and also for certain mastering tasks when total transparency is desired, but I wouldn't be so quick to dub the Gold as "consumer sh!t", as it is useful in tasks where the EMM can be somewhat lacking.

The Lavry Gold is in my opinion a great A/D.
my post was a joke referring to highendonly calling the Rosetta 800 consumer ****.

Sweet avatar.

Bill
Old 3rd September 2007
  #21
Lives for gear
 

"Considering how you started this thread, i don't see why you're upset..Far as your findings in your test, thats great. I bet the 2192 is a great piece, i don't doubt it one bit. So where is the anger coming from? People are just giving their opinions on your test.."

Listen the test is good. period. my opinion is totally open for bashing. Picking apart the test is bush league.
Old 14th September 2007
  #22
Lives for gear
 
studio1117's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickynicknick View Post
"Considering how you started this thread, i don't see why you're upset..Far as your findings in your test, thats great. I bet the 2192 is a great piece, i don't doubt it one bit. So where is the anger coming from? People are just giving their opinions on your test.."

Listen the test is good. period. my opinion is totally open for bashing. Picking apart the test is bush league.
I'm sure you've all noticed...this guys a no talent a-hole. He gets bashed in every forum.....cause...well...he's a
d!ckhead.
Old 15th September 2007
  #23
Lives for gear
 
allencollins's Avatar
 

personally I think the 2192 is much better than a rosetta 200.
But I would be interested in hearing the rosetta with a better clock
Standalone they are in different leagues.

I still don't think the 2192 sounds analog. It definetly has some analog characater
but still not 2inch
Old 17th September 2007
  #24
Here for the gear
 

New guy here. Any easy suggestions for converters for someone using a Digi 002, only in need of two tracks at a time, and willing to spend around $3000?? I've heard alot of talk about combining the Rosetta 200 w/Big Ben, but then again, I've heard people go on in the opposite direction. Just wondering if I throw in how much I'll spend if that makes a difference in some of your opinions?
Thanks
Old 17th September 2007
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Bierce85's Avatar
 

A rosetta 200 is a big step up from the digi 002 and would also improve your monitoring since it's a 2 channel D/A as well. You'd just need some kind of gain control (preferably passive) before your monitors. Rosetta 200s go for around 1300-1500 used. I wouldn't bother with the Big Ben, just clock the 002 to the Rosetta as it has a very good internal clock. The 002 doesnt even have word clock i/o anyway. Use the other half of your $3000 to buy a preamp, mic, or any of the many other things that will improve your sound much more noticeably then a clock.

Bill
Old 17th September 2007
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Listen the test is good. period. my opinion is totally open for bashing. Picking apart the test is bush league.
Really?

How did you compare the converted signals to the original signals?

No argument as to which one you prefer, but which one is more accurate?
Old 17th September 2007
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypticglobe View Post
2192. Nothing beats it.
how do you guys compare those converters (2192 & Rosetta) with the HEDD?
Old 17th September 2007
  #28
Dan
Lives for gear
 
Dan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickynicknick View Post
snip


...I'm going now...gbye.
You're on to something there.
Old 17th September 2007
  #29
Here for the gear
 

Thanks Bill. I only mentioned the Big Ben because I heard a few other people say that the Rosetta 200 clock isn't as good as the 16X which has the C777 (Big Ben) internally and has been considered better by some opinions than the Rosetta 200 internal clock. I think one of the earlier people I read mentioned using it with a Digi 002. Is it possible they connected the three units together in a certain way, as to make it not necessary for the Digi 002 to have i/o for a clock.
Also, so are you recommending the Rosetta 200 as best for the price range I mentioned or just referring to it because I brought it up originally?
In other words, are there any other brands strongly recommended over it in that range?
(sorry so much text...new guy)
Old 18th September 2007
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Bierce85's Avatar
 

if you're using external clocking then each unit should be receiving WC output from the same source. They were most likely taking WC from the Big Ben into the Rosetta, then just clocking the 002 through through it's ADAT connection to the Rosetta (so the rosetta is passing the WC frequency from the Big Ben through it). this is not really an ideal setup as the purpose of buying a Big Ben is to get (near) perfect clocking, so anything but a dedicated BNC word clock input on each unit coming from the Big Ben is starting to defeat the purpose. Taking a regenerated WC signal then putting it through an ADAT connection into an 002 is kind of a waste of a Big Ben IMO.

As for which converter is best in that price range.. thats all personal preference. I think Apogees sound wonderful and very musical. You'd really have to decide that on your own based on hearing different options.

Anway, like I said, if I were you I wouldnt be worried about clocking at all just having a Rosetta 200 and a Digi 002. External clocking isn't likely to add much to a converter that already has a good clock. Generally, external clocking is more important when 5+ pieces of digital gear need to be synchronized to one frequency. Use the money you would be spending on a Big Ben to buy a mic or a preamp and really hear a difference in your sound!
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
gearobsessed / High end
11
huarez / High end
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump