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
HEDD or 2192 Digital Converters
Old 29th September 2007
  #31
So I ordered a 2192 yesterday, I am geeked up.

And from what I was told UA raised the prices on all their hardware by 10% effective Oct 1st. Kind of sucks if that is true, glad I got in under the wire. Has anyone else heard about this 10% increase?
Old 29th September 2007
  #32
Lives for gear
 

That would be a 2nd price increase on the 2192 in 3 yrs.
Old 30th September 2007
  #33
So I was just reading up on my new toy and I have a question.

There are 2 sets of AES inputs and outputs on the back of the unit. The photos I have seen of the back of the unit say that the "AES 2" jacks are only active in dual wire mode but the UA manual seems to imply that only the AES 2 input only works in dual wire but the output is a duplicate of the "AES 1" jacks.

I have a CD burner with AES inputs. I would like to use the 2192 to feed the CD burner and to go back into my DAW with AES at the same time during mix-down, is this possible?

Thanks gang.
Old 30th September 2007
  #34
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new View Post
I would like to use the 2192 to feed the CD burner and to go back into my DAW with AES at the same time during mix-down, is this possible?
Looks like you're in good luck because the manual couldn't be more clear -- it's a digital signal signal distributor in single-wire mode: "In single wire mode, this output duplicates the signal on AES/EBU Digital Output A (but is electrically independent). Pin 2 is hot."

http://www.uaudio.com/_works/pdf/man...192_manual.pdf

Unless you have old gear you won't use dual-wire mode. And S/PIDF is probably also simultaneously available to drive a third digital receiver.
Old 30th September 2007
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick View Post
Looks like you're in good luck because the manual couldn't be more clear -- it's a digital signal signal distributor in single-wire mode: "In single wire mode, this output duplicates the signal on AES/EBU Digital Output A (but is electrically independent). Pin 2 is hot."

http://www.uaudio.com/_works/pdf/man...192_manual.pdf

Unless you have old gear you won't use dual-wire mode. And S/PIDF is probably also simultaneously available to drive a third digital receiver.
Thanks man....

thumbsup

As I said the confusing thing is that the photos I have seen of the back of the machine show that the outputs are actually called "Output 1" and "Output 2" and that Output 2 is "Dual Wire Only"

http://www.sweetwater.com/images/clo...-2192_rear.jpg

I guess either the photo is wrong or the manual is but as I said it was a little confusing all in all.

So has anyone actaully used the 2192 to feed two different AES units who can confirm that the manual is correct? Just wondering.
Old 30th September 2007
  #36
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

I woulda gotten da Hedd...sniff...waaaaaaaaa

Old 30th September 2007
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Yeah I use the 2192 to feed my DAC-1 which is now my headphones on mixdown.
Old 30th September 2007
  #38
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new View Post
the back of the machine show that the outputs are actually called "Output 1" and "Output 2" and that Output 2 is "Dual Wire Only
It is confusing. But look at this section of the manual: "AES/EBU input 'B' is used only in dual wire mode. AES/EBU output 'B' is used for one channel in dual wire mode, and replicates AES/EBU output 'A' in single wire mode."

The Output is used in both modes but the input is only used in dual-wire mode.

Looking carefully at the rear panel label, "Dual Wire Only" is in parentheses after "40-100Khz only", which should mean that frequencies are 40-200Khz in single-wire mode and 40-100Khz in dual-wire mode.

I think UA should remove frequency verbiage from the rear panel label because it has no practical meaning except for engineers who know both the old and new digital transmission specs. UA should also clarify the manual.

If you still have doubts I'd call UA tech support. They're great people and I'm certain you'll get a straight answer quickly.
Old 21st November 2007
  #39
Gear Maniac
 
goatie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new View Post
So I ordered a 2192 yesterday, I am geeked up.

And from what I was told UA raised the prices on all their hardware by 10% effective Oct 1st. Kind of sucks if that is true, glad I got in under the wire. Has anyone else heard about this 10% increase?
Hey, did you receive it yet
If so, how is it? Are you a happy man now? heh

Right now I'm also highly in doubt which to buy, HEDD or 2192.
Will be used for recording, but I think it would be nice to use the tape features of the HEDD during a mix.
The HEDD seems a bit more versatile.
How's the 2192 "analog stamp"?
Old 21st November 2007
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by goatie View Post
Hey, did you receive it yet
If so, how is it? Are you a happy man now? heh

Right now I'm also highly in doubt which to buy, HEDD or 2192.
Will be used for recording, but I think it would be nice to use the tape features of the HEDD during a mix.
The HEDD seems a bit more versatile.
How's the 2192 "analog stamp"?
Man I wish I could tell ya....

I have the 2192 here in my rack but I can't hook it up yet because I am waiting for the updated Lynx AES16 card to be released. I haven't even turned the 2192 on yet. Sucks.

I am planning on printing a mix out of my Tonelux 2 buss into the 2192 and AD-16X to test the two converters. When I do that test I am toying with uploading the results here. I am hesitant to do tests here up to now because of all the flame wars that erupt when tests are posted. If I do that it might help a few folks with the 2192 / Apogee comparison. Sorry, I don't have the HEDD192 anymore to test with.
Old 21st November 2007
  #41
Lives for gear
 

I mix thru a Tonelux into the 2192. Great combo. Sold the Mytek AD 192 and kept the 2192.
Old 22nd November 2007
  #42
Lives for gear
I ended up snagging the 2192 I spent almost a month a/bing them. I sent the hedd back.

They are both great!!! BUT!!.... At first listen the Hedd really impressed me, very big sound. But the UA was way smoother.

The clincher was how the UA stacked up tracks. I'm did about 30 tracks of backup vocals one night on both of them so 60 all together. The Hedd started to sound very sterile and more digital as I stacked. The UA still sounded smooth and analog like.

Also when I did a guitar solo on a song. I recorded 5 tracks of the same exact solo. The UA blew the hedd away. The more tracks I did with the hedd the thinner and more robotic it sounded. The UA stacked up simialr to my mtr-90 .

On a simple a/b test with the hedd processing engaged you really can't hear the difference between them. It's like splitting hairs but when stacked the UA is amazing. Blew the Hedd out of the water. That old cliche' but the UA is way more musical when stacking tracks.

And the bonus!!! 2350 shipped from the dealer.
Old 22nd November 2007
  #43
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
I ended up snagging the 2192 I spent almost a month a/bing them. I sent the hedd back.

They are both great!!! BUT!!.... At first listen the Hedd really impressed me, very big sound. But the UA was way smoother.

The clincher was how the UA stacked up tracks. I'm did about 30 tracks of backup vocals one night on both of them so 60 all together. The Hedd started to sound very sterile and more digital as I stacked. The UA still sounded smooth and analog like.

Also when I did a guitar solo on a song. I recorded 5 tracks of the same exact solo. The UA blew the hedd away. The more tracks I did with the hedd the thinner and more robotic it sounded. The UA stacked up simialr to my mtr-90 .

On a simple a/b test with the hedd processing engaged you really can't hear the difference between them. It's like splitting hairs but when stacked the UA is amazing. Blew the Hedd out of the water. That old cliche' but the UA is way more musical when stacking tracks.

And the bonus!!! 2350 shipped from the dealer.
totally agree...tracks seem to stack really nicely....been tracking for a couple of months with the 2192...had to adjust to it though...has it's own vibe for sure...I think you're gonna like it......re the post about clipping convereters...at this point in time I think it is ridiculous..it's like taking a hammer to a U47 and saying it's great because it sounds so much more agressive and dirty....

Nick
Old 22nd November 2007
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellyd View Post
I mix thru a Tonelux into the 2192. Great combo. Sold the Mytek AD 192 and kept the 2192.
I am really excited to hear that!

Thanks, I can't wait to give the rig a try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
I ended up snagging the 2192 I spent almost a month a/bing them. I sent the hedd back.

They are both great!!! BUT!!.... At first listen the Hedd really impressed me, very big sound. But the UA was way smoother.

The clincher was how the UA stacked up tracks. I'm did about 30 tracks of backup vocals one night on both of them so 60 all together. The Hedd started to sound very sterile and more digital as I stacked. The UA still sounded smooth and analog like.

Also when I did a guitar solo on a song. I recorded 5 tracks of the same exact solo. The UA blew the hedd away. The more tracks I did with the hedd the thinner and more robotic it sounded. The UA stacked up simialr to my mtr-90 .

On a simple a/b test with the hedd processing engaged you really can't hear the difference between them. It's like splitting hairs but when stacked the UA is amazing. Blew the Hedd out of the water. That old cliche' but the UA is way more musical when stacking tracks.

And the bonus!!! 2350 shipped from the dealer.
Also very cool. That is my plan as well. I am going to take some time and track one of my "bands" tunes completely from start to finish (with the exception of drums) through the Apogee AD-16X's and the 2192 just to see how they stack.
Old 22nd November 2007
  #45
Gear Maniac
 
Fabio's Avatar
No experience with UA here but Hedd is a really great machine, not only for the excellent converter but also for the process section, very usefull in mixing and tracking, too!! Is it analogue enough? I don't care the important is that it sounds good!
Old 21st December 2007
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Marjan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
The clincher was how the UA stacked up tracks. I'm did about 30 tracks of backup vocals one night on both of them so 60 all together. The Hedd started to sound very sterile and more digital as I stacked. The UA still sounded smooth and analog like.

Also when I did a guitar solo on a song. I recorded 5 tracks of the same exact solo. The UA blew the hedd away. The more tracks I did with the hedd the thinner and more robotic it sounded.
Yack... that last phrase...

Robert, did you perform those (or other) tests with "TAPE" engaged on the HEDD?
Old 21st December 2007
  #47
Lives for gear
 
roger's Avatar
 

yep......run your mix out through both boxes and be less than thrilled at what the hedd does! 'thin and robotic' ain't what it sounds like!......if you track through the hedd (be subtle with your settings!) your tracks will stack a treat! the hedd gives you world-class conversion (crying about the quality of conversion is a total wank when you are at this level of quality!) with some luverly analogue flavour options you can add to taste.....a very nice box!

.......'thin and robotic'??!!........maybe you were recording at 8bit.....actually even 8bit dosn't sound thin.....just crunchy and cold as ice.
Old 24th December 2007
  #48
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marjan View Post
Yack... that last phrase...

Robert, did you perform those (or other) tests with "TAPE" engaged on the HEDD?

Hi, Yes I did.

The one thing I liked about the hedd is I though it was slightly bigger (slightly)


Maybe the UA just worked better for my application. Overall Hedd is a great unit but it's more like an apogee with processing
Old 24th December 2007
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Marjan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
Hi, Yes I did.

The one thing I liked about the hedd is I though it was slightly bigger (slightly)
Thanks Robert...

I'm not a big HEDD lover myself... just asking... although I acknowledge it's a good unit.
The DSP feature I like the most on it is not the TAPE thing actually, it's the PENTODE - it opens up the high-mids in a very nice way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
Maybe the UA just worked better for my application. Overall Hedd is a great unit but it's more like an apogee with processing
In my opinion the AD-16 and the HEDD are not similar...!
I prefer the AD-16... it sounds more organic and sweet to my ears...
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
tctunes / High end
1
Matthew Murray / So much gear, so little time
16
zulusound / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
pentajigga / High end
9

Forum Jump
Forum Jump