The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Apogee Vs Digidesign A/D D/A Converters
Old 12th July 2005
  #1
Gear Addict
 
D.F.'s Avatar
 

Apogee Vs Digidesign A/D D/A Converters

Hi there.

What are peoples preferences on Digidesign 192 converters to Apogee Rosetta 800 / AD 16X / DA 16X converters? Let's assume that on both we are using the Apogee Big Ben clock.

Thanks.

D.F.
Old 13th July 2005
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Riad's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.F.
Hi there.

What are peoples preferences on Digidesign 192 converters to Apogee Rosetta 800 / AD 16X / DA 16X converters? Let's assume that on both we are using the Apogee Big Ben clock.

Thanks.

D.F.
I'm unsure you'll see a huge difference between the AD16-X and a 192 clocked to a Big Ben.

I've had both and now just have the Apogee AD16-x, and DA16-x converters, of course ymmv.

Rob
Old 13th July 2005
  #3
9321
Guest
Hey..

Had the 192 and Rosetta... Ben's gonna make anything better... But I kept my Rosetta..
Only my 2 cents
T.
Old 13th July 2005
  #4
Gear Addict
 

stop the presses
there's been people reporting that the Big Ben mucks up the Rosetta sound
Old 13th July 2005
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Ziggy!!'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeses
stop the presses
there's been people reporting that the Big Ben mucks up the Rosetta sound
Its nothing new... Max from apogee always said there was no point in clocking a single rosetta 800/200 from a big ben. Clocking multiple R800/200's was another story.

I'd say some internal clocks dont cope to well with clocking a large number of external converters. Thats where the big ben really shines...
Old 13th July 2005
  #6
Lives for gear
 
SnakeCained's Avatar
 

I was lucky enough to A/B the Apogee and HD Digig converters in the "home" studio of one of the worlds greatest mixers.

We concluded that the Digis were good but seemed to have a slight high mid bump. Not unpleasent, but not as smooth across the spectrum as the Apogee.
Old 13th July 2005
  #7
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
I have used a Rosetta 800 and 3-192's for the last 1 1/2 years.
The Apogee has a bit more top on it and the 192 is more punchy on the bottom end.
The both are good convertors.
Old 13th July 2005
  #8
Gear Addict
 
D.F.'s Avatar
 

Thanks for your all of your helpful replies.

My main concern is that the apogees will "colour" the sound more than the 192s - that the sound of the 192 may be more "crystal clear".

It seems that alot of the big studios here in the uk use the 192s. Maybe that's because when HD came out you had to have a 192 in order to use an apogee...?

My front end is great: neumans, 1272s, audixs, calrecs, Decca eq, ear 660, 1176 and more - so everything is really punchy and exciting. I don't want a converter that "softens" the sound.

D.F.
Old 29th July 2005
  #9
Lives for gear
 
mac black's Avatar
At the Astoria (Dave Gilmore´s Studio)they use digidesign 192´s after comparing them to everything else over a long period of time (weeks)
Old 29th July 2005
  #10
Gear Maniac
 
Donny's Avatar
 

I know this may seem a bit strange around here but i have stuck with the 192's aswell after trying other convertors....I got rid of my AD16x for lavry's and stuck with the 192 DA's ....
Old 29th July 2005
  #11
Lives for gear
 
SnakeCained's Avatar
 

Dave "Gilmour"'s studio had Meitners and Weiss I thought. THe HD stuff was just for AES i/o to the better quality AD/DA.

Most of Davids work is on analogue any way.

Not that we're close or anything
Old 29th July 2005
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Ruudman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeCained
Dave "Gilmour"'s studio had Meitners and Weiss I thought. THe HD stuff was just for AES i/o to the better quality AD/DA.
BTW, I seem to remember that the 192 is based on a Meitner design?

ruudman
Old 29th July 2005
  #13
Lives for gear
 
C.Lambrechts's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruudman
BTW, I seem to remember that the 192 is based on a Meitner design?

ruudman

correct.
Old 29th July 2005
  #14
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.F.
Hi there.
What are peoples preferences on Digidesign 192 converters to Apogee Rosetta 800 / AD 16X / DA 16X converters? Let's assume that on both we are using the Apogee Big Ben clock.
And how does the (original, non-X) AD16 fit in this picture (notwithstanding the obvious 'it's older and therefore inferior')?
Old 29th July 2005
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Ruudman's Avatar
 

Quote:
obvious 'it's older and therefore inferior
Thanks for using adequate language instead of claiming it's crap, coz it
isn't. Digital products do not turn to crap just by being 2-4 years old
(or even older, for that matter). Despite the continuing development.

ruudman
Old 29th July 2005
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Riad's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
And how does the (original, non-X) AD16 fit in this picture (notwithstanding the obvious 'it's older and therefore inferior')?
One factor is the older converters do not have the C777 big ben clock built into them.
Old 29th July 2005
  #17
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riad
One factor is the older converters do not have the C777 big ben clock built into them.
Ok, what if I clock them from my Mytek 8X96?
Old 29th July 2005
  #18
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
/I clock a 192 W/ 16 outs to a Lavry m-sync[4496] and after ABing to a big ben,
I found clocking from the lavry gave me a slightly clearer /wider image..
sent the BB back.
Old 29th July 2005
  #19
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruudman
BTW, I seem to remember that the 192 is based on a Meitner design?
He was a consultant as was Bruce Jackson.

I've heard 192s sound really good and I've heard them sound thin and muffled depending on the console they were being used with. The Apogees I've used seem less picky about what they are driving.

My opinion is that opinions are pretty useless unless someone has used a piece of gear in lots of different situations.
Old 29th July 2005
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Ruudman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson
My opinion is that opinions are pretty useless unless someone has used a piece of gear in lots of different situations.
I had to quote this.
A classic.

ruudman
Old 29th July 2005
  #21
Lives for gear
... so using 16Xs is NOT like pulling a blanket off of a 192? is it just a matter of taste? anybody actually prefer 192s with their clock as opposed to BB?

anybody find a combination useful (some 192s, some 16Xs)?
Old 29th July 2005
  #22
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by raal
... so using 16Xs is NOT like pulling a blanket off of a 192? is it just a matter of taste? anybody actually prefer 192s with their clock as opposed to BB?

anybody find a combination useful (some 192s, some 16Xs)?
I track at one studio with 16's and mix at home with 192's[lavry clocked]
Works just fine
Old 29th July 2005
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.F.
Hi there.

What are peoples preferences on Digidesign 192 converters to Apogee Rosetta 800 / AD 16X / DA 16X converters? Let's assume that on both we are using the Apogee Big Ben clock.

Thanks.

D.F.
uhhh apogee's are better.
Old 29th July 2005
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Ruudman's Avatar
 

uhhh..

ruudman
Old 29th July 2005
  #25
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by raal
... so using 16Xs is NOT like pulling a blanket off of a 192? is it just a matter of taste?
It's mostly a matter of precisely what gear each is interfaced with.

There's no alternative to trying gear out in your own situation and using it for quite a while in order in order to to make an informed decision.
Old 29th July 2005
  #26
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson
It's mostly a matter of precisely what gear each is interfaced with.

There's no alternative to trying gear out in your own situation and using it for quite a while in order in order to to make an informed decision.
i'm afraid you're right bob, and thank you. it's just that options to actually hear new stuff are not abundant in a third world country.
Old 30th July 2005
  #27
Lives for gear
 
kudzu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson
He was a consultant as was Bruce Jackson.

I've heard 192s sound really good and I've heard them sound thin and muffled depending on the console they were being used with. The Apogees I've used seem less picky about what they are driving.

My opinion is that opinions are pretty useless unless someone has used a piece of gear in lots of different situations.
Pretty much everybody dised the ISA 430MK11....I ended up with one, on apro, on a session....it was f*ckin' great...kept it for as long as I could, without payin' 4 it...handed it back.....I miss it.....I paid $4,000 for a distresser+Chandler LTD1.....but I'm desperately tryin' 2 find £1,500 for an ISA 430mk11.....Ur right Bob....get hands on, then u know...
Old 31st July 2005
  #28
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Analog interfacing is a big deal.

Sometimes you can wrap unused gear that interfaces well around what might ordinarily be considered a POS and get great results. Time spent studying the ins and outs of the gear on hand can pay huge dividends. This is why I think monitors and a non-flattering D to A are among the most important purchases these days. They can save you a bundle over flying blind and dropping a fortune on gear.
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