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

Hey..

Had the 192 and Rosetta... Ben's gonna make anything better... But I kept my Rosetta..
Only my 2 cents
T.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 ....

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

BTW, I seem to remember that the 192 is based on a Meitner design?

ruudman

correct.

And how does the (original, non-X) AD16 fit in this picture (notwithstanding the 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

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?

/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.

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.

I had to quote this.
A classic.

ruudman

... 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

uhhh apogee's are better.

uhhh..

ruudman

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.

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...

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.