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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 ....
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')?
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.
/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.
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.
... 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)?
... 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
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.
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...
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.