The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Lynx Aurora 8 or UA 2192?
Old 25th July 2005
  #1
Gear Addict
 
daaronhoffman's Avatar
Lynx Aurora 8 or UA 2192?

Which converter should I get?
The Aurora 8 or UA 2192?
I normally don't track more than 2 channels at a time, but I will need to record drums sometimes. Is the UA 2192 that much more superior to the Aurora?

I only have $2k to work with so I either get two pristine channels or 8 mid level.

Has anyone dealt with both to know if being limited to 2 channels is worth it?(I could always use my Waves L2 A/D if needed)

I only have 6 channels of mic pre's so... would I be better to get the Aurora now and be able to focus on more mic pres later?

Are the Aurora converters good enough that different mic pres would give a greater improvement in sound than the difference between the Lynx and UA?

Am I making sense?
I need to make a decision this week.

What would you do?

Aaron
Old 26th July 2005
  #2
Lives for gear
 

I'd say if you don't need the master clock right now, you're getting a whole lot more bang for your buck with the Lynx Aurora 8.
Old 26th July 2005
  #3
More cowbell!
 
natpub's Avatar
I'm not convinced that I would call the Aurora "mid-level" yet. It seems like you are just going by price as a guage of what is high, mid, or low.

I have not compared the units myself, but so far, from the folks using both units, favorable results are obtained by either.

I have not seen anything really negative about either box.




.
Old 26th July 2005
  #4
Gear Addict
 
daaronhoffman's Avatar
I was stating it as mid-level by price only.
I have no experience with either unit, but have heard favorable things about both.
More of the UA 2192, but it's been out longer.
It would be great if the Aurora would show it self as a high-end AD/DA!

I think I will probably go with the Lynx and maybe get the UA later(if needed).
If I need a master word clock I'd like to get the http://www.antelopeaudio.com/products_iso.html
Seems like it would do a better job than the Big Ben.

Digital is really improving.

Aaron
Old 26th July 2005
  #5
Moderator
 
matt thomas's Avatar
the lynx 2c has 6 channels of AD (for your 6 preamps) and digital I/O for your L2.

Its not converters exactly, its a sound card, but it may suit what you want?

Same converters essentially as aurora, typical new price $1049
Old 26th July 2005
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Doublehelix's Avatar
 

I just ordered and received my Aurora converters along with a Lynx AES-16 card.

They were actually out of stock on the Aurora-16's, so they sent me 2 Aurora-8's to use until the 16's get in stock (pretty cool of them!).

Think about the price here...

(roughly)

$3,000 - Aurora-16
$625 - AES-16 card
$600 cables (2 X 8-channel D-Sub -> D-Sub AES, and then 4 X 8-channel D-Sub -> TRS for Analog i/o)

That's $4,200 for 16 channels of A/D and D/A including the AES/EBU card for the computer...NOT BAD!!!

This is a great price for what you get, and the early reviews on these suckers are pretty good, plus with Lynx's great reputation, this becomes less of a gamble on my part. I am a bit nervous getting new technology like this, but I think overall I am going to be OK.

Hopefully the cables will arrive today so I can put things together tonight or tomorrow. I am just finishing a session now (final mixes), and have a new session starting on Thursday (setup on Thursday, tracking starts on Friday), so I am really hoping to get it installed and tested before the new session starts.
Old 26th July 2005
  #7
Lives for gear
 

The Lynx AES16 installs easily on Mac. PC was another story. You'll want to set your sample rate in the Lynx Mixer before launching your DAW software.

Good decision going with Lynx over Universal Audio for this one. More channels!

The Antelope Isochrone clock is working beautifully. You can leave it on for days and it never gets hot.
Old 27th July 2005
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Doublehelix's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doublehelix
Hopefully the cables will arrive today so I can put things together tonight or tomorrow. I am just finishing a session now (final mixes), and have a new session starting on Thursday (setup on Thursday, tracking starts on Friday), so I am really hoping to get it installed and tested before the new session starts.
The cables arrived last night...wrong cables!!! I am pretty ticked!

Working on getting a quick replacement...grumble...grumble....
Old 27th July 2005
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Aw man! Hopefully they'll get it right and overnight mail will be there for you.
Old 17th September 2005
  #10
AB3
Lives for gear
 

I have the Isochrone with Aurora 16 and AES16. I am wondering if anyone else is using the same setup and if they know whether the synchrolocks are better "off" or on" on the Lynx part. Also, what kind of differences are people hearing. I know this is a narrow question, but maybe someone else has this experience.
THANKS.
Old 17th September 2005
  #11
Gear Maniac
 
Bosco's Avatar
 

With an external clock turn syncrolock off,with it on there is no benefit in having an external clock it just references to the input but uses the syncrolock internal clock behind the scene.

Your upper mid range is were the diff will be,much more relaxed with Apogee anyway.

BT
Old 17th September 2005
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco
With an external clock turn syncrolock off,with it on there is no benefit in having an external clock it just references to the input but uses the syncrolock internal clock behind the scene.

Your upper mid range is were the diff will be,much more relaxed with Apogee anyway.

BT


Good advice from Bosco...
Old 17th September 2005
  #13
AB3
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco
With an external clock turn syncrolock off,with it on there is no benefit in having an external clock it just references to the input but uses the syncrolock internal clock behind the scene.

Your upper mid range is were the diff will be,much more relaxed with Apogee anyway.

BT
This makes sense to me (about turning off the synchrolocks) though Lynx gave me the opposite advice. I assume their would also be some tightening of the bass. What does your comment about "much more relaxed with the Apogee" mean?
Old 17th September 2005
  #14
Gear Maniac
 
Bosco's Avatar
 

QUOTE]This makes sense to me (about turning off the synchrolocks) though Lynx gave me the opposite advice. I assume their would also be some tightening of the bass. What does your comment about "much more relaxed with the Apogee" mean?[/QUOTE]





Paul at Lynx and myself had a conversation and I was also told how syncrolock was a superior clock etc..I wanted to know how to let an external clock stand on it's own with Lynx hardware and the answer is to turn off syncrolock.

After a bazillion hours of tape transfers using my ears and nothing else being considered it is my opinion that the Apogee clock and converters are truer to the source than anything else I tried.The upper mids and highs were where the biggest diff was.

With a tape deck to reference back and forth to where the source does not change, it becomes obvious which is truer.

I use Radar S Nyquist converters for tracking daily along with a Lynx AES16 card,and I find it less stuffy up top also when Radar is used as the master clock.These are just my opinions yours may be just the oposite who knows.

I have heard the talk about the bottom end this and the bottom end that but I have not had the same experience.

Peace BT
Old 17th September 2005
  #15
AB3
Lives for gear
 

Bosco - I just did another two piano comparision recordings. One with the Aurora as master with synchs on and the other with Isochrone with synchs off. I think the Isochrone is a little more accurate and tighter bass. Not night and day, but maybe 2 percent difference or so. (who knows - may be 5 percent to someone else). I think how much the external converter changes particular aspects from the internal depends on what the internal was to begin with. For instance, if my Aurora was looser in the bass than your converter, the the external clock would have more of an effect on the bass than your clock would. Make sense? Can I share any of these files with you to see if this is just psychological on my part?
THANKS.
AB
Old 17th September 2005
  #16
Gear Maniac
 
Bosco's Avatar
 

By the way I have not tried the Aurora and it may very well be better with syncrolock clock than an external box,the Aurora does not use a PLL(don't quote me on this).Syncrolock is Lynx's own technology and I think it is based on a osilator crystal which is why an AES16 mated up with there own converter may just be steller.

I am going to get one in the next couple of weeks and take a listen.Finding hardware that plays nice together can be a b!tch.

BT
Old 17th September 2005
  #17
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
16 posts in a HI END (!) thread and nobody has yet stated the plain-and-oh-so-obvious naked truth:

Aurora 8 or UA 2192? Of course you need BOTH, baby.....and make that an Aurora 16 anyway.

So that's what I plan for my big upgrade (hopefully) coming early next year. This would likely be be with a PT HD system.

-UA 2192 as 'main converters', possible master clock and for D/A of the monitors.
The UA would be used for vocals,overdubs, maybe drum OH,etc

-Aurora 16 for everything else. The analog outputs of the Aurora and 2192 would feed a line mixer for latency-free monitor mixes.

This should cover all the bases, or do I miss something?
Old 17th September 2005
  #18
Lives for gear
 
mr.gefell's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker
16 posts in a HI END (!) thread and nobody has yet stated the plain-and-oh-so-obvious naked truth:

Aurora 8 or UA 2192? Of course you need BOTH, baby.....and make that an Aurora 16 anyway.

So that's what I plan for my big upgrade (hopefully) coming early next year. This would likely be be with a PT HD system.

-UA 2192 as 'main converters', possible master clock and for D/A of the monitors.
The UA would be used for vocals,overdubs, maybe drum OH,etc

-Aurora 16 for everything else. The analog outputs of the Aurora would feed a line mixer for latency-free monitor mixes.

This should cover all the bases, or do I miss something?

thumbsup
Old 19th September 2005
  #19
Gear Addict
 
daaronhoffman's Avatar
I bought a the Aurora 8 and AES16 and love them.
For another 8 channels of AD/DA I think I 'd go with the Crane Song Spider though.

This unit is really a great deal for the quality.
8 channels of great pres and ADs with inserts and tape saturation option for each channel + summing to stereo for $7000.
Just a thought and what I'm going to do.

Aaron
Old 19th September 2005
  #20
Lives for gear
 

I'd upgrade to an Aurora 16 and get a Shadow Hills GAMA 8 instead.
Old 19th September 2005
  #21
Gear Addict
 
daaronhoffman's Avatar
That's an awesome choice too!
There's some really good options now.

As far as resale, Crane Song is pretty strong so I'd tend to lean that way.
Or get a GAMMA as well for the Aurora 8.
Now where's that money tree?

Aaron
Old 19th September 2005
  #22
Lives for gear
 
goldphinga's Avatar
 

let us know how it sounds please!
Old 1st March 2018
  #23
Gear Addict
 
ltjohnrambo's Avatar
 

Resurrecting this thread

I'm thinking about switching from my 2192 and HEDD convertors to a single Aurora 8. Am I crazy? How do the Aurora convertors stack up against the UA and Crane Song? Does the extra 4 channels of I/O justify the possible drop in quality?
Old 3rd March 2018
  #24
Lives for gear
the Aurora 8 is a harder sounding converter. I think it would be a downgrade. Get one in your space and have a listen. Apogee symphony or burl?
Old 5th March 2018
  #25
Gear Addict
 
ltjohnrambo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude24man View Post
the Aurora 8 is a harder sounding converter. I think it would be a downgrade. Get one in your space and have a listen. Apogee symphony or burl?
That's what I was afraid of. I've never been too keen on Apogee, how are they compared to the Burls?
Old 5th March 2018
  #26
Lives for gear
I Never had a burl in my studio, I have apogee symphony. its better than the ad/da16x's. I would keep what you have until you can get some others to compare! Aurora's way overrated IMOP!
Old 5th March 2018
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltjohnrambo View Post
That's what I was afraid of. I've never been too keen on Apogee, how are they compared to the Burls?
The new generation Symphony mkii are EXCELLENT. The new Lynx Aurora n are a significant step above the old Auroras also.
Old 7th March 2018
  #28
Gear Nut
Check out this thread. One of my favorites for converter transparency on different converters. Pretty scientific test if you ask me. You'll probably be surprised with the results.
Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker
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