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
Lynx Aurora 16 vs Apogee Symphony Digital Converters
Old 7th August 2012
  #121
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightsun View Post
I'll be the devils advocate--- Does the fact that the symphony is more pleasing to your ear this week mean that they are better converters? Are converters going to inject magic into the acoustic information as the analog world is being digitized and visa versa. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer. Certainly, a setup that brings you joy and is fun to work with is important! What is your ultimate goal. I was listening to music on my car stereo the other day and hit a EQ preset that sounded absolute stunning and better. After several days of listening I hit the flat EQ preset and it sounded stunning and better. Our ears are subjective and so are our brains. I am happy with converters that do a good job converting and I will do the rest with software and hardware. There is an old expression "THE ENEMY OF GOOD IS BETTER." Lynx converters do a good job.
in my book, the converter that better represents the original analog source (blind), is most desirable.
Old 7th August 2012
  #122
Lives for gear
 
VT-MHE's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightsun View Post
I'll be the devils advocate--- Does the fact that the symphony is more pleasing to your ear this week mean that they are better converters? Are converters going to inject magic into the acoustic information as the analog world is being digitized and visa versa. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer. Certainly, a setup that brings you joy and is fun to work with is important! What is your ultimate goal. I was listening to music on my car stereo the other day and hit a EQ preset that sounded absolute stunning and better. After several days of listening I hit the flat EQ preset and it sounded stunning and better. Our ears are subjective and so are our brains. I am happy with converters that do a good job converting and I will do the rest with software and hardware. There is an old expression "THE ENEMY OF GOOD IS BETTER." Lynx converters do a good job.
i agree they do. and thats what im saying is i know better lol. but i was really digging the sound of the symphony. but of course in the grand scheme of things.... what its only a few percent. so im trying to keep things into perspective. but being an engineer and obsessing over sound down to the details can make it hard to just say sometimes enough is enough when u began to feel ou can even make that much more of a slight improvement. then of course you have to ask yourself is it really called for when you song is gonna be crushed to an mp3 anyways lol......
Old 7th August 2012
  #123
Lives for gear
 

The important thing is how it all translates to mixing. Both in regards to the process (is it easier/harder quicker/slower to mix with a given converter) and of course the outcome (which one results in an overall better sounding mix). Perfect transparency would be ideal, but no affordable multichannel unit offers that feature as far as I know.
Old 7th August 2012
  #124
Lives for gear
 
SoZo's Avatar
The thing that absolutely kills the deal with Lynx for me is they don't perform at 44.1....
Old 7th August 2012
  #125
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoZo View Post
The thing that absolutely kills the deal with Lynx for me is they don't perform at 44.1....
I thought so too, but actually they add high end and muddy the definition at higher sample rates. I use mine at 44,1 only now (though only the DA, the Aurora AD isn't that great overall IMO).
Old 7th August 2012
  #126
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoZo View Post
The thing that absolutely kills the deal with Lynx for me is they don't perform at 44.1....
good point. we've been working @ 96k here since it was possible to do so. at 96kHz, imo they are very transparent (transparent = closely representing what goes in).

we once tried them @ 48k, and it was a definite no go (again imo).
Old 7th August 2012
  #127
Gear Maniac
 
Bluesdog's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoZo View Post
The thing that absolutely kills the deal with Lynx for me is they don't perform at 44.1....
Auch! I didn't know... what converters (min 4, max 8 I/O) you'd recommend for someone like me who's too stubborn to use anything above 44.1kHz - 24bit ?
Old 7th August 2012
  #128
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesdog View Post
Auch! I didn't know... what converters (min 4, max 8 I/O) you'd recommend for someone like me who's too stubborn to use anything above 44.1kHz - 24bit ?
Anything Lavry.
Old 8th August 2012
  #129
Gear Maniac
 
Bluesdog's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoZo View Post
The thing that absolutely kills the deal with Lynx for me is they don't perform at 44.1....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesdog View Post
Auch! I didn't know... what converters (min 4, max 8 I/O) you'd recommend for someone like me who's too stubborn to use anything above 44.1kHz - 24bit ?
Seems like a lot of people don't have issues with the Lynx at 44.1:
Lynx Aurora 44.1k Nightmare
Old 8th August 2012
  #130
Lives for gear
 
VT-MHE's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
Anything Lavry.
i 2nd this
Old 8th August 2012
  #131
Lives for gear
 
midnightsun's Avatar
 

44.1

I wonder if the sign of the ultra quality converters is that they shine at 44.1. I track my sessions at 88 or 96 and find that the Aurora Lynx does a great job in my PT HD system. I discovered that if I am mixing OTB and converting A to D that my HEDD 192 does a great job. The HEDD 192 at 44.1 , 16 bit sounds stellar. The HEDD 192 at 96/24 might sound a bit better if I listen carefully. I consider this to be that the HEDD 192 really shines at 44.1 and is well worth the money for printing my final stereo mix when it comes off the analog console. On the other hand, I don't feel motivated to pay for 32 tracks of HEDD 192 converters. I have played around tracking some critical tracks with the HEDD 192 at 88 or 96 and it isn't worth the trouble when compared to the Lynx at 88 or 96.
Old 8th August 2012
  #132
Gear Maniac
 
Bluesdog's Avatar
 

What exactly seems or seemed to be the problem with the Lynx Aurora working at 44.1? Or was it some kinda bug that Lynx solved in recent builds?
Old 8th August 2012
  #133
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesdog View Post
What exactly seems or seemed to be the problem with the Lynx Aurora working at 44.1? Or was it some kinda bug that Lynx solved in recent builds?
There's a clearly audible difference between samplerates. Higher ones appear to reveal more high end information (I thought so for a long time, too), but actually it adds a kind of sheen to the signal and blurs the time-domain, that's what I think now at least. I find it significantly easier to mix through my console with signals fed at 44,1.
Old 8th August 2012
  #134
Gear Maniac
 
Bluesdog's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
There's a clearly audible difference between samplerates. Higher ones appear to reveal more high end information (I thought so for a long time, too), but actually it adds a kind of sheen to the signal and blurs the time-domain, that's what I think now at least. I find it significantly easier to mix through my console with signals fed at 44,1.
I understand, but some users are saying the Aurora doesn't perform at 44.1, trying to find out more about that...
Old 8th August 2012
  #135
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesdog View Post
I understand, but some users are saying the Aurora doesn't perform at 44.1, trying to find out more about that...
our experience, is that @ 96kHz, the Aurora reproduces the original signal accurately enough to merit the adjective "transparent".

when we converted a 96k session to 48k, the sound (IMO) became grainy and unpleasant, but this may have been due to the plug-ins more than to the DA conversion. we did not test with audio only.

when we did the original shootout with different clocks and converters (no plugs) @ 96k, the Aurora 16 was very transparent (again IMO).
Old 8th August 2012
  #136
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesdog View Post
I understand, but some users are saying the Aurora doesn't perform at 44.1, trying to find out more about that...
I own an Aurora, I use it daily, and often w. 44.1, and to my experienced ears, I hear no unusual degradation. Sounds excellent to me.

I would buy another, if needed, without hesitation.
Old 11th August 2012
  #137
Lives for gear
 

OK, did a lot more tests. Turns out the upsampling I used degraded the signal. The Aurora does after all sound best at 88,2khz.
Old 11th August 2012
  #138
Lives for gear
 
Circuitt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoZo View Post
The thing that absolutely kills the deal with Lynx for me is they don't perform at 44.1....
I don't know what you're talking about.
Old 11th August 2012
  #139
Gear Guru
 
AllAboutTone's Avatar
 

Depending on what other gear you have with/without color should help you, with my Harrison being so clean i had rather have Apogee and its color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMIEL View Post
How do they compare? I have the Lynx Aurora 16 , and I am Looking for a new 16 DA .... for my summing.

also would be nice to know how the AD and DA compare between the Lynx and Apogee.
Old 29th August 2012
  #140
Here for the gear
 

ITB electronic music converted and summed?

deleted

Last edited by strictpolicy; 29th August 2012 at 07:26 AM.. Reason: accident
Old 29th August 2012
  #141
Lives for gear
 
nickelironsteel's Avatar
 

the aurora degrading the signal at anythong below 88? 3 words:
CHECK YOUR WIRES
Old 29th August 2012
  #142
Gear Addict
 
Night Stalker's Avatar
 

Unless I missed the post, The original poster amiel did not get back to us with his findings and/or shoot out between the lynx and apogee.
Post the question, say that you will report back, and poof! Gone with the wind..... lol
Old 29th August 2012
  #143
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Night Stalker View Post
Unless I missed the post, The original poster amiel did not get back to us with his findings and/or shoot out between the lynx and apogee.
Post the question, say that you will report back, and poof! Gone with the wind..... lol
he prolly triggered a chain reaction that blasted his studio and himself into bits and bytes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by raal View Post
in my book, the converter that better represents the original analog source (blind), is most desirable.
lynx obviously. I also prefer to add taste / transience after the recording.
Old 15th September 2012
  #144
Lives for gear
 
Melgueil's Avatar
 

Features matter more than the .000001% differences that seem to provoke such a "religious" reaction here. They should be the primary reason for choosing a device/platform. There are very tangible differences there - which may have an enormous impact on day to day workflow and productivity in the studio.

At this level we expect the sound quality to have long since passed the litmus test as a high end product capable of producing a finished professional project.

Cdlt

Last edited by Melgueil; 15th September 2012 at 01:22 PM.. Reason: spelling
Old 15th September 2012
  #145
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllAboutTone View Post
Depending on what other gear you have with/without color should help you, with my Harrison being so clean i had rather have Apogee and its color.
Thats funny I feel the exact opposite, with my Harrison, I am so much happier with the Lynx. I hear a huge difference. I used to use Appogee Rosetta 800, and I am very glad I made the switch. At first I was very hesitant, because I made the switch for financial reasons, as I was able to get a good deal on the Lynx, but I would never want to go back now. My recordings are sounding so much better now.
Old 15th September 2012
  #146
Lives for gear
 
midnightsun's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melgueil View Post
Features matter more than the .000001% differences that seem to provoke such a "religious" reaction here. They should be the primary reason for choosing a device/platform. There are very tangible differences there - which may have an enormous impact on day to day workflow and productivity in the studio.

At this level we expect the sound quality to have long since passed the litmus test as a high end product capable of producing a finished professional project.

Cdlt
well put
Old 25th November 2012
  #147
Lives for gear
 
andrew montreal's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
OK, did a lot more tests. Turns out the upsampling I used degraded the signal. The Aurora does after all sound best at 88,2khz.
Exact same results here. 96k seems to add a bit of edginess and the lower sample rates are not as accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickelironsteel View Post
the aurora degrading the signal at anythong below 88? 3 words:
CHECK YOUR WIRES
Have you ever compared the different sample rates? The differences are definitely audible over here.
Old 26th November 2012
  #148
Lives for gear
 
Hyder boy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah View Post
For whatever it is worth, I understood what Brad meant... I mean, it's pretty obvious that what goes in isn't going to be IDENTICAL to what comes out since we're talking about analog and digital conversion. I gathered he meant compared to other converters, which definitely alter the signal with a signature sound, the Aurora has no signature sound. It's transparent(or at least attempts to be).

So mixerguy, you never answered my question.. can you describe how the Apogee is better than the Aurora?
Same here, I mean, what goes into tape is not what comes out either. Every medium touches the sound in some way. He knows what he meant. Get real.
Old 6th August 2013
  #149
Gear Maniac
 
sweetmojo's Avatar
 

Resurrecting this thread!

Any more experiences with both converters? Have the Aurora 16 and have been very happy with it but now looking for a thunderbolt option for a smaller setup.
Old 10th August 2013
  #150
Here for the gear
 

I was shopping both and went with the Apogee. I couldn't be happier. Tracking always sounds amazing, but honestly, I just get a huge smile just listening to my iTunes library through the thing. Round and punchy bottom, silky top, great definition -- it really is a signature sound. Call it colored if you want, but I just love the way it makes music sound compared to just about every piece of digital gear I've ever used.

Maybe getting a little weird here, but the Symphony is like an extension of my life. How do I like bourbon? With a nice warmth and a smooth finish on top. How do I like steak? With that mouth-watering warm flavor and a complimentary level of spices on top. Why do people like Mac's operating system? Because the graphics are warm and crisp at the same time. With the Symphony, I am hearing just like what I prefer to see, taste, and smell. It is an extension of my life and I could not imagine working with anything else.
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
barryjohns / So much gear, so little time
4
DRC / So much gear, so little time
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump