The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Antelope Audio Pure2 AD/DA Review
Old 19th August 2015
  #1
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Antelope Audio Pure2 AD/DA Review

I got off to a rocky start with the Pure2 but I think I may be converted...

First thing I noticed when unpacking the Pure2 was the build quality. It feels solid and quite weighty given it's compact 1RU size. All the knobs and buttons feel solid and quality components and the look of the unit is very stylish. The LED display was clear and has a brightness adjustment. Between the brightness adjustment and the tinted plastic, the screen wasn't too bright. I was a little worried about the LED's audibility after reading a couple of negative reviews from early adopters that the screen had an audible 'buzz' sound. I was relieved after powering this unit up, that it was dead quiet. Part of the fix for the LED buzz involved an update to the firmware which this unit had pre-installed so whatever the case.. it seems to be well and truly a non-issue now. Even putting my ear directly to the screen I could barely hear it at all.

After checking the installation guide in the manual, I was eager to get the unit set up so I could hear it finally. I thought (perhaps naively!) I could just plug in my digital and analog I/O just like the other converters I own and get to work with the Pure2 right away. However, that wasn't to be... as soon as I turned the unit on I was greeted with "PLEASE ACTIVATE" on the LED display. I looked up the manual to see how to activate it, but didn't find any info about it, nor any mention of it online anywhere.. So I assumed I had to use the USB cable and the Pure2 Launcher software to get it up and running. The USB driver and Pure2 Launcher software is available to download from the Antelope website and there are 2 things you need to install. 1. The USB Driver and 2. The Pure2 Launcher software. These are available for OSX or Windows. While I was able to install the OSX USB driver without a problem on my 10.7.5 (Lion) powered Mac, I could only find a 10.8 or 10.9 and above compatible version of the Pure2 Launcher. Since I'm running Lion 10.7.5 here in my studio I was out of luck (although I did try to download and run both the 10.8 and 10.9 versions but as expected both of these crashed immediately on launch so it's definitely not OSX 10.7 friendly!). I thought, no fear... I have a PC with Windows Vista x64 in the studio as well, so I downloaded the Windows driver and Pure2 Launcher on the PC, installed it but the Pure2 Launcher also crashed on that OS as well. I found out through Antelope support that Windows compatibility is Win 7 or above (although there was no mention on the site regarding Windows version compatibility).

So I didn't get to hear the Pure2 on the first day, the unit is locked until you activate it online through the Pure2 Launcher application and the USB interface... Luckily I have a dual boot Mac 10.8/Win 7 machine at home so I was finally able to activate it using Windows 7. I tried OSX 10.8 first but it also had issues unfortunately. The good news is that once you have the unit activated, the software and USB is optional after that point, as you can access all of the other functions (except the built in calibration/sine waves) from the front panel controls which are easy to navigate. I was also able to set up 2 different routing options and save them to the handy pre-set buttons while at home. You can save up to 3 routing pre-sets which have dedicated buttons for saving and recall.

Day 2... I took the unit back to the studio today and set it up with all the usual XLR cables for the digital (AES) and analog I/O's. For the majority of my tests I'll be using the Pure2 for analog processing duties within Pro Tools HD Native. Initially I wanted to compare it in the same way as I have the Forssell MADA-2a set up. This involves a Lynx AES16-e card as the interface for PT's and the Pure2 via AES-EBU.

Calibration Time

Before listening to some music, I needed to adjust the calibration levels of the DA & AD to match with the operating levels of the MADA-2a. The Pure2 uses it's own built in calibration levels by default. However you can hold the power button down for a few seconds to access another menu which allows you to set the Trim levels to 'Manual'. In this mode, you can manually set the levels for each channel of the AD & DA by adjusting the calibration screws next to the analog I/O XLR's on the back panel. Using sine waves in PT's I was able to adjust the levels using some high resolution PPM digital meters.

If you're so inclined and have access to an Antelope 10M clock, you can also re-calibrate the built in 'Oven' crystal clock to ensure it's within spec. However this isn't absolutely necessary. You can also use the dedicated 10M WC input on the Pure2 to clock the whole unit from the 10M, however in the loopback test I heard, I personally preferred the sound of the internal 'Oven' crystal.

With the calibration done it was time to move onto some listening tests...

Does She Sound Pure?

The first test I did was to recall a track I worked on last week which was an Electro track that had a nice kick and bass line and a well recorded male vocal. Originally conversion duties were handled with the MADA-2a for DA & AD. With DA playback at 96kHz and AD capture at 44.1kHz. First impressions with the Pure2 substituting the conversion duties was extremely positive. The tonal balance is very natural/true to the source and didn't get in the way of the music or the feel of the track. It was surprising to me how close it was to the presentation of the Forssell. If anything the Pure2 has marginally more weight in the lows and the highs were mellowed a little whereas the Forssell was slightly wider and had more high end detail. Small margin of difference here though. Overall I was greatly impressed.

USB Interface Test

I need to do further testing with this to verify what I was hearing but using the same session only this time using the Pure2 as a USB interface for PT's (no AES connections). I found that I was getting slightly less clarity/definition compared to using the Lynx/AES connections. Almost like it had more jitter as it sounded more smeared. Part of this could be that I'm running it off an active 10 meter USB cable due to my computers being located above the studio on the mezzanine floor. I also had to use the USB driver as an Aggregate device with the AES card so I could compare MADA-2a with the Pure2. So there maybe some problems in my set up using the USB interface part of the Pure2 in my set up. In any case I felt it was a step down, so I reverted back to using the AES connections with the Lynx AES16e.

Headphone Amp

While I was doing this test I also tried the headphone amp in the Pure2 using a set of Sennheiser HD600's. Usually I use the excellent headphone amp in the Studer A807, so that was my reference for comparison. The Pure2 headphone amp is very clean and had similar qualities to what I was hearing through the Pure2 main DA and the Duntechs. Comparing it to the Studer HP amp, the Studer definitely had more available gain. The Pure2 really didn't have a lot of gain and I could turn it on full without it reaching painful levels. In fact normal decent listening levels was around 85% of the available gain. The Studer's normal listening levels are around 50% by comparison. The Studer also sounds slightly warmer/transformer like. The cool thing about the Pure2 DA is that you can choose which part of the signal you want to listen to. Either the AES signal feeding the DAC or the ADC. So essentially pre/post the analog processing loop. Unfortunately it's not possible to listen post limiter if you have one after your AD capture.

Testing Cont...

The second test I did was a straight hard wire loopback test at 96kHz. Which is something I like to do with all the converters I test. I'll be uploading these files for others to listen to in my other Pacific Microsonics thread. The loopback of the Pure2 was very favourable and sounded as close to the source as the Forssell did (each having slightly unique interpretations). Where it became very interesting was mixing and matching the Forssell with the Pure2. The Forssell DAC with the Pure2 ADC produced a result I wasn't expecting.. it was slightly wider and deeper with superior transient detail and yet it was fuller in the low end than the MADA-2a doing both ends of the conversion. A result I wouldn't exactly call 'accurate' but it was extremely musical and lept off the speakers. Then I tried the Pure2 DAC with the Forssell ADC, this also sounded more full in the lows but more natural/balanced overall (think Prism). This presentation also sounded true to the source. I was hearing the 2 units compliment each other bringing to the forefront the best qualities of each component.

I did one more loopback test at 44.1kHz using a very revealing audiophile folk music recording. At 44.1kHz I felt the Pure2 sounded slightly nicer at this sample rate than operating at 96kHz. Hard to describe in what way except that everything felt really solid and even more natural. Again mixing and matching with the Forssell DA and Pure2 AD produced stellar results.

The routing limitations and USB drawbacks really aren't an issue for me with the way that I work. I would've liked to have seen the DA & AD able to operate independently at different sample rates but that is only a minor issue as I still have 2 x Forssell MADA-2a's which can all operate at different SR's.

I'll continue to test the various possibilities with the Pure2 over the coming week but based on what I'm hearing, I have a feeling this unit will be staying with me.

Last edited by MattGray; 20th August 2015 at 09:54 AM..
Old 19th August 2015
  #2
Gear Maniac
 

Thank you very much for this review.
I have an Antelope Orion but don't have the luxury of comparing it against Forsell or the like in my own studio. But I have an X-Desk and very often I like to compare a folded back Orion signal to the pre-ADC sound coming from the X-Desk. I have this set up to A/B with a button-press.
I'm using the Orion over USB, with barefoot MM-45's.
In my listening tests I've found the Orion ADC does add some kind of subtle low-mid/hi-bass "weight" similar to what you describe above. Although highs are not getting affected in any way I can detect. The low-mid weight is usually a "good" thing but on some more acoustic/natural mixes it can be a subtle issue that I might address with a slight surgical EQ dip, for example the 120-200 hz range of an acoustic snare can be slightly problematic, whereas in electronic music (most of what I do), that stuff is usually hi-passed out (often way too much) and the Antelopey low-mid weight helps bring in a more natural feeling to the music. So I'd be curious to hear your thoughts using say a rock song instead of an electro song.
Old 19th August 2015
  #3
Lives for gear
 
funka's Avatar
Quote:
I did one more loopback test at 44.1kHz using a very revealing audiophile folk music recording. At 44.1kHz I felt the Pure2 sounded slightly nicer at this sample rate than operating at 96kHz. Hard to describe in what way except that everything felt really solid and even more natural. Again mixing and matching with the Forssell DA and Pure2 AD produced stellar results.
Matt, would you be kind to make some loops for us?
Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker

I'd like to have Forssell D/A with Pure2 A/D at least.(to see/hear if the PCM4222 integration is well done inside the antelope unit).
But other combinations would also be great.

Many thanks.
Old 20th August 2015
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Nice review Matt! Really curious about this converter as well. Loos to be an ideal solution for someone starting out, and if the conversion is up to par, very good value for money.
Old 20th August 2015
  #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGray View Post

USB Interface Test

I need to do further testing with this to verify what I was hearing but using the same session but using Pure2 as a USB interface for PT's (no AES connections). I found that I was getting slightly less clarity/definition compared to using the Lynx/AES connections. Almost like it had more jitter as it sounded more smeared. Part of this could be that I'm running it off an active 10 meter USB cable due to my computers being located above the studio on the mezzanine floor. I also had to use the USB driver as an Aggregate device with the AES card so I could compare MADA-2a with the Pure2. So there maybe some problems in my set up using the USB interface of the Pure2 in my set up. I felt it was a step down so I reverted back to using the AES connections.
I'm considering converters for my MacBook Pro for capture and real time SRC. This looks like it would be a heavy contender, but. Would greatly appreciate it if you could indeed verify what you're hearing. Thanks...
Old 20th August 2015
  #6
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Here is some 96k loopback files of the Pure2 alone and Pure2 mixed with Forssell..

https://www.dropbox.com/s/apd8rd48lr...ssell.zip?dl=0

Here is the MADA-2a loop by itself..

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...a_Loopback.zip
Old 20th August 2015
  #7
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by engmix View Post
I'm considering converters for my MacBook Pro for capture and real time SRC. This looks like it would be a heavy contender, but. Would greatly appreciate it if you could indeed verify what you're hearing. Thanks...
I did another pass through the USB interface and did a Diffmaker null test between the AES pass and the USB pass. This was the result...

0.037dB (L), 0.013dB (R)..Corr Depth: 93.6 dB (L), 104.2 dB (R) Difference: -75,1 dBFS (L), -70,5 dBFS (R)

You can download the difference file here...

Last edited by MattGray; 20th August 2015 at 04:14 PM.. Reason: Ended up Re-Testing
Old 20th August 2015
  #8
Lives for gear
 
funka's Avatar
Thanks Matt.
Could you also make the same 3 loops at 44.1kHz with that wav file please?
So we can compare the results with all others...Thanks.
Old 20th August 2015
  #9
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by funka View Post
Thanks Matt.
Could you also make the same 3 loops at 44.1kHz with that wav file please?
So we can compare the results with all others...Thanks.
Yep.. Here are the files.. I've included the Difference Maker text file results as well. Which shows that the closest match to the source is the Pure2 Loop and the Forssell DA into the Pure2 AD with these results...

Pure2 Loop

0.009dB (L), -0.002dB (R)..Corr Depth: 36.3 dB (L), 37.9 dB (R) Difference: -56,0 dBFS (L), -56,9 dBFS (R)

Forssell DA into Pure2 AD Loop

0.007dB (L), 0.039dB (R)..Corr Depth: 36.3 dB (L), 37.9 dB (R) Difference: -56.0 dBFS (L), -56,9 dBFS (R)

The results only tell you part of the story and only accounts for one aspect of the conversion "accuracy". Musicality is another thing entirely and you need to use your ears for that part.
Old 20th August 2015
  #10
Lives for gear
 
funka's Avatar
Many thanks Matt.
Old 20th August 2015
  #11
Matt, the Headphone (and either DAC) can easily monitor post limiter, either by selecting the USB 3-4 or the digital input. So, it's very flexible in this regard.

You're the first person to claim the A/D sounds better w/o 10M connected, so I'd encourage more testing there. Connect 10M, calibrate (after waiting as long as you can for full stabilization 20-30 minutes even). Two things about this, I find the Pure2 benefits from the atomic clock more than any other product we've made. But, I calibrate in my own mastering rig at least a couple times per night, for a fully tight lock. Robert Hadley (formerly from the mastering lab) is someone who personally never liked the 10M's 3D sound, but when he heard the Pure2 clocked/calibrated in my room recently, his jaw dropped and he was finally impressed with the 10M after many years.

I have heard the Forsell and always felt it a top contender. I find the Pure2 can print about 2db louder on the A/D side, however and remain wide/etc. Also, after you get that calibration nailed, I think you'll slightly prefer the DA too in the long run. Also, that Pure2 should be exceptionally wide, so that's another red flag for me.

But, I have to say, on the whole, I agree with much of your review and I very much appreciate you taking the time to properly test the Pure2. It competes with converters costing much more and I have felt it's only a matter of time before it fully gets "discovered" for the exceptional performance value that it is.

Best,
Marcel
Old 20th August 2015
  #12
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clybourne View Post
Matt, the Headphone (and either DAC) can easily monitor post limiter, either by selecting the USB 3-4 or the digital input. So, it's very flexible in this regard.
I guess if you're using the Pure2 as the DA & AD in the same DAW & as an interface (USB) yes that would be correct. The way I have it set up using the AES connections that wouldn't be possible.

Quote:
You're the first person to claim the A/D sounds better w/o 10M connected, so I'd encourage more testing there.
I'm just basing my thoughts on the loopback tests you did in the Pure2 thread you started. I don't have a 10M here to test for myself and if the Oven clock in the Pure2 is an excellent one (and it appears that it is) than I don't understand how an external clock can improve the internal AD crystal. I've read all of Grimm's white papers and concur with that view point. I've also heard a blind loopback someone did with a Forssell MADA-2 clocked by the 10M/Trinity. I picked the non-clocked loop as sounding better/more natural.

Quote:
Connect 10M, calibrate (after waiting as long as you can for full stabilization 20-30 minutes even). Two things about this, I find the Pure2 benefits from the atomic clock more than any other product we've made. But, I calibrate in my own mastering rig at least a couple times per night, for a fully tight lock. Robert Hadley (formerly from the mastering lab) is someone who personally never liked the 10M's 3D sound, but when he heard the Pure2 clocked/calibrated in my room recently, his jaw dropped and he was finally impressed with the 10M after many years.
If this can be proven with a rendered file, than I would consider it but when I heard a 10M clocked render on the MADA-2 & the one you did on the Pure2, I preferred the internal clock. After all it's the captured result that matters right? Doesn't matter how good it sounds in the room if it doesn't translate to the capture.

Quote:
I have heard the Forsell and always felt it a top contender. I find the Pure2 can print about 2db louder on the A/D side, however and remain wide/etc.
In my tests on a particularly picky track, the Forssell had less audible clipping than the Pure2. I think most likely because the Forssell is always capturing at 196.3 kHz and SRC'ing to the destination rate where as the Pure2 doesn't do that correct? Clipping is less noticeable at higher SR's.

Quote:
Also, after you get that calibration nailed, I think you'll slightly prefer the DA too in the long run. Also, that Pure2 should be exceptionally wide, so that's another red flag for me.
Not to doubt you but feel free to grab the source file from the samples I made and use your 10M clocked/calibrated Pure2 and see if you can get a better result to post here to back your claims.. hearing is believing. If it is better it should also measure better with Difference Maker. If it's considerably better maybe you'll sell me on the 10M

Quote:
But, I have to say, on the whole, I agree with much of your review and I very much appreciate you taking the time to properly test the Pure2. It competes with converters costing much more and I have felt it's only a matter of time before it fully gets "discovered" for the exceptional performance value that it is.l
I agree!
Old 21st August 2015
  #13
JGM
Lives for gear
 

@ MattGray
Thanks for. Very indepth review. Great info and insight.
Please keep us posted on the USB testing as when I get this unit I would want to use this function, but not if the sound is not as good as AES.
Thanks.
Old 21st August 2015
  #14
Thanks for the great review Matt !

Do you use 2 computers to be able to play and record at different sample rate ?

Regarding USB, the maximum recommended lenght is 5 meter (around 16,4 feet). You can use a USB hub ( it have to be powered) so you can win a few meter more (an other 5 meter maximum). But then this is the limit and things could start to be a little funky ;-)
Old 21st August 2015
  #15
Gear Addict
Matt.....Awesome Review.... Even though I have a zen studio on the way, this was very informative.. Thanks very much for taking the time/energy/patience to do this for the rest of us... Much appreciated my brother.
Old 21st August 2015
  #16
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGM View Post
@ MattGray
Thanks for. Very indepth review. Great info and insight.
Please keep us posted on the USB testing as when I get this unit I would want to use this function, but not if the sound is not as good as AES.
Thanks.
Check post #7
Old 21st August 2015
  #17
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion View Post
Thanks for the great review Matt !

Do you use 2 computers to be able to play and record at different sample rate ?
No, same computer 2 x AES16e cards and PT's to pitch at 96k & soundBlade to catch at 44.1.

Quote:
Regarding USB, the maximum recommended lenght is 5 meter (around 16,4 feet). You can use a USB hub ( it have to be powered) so you can win a few meter more (an other 5 meter maximum). But then this is the limit and things could start to be a little funky ;-)
I have a powered hub on a Lindy 10m active extension (high quality) which works great. I also have an additional dedicated Lindy 10m active USB2 extension which is what I was testing the Pure2 on. Check #7 post in this thread for some additional test results that I posted. I'm satisfied that the USB interface portion of the Pure2 is on par with the AES connections. Even though there was some small differences in the null test, it was extremely low level.
Old 21st August 2015
  #18
Hi Matt,

Thanks for the review, I found it very profound and fair. We already took into consideration your comments regarding OSX and Windows compatibility and are already adding the relevant info to our website.

Regarding the USB cable length, we advise that for optimal results it should not be longer than 3 m / 10 ft. Also, please note that any USB hub, no matter powered or not is affecting the sound quality.

Once again, thanks for the positive comments!

Cheers,
Georgi
Old 21st August 2015
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
scvo's Avatar
 

My experience with the USB has been blown me away. I didn't think USB was that capable. Even though I have the Pure2 integrated into my PT Native HD hardware (AES in & out), the flexibility of having the USB as an option (or for portable rig) is fantastic!

I'm now hearing my plug-ins in a whole new way! WOW! The Pure2 reveals the details in such a dramatically better way. Making adjustments much easier to hear!

This thing is pretty awesome!

Matt - Thanks again for your very comprehensive review… it's right on!

Georgi - Please check a PM I sent to you.
Old 21st August 2015
  #20
Mastering Moderator
 
Riccardo's Avatar
 

Verified Member
What's the difference between the main DAC and monitor DAC?
I assume the monitoring and headphone DACs are lower specs in order to keep pricing competitive with other similar products.....?
Old 21st August 2015
  #21
Lives for gear
 
hmiller's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riccardo View Post
What's the difference between the main DAC and monitor DAC?
I assume the monitoring and headphone DACs are lower specs in order to keep pricing competitive with other similar products.....?
"Main DAC Dynamic Range 127dB THD+N -107dB
Monitor DAC Dynamic Range 120dB THD+N -103dB"

Worse than the Benchmark DAC2, better than the Forssell.
Old 21st August 2015
  #22
Mastering Moderator
 
Riccardo's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmiller View Post
"Main DAC Dynamic Range 127dB THD+N -107dB
Monitor DAC Dynamic Range 120dB THD+N -103dB"

Worse than the Benchmark DAC2, better than the Forssell.
Yep I have read the specs my question was more like: "given the difference presumably driven by costs, what is the perceived difference between the two paths"?
Old 22nd August 2015
  #23
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by funka View Post
Matt, would you be kind to make some loops for us?
Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker
As someone who has gone more in depth with loopback & null testing than any other test thread I've seen on here I have to say..

There are enough results posted in that thread now that it should be obvious to you guys how botched the entire thing is & how loosely it's being conducted. How can anyone in their right mind look at the results there and think they're on the right track? It's barely more accurate than drawing names from a hat.

You'd think in the 4 yrs since he started that thread he would have connected the dots and realized the flaws in the method, but on it goes..

edit> I'm not trying to start a conversation on this here, as it's not the place for it and the results speak for themselves, but I'm quite surprised to see that being linked in the mastering forum.

If you are using Diffmaker to compare converters with different (subsample) latency all you are really doing is comparing how well the program's automated time & gain compensation process can align two files after resampling them both. It's not at all an accurate way to measure and rank two such units for audible transparency. The results are easily and frequently skewed. It's one of the least useful tools you can use to assess converters and the linked thread demonstrates that perfectly. Poor calibration, cables, or user error can only make results worse, not better. Is every unit ranking worse than say, the 828mk2, flawed due to user error? Of course not. That's what you get when null testing different converters.

Last edited by nms; 22nd August 2015 at 10:53 AM..
Old 22nd August 2015
  #24
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
There are enough results posted in that thread now that it should be obvious to you guys how botched the entire thing is & how loosely it's being conducted.
1. This thread has nothing to do with the diffmaker converter thread.
2. The results I've supplied were from tests conducted myself so they are about as accurate as you could hope to get.
3. Doing the diffmaker test on the Pure2 and Forssell revealed some useful information for me personally so why not share that here.

As for the usefulness of other people's test results, I certainly wouldn't be trusting any of that data on there as there is much room for error if people don't calibrate or hardwire the converters correctly. Even if they did manage to get everything right, it still doesn't tell the whole story as I mentioned. It's a test that is made for seeing how closely an AD & DA loop can match to the source for "accuracy", which says very little about how it actually sounds. Although it can be somewhat useful information if you are the one testing the unit.

But yes... Let's not turn this thread into another diffmaker validity thread. Moving on...
Old 22nd August 2015
  #25
Lives for gear
 
sdbmastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I'm considering purchasing one of these. But I will probably run it in USB. Has somebody here been running this in USB and can comment on the stability of the unit?
Old 22nd August 2015
  #26
Gear Maniac
 
scvo's Avatar
 

Yup, the USB has been very stable for me. Quite a surprise.

Mine is connected to the USB on the back of the older Apple (silver) cinema display, running to a cheese grater in the other room. I thought with that much distance between the monitor & computer (Pure2 is connect via USB) would produce problems. But it's worked flawless and completely stable.

Yesterday, for fun I connect the Pure2 with a 12 foot Belkin extender (directly to the computer), and that did not work well. Once in Pro Tools I got messages about errors and sample rate etc. Went back to the back of the monitor. Stable running fine.

I know some others are using power hub extenders with no problem. But back to your question. USB, no problem, completely stable and sounds great! I was quite surprised.

I also have a PT Native HD setup that I can run the Pure2 through via AES. I do hear a difference between that setup and the UBS. But nothing objectionable, both very close.

With the USB configuration you get 4 channels, as opposed to only 2 with AES. But I'm new to this product, and there may be an additional I/O path (configuration) for my PT HD hardware that will allow more in and out Pure2.

Last edited by scvo; 22nd August 2015 at 05:25 PM..
Old 22nd August 2015
  #27
Nice Review Matt, Thanks for taking the time to write it.

I've been using the Pure2 as my main mastering AD/DA since it shipped and i'm quite happy with it as well.

Agreed on the headphone gain - with my 880's I have to crank the headphone level, particularly with unmastered 0vu stuff.

My main gripe (and forgive me if you've mentioned this) is that the "send to analog chain" output is 3-4, while the return is 1-2. Making it impossible to use it was a hardware insert with delay comp in Pro Tools.

I've had some other minor issues with playback after moving to a new project at a different sample rate - forcing me to log out and back in of Yosemite, but i have some suspicious that it's related to my USB chipset.
Old 22nd August 2015
  #28
Lives for gear
 
funka's Avatar
Quote:
If you are using Diffmaker to compare converters with different (subsample) latency all you are really doing is comparing how well the program's automated time & gain compensation process can align two files after resampling them both. It's not at all an accurate way to measure and rank two such units for audible transparency. The results are easily and frequently skewed. It's one of the least useful tools you can use to assess converters and the linked thread demonstrates that perfectly. Poor calibration, cables, or user error can only make results worse, not better. Is every unit ranking worse than say, the 828mk2, flawed due to user error? Of course not. That's what you get when null testing different converters.
We can talk about all that in the right thread.
If you want to...
Old 22nd August 2015
  #29
Gear Maniac
 
scvo's Avatar
 

Has anyone figured out a work around for this:

Pure2--->USB--->to Pro Tools

Is there anyway to Bounce instead of Print?

Incorporating your ADC mastering hardware loop and plug-ins?

I've looked at this five ways to Sunday… and it's just not happening.

USB 1-2 (Mains) is sending to PT
USB 3-4 (Monitor) is return monitoring to Pure2 (via Aux Send in PT) with all I need to hear (but only if input monitoring is turned on Print channel in PT).

I just need to Bounce in real time (monitoring everything). I know it sounds silly, but that is the fast kind of turn around for VO work I do… and this is the ONLY area of Pure2 that falls short for me.

I refuse to believe there is no work around!
Old 22nd August 2015
  #30
Quote:
Originally Posted by scvo View Post
Has anyone figured out a work around for this:

Pure2--->USB--->to Pro Tools

Is there anyway to Bounce instead of Print?

Incorporating your ADC mastering hardware loop and plug-ins?

I've looked at this five ways to Sunday… and it's just not happening.

USB 1-2 (Mains) is sending to PT
USB 3-4 (Monitor) is return monitoring to Pure2 (via Aux Send in PT) with all I need to hear (but only if input monitoring is turned on Print channel in PT).

I just need to Bounce in real time (monitoring everything). I know it sounds silly, but that is the fast kind of turn around for VO work I do… and this is the ONLY area of Pure2 that falls short for me.

I refuse to believe there is no work around!

I really don't think there is unless Antelope updates the software to allow you to "renumber" the i/o (i have no idea if this is possible)

Or, more practically, if pro tools would allow you to select your in and out settings individually within the hw/insert plugin. Several Daws already do this.
Topic:
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