Rosetta 200 Vs Aurora 16 Shout Out The "test"
 

Ok so since so many people are asking about how good each one sounds and what's the difference here is what I plan to do.
Today I just got my Aurora 16. I already have a Rosetta 200.
I plan on plugin my fantom XR to each converter and record the "demo" track (which includes also vocals) 48k 24 bits in protools. I will only record maybe 10 seconds or less so I can keep the file as a wav format ideally 24bit. (might have to zip it)
Since t will be from a keyboard demo, the result will NOT be affected by different singer's take. I also won't use any compressor, pre amps etc... just fantom out mogami cables to rosetta 200 and aurora 16. I think this is a good way to really compare the AD part of each converters. What do you guys think?
if you se anything I should do differently let me know as I plan to do it in the next few hours.

Since you'll be recording a signal that's already been bandlimited the test will only reveal so much. Also, without the original source to compare to the test will reveal even less.

Ok so how about if I plug a CDJ (pioneer) into both and record the signal this way? plus import the original in protools so you can compare between rosetta aurora and original? better?

Why not record a short acoustic guitar + vocals + piano clip?

because the performance will affect the result. Singing a bit closer to the mic will make the sound warmer with more low end, playing guitar a bit harder will make it louder etc.. to many things that can directly affect judgments. That's why I want a pre recorded source that will be exactly similair, so the input is the same only the output will change for each converter.

any other input on how the test should be done?

I always wonder why people don't use active or passive splitters for those test, this way you get same mic, pre, performance with both converter...

cause I don't have one ;) plus I would need to have exactly 2 similair mics, pre etc... depending on age and care each can sound different anyways plus 2 mics 2 close to each other might give a phase probtoo...too much problems it's easier to send the same source thru each converters

What about Y cables?

You'd need to split it after the pre-amp and take it into both converters with exactly teh same signal. That would be a valid test.

You'd just need a mic splitter and a stereo pre.

...or that.

humm,,, well I don't have a stereo pre available right now or a cable that Could split the signal after pre amp. I might have to put the test on hold until I get a spliter...

Do you have a patch bay that you can half-normal?

That would be the easiest.

Yes I do have a patch bay...don't like to use these crap bay but I guess it might work

You know, I don't usually get into these comparison threads much, but I always found that one of the best ways to test a mic/pre/comp/converter is to set up the mic in front of a drum kit and have a drummer play a simple beat.

You got the highs you got the lows you got lots in between.
You got your subtle you got your sharp attacks.
You got it all.


$0.02

does it work with my Roland V drums??;) boing

I think your original idea is best. Use both units respective a/d/a to capture a mix. Then post the original file. I think thats the best way to do it personally.

Acoustic guitar and voice is bogus, because we don't know what it sounds like in your room. At least with a pre recorded track, you have a source.

Just stick to your plan. Regardless if they are processed samples in the keyboard. Just split the signal into each of the convertors simultaneously.

Im interested!! gooof

If it's not split after the last piece of the analog chain and run into both converters simultaneously, it'll just be another fun but not terribly useful comparison. You have to feed them identical signals or it's not worth the trouble of doing because it'll tell you nothing really useful.

Is the goal of this test to find out which converter suits your ears and your set up best?

Or is it about finding out which converter that pass the signal with as little coloration/alternation as possible?

I would use pre recorded material that you put thru the converters in a loop. This way you listen to both the AD and DA section of course but it's the starting point IMO.

It's harder to investigate just one half of a converter but you could use any combination of a AD and DA to get a grip on the situation.

edit: iow. I am of the opinion that it makes more sense to investigate how a particular piece of equipment affects the signal then to A/B and compare two pieces of gear to eachother. This is easily done to all electronics and even AD/DA if used in tandem. Mics and speakers is another thing though.


/Peter

I went through a similar test with my Aurora, an Apogee PSX and the Digimax FS.

What I found was startling... what I did to try and get the same/similar source sound was to have a bass player player plug his Fender Jazz Bass into a Radial DI box into the same mic pre (Neve), so same settings, levels etc and then recorded a simple 4 bar line. It takes the equation of mics out of it and a bass won't change tone if you move etc.

The reason I chose bass was it shows off the lows and there is plenty midrange and end some top end info in the strings slides, attack etc and it shows up each converter as being night and day different from each other.

In each case I'd suggest you CLOCK the system to the internal clock of each converter to give you a feel for what each is doing. I found the results radically different even clocking my 002R to the Apogee even though the signal path was the same, tighter, focused sound etc.

Good luck!

Matt

kfhkh

Or was it each and every take was night and day?

Please don't get me wrong here, my intention is not to be a pain, but unless the material is the same (as in identical) and the levels matched to 0.1dB or better and the difference spotted is done blind these kinds of statements means absolutely nothing actually.

Why don't you try and record to high rez PCM, DSD and analog.. use these tracks as reference and compare (level matched and blind) to the same signal looped thru the AD and DA. That is a test that has real value IMHO.

/Peter

Yes the test is to see which is the most transparent!.
I will start by recording te demo sng from the fantom into both conv with their respective clocks then We will take it from there. Using a bass is similair to using a voice. even tough mic placement is not an issue with a DI, there is NO WAY a bass plaer can play 2 takes with the exact same intensity on each note.

These endless test prove nothing to me. Both the Rosetta and Aurora are great converters with their own personality, and in my book are equal. These endless debates for us to hear a MP3 on our computer speakers and say wow I like that one better is a joke. Especially with the signal not being exactly the same level on each and all the other variables. If you want to test them for yourself that's fine, but not on the forums. Spend more time recording than spending time putting your test on the forums. dfegad

I guess having the second Hit song in America (billboard) doesn't count for "making music" then?;)
anyways...
The signal WILL be the same if you read the thread, I will use a Fantom Demo. also I mentioned they will be 24 bits wav files. your monitoring system depends only on you.
all will be the same level, the only thing that will change will be the converters...NOW I'm doing the test for myself and tought I would contribute to this forum by posting it...if you are not interested you don't have t read.

I'm not so sure the Aurora has personality. My initiall quick and dirty listening tests indicates that it may be transparent.


/Peter

Don't know if I missunderstand something here but.. it does not matter how his room sounds. If the recorded material has some dynamics and bandwith and preferably more than one source (voice + guitar = 2) it will serve well as test material.

You listen to the original and you listen to the track looped thru the DA/AD. If it sounds identical.. congrats in my book.

This way the testfiles can be shared over the net also. So even if the person that performs the tests have ****ty monitor equipment and room you can still evaluate on your supreme hi end rig!! :-)

Someone may argue that PCM is trashed allready and in such case you need to do the listening tests in real time with DSD and analog as test material. Since these have differences in bandwith and noise I'd say use them all to get a really good grip on what the DUT do to the signal.


/Peter

I will record the fantom demo straigh adat to PT then use te 2 converters, this way not Rooms, pre amp or difference in take problem. Pure comparaison between the original the rosetta and the aurora..