A/B converters testing Apogee AD-8000 vs Digidesign 192
 

Hello all the fellows

Today just i´ve been doing some A/B converters testing between the classics Apogee AD-8000 vs The Digidesign 192 IO. below i attatched the 2 samplers..recorded through a Schoeps cmc5u/ Mk-4 fed via EMT A-411 preamp , no low pass filters neither roll off at all as you may hear the boomy low end due to the no filters located in the schoeps body.

well as my hearing and point of view the Apogee conversion sounds far away much better than de Digi 192 conversion...like i said from my personal point of view..sounding much more detailed and clear than the digidesign conversion..teh 192 sounds quite dull and not so clear compared with the apogee...despite the Apogee is 15 years old...but just made during the time when apogee was making a great stuff

There you are the 2 samplers:

Sounds like there was something changed between takes, other than converters. There is no way the only difference between them is the conversion. Did you move the mic or your distance from it?

exactely the same position, mic, pre, and the same spanish guitar..

long time ago i did notice that difference even you may find some older post here telling it...there is no color between them...i just used as a front end the apogee...the 192 just when i need more than 8 channels and there´s no other option..

Well, after all these years Apogee AD8000 still sound great as technology moving forward. For me there is no surprised, because I still used Apogee AD8000 SE everyday in my studio...to tracking and do some mixes as well.

These are two different takes

Actually they are...one was taken by the apogee and the other by the digidesign 192 like the day and night..the AD8000 sounds like i posted before much better and defined...i guess that it was alredy known through the community..even at the first sight oneself may realize their quality just for the fact of its construction..apogee with such large and nice meters and routing buttons..

amen

¨A bad recorded good song always will be a good song, a well recorded bad song will remains a bad song, a good song well recorded is just a hit¨

His point is you can't really tell from different takes, especially of an acoustic, as the way the player hits it varies too. You need to split the signal before the conversion and route the same take to both converters, then level match tightly after, as the converters won't be the same. Then it will tell more properly what's going on.

I suspect though from hearing that, that the conclusions are going to be the same. goooffreshflowe

Did you cal the inputs to the same level? Otherwise, your test isn't very useful. These don't ship at the same level. First question anyone here should be asking...

like i said before everything was matched..the only difference was that one take was recorded through the digi 192 converter and the other one through the AD8000...very easy to get a hearing and hear the difference between them...the conversion tone on each is very noticiable... 1+ for the Apogee AD8000



¨A bad recorded song always will be a good song, a well recorded bad song will remains a bad song, a good song well recorded maybe a hit¨

I've been a pro recording engineer for 20 years. My name is on more record liners than I care to count. I did't restart the Hardware Reverbs thread, but I did read it and comment. I also learned something from the Bricasti and Exponential and the Valhalla contributors. My mind is open to change and to increasing my knowledge and skills. I own a pro studio and have owned or extensively used both of the pieces of gear that you are testing. I know what I'm speaking about. My comments stand.

Steve

The differences you're hearing are one or all of the following:

1. The differences in the performances.

2. The perceptive difference due to gain/level differences in either input, output, or both beyond 0.1 dB. I.e. an illusion the brain/ear can't overcome.

3. Differences in the chains between the converters.

Even the differences in the performance alone will thoroughly mask any aural differences between the converters, rendering this test as completely flawed. Just another test so far from reality that anyone would be foolish to consider it having any relevance whatsoever.

Exactly. He was biased and he proved exactly what he wanted to see in terms of the audio files. Whether he knew it or NOT.

Steve

You could spend 20 years more in the sound business doing things wrongly...that was not the story about...neither me i will expose here my years of experience in the profession...i just dropped 2 samplers with exactley the same mic, pre, distance, instrument, player, studio place..just with 2 differents converters...that difference was noticed many years ago when the digi 192 just came out...Apogee AD 8000 has much better conversion than the digidesign 192...maybe it pains on you...but that is the reality..again..

hittt

Biased? man no digidesign neither apogee give money for that...it is just a conclusion after so many recordings through this 2 devices...it is like if it is rainning and you state that there´s no water dripping from the sky.


hooppie

There is no water dripping from the sky. If you don't like the sound of your recordings, you need to look at other factors. Great records were made on black faced ADATs. The 192 is not the best converter on the market. But it is far from the worst. Professional quality recordings can be made through it. They are everyday. Perhaps even songs that you like.

Steve

if you read carefully that post it was about 2 samplers with 2 diferents convertions that is all ...i have made a great recordings with a Tascam ad-88, Adats, apogee duet ...like i said again this is not about to expose yourself neither obvious things...i use the digi 192 when i have no other option...or as a dongle to use the AD8000...this ****s pain but that was the expensive **** to swallow when digidesign just for the fact that having protools software offered to us attatched with that " standard" software...

Amen

Julian

I've used both of these converters extensively, sometimes with both on the same song. The apogee AD8000 simply creates a sound that you always want to hear more, whenever I compared it head to head with something else, the AD8000 would always win. Except for the Lavry Gold AD122-96 MX (I never tested Lavry Blue). I recently did a whole song with the new Lavry Gold AD122-96 MX on every track, (there were no drums) and was quite amazed by the results. I was told there would be a latency delay that would be too great to use the high end Lavry Gold for tracking, but I used it anyway with my older version of Pro Tools 7 and had delay compensation engaged while tracking and didn't notice any problems. It's obviously a very expensive converter and mostly used for mixing down to, or mastering, but I've gotta say, it gave me the same feeling as the old AD8000 in that it just makes you want to listen, only it's doing that on a whole nother level. The Lavry Gold is absolutely amazing!

When comparing converters it should be one take, split the signal after the preamp and calibrate converter levels as close as you can.

Two takes played by a human will always be different and invalidate the test. Plus you're putting yourself at risk of being accused of cheating because engineers are skeptical.

The apogee and the digi have been tested since them arrived in my studio so long time ago...since the first listening i did realize how bad the digi 192 do the conversion...as you realized too...the AD8000 just translate better and less modify the conversion than the 192 as simple as that...I had the lavry gold for mastering..that is another league...awesome converters..

That comparation was alredy made long time ago...the majority of people agreed that the conversion of the AD8000 sounds miles away better than the conversion in the digi192....owner of a HD2 system im not ashamed to state that these converters are just crap...even a much more cheaper Motu has a more decent conversion than the 192...or maybe you prefer to be skeptical stucked on that ...get both devices and do your A/B testing yourself...then tell us what you heard..

jkthtyrt

You never said you matched input levels anywhere in any post here. It's pretty much in writing!

aren't both these units like 15 years old now?

192s are not crap. Skeptical is actually the wrong word. You lost me at two separate takes. You came to a conclusion (sounds dull, not clear) but your test is flawed.

There is a difference in converters. It's very small when you operate them at standard levels. Many people would be surprised if they performed these tests properly, and in many cases without bias. Not saying you're biased.

I have done converter tests before. My LavryBlue converters used in the video below. Same take, split signal into converters, level match as much as possible. To establish credibility you could have multiple participants or make a video. I lost 35 pounds since that video. Damn I was huge.

I have used both these units and prefer the apogee,

I agree. It creates a very musically useful sound. Pity there are not more converters that do. For me e.g. the Symphony does not have that 'want to hear more of' effect at all.

Too many converters are made by numbers and theory and not finished off by ear. Sadly. Or, if they are, then they must be finished off by the wrong people by ear. freshflowe

Still sound more musical than most (or at last a large majority) of today's bunch. freshflowe

Far away the apogee sounds much more pleasant and realistic than de 192..just by the tone..no matter the rest.. kfhkh

Apogee AD 8000 is older than the digi 192..much better constructed with so nice meters and complete monitoring source selection..conversion just talks by itself..as still the front end in so many professionals recording studios..

i´ll tell you an example..you have 2 microphones..one is a schoeps cmc 5 U/MK4 and the other one is an Akg C-1000...the Akg has more input signal recorded than the schoeps..( so not matched on levels)..do you need god to tell you that schoepps sounds better even with a lower recorded input signal? don´t think so..having a well trainned hearing the tone of devices/quality of these is just anoticiable fact

bumpkin

clever man..

kfhkh