The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Digi 192 vs. Apogee AD-8k
Old 12th October 2005
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Ziggy!!'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendanevjen
Actually every one of those companies, including Prism- but perhaps excluding dCS, have offerings which outperform the Digi stuff for a comparable cost. But go ahead and continue to argue it out bro.

Im sure a smart guy like you also took into consideration that the Digi192 brings 24 channels of inputs and outputs to the table when fully expanded? 16 channels of analog I/O stock...

Digi192 with the extra AD/DA cards is what? around $5500 or so?

24 channels each way of Prism - $36,000 pretty close!

24 channels each way of Apogee (16adx, 16dax & rosetta) - $9000

24 channels each way of Lavry - almost $25,000

24 channels each way of Mytek - $15,000


Not to mention you need to buy HD cards or other interfaces to run the other converters with protools.

Yup! nearly the same price.
Old 12th October 2005
  #32
Max
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy!!
Im sure a smart guy like you also took into consideration that the Digi192 brings 24 channels of inputs and outputs to the table when fully expanded? 16 channels of analog I/O stock...

Digi192 with the extra AD/DA cards is what? around $5500 or so?

24 channels each way of Prism - $36,000 pretty close!

24 channels each way of Apogee (16adx, 16dax & rosetta) - $9000

24 channels each way of Lavry - almost $25,000

24 channels each way of Mytek - $15,000


Not to mention you need to buy HD cards or other interfaces to run the other converters with protools.

Yup! nearly the same price.
With regards to Apogee, If you compare the retail pricing and stick to the Rosetta 800, the difference is not that extreme. Lets compare:

Digidesign -
Two (2) 192 I/Os with one (1) 8 channel AD expansion card and one (1) 8 channel DA expansion card: $10,480.00

Apogee -
Three (3) Rosetta 800 96 with three (3) X-HD option cards: $10,770.00.

Difference: $290.00.

So first ask yourself if the Rosetta's sonic improvements over the 192I/O is worth an extra $290 or so. If the answer is yes, you can at that point consider the option of even greater improvements with things like Big Ben and the AD/DA-16X, but it would be disingenuous to characterize the flagship Apogee products as the only option when comparing pricing.
Old 12th October 2005
  #33
Here for the gear
 
brendanevjen's Avatar
 

Max is right, Ziggy Piggy. But even if he wasn't, and one needed to spend a couple grand more- that jump in quality from the Digi gear to the competition- be it Apogee or Mytek or Lavry- is so pronounced, and so obvious- it really would be justified. But hey, if you listen to Digi's press on the matter, "the 192 I/O, the flagship of the Pro Tools|HD interface family, is the best-sounding audio interface ever offered from Digidesign, rivaling similar products costing more than twice its price." So why not double its value and then see where you're at? Truely priceless.
Old 12th October 2005
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
With regards to Apogee, If you compare the retail pricing and stick to the Rosetta 800, the difference is not that extreme. Lets compare:

Digidesign -
Two (2) 192 I/Os with one (1) 8 channel AD expansion card and one (1) 8 channel DA expansion card: $10,480.00

Apogee -
Three (3) Rosetta 800 96 with three (3) X-HD option cards: $10,770.00.

Difference: $290.00.

So first ask yourself if the Rosetta's sonic improvements over the 192I/O is worth an extra $290 or so. If the answer is yes, you can at that point consider the option of even greater improvements with things like Big Ben and the AD/DA-16X, but it would be disingenuous to characterize the flagship Apogee products as the only option when comparing pricing.

Max your comparison is slightly unfair.

The Digi 192 interfaces do record at 192.

Your Rosetta 800 192 is at a different price range no?

Its a $3K difference.

And its almost known you need the Big Ben with it to make it sound really good.

That makes the difference almost $4.5K.

For some $4.5K is a drop in the hat.

For others its a G5 and nice mic pre.
Old 12th October 2005
  #35
Max
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethrillfactor
Max your comparison is slightly unfair.

The Digi 192 interfaces do record at 192.

Your Rosetta 800 192 is at a different price range no?

Its a $3K difference.

And its almost known you need the Big Ben with it to make it sound really good.

That makes the difference almost $4.5K.

For some $4.5K is a drop in the hat.

For others its a G5 and nice mic pre.
While it's true that the Rosetta 800 192 costs more, it sounds exactly the same as the 96K version. Are 192K sample rates really a feature that we need worry about? Considering 99% of all Rosetta 800s sold to HD owners are of the 96K variety, I don't think so.

Additionally, you do not need Big Ben to make the Rosetta 800 sound "really good", as it already sounds "really good". But since "really good" is a relative term these days, lets leave that up to the listeners. I can state that with or without Big Ben, the Rosetta 800 provides a better replication of the source material than any converter Apogee has made other than the AD/DA-16X. So again, if the Rosetta's sonic improvements over the 192I/O are worth an extra $290 or so, you can always consider the option of even greater improvements with things like Big Ben or going with the AD/DA-16X; you can also consider if you want or need 192K sample rates (although if you feel you need 192K for anything other than to satisfy your clientele, call me so I can talk you out of it). But you cannot argue that the price is not competitive.
Old 12th October 2005
  #36
I would still love to know what Prism offers that is in the same price and feature range. So far I have heard and seen nothing to back up some peoples claims of such a thing.
Old 12th October 2005
  #37
Here for the gear
 
brendanevjen's Avatar
 

FCA-

"Their ADA-8 units which have now been replaced with their Pro Tools HD compatible ADA-8XR units, have been available at a steep promotional discount for quite some time now."

"But hey, if you listen to Digi's press on the matter, 'the 192 I/O, the flagship of the Pro Tools|HD interface family, is the best-sounding audio interface ever offered from Digidesign, rivaling similar products costing more than twice its price.' So why not double its value and then see where you're at?"

Keep digging.
Old 12th October 2005
  #38
Ok, you already posted that. I want to see prices. $12,000 'steeply discounted' is still pretty damn $$$ (I'm guessing not even close to a 192 in price). Answer the quesiton specifically and link us to some info instead of just being rude and evasive please. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would be interested.
Old 12th October 2005
  #39
Here for the gear
 
brendanevjen's Avatar
 

FCA, give it a rest man. You're obviously not buying converters anytime soon. I am. You are just looking to argue. You lost this one kid, but that doesn't mean you have to like it. fuuck

PS. Audiolot has the new Prism ADA-8XR - the replacement for the Dream ADA-8 (which already sounded better than the 192 and is THOUSANDS cheaper than the new ADA-8XR)- loaded up with a 16 channel D/A expansion card and the Pro Tools HD interface card for $10,450. Take a Digi 192 unit, put a D/A expansion card in it for 16 channels of output; you're spending around $5000. ACCORDING TO DIGIDESIGN, THE PERFORMANCE RIVALS UNITS COSTING TWICE THE PRICE. $5000 TIMES TWO EQUALS $10,000. Go demo the ADA-8XR and come back here to tell us the 192 rivals it.
Old 12th October 2005
  #40
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
While it's true that the Rosetta 800 192 costs more, it sounds exactly the same as the 96K version. Are 192K sample rates really a feature that we need worry about? Considering 99% of all Rosetta 800s sold to HD owners are of the 96K variety, I don't think so.

, if the Rosetta's sonic improvements over the 192I/O are worth an extra $290 or so, you can always consider the option of even greater improvements with things like Big Ben or going with the AD/DA-16X; you can also consider if you want or need 192K sample rates (although if you feel you need 192K for anything other than to satisfy your clientele, call me so I can talk you out of it). But you cannot argue that the price is not competitive.
Well then maybe you should compare the Rosetta 96k version to the Digi 96 I/O, which is half the price of the 192. Also, who says the Rosetta of any stripe has a sonic improvement over the Digi 192? A lot of people really like the clarity and transparency of the 192's. I know I prefer mine over my AD-8000 (which I used to prefer over the 888)

Finally, are you saying that you sell a product (Rosetta 192k) that you designed only for client appeal and not for improved sonics? I know it's a charge that's been bandied about, but it certainly is odd to hear a manufacturer admit it.

It's a very confusing product line. You're saying I can get a better sound than a 192 with your entry level Rosetta. And then I can improve that (a little? lot?) with a Big Ben, and then if I want it to sound even better I could get an A/D, D/A16. Or is it a 16X? And then add a Big Ben to that? As they say in "Dude, Where's My Car"----and then...? Did you take something out of the AD16X to make it sound not quite as good and to sell for the price of the Rosetta? I mean, the same thing happened when I paid a king's ransom for my AD-8000, and then you came out with the mysteriously improved SE version.

I mean this as constructive criticism, not a rant. I've been ready to open my checkbook a few times and then closed it in confusion. Meanwhile, the 192 I/O gives me consistent and reliable professional results, what my ear hears as transparent conversion, with no feeling that any quality has been held back. Digi stands behind it as the best converter they can make, whereas you are presenting the Rosetta as one which has room for improvement and wastes money on useless features (192 k sample rate).

Doesn't mean your converters don't sound great, but damn this is confusing.

-R
Old 12th October 2005
  #41
Here for the gear
 
brendanevjen's Avatar
 

PS. FCA, just went to your My Space page- I like your music.
Old 13th October 2005
  #42
I do love to argue but in this case I honestly was curious because we are going to have to buy converters in the next month or two and I thought that the Prism, Lavry stuff was just out of reach and I was going ot have to get another 192 (not that i hate it or anything but I am well aware that there are significantly better converters). So honestly I was not just trying to be a dick for the hell of it or argue that those other converters wouldnt be a step up form the 192. I truly am interested in some alternatives and was just under the impresison that they were WAY more $$$ than the 192. thumbsup
Old 13th October 2005
  #43
Here for the gear
 
brendanevjen's Avatar
 

If I were you I'd call Craig Calistro @ Calistro Music and get some Apogee units for a very reasonable price. Glad we could call a truce, of sorts. ^_^
Old 13th October 2005
  #44
Gear Maniac
 
Audio1420's Avatar
 

In my shot out I found that the Apogee SOUNDS way BETTER IMO....
Old 13th October 2005
  #45
w2w
Lives for gear
 
w2w's Avatar
 

I gotta tell ya,this is some funny stuff!!..Ummm..What was the question?
Old 13th October 2005
  #46
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Im sure a smart guy like you also took into consideration that the Digi192 brings 24 channels of inputs and outputs to the table when fully expanded? 16 channels of analog I/O stock...

Digi192 with the extra AD/DA cards is what? around $5500 or so?
Just to be clear...Digi's 192 is capable of 16 in and 16 out at once maximum, and as far as analog I/O is concerned it comes stock with 8 analog ins and 8 analog outs. You can add one A/D card or one D/A card to a 192 for 8 ins and 16 outs or 16 ins and 8 outs. To get 24 analog ins and outs you'd need two 192s, one with the A/D card and one with the D/A card.

Quote:
Your Rosetta 800 192 is at a different price range no?

Its a $3K difference.

And its almost known you need the Big Ben with it to make it sound really good.
The same could be said for Digi's 192...I wouldn't say that you need a Big Ben to make either sound "really good" but most people seem to agree that you can use the Big Ben to make either sound a little better.

Quote:
Well then maybe you should compare the Rosetta 96k version to the Digi 96 I/O, which is half the price of the 192. Also, who says the Rosetta of any stripe has a sonic improvement over the Digi 192? A lot of people really like the clarity and transparency of the 192's. I know I prefer mine over my AD-8000 (which I used to prefer over the 888)
The 96I/O is not the same thing as the 192I/O at all. It's an entirely different box...converters don't spec out as well, power supply isn't as beefy, etc. As I understand it (and, Max, please correct me if I'm wrong) the only difference between the two Rosettas is the sampling rate.

As for who says the Rosetta is a sonic improvement over the 192...sure, it's a subjective thing, but in a blind shootout I found the older AD16 (which the Rosetta 800 is supposed to be an improvement over) to be more transparent than the 192. I haven't heard the two side by side but as I understand it it's also significantly more transparent than the AD8000.

Quote:
Finally, are you saying that you sell a product (Rosetta 192k) that you designed only for client appeal and not for improved sonics? I know it's a charge that's been bandied about, but it certainly is odd to hear a manufacturer admit it.
I've seen him "admit" it elsewhere...and while I'd agree that it's unusual for a manufacturer to admit it I think it's a good thing. A little honesty here and there is refreshing.

Quote:
It's a very confusing product line. You're saying I can get a better sound than a 192 with your entry level Rosetta. And then I can improve that (a little? lot?) with a Big Ben, and then if I want it to sound even better I could get an A/D, D/A16. Or is it a 16X? And then add a Big Ben to that? As they say in "Dude, Where's My Car"----and then...? Did you take something out of the AD16X to make it sound not quite as good and to sell for the price of the Rosetta?
Again, I don't want to speak for Max, but I don't see why the line is confusing. The AD16x and DA16x are their "best" converters. The Rosetta 800 is almost as good. It doesn't have the same clock that the Big Ben and AD/DA16X have. That doesn't seem so confusing.

-Duardo
Old 13th October 2005
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Dirty Halo's Avatar
 

Someone PLEASE address THIS question

Ok, we've debated Apogee v. 192 pretty much to the end here, so MY question is, IF you ADD a great clock like an Ardsync II or a Big Ben to a 192, THEN how good does it sound compared to Apogee or others?

Someone please?

Dirty Halo
Old 13th October 2005
  #48
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty Halo
Ok, we've debated Apogee v. 192 pretty much to the end here, so MY question is, IF you ADD a great clock like an Ardsync II or a Big Ben to a 192, THEN how good does it sound compared to Apogee or others?

Someone please?
or an Antelope Isochrone OCX! just bought one for my 192s but i have no way to A/B with other clocks. same request. thanks.
Old 13th October 2005
  #49
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo
J

The 96I/O is not the same thing as the 192I/O at all. It's an entirely different box...converters don't spec out as well, power supply isn't as beefy, etc. As I understand it (and, Max, please correct me if I'm wrong) the only difference between the two Rosettas is the sampling rate.
I'm just saying that you should compare the Rosetta 96 to the Digi 96, because those are their downmarket converters. Then compare the top of the lines.

Maybe Apogee will come out ahead all around. But the price is much higher. Is it worth it?

I hear people say they like the Apogees because they are more analog sounding. Then I hear people say they like them because they are more transparent. Sometimes I think people just like purple more than they like blue.

-R
Old 13th October 2005
  #50
Lives for gear
 
balanceman's Avatar
 

how come every time I try to relax on the internet w/ some message board browsing I end up running into a thread of ******** arguing? I am not taking sides, but someone is definately lame.

I have 2 192s and an AD8000 (legacy port).

I find it hard to give up the metering in the apogee. I 'somewhat' prefer the sound of the digi box, but when they seem "cold" for something, I try the apogee.

in mastering situations, I mult the track to both sets of converters + to a benchmark DA.
the benchmark drives the mastering chain. the 192 does the recording. the apogee gets copies of the source and destination for metering.

works great!

BTW the whole system is clocked frm a Big Ben.

in multitrack the 192s feed a folcrom and the ad8k feeds effects and headphones.

once again, totally fine. sounds good, works good.
my only gripe is that I don''t have any converter that will happily drive unbalanced inputs ( like my furman spring verb) without lifting a leg of the wire.
I used to be able to use an 888 or 882 to drive these type of boxes.

I have chopped the ends on a coupla patch cords + am gonna solder them up to remedy this problem in the next century or so ( before the next large mixing session shows up).

digi's metering is for ****, but they sound pretty good.

what do you guys want from this stuff?

I'm thrilled to be able to use almost any of the decent hardware available nowadys. Converters, as a whole, have improved A LOT over the last 10 years.

we are all very lucky.
Old 13th October 2005
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Ruudman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
I hear people say they like the Apogees because they are more analog sounding. Then I hear people say they like them because they are more transparent. Sometimes I think people just like purple more than they like blue.

-R
Right on thumbsup

BTW, can't people start to use more nuances; why does it only have to
be either crap or crystal??????
It's like a virus this music buisness: even our language has become gated and
brickwall limited


ruudman
Old 13th October 2005
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
I'm just saying that you should compare the Rosetta 96 to the Digi 96, because those are their downmarket converters. Then compare the top of the lines.
The thing is the 96k Rosetta is not a "downmarket" converter. Per Apogee, it performs identically to toe 192k version. Per Digi, the 96io does not. If anything, the 192 should be compared to the AD16X and DA16X and the both Rosetta 800s to the 96io, although I don't believe the difference between the Apogees is as great as the difference between the Digis.

Quote:
I hear people say they like the Apogees because they are more analog sounding. Then I hear people say they like them because they are more transparent.
I think that most people who say that they like the Apogees because they're more analog sounding are talking about the "older" stuff...the AD8000, PSX100 etc. My experience is that the newer stuff is more transparent than the 192. The problem is that this is all fairly subjective stuff..."analog sounding" may be warm and colored to one person, but may be synonymous with "transparent" to the next person....

-Duardo
Old 13th October 2005
  #53
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo
The thing is the 96k Rosetta is not a "downmarket" converter. Per Apogee, it performs identically to toe 192k version. Per Digi, the 96io does not. If anything, the 192 should be compared to the AD16X and DA16X and the both Rosetta 800s to the 96io, although I don't believe the difference between the Apogees is as great as the difference between the Digis.
-Duardo
You're right, the correct comparison is between the Digi 192 and the Apogee 16x--the two flagships. You'll find there is a big price difference, which is what Max was disguising by bringing in the Rosetta. Yes, the Rosetta is downmarket, at either sample rate, as is the Digi 96, and a comparison at that level, I think, also shows a large price difference.

So the question remains, is the difference worth the price?

-R
Old 13th October 2005
  #54
Here for the gear
 
brendanevjen's Avatar
 

Actually, RKrizman, Max was not disguising anything; as you may have seen several times in this thread, the quality difference between the 96 I/O and the 192 I/O is profound and involves many factors such as the power supply and analog stages. The quality difference between the Rosetta 96 and 192 is negligible. And once again, in terms of SONIC QUALITY, even the Rosetta fairs better than the top of the line Digi converters. It is not fair to simply float around the term "flagship" and expect that every company applying the title to their top end gear is putting the same care and quality into their products filling that slot.

But even if you want to harp on the comparison between both companies highest end products, you're still wrong, because there isn't even a huge price difference between those. I've shopped around and found several places selling TWO AD-16X's or DA-16X's WITH X-HD cards for around $6500. Let's see... 32 channels of Apogee's top of the line conversion for around a thousand dollars more than 24 channels of Digi. Seems to me that you're actually SAVING money by going Apogee.

Funny how everyone on this thread fighting tooth and nail to defend the Digi gear seems to have already invested a lot of money into 192's and other Digi gear themselves. What a shocker.
Old 13th October 2005
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Ruudman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Funny how everyone on this thread fighting tooth and nail to defend the Digi gear seems to have already invested a lot of money into 192's and other Digi gear themselves. What a shocker.
With all respect, you don't seem too objective yourself..

I have 192 (with BB). Ok, I admit there are several excellent converters for PT on the market. But I'm quite happy with it. Just because there are options, doesn't mean that the 192 sucks. If the point that I'm satisfied makes me defensive (or have bad hearing), so be it.

ruudman
Old 13th October 2005
  #56
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruudman
I have 192 (with BB).
question: how would you describe the sound after BB?

the other day i finished a mix and went back ITB after passing the signal through a fatso (192s, no BB). when i compared the source to the finished recording i noticed a big difference. surprisingly so. the recording seemed two-dimentional and 'palsticky' compared to what i monitored coming directly out of the fatso.

but either way what i heard had to go AD/DA before hitting the monitor speakers -- i'm confused!
Old 13th October 2005
  #57
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendanevjen
But even if you want to harp on the comparison between both companies highest end products, you're still wrong, because there isn't even a huge price difference between those. I've shopped around and found several places selling TWO AD-16X's or DA-16X's WITH X-HD cards for around $6500. Let's see... 32 channels of Apogee's top of the line conversion for around a thousand dollars more than 24 channels of Digi. Seems to me that you're actually SAVING money by going Apogee.

Funny how everyone on this thread fighting tooth and nail to defend the Digi gear seems to have already invested a lot of money into 192's and other Digi gear themselves. What a shocker.
My point was simply that those are the units that should be compared in terms of price and quality, and that tossing in the Rosetta 96 was a red herring. I haven't heard any of the new Apogee stuff, but at this point I wouldn't know where to begin sorting out their product line and I'm a little put off by the fact that they put features into their converters (192 k) that they themselves don't see the value of.

For the record, with my AD-8000 I have more invested in Apogee converters than in Digi converters. I wouldn't buy one now, but I happily use it every day.

-R
Old 13th October 2005
  #58
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendanevjen
Actually, RKrizman, Max was not disguising anything; as you may have seen several times in this thread, the quality difference between the 96 I/O and the 192 I/O is profound and involves many factors such as the power supply and analog stages. The quality difference between the Rosetta 96 and 192 is negligible. And once again, in terms of SONIC QUALITY, even the Rosetta fairs better than the top of the line Digi converters.
Really? A profound difference? I'm guessing you've never heard the 96 I/O. I'm also guessing you haven't compared the Rosetta 96 to the 192. This thread hasn't demonstrated any of these assertions (which may or may not be true).

I don't think any of these alleged differences are profound, agreed upon, or often anything more than a matter of taste.

As someone pointed out, converter technology has come a long way and you should just get one, get to work and be happy.

One other thing that occurs to me about this discussion is that it seems a little disingenuous for Apogee reps, dealers, advocates or users to take such a hard line against Digi. The fact is that they are hitching their ride to the whole Protools thing, which is creating a huge market for their converters. A little graciousness might be in order instead of this whole "sticking it to Digi" vibe.

-R
Old 13th October 2005
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
I've shopped around and found several places selling TWO AD-16X's or DA-16X's WITH X-HD cards for around $6500. Let's see... 32 channels of Apogee's top of the line conversion for around a thousand dollars more than 24 channels of Digi. Seems to me that you're actually SAVING money by going Apogee.
Something's wrong with your math...if you're looking at two AD16X's or two DA16X's then you're looking at 32 ins and no outs, which isn't too useful. If you could get one of each for the same price (which I'd assume you could) then you'd be in the same price range as two of Digi's 192s, which would also give you 16 in and 16 out. If quality is your main concern and you think the Apogees sound better then sure, it's a good deal. To be fair, though, you should also factor in that with the Digi boxes you get a whole lot more in terms of digital connectivity.

Quote:
My point was simply that those are the units that should be compared in terms of price and quality, and that tossing in the Rosetta 96 was a red herring. I haven't heard any of the new Apogee stuff, but at this point I wouldn't know where to begin sorting out their product line and I'm a little put off by the fact that they put features into their converters (192 k) that they themselves don't see the value of.
I think they see the value in it...but the value is that there's a demand for it, not that it sounds better. I think that they went about it a little better than Dan Lavry did, who also doesn't believe there's any sonic advantage to 192 kHz and went to far as to refuse to put it into his converters for it and alienated a whole lot of people online defending his position. I admire him for it as well but think that Apogee went about it in a wiser way marketing-wise.

And again, as far as quality is concerned, the 96 kHz Rosetta is the same as the 192 kHz.

Quote:
Really? A profound difference? I'm guessing you've never heard the 96 I/O. I'm also guessing you haven't compared the Rosetta 96 to the 192. This thread hasn't demonstrated any of these assertions (which may or may not be true).
I haven't compared the two Rosetta 800s, but I have heard Digi's 96 and 192 boxes and the difference is noticeable to me...I wouldn't say "profound" myself, but it's there. And Digi doesn't claim otherwise.

Quote:
One other thing that occurs to me about this discussion is that it seems a little disingenuous for Apogee reps, dealers, advocates or users to take such a hard line against Digi. The fact is that they are hitching their ride to the whole Protools thing, which is creating a huge market for their converters. A little graciousness might be in order instead of this whole "sticking it to Digi" vibe.
I'm not sure if this was directed as me, but I'm certainly not trying to "stick it" to Digidesign...as I said earlier I think that the 192i/o offers a good value, especially when you consider the flexibility of all of the digital I/O options. When I listened to it against the AD16 the difference was quite subtle, and if we didn't have the analog source to compare it to I would have had a hard time saying which one was "better", although with the analog source to compare to it was pretty obvious to me that the Apogee was closer. I don't believe that saying that I find the 192 to be noticeably better than the 96 constitutes taking a "hard line" against Digi either as they don't claim otherwise...

-Duardo
Old 13th October 2005
  #60
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo
I'm not sure if this was directed as me, but I'm certainly not trying to "stick it" to Digidesign...
I wasn't referring to you, Duardo. That particular quote comes from the Mercenary website, but it seems indicative of an overall self-righteous vibe.

It seems to me that Digidesign has been responsible for creating a goldmine for Apogee, even though they didn't intend to.

-R
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