The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
UA 2192 converter, how much better is it?
Old 25th June 2007 | Show parent
  #61
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tctunes ➡️
I use a digi 003 to connect it to my mac via spdif and the output of the UA is MUCH louder than the 003 if I compare them ,how can I change this?Also it´s very hard to get the input to go up into the red ,If I use an SPL Track One as micpre for instance and I crank up my output all the way up it still only shows like three leds on the UA.Is this normal?
Have you checked the trim faders on the back of the unit, underneath each line in/out ?...
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #62
Lives for gear
 
beyarecords's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Hi Lane,

Quote:
Originally Posted by lane thaw ➡️
We just mixed down an entire project via UA2192 and I really wanted to go 1/2 inch until I heard the quality. Incredible detail. I will post very soon.
I take it you are referring to your current CD, correct?
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #63
Gear Addict
 
lane thaw's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Yes, Bruce is way sold on these converters and the tape machine sits in the next room.
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #64
Gear Head
 
oscarrabin's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
There was a test on GS at some point where someone had both the Lavry and the 2192 head to head, and I thought the Lavry sounded much better. I've never been a fan of dumping a lot of money into converters, but I think the Lavry is probably as good as you can get in that price range.
I just checked -- High End Audio carries Lavry, but not UA. What are the odds of that?????!!!!! Tony Belmont, you're the best, cheesecakes. You're to Gearslutz moderators what Jeff Gannon was to the Washington Press Corps. A regular fox in the hen house.
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #65
Lives for gear
 
HIGHENDONLY's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscarrabin ➡️
I just checked -- High End Audio carries Lavry, but not UA. What are the odds of that?????!!!!! Tony Belmont, you're the best, cheesecakes. You're to Gearslutz moderators what Jeff Gannon was to the Washington Press Corps. A regular fox in the hen house.
Dude your great!!!This forum needs more of you, damn site is flooded with gearpimps..
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #66
Lives for gear
 
not_so_new's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrox247 ➡️
When we started to do listening tests for A/D's , we went in with a "price is no object" mentality. I really wanted something that was extremely accurate, and at the same time it had to be musical (not sterile). The finalists were (in no specific order) Lavry Gold,Weiss,Prism,Crane Song and the 2192. We tested others as well, but these were the ones we really liked. I ended up choosing the Lavry Gold because it performed well regardless of the source material. No matter what I threw at it, it sounded great (at both low,moderate, and high db levels).Although I ultimately chose the Lavry, the 2192 definately made a huge impression upon me. It quite possibly could have been my second choice (which is amazing considering it's affordable price point). In my opinion, the 2192 was the most musical of all the A/D's we tested on dense rock mixes. The Gold is more transparent, and can be used with greater success on a larger variety of program material, but the 2192 sure does great things to rock&roll.

Well it is interesting that you say this because I have been thinking about getting a Lavry Gold and I do 99% rock at my place. I have been on the fence about paying that much for any digital audio gear.

So, I know this is all VERY subjective but what can you say the difference between the Gold and the 2192 was exactly?

Also, I used to have a HEDD192 (that I loved) how would you compare that to the 2192 after hearing them side by side?
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new ➡️
So, I know this is all VERY subjective but what can you say the difference between the Gold and the 2192 was exactly?
Respectfully, I submit that this question was addressed in the original post... poetically and accurately. RE-read it. It's a terrific description and should give you all you need to make your purchase decision, if you assume that you share the tastes of the writer. (Sound is subjective... ear-of-the-beholder and all that. So that assumption takes a little bit of a leap.)

It seems to me that he describes that Lavry Gold as robust and clear and high-res and the UA2192 as being very close in terms of accuracy, but with a slight coloration, which is euphonic when applied to dense rock mixes.

In my experience, this is dead-on accurate conclusion. I would say the Lavry Gold is really only appropriate for mastering studios or other conditions where high-fidelity is of the utmost importance.

If you buy a Lavry Gold, you'd better make sure that all other aspects of your signal chain are brilliant. Stating the obvious, your wiring (electrical and audio) had better be pristine. Y'know?

If this sounds too finnicky to you, go with the UA2192 and don't look back. The Bob Katz mindset is legitimate, but so is the Bon Scott mindset. Know what I mean? The UA2192 is killer.

-- c
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #68
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new ➡️
Well it is interesting that you say this because I have been thinking about getting a Lavry Gold and I do 99% rock at my place. I have been on the fence about paying that much for any digital audio gear.

So, I know this is all VERY subjective but what can you say the difference between the Gold and the 2192 was exactly?

Also, I used to have a HEDD192 (that I loved) how would you compare that to the 2192 after hearing them side by side?

Man it is always so difficult to describe sonics, but I'll try.....

The 2192 sounds like a good piece of analog gear. It has a good dynamic range, and when it's pushed to it's limits , the distortion and harmonics are more pleasing than that of the other units we tried (very rock&roll). It is colored, but that doesn't mean that it is dark or boxy. It is colored more in an API/Trident way (full range with a little something extra). If mastering and a wide spectrum of genres were not a consideration, I quite possibly might have purchased the 2192.


The Head192 vs the 2192 - I really liked the Crane Song. In fact I liked it a lot. I found it to be really quite versatile (a "jack of all trades"). The Head192 can be both transparent and colored (which I thought was pretty cool). However, it wasn't my favorite in either application. My studio is made up of "one trick ponies". Performance is much more important to me than versatility. I personally like gear that does 1 thing, but does it better than anything else. The CraneSong was a quality piece of gear, but just not my thing.


Lavry Gold vs 2192 - The Lavry Gold is the unit I settled on. It seemed to have a perceived slightly extended dynamic range compared to the 2192, and also had the ability to be more transparent and accurate when pushed (the 2192 is also very good when being pushed, but not as transparent). The Lavry Gold also excels at converter clipping during mastering to achieve high volume levels (when so desired). There is also a saturation feature on the Gold, but I am not all that fond of it. I just like the sound of the converter.


There is so much more, but hopefully this helps.




Patrick
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #69
Lives for gear
 
not_so_new's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrox247 ➡️
Man it is always so difficult to describe sonics, but I'll try.....

The 2192 sounds like a good piece of analog gear. It has a good dynamic range, and when it's pushed to it's limits , the distortion and harmonics are more pleasing than that of the other units we tried (very rock&roll). It is colored, but that doesn't mean that it is dark or boxy. It is colored more in an API/Trident way (full range with a little something extra). If mastering and a wide spectrum of genres were not a consideration, I quite possibly might have purchased the 2192.


The Head192 vs the 2192 - I really liked the Crane Song. In fact I liked it a lot. I found it to be really quite versatile (a "jack of all trades"). The Head192 can be both transparent and colored (which I thought was pretty cool). However, it wasn't my favorite in either application. My studio is made up of "one trick ponies". Performance is much more important to me than versatility. I personally like gear that does 1 thing, but does it better than anything else. The CraneSong was a quality piece of gear, but just not my thing.


Lavry Gold vs 2192 - The Lavry Gold is the unit I settled on. It seemed to have a perceived slightly extended dynamic range compared to the 2192, and also had the ability to be more transparent and accurate when pushed (the 2192 is also very good when being pushed, but not as transparent). The Lavry Gold also excels at converter clipping during mastering to achieve high volume levels (when so desired). There is also a saturation feature on the Gold, but I am not all that fond of it. I just like the sound of the converter.


There is so much more, but hopefully this helps.




Patrick

Cool Patrick thanks, I know this is all subjective so putting these things into words is often tricky.

So the reason why I am looking at something in the AD department is because my mixes are 2d sounding. I don't think it is "me" because my old analog recordings were never 2d sounding at all.

I am using AD-16X and DA-16X converters now. They are great but the front to back image is lacking. That separation between the guitars and the depth of the bass is just not exactly there. My productions sound great until I put them up against other things I did in the past, then I notice how much depth there is to everything.

I know that something like the 2192 is not going to sound like a 2 inch machine but I wonder if it will give me more depth? I guess I will have to try one out at some point here to find out on my own.
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #70
Lives for gear
 
beyarecords's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new ➡️
CoolI know that something like the 2192 is not going to sound like a 2 inch machine but I wonder if it will give me more depth? I guess I will have to try one out at some point here to find out on my own.
You may find this reply by Bruce Swedien to another post of interest:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/880542-post2.html

From what I understand from the various replies to this thread the 2192 is an excellent device for capturing that organic or analogue feel whilst the other mentioned devices, being more clinical in themselves, are better suited for mastering purposes. That being said, Bruce Swedien uses the 2192 to print his mixes to his Masterlink before final mastering.

You may also find the following thread of interest:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/good-...wonderful.html
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #71
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new ➡️
Cool Patrick thanks, I know this is all subjective so putting these things into words is often tricky.

So the reason why I am looking at something in the AD department is because my mixes are 2d sounding. I don't think it is "me" because my old analog recordings were never 2d sounding at all.

I am using AD-16X and DA-16X converters now. They are great but the front to back image is lacking. That separation between the guitars and the depth of the bass is just not exactly there. My productions sound great until I put them up against other things I did in the past, then I notice how much depth there is to everything.

I know that something like the 2192 is not going to sound like a 2 inch machine but I wonder if it will give me more depth? I guess I will have to try one out at some point here to find out on my own.
I am going to be very honest and candid with you, and say that I don't think that it will make a huge difference in the depth and the translation of low level information in your mixes (compared to your Apogee). I know that many times on this forum gear is seen as a "fix all", but in this case I believe you are experiencing the nature of the digital medium more than a lack of quality conversion. $1,000,000 in converters will not solve this problem (even if they due improve imaging etc). It's the nature of the beast, and really requires new skill sets more than new gear to remedy.
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #72
Lives for gear
 
not_so_new's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrox247 ➡️
I am going to be very honest and candid with you, and say that I don't think that it will make a huge difference in the depth and the translation of low level information in your mixes (compared to your Apogee). I know that many times on this forum gear is seen as a "fix all", but in this case I believe you are experiencing the nature of the digital medium more than a lack of quality conversion. $1,000,000 in converters will not solve this problem (even if they due improve imaging etc). It's the nature of the beast, and really requires new skill sets more than new gear to remedy.
I agree with spirit of what you are saying but I don't think there are any techniques that will help my productions sound like they did when I was recording to tape or even with some of the high high end digital that I hear out there.

As much as I agree with you that there is a mind set of "gear is an end all be all fix" here at GS there is the counter thought process that says "gear does not matter if you have the chops."

I happen to think both these mind sets are wrong. The truth, as it often does, lies someplace in the middle.

Great gear is no substitute for great knowledge but gear can also be a liability or an asset on top of great, or even average knowledge....

Let's say my skill set is 78.3 out of a possible 100, 1 being a newbie and 100 being JJP or some other amazing engineer.

My skill set on a Mackie board and my skill set on a Neve is still 78.3 but my Neve mix will sound better because the gear is better. All things being equal the gear does matter.

There are no techniques that I can use to make a set of Digi 001 converters sound like my Apogee 16-X converters. The 001 converters are just never going to be as rich no matter what mic pre, mic, room, cable, or technique I use. I know because I did this very exercise years back when I first got my Apogee's and while I still had a 001 box kicking around.

heh

Other than that I agree with what you are implying.

Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #73
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I have a bunch of A-D and D-A converters.....

Slutski's.....

I have a bunch of A-D and D-A converters around here and after a bit of a listen to all of them I put the 2192 in my rack and it has been there ever since....

I sent most of the others back. They made such a small impression that, I don't even remember whose they were.

Oh yeah, I did keep a couple of Apogee PSX-100 Special Editions. They do sound rather nice!!! But the 2192 is an absolute gasser!!! I love it!!!

Bruce Swedien
Old 27th August 2007 | Show parent
  #74
Gear Addict
 
JOHN's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Hi Bruce
What do you think of the IZ radar 24 sound? have you used it ?
Old 9th September 2007 | Show parent
  #75
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
I also like the 2192 but have had issues when connecting UN-Balanced gear INTO the UA 2192.

For all that don't know, UA 2192 puts over 2 Volts of DC on the input pins 2 & 3!
If you don't believe me measure for yourself &/or check out the thread.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=143641

I have NOT resolved my issues YET but thru this mess I'm gaining a better understanding of the 2192.

I will be posting all my findings to help others.
Old 10th September 2007 | Show parent
  #76
Gear Maniac
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien ➡️
Slutski's.....

I have a bunch of A-D and D-A converters around here and after a bit of a listen to all of them I put the 2192 in my rack and it has been there ever since....

I sent most of the others back. They made such a small impression that, I don't even remember whose they were.

Oh yeah, I did keep a couple of Apogee PSX-100 Special Editions. They do sound rather nice!!! But the 2192 is an absolute gasser!!! I love it!!!

Bruce Swedien
Hi Bruce,

I saw your post from a couple of weeks ago where you mentioned loving the 2192 but also kept a couple PSX-100's. I have a PSX 100 and overall have been pretty happy with it for tracking but not so much with my final mix-downs and self mastering attempts. I know that the 2192 is no Lavry Gold but would you say it is better suited to get a super clean (artifact free) mix down on music ranging from acoustic guitar and voice to more produced rock -pop stuff? Does it still sound good on sparse productions if they are pushed pretty hard? I guess what I’m saying is that my self mastering attempts sound pretty good in the studio and on good stereos but they aren’t cutting it on cheap PC speaker and car stereo when played loud. Would the 2192 be a step up in this department from the PSX-100?

Thank you.
Old 10th September 2007 | Show parent
  #77
Lives for gear
 
studio1117's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_so_new ➡️
My skill set on a Mackie board and my skill set on a Neve is still 78.3 but my Neve mix will sound better because the gear is better. All things being equal the gear does matter.
I wouldn't agree with this...what if the band sounded better with the Mackie? The NEVE is not the end all...I've owned 3..I know. I $hit you not I can think of many bands that would sound better on a Mackie than a NEVE. Now a shure vocalmaster... a different story.
I get your point...but get mine, not all gear works for all sources.
But yes...gear does play a role in the process.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 51 views: 15259
Avatar for mytek
mytek 21st March 2005
replies: 15929 views: 1525472
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 3 views: 3868
Avatar for Michael E
Michael E 25th December 2012
replies: 6276 views: 791667
Avatar for standup
standup 11 hours ago
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace 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…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump