Quantcast
Big difference between Apogee psx-100 and Rosetta 200 ? - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Big difference between Apogee psx-100 and Rosetta 200 ?
Old 23rd January 2009
  #1
Gear Head
 
evolve's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Big difference between Apogee psx-100 and Rosetta 200 ?

I'm looking to buy a nice 2 channel a/d d/a converter. I've been looking at the Apogee PSX-100 and the newer Rosetta 200. I don't have a great amount of money to invest. It is a small home studio set up and I'm trying to buy cleverly on a budget. I see the converter quality as a big part of the equation. My friend has the AD-16X and DA-16X with 'big ben clocking'. He recommends getting the big ben clocking for having more 'width' and reacting better with complex reverb tails.He uses a Lexicon 224xl primarily and has invested a lot of money to preserve his outboard equipment's character and sound quality. The 'Rosetta 200' does not have the 'big ben clocking' but instead employs 'intelliclock'. Does anyone have experience with both types of clocking and is there a vast difference in stereo image ?
What is the conversion quality like of the now 11 year old 'PSX-100' ? Has technology leaped a great deal in this time for conversion ......is say an 'RME AD2' better than a 'PSX-100'. The RME can be bought relatively cheaply. Cheaper than the Apogee PSX.
It is an important purchase as I'm using some nice pieces like a 'Lexicon 224x, Eventide, 'SSL g series' as my final mix compressor etc...
Any input on experiences with the older and newer Apogee's would be greatly appreciated. The PSX-100 is 24bit / 96khz .......seems like good value. My main concern is preserving the reverb tails and stereo width. Can the older units do this ??
Thanks,
Old 23rd January 2009
  #2
Gear Nut
 
llarena's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolve ➡️
I'm looking to buy a nice 2 channel a/d d/a converter. I've been looking at the Apogee PSX-100 and the newer Rosetta 200. I don't have a great amount of money to invest. It is a small home studio set up and I'm trying to buy cleverly on a budget. I see the converter quality as a big part of the equation. My friend has the AD-16X and DA-16X with 'big ben clocking'. He recommends getting the big ben clocking for having more 'width' and reacting better with complex reverb tails.He uses a Lexicon 224xl primarily and has invested a lot of money to preserve his outboard equipment's character and sound quality. The 'Rosetta 200' does not have the 'big ben clocking' but instead employs 'intelliclock'. Does anyone have experience with both types of clocking and is there a vast difference in stereo image ?
What is the conversion quality like of the now 11 year old 'PSX-100' ? Has technology leaped a great deal in this time for conversion ......is say an 'RME AD2' better than a 'PSX-100'. The RME can be bought relatively cheaply. Cheaper than the Apogee PSX.
It is an important purchase as I'm using some nice pieces like a 'Lexicon 224x, Eventide, 'SSL g series' as my final mix compressor etc...
Any input on experiences with the older and newer Apogee's would be greatly appreciated. The PSX-100 is 24bit / 96khz .......seems like good value. My main concern is preserving the reverb tails and stereo width. Can the older units do this ??
Thanks,
Psx-100 is THE BEST FROM APOGEE absolutly garateed! I own a AD800, AD16, PSX-100 and used compared rossettas (they´re not as good as AD series)
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
You believe that, and I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. That is complete nonsense. The Rosetta has an improved clock and the converters were updated. Just give Apogee a call if you don't believe me. Why would a company come out with a inferior converter when all the other company's are improving theirs?

The thing is there is not a huge difference, just slight improvement over the old. I found I was able to hear a little more detail on reverb tails. This is from Sound on Sound magazine.
"The Rosetta 200 represents a significant operational improvement on the PSX100, and the sound quality is better too, although by a smaller margin than I had expected."
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #4
Lives for gear
 
jamwerks's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The Rosetta 200 is definitely better. The gain (if any, that's questionable) with the Big Ben isn't worth it. The Big Ben clock is integrated into the AD16. Be carefull that the Rosetta 200 will have limited routing possibilities (to reverbs, etc) and wouldn't permit you to grow.

I'd suggest to check out a 2 AD DA version of the Lavry Blue. For a few hundred more the quality practically doubles (well, almost) and lets you add on if needed later. I'm not sure about AES routing though......
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #5
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
age old argument

everybody has their own opinion on converters. i see alot of top tracking and mixing engineers that are rocking the digi 192 i/o. i don't like the digi converters personally but they work for many top names. i suggest you call around and see if anybody has a rosetta and/or psx to listen to. i just got a psx for my home/portable rig and i love it. i always have liked apogee converters because they have a unique sound. i have not a chance to listen to the lavrys so i can't compare the 2. it's all about what works for you. not sure about the recorder your using, but if it's a 002 or 003, the psx should prove to be a vast improvement. as far as the difference in the rosetta and the psx, the rosetta is cleaner sounding but only by a little bit. the psx is more musical sounding. i like them both and i plan on adding a rosetta 800 in the near future. if i ever get the chance to listen to the lavry and my jaw hits the floor and i fall in love, then i will buy that. but for now i am completely happy with apogee and their fine products. get what works for you. thats the most important thing.
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Got my Rosetta 800 and am loving it. But if you just need to in's and out's and dont' care about bussing hardware effects into your DAW, the Rosetta 200 can be fine.
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #7
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World ➡️
You believe that, and I will sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. That is complete nonsense. The Rosetta has an improved clock and the converters were updated. Just give Apogee a call if you don't believe me. Why would a company come out with a inferior converter when all the other company's are improving theirs?
This is correct, as well, they updated the power supply of the X series as well as the Rosetta Series, which made a large and palpable difference in sonic quality.
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #8
Dan
Lives for gear
 
Dan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I've got both a PSX-100SE, and have used the 200 a fair amount. I can't say I notice a palpable difference. The SE has an upgraded power supply, and I think the analog section is slightly different than the standard PSX-100.

Obviously, there's a functional difference between the two. If the price is comparable, I'd probably lean towards the newer unit. They're kind of both in the passable category for me.
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #9
Gear Head
 
evolve's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The Lavry Blue looks interesting .....so do the half rack Lavry Black's ! Will have to look into those .....
From what I gather, the older PSX-100 still sounds good and people still respect them. What would be the difference between the 'clean' Rosetta 200 and the 'musical' PSX-100 ? what does 'musical' mean ....do you mean it is coloured ? is it darker sounding ? thanks ..

I'm using a Roland VS2480 and inserting an Eventide through the coaxal input/output. I'm using a Lexicon in the stereo effects loop of my Mesa Boogie Studio Preamp and that signal will be going into the converters. The final mix will be going out into the D/A converter straight into the smooth sounding SSL then into Tascam DVRA-1000.

I guess most dedicated converters are going to sound better than the Roland ones built in. I'm reluctant to pay large amounts of money for small differences and in 2 years those new units will sound 'dated'
I think I will have to imagine I'm making music 10 years ago ! some good sounding music was being produced then ! ....I haven't got the money most of you guys have got and can only dream of owning some of the racks on here ! My friend says I'm always cutting corners ! .....but I'm not on the level he is at in production and I want to spend wisely. I think I will get the PSX-100. Anybody know if the RME converters are good ?

Appreciate all the responses, thanks very much! Mark
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #10
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
I've used both the Apogee Rosetta 200 and the PSX 100 extensively. They sound almost identical. The Rosetta had a hint more "air" and the PSX had a hair more Lower Mid Robustness. I preferred the PSX for Heavier Rock sounds. - Using an external clock can change the character of these convertors.
Old 23rd January 2009 | Show parent
  #11
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1radicalron ➡️
Using an external clock can change the character of these convertors.
I agree!!
Old 24th January 2009 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Space Station's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The 11 year old PSX-100 is cack compared to an AD16x or similar. The advances in converter technology and chip design in that time has been huge. It's like comparing a 486 to a pentium 4 or something.

The big ben clocking without even touching the convertors can make a massive difference to stereo width, depth and image. I have clocked a VS2480 with big ben and the difference is mind blowing.

The benefit of an old PSX-100 over your existing Roland convertors would be negligible and a waste of money and time. In fact I'd probably go as far as to say it would be a step backwards as external clocks have to be extremely good to better internal clocks... distortion, PLL etc

Stick with what you have or aim a lot higher. Thats my advice.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #13
Gear Nut
 
llarena's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Station ➡️
The 11 year old PSX-100 is cack compared to an AD16x or similar.
The benefit of an old PSX-100 over your existing Roland convertors would be negligible and a waste of money and time. In fact I'd probably go as far as to say it would be a step backwards as external clocks have to be extremely good to better internal clocks... distortion, PLL etc

Stick with what you have or aim a lot higher. Thats my advice.
Have you heard the low end of an old psx-100 as you said?

Have you compared it with rossettas and AD16?

Haver you tracked all the bass, guitar tracks comparing them? Yeh I´m a rocker man and I love low end but the Psx-100 and ad-8000 sound better to me, then I´ll choose the AD series and finally the rossetta. Eveything changes when you clock it with Big Ben or another Ext. Clock. That´s all I can say from apogee
Old 8th February 2009 | Show parent
  #14
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
I'm not very knowledgable on the high end AD stuff...sorry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Station ➡️
The big ben clocking without even touching the convertors can make a massive difference to stereo width, depth and image. I have clocked a VS2480 with big ben and the difference is mind blowing.
I have a 003 and am looking to get some higher end converters. When you say improved stereo width, depth, etc, I am guessing you mean in the mixing all of those things seem improved? What I am little confused on is:

Does the 003 and other lower end converters keep you from hearing what is really going on and the higher end converters get you closer to what is really there, or does the high end converter actually do sweetening? If I can hear it on my system when mixing, but then send to my buddy who doesn't have an Apogee, does it translate to him that my mix is better?

Thanks in advance for anyone's insights on this.

Swaff
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #15
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Station ➡️
The 11 year old PSX-100 is cack compared to an AD16x or similar. The advances in converter technology and chip design in that time has been huge. It's like comparing a 486 to a pentium 4 or something.

The big ben clocking without even touching the convertors can make a massive difference to stereo width, depth and image. I have clocked a VS2480 with big ben and the difference is mind blowing.

The benefit of an old PSX-100 over your existing Roland convertors would be negligible and a waste of money and time. In fact I'd probably go as far as to say it would be a step backwards as external clocks have to be extremely good to better internal clocks... distortion, PLL etc

Stick with what you have or aim a lot higher. Thats my advice.
not to be a dick but you're crazy. i've used a 2480 and though it is not bad, the psx100 converters kill it. i'm not saying that there are not better ada's on the market but come on. not everybody can just drop 4 g's on their converters. i'd say the psx is an improvement and you should consider it.

when you mix on better converters, you can hear more. basically, you'll notice more of the problems and fix them. they should translate better on other systems providing you're doing your job right. hope that helps a little.
Old 9th February 2009 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Space Station's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ttrescott2002 ➡️
not to be a dick but you're crazy. i've used a 2480 and though it is not bad, the psx100 converters kill it. i'm not saying that there are not better ada's on the market but come on. not everybody can just drop 4 g's on their converters. i'd say the psx is an improvement and you should consider it.

when you mix on better converters, you can hear more. basically, you'll notice more of the problems and fix them. they should translate better on other systems providing you're doing your job right. hope that helps a little.
I totally disagree, using the early PSX-100 from 1997 is an utter waste of time and money in this situation. The PSX-100 is 5 years older design than the 2480 which matters a lot in convertor DSP technology.

It's like hooking up a 486 to do graphics on a pentium.

There are far better options today for a lot less money than an AD16x etc...
Old 10th February 2009 | Show parent
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Station ➡️
I totally disagree, using the early PSX-100 from 1997 is an utter waste of time and money in this situation. The PSX-100 is 5 years older design than the 2480 which matters a lot in convertor DSP technology.

It's like hooking up a 486 to do graphics on a pentium.

There are far better options today for a lot less money than an AD16x etc...

Ok. Why don't you show us what better options you are refering tofuuck
Old 10th February 2009
  #18
Gear Addict
 
TC Custom Audio's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Isn't the PSX-100 the same circuit as the AD-8000? Plenty of awesome records were recorded on the AD-8000. I think there is also a "Special Edition" version of the PSX-100, but I've never used one (or a Special Edition Ad-8000, for that matter). As to clocking, I find the older apogee stuff totally useable when set to INTERNAL clocking.

If you're looking at the PSX-100 for 96k, watch out. Many of these units need a ROM update from Apogee to do 96k single wire AES/EBU and AFAIK, they won't just sell you the ROM; they insist on installing themselves.

I've got Lavry Blue though and I highly recommend it.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
I totally disagree, using the early PSX-100 from 1997 is an utter waste of time and money in this situation. The PSX-100 is 5 years older design than the 2480 which matters a lot in convertor DSP technology.
That's not all there is to it, and I'd say that a big part of what makes Apogee converters sound the way they do is the high-quality analog stages they use. That's why their converters tend to hold their value better than most digital gear...which isn't saying much, but still, I'd be happy to track with a PSX...especially with a 2480.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Space Station's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sannytown ➡️
Isn't the PSX-100 the same circuit as the AD-8000?
Nope, many circuit differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sannytown ➡️
I think there is also a "Special Edition" version of the PSX-100
Yes there is an SE version, it is a lot better, with many improvements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sannytown ➡️
As to clocking, I find the older apogee stuff totally useable when set to INTERNAL clocking.
Me too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sannytown ➡️
I've got Lavry Blue though and I highly recommend it.
Me too.
Old 10th June 2011 | Show parent
  #21
Gear Head
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
going from presonus to psx 100

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1radicalron ➡️
I've used both the Apogee Rosetta 200 and the PSX 100 extensively. They sound almost identical. The Rosetta had a hint more "air" and the PSX had a hair more Lower Mid Robustness. I preferred the PSX for Heavier Rock sounds. - Using an external clock can change the character of these convertors.
Im looking at the psx100 apogee unit. Im starting to get more work but still on a budget.

Im using presonus as my ad conversions. The firestudio project. I understand the psx is older. From my reading I see that apogee is far better.

Im just looking for the 2 channels of ad conversion because I track everything seperate, and I want nice playback from the unit.

I think I can get a psx apogee for around 500 and thats really my budget right now.

Would this be a good move on upgrading from what Ive stated.

Thanks,
Fred
Old 12th June 2011
  #22
Gear Addict
 
lildrummerboy70's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
FWIW... I currently have 2 Lynx Aurora 16s and a PSX-100 all clocked to a Big Ben. Before I had this setup, I had a Digidesign 96 I/O and an RME ADI 8 Pro. Of all these converters, the PSX-100 is my favorite. I like the Lynx converters (especially clocked to the Big Ben), but the PSX-100 has a softer, more natural top end and more robust low mids. Back on topic...

I think the PSX-100 kills the RME. The RME I used sounded ok, but not great. The PSX-100 would certainly be a step up (way up) from your Presonus converters. If you can get a PSX-100 for a great price, I don't think you'll regret it. Good luck!
Old 29th March 2015
  #23
Gear Maniac
 
valeot's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Any new thoughts about psx vs rosetta 200/800?

I have a psx, a rme ff400 and a rme adi 8 right now. The psx is definetely better then the other two.

The "problem" i could get a rosetta 800 for approx. 700 euro. And a friend offers me 550 for the psx.

So i would get 6 channels more for 200euro.
Should i do it?
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 157 views: 28715
Avatar for AMIEL
AMIEL 26th October 2007
replies: 124 views: 14319
Avatar for desotoslo
desotoslo 30th June 2008
replies: 2380 views: 410633
Avatar for didier.brest
didier.brest 4 weeks ago
replies: 50 views: 8403
Avatar for McDingus
McDingus 14th October 2011
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