The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Audient ID22 v SPL Crimson
Old 7th March 2021 | Show parent
  #811
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granata ➡️
I'm not talking about specs, I'm talking about distorted dynamic range he's hearing. Compressed sound tends to bring out detail.
But how would dynamic compression be occurring without a compressor in the signal chain? Totally confused by what you think could be happening.
Old 7th March 2021 | Show parent
  #812
Lives for gear
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granata ➡️
I'm not talking about specs, I'm talking about distorted dynamic range he's hearing. Compressed sound tends to bring out detail.
I see how from a certain perspective compression/saturation can reveal certain things, but that’s not what the Audient sounds like at all. The type of transient detail you get from the Audient is the exact opposite. I’d describe the sound of Audient as clear and open.
Old 7th March 2021 | Show parent
  #813
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Funk ➡️
But how would dynamic compression be occurring without a compressor in the signal chain?
exactly
Old 7th March 2021
  #814
Gear Guru
 
18 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Dynamic range simply refers to the distance between the maximum signal and the minimum signal before getting into the noise floor, nothing else. Not distortion, not compression, and so on.
Old 7th March 2021 | Show parent
  #815
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinesewhiteman ➡️
I see how from a certain perspective compression/saturation can reveal certain things, but that’s not what the Audient sounds like at all. The type of transient detail you get from the Audient is the exact opposite. I’d describe the sound of Audient as clear and open.
That's the opposite of what I would describe it like.

Then maybe it is just the speakers or headphones coloring the sound in a more complementary way with one interface or the other.
Top end boost will always add presence to the fastest transients.
Interfaces and speakers could exaggerate detail as well as hide it...
Power of placebo is huge, everyone who has tweaked a compressor or an EQ unknowingly while bypassed, knows this. I definitely hear a clearer sound from a plugin with a clear interface, especially when the meters move more lively...
I wouldn't stress too much about conversion but from ABing the recordings there is a difference in sound.
Now whether it is subjectively better, I don't care when it comes to DA, I would care about transparency.
Both manufacturers claim to use the best converters, but SPL is a more reputable name and there is a reason why it costs 2x the price of Audient.
Not trying to say expensive is necessarily better, I wasn't happy that I had to pay more and return the Audient.
In the end the choice is on you and if it translates better in the long run, you made the right choice and saved the money too.
Old 10th May 2021 | Show parent
  #816
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpatel23 ➡️
So, I contacted SPL USA to see if there was anything else I could do to improve the latency. The guy who partly designed the unit actually emailed me directly. He asked if I was using their bitcore driver since it has a much better processing than the core audio driver. This was his response:

"Bit Accurate and Core Audio drivers--
There is a huge difference between the core audio driver and the bit accurate driver. The bit accurate driver is a HAL driver which is an ASIO-like driver. HAL means „hardware abstraction layer“. An abstraction layer is implemented in software, between the physical hardware of a computer and the software that runs on that computer. Hardware abstraction layers are of an even lower level in computer languages than application programming interfaces (API) because they interact directly with hardware instead of a system kernel, therefore HALs require less processing time than APIs.
The bit accurate driver also bypasses the sample rate conversion that is always operating when the core audio driver is used. Apple „hides“ the latency induced by the sample rate conversation, which makes comparison less transparent leading to mis-interpretations.
For example a 32 samples input buffer under core audio is as fast as a 256 samples input buffer with the bit accurate driver. And a 32 samples output buffer under core audio is as fast as a 768 samples buffer with the bit accurate driver (both examples @ 48kHz sample rate). Therefore the bit accurate driver delivers a more stable system performance because bigger buffers can be used and at the time offering a faster performance with less latency.

When to use Bit Accurate and Core Audio drivers?
If you connect the input to the output and you want the loop to stay under 20ms, there is no way to achieve this with the core audio driver.
If you need to play a song with iTunes, there is no way to achieve this with the HAL driver, because system audio cannot be played back with a HAL driver.
If bit accuracy is important for you, e.g. because you want to master a CD, you can only achieve this with the HAL driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpatel23 ➡️
The bit accurate driver also bypasses the sample rate conversion that is always operating when the core audio driver is used.
I know my question has nothing to do with Audient or SPL, but can someone please elaborate on this part please? Does Apple's Core Audio always do sample rate conversion when it's recording or playing back audio? I'm not concernced with latency, all I care about is not having a second unnecessary sample rate conversion that degrades the audio quality. So is this true that Core Audio does its own sample rate conversion on top of the conversion the AD does when recording and on top of what the DA does when playing back the audio? And if true, what are the ways one can bypass this conversion? Thank you.
Old 21st May 2021
  #817
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpatel23 ➡️
So, I contacted SPL USA to see if there was anything else I could do to improve the latency. The guy who partly designed the unit actually emailed me directly. He asked if I was using their bitcore driver since it has a much better processing than the core audio driver. This was his response:

"Bit Accurate and Core Audio drivers--
There is a huge difference between the core audio driver and the bit accurate driver. The bit accurate driver is a HAL driver which is an ASIO-like driver. HAL means „hardware abstraction layer“. An abstraction layer is implemented in software, between the physical hardware of a computer and the software that runs on that computer. Hardware abstraction layers are of an even lower level in computer languages than application programming interfaces (API) because they interact directly with hardware instead of a system kernel, therefore HALs require less processing time than APIs.
The bit accurate driver also bypasses the sample rate conversion that is always operating when the core audio driver is used. Apple „hides“ the latency induced by the sample rate conversation, which makes comparison less transparent leading to mis-interpretations.
For example a 32 samples input buffer under core audio is as fast as a 256 samples input buffer with the bit accurate driver. And a 32 samples output buffer under core audio is as fast as a 768 samples buffer with the bit accurate driver (both examples @ 48kHz sample rate). Therefore the bit accurate driver delivers a more stable system performance because bigger buffers can be used and at the time offering a faster performance with less latency.

When to use Bit Accurate and Core Audio drivers?
If you connect the input to the output and you want the loop to stay under 20ms, there is no way to achieve this with the core audio driver.
If you need to play a song with iTunes, there is no way to achieve this with the HAL driver, because system audio cannot be played back with a HAL driver.
If bit accuracy is important for you, e.g. because you want to master a CD, you can only achieve this with the HAL driver.
I think you have a point and I hope someone knows the answer to this. Here Warren Sokol has the same opinion:

Old 18th August 2021 | Show parent
  #818
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
@ chrisj
Could you enlighten us here? I don't know of anyone more knowledgeable on these low level operating system points than you. I'd be surprised if there is a bit level difference created by Apple vs. Windows. Please advise.
Thanks. Ben
Old 19th August 2021 | Show parent
  #819
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenF ➡️
@ chrisj
Could you enlighten us here? I don't know of anyone more knowledgeable on these low level operating system points than you. I'd be surprised if there is a bit level difference created by Apple vs. Windows. Please advise.
Thanks. Ben
See this thread: looks like you're reading stuff from maybe 1992? Not sure why this comes up.
Does Apple's Core Audio resample AD/DA signal?
Old 20th August 2021 | Show parent
  #820
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj ➡️
See this thread: looks like you're reading stuff from maybe 1992? Not sure why this comes up.
Does Apple's Core Audio resample AD/DA signal?
Thanks @ chrisj . Thought so. I don't know why this was reposted here and then in a different thread too. I didn't see your response in the other thread. Just wanted to set the record straight in this thread, but I don't have the cred. Conclusion: Use the tools you like. I prefer Mac; others PC. Best regards.
Old 26th September 2021 | Show parent
  #821
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
I use SPL Crimson with Event Opals to compose with

I use Audient with Quested S7 to mix with

Audient is brighter, so it helps keep me from mixing too bright
Old 23rd April 2022 | Show parent
  #822
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxReturn ➡️
I use SPL Crimson with Event Opals to compose with

I use Audient with Quested S7 to mix with

Audient is brighter, so it helps keep me from mixing too bright
I went back to using the Crimson exclusively. It’s better all ‘round. Briefly went back to Audient for tracking but the SPL just has nicer, juicier inputs. Just sounds natural. The Audient is like a really high quality digital photo of a piece of fruit, whereas the SPL is the actual fruit..
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 765 views: 125639
Avatar for phaces6
phaces6 3rd October 2017
replies: 175 views: 64956
Avatar for mrtnsko
mrtnsko 12th April 2017
replies: 709 views: 152790
Avatar for McNewlove
McNewlove 12th August 2022
replies: 399 views: 79843
Avatar for fushapanther
fushapanther 9th December 2022
Topic:
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