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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Funk ➡️

But how would dynamic compression be occurring without a compressor in the signal chain?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bpatel23 ➡️

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.

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

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?

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

Originally Posted by DrAudioBot ➡️

Resurrecting this old thread and adding my 2 cent:

I have been using the Audient since 2016 and it started f**** up lately (main encoder not behaving properly etc.) and bought a used Crimson (like new, perfect condition for 220€) recently.

I can't believe that people seriously say that the ID sounds equal or even better than the Crimson. That must be a joke!

The Crimson sounds miles better IMO. Monitoring sounds more defined, seperated, dimensional and focused. Differences in music is more audible.

Also cannot say it sounds dull at all...and the POWER the SPL has...I couldn't believe how LOUD monitoring is...light years ahead of Audient.

The preamps are the same thing (always hated the lifeless tone and "glassy" high freq of Audient). SPL wins.

Should have gone for the SPL years ago.

Oh and on mac it's just fantastic not needing to install any drivers

Originally Posted by luka ➡️

Welcome aboard

Originally Posted by DirkP ➡️

Just started to use the Crimson again a few weeks ago and I am amazed how good it is compared to my newer interfaces (Motu with the ESS conversion, a MixPre and a Tascam M12).
The headphone amps are the best among the interface headphone amps I know.
It is a pity that SPL seem to no longer produce Interfaces.
It wasn’t cheap, but affordable for a SPL product. I like the material quality of the unit and the entire concept as a standalone unit with lots of controls. Other manufacturers offer comparable interfaces today, but the Crimson is among the best products I ever owned. Means something to still use an interface that I bought 10 years ago!

Originally Posted by mikeybabes ➡️

I've just put mine back in the box. I've had it a long, long time and need more inputs.

I've now got n Allen & Heath CQ18T mixer and am using that instead as an interface.

I am tempted to sell the Crimson, but I have a feeling I might end up regretting selling it.....

Think I might hang onto until I've fully got the Allen & Heath set up as I would like.

Originally Posted by mikeybabes ➡️

I've just put mine back in the box. I've had it a long, long time and need more inputs.

I've now got n Allen & Heath CQ18T mixer and am using that instead as an interface.

I am tempted to sell the Crimson, but I have a feeling I might end up regretting selling it.....

Think I might hang onto until I've fully got the Allen & Heath set up as I would like.

Originally Posted by DirkP ➡️

I don’t plan to sell mine. As a monitor controller and headphone amp alone it’s worth it.
I wait until it reaches real vintage goodness prices

Originally Posted by mrmarquez ➡️

I’m still kicking myself for not having bought one when they were around. I keep looking for MK3 around the used market but nothing popping up

Originally Posted by runamuck ➡️

They're around (I just looked a couple nights ago) on Reverb, Ebay and used on the Guitar Center website.