The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Digi 192 vs. Apogee AD-8k
Old 13th October 2005 | Show parent
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Ruudman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by raal
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 since either way what i heard had to go AD/DA before hitting the monitor speakers i'm confused!
I think it sounds good with BB. Speaking of mojo: try unchecking the
realtime sample conversion option in the hardware setup.
Leave it off if you don't need it.

ruudman
Old 13th October 2005 | Show parent
  #62
Here for the gear
 
brendanevjen's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Duardo, there is nothing wrong with my math- if you're interested in finding out more about some of those deals, drop me a line.

As for the difference being profound- that's a matter of opinion.

As for manufacturers shedding light on the situation, I for one welcome it- certainly I value someone like Max's opinion more than some grumpy Digi devotee with a personal agenda of trying to justify their own investment.

And just so you know, I own a Pro Tools HD system, and I love it too. PT software is great, the cards are also great- though honestly you now have other options in that regard too, such as the new Waves processing boxes which offer comparable processing power for a small fraction of the price.

I'm not a Digi basher, I'm a basher of ANY company that overprices their gear for any reason. Digi gets away with charging more because they have a high perceived value and a stronghold on the hard disk recording market. End of story.
Old 14th October 2005 | Show parent
  #63
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
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


Quote:
Duardo, there is nothing wrong with my math- if you're interested in finding out more about some of those deals, drop me a line.
It wasn't your pricing I was taking issue with as much as your ins and outs. You'd said 32 channels of Apogee vs 24 of Digi...how are you figuring that, two AD16Xs or DA16Xs (32 channels in one direction) versus a 192 with an A/D or D/A card (8 channels in one direction and 16 in the other for a total of 24)? That's not quite a valid comparison. If you want to compare apples to apples it should be the same for both...say, sixteen in and out, in which case the pricing comes out about the same (AD16x and DA16x vs two 192s), but you get a little more with each...better quality with Apogee, more routing flexibility and digital I/O options with Digidesign.

This coming from an Apogee/HD owner who's neither a "basher" nor "devotee" of either company...

-Duardo
Old 14th October 2005 | Show parent
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Full Clip Audio's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by brendanevjen
Digi gets away with charging more because they have a high perceived value and a stronghold on the hard disk recording market. End of story.
That is the absolute truth! I curse thier name all the time when they rape us for TDM plug ins, updates and hardware, BUT........ I simply cant imagine tracking with anything esle. What can I say? I absolutly LOVE working with Pro Tools despite Digi being greedy cockbites!
Old 14th October 2005 | Show parent
  #65
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Clip Audio
I absolutly LOVE working with Pro Tools despite Digi being greedy cockbites!
couldn't have said it better myself.
Old 14th October 2005 | Show parent
  #66
Lives for gear
 
The MPCist's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Oh, this subject's been beaten to death the past few years. Why are some people so defensive of Apogee?

Apogees are nice.... purple and all... but convertor-wise, they don't perform that much better than the 192's---I did give them a chance demo'ing both in my studio and preferred the 192 sound.

However I must say that their Big Ben is good. Got one of those. Clocked with that, the 192's sound very good. More than enough for me at the moment...

Having said all of the above BS, I must add that I'm demo'ing a Lavry Blue AD/DA (for vocals) and a Lavry Gold for mixdown..... I'll just say that, I'd rather save my money for them! (If only they could make a 16 i/o more affordable!)

Damn... seems like I'm talking in circles... Does my post even make sense? I haven't gone home for 3 days already--working on 4 mixes in 3 days and gotta take it to master this afternoon... damn, too much coffee and no sleep makes you feel like you're on drugs or sumthin....
Old 14th October 2005 | Show parent
  #67
Max
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
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.
The Rosetta 800 was Apogee's top of the line converter for over a year before the AD and DA-16X came out. Just because we came out with an additional product does not mean that the Rosetta series suddenly falls a notch in comparison to other converters. There are hundreds of Rosetta 800 owners who chose them because they felt they were better than the alternatives. There are still AD-8000-SE owners and previous AD/DA-16 owners that believe the legacy Apogee boxes are still better than the alternatives. The Rosetta series is superior to both the AD-8000-SEs and the original AD/DA-16. So it is not really that hard to imagine that our current 2nd tier solution may be an improvement over someone else's flagship.

Quote:
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.
The product line is pretty simple, much simpler than it used to be in fact. There are three series of converters; the Mini-Series, the Rosetta series and the X-Series. In general, the Mini-Me is where the AD-8000-SE MKII was in terms of conversion quality; the Rosetta is a step up from that and the X-Series is a step up from that. (The exception is the Mini-DAC, which falls in between the Rosetta and X-Series (depending on where the clock is coming from). This was done on purpose so that customers who only need 2 channels of D/A can use the Mini-DAC with any of the converters in the product line).

As for 192K, its pretty simple really. We have many Apogee customers that run commercial facilities. Many of THEIR clients insist on higher sampling rates. Now, we could be idealists and say to these Apogee customers that we are not going to make a 192K converter because you should not be recording at 192K, but many of these customers do not have the luxury or desire to turn down business over sampling rates. So instead, we felt the right thing to do was to support all sampling rates and leave that decision up to the end user. That way customers can have Apogee quality and accommodate clients that insist on higher sampling rates.
Old 14th October 2005 | Show parent
  #68
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Max, if you read over your first two paragraphs as if you're not already familiar with Apogee converters then maybe you can imagine my confusion. AD-8000, Ad-8000 SE, Mini whatever, A/D/A 16, Rosetta 96, Rosetta 192, Rosetta 800, A/D 16X, D/A 16X, 2 channel? 8 channel? 16 channel? each with their own incremental, or profound, quality differences. And then there's clocking with Big Ben. Then when you start folding in products from other companies, you're cutting a pretty fine line whenever you want to say that A is definitely better than B. I'm still not sure why I would want to get an ADx series rather than a Rosetta. Aw heck, just give me 16 channels of your best stuff.

BTW, I live right near Apogee in santa monica. Do you recommend I bring my AD-8000 over and have it converted to SE, or is that desireable or even possible? Is it expensive? (I paid a king's ransom for the AD-8000way back when, but haven't regretted a single penny) What would it sound better than?

I accept your sample rate explanation. But if you're doing cost comparisons between a Rosetta 96 and something else that does 192 that's a lttle unfair. You can't say that it's necessary or unnecessary only when it serves the argument.

-R
Old 14th October 2005 | Show parent
  #69
Max
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
Max, if you read over your first two paragraphs as if you're not already familiar with Apogee converters then maybe you can imagine my confusion. AD-8000, Ad-8000 SE, Mini whatever, A/D/A 16, Rosetta 96, Rosetta 192, Rosetta 800, A/D 16X, D/A 16X, 2 channel? 8 channel? 16 channel? each with their own incremental, or profound, quality differences. And then there's clocking with Big Ben. Then when you start folding in products from other companies, you're cutting a pretty fine line whenever you want to say that A is definitely better than B. I'm still not sure why I would want to get an ADx series rather than a Rosetta. Aw heck, just give me 16 channels of your best stuff.
Fair enough. Feel free to call me anytime and I'd be happy to discuss it with you (that goes for everyone, BTW).

Quote:
BTW, I live right near Apogee in santa monica. Do you recommend I bring my AD-8000 over and have it converted to SE, or is that desireable or even possible? Is it expensive? (I paid a king's ransom for the AD-8000way back when, but haven't regretted a single penny) What would it sound better than?
Unfortunately, we do not offer SE upgrades anymore, as it entailed a complete board swap and we don't have any boards left (we stopped making them 3 years ago). A Big Ben goes a long way towards improving the sound of the AD-8000, but unless you can take advantage of the Big Ben as a master clock for the entire studio, my recommendation would be to sell the AD-8000 and buy a Rosetta 800 96 for about the same money out of pocket.

Quote:
I accept your sample rate explanation. But if you're doing cost comparisons between a Rosetta 96 and something else that does 192 that's a lttle unfair. You can't say that it's necessary or unnecessary only when it serves the argument.
Again, with the exception of commercial facilities that are being forced by clients to do 192K (can anyone say this to be the case BTW? I can see 96K but not 192K) it is fair to assume the vast majority of folks will not go beyond 96K and therefore they do not need to consider the 192K version. For those, considering the Rosetta 96 is perfectly relevant. There are features the the Rosetta has that the other does not, such as S/MUX and a Firewire option, so we cannot really get a complete apples to apples comparison in either case. The bottom line is what are the connectivity options, what features are needed, and how much is it? If the better box is about the same price, 192K sample rates or no I am betting that folks will go for the better box.
Old 14th October 2005 | Show parent
  #70
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
Unfortunately, we do not offer SE upgrades anymore, as it entailed a complete board swap and we don't have any boards left (we stopped making them 3 years ago).
What was the difference?

-R
Old 15th October 2005 | Show parent
  #71
Max
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman
What was the difference?

-R
The original SE (1998) was an upgrade to the analog section, i.e. better op amps etc. The SE MKII (2000) was a complete redesign that featured local power regulation as well as upgrades to the converter chip and the analog section. The Rosetta 800 takes things a step further with increased power efficiency, improved transient response and better clocking, to name a few.
Old 27th October 2005 | Show parent
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Mike Jasper's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
Unfortunately, we do not offer SE upgrades anymore, as it entailed a complete board swap and we don't have any boards left (we stopped making them 3 years ago).
Does this mean my PSX100SE is now... vintage gear?

Hmmmmm. Vintage gear.

Jasper
Old 27th October 2005 | Show parent
  #73
Max
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Jasper
Does this mean my PSX100SE is now... vintage gear?

Hmmmmm. Vintage gear.

Jasper
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 157 views: 28224
Avatar for AMIEL
AMIEL 26th October 2007
replies: 50 views: 8005
Avatar for McDingus
McDingus 14th October 2011
replies: 295 views: 70862
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 175900
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
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