apogee da16

[xqtion]

anybody using them ? how is it ? i want to run them at 96kHz. is it comparable to 192i/o or apogee ad8000 ?

[xqtion]

anybody ?

[scottgreiner]

I'm also curious about these. Can the 24 bit ADAT Bridge operate at 96KHz when hooked to the legacy port of an HD box?

[audio1234]

No it does not compare to a 192 niether does the ad8000 in my IMHO. The 192 is a great value in the converter game at the moment,I don't think there is anything that compares that is not at least twice the money.From people in the know I have heard that the ad16's are of the rosetta family,and there are people that will tell you that the rosetta sounds better than the ad8000 which is not the case at all.As far as the adat bridge passing 96k even if it could it would have to support SMUX on the legacy port which splits the channels in half 8=4.The legacy port is 16 channels and you would need 32 if you do the math. [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[Purple power]

Originally posted by audio1234:
No it does not compare to a 192 niether does the ad8000 in my IMHO. The 192 is a great value in the converter game at the moment,I don't think there is anything that compares that is not at least twice the money.From people in the know I have heard that the ad16's are of the rosetta family,and there are people that will tell you that the rosetta sounds better than the ad8000 which is not the case at all.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That is a very interesting opinion. I am curious to know how you came to this conclusion....

[audio1234]

An opinion it is, which I think I am intitled to and I came to the conclusion with my ears..It is not a lone opinion niether...

[clarpark]

Max, tell us how it is...

[Chap]

hmmm,
let's see. The Apogees' just won the TEC award and sound great. I have the 192 and have to use AD8000SEs to get the 192 to sound 'un hyped'. The ears don't lie. I've a/b'd both through and without the Dangerous 2 buss. In evry case the Apogee/2 buss wins the listening test. Especially when re analoging. Just my (and about 12 other people who were there) opinion.

Hey Clark!

[Purple power]

Originally posted by clarpark:
Max, tell us how it is...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">(from the Nuendo forum earlier today)

In preparation for a very big, no-holds-barred, listening/training session with one of our bigger dealers over the weekend at Mix This, a few of us had the opportunity to pit the Apogee stuff against some of the competition as well as against each other. The results were pretty interesting.

For example, in tests with an acoustic guitar and a Bosendorfer grand piano using the AD-16 and the AD-8000-SE, all of us felt that the differences were negligible (this was with both units going through the DA-16).

The best combinations of the night (night being a loose term for the wee hours of the morning, which is when we decided to call it) were the AD-8000-SE and the AD-16 and DA-16 respectively.

Frankly, some of the folks were very suprised at how well the AD-16 held up to the AD-8000-SE. They should not have been. The AD-16 is a very underrated converter that kind of sneaks up on you in a test like this.

If there was a difference, I would say the AD-16 was a bit more transparent when compared to the AD-8000-SE. And please note that when I say "a "bit", we are splitting hairs here. That does not mean the AD-16 sounded better; some of us preferred the AD-16; others preferred the AD-8000-SE

There you have it, fresh from the studio. To characterise the AD-16 (or Rosetta for that matter) as less of a converter quality-wise than some of Apogee's other offerings is just not accurate. To say there are subtle differences in sound, yes.

Further, the AD-16 is not based on the Rosetta design, it is based on the AD-8000 MKII design.

Of course, when testing various converter offerings on the market today the first thing you MUST do to get an accurate listen is calibrate the units, which 99% of the people out there do not do, or are doing incorrectly. Also, make sure you are using an independent clocking source for each system, so that one does not benefit (or suffer for that matter) from the other's clock (another common mistake in converter testing).

Finally, pick good source material for listening. Heavily compressed rock or pop mixes are not usually a good choice. Neither is material previously converted to digital. Try live instruments. If you do all of this and you REALLY listen, the conclusions will speak for themselves.