[HKC]

Hi
I have a pretty well equipped studio using Logic as my platform but my
computer and everything inside it is getting old so I´ll be updating my
system within the next 8 months.
My present card is a RME9652 which runs very well using the 128 buffer
range.
Since I haven't really followed the whole PCI-e/192KHz/24 bit thing I
suppose I better get into it before deciding what to buy.
From my research so far it seems like the Apogee Symphony with a 16AD and a
16DA is a good bet but RME also have a similar setup and so have a few other
companies.
What bothers me a bit about RME is that it takes up two spaces in the
computer and I also have a UAD1 and a Powercore card. That would be a big
problem in my G5 (only having three slots, and this would take up 4). I
suppose that this is the same in the new Mac Pros.
I currently have 16 I/Os but I want 24. It's my plan to use the converters I
already have for the last 8 I/Os. Low latency is very important (Apogee
promises 1.6 ms from source to headphone at 96 KHz, pretty good).
Money does matter but not more than if Apogee is what it takes then that
probably is what I will buy (though it sure is expensive). On the other hand
I have to have something that lives up to the current standard since this is
the kind of thing clients seem to ask about (although I suspect they can't
tell at all).

[Mike Rivers]

HKC wrote:
Low latency is very important (Apogee
promises 1.6 ms from source to headphone at 96 KHz, pretty good).

Actually, this is pretty typical, and double that for 48 kHz. Just a
little tip, though. Advertising copy is neither a promise nor a
guarantee. This is one that they can almost certainly meet, but don't
buy on ad copy alone. By the way, if you want to understand just what
1.6 ms monitor latency means, try singing through a 1.6 ms delay and
feeding its output into your headphones. Tell me if your voice doesn't
sound funny in the phones and I'll tell you that you have the phones
turned up too loud.

Money does matter but not more than if Apogee is what it takes then that
probably is what I will buy (though it sure is expensive). On the other hand
I have to have something that lives up to the current standard since this is
the kind of thing clients seem to ask about (although I suspect they can't
tell at all).

Unfortunately, you're right about that. Clients often book a studio
based on brands of equipment. I got more work and fewer "OK, I'll call
you back" inquiries when I moved from a TASCAM to an Ampex multitrack
recorder. Have you lost any business when you tell them that you don't
use ProTools, you use Logic? Anyway, Apogee makes good mid-line
converters, as does RME. A Lynx Aurora and AES-16 (I'm pretty sure it's
a single slot card) is probably a step up in audio quality, but if
you're working with the kind of client that would rather see Apogee
because that's the name they know, then go for Apogee. It's like buying
a Toyota - there's nothing wrong with it.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

HKC wrote:
Since I haven't really followed the whole PCI-e/192KHz/24 bit thing I
suppose I better get into it before deciding what to buy.
From my research so far it seems like the Apogee Symphony with a 16AD and a
16DA is a good bet but RME also have a similar setup and so have a few other
companies.

These are good sort of mid-range converters. They aren't "absolute high
end" the way Prism, Weiss, or the top end Lavry converters are, but they
are entirely respectable and worth auditioning.

What bothers me a bit about RME is that it takes up two spaces in the
computer and I also have a UAD1 and a Powercore card. That would be a big
problem in my G5 (only having three slots, and this would take up 4). I
suppose that this is the same in the new Mac Pros.

So, if you like the way the RME gear sounds, buy an outboard RME converter
with a Lightpipe interface, and plug it into a Lightpipe card on your
computer.

I currently have 16 I/Os but I want 24. It's my plan to use the converters I
already have for the last 8 I/Os. Low latency is very important (Apogee
promises 1.6 ms from source to headphone at 96 KHz, pretty good).
Money does matter but not more than if Apogee is what it takes then that
probably is what I will buy (though it sure is expensive). On the other hand
I have to have something that lives up to the current standard since this is
the kind of thing clients seem to ask about (although I suspect they can't
tell at all).

The Apogee is entirely acceptable for typical work, and it's better than
any of the converters 15 years ago were, but it's not high end by any
stretch of the imagination. It is definitely worth auditioning, as are
the RME converters, some of the Mytek, and the lower end Lavry converters
which are all in that general price range.

There is no reason you cannot mix and match, buying one interface for your
computer and a different set of converters. You can keep using the converters
for years, just upgrading the interfaces in the computer as computer
technology changes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[HKC]

By the way, if you want to understand just what
1.6 ms monitor latency means, try singing through a 1.6 ms delay and
feeding its output into your headphones. Tell me if your voice doesn't
sound funny in the phones and I'll tell you that you have the phones
turned up too loud.

Actually I do make quite a bit of vocals a year. I used to do that for a
living and still do to some degree and I can easily sing with the 128
buffersetting which is closer to 6 seconds. I don't agree with you that 1.6
ms is average, this is the actual latency through software monitoring and
there are a few people who have tried this at home and apparently this is
true. I agree that you shouldn't believe advertising only so the 1.6 ms
reference to Apogee homepage was only meant as a guideline.

[HKC]

The Apogee is entirely acceptable for typical work, and it's better than
any of the converters 15 years ago were, but it's not high end by any
stretch of the imagination.


I´m sorry for the headline, I just didn't want a lot of posts about how
great the M-Audio and Behringer stuff is. I have RME now and I like them but
they are 24/48 which is fine by me but clients seem to ask more and more
about the bandwidth.
If I look at medium/high end studios around the world it seems to me like
Digidesign, RME, MOTU and Apogee almost sits on all converters in that
league so that's what I'm looking at.
What is really important to me is how well the soundcard actually works,
does it deliver the low latency, how many tracks before you have to change
the buffersetting etc.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
HKC wrote:
By the way, if you want to understand just what
1.6 ms monitor latency means, try singing through a 1.6 ms delay and
feeding its output into your headphones. Tell me if your voice doesn't
sound funny in the phones and I'll tell you that you have the phones
turned up too loud.

Actually I do make quite a bit of vocals a year. I used to do that for a
living and still do to some degree and I can easily sing with the 128
buffersetting which is closer to 6 seconds. I don't agree with you that 1.6
ms is average, this is the actual latency through software monitoring and
there are a few people who have tried this at home and apparently this is
true. I agree that you shouldn't believe advertising only so the 1.6 ms
reference to Apogee homepage was only meant as a guideline.

People keep complaining about latency here.... and my obvious question is
why in God's name they continue using software monitoring. There's really
no reason for it that I can find. Hell, buy a cheap Mackie 1202 and use it
to make a headphone mix.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

Apogee uses a proprietary express card for their latency claim. This is what
buys them milliseconds. But as Mike points out, it's not good enough.
Latency can only be beat by compensation, which DAWs generally provide.

Monitoring latency can only be beat by a wire that goes from the input
to the output, but that seems to be too expensive for manufacturers to
put in nowadays. It requires real hardware and it's soooooo much cheaper
in dollars to turn the audio around in software.

There's really more involved than just a piece of wire, you need some
sort of switching as well, and also (the hard part) a way to detect from
the DAW software which position the switch should be in. This was
standard procedure with real multitrack tape recorders, but today's
users (and hence manufacturers) seem to have discarded the concept of
direct hardware monitoring in favor of saving a few bucks and not
compromising a few precious marking dB of noise floor.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Federico]

People keep complaining about latency here.... and my obvious question is
why in God's name they continue using software monitoring. There's really
no reason for it that I can find. Hell, buy a cheap Mackie 1202 and use
it
to make a headphone mix.
--scott

Hi Scott,
IYO which is the easiest way of routing the signal both to the AD converter
and the monitor mixer? Y cable?
F.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:02:29 GMT, Mike Rivers
wrote:

Monitoring latency can only be beat by a wire that goes from the input
to the output, but that seems to be too expensive for manufacturers to
put in nowadays. It requires real hardware and it's soooooo much cheaper
in dollars to turn the audio around in software.

What you can do with a digi-box and a laptop is amazing, but we seem
to waste rather too much time moaning about its limitations. A more
flexible system with all the routing you want in an external mixer is
almost as cheap, for those who want it.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Federico wrote:
People keep complaining about latency here.... and my obvious question is
why in God's name they continue using software monitoring. There's really
no reason for it that I can find. Hell, buy a cheap Mackie 1202 and use
it
to make a headphone mix.

IYO which is the easiest way of routing the signal both to the AD converter
and the monitor mixer? Y cable?

Yes. We're not living in the constant-power 600 ohm world any more, so there
is no reason not to Y with impunity.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Federico wrote:

IYO which is the easiest way of routing the signal both to the AD converter
and the monitor mixer? Y cable?

It depends on where the signal originates. If it's from a mic and you
have an outboard mic preamp, then yes, you can use a Y cable to split
the preamp output to an A/D converter and a line input of the mixer. If
your mic preamp is the mixer, then you'll want to use a direct or insert
output (right off the mic preamp) to feed the converter. It's not a good
idea to split a microphone with a Y cable (to go into the mixer's mic
input and the mic input on a preamp/converter) since that will change
the loading on the mic, which will change its sound.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

This is what my AudioFire 12 setup can do:

1.The alignment of the track that is in the process of being recorded can be
compensated by a DAW setting, at least with Cubase.

Yawn! That makes the track come out in the right place when you play it
back. It has nothing to do with input monitoring.

2. The AudioFire 12, like most other firewire devices, has a built-in DSP
mixer, in effect, a wire from input to output, with great flexibility.

That's where you've fallen for the hype. I've used the phrase "zero
latency monitoring, for large values of zero." That DSP mixer doesn't
take very much time to process the signal, but it needs to be converted
from analog to digital before it gets there, and back to analog so you
can hear it. So you never get away from the A/D/A conversions, each of
which take about 1.5 msec with modern converters. It's not actually the
conversion process that takes the time, it's the filters which are built
from delay lines. I won't argue that 1.5-3 msec delay will throw off
your playing, but if you're singing or speaking and listening to your
own voice on headphones with slight delay, you'll hear the effect of
comb filtering when the delayed sound in the phones combines with the
real time sound that your throat makes.

The only way to get around this delay is to connect the analog input
(say the mic preamp output) to the monitor output with a piece of wire,
or through an analog mixer. The lowly TASCAM US-122 did this but
everybody else seems to want to use a digital mixer, which means A/D and
D/A conversion delays between input and output.

3. The only kind of latency that cannot be compensated involves the use of
realtime effects. The latency involved here is large.

None of those problems existed when we had analog recorders and
consoles. We could still build equipment that works properly, but it
would sell for more than $1.49 and nobody would buy it.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Here In Oregon]

The Apogee is entirely acceptable for typical work, and it's better than
any of the converters 15 years ago were, but it's not high end by any
stretch of the imagination.

Apogee AD-16X is *high end* and I don't care what people tell you. Flame on!
Go listen to them. It blows anything out of the water in its price range
except I admit I have not heard the Aurora although I did own a Lynx 2 card
once. I have tried a lot of converters over the years including other
Apogees and can't recommend the AD-16X enough. It also has a great word
clock which is very important. I am also using it along with the RME 9652
which will work great for you since you have one unless you need to free up
a PCI slot. I also use the RME 9632 for my GigaDaw and light pipe over to my
main DAW into the 9652.




"HKC" wrote in message
k...
The Apogee is entirely acceptable for typical work, and it's better than
any of the converters 15 years ago were, but it's not high end by any
stretch of the imagination.


I´m sorry for the headline, I just didn't want a lot of posts about how
great the M-Audio and Behringer stuff is. I have RME now and I like them
but they are 24/48 which is fine by me but clients seem to ask more and
more about the bandwidth.
If I look at medium/high end studios around the world it seems to me like
Digidesign, RME, MOTU and Apogee almost sits on all converters in that
league so that's what I'm looking at.
What is really important to me is how well the soundcard actually works,
does it deliver the low latency, how many tracks before you have to change
the buffersetting etc.

[Here In Oregon]

My bad. I had no idea Dr. Dorsey said the quote which I replied too. I
definitely don't want a flame war with you and did not mean to infer that
people tell you what is good and you take it as fact. I thought I was
directing my post to the OP who was asking for advice. I have learned a lot
from you over the years and really appreciate the time you give,.. but Scott
how could you. High end is very subjective I know, but these are really
good converters and many great engineers and producers use them everyday. I
dare you to try a blind comparison test. Remember I was the guy who had his
hearing checked out and tested by a doctor in audiology not too long ago and
we all have a different set of ears and I know we all hear things
differently and all, but Scott how could you...sniff...sniff


The Apogee is entirely acceptable for typical work, and it's better than
any of the converters 15 years ago were, but it's not high end by any
stretch of the imagination.


Apogee AD-16X is *high end* and I don't care what people tell you. Flame
on! Go listen to them. It blows anything out of the water in its price
range except I admit I have not heard the Aurora although I did own a Lynx
2 card once. I have tried a lot of converters over the years including
other Apogees and can't recommend the AD-16X enough. It also has a great
word clock which is very important. I am also using it along with the RME
9652 which will work great for you since you have one unless you need to
free up a PCI slot. I also use the RME 9632 for my GigaDaw and light pipe
over to my main DAW into the 9652.





"Here In Oregon" wrote in message
. ..
The Apogee is entirely acceptable for typical work, and it's better than
any of the converters 15 years ago were, but it's not high end by any
stretch of the imagination.

Apogee AD-16X is *high end* and I don't care what people tell you. Flame
on! Go listen to them. It blows anything out of the water in its price
range except I admit I have not heard the Aurora although I did own a Lynx
2 card once. I have tried a lot of converters over the years including
other Apogees and can't recommend the AD-16X enough. It also has a great
word clock which is very important. I am also using it along with the RME
9652 which will work great for you since you have one unless you need to
free up a PCI slot. I also use the RME 9632 for my GigaDaw and light pipe
over to my main DAW into the 9652.




"HKC" wrote in message
k...
The Apogee is entirely acceptable for typical work, and it's better than
any of the converters 15 years ago were, but it's not high end by any
stretch of the imagination.


I´m sorry for the headline, I just didn't want a lot of posts about how
great the M-Audio and Behringer stuff is. I have RME now and I like them
but they are 24/48 which is fine by me but clients seem to ask more and
more about the bandwidth.
If I look at medium/high end studios around the world it seems to me like
Digidesign, RME, MOTU and Apogee almost sits on all converters in that
league so that's what I'm looking at.
What is really important to me is how well the soundcard actually works,
does it deliver the low latency, how many tracks before you have to
change the buffersetting etc.

[Here In Oregon]

"Agent 86"
One of the qualifications for being "High end" is you don't have to say
"in
it's price range".

Very good point Max.

I hear you have a new movie coming out.

Do you use a cell phone now instead of your shoe? ;-)

[Richard Webb]

To: kludge
SCott wrote:

People keep complaining about latency here.... and my obvious question is
why in God's name they continue using software
monitoring. There's really no reason for it that I can find. Hell,
buy a cheap Mackie 1202 and use it to make a headphone mix.
A lot of them feed their daw directly from mic preamps, no mixer anywhere
around. TO do the 1202 thing they've have to figure out mults from the mic pre
outs, a mult patchbay might be the answer.

THe weakness with the 202 for this imho is that you're rather limited. I think
I"d want something like a cheapo rack mount line mixer.

The 1202 has the 4 mic input channels which can be panned etc. OTherwise,
you've got the other 4 (called 8) channels which are stereo line ins only.
Hence not as much control, but quick and dirty you can probably make it work.



Regards,
Richard
USe elspider at bellsouth dot net to email ...

--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85
* Derby City Online - Louisville, KY - telnet://derbycitybbs.com

[Mike Rivers]

Here In Oregon wrote:

Apogee AD-16X is *high end* and I don't care what people tell you. Flame on!
Go listen to them. It blows anything out of the water in its price range

You've just qualified it with "in its price range." If you spend more
money, you can get a better converter. I know that there are plenty of
people like you who are perfectly happy with it, and there's nothing
wrong with that, but when someone wants to do better, there's better out
there.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Here In Oregon]

"Mike Rivers"
You've just qualified it with "in its price range." If you spend more
money, you can get a better converter. I know that there are plenty of
people like you who are perfectly happy with it, and there's nothing wrong
with that, but when someone wants to do better, there's better out there.

Okay, I hear you. It's just that there has been a trend in more than one
forum giving Apogee this mediocre rating that it is a fine mid-range
converter and it is not. It's very good converter IMHO and the OP was using
Logic and might have had a proclivity or predisposition to Apogee in the
first place. My mixes really opened up in a way I have never heard before in
my studio and I have recorded in some of the best studios in the world as an
artist. My engineering skills have been slowly developing for decades. It is
not a field for sissies or simple minded people like me but I have *good*
ears and just happened to buy this product before I even heard it based on
some recomendations by that engineer I flew in last year for eight plus
weeks, as well as others. I normally don't buy before listening but I feel
really lucky getting this product. I have no relationship to Apogee and I am
sure there are better boutique converters for thousands of dollars more but
that doesn't make this product mediocre.

However, there are many, many rich producers and engineers who prefer it to
this day and they could afford any product. Oh, and artists from Mark
Knoffler, to Eddie Van Halen (who compared it to TAPE, he only used tape
until now), I could go on and on. It might just be the most *popular pro*
converter in the world right now. With all due respect to Apogee's
competition I almost feel at times they have *plants*. A person or thing put
into place in order to mislead or function secretly, especially:
1.. A person placed in a group of spectators to influence behavior.
2.. A person stationed in a given location as a spy or observer.
3.. A misleading piece of evidence placed so as to be discovered.
4.. A remark or action in a play or narrative that becomes important later
No disrespect to you though Dr. Rivers and I totally respect your opinion.
You have helped me out through the years as well and I really do appreciate
your time.

HIO

wrote in message news:XwJZj.137$3j.35@trnddc05...
Here In Oregon wrote:

Apogee AD-16X is *high end* and I don't care what people tell you. Flame
on! Go listen to them. It blows anything out of the water in its price
range

You've just qualified it with "in its price range." If you spend more
money, you can get a better converter. I know that there are plenty of
people like you who are perfectly happy with it, and there's nothing wrong
with that, but when someone wants to do better, there's better out there.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me
he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:50:41 -0700, "Here In Oregon"
wrote:

I normally don't buy before listening but I feel
really lucky getting this product. I have no relationship to Apogee and I am
sure there are better boutique converters for thousands of dollars more but
that doesn't make this product mediocre.

However, there are many, many rich producers and engineers who prefer it to
this day and they could afford any product. Oh, and artists from Mark
Knoffler, to Eddie Van Halen (who compared it to TAPE, he only used tape
until now),


This sounds like we're getting away from "Hi End Converters" and
talking more about "Converters with a front end that adds pleasant
distortion".

[Mike Rivers]

Here In Oregon wrote:

Okay, I hear you. It's just that there has been a trend in more than one
forum giving Apogee this mediocre rating that it is a fine mid-range
converter and it is not.

It's not mediocre at any price range, but it IS a mid-range converter.
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with being a mid-range converter. I'm
a mid-range engineer, probably you are too. I have a mid-range DAW, a
mid range field recorder, a mid-range speaker system, so it's a good
fit. An $8,000 Prism would probably be wasted on someone for whom an
Apogee is a good fit. An Apogee would probably be wasted on someone who
thinks his M-Audio or Edirol sounds fine.

My mixes really opened up in a way I have never heard before in
my studio

What were you using before you got the Apogee?

However, there are many, many rich producers and engineers who prefer it to
this day and they could afford any product.

That's because it's good enough for them and they don't need to take the
time to try to find something better just for the sake of being better.
When they find the need to use something better, believe me, they can,
and will. But you should understand that Bob Clearmountain's wife is the
head honcho at Appogee, so that's what he uses in his studio. He could
probably get just as good results with something a little lower down the
scale and not get significantly better results with something higher up
the scale.

There's nothing wrong with Apogee, but there are other options (even in
the price range) that may be better for some users. Don't feel put down
because of your choice, but don't try to convince people that there's no
need to get anything else. Once we get to a certain level, we don't
always buy gear because we need it (because we probably don't), we buy
gear because it makes us feel better about what we have to work with,
maybe it'll improve our workflow, maybe it will interface easier with
another new piece of gear, and it MAY eventually improve our sound.

With all due respect to Apogee's
competition I almost feel at times they have *plants*. A person or thing put
into place in order to mislead or function secretly

I doubt that. I'm certainly not one, nor is Scott. We're just realistic
enough not to accept all the hype and quotes from famous people, and
judge a product by what it is, inside and out. APOGEE IS NOT THE BEST
CONVERTER THERE IS. Period. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, but I'd
also suggest that a potential buyer look at alternatives, perhaps do his
own evaluation, and make an intelligent decision, not one based on what
some defender on the net says.

Sadly, there's a different way of doing business in pro audio today than
20 years ago. There are many more people wanting to purchase gear at low
prices (because they can) and traditional dealers with showrooms and
knowledgeable sales people can't afford to stay in business in the
traditional way. And the customers for the most part have followed the
new "do my research and then mail order from the cheapest" model.

While any reputable dealer (even mail order) will offer the opportunity
to evaluate a fairly high end product, all too many customers either
don't have the capacity to make a good evaluation on their own or simply
consider it to be too much trouble. I don't know how many times I've
suggested that someone considering a piece of equipment buy it, use it
for a couple of weeks, and return it for a refund if it doesn't do what
he expects. Or buy two or three similarly functional units, compare
them, keep the one he likes best, and return the others. But it seems
that too many people are reluctant to do that. Either they're just in
too much of a hurry, they don't want to take the time to make a careful
evaluation, they don't think it's ethical, or they don't have a big
enough credit limit so that they can work out such a deal.

They deserve what they get. Fortunately it's hard to go too far wrong
with professional grade pro audio equipment, but there are differences
which may (or may not) matter - and if you don't make an evaluation for
yourself, you won't know what those differences are.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Here In Oregon]

Well Mike, you make some excellent points and I get your main point that the
AD-16X is a mid-range converter and that it is fine for many people and that
there are others out there who might want something much better.
Okay,...(breath) but there were also quotes like these are "mid-line
converters", and "not high end by any stretch of the imagination" in this
*thread* alone. I have heard mediocre also used elsewhere.

My main point though is that this kind of talk is very subjective and I
think you concur somewhat by what you said.

What were you using before you got the Apogee?

Older Apogees and a half dozen other products including the Lynx 2, RME,
etc. and this is where my point comes in. I am an analogue guy going way
back. There have been hundreds of converters over the years that Pro studios
used and got great results, but again subjective. Who says? me, you, Scott,
record sales.
Converters have gotten so good now that die hard analogue guys are jumping
off that wagon (recording medium) in droves. I jumped ship years ago
because I have a recording phobia of tape degradation. You know,.. we have
to get this in a few takes because we don't want to have to copy the master
again kind of thinking.

Now let us look at these Apogees, the Ad-16X's. This is Apogees top of the
line converter ever. They have been doing this for over twenty years and
this is their top of the line ever. Now let us compare them to all of the
converters out there that are available today. Are they in the top fifty
percent? Of course, no argument from you, eh. Good, I am glad you agree!
Okay, we now have Weiss, Prism, Lynx, Crane Song, SSL, Lavry, Benchmark
(which I am currently using also) a few others etc. Next? Okay, and we
also have a hundred or so other ones that most likely are inferior by the
standards you and Scott and others and I might say. My point is when you
compare this product to the hundred or so other converters, it is in the top
tier or top ten percent. Top shelf where the cookies lay.

To me that is high end! I know, very subjective, but do a comparative
analysis with what is available and where the Apogees might sit and you will
find they are in the top ten percent of the converters available.
People are sometimes swayed by how much something may cost and can't even
hear the difference in quality at the level we have today. It is just not
going to get much better than this. Hearing has its capacity due to the
limitations of our human ears and our own human physiology. I have mentioned
this before when I talked about how we each as individuals have our own
unique *earprint*. What Tom, Dick or Harry says doesn't mean squat because
they are hearing a true representation of what *they* can hear. No one can
say this sounds better without it becoming extremely subjective unless you
want to do a statiscal poll. It still doesn't make it scientific though when
you look at the myriad of complex variables, like how many people were
polled and how many are enough, etc.

Joe thinks a Lexus is high end. Peter thinks his BMW is. Janet knows her
Mercedes is. Bill is certain his Porsche Carrera GT is. Paul loves his
Lamborghini. Mary loves her Ferrari Enzo and loves the way it sounds and she
is certain it is high end. Compare these cars to the rest that are out
there and they are definitely *high end*.

I am no etymologist but I understand semantics and the different
connotations that words can have.

I also stand by my most subjective commentary ever that the Apogee AD-16X
are *high end* and so is my Benchmark.

Thanks!

HIO


"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:2iTZj.57$4c.11@trnddc08...
Here In Oregon wrote:

Okay, I hear you. It's just that there has been a trend in more than
one forum giving Apogee this mediocre rating that it is a fine mid-range
converter and it is not.

It's not mediocre at any price range, but it IS a mid-range converter.
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with being a mid-range converter. I'm a
mid-range engineer, probably you are too. I have a mid-range DAW, a mid
range field recorder, a mid-range speaker system, so it's a good fit. An
$8,000 Prism would probably be wasted on someone for whom an Apogee is a
good fit. An Apogee would probably be wasted on someone who thinks his
M-Audio or Edirol sounds fine.

My mixes really opened up in a way I have never heard before in my studio

What were you using before you got the Apogee?

However, there are many, many rich producers and engineers who prefer it
to this day and they could afford any product.

That's because it's good enough for them and they don't need to take the
time to try to find something better just for the sake of being better.
When they find the need to use something better, believe me, they can, and
will. But you should understand that Bob Clearmountain's wife is the head
honcho at Appogee, so that's what he uses in his studio. He could probably
get just as good results with something a little lower down the scale and
not get significantly better results with something higher up the scale.

There's nothing wrong with Apogee, but there are other options (even in
the price range) that may be better for some users. Don't feel put down
because of your choice, but don't try to convince people that there's no
need to get anything else. Once we get to a certain level, we don't always
buy gear because we need it (because we probably don't), we buy gear
because it makes us feel better about what we have to work with, maybe
it'll improve our workflow, maybe it will interface easier with another
new piece of gear, and it MAY eventually improve our sound.

With all due respect to Apogee's competition I almost feel at times they
have *plants*. A person or thing put into place in order to mislead or
function secretly

I doubt that. I'm certainly not one, nor is Scott. We're just realistic
enough not to accept all the hype and quotes from famous people, and judge
a product by what it is, inside and out. APOGEE IS NOT THE BEST CONVERTER
THERE IS. Period. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, but I'd also
suggest that a potential buyer look at alternatives, perhaps do his own
evaluation, and make an intelligent decision, not one based on what some
defender on the net says.

Sadly, there's a different way of doing business in pro audio today than
20 years ago. There are many more people wanting to purchase gear at low
prices (because they can) and traditional dealers with showrooms and
knowledgeable sales people can't afford to stay in business in the
traditional way. And the customers for the most part have followed the new
"do my research and then mail order from the cheapest" model.

While any reputable dealer (even mail order) will offer the opportunity to
evaluate a fairly high end product, all too many customers either don't
have the capacity to make a good evaluation on their own or simply
consider it to be too much trouble. I don't know how many times I've
suggested that someone considering a piece of equipment buy it, use it for
a couple of weeks, and return it for a refund if it doesn't do what he
expects. Or buy two or three similarly functional units, compare them,
keep the one he likes best, and return the others. But it seems that too
many people are reluctant to do that. Either they're just in too much of a
hurry, they don't want to take the time to make a careful evaluation, they
don't think it's ethical, or they don't have a big enough credit limit so
that they can work out such a deal.

They deserve what they get. Fortunately it's hard to go too far wrong with
professional grade pro audio equipment, but there are differences which
may (or may not) matter - and if you don't make an evaluation for
yourself, you won't know what those differences are.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me
he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:33:39 -0700, "Here In Oregon"
wrote:

Joe thinks a Lexus is high end. Peter thinks his BMW is. Janet knows her
Mercedes is. Bill is certain his Porsche Carrera GT is. Paul loves his
Lamborghini. Mary loves her Ferrari Enzo and loves the way it sounds and she
is certain it is high end. Compare these cars to the rest that are out
there and they are definitely *high end*.

So is that what you get with a "high end" converter? No luggage
space, no passenger space but a lot of styling and a price tag you can
boast about?

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:33:39 -0700, "Here In Oregon"
wrote:

Joe thinks a Lexus is high end. Peter thinks his BMW is. Janet knows her
Mercedes is. Bill is certain his Porsche Carrera GT is. Paul loves his
Lamborghini. Mary loves her Ferrari Enzo and loves the way it sounds and she
is certain it is high end. Compare these cars to the rest that are out
there and they are definitely *high end*.

So is that what you get with a "high end" converter? No luggage
space, no passenger space but a lot of styling and a price tag you can
boast about?

You know, I would consider high end to be any gear that was designed
without budget in mind, only function.

[Mike Rivers]

Here In Oregon wrote:

I am an analogue guy going way
back. There have been hundreds of converters over the years that Pro studios
used and got great results, but again subjective. Who says? me, you, Scott,
record sales.

Converters have gotten so good now that die hard analogue guys are jumping
off that wagon (recording medium) in droves.

For many years, my digital recording setup was a Sony PCM501 processor
into a VCR. I was getting better recordings with that than with my
analog setup mostly because I was using $1500 or os analog recorders and
the PCM setup was quieter and had flatter frequency response than what
my analog system could do. It had its own flavor of distortion, sure,
and we eventually learned not to like that and got better (and for
cheaper). But those PCM tapes, those that still play, still sound pretty
good. I moved to DAT with better converters, and now most often I'm
mixing to a Lynx L22 in my computer or to my new toy, a Korg MR-1000.
But you know, the recording gear is now better than the talent I'm
recording deserves (and is willing to pay for). That, of course, is a
different story.

Now let us look at these Apogees, the Ad-16X's. This is Apogees top of the
line converter ever. They have been doing this for over twenty years and
this is their top of the line ever.

And next year they'll come out with something better still. Will you
jump on that? Or is what you have now good enough for a while yet?

Now let us compare them to all of the
converters out there that are available today. Are they in the top fifty
percent? Of course, no argument from you, eh. Good, I am glad you agree!
Okay, we now have Weiss, Prism, Lynx, Crane Song, SSL, Lavry, Benchmark
(which I am currently using also) a few others etc. Next? Okay, and we
also have a hundred or so other ones that most likely are inferior by the
standards you and Scott and others and I might say. My point is when you
compare this product to the hundred or so other converters, it is in the top
tier or top ten percent. Top shelf where the cookies lay.

That's a fair assessment, but wise men and women in audio have often
said that the last 10% (or 5%) - however you measure it - costs far more
than the first 90%. But there's really not a big difference in the top
50-90% range - maybe subtle, and individual preferences, but most of us
wouldn't reject any of it as being inadequate. So the AD-16x is at the
top of almost the top.

People are sometimes swayed by how much something may cost and can't even
hear the difference in quality at the level we have today.

True, and sometimes people believe that they can hear a difference when
they spend more money.

Joe thinks a Lexus is high end. Peter thinks his BMW is. Janet knows her
Mercedes is. Bill is certain his Porsche Carrera GT is. Paul loves his
Lamborghini. Mary loves her Ferrari Enzo and loves the way it sounds and she
is certain it is high end. Compare these cars to the rest that are out
there and they are definitely *high end*.

I think people can (and should) get more emotional about cars than A/D
and D/A converters. Cars can do so much more, and nobody ever really had
fun with a converter.

When we agree on what "high end" is, we can compartmentalize. Otherwise,
it's better just to recommend what you like and explain what makes you
like it (that's the hard part).


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Here In Oregon]

"Laurence Payne"
So is that what you get with a "high end" converter? No luggage
space, no passenger space but a lot of styling and a price tag you can
boast about?

That is funny!!!!!!!!



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:33:39 -0700, "Here In Oregon"
wrote:

Joe thinks a Lexus is high end. Peter thinks his BMW is. Janet knows her
Mercedes is. Bill is certain his Porsche Carrera GT is. Paul loves his
Lamborghini. Mary loves her Ferrari Enzo and loves the way it sounds and
she
is certain it is high end. Compare these cars to the rest that are out
there and they are definitely *high end*.

So is that what you get with a "high end" converter? No luggage
space, no passenger space but a lot of styling and a price tag you can
boast about?

[Here In Oregon]

"Mike Rivers"

And next year they'll come out with something better still. Will you jump
on that? Or is what you have now good enough for a while yet?

I will never buy another converter no matter how much money I can afford in
my lifetime unless ear transplants become as common as breast implants, I
need more outputs in the D/A conversion department,
or one of my current converters fail.

People are sometimes swayed by how much something may cost and can't even
hear the difference in quality at the level we have today.

True, and sometimes people believe that they can hear a difference when
they spend more money.

That was the main point in what I was trying to say, you just said it much
better with less words.

That's a fair assessment, but wise men and women in audio have often said
that the last 10% (or 5%) - however you measure it - costs far more than
the first 90%. But there's really not a big difference in the top 50-90%
range - maybe subtle, and individual preferences, but most of us wouldn't
reject any of it as being inadequate. So the AD-16x is at the top of almost
the top.

Well said.

When we agree on what "high end" is, we can compartmentalize. Otherwise,
it's better just to recommend what you like and explain what makes you like
it (that's the hard part).

Yes, I totally agree because it is subjective to say this is high end or
"Absolute Hi End Converters" as the original poster titled this thread. That
is why I joined in and commented as I did because the terminology being used
was compartmentalizing as you say or categorizing products into arbitrary
classifications.

[Scott Dorsey]

Here In Oregon wrote:

Okay, I hear you. It's just that there has been a trend in more than one
forum giving Apogee this mediocre rating that it is a fine mid-range
converter and it is not. It's very good converter IMHO and the OP was using
Logic and might have had a proclivity or predisposition to Apogee in the
first place. My mixes really opened up in a way I have never heard before in
my studio and I have recorded in some of the best studios in the world as an
artist. My engineering skills have been slowly developing for decades. It is
not a field for sissies or simple minded people like me but I have *good*
ears and just happened to buy this product before I even heard it based on
some recomendations by that engineer I flew in last year for eight plus
weeks, as well as others. I normally don't buy before listening but I feel
really lucky getting this product. I have no relationship to Apogee and I am
sure there are better boutique converters for thousands of dollars more but
that doesn't make this product mediocre.

This is absolutely true. I didn't say it was mediocre, I just said it wasn't
really high end. It's not bad at all. But if you spend more money, you can
get something better.

When you can't spend more money to get something better, that's when you're
in the high end of the market.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:33:39 -0700, "Here In Oregon"
wrote:

Joe thinks a Lexus is high end. Peter thinks his BMW is. Janet knows her
Mercedes is. Bill is certain his Porsche Carrera GT is. Paul loves his
Lamborghini. Mary loves her Ferrari Enzo and loves the way it sounds and she
is certain it is high end. Compare these cars to the rest that are out
there and they are definitely *high end*.

So is that what you get with a "high end" converter? No luggage
space, no passenger space but a lot of styling and a price tag you can
boast about?

You know, I would consider high end to be any gear that was designed
without budget in mind, only function.

Right, and the thing about the high end pro audio gear is that it's
generally designed to do only one function, and to do that function as well
as possible. Consequently, they tend to be handbuilt it very close to it,
and consequently there is a lot of attention to detail and a general
willingness on the part of the manufacturer to provide modified versions
of the standard units to perfectly match your application.

Back in the sixties, most pro audio companies were like this, but these days
it's a small niche providing gear that fits needs that mass-produced equipment
does not.

By this standard, Lamborghini and Ferrari are both borderline but Rolls
Royce does pretty much meet the requirements. BMW and Lexus won't even
sell you a real gauge package any more.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 27/05/08 3:08, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

(...)
By this standard, Lamborghini and Ferrari are both borderline but Rolls
Royce does pretty much meet the requirements. BMW and Lexus won't even
sell you a real gauge package any more.

Not true for BMW, they've got a subsidiary called M (formerly M-Technik)
that does customization:
http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/fa...mwm/index.html then click on
"BMW Individual".

And BMW does own Rolls Royce, btw.

--
Joe Kotroczo

[Scott Dorsey]

Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 27/05/08 3:08, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

(...)
By this standard, Lamborghini and Ferrari are both borderline but Rolls
Royce does pretty much meet the requirements. BMW and Lexus won't even
sell you a real gauge package any more.

Not true for BMW, they've got a subsidiary called M (formerly M-Technik)
that does customization:
http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/fa...mwm/index.html then click on
"BMW Individual".

That's true. For the most part, though, they are supplying mix and match
options, rather than actual custom built stuff (which Dinan does). On the
other hand, really guys like Milennia Media are also just providing mix
and match options unless you want something really weird.

And BMW does own Rolls Royce, btw.

All of the best British cars are built by Germans, yes. Coopers too.
Who owns Morgan and Panther now?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

from your post, we have "Weiss, Prism, Lynx, Crane Song, SSL, Lavry",
sitting in some guy's studio, and he says his is better than Apogee. We have
no way of verifying that. The guy who owns the Crane isn't interested in
verifying it. Sometimes he's pleased, and sometimes he isn't, and when he's
pleased, he credits the Crane et al.

This is a good point. Someone who moves up from, say an M-Audio to an
Apogee isn't likely to try a Benchmark or Lavry to see if it's better
than the Apogee. He's already wowed with the improvement and to him, he
now has a high end system. Far too people get an Apogee, Benchmark, and
Lavry converter in at the same time, spend a few weeks recording with
all of them, and then decide which one they like best. But in a shootout
like that, there's really no reason to regret whatever choice he makes.

If verifying a claim is that hard, if the truth is so well hidden, then one
would be a fool to shell out big bucks on some guy's say-so

Only if one really wants to be assured of having the best. But if he's
satisfied with having "high end" then he might as well take a user's
word for it as take a manufactuer's word.

It's a coin toss. Maybe the high-priced spread is better, but the Law of
Diminshing Returns says: not by much.

Quite likely.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)