Can I HAVE a Trak 2 :) . Please!?!

Hi Roger,

I'm about to buy an outboard AD & DA converter for my Tascam 24 bit DAT machine. My shortlist is the PSX-100 Vs the Cranesong Hedd. Many audio folk have advised either are excellent.... but at present its coming out in favour of the Hedd - can you argue otherwise?

With regards,

Are they planning a TDIF interface for the new AD16 ? Thanks. jo

He split before these came in but should be able to ask him to answer em all, (hopefully!) keep em coming.... :)

Boy has HE got a busy schedule, flying all over Europe... Still he got to chill at the Library for a while

He was saying a Parisian dealer tried to organize playoffs between various converters... BUT that the test subject - a live band was recorded live flat - with no EQ or compression and while that might be just fine for some folks (classical music folks perhaps) he was of the opinion that it lead to dreary and rather 'over plain' audio to listen to (certainly not a typical pop recording method)... He said that folks were guessing all sorts of stuff NONE of it conclusive...
So the test was rather hamstrung by it's own paranoia... :)

Thanks, Jules, for the kind words (your PR check is in the mail :cool: ).

Here's the shoot-out report:

(Dead Link Removed)

Best,

Jon

Hi Jules,

Many thanks for receiving me in your studio at such short notice; Jon encouraged me to give you a call when I met him in Paris.
I've participated in countless shoot-outs during my time at Apogee, and have formulated a general sense of what constitutes a valid listening test. There's quite a science to comparison methods, but most of what I've learned comes from experience.

First, when setting up a listening test, I think it's paramount to focus on a few parameters, and limit the scope of the test. We can all come up with millions of things to compare, but if too much is attempted during one test, it's easy to become confused or lose focus. With this in mind, I find it most useful to compare 3 sound source: 1) the original sound source, 2) that source through System A and 3) that source through System B; the systems are separate but identical in every way but the item under test, and all three sources are unidentified. Be careful that they are patched identically as well; for example, if listening to the output of an analog mixer in comparison to two systems patched to 2 track tape returns, patch the console output to a third 2 track return.

Second, the sound source, whether a live recording or excellent analog tape, ideally will have a well-defined stereo space and an extended range. Multiple channels of AD-DA conversion can help identify charcateristics; for example, the good 'ol transfer of 2" into your DAW of choice will effectively identify the fidelity of your converters.

Third, the tests should obviously take place in a control room with decent monitoring, and each system should be carefully calibrated. I'm always surprised by the number of folks who don't quite understand calibration issues and aren't equipped to calibrate their studio, and I always bring a voltmeter that can read dBu to every test, to verify DAW I/O levels right at the connectors.

My experience is that, if a test is successful, a general concensus is reached in a room concerning the characteristics of each unidentified source. From there, some may actually prefer lower resolution , but the ultimate goal for us at Apogee is fidelity to the original source. If I have the 3 sources noted above, I expect to identify 2 sources that are closer to each other than the 3rd. If the 2 similar choices are 1 system and the original, then it seems to me that one system has accomplished it's goal better than another system; if the 2 similar choices are the 2 systems, then they're both capturing the original about equally.

Concerning the tests at Mille et Un Sons, I have to congratulate them for the initiative taken to stage such an event, with an attendance of over 200 people over 2 days; rarely will a distributor go to such lengths to hold a non-biased presentation of competing products. I would have wished that the tests corresponded a bit closer to the criteria noted above, but it wasn't my event! The fact that the results were a bit all over the map indicates that conditions could have been better, but I believe that the folks at Mille et Un Sons learned from this first experience, and will adjust for further similar events in the future. The fact that they made the effort, invited representatives from the various manufacturers and got such a turnout is a big step in the right direction.

Roger Robindore
Apogee Electronics

Dynamo,

The AD-16 comes with ADAT Lightpipe as standard, as well as the option to add 1 other interface, either AES or TDIF.

Roger Robindore
Apogee Electronics

Mike,

Thanks for considering Apogee; I'll give you my perspective of the PSX-100 and the HEDD 192.
Our goal at Apogee is to optimize the transfer of signals in a digital studio, whether from analog to digital and back, from one format to another, or from 24 to 16 bits. The Crane Song HEDD 192, on the other hand, is focused on the emulation of older technologies such as tubes and tape in DSP (though the PSX-100 does have Soft Limit, an analog process). Thus, your choice of converter is determined by what you expect of it, and your work philosophy. Do you want a digital system to reproduce what you've given it, or do you expect the system to add something of it's own? Is the ability of the PSX-100 to transfer between several formats, including recording of 24/96k material on a 16-bit 8 track machine, useful? How do you plan to make CDs? The Hedd 192 does include dither, but the PSX-100 includes UV22HR, which many consider the industry standard for bit resolution reduction.
These are just a few of the features in the PSX-100's "digital toolbox"; I hope this has helped you to delineate the differences between the two units, and make your choice easier.

Roger Robindore
Apogee Electronics