I have a motu 828 mkii and I got a 2 ch apogee rosetta going in via spdif- I was fairly happy with my 828 until a friend brought his rosetta over and I heard the difference- the sound is cleare, the drums tighter and more detailed- everything has more air, is less muddy. When I heard it i just had to have one and got it. By the way, the clock of the rosetta is much better than the motu

:wink:

If money is an issue, I've been impressed with the Aardvark stuff, esp the q10. The stereo image is really wide and well defined. And there's a virtual mixer to boot

Thank you maintiger and rhydian for your replies !
Listening to your recordings, mt, it's a fact they really sound open !
Btw your remark about the clock issue makes sense to me.
I sometimes have problems with the MOTU concerning timing,
especially when using VST plug-ins.
Never with the Protools interface.
Anybody allready tried out the RME Fireface 800 ?
I have the impression that RME wants to copy Apogee as far as looks is concerned, but does their gear sound as good ?
Thanks !
:lol:

Didn't Aardvark fall off the planet 6 months ago?

We have Apogee Rosetta 800 converters in our main room and Digi 888's in our edit suite. The difference is quite remarkable... I was actually pretty amazed when we upgraded. The Apogees have far better imaging and clarity. To draw a comparison, it's almost like looking at a photo that's slightly out of focus and then seeing it perfectly in focus. Using good converters is like the sonic comparison to that.

Hope it helps!

rmccam wrote: We have Apogee Rosetta 800 converters in our main room and Digi 888's in our edit suite. The difference is quite remarkable... I was actually pretty amazed when we upgraded. The Apogees have far better imaging and clarity. To draw a comparison, it's almost like looking at a photo that's slightly out of focus and then seeing it perfectly in focus. Using good converters is like the sonic comparison to that.

Hope it helps!

good analogy- I agree :D

Thanks for your comparison rmccam !
Anybody any remarks on RME Fireface opposed to Apogee ?
Btw are all Apogee converters of the same quality ?
( eg Minime to Rosetta ? )
Thanks.

I don't know about apogee stuff, but I know about RME products...
It's the better converter I have ever heard ( compared to MOTU / emu / alesis / aardvark / and ... behringer !

you will be amazed by the dynamics of these ( 115 ~ 117 dB !!! )

they are very detailled, and clear.

Thanks for your reaction aksel !
Anybody had the chance to compare the RME to Apogee ?
Other AD and DA suggestions ?
:)

The Kurzweil Rumor and Mangler are reported to have ADA conversion that is a significant step up from the prosumer stuff. And you get the amazing reverbs/effects to boot.

Hi Shelltones,

Thanks for your reply. I didn't know Kurzweil sold converters seperately. I'll check it out.
I've read on other topics that some people prefer the Apogee
converters and others like the RME Fireface, but did anybody have the chance to compare the two ?
Thanks.

They don't sell them seperately, they are just part of their effects units. I really like my Kurzweil effects (ksp8) but I wouldn't buy it if I only needed converters.

I'm also interested in a head to head comparison of Apogee and RME.

If RME can stand its ground, then its a clear choice.

RME ADACs are ... only about half the cost as Apogee. They also include nice preamps, and some very slick digital mixing features (every output can be a monitor mix bus, etc).

My Fireface800 was one of the best buys I've made in a long while. It definitely is better sounding than my MOTUs (896 and 896HD), but not sure about Apogee....

I have heard a theory that the main difference when you get to decent converters is the clock.
I would love to hear a comparison of the different converters all using a external clock such as the Big Ben.
The inputs would also have to be high, so that the built in pres do not come into the test.
The MOTU 896HD as an example would be a good canidate for this test, because the pre can actually be disabled.
So if the theory is true, many of us may be able to improve what we already have by getting an external clock.
Peace!
Greg Alcorn
Alcorn Studios

Actually greg, we tested the apogee first still with he motu clock and it did make a considerable difference as to the clarity of the recording. Then we switched to the rosetta clock instead of the motu and that seemed to tighten up everything, especially the low end and drums. in our experience both the converters and the clock make a noticeable difference in the recording

we tested the apogee first still with he motu clock and it did make a considerable difference as to the clarity of the recording. Then we switched to the rosetta clock instead of the motu and that seemed to tighten up everything, especially the low end and drums. in our experience both the converters and the clock make a noticeable difference in the recording

So, if we were to get a good external clock (digital timepiece) it should actually improve the sound of certain audio interfaces' A-D conversion??

Concerning RME... one interesting feature of their new Fireface800 is the clock. It uses some kind of quartz crystal and can resolve to any sample rate from 1 to 196khz. Here's a quote from their site:

The Fireface 800 is equipped with SteadyClock™, RME's unique sync and clock technology. With this, the device becomes a sync reference for the whole studio. SteadyClock refreshes clock signals, removes jitter, and takes permanent care of optimal conversion quality, thus guarantees a sensational sound quality, completely independent from the reference clock's quality.

SteadyClock allows the Fireface 800 to control the sample rate freely on its own. The Settings dialog includes a direct choice of the video and audio world's most often used sample rates. Additionally, two faders can be used to set the sample rate freely and in real-time, within the range of +/- 4%.

Via an insert slot on the back, a Time Code Option (TCO) for synchronizing to LTC and video can be added. Thanks to SteadyClock, the Fireface 800 does not only extract absolute positions, but also a very clean low-jitter word clock.

check out dan lavry's forum on pro sound web. alot of arguing and bitch fighting about what external clocks can and can't do etc.

Thanks everybody for your contributions to this topic !
Another thing I might add is that I've heard that the Big Ben clock
in the Apogee converters is actually different quality-wise than
the stand-alone Big Ben unit, which should be better.
Most people agree that the Apogee converters sound better
than the RME's ( without taking external clocking into account ).
After all there is a considerable price-difference.
Cheers !
:)

jimbo_baby84 wrote: check out dan lavry's forum on pro sound web. alot of arguing and bitch fighting about what external clocks can and can't do etc.

Link?

I just have to chime in on clocks here. Be aware that using an external clock may make a converter sound worse. Regardless of the quality of the box sending out the clock signal.

The reason is actually very simple. Making a short-time stable clock, inside a box is extremely simple as things go. You buy a standard crystal and setup the standard circuit. Unless you are a total amateur this will create a clock with very little jitter. It will probably drift slowly with temperature and time and may start a few PPM-s out of correct frequency. (a few PPM = a few parts in a million, ie one cent is at least 1.000 times more so you will not hear the pitch difference, no way).

But making a synchronized clock circuit, synchronizing to an external clock is something completely different. It takes rather complicated circuits and quite a bit of work from the design engineer. Of course it can be done and a lot of solution can be bought in ready integrated circuits. But in general you will get at least one order higher jitter. And this is regardless of the quality of the master clock, the error is created inside the AD box by the circuits there. (RME advertizes that they have a very special solution inside some of their boxes, taking care of this jitter).

So if you start with a midrange AD converter, and have only one unit, stay off the external clocks is my advice.

If you have several units, select one of them as clock and be sure to chain the word clock signal according to the book. That is decent cables, chaining in to in using T connectors and having a terminator at the T. Once this is done, you may test run it against all those highly marketed clocks and see if it is worth the money.

Of course, to be very clear, if you have a lot of AD-s, say more than 4, go for a clock at once.

Gunnar

I haven't heard the Fireface and the newer Apogee converters in an A/B comparison, but I did hear the AD16 (non-X) up against the RME that was the top of their line at the time, which was about two years ago. The Apogee clearly sounded more "real" to me.

So, if we were to get a good external clock (digital timepiece) it should actually improve the sound of certain audio interfaces' A-D conversion??

If you're referring specifically to MOTU's Digital Timepiece, then it won't. If you're using the words "digital timepiece" as a generic term, then it may in some cases.

Another thing I might add is that I've heard that the Big Ben clock
in the Apogee converters is actually different quality-wise than
the stand-alone Big Ben unit, which should be better.

The C777 clock in the Big Ben is the same clock that's in their AD16X and DA16X converters, and it's better than the clock in all of their other converters (which are still very good). It still makes a better master clock, though, if you need to clock multiple devices, which is more an issue of functionality than quality.

If you have several units, select one of them as clock and be sure to chain the word clock signal according to the book. That is decent cables, chaining in to in using T connectors and having a terminator at the T. Once this is done, you may test run it against all those highly marketed clocks and see if it is worth the money.

I guess it depends on which "book" you're referring to. While it may be true that you're better off running off of the internal clock if you're using a single A/D converter with most devices, any time you're using more than one you'd be better off using a distribution amp of some sort, especially one like Big Ben or others that can "clean up" the jitter in a clock signal. Even though they (theoretically) can't improve upon the clock in a well-designed converter, they'll do a better job of clocking the other converters in the system than feeding them a secoond- or third-generation copy of the clock that's been teed off. And with a high-quality digital clock like the Big Ben or (no longer available) Aardsync, many people do hear a difference in even the better converters out there, even though they "shouldn't".

As always, though, using your ears to decide isn't a bad idea at all.

-Duardo

Duardo wrote: Even though they (theoretically) can't improve upon the clock in a well-designed converter, they'll do a better job of clocking the other converters in the system than feeding them a secoond- or third-generation copy of the clock that's been teed off.

This sounds exactly like the kind of misunderstanding that is very common among people. It is NOT a copy (sorry for shouting), it is the same signal going to several inputs in parallell. It is not any second generation signal, it is the very same signal.

Word-clock was designed by people who knew their analog design basics. And as long as you stay within the design limits you should not get any problems at all. You might, just perhaps, get other results with other equipment, but if you want to compare, do it with a correctly setup word-clock.

I will try to get it through here again. (A bit simplified, but a radio frequency engineer will understand where those simplifications are).

Start with one cable. It is a 75 Ohm coaxial cable, commonly used everywhere where high frequencys are involved. The theory and practice about how to send signals down this kind of cable are very well-known and can be read from any number of text books. Admittedly, fewer people reads these books today than say 50 years ago. What I am trying to say is that this is a well-known technology area.

Now put the "master clock" on one end of the cable. On the other end of the cable you put the termination. You might sort of imagine the master sending energy down the cable, and that the terminator makes sure that the energy has a clearly defined place to go to. In this case it becomes heat in the termination. (Not hot to touch, since it is very little energy). Now it is a good idea to keep the cable rather short, say less than 10 meters.

Now you can tap the line with any number of word clock "slaves". One way to tap the signal is with a T connector. The slave has a high impedance input and takes very little energy from the cable. In practice though you would probably put less than 10 units or so on the same cable. More is possible, but you want to measure the system carefully in that case. It is easy to measure the system with a oscilloscope, if you know the technique.

Never use the out connection from a slave device. That signal has gone through a lot of processing and none of it to the better.

Now one last remark. Some companies do sell "magic" boxes to improve the word clock timing and such. I am not saying they are not doing the job, I am only saying that a correctly implemented word clock chain is very good. And as you need to have one terminator on each word clock line anyway, you might as well start by buying the T connectors and terminators. This would allow you to do a correct AB test, and just perhaps if you find no difference you will not go and buy that clock distribution unit. A bit of money saved.

Gunnar Hellquist

:roll:

ghellquist wrote: Never use the out connection from a slave device. That signal has gone through a lot of processing and none of it to the better.

The above all makes good sense
I think loop connections can be fine as he said in the NOT a copy statement

Reclocked and redistributed ADAT optical can be an issue as with any digital form that is reclocked.
It all takes time to process so there is another form of latency.

Analog transfers are just so much more simple

The RME Mystery

I've been scouring forums for the past 2 weeks looking for a review on an RME A/D D/A converter and am thoroughly convinced that not a single soul has ever purchased one. Seriously, how long can people converse over the mysterious RME/Apogee shootout if no one has ever written a single word about the former!!! I give up. Maybe I'll take that as a sign and save up for a Rosetta 200.

:)

I'm dreaming, but just for once I'd like to see the manufacturers show me a high resolution FFT of the jitter measurements of their clocks in action. The problem is that there are, essentially, an infinite number of connection variations between different gear, cables, etc.

But, at least show the jitter of your clock, your converter(s), name the cables used, etc. There's a standard test signal available (J-test) that everyone should use.

For a simple system (single A/D, or D/A) the lowest jitter is going to be with the converter's internal crystal oscillator. Stable, and clean - and that's what is needed.