FYI I have done another test 3 years later (Jun 24) with evo 16 and sp8 and same results. White noise, pink noise, piano and a full mix. Audient at 96khz is more transparent than the lynx at 48khz, but lynx at 48khz is more transparent than audient at 48khz due to it having better anti aliasing filters (they use digital reconstruction filters in the DAC). Lynx isn't coloured and is fully transparent. Audient at 48k is the same. Both nulls on a full mix at 48khz do not result in even a 0.1db difference. So whilst the lynx is technically superior at 48khz, the difference in reality is inaudible and is proof diminishing return on investment. Only your dog will hear the difference 🤣 Also to counter any of the 'how do we know it's actually a lynx converter' rebuttal here is a blog post from lynx themselves on their website asking access analog why they chose the lynx aurora (N) to stick in their racks. www.lynxstudio.com/blog/audio-plug-in-developers-turn-to-lynx/
@PaulThird I own a Prism Titan. I did...dozens of loopback round trip tests until I settled on that unit being the best Price Vs. Performance unit for my needs (mastering). There's nothing wrong with working with what you can afford...but I can't go back. The difference isn't subtle.
Tbh im not gonna lie.. over 3 and a half grand for a nearly 9 year old interface is pretty crazy to me, especially when apollo x6 measures comparible and actually better in certain technical aspects and also has the 2 unison preamps including the real time uad plugin dsp and routing. In 2014 prism and lynx were measuring the best and the science was on their side but now I just can't fathom why the price is still so expensive when in regards to DAC you have topping and RME wiping the floor with everybody and in regards to ADC it's kind of a non issue in today's marketplace I do personally believe for an all round interface the flagship RME stuff is pretty much end game but for a DAC/AMP I can't see past my topping dx7 pro+. I personally couldn't pay over 3 grand for an interface and the headphone amp was cheap quality but if your not bothered about headphones then it's a bit of a non issue. It's justifying that price tag that really sits in my throat but each to their own.
@@PaulThird now I'm not a shill for Prism. It won the shootout at the time (back in 2015) and I haven't felt any need to replace it since. I think they should make a cheaper version without preamps but that's neither here nor there. However...regarding age of design. The next best was the IZ Radar/ADA converter (96 Classic). Which is a compelling argument if you need around 24 I/O. Nothing against UA, but the Classic has been around much longer than the Prism Titan, and it smoked dozens of high end converters. Including what UA was making at the time. Also there's a "musicality" factor. Round Trip very few designs sound better for it in terms of balance if you're not running analog gear. I love RME Too...but nothing they were making at the time could compare with either of those designs. Now I haven't heard this years model with RME and UA...and I'm sure "specwise" they look great on paper. But that round trip test is everything to me.
For what though? Im no expert but arent you have to downgrade it for mixing (if your plugins dont support 96khz) or for the end product where anyyyway itll be downgraded to the standard of 44.1?
@@vadsmixinglab11 I have been mixing at 96kHz for over 12 years. There are audible benefits to using plugins at that sample rate and then as the last step down converting to CD quality. I find most benefits are with compressors and saturation. And now since more music streaming services are going to high-res there is a marketing benefit for higher sample rates as well.
I am now going to record at 96k in the audient as the high end roll off is more apparent in the preamps at 44.1 and 48k. Mixing at 44.1 or 48k isn't going to cause that high end roll off. Remember I've created an ADA loop and printed through the preamps so I've connected the output to the input which is your preamp 🤓 your not using the preamp when mixing unless you have something connected to your input
Another point to note is that the actual analog to digital conversion is taking place within chips from either AKM or ESS. Audient, Lynx, Focusrite, UA, RME and nearly every other interface manufacturer uses the same handful of AD/DA chips. They are all essentially integrators and what they contribute is the analog circuitry that feeds the chip and sometimes the clocking circuitry. Also the bus interface circuitry and firmware etc, although that is less about sound quality. The differences you hear are primarily the analog stages of the converters and not the converters themselves, which have been essentially on equal footing for a long time.
Interface companies didn't all used to use the same chips though. Until Audient broke the mold, high end headphone amps and Burr Brown converters used to cost a pretty penny. The other interface companies had to drop their prices after the iD22 was released onto the scene.
@@matthijsblomjous3671 hopefully a solid clock is a given these days. They used to be very expensive to manufacture but just like everything else electronic, it seems the prices went down substantially when Southeast Asian countries reverse engineered them. About the only components left that does cause a decent amount of money are transformers.
@@RealHomeRecording true, but there's still plenty of difference between clock manufacturers. The difference a Grimm cc1 makes to an Apollo Twin as opposed to its internal clock is truly staggering to me. You'd thought they would've figured it out by now lol
@@matthijsblomjous3671 I wish I have had the honor to listen to such a difference. I wouldn't doubt that what you say is correct based on my experience with a couple high-end interfaces.
Would you be able to find out what the preamp noise Mic input is for the apogee duet 2? I did not see it on the list and I own one and I'm curious. Also plan on buying the apogee 3, great video! Thanks!
thats what ive been finding. Its like spending thousands on gear automatically fixes lots of peoples problems. its just a plaster on a burst pipe. For the pro's its squeezing an extra 2 or 3% but for the rest just fix the pipe and you wont need the plaster lol
@@PaulThird Music gear is the new step climber getting dust in the garage. People buy all this crazy equipment and they're not making music, at least not regularly enough to even learn how to use their gear properly. Force yourself to produce 5 songs per month and gear won't matter. You'll just get better at whatever you have.
@@justoalvarez3940 lol just like me. Have over 25k in gear now and I'd be a fool to say that every piece does not help by a small percentage. I just don't use it but the studio looks nice lol
I listened to a test where someone recorded into a cheap Tascam vs an apogee a full song, in the blind tests I kept choosing the Tascam as sounding better, seemed to have a nicer low end to it.
You just saved me soooo much money as I have the Audient ID14 MkII and was just about to get a Lynx because I thought I needed it for better mixes but you saved me!!!!
Mozart I like Paul & a lot of his content but in this case he needs to get the Actual Lynx Hardware unit in his hands & do some more thorough testing & not an online rendering service like access analog as a user of the service & owner of the Auroa N viciousblissvideos above in the comments already confirmed (for what ever reasons they are not the same)..& from using an Aurora my self the idea that the ID14 can match the openness, transparency & quality that the Lynx Aurora N provides is a pipe dream & an easy one to sell to broke artists...But there are many reasons 1 costs barley more than a couple of nights out and the Other is serval thousands & can be seen recessed in the racks of many of my favorite artist along with their previous converter the aurora 16 & the reason in lynx case is definitely NOT marketing hype or clueless producers & artist...that being said most audio interfaces have come a long way in the last 5-7 years & these days are fairly decent compared to the 1990 & early 2000s units... So if your budget is tight it doesn't l mean you cant record & make great music in the end a great track arrangement & mixdown will trumps all the gear in the world...But when it comes to converters between the Audient & lynx aurora N its really no contest, don't fool your self there.
There's a difference between ADC & DAC. This is what everybody keeps missing with this. What you hear out of your monitors and what is converted from analog to digital is different. Do DAC's have a big difference on the sound you hear coming out of your headphones and monitors.. Yes, true, is this video about the full round trip.. No, its about printing analog gear which is ADC. All this talk of "well get a full lynx aurora in your hands and you'll hear a difference".. Course I'll hear a difference, cause you are bringing in the DAC to the equation, as well as line outs or headphone amps. If I track a vocal through an analog compressor the DAC has no effect whatsoever on the signal. It goes analog signal from the mic, through the compressor to digital in the daw. Gear into the daw which can then be listened through any DAC. Everybody is talking about what they hear, not about null tests which is the only way to compare the transparency of printing analog gear. Of course you are gonna hear a difference in DAC's but if you print gear through an aurora and then listen back to that audio through a cheap ass interface, will it sound like the aurora.. No because you are only hearing the ADC conversion which audio science review has proven to be very good in audients. SO many of you have missed the entire point.. That is the FACTS Take out the DAC and focus on the ADC. Then you'll reach the same conclusion as I did which is that a lynx aurora won't give you an inaudible null with its conversion. Print a mix through the aurora and then listen on a cheap interface with shitty headphones and tell me that it's got this amazing depth, detail and magic.. It won't
Right well do a null test and prove it then. Match both properly with the same converters. Gain stage correctly Level match and then pass a triple blind test. And then show the difference in the null. I'm all for people showing if access analog potentially has any degradation of audio but I've not seen any science to prove that yet. All I've seen are poorly matched AB's. Show the science and then at least there will be some credibility to the claims but as of now, its all just unproven subjective claims. So many have the fusion and I'm yet to hear of anybody prove for definite that theres a big difference. I'm all for it but prove it with science, not objectivity
I'm a man of science so I need proof to personally take any claims seriously, especially as I've proved so many claims wrong in my time, HOWEVER you are completely entitled to share your opinions and not prove any of your claims to me or anybody else for that matter, but at least you know why I would dismiss it personally but I don't see why that would bother you anyway
I enjoyed this video. I would like to see a REW sweep of both interfaces. The null test works. It would be cool to see the frequency response of both converters and different sample rates.
You got a shoutout in my newest video where I reveal my face for the first time. You helped me on my converter journey and I couldn't be more grateful.
I fell down the UAD rabbit hole a couple of years back and bought an Apollo twin x, with all the plugins.. Then I learned about 500 series just recently lol, I have just got a 500 series rack with some 500 series hardware but.. I have only just found out I cannot by pass the pre amp in my Apollo twin x, Do you think it should be ok or Will it effect my sound? I was even thinking of buying an ID24 just for the fact you can by pass the pre amp and the converters are very clean, and the ID24 MKii are cheap to buy. I didn’t see the Apollo in the chart shown in your video I’m curious to know what the noise is on the Apollo twin x compared to the rest of them, Thank you I learn a lot from your channel great videos!
I imagine you should be fine. Depends on how linear the preamps are but it's not something I'd be sweating over. If the 500 series stuff sounds good to your ears then it sounds good
@@PaulThird drew from uad told me I should be fine he said the pre amp is incredibly linear, and the pre amp input noise is -127db, I thought I would get a second opinion from you though as I value your knowledge and opinions, Thanks for the reply Paul means a lot thank you! Amazing person and amazing channel!
Great video, Paul. Another listening test you could do is the outputs of said converters. What I’d say about the new BLA interface is that the outputs and headphone amp genuinely sound better than other interfaces and certainly for the monitor outputs, this must be down to the D-A conversion. 👌
I still love that test you done by picking up the audio of the headphones with the sonarworks mic.. The method has its flaws but I still think that was a genius move 🤓 a test is still better than no test. What was your take on the cleanliness of the black lion mic pres?
@@PaulThird yeh, that’s defo not scientific but did highlight the affects of the power difference supplied to the headphone amp. The BLA pres are clean. I wanted to avoid a comparison though. In hindsight I should have. Had to send it back though.
@@PaulThird CS4272 that chip only have 110db of DR BUT have lot of vibe with a good bass response and stereo image/depth.I had a focusrite pro 40 and miss it for their color and low sound.It's a good chip for warm, vibey and dark sound. I compared with my 124db AD converter and still miss it when I hear the recordings I made with it. I think there is no coincidence that Black Lion used that chip on 2021.
Three things: 1) one must know how to listen and already developed their ears to a degree (pay attention to things like bass extension for example) 2) without a proper monitoring situation you’ll likely not notice much of a difference 3) Individual tracks do matter, but multiply that across an entire mix…. I wish it didn’t make a difference but it does. Clocking also makes a difference that is quite audible to me. All that being said, we do not need to spend this kind of money to create compelling art. It’s simply a luxury, not a necessity. Just my idiotic opinion for whatever it’s worth. Love your vids Paul
it's unclear what you are talking about. Are you saying running tracks/mixes through analogue gear matters (a tiny bit) for quality? Cause it doesn't.. no matter how many tracks you have in your session. It really doesn't. Now when you have an anlogue recording.. like vocals.. that's when you'll need a good enough room, a good enough mic, a good enough audio interface and (most importantly) a good enough singer.. but other than that analogue gear will not even be a necessity for 2 million dollar productions. It may be neccessary in order to convince someone to pay you 2 million dollars - but that's another story.
@@akagerhard Obviously speaking about the difference high quality converters, in conjunction with proper monitoring and a reasonably developed set of ears can make in terms of allowing us to make better decisions throughout the entire mixing process. I’m sorry but converters do matter. Is it absolutely necessary? No, of course not and there are examples people may cite of hit songs being recorded/mixed under less than ideal conditions. However, it does matter at the end of the day and the difference monitoring through a cheap M-Audio interface compared to one of my better converters (Dangerous Convert, Lynx, Apollo-X) is huge to my ears. When I referenced multiple tracks, I was speaking about the clarity, detail, separation etc provided by decent converters. Ultimately, skills as an engineer, and familiarity with the gear we own make the most difference. We are all just quibbling about tiny details in order to avoid making music LOL. Once I experienced high end converters, however, there was no going back.
I can agree. I would lose quality that's very hard to describe when I start adding tracks on top of tracks on cheaper interfaces. Most would say if user error and I would admit I'm no CLA but I no longer have that issue using Burl and RME ad/da. Not to mention how much better my mixes is translating.
hey Paul you save my money bcos i am going buy some expensive converter for printing mastering file but now i am very happy to stick with my Trusty Audient ID22.
hey sir love ur informative videos ı have some couple question ı have ssl 2 and ı just want to use like ad/da converter for absorb preamp warmth is this possible for while exporting. and what is your best whole channel boost eq (maag,amek 9099,ssl 4000e) which one eq best for you ?
Should be. If you plug inputs into outputs that that should create an ad/DA loop which you can print sources to. You'd just send whatever to a new track with the corresponding input(s) of your interface and record. In terms of channel strips I use acustica. My favourite is magenta (manley suite)
I've always recorded at 44k. I'll probably keep doing that. Most of what I do requires a pretty sizable low pass anyway, other than drums. I feel like the cymbals really need some of the highs reduced anyway, so all good. I can still make my mix sound the way I want without the file size bloat of 96k.
100%. You could record at 192khz, make one bad mixing decision and ruin the sound you've recorded. Its not something that's gonna make or break your mix. If a performance is amazing it'll still sound amazing at 44.1
Paul, I own an Aurora N now after waiting months for it to be built. Right before that I got a 404HD because it has a Cirrus Logic chip that’s about the same as the one in the Aurora N. Unless I mislabeled files, bounces from the 404hd and Apollo Twin nulled. 404HD is a great value. Anyway, the Aurora N decimates the 404hd, Twin, and the original ID14. It’s not just the conversion either. The real Lynx sounds like the Access Analog loop back but 5x better. Lynx also allegedly measures the N itself whereas a lot of companies just reuse the specs from the chips. My Sweetwater rep said Lynx told him the headphone out is 0 impedance. That is big. It sounds phenomenal with a K701 or RS-1 and revealed problems with VSX. How it adds reverb and comb filtering. Another Lynx review talked about how it allows bigger sessions to retain clarity. I’d agree. With my Fusion I no longer have to place a trim plugin after it to avoid feedback noise(and the noise never went away completely with the Twin and 404hd). I’d recommend everyone read Nwavguy’s site about the odac creation. It’s very difficult to get a device to live up to the specs of the chip. Took Nwavguy a lot of trial and error. My plugins all sound a lot better with the N. A lot less thin and anemic. As a listening for fun device, the N is as good as anything I’ve heard at Axpona or a head-fi meet. It’d be worth it just for that if I wasn’t engineering. Audio science review has a lot of measurements of Lynx gear that I found helpful. I’m going to watch your video again. My take at the moment is that a lot of people would be better off investing in an N instead of hundreds of plugins, stacks of hardware, courses, or thousands in head-fi recommendations.
Tbh comments like this is what proves my point in regards to the transparency which is marketed as its all about these NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCES. that's not transparency. Everybody forgets that the whole point of the video was disproving that you lose audio quality by printing analog gear through an audio interface. Id14 on reflection wasnt the best comparison, id44 is as you can bypass the preamps but in regards to what you actually hear out of your monitors is massively affected by the DAC. The plugins sounding better bla bla isn't the plugins actually sounding better. It's just that you prefer the overall sound of the DAC. That's your listening experience, not the plugin actually sounding better. Exact same as mixing on a pair of audeze compared apple ear buds.. The plugins don't actually sound any different but your listening experience does. This test is discussing the ADC not DAC. After buying a topping dx7 pro+ I can fully say with a lot of certainty that a top grade DAC/headphone amp combo will indeed result in a better sound stage, transient response and a more linear listening experience BUT that is seperate to the Analog to digital conversion when printing through gear. When I listen to my topping I have no ADC going on. Purely digital coming from the DAW from USB being converted into an analog signal that I hear out of my headphones. The marketing of lynx talks about the transparency of recording analog gear through it.. The main purpose of it which is to convert a processed analog signal from gear into a digital signal so it can be processed in the DAW. That's why this test was done so in regards to the ADC you can see that 1. Lynx isn't actually that transparent and 2. You don't lose any real perceived quality by printing through interfaces like audient. If we're talking DAC and headphone amp quality then yeah lynx will absolutely trump any audient interface but on the ADC front.. The "fact" that there is significant degradation of audio quality by printing gear through budget audio interfaces like audient is the reason why you need to use a 3 grand converter.. is just a myth perpetuated by companies trying to justify their hefty price tag. As I said in the video, the real justification in price is in the amount of inputs, that's essentially what you are paying for. For those who use tons of gear and consoles etc If you are printing the odd compressor and external preamp then you don't need an aurora. Id44 would do the job just fine without any significant degradation of audio. Just thought I'd clarify that we're not discussing overall conversion in this video but ADC.
@@PaulThird I like the insight, Paul. Here’s the thing about your video and the way you presented it. You’re giving people the impression that they don’t really need an Aurora N if they have an Audient ID14. With taking such a strong stance, I think a more nuanced and comprehensive view would be worthwhile. I almost canceled my order partly because of this video. When people tell you about your presentation and the politics as you made a video about, this is what they mean. There is this whole subculture within the audio industry of people who are telling everyone that they don’t need certain things. It really goes back to Graham Cochrane. I wonder if your results would differ at all with an actual Aurora N there. I can tell you that the results of me saving a file with the ID14 with Access Analog’s Lynx via their plugin is quite a bit different from bouncing it with the real Lynx. Lynx does a lot of marketing about transparency. Their measurements are among the best out there. I have no way of qualifying what you or they say. Is transparency only considering frequency response? I don’t think the ID14 measures as well as the Lynx in some areas. That could result in the N being closer to the source in other ways aside from frequency response. My goal with listening for fun often has to do with transparency in the source and headphone amp. With mixing and mastering, I want to get the sounds that are typical of albums I like. I’m not gonna worry about transparency if I get what I’m looking for. I would have been much better off spending on an Aurora N instead of so many other things. Plugins often do sound kinda anemic compared to the hardware. The Aurora compensates for that to a decent degree one way or another. To simplify it some, the Aurora has enabled me to get much better results than I would be if I was still using the ID14. In that case, I’d have to ask whether the transparency edge you’re saying the ID14 has is providing a lot of value. You should look at the 404hd and that UMC Behringer line. The 404hd is just as good or better than the ID14 and the Twin if you’re just staying ITB. I didn’t think it sounded any worse using Fusion either. But, I couldn’t even get Fusion routed through the ID14 software as I may have said already. With the Twin it was always iffy if it would work. The Fusion hardware is definitely leagues ahead of the plugins too. It can do a lot to make a track sound like a finished album. And that’s what I’m after. You can do a lot ITB. Jake from Blood By Design told me he was just using plugins, reamped guitars, sampled drums, and stuff like Valhalla room and his Ancient One album sounds tremendous. No idea what the mastering guy did. A lot of these mastering people interviewed by Lynx have racks of hardware and tape machines along with an Aurora N. Well Paul, keep up the good work. I enjoy your channel. Just wanted to give you feedback on my experiences.
@@viciousblissvideos I hear what you are saying but in regards to the political side of this, I've spoken to many many big engineers about this and they all agreed that in regards to printing analog gear in a mix with an audient interface, especially the mk2's (I had mk1) that are out now, there wouldn't be any cause for concern. It wouldn't make their mix sound any better or worse. However, what does concern them is the amount of inputs they have as most of these guys have a studio full of gear. If you ask these pros if they were mixing in a bedroom with an id44 and a few warm audio compressors, would they pay 3 grand for a lynx aurora N... Answer is no. They would invest in treating the room & monitoring before anything else. My mastering engineer bought an expensive converter (I wanna say prism but I may be wrong, might be lynx) and he's thinking about selling it already cause he just doesn't get any real benefit out of it. Printed mixes through it and stuff and there's just no real output for his investment, bar the DAC & headphone amp. He got way more output by investing in slate VSX compared to whatever he paid for the converter but it was a lot. I'm trying to be a realistic voice for those trying to make a career out of mixing. I'm in circles with engineers who I look up to and not one of them tell me to invest in expensive converters or analog compressors. Just look at the landscape.. Jaycen Joshua is now 100% itb, where serban has been itb for over a decade. Wtf do they need expensive converters for? When you bounce a mix it happens in the daw. Your interface has NO baring whatsoever on what the sum is. UNLESS you route the mix into the converter like hardware and print the result but at the end of the day what's the point? The lynx aurora isn't a summing mixer, it's an AD/DA. The only only real converter I've heard that actually adds something to an overall track is the lavry gold which was 9 grand if I recall before it was discontinued but engineers seen that as a piece of outboard for printing their mix through. That wasn't their workhorse converters. It was mostly avid HD's cause nearly all of them have protools rigs. When I ask for advice it's always about my ear training. All about the mix, the prep, the vibe, the feel, balance. The only thing they advise me to invest in is the monitoring, cause you can't mix what you can't hear. When it comes to monitoring, I completely agree in a high spec DAC, combined with a an amazing headphone amp. You can't mix what you can't hear.. And lynx SMASHES audient and other budget interfaces in regards to DAC but ADC.. Audio science review has done tests on audient gear and its not the ADC that's the main issues, it's the DAC and headphone amps. That's why i made a video last week discussing the importance of headphones and DAC's when mixing on headphones. Honestly, if you take the time to speak to mixers you respect in the industry you'll found out pretty quick that they don't really give a f*ck about converters. It's something that will never make or break their end result cause they all admit that technology has caught up and what was amazing 10-15 years ago is now a fraction of the price and in most well built audio interfaces. I get told so many stories about how expensive stuff was 10-20 year ago and how lucky I am to be growing in the world I am today where that same technology is now affordable and within reach to the average consumer. The first lynx aurora for example is now seen as "decent" and "alright" compared to today's standards and still costs a grand second hand. Topping has proved that today's modern world can produce measurements that we don't even need to be that good at a fraction of what others charge. If you have tons of gear then yeah you need a solid converter that can give you the I/O, clocking and stable drivers needed to print that gear in the daw.. Its practical. That's what I said in the video. All about your needs but if you genuinely believe that a lynx aurora N and an ssl fusion is what gets your mixes better than the itb guy down the street then my advice is that you are investing in the wrong things. Honestly man, if I was to sit in a room with these guys and tell them that my mixes are gonna better cause I bought a lynx aurora and a fusion id get ripped apart... In a nice way. They'd ask to listen to a mix I'd done on them and then proceed to tell me all the reasons why my mix could be improved and id guarentee you some would ask me to print a mix without the fusion and compare. They wouldn't say.. Wow, you can really hear the lynx conversion there.. They'd tell me practical things about the mix they hear. They wouldn't say.. Wow you can really hear that fusion, they'd ask me how I used it so they could summise if an issue they are hearing is caused by that as its over the entire mix. A lot of these guys will work top to bottom when giving you feedback. Believe it or not, I'm actually one of the good guys here. I'm not telling people to spend 100k on gear to make it as a certain mastering engineer youtuber is at the moment. I'm telling them to focus on what really matters and makes the biggest difference. Splitting hairs on ADC conversion of analog gear you use when mixing isn't gonna turn a shit mix into a great mix, no matter how much you spend. That's what I'll never stop fighting against, is the elitism of parts of the audio community. Telling somebody to spend 3 THOUSAND POUNDS on a converter to run 2 or 3 pieces of gear they can afford is hands down THE WORST advice to give somebody trying to make a career out of mixing from their home studio. Maybe 3 grand is small change for some but for most of my audience.. That's 2 months full wages at least. Their money is better spent on things that actually have a big impact on their end result
@@PaulThird Paul, are you saying that pure ITB files bounced out of a DAW will sound identical from one interface to another? Maybe you aren’t. One of the first tests I did was to see if a bounce from the Lynx sounded the same as one from the Twin or the 404hd. Definitely not the same. If it comes down to something where I could just plug a Topping DAC into the ID14 or the Twin and get the same result, then I’d probably sell the Lynx unless I was able to get more hardware. A big problem that I’ve never seen anyone address is the fact that we don’t have finished mixes to reference. Only mastered tracks. How are we supposed to know what is good enough for a competent mastering engineer to work with? We have no idea who a client may hire either. And a lot of mastering people ask for remixes. So, I decided I’d rather see what I could do to make things sound like a finished track as opposed to focusing on mixing alone. Watch the multiple UA-cam videos of Fusion plugins vs Fusion hardware. It’s a massive difference. I don’t use the Fusion in mixes since it was so hard to route with the budget interfaces and when it did work, it was so different from plugins that whatever track I used it on would stick out. So, I use Fusion to master almost exclusively. And it really does that well. Much better than using a bunch of plugins. Maybe someone with a top notch room, skills, and experience could work a miracle with plugins. Fusion just makes things much easier and faster. I’m quite sure I have heard that a lot of rooms cannot be treated well or at all. Room treatment can be expensive and can also be done wrong. I forget, have you used VSX? My conclusion is that maybe it’s better than relying on a flawed headphone out, but it was throwing off my use of FX like reverb due to the reverb inherent in the plugin. Plus those are closed headphones that bring the problems inherent with that design. It would be good if you were able to try these things in your room outside of access analog. Back when I was mixing on the ID14 and using JBL 305s along with K701s, I’d make stuff that sounded great on them but didn’t translate well on computer speakers in another room. A big reason I got the 305 was because there were claims that they measured extremely well, flat even, in untreated rooms. But they make most anything sound tremendous. It’s very tough to teach mixing or learn from videos. For me, I had to spend a lot of time experimenting with plugins and doing stuff hands on. It also depends on what someone wants to do. I started doing this myself because the samples of work I heard from studios in this area was not what I wanted to do. Stuff was just kinda barebones. A lot of rock and metal became too clean and transparent with all these fake instruments playing too perfectly. Lately I’ve seen productions that are much more in line with what I like. Blood By Design, Foxes, Drown Again, Anathema Optimist, it’s been a relief. Isn’t it often a struggle for people who work on bigger name albums to earn these days? I heard that some in the interviews on the Lynx channel. There’s a converter shootout I’d be interested in your opinion on. I think it was done by Produce like a Pro. They had Burl, JCF, Benchmark, and I think some HDCD thing. Each one radically changed the audio. Another topic it would be good for you to get into is cpu processing. That can be a severe handicap. In 2015, I could run like one instance of Satin tape on what I was using. On my Ryzen 1700 system, I can run a lot more. I’ve done a lot of work over the years trying to figure out what sounded the best and could be used the most. Obviously, if cpu power is unlimited, we could run the best Acustica and Nebula stuff in big quantities. As it stands now, I can’t even run one instance of Azure 2 at 96k in a mastering session with Fusion as an insert. Maybe I could run one instance if I built a new computer with one of these top rated Intel chips that have double the single core power of an overclocked Ryzen 1700. I’m trying to recreate more old school pure analog record sounds and that’s not easy to do with plugins. A lot of files that noted pros get are tracked with analog gear or even tape. Greg from Kush also used the term “tracked by geniuses”. A lot of these sampled things were made with analog gear. My thinking is that it’s tough to provide general advice to a group of people where we don’t know what their goals are. It’s often assumed by others that everyone is just trying to do the latest trendy pop and R&B stuff. Decades ago you had bands who would make records that sounded pretty good in cheap studios. And it could be done since it was all analog. A lot of low budget metal records from 80’s and 90’s got a flawed production that worked. Nowadays someone does something cheap in a DAW and it’ll sound like sterile garbage. And that’s happened with some of these same metal bands. Transparency is the enemy in a lot of musical styles. If someone has no budget and wants to start mixing, it’s a tough call what to recommend. It can be easier to get something like a Fusion or an Aurora N if you can get the payments small enough. But now we also have PayPal pay in 4 and Klarna for plugins. The first thing is just the computer. Nowadays it’s so much cheaper than even 2018. A lot of people are just gonna download all the cracked stuff. Probably start with Waves since so many pros have promoted the Mercury bundle as the end all be all. Determining plugin quality is a whole nother can of worms. Some plugins have serious defects, like the Metric Halo Channel Strip. Pros love it. I’ve always hated that thing. If you read the tests in the gearspace plugin analysis thread, the thing is adding low end as you subtract it. Something about it being a DF1 biquad. I did the test on some other stuff and the Pro Tools eq3 had the same problem. Andy from Cytomic said there are a lot more out there, but he didn’t name names. It’s harder to test compressors for that. Navigating the sea of plugins can be difficult. That would be a good video for you to make. Beginner’s guide to plugins. Ultimately it’s about someone’s natural capacity to hear stuff. There is so much variation in recordings. It’s tough to give standardized answers to solving problems or how to use a plugin or piece of equipment. I just decided I needed to devise my own methods. Paul, you’re an honest pioneer and I always look forward to your insights.
Hey, thanks for the discussion. I’m looking for new interface right now and the N is on my shortlist. A Demo unit with 8IO is already on the way. Since I’m using the dangerous bus+ I’m just afraid that I need 16… Anyway: My question: 1. In your opinion it’s worth the money. 2. Have you ever used yours with ADAT? Thanks✌🏻
Pointless test tbh. Never really understood why people do those tests when you really only do one or 2 round trips on one source at the most in reality 🤷♂️ You could argue in a chain of gear on kick, then gear on drum bus, then gear on mixbus. Maybe 5 or 6 pieces of gear but the kick is then swallowed up by the rest of the drums, then drums by the rest of the tracks. In the science of differences, any difference caused by ADC is completely swamped by the difference of the rest of the tracks. Doesn't really pose any big difference still. I always measure things based on how they will actually be used. Somebody could say "ohhh but after 50 round trips the audient really starts to deteriote when the lynx starts to crumble at 100" Are you doing 50 trips of ADC on a source?... “no but that's not the point" So what is the point, that the lynx's conversion can do something better that will only happen when used in a way that no audio engineer will use it? "yes!!!" And that's when you let the Internet be the Internet and dissolve itself
Have you ever used access analog without putting signal thru any gear? (i have not, wondering what that might affect) If you record thru audient, send it to access analog via their plugin, you never input the true original analog into the analog input of the AD converter on their end, it's your digital put thru their D/A then routed to their A/D. What am I missing. Is there some magic that let's you send you interfaces analog in directly across the net to their analog inputs? I understand access analog value of getting analog gear 'coloration', but beyond that I don't see the benefit, especially for this comparison. Full disclosure, I use Behringer UMC404HD and love it. Just wondering if I'm missing something about access analog or how all this processing works.
The biggest misconception is that I'm recording through the audient. I'm not. Somebody gave me an idiotic comment during the week about the test being flawed as the access analog is being 'bottle necked' by the audient. In actual fact it's all done purely in the daw with access analog. You don't need an interface and can even use an fl studio or AISO driver when using protools. The daw track signal is sent to an online server which recieves that signal and passes it through the converters and the gear and streams it back out all lossless to the daw in real time. All the access analog gear uses lynx converters for conversion. In the daw all you do is set up a new track and set the input as the output of the access analog track. Record the track and then align manually after due to the latency. Or alternatively you can upload the file to the server and do an offline print where you simply download the file after its processed it through the gear. Daw signal is streamed lossless over a server which passes the signal through the analog chain which you have virtual control of via the robot arms on each part of the gear, that processed signal is streamed back lossless to the daw which you can then print to a seperate track and align manually That's how it's done
This isn’t really an accurate test. I get the jist of what you’re trying to do. But, it’s not scientifically credible, as you have two distinct signal chains. You have no idea what the actual hardwired signal path is at AA. They say a simple cable. But is it really, or is it through their patching relay etc. The only way to make true comparisons, that qualify empirically based conclusions is to use an identical signal path, except for the variable being tested. If you think good conversion is a white elephant, then you should debate Bob Katz.
Tbh I never said it was 100% scientifically accurate. I did a test with what was available. Regardless of the variables being a cable it's still the exact same digital file being streamed lossless 24 bit into a converter and then going back out, streamed lossless into the same daw and being printed in the exact same way as the id14. It can be flipped the other way that the lynx has an advantage that AA's cable is better quality than mine. Theres no way to prove how much of a real audible difference there is via using access analogs signal chain. There's as much as 5 lufs of a difference in the null. Is using the same cable or me having the physical hardware going to get that 5 lufs difference of the id14. I'd very much doubt it but again I can't prove it In the end I recieved 4 nasty emails from disgruntled lynx users demanding the audio files and claiming that I had no idea what I was talking about and name dropping such and such. I offered them all to send me their converters to test transparency against the id14 at 96k. As you said remove the variables. 3 have not replied back to me and the other one told me that they wouldn't want my dirty inexperienced hands on something that I'll never be able to afford. Wished me good luck in making mediocre records through my id14. Tbh I'm not fussed. I know that the id14 is transparent enough recording at 96khz to print analog gear through. That was the main point of the video to test if and how it degraded the audio quality of the printed hardware. I do expect there to be converters that are more transparent than the id14. There must be. I'm not doubting that for a second. But until somebody hands me their converter and asks me to test it under the same circumstances I couldn't really care what others use or what so and so has to say. to be honest as I'm perfectly happy with what I've got.. Well not really as I want to upgrade to the iD22 now haha but for now I have no issues using the id14. I tested it and was pretty happy with the results 🤓
@@PaulThird that’s all well and good, mate. But, you make a bold statement saying you’ve ‘proven it’ and it isn’t conclusive. Yes, 5dB RMS is pretty significant difference. Too significant for it to be the actual DA/AD process. It’s more than likely a slight phase shift, which I would be surprised if it was the Lynx itself. As for cable quality, that definitely is a white elephant. Im saying I doubt AA is a direct cable IO. For them to be able to allow reordering of units, means they have some form of patching. That’s either digital or digitally controlled analogue relay. My point being that these are not insignificant factors to consider. There’s deffo a lot of snobbery in music m. So don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying that the best debaters acknowledge the shortcomings of their own methodology and viewpoints. It actually makes you more credible than less. You could get in touch with Lynx and ask them to send you a unit for comparison. Then you could make a direct test and draw a line under it forever? Good luck with the channel.
Very nice video, I've always wondered this. What surprised me once when I recorded guitars for an album, is when the mic preamp died and I ran out and got a second hand Behringer 8 channel mixer for like 10 euros. The sound of its preamps for guitar blew me away. Not because it was top notch or something, but it wasn't so different from the TrueSystems Precision 8 and what kind of sound we wanted to get. I realized back then that it's true as they say: "It's not about the gear, but all about the ear". A great producer can do much better job with only plugins than a mediocre engineer with top end gear.
Digital and Analogue... I swing both ways! 😁 Digital is far superior to analogue in so many ways it's not worth discussing... but, regardless of viewpoint the argument boils down to "how it sounds". In analogue terms... the same reel of Ampex 456 will yield audibly different results on a Tascam 22 or a Studer A812. In digital, the same ADC chips could be used by Behringer and Lynx - but the clocking, filtering and other "audio science" that is applied whilst converting the signal from A to D is what you're paying for. So, yes, all AD/DA conversions will sound a little different as every company is convinced their's sounds the best! Pure measurements may reveal which company succeeded in transparency... but it does not guarantee it will be perceived by us as the best sounding. Vive la différence!
Long story short that's the conclusion of this video. The reason I made the video was that an analog guy told me 'sadly your interface isn't really up for the job of optimally printing outboard gear' 'I should add - if your AD-DA's don't have sufficient dyamic range to support and match a piece of outboard you will never capture the full sonic capabilities of that said piece of gear' I then gave him the dynamic range stats of the id14 and info I gave in this video. He then told me that he knows better as he had an rme fireface and didn't trully appreciate the quality of his ssl bus compressor until he put it through a symphony. I then asked if it was possible that it was the sound of the converters he liked and not that he was getting the full sonic capabilities of his ssl. I was then told 'you simply cannot make bold statements that "its the conversion I'm hearing" when you have zero experience with high end converters, proper studio monitors & decent room acoustics. All you have is a pc with cool plugins' In the end, we all know it was the difference the converters added. Nothing to do with 'the full potential' of the analog gear. The problem is the marketing hype from the manufacturers themselves. This is what lynx say on their website regarding the aurora: Transparency Matters Signal coloration is additive and can kill an otherwise pristine mix. That’s why a colored mix begins to collapse while the transparent mix has space, definition and a level of detail that is simply unattainable with converters that add color and distortion. Lynx’s hallmark sonic transparency is why Lynx converters are being used in the most mission-critical audio applications and in the world’s finest recording facilities. Lynx converters have been specified for their uncanny ability to convert signals without adding any artifacts or color. For audio engineers and producers demanding the most pristine recordings and mixes Lynx is the converter of choice at facilities like Dolby’s new mega complex of audio research, Skywalker Sound, NPR, and the Smithsonian Institute. Lynx converters pass the most stringent tests and shoot outs to become the sought after converters for these discerning professionals. Precision matters more than ever and there is no place for even the slightest coloration or degradation of the signal. Paul Third - I get a better null with an audient id14 at 96k than the aurora. Oh and I can definitely hear colour of some description in the aurora and also slight bit more high end Lynx: does the aurora sound better though.. Paul Third - 🙈 Id just rather they were just up front and said.. Look.. We know that your gonna buy what sounds best. Our converters aren't as transparent as we make out. If they were then we'd all sound the same. To stand out from the crowd we change the sound a certain way to enhance the sound of your hardware. I'm fine with that but it's marketing BS like this that has guys giving me a hard time cause I'm using an id14 to print hardware making ridiculous claims regarding dynamic range and loss of hardware fidelity 😂
@@PaulThird I feel your pain! Any 24 bit audio interface has more than enough dynamic range to print analogue signals. Signal to noise is another story - digital eats analogue for breakfast. As for AD/DA converters... the difference between "high end" and "entry level" has levelled out to the point where we virtually need to do null tests to hear it! In the digital world "pure" is easy... but "sounding good" is the holy grail. Marketing is their last hope at convincing you that what you're hearing is "better"... when in fact, "better" is subjective and therefore an endless quest.
Man, you're the mythbusters of audio equipment industry 😁 I'm about to purchase one of lynx converters instead of an audio interface. You just made me think twice.
Yeah it's pointless spending that kind of money in today's market. The audient evo 16 & SP8 together is only £800 for 16 in and out with smart gain and decent conversion. If universal audio didnt give me the apollo x6 I would be audient id44 expanded by SP8 with topping dx7 pro+ as my main DAC via spidf. £1500 all in and I'd have the option of 12 mic/line ins, 4 JFET DI's, 12 line outs, 2 sets of ADAT in and out whilst being monitored by arguably the best DAC amp on the market Compare that to an 8 channel lynx converter for over 3 grand.. Waste of money Even my current setup of apollo x6 (expanded by SP8 for more inputs) + topping dx7 pro+ comes in at £2800.. Which is STILL cheaper than a limited 8 channel lynx aurora with a shit headphone amp. Easy maths haha
Well okay..... There's a LOT packed into this episode, too much to properly unpack now. But let me say a couple of things: 1) Your takeaway that nobody should be stressed out about the differences or doing damage to their sound by using a modern Budget interface is absolutely correct. 2) That is Because, as with your mobile phone, this is 2021 not 2011 or 2001. The actual "converters" inside of an "interface" are chips, and those chips come from like 3 companies, none of which have their names on your interfaces. The companies that sold you an Interface, built Circuitry around those chips, and a dozen companies ALL using the Exact Same chips, will have a dozen different results. What has changed, or rather evolved, is just like Apple's new M1 chips are changing the game, so is the way Apple is designing the Circuitry. So the Chip Manufacturers, as well as the Interface Manufacturers are all getting better and better. 3) If you're just now tuning in to a "program already in progress", and you probably have to be a certain age to even get That reference, then you can be forgiven for not hearing any differences between interfaces costing hundreds and interfaces costing thousands. That gap has shrunken to the point of near irrelevance for the vast majority of the work being done. But there was once a significant difference between the boys and the men. However, boys grow up. 4) About a month ago you and I had a back and forth about much of the same topics regarding Bit Depth and Dynamic Range, Fixed Point vs Floating Point, as well as Sampling Rates and Oversampling. 1-bit = 6dB DR 16-bit = 96dB DR 24-bit = 144dB DR 32-bit Floating Point = Effectively Unlimited DR And 1X= 44.1 & 48kHz 2X= 88.2 & 96kHz 4X= 192kHz Well, the Chip Manufacturers made all the chips 4X. But the question is whether the Pros outweigh the Cons going from 1X to 2X and again from 2X to 4X. My ears, as I said before, as well as many I know that have tested, do hear a consistent improvement moving from 1X to either 2X or 4X. But I can't easily tell between 2X and 4X, by ear. Acustica have stuck to 96kHz I assume for similar reasons. 192kHz provides an Insignificant (if any discernable) BENEFIT for a quiet Significant COST (in the form of CPU usage and Data Storage).
This is a fantastic comment but I don't get the last bit haha number 5 Remember I have aspergers so I struggle to read between the lines sometimes. I'm quite literal. Ive re-read it but just dont understand exactly what you mean 🤓
Agree with almost everything (about the audio) but i think that Intel and AMD need to do custom CPU for audio processing like mining for Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, because the oversampling at 192khz instead of 96khz especially in the shelving eq stage (bax etc..) and the Stereo image stage it's quite big and pleasing to my ears/feelings
@@AftertuneMusic Agreed! I’m running out the door, but….part of my previous rant on the other video was about a seemingly contradictory consensus. Why is it that in RECORDING at 96 vs 192, the differences are minor to most, but in OVERSAMPLING Plugins, the 2X vs 4X difference is plainly noticeable? And if you track at 192, does it Still make sense to Oversample? Something else is going on, that I don’t yet understand. I haven’t done the extensive testing that I plan to (hopefully in the fall), but I’m all ears as to the discrepancy or others experiences.
@@PaulThird Hey Paul, yeah let me apologize for number 5. I know what I was trying to say, but after re-reading it, what I wrote is basically unreadable. I just got home, it’s been a long day, I’ll try to fix it tomorrow. But for tonight, yeah that was a mess….
@@PaulThird Hey Paul, I just edited number 5 out all together. It was unfixable and didn't belong with the other 4 anyhow. As I've told you before, I REALLY like what you are trying to do with this Channel. I love that you are Setting up tests and Showing examples of whatever topic you're discussing. Substantiating you Claims. At the same time, every channel has to be entertaining on some level, rather than 10-minutes of charts and graphs, devoid of personality. That range, I was putting between Julian Krause who is presenting facts and data with an android-like lack of human expression, and WhiteSea who's every video has a thumbnail of him making some distorted facial expression next to a click-bait title, and his videos themselves are always hit-n-miss regarding whether or not he even understands the topic. You've consistently produced quite useful and validated information on this Channel. But in this particular video, you seem to be uncharacteristically defensive and eager to Prove some point. I'm sure that the comments coming your way are as ridiculous as the internet always is. Brush your shoulders off. You don't need to respond to the haters. Your Videos, and the content within does all the work for you. Getting all exercised and adversarial, doesn't really add anything to the Audio Excellence you, and your real audience is reaching for. Among many other things, I'm a thirty plus year television producer, the original "content creators". My advice for every "show" is to define what the show is, and who the show is for. Beware of "mission creep", getting pulled in various directions often outside of the scope you really want to focus on. All that said, maybe you do wanna be the Myth Buster and take on all the haters week after week. And more power to that. But that takes a lot of time and energy, and the opportunity cost is at the expense of the audience that really wants to grow and build, and not be bothered by the nonsense. I hope this comes across better than my last fiasco. I am very much rooting for you and this channel.
Hey Paul, I'm bit confused on all I've seen on quality! I need at min 6-8 in and out for mix and mastering. Would list of few converters or interfaces converters do you recommend buying based on quality and cost? Can you please put a small list together based on the test you have done overall! Thank you in advance! Also, if I have a really cheap USB interface with ADAT, and say I put a expensive AD/DA converter on ADAT, will i lose the quality of the expensive unit by running it through the ADAT of the cheaper unit for its USB connection?
Great video. So to use the ID14 mkiii in 96, do you go into the iD software and just set the sample rate to 96? Would I also set studio one to 96? Thanks!
Hey buddy, thanks for making this. I see absolutely no dialogue on this and I’m glad I’ve seen this before making a dumb purchase. Would an SSL 2 be able to bypass their preamps or should I invest in an audient id ?
Nah ssl looks pretty limited on that front which is understandable at that price. I'd say audient is good money spent. If id44 is too much then iD22 is another good option 🤓
I think those of us who invest in high end converters aren’t doing so for transparency most of the time (as it’s a given). Different converters have different flavors and color the sound in different ways. I know you touched on this, but it’s no small thing. I don’t even bother with specs when buying converters. I simply shoot them out with my old converters and see which feels nicer to track and mix through (and it is a feel thing). Avid and Apogee and Lynx sound very different - it’s actually quite drastic if you get used to one then switch. You may not hear it on just one track but the cumulative effect of it on many tracks becomes very noticeable. That’s what you’re looking for. Also one thing you didn’t mention - some high end converters impart a pleasing sound when you clip them with a hot signal - something you’re definitely not going to get with an Apollo.
Great video, great tests. I use various convertors/interfaces, from cheap SSL2+’s to Merging, Dangerous and moderate priced ones like Apollo. Although the ones that have transformers can be useful if you want that color (like the switchable/defeatable Dangerous Music ones), most of the time I want clean acquisition and conversion. That is one of the things I love about DSD 256+, in that I can loop, insert or whatever I need to do and never have to worry about aliasing or filter/phasing issues. However, for many recordings and workflows even a fairly cheap Focusrite Scarlett is beyond anything that is audibly discernible- especially in complex music.
Hi Paul😊, I always enjoy your channel. I have a first gen iD44 and kept thinking, why not go into the insert jack?? Then I remembered the insert was the main reason I picked the iD44 to begin with. It doesn't seem to add much color to me, but your tests don't lie. Keep up the good work and thanks!
I watched an interview with Eddie Kramer where he said he loved the Burl converters because "they sound like tape". I love tape, but was really puzzled by why this would be the case when, surely you'd at least want the option of transparency with expensive converters. Some reliable sources are of the opinion that, most budget interfaces released after about 2003 have good enough A-D converters for professional recording and that it's most likely the preamps that would cause any degradation. How do early studio converters compare to later budget converters anyway(?) Cheers.
What a great test!! Thank you. It’s more confirmation for me to not get hung up in what equipment or plug-in or sample rate is “better”. Better is always subjective, use your ears!! The only important thing is to understand what’s happening and why so you can consistently get the result you want.
A lot of ppl say things like just use only your stock plugins to mix when they themselves don’t even do that, even though you could do it, 3rd party plugs make things easier and in most cases sound better
First generation ID14 user with ASP880 where I can bypass preamps. I use a Motu 24Ao for out conversion out tobmy console and outboard and the ASP for conversion in. I'm happy enough. Love Audient and Motu stuff.
@@PaulThird don't listen to people who say it won't work with analog it's all about how much power needed is provided to the audio interface specially the usb ones make sure to get the full benefit of you're audio interface to connect it using a usb c cable or you'll get less volume out of your mic preamp and headphone amp
Very Interesting. I use a apogee element 24 myself. I know the higher your sample rate the higher your frequency range extends. I’m guessing this is why the roll off is more prominent at 44.1khz since half of 44.1 is 22.05 which is your highest audible frequency at 44.1. Naturally half of 96k is much higher, making your highest frequency 48.
Hey Paul!! I love your channel! So much useful info. Two questions for you.. if and when you ever need more than two inputs (mixing drums for example) what do you use at that point? And second... you say you mix on headphones. What make and model do you use? Thanks again for the great content!
I decided not to be a recording engineer a good 8 or so year ago so sold most of my mics and also my mackie onyx blackbird and focusrite saffire Pro. As I'm not a recording engineer I only need 2 mic inputs for my own stuff. If it's drums I'll pay drummers I know to record and send me the stems to mix. In terms of the headphones I use bose QC35ii and sonarworks. It was a surprise from the wife like 3 or 4 Christmas's ago when my beyerdynamics broke but she went to currys and the guy sold her these 🙈 it was still a good like £350 or summin and I couldn't bare to tell her they weren't what I would've picked so I just made do as I was a store manager at that point and just using all my stuff for my own music and shouting out plugins. They are great as they are wireless and have noise cancelling so was great for taking the dog out on a walk and stuff but I knew I needed to invest in sonarworks if I was gonna use them for mixing. Tbh I can't complain as I get messages from guys with big studios and expensive monitors telling me they can hear what I hear so I know they are still good enough but my plan is to invest in hifiman sundara after recommendations from engineers I trust and possibly buy a seperate headphone DAC as well. Just so I know I'm definitely hearing as much detail as possible 🤓
Hooo boy. Now you've gone and made it. Excellent video and nice to hear that you and Julian Krause are aquaintances. I'm a very big fan of his and I'm also a big fan of you now. I LOVE audio bs uncovering. Keep it up!
I've never met or spoke to Julian but an engineer friend of mine follows him and shares some of his stuff. I should actually watch some more of his stuff 🤓
Great video Paul. I recently bought a Scarlett Solo, (I try to do voiceovers in my spare time). A sound engineer in USA reckons I have distortion in my dry recordings. Paul, what’s the probability that the Scarlett solo is causing the distortion please? I’m going to buy the Audient Id4 not the 14. Would sound recording be identical do you think all things being equal? Thanks mate. Chris
If you or the engineer hears the distortion then fair enough but if he's saying that there's distortion just cause he knows what type of interface you are using then don't worry. Base everything on what you hear. Do you hear it? I have no experience with scarlett stuff so id suggest you check out Julian Krause's vids and check out his table of interfaces as he includes how they all compare specs and measurements wise. He maybe has a video on the scarlett solo. Normally distortion will only occur if you go in too hot and clip the mic pres. Or you may hear extra noise or artifacts if are using a worn xlr cable that needs replaced. Being focusrite I wouldn't imagine it would be causing distortion with the levels set right as they are so unbelievably popular. The id4 is the id14 but with less inputs essentially. The recordings should sound identical
@@PaulThird thanks Paul for info. No I don’t really hear the distortion only my rumbly sort of voice, it’s how I sound I think. You could be onto something with old xlr cable being used . Thanks again. Chris
hahaha you crack me, good detecting, i found a similar thing in my travels. are you running out the back of your interface and back into the inputs while at 96khz in the daw?
I've been arguing this point for years on youtube. I was like do the tests yourself just don't take someone's word for it. People believe to much instead of finding out the facts. Same with politics. Great work!
honestly the amount of garbage i see all over youtube is crazy. Some of the comments I get i'm like... WHY WOULD YOU EVEN BELIEVE THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE!! haha Its either down to confirmation bias or lazyness. Either it suits what they want to believe or they cant be bothered actually testing it for themselves.
You're absolutely right mate. And the thing is, the audient converters are some of the best converters ever made, people don't know. it's sitting next to apogee, merging anubis, etc. I loved the way you really approached this scientifically and did a great job.
No no, its not the best ever made or sitting next to Merging anubis, that being said, it is a very very good device, and you can do a lot with it! As somebody who loves and also owns an id14 heres my take: I used the id14 as my main for a long time, one day I decided to upgrade to something high end, and first I noticed a small difference, nothing night and day by any stretch of the imagination, after about 4 months of use I switched back to the id14 just to hear it cause I really enjoy the sound of it, and the sound just sounded a little bit more like there was a blanket over it, (nothing substantial and I still stand that the id14 converters are indeed fantastic) but you can have a different experience once you go more high end, trust me, especially if your room is treated ans youre using good headphones or monitors, I actually noticed it with quite cheap monitors first Now, does that mean the id14 isn't sufficient? NO, the id14 is a beast, both in build and sound, and the id14 is probably going to have better conversion than most stuff that many hit records where done with in the 90s, so there you go! And the sound could even be more appealing for some people
@@joshsmith7812The id14 mk 1 sounds sounds fantastic . The mark 2 is another level up. Incredibly transparent ! The headphone amp is cleaner and sweeter , plus 4 outputs on back. No brainer!
Hi Paul, I'm looking into the iD14 i have become very fond of it and its about time I replaced my 1st gen 2i2 Scarlett🤣 where did you pick up this interface? i've been in touch with Audient about student discount but they don't seem to be offering it atm and I'm not looking to drop £200 as i am just a student doing this as a hobby! So just wondering if there's anywhere good to get this a bit less, thanks
I got a long time ago. I sold my focusrite saffire Pro and mackie onyx blackbird cause I wasn't recording anymore. Try GAK or Andertons. They are normally relatively well priced 🤓
No, not at home. I ran the voice through a lynx Aurora (N) remotely via access analog. The daw audio is transmitted lossless online, through the aurora and back lossless to daw. That's why there is inherent latency involved with protools but studio one fixes that with their delay compensation so when I do a print now it's perfectly aligned. Im genuinely doing the follow up to this now as I wanted to include white noise, pink noise, piano and a mix. I don't know if everything was absolutely perfectly time alligned due to protools but studio one is bang on and I've been able to have more concrete results Spoiler.. Audient is more transparent at 96khz than lynx at 48khz. But audient isn't as transparent at 48k but still results in inaudible differences
The lynx conversion goes DAW> streamed lossless to server > through converter > streamed lossless back to DAW. Doesn't hit the audient once. Instead of using physical cables to record a loop back you essentially use virtually streamed cables. You dont need an interface connected to do it. Could run the daw with a virual driver and print access analog gear into the daw. The only difference between having the physical unit in front of me and streaming lossless online is that that the audio isn't going through physical cables at my end. To test the audient conversion you have to create a loop so line out to line in of interface. That's it. Daw audio comes out of the line out but instead of going to a speaker it goes to a line in or preamp so if can be recorded
Awesome vid Paul!! How about making a tutorial on how to test your analog gear? I'm talking about getting some kind of compressor for example and going trough the process. Most producers are getting into mixing these days and starting to acquire analog gear (including myself) Would be awesome to have a process to test them. I have plugin doctor but must of the time I have no idea what I'm doing.. Would be awesome to see you sharing a process with analog gear so that we can copy it and know what to do.. Thank you once again!
ua-cam.com/video/eaMD2XkEm8I/v-deo.html Try that video out and let me know. I'd need another piece of gear to do a doctor video as I sold it all but that's showing you how to match access analog gear with plugins
I also have the Audient iD14, was thinking of getting the MKII because of the extra outputs (a big plus for my current setup) and slightly cleaner sound and am used to working at 48k... I've also thinking been thinking of working at 96k. Looks like i'll be upgrading my setup when I can with the MKII and 96k soon unless they bring out an iD44 mkII, which would expand my setup hugely.
If you use monitors then the extra line outs are massive for you if you want to use analog gear as you don't need to unplug your speakers. I've been swaying towards the iD22 just for all the extra options it has. Actually amazing for the price
@@PaulThird Yeah the send and return options are great too on the iD22, i'm a drummer so the added inputs of the iD44 would be much appreciated in my case. Even though I have the 880 also. And yeah the extra line outs would be great for me because I have a reel to reel tape machine that I'd like to send more sounds through but it doesn't feel 'integrated' into my current workflow unfortunately with the MKI iD14 so doesn't get much use... one day! I'll hold out to see if Audient update some more of their stuff first.
This is one where I think using the remote service vs the unit connected to your system probably makes this a difficult comparison. Having said that I’ve always felt that Audient have nailed their converter game, and I own and still love their long discontinued modular ADC which sounds awesome! You point out rightly though that it’s mostly a scale issue here since more channels = more cost. I am massively skeptical about value for money in converters though and feel the difference even in high end converters wouldn’t be audibly detectable in a blind test. but.. I want the highest spec in my recordings and I’m happy to pay for it.
I am just looking for 2 channels, would the RME ad 2 be too much? I plan on getting other out board gear like channel strips. The ssl 12 allows you to by pass the preamps and go straight to the converters from what I hear. Am i better off just doing something like that?
Ed told me that it's a basic ass interface but with neve pre's. I'd still go id44 and get a golden age premier 573 500 series pre if you want a neve pre
Hybrid setup here simple 1 synth .. Everything is pointing towards going 96k - with the plugins, recording quality and even things like time stretching audio... i guess my i7 has its work cut out now :)
They way to try converters, is to loop in out the same song o sound material, and hear how the signal deteriorate through various passes. The lynx is by far the more clean of all the high AD/DA converters in this test. I upgrade last year from Apollo 8x to Lynx Aurora (n) after trying similar ratio models (Apogee Symphony 2, Digital Audio Denmark and Prism SOund) in my studio and the difference is no small by any means. The round lows, image stereo and depth, and a cristal clear mids and hig mids, definition make my work in mixing and mastering more efficient. Actually already 5 colleagues came to my studio (that have a good sound treatment) to hear it in the last 6 months, and already all of the bouth some of them, like the Lynx Hilo, or the same model that i have. So of course this depend on your budget, your stage as an engineer, etc, etc. but try it, you don be disappointed.
What you are hearing is DAC to monitors not the sound of ADC which is what this video is focusing on. I did another test a few months ago on the channel and the tests proved that there were no audible difference between the 2. There were differences but none that were audible. To properly test ADC you must listen to both files on the same DAC. If you base your results on what you hear out of the whole system then that has no relevance to what your client hears or what the ADC is actually doing.
I'd need to get my hands on one which isn't possible im afraid. It's easy enough to test if you own one though. You can print via a DAD loop and record at different sample rates and then do null tests and measure to compare if a certain sample rate results in a better null
In the beginning of the video you compared a chart with levels of dB SPL which use a power ratio, where as the dynamic range of the interface is compared to the 24bit dB full scale, which uses an amplitude ratio. Actual loudness depends on the calibration of your monitoring system or the expected level of playback.
It's not just the rolloff, I also notice the 48KHz sounds "rougher" of "fuzzier" or "grainier" somehow. This is surprising, but I heard it (again, to my surprise) when comparing mastered exports on one of my own projects at 44.1KHz vs 96KHz. The 96KHz sounded smoother and less fatiguing. (It was bowed double bass, so also had a lot of "texture" in the midrange, like this voice, which is I think the conditions where it's most audible.) I was not expecting this, because the math suggests I would not hear such a difference, but the difference is pretty clear to me. My understanding is the same as yours, that even very cheap converter chips can now be very accurate, and they're all basically the same, with the differences being in the analog electronics. But the bit depth and sample rate DO make a difference.
Remember there is a phase shift going on at 48khz sample rate due to the filter, which doesn't occur in our audible range at 96khz. but in my most recent test I did, 48k & 96k conversion both result in differences of less than 0.1db in relation to the original signal. However remember that when you listen back at different sample rates you are also hearing the amplified DAC signal on top of that
@@PaulThird Yeah that could be the reason. The math says I shouldn't be able to hear the difference between sample rates and the roll-off shouldn't be too noticeable for me either (my hearing probably tops out somewhere not much above 10KHz these days!), but there is SOMETHING different between 44 and 48 vs 96, which could be the filter. It has to be a very aggressive filter, and I assume that can have audible consequences (though I am far from an expert on audio circuitry). The difference is subtle, but even your null tests shows there is certainly some difference, and that some of that difference seems to be below the 10-20KHz range where there ought to be roll-off.
@ModusVivendiMedia with converters it's normally jitter distortions bring amplified in DAC you are hearing. That's what I've been told anyway. The better quality the clocking the cleaner the DAC signal. There are different variables at play when DAC is running through a speaker compared to ADC but if you hear differences at different sample rates it could be the high end phase shift of the filters but I dunno how much they are audible at 44.1 & 48 in DAC to Speakers.
@@PaulThird That makes sense. It could also be that the particular DAC I'm hearing the differences through works better at a particular sample rate and kind of messes up the sound at other sample rates. Who knows? It just turns out that audio is more complicated than just numbers and math and in the end we have to use our ears!
@@PaulThird I heard some tech channel mention it a few weeks ago. I mentioned it to Justin from Sonic Scoop and he persuaded me to do some tests. And sure enough everything I brought in from UA-cam was missing everything above 16khz. I even double checked against the same songs ripped from iTunes and they were “full spectrum”. I’m not sure why they do it, maybe to save bandwidth? And before you ask, yes I was using the highest quality video format and I used the iDAM connection between the UA-cam app on my iPad straight into Logic on my MacBook to record the samples.
Hmmm that's a bit shit is it haha I really can't be bothered uploading everything I do to soundcloud 😂 Tbh I need to test if I really hear 16k and above. I've never actually tested myself to see how high I can hear. I'd like to think I could go close to 20k but I'm a bit wary to actually test it 😅
@@PaulThird i had done those hearing tests on UA-cam and always figured my hearing cut out at 15k but I’ve recently tested it with a tone generator in the DAW and I can definitely hear 16k and I can “feel” up to 18k. But that is just pain not really a note. And I have to turn up the volume to hear it. I’d like to find one of those test like they would give you in school, where they were random tones in alternating ears and you would tap the side of a small divider when you heard the sound. Although I remember those being kinda painful too.
I wouldn't imagine so for printing hardware as you can bypass the preamp but in terms of recording through the preamps id take a guess that it's flatter at 96k. Depends on the anti aliasing filter at 48k
The amount of fun you had in that video tells me you are happy about rubbing this in someones face! And I love it. If you want to stay clean, stay in the box. Many people believe in magical elves sitting in analogue gear (or their converters).. but all it EVER is, is: light compression, saturation, eq or distortion and a liiiiittle bit of noise. Hardware is fun, it looks impressive, you can use both hands operating it, every unit sounds different.. but there is no magic in there. Magic sure exists, but it's not in hardware-units. I will bookmark this video.. I've got a feeling I'll encounter people that need to hear this in the future - and I didn't even need to eat a fortune cookie to know that.
Hello friend! I like your videos. I'm buying everything now in order to start making music. Can you please help me? I've been trying to choose for 3 weeks and I can't. (I buy used things, it's cheaper) (For recording electric guitar and microphone and for using headphones. I want to do music.) 1. What audio interface should I buy? 80-170$ 2. Which studio monitors should I buy? 150-410$ for pair. 3. I seem to have decided on the microphone and headphones. Microphone: Takstar TAK55 Headphones: HiFiMan HE-400i what do you think? I will be very grateful if you will help me. :)
@@PaulThird Thank you very much. Are KRK the best? I also watched your video about Audient mk 1 vs mk 2 as I understood there is no strong difference, but my price is 1.5 times more. Take the mk1?
Depends on your circumstances. If it's recording and you are only using 1 mic then I'd say mk1 would be enough. If you are planning on printing outboard gear then mk2. KRK's are probably the best for your budget but unless you have an acoustically treated environment then speakers are pretty redundant. Trust me I've been there. IF you are mixing and don't have the money to acoustically treat the room then I'd say invest in a good seperate headphone amp (topping L30) to drive the sundaras as the id14s headphone output will struggle to fully drive them. If you've got sundaras, id14 and headphone amp in terms of monitoring you'd be pretty much sorted. It's up to you whether you mix on monitors or headphones but it's all about translation. Investing in good speakers with no room treatment is just a waste of your money
@@PaulThird Thank you so much for your advice! When I move to a new apartment, I will make my room for a home studio, so I think it's better to buy cool equipment now. :) And I want monitors not only for my music, but also to listen to other music and watch movies on a PC. Maybe then I'll buy a midi keyboard for music. (I don't have money enough for sundra :( )
@@PaulThird which option is better for you? audient mk1 or mk 2. If mk2, then you can buy SSL 2 for the same price. (Many people compare KRK with Yamaha and Adam T5V)
Syncing a video camera at 96 is impossible because the record at 48 but I don't know about the new 4 K video cameras , can you find out if their audio is 96
FYI I have done another test 3 years later (Jun 24) with evo 16 and sp8 and same results. White noise, pink noise, piano and a full mix. Audient at 96khz is more transparent than the lynx at 48khz, but lynx at 48khz is more transparent than audient at 48khz due to it having better anti aliasing filters (they use digital reconstruction filters in the DAC).
Lynx isn't coloured and is fully transparent. Audient at 48k is the same. Both nulls on a full mix at 48khz do not result in even a 0.1db difference. So whilst the lynx is technically superior at 48khz, the difference in reality is inaudible and is proof diminishing return on investment. Only your dog will hear the difference 🤣
Also to counter any of the 'how do we know it's actually a lynx converter' rebuttal here is a blog post from lynx themselves on their website asking access analog why they chose the lynx aurora (N) to stick in their racks.
www.lynxstudio.com/blog/audio-plug-in-developers-turn-to-lynx/
Gotcha, The inserts are always after the mic pre...should've known that.
Touche XD
@PaulThird I own a Prism Titan. I did...dozens of loopback round trip tests until I settled on that unit being the best Price Vs. Performance unit for my needs (mastering). There's nothing wrong with working with what you can afford...but I can't go back. The difference isn't subtle.
Tbh im not gonna lie.. over 3 and a half grand for a nearly 9 year old interface is pretty crazy to me, especially when apollo x6 measures comparible and actually better in certain technical aspects and also has the 2 unison preamps including the real time uad plugin dsp and routing.
In 2014 prism and lynx were measuring the best and the science was on their side but now I just can't fathom why the price is still so expensive when in regards to DAC you have topping and RME wiping the floor with everybody and in regards to ADC it's kind of a non issue in today's marketplace
I do personally believe for an all round interface the flagship RME stuff is pretty much end game but for a DAC/AMP I can't see past my topping dx7 pro+.
I personally couldn't pay over 3 grand for an interface and the headphone amp was cheap quality but if your not bothered about headphones then it's a bit of a non issue. It's justifying that price tag that really sits in my throat but each to their own.
@@PaulThird now I'm not a shill for Prism. It won the shootout at the time (back in 2015) and I haven't felt any need to replace it since. I think they should make a cheaper version without preamps but that's neither here nor there. However...regarding age of design. The next best was the IZ Radar/ADA converter (96 Classic). Which is a compelling argument if you need around 24 I/O. Nothing against UA, but the Classic has been around much longer than the Prism Titan, and it smoked dozens of high end converters. Including what UA was making at the time. Also there's a "musicality" factor. Round Trip very few designs sound better for it in terms of balance if you're not running analog gear. I love RME Too...but nothing they were making at the time could compare with either of those designs. Now I haven't heard this years model with RME and UA...and I'm sure "specwise" they look great on paper. But that round trip test is everything to me.
Cool tests man. Thanks for doing these. Very interesting. I've always recorded at 44.1khz. I think I'm gonna switch to 96khz going forward.
For what though? Im no expert but arent you have to downgrade it for mixing (if your plugins dont support 96khz) or for the end product where anyyyway itll be downgraded to the standard of 44.1?
@@vadsmixinglab11 I have been mixing at 96kHz for over 12 years.
There are audible benefits to using plugins at that sample rate and then as the last step down converting to CD quality. I find most benefits are with compressors and saturation.
And now since more music streaming services are going to high-res there is a marketing benefit for higher sample rates as well.
@@RealHomeRecording im open to it, I heard the mainstream idea that the downgrade can do more harm than good butmaybe its just worth a test
I am now going to record at 96k in the audient as the high end roll off is more apparent in the preamps at 44.1 and 48k. Mixing at 44.1 or 48k isn't going to cause that high end roll off. Remember I've created an ADA loop and printed through the preamps so I've connected the output to the input which is your preamp 🤓 your not using the preamp when mixing unless you have something connected to your input
@@PaulThird to do that you'll need to print the 96khz into a 44.1/48 session right?
Another point to note is that the actual analog to digital conversion is taking place within chips from either AKM or ESS. Audient, Lynx, Focusrite, UA, RME and nearly every other interface manufacturer uses the same handful of AD/DA chips. They are all essentially integrators and what they contribute is the analog circuitry that feeds the chip and sometimes the clocking circuitry. Also the bus interface circuitry and firmware etc, although that is less about sound quality.
The differences you hear are primarily the analog stages of the converters and not the converters themselves, which have been essentially on equal footing for a long time.
Interface companies didn't all used to use the same chips though. Until Audient broke the mold, high end headphone amps and Burr Brown converters used to cost a pretty penny. The other interface companies had to drop their prices after the iD22 was released onto the scene.
I would say a good clock is almost more important than a good converter. Just my 2cents tho
@@matthijsblomjous3671 hopefully a solid clock is a given these days.
They used to be very expensive to manufacture but just like everything else electronic, it seems the prices went down substantially when Southeast Asian countries reverse engineered them.
About the only components left that does cause a decent amount of money are transformers.
@@RealHomeRecording true, but there's still plenty of difference between clock manufacturers. The difference a Grimm cc1 makes to an Apollo Twin as opposed to its internal clock is truly staggering to me. You'd thought they would've figured it out by now lol
@@matthijsblomjous3671 I wish I have had the honor to listen to such a difference. I wouldn't doubt that what you say is correct based on my experience with a couple high-end interfaces.
Would you be able to find out what the preamp noise Mic input is for the apogee duet 2? I did not see it on the list and I own one and I'm curious. Also plan on buying the apogee 3, great video! Thanks!
90% of people would LOOOOOVE to hear that they're not sounding like they want to because of their gear...
Same with their guitars, etc.
thats what ive been finding. Its like spending thousands on gear automatically fixes lots of peoples problems. its just a plaster on a burst pipe. For the pro's its squeezing an extra 2 or 3% but for the rest just fix the pipe and you wont need the plaster lol
@@PaulThird Music gear is the new step climber getting dust in the garage.
People buy all this crazy equipment and they're not making music, at least not regularly enough to even learn how to use their gear properly.
Force yourself to produce 5 songs per month and gear won't matter. You'll just get better at whatever you have.
@@justoalvarez3940 lol just like me. Have over 25k in gear now and I'd be a fool to say that every piece does not help by a small percentage. I just don't use it but the studio looks nice lol
@@ankeviousoliver4472 thank goodness for samplers for me.
I listened to a test where someone recorded into a cheap Tascam vs an apogee a full song, in the blind tests I kept choosing the Tascam as sounding better, seemed to have a nicer low end to it.
very informative bro.. keep up the good work
🤓🤓
I absolutely love when people back up their contentions with facts and science! Great job, mate!
🤓🤓
You just saved me soooo much money as I have the Audient ID14 MkII and was just about to get a Lynx because I thought I needed it for better mixes but you saved me!!!!
🤓🤓
Mozart I like Paul & a lot of his content but in this case he needs to get the Actual Lynx Hardware unit in his hands & do some more thorough testing & not an online rendering service like access analog as a user of the service & owner of the Auroa N viciousblissvideos above in the comments already confirmed (for what ever reasons they are not the same)..& from using an Aurora my self the idea that the ID14 can match the openness, transparency & quality that the Lynx Aurora N provides is a pipe dream & an easy one to sell to broke artists...But there are many reasons 1 costs barley more than a couple of nights out and the Other is serval thousands & can be seen recessed in the racks of many of my favorite artist along with their previous converter the aurora 16 & the reason in lynx case is definitely NOT marketing hype or clueless producers & artist...that being said most audio interfaces have come a long way in the last 5-7 years & these days are fairly decent compared to the 1990 & early 2000s units... So if your budget is tight it doesn't l mean you cant record & make great music in the end a great track arrangement & mixdown will trumps all the gear in the world...But when it comes to converters between the Audient & lynx aurora N its really no contest, don't fool your self there.
There's a difference between ADC & DAC. This is what everybody keeps missing with this.
What you hear out of your monitors and what is converted from analog to digital is different. Do DAC's have a big difference on the sound you hear coming out of your headphones and monitors.. Yes, true, is this video about the full round trip.. No, its about printing analog gear which is ADC.
All this talk of "well get a full lynx aurora in your hands and you'll hear a difference".. Course I'll hear a difference, cause you are bringing in the DAC to the equation, as well as line outs or headphone amps.
If I track a vocal through an analog compressor the DAC has no effect whatsoever on the signal. It goes analog signal from the mic, through the compressor to digital in the daw. Gear into the daw which can then be listened through any DAC.
Everybody is talking about what they hear, not about null tests which is the only way to compare the transparency of printing analog gear. Of course you are gonna hear a difference in DAC's but if you print gear through an aurora and then listen back to that audio through a cheap ass interface, will it sound like the aurora.. No because you are only hearing the ADC conversion which audio science review has proven to be very good in audients.
SO many of you have missed the entire point.. That is the FACTS
Take out the DAC and focus on the ADC. Then you'll reach the same conclusion as I did which is that a lynx aurora won't give you an inaudible null with its conversion.
Print a mix through the aurora and then listen on a cheap interface with shitty headphones and tell me that it's got this amazing depth, detail and magic.. It won't
Right well do a null test and prove it then. Match both properly with the same converters. Gain stage correctly Level match and then pass a triple blind test. And then show the difference in the null. I'm all for people showing if access analog potentially has any degradation of audio but I've not seen any science to prove that yet. All I've seen are poorly matched AB's.
Show the science and then at least there will be some credibility to the claims but as of now, its all just unproven subjective claims.
So many have the fusion and I'm yet to hear of anybody prove for definite that theres a big difference.
I'm all for it but prove it with science, not objectivity
I'm a man of science so I need proof to personally take any claims seriously, especially as I've proved so many claims wrong in my time, HOWEVER you are completely entitled to share your opinions and not prove any of your claims to me or anybody else for that matter, but at least you know why I would dismiss it personally but I don't see why that would bother you anyway
Just discovered this Channel. So far above my head it hurts but really great explanations, and hopefully I may even learn something. Well Done Paul.
🤓🤓
I enjoyed this video. I would like to see a REW sweep of both interfaces. The null test works. It would be cool to see the frequency response of both converters and different sample rates.
There is a more in depth follow up test. Link is in the pinned comment of this video
You got a shoutout in my newest video where I reveal my face for the first time.
You helped me on my converter journey and I couldn't be more grateful.
🤜🤛
I fell down the UAD rabbit hole a couple of years back and bought an Apollo twin x, with all the plugins..
Then I learned about 500 series just recently lol,
I have just got a 500 series rack with some 500 series hardware but..
I have only just found out I cannot by pass the pre amp in my Apollo twin x,
Do you think it should be ok or Will it effect my sound?
I was even thinking of buying an ID24 just for the fact you can by pass the pre amp and the converters are very clean, and the ID24 MKii are cheap to buy.
I didn’t see the Apollo in the chart shown in your video I’m curious to know what the noise is on the Apollo twin x compared to the rest of them,
Thank you
I learn a lot from your channel great videos!
I imagine you should be fine. Depends on how linear the preamps are but it's not something I'd be sweating over. If the 500 series stuff sounds good to your ears then it sounds good
@@PaulThird drew from uad told me I should be fine he said the pre amp is incredibly linear, and the pre amp input noise is -127db,
I thought I would get a second opinion from you though as I value your knowledge and opinions,
Thanks for the reply Paul means a lot thank you!
Amazing person and amazing channel!
Great video. Thanks for taking the time to show us the differences
🤓🤓
Great video, Paul. Another listening test you could do is the outputs of said converters. What I’d say about the new BLA interface is that the outputs and headphone amp genuinely sound better than other interfaces and certainly for the monitor outputs, this must be down to the D-A conversion. 👌
I still love that test you done by picking up the audio of the headphones with the sonarworks mic.. The method has its flaws but I still think that was a genius move 🤓 a test is still better than no test.
What was your take on the cleanliness of the black lion mic pres?
@@PaulThird yeh, that’s defo not scientific but did highlight the affects of the power difference supplied to the headphone amp. The BLA pres are clean. I wanted to avoid a comparison though. In hindsight I should have. Had to send it back though.
@@PaulThird CS4272 that chip only have 110db of DR BUT have lot of vibe with a good bass response and stereo image/depth.I had a focusrite pro 40 and miss it for their color and low sound.It's a good chip for warm, vibey and dark sound. I compared with my 124db AD converter and still miss it when I hear the recordings I made with it. I think there is no coincidence that Black Lion used that chip on 2021.
Three things: 1) one must know how to listen and already developed their ears to a degree (pay attention to things like bass extension for example) 2) without a proper monitoring situation you’ll likely not notice much of a difference 3) Individual tracks do matter, but multiply that across an entire mix…. I wish it didn’t make a difference but it does. Clocking also makes a difference that is quite audible to me. All that being said, we do not need to spend this kind of money to create compelling art. It’s simply a luxury, not a necessity. Just my idiotic opinion for whatever it’s worth. Love your vids Paul
🤓🤓
it's unclear what you are talking about. Are you saying running tracks/mixes through analogue gear matters (a tiny bit) for quality? Cause it doesn't.. no matter how many tracks you have in your session. It really doesn't. Now when you have an anlogue recording.. like vocals.. that's when you'll need a good enough room, a good enough mic, a good enough audio interface and (most importantly) a good enough singer.. but other than that analogue gear will not even be a necessity for 2 million dollar productions. It may be neccessary in order to convince someone to pay you 2 million dollars - but that's another story.
@@akagerhard Obviously speaking about the difference high quality converters, in conjunction with proper monitoring and a reasonably developed set of ears can make in terms of allowing us to make better decisions throughout the entire mixing process. I’m sorry but converters do matter. Is it absolutely necessary? No, of course not and there are examples people may cite of hit songs being recorded/mixed under less than ideal conditions. However, it does matter at the end of the day and the difference monitoring through a cheap M-Audio interface compared to one of my better converters (Dangerous Convert, Lynx, Apollo-X) is huge to my ears. When I referenced multiple tracks, I was speaking about the clarity, detail, separation etc provided by decent converters. Ultimately, skills as an engineer, and familiarity with the gear we own make the most difference. We are all just quibbling about tiny details in order to avoid making music LOL. Once I experienced high end converters, however, there was no going back.
I can agree. I would lose quality that's very hard to describe when I start adding tracks on top of tracks on cheaper interfaces. Most would say if user error and I would admit I'm no CLA but I no longer have that issue using Burl and RME ad/da. Not to mention how much better my mixes is translating.
@@jermainesmith6315 Which RME device are you using ?
This was a great video. Subscribed.
Really great to see the Null Tests. A+
Thanks appreciate it 🤓
hey Paul you save my money bcos i am going buy some expensive converter for printing mastering file but now i am very happy to stick with my Trusty Audient ID22.
🤓🤓
hey sir love ur informative videos ı have some couple question ı have ssl 2 and ı just want to use like ad/da converter for absorb preamp warmth is this possible for while exporting. and what is your best whole channel boost eq (maag,amek 9099,ssl 4000e) which one eq best for you ?
Should be. If you plug inputs into outputs that that should create an ad/DA loop which you can print sources to. You'd just send whatever to a new track with the corresponding input(s) of your interface and record.
In terms of channel strips I use acustica. My favourite is magenta (manley suite)
I've always recorded at 44k. I'll probably keep doing that. Most of what I do requires a pretty sizable low pass anyway, other than drums. I feel like the cymbals really need some of the highs reduced anyway, so all good. I can still make my mix sound the way I want without the file size bloat of 96k.
100%. You could record at 192khz, make one bad mixing decision and ruin the sound you've recorded.
Its not something that's gonna make or break your mix. If a performance is amazing it'll still sound amazing at 44.1
Paul, I own an Aurora N now after waiting months for it to be built. Right before that I got a 404HD because it has a Cirrus Logic chip that’s about the same as the one in the Aurora N. Unless I mislabeled files, bounces from the 404hd and Apollo Twin nulled. 404HD is a great value. Anyway, the Aurora N decimates the 404hd, Twin, and the original ID14. It’s not just the conversion either. The real Lynx sounds like the Access Analog loop back but 5x better. Lynx also allegedly measures the N itself whereas a lot of companies just reuse the specs from the chips. My Sweetwater rep said Lynx told him the headphone out is 0 impedance. That is big. It sounds phenomenal with a K701 or RS-1 and revealed problems with VSX. How it adds reverb and comb filtering. Another Lynx review talked about how it allows bigger sessions to retain clarity. I’d agree. With my Fusion I no longer have to place a trim plugin after it to avoid feedback noise(and the noise never went away completely with the Twin and 404hd). I’d recommend everyone read Nwavguy’s site about the odac creation. It’s very difficult to get a device to live up to the specs of the chip. Took Nwavguy a lot of trial and error. My plugins all sound a lot better with the N. A lot less thin and anemic. As a listening for fun device, the N is as good as anything I’ve heard at Axpona or a head-fi meet. It’d be worth it just for that if I wasn’t engineering. Audio science review has a lot of measurements of Lynx gear that I found helpful. I’m going to watch your video again. My take at the moment is that a lot of people would be better off investing in an N instead of hundreds of plugins, stacks of hardware, courses, or thousands in head-fi recommendations.
Tbh comments like this is what proves my point in regards to the transparency which is marketed as its all about these NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCES. that's not transparency. Everybody forgets that the whole point of the video was disproving that you lose audio quality by printing analog gear through an audio interface. Id14 on reflection wasnt the best comparison, id44 is as you can bypass the preamps but in regards to what you actually hear out of your monitors is massively affected by the DAC.
The plugins sounding better bla bla isn't the plugins actually sounding better. It's just that you prefer the overall sound of the DAC. That's your listening experience, not the plugin actually sounding better. Exact same as mixing on a pair of audeze compared apple ear buds.. The plugins don't actually sound any different but your listening experience does.
This test is discussing the ADC not DAC. After buying a topping dx7 pro+ I can fully say with a lot of certainty that a top grade DAC/headphone amp combo will indeed result in a better sound stage, transient response and a more linear listening experience BUT that is seperate to the Analog to digital conversion when printing through gear.
When I listen to my topping I have no ADC going on. Purely digital coming from the DAW from USB being converted into an analog signal that I hear out of my headphones.
The marketing of lynx talks about the transparency of recording analog gear through it.. The main purpose of it which is to convert a processed analog signal from gear into a digital signal so it can be processed in the DAW.
That's why this test was done so in regards to the ADC you can see that
1. Lynx isn't actually that transparent
and
2. You don't lose any real perceived quality by printing through interfaces like audient.
If we're talking DAC and headphone amp quality then yeah lynx will absolutely trump any audient interface but on the ADC front.. The "fact" that there is significant degradation of audio quality by printing gear through budget audio interfaces like audient is the reason why you need to use a 3 grand converter.. is just a myth perpetuated by companies trying to justify their hefty price tag.
As I said in the video, the real justification in price is in the amount of inputs, that's essentially what you are paying for. For those who use tons of gear and consoles etc
If you are printing the odd compressor and external preamp then you don't need an aurora. Id44 would do the job just fine without any significant degradation of audio.
Just thought I'd clarify that we're not discussing overall conversion in this video but ADC.
@@PaulThird I like the insight, Paul. Here’s the thing about your video and the way you presented it. You’re giving people the impression that they don’t really need an Aurora N if they have an Audient ID14. With taking such a strong stance, I think a more nuanced and comprehensive view would be worthwhile. I almost canceled my order partly because of this video.
When people tell you about your presentation and the politics as you made a video about, this is what they mean.
There is this whole subculture within the audio industry of people who are telling everyone that they don’t need certain things. It really goes back to Graham Cochrane.
I wonder if your results would differ at all with an actual Aurora N there. I can tell you that the results of me saving a file with the ID14 with Access Analog’s Lynx via their plugin is quite a bit different from bouncing it with the real Lynx.
Lynx does a lot of marketing about transparency. Their measurements are among the best out there. I have no way of qualifying what you or they say.
Is transparency only considering frequency response? I don’t think the ID14 measures as well as the Lynx in some areas. That could result in the N being closer to the source in other ways aside from frequency response.
My goal with listening for fun often has to do with transparency in the source and headphone amp. With mixing and mastering, I want to get the sounds that are typical of albums I like. I’m not gonna worry about transparency if I get what I’m looking for.
I would have been much better off spending on an Aurora N instead of so many other things. Plugins often do sound kinda anemic compared to the hardware. The Aurora compensates for that to a decent degree one way or another.
To simplify it some, the Aurora has enabled me to get much better results than I would be if I was still using the ID14. In that case, I’d have to ask whether the transparency edge you’re saying the ID14 has is providing a lot of value.
You should look at the 404hd and that UMC Behringer line. The 404hd is just as good or better than the ID14 and the Twin if you’re just staying ITB. I didn’t think it sounded any worse using Fusion either. But, I couldn’t even get Fusion routed through the ID14 software as I may have said already. With the Twin it was always iffy if it would work.
The Fusion hardware is definitely leagues ahead of the plugins too. It can do a lot to make a track sound like a finished album. And that’s what I’m after.
You can do a lot ITB. Jake from Blood By Design told me he was just using plugins, reamped guitars, sampled drums, and stuff like Valhalla room and his Ancient One album sounds tremendous. No idea what the mastering guy did. A lot of these mastering people interviewed by Lynx have racks of hardware and tape machines along with an Aurora N.
Well Paul, keep up the good work. I enjoy your channel. Just wanted to give you feedback on my experiences.
@@viciousblissvideos I hear what you are saying but in regards to the political side of this, I've spoken to many many big engineers about this and they all agreed that in regards to printing analog gear in a mix with an audient interface, especially the mk2's (I had mk1) that are out now, there wouldn't be any cause for concern. It wouldn't make their mix sound any better or worse.
However, what does concern them is the amount of inputs they have as most of these guys have a studio full of gear.
If you ask these pros if they were mixing in a bedroom with an id44 and a few warm audio compressors, would they pay 3 grand for a lynx aurora N... Answer is no.
They would invest in treating the room & monitoring before anything else.
My mastering engineer bought an expensive converter (I wanna say prism but I may be wrong, might be lynx) and he's thinking about selling it already cause he just doesn't get any real benefit out of it. Printed mixes through it and stuff and there's just no real output for his investment, bar the DAC & headphone amp.
He got way more output by investing in slate VSX compared to whatever he paid for the converter but it was a lot.
I'm trying to be a realistic voice for those trying to make a career out of mixing. I'm in circles with engineers who I look up to and not one of them tell me to invest in expensive converters or analog compressors. Just look at the landscape.. Jaycen Joshua is now 100% itb, where serban has been itb for over a decade. Wtf do they need expensive converters for?
When you bounce a mix it happens in the daw. Your interface has NO baring whatsoever on what the sum is. UNLESS you route the mix into the converter like hardware and print the result but at the end of the day what's the point? The lynx aurora isn't a summing mixer, it's an AD/DA. The only only real converter I've heard that actually adds something to an overall track is the lavry gold which was 9 grand if I recall before it was discontinued but engineers seen that as a piece of outboard for printing their mix through. That wasn't their workhorse converters. It was mostly avid HD's cause nearly all of them have protools rigs.
When I ask for advice it's always about my ear training. All about the mix, the prep, the vibe, the feel, balance. The only thing they advise me to invest in is the monitoring, cause you can't mix what you can't hear.
When it comes to monitoring, I completely agree in a high spec DAC, combined with a an amazing headphone amp. You can't mix what you can't hear.. And lynx SMASHES audient and other budget interfaces in regards to DAC but ADC.. Audio science review has done tests on audient gear and its not the ADC that's the main issues, it's the DAC and headphone amps.
That's why i made a video last week discussing the importance of headphones and DAC's when mixing on headphones.
Honestly, if you take the time to speak to mixers you respect in the industry you'll found out pretty quick that they don't really give a f*ck about converters. It's something that will never make or break their end result cause they all admit that technology has caught up and what was amazing 10-15 years ago is now a fraction of the price and in most well built audio interfaces.
I get told so many stories about how expensive stuff was 10-20 year ago and how lucky I am to be growing in the world I am today where that same technology is now affordable and within reach to the average consumer.
The first lynx aurora for example is now seen as "decent" and "alright" compared to today's standards and still costs a grand second hand.
Topping has proved that today's modern world can produce measurements that we don't even need to be that good at a fraction of what others charge.
If you have tons of gear then yeah you need a solid converter that can give you the I/O, clocking and stable drivers needed to print that gear in the daw.. Its practical. That's what I said in the video. All about your needs but if you genuinely believe that a lynx aurora N and an ssl fusion is what gets your mixes better than the itb guy down the street then my advice is that you are investing in the wrong things.
Honestly man, if I was to sit in a room with these guys and tell them that my mixes are gonna better cause I bought a lynx aurora and a fusion id get ripped apart... In a nice way.
They'd ask to listen to a mix I'd done on them and then proceed to tell me all the reasons why my mix could be improved and id guarentee you some would ask me to print a mix without the fusion and compare.
They wouldn't say.. Wow, you can really hear the lynx conversion there.. They'd tell me practical things about the mix they hear. They wouldn't say.. Wow you can really hear that fusion, they'd ask me how I used it so they could summise if an issue they are hearing is caused by that as its over the entire mix. A lot of these guys will work top to bottom when giving you feedback.
Believe it or not, I'm actually one of the good guys here. I'm not telling people to spend 100k on gear to make it as a certain mastering engineer youtuber is at the moment. I'm telling them to focus on what really matters and makes the biggest difference.
Splitting hairs on ADC conversion of analog gear you use when mixing isn't gonna turn a shit mix into a great mix, no matter how much you spend.
That's what I'll never stop fighting against, is the elitism of parts of the audio community. Telling somebody to spend 3 THOUSAND POUNDS on a converter to run 2 or 3 pieces of gear they can afford is hands down THE WORST advice to give somebody trying to make a career out of mixing from their home studio.
Maybe 3 grand is small change for some but for most of my audience.. That's 2 months full wages at least.
Their money is better spent on things that actually have a big impact on their end result
@@PaulThird Paul, are you saying that pure ITB files bounced out of a DAW will sound identical from one interface to another? Maybe you aren’t. One of the first tests I did was to see if a bounce from the Lynx sounded the same as one from the Twin or the 404hd. Definitely not the same.
If it comes down to something where I could just plug a Topping DAC into the ID14 or the Twin and get the same result, then I’d probably sell the Lynx unless I was able to get more hardware.
A big problem that I’ve never seen anyone address is the fact that we don’t have finished mixes to reference. Only mastered tracks. How are we supposed to know what is good enough for a competent mastering engineer to work with? We have no idea who a client may hire either. And a lot of mastering people ask for remixes.
So, I decided I’d rather see what I could do to make things sound like a finished track as opposed to focusing on mixing alone.
Watch the multiple UA-cam videos of Fusion plugins vs Fusion hardware. It’s a massive difference. I don’t use the Fusion in mixes since it was so hard to route with the budget interfaces and when it did work, it was so different from plugins that whatever track I used it on would stick out.
So, I use Fusion to master almost exclusively. And it really does that well. Much better than using a bunch of plugins. Maybe someone with a top notch room, skills, and experience could work a miracle with plugins. Fusion just makes things much easier and faster.
I’m quite sure I have heard that a lot of rooms cannot be treated well or at all. Room treatment can be expensive and can also be done wrong.
I forget, have you used VSX? My conclusion is that maybe it’s better than relying on a flawed headphone out, but it was throwing off my use of FX like reverb due to the reverb inherent in the plugin. Plus those are closed headphones that bring the problems inherent with that design.
It would be good if you were able to try these things in your room outside of access analog.
Back when I was mixing on the ID14 and using JBL 305s along with K701s, I’d make stuff that sounded great on them but didn’t translate well on computer speakers in another room. A big reason I got the 305 was because there were claims that they measured extremely well, flat even, in untreated rooms. But they make most anything sound tremendous.
It’s very tough to teach mixing or learn from videos. For me, I had to spend a lot of time experimenting with plugins and doing stuff hands on.
It also depends on what someone wants to do. I started doing this myself because the samples of work I heard from studios in this area was not what I wanted to do. Stuff was just kinda barebones. A lot of rock and metal became too clean and transparent with all these fake instruments playing too perfectly.
Lately I’ve seen productions that are much more in line with what I like. Blood By Design, Foxes, Drown Again, Anathema Optimist, it’s been a relief.
Isn’t it often a struggle for people who work on bigger name albums to earn these days? I heard that some in the interviews on the Lynx channel.
There’s a converter shootout I’d be interested in your opinion on. I think it was done by Produce like a Pro. They had Burl, JCF, Benchmark, and I think some HDCD thing. Each one radically changed the audio.
Another topic it would be good for you to get into is cpu processing. That can be a severe handicap. In 2015, I could run like one instance of Satin tape on what I was using. On my Ryzen 1700 system, I can run a lot more. I’ve done a lot of work over the years trying to figure out what sounded the best and could be used the most.
Obviously, if cpu power is unlimited, we could run the best Acustica and Nebula stuff in big quantities. As it stands now, I can’t even run one instance of Azure 2 at 96k in a mastering session with Fusion as an insert.
Maybe I could run one instance if I built a new computer with one of these top rated Intel chips that have double the single core power of an overclocked Ryzen 1700.
I’m trying to recreate more old school pure analog record sounds and that’s not easy to do with plugins. A lot of files that noted pros get are tracked with analog gear or even tape. Greg from Kush also used the term “tracked by geniuses”. A lot of these sampled things were made with analog gear.
My thinking is that it’s tough to provide general advice to a group of people where we don’t know what their goals are. It’s often assumed by others that everyone is just trying to do the latest trendy pop and R&B stuff.
Decades ago you had bands who would make records that sounded pretty good in cheap studios. And it could be done since it was all analog. A lot of low budget metal records from 80’s and 90’s got a flawed production that worked. Nowadays someone does something cheap in a DAW and it’ll sound like sterile garbage. And that’s happened with some of these same metal bands.
Transparency is the enemy in a lot of musical styles.
If someone has no budget and wants to start mixing, it’s a tough call what to recommend. It can be easier to get something like a Fusion or an Aurora N if you can get the payments small enough. But now we also have PayPal pay in 4 and Klarna for plugins.
The first thing is just the computer. Nowadays it’s so much cheaper than even 2018. A lot of people are just gonna download all the cracked stuff. Probably start with Waves since so many pros have promoted the Mercury bundle as the end all be all.
Determining plugin quality is a whole nother can of worms. Some plugins have serious defects, like the Metric Halo Channel Strip. Pros love it. I’ve always hated that thing. If you read the tests in the gearspace plugin analysis thread, the thing is adding low end as you subtract it. Something about it being a DF1 biquad. I did the test on some other stuff and the Pro Tools eq3 had the same problem.
Andy from Cytomic said there are a lot more out there, but he didn’t name names. It’s harder to test compressors for that. Navigating the sea of plugins can be difficult.
That would be a good video for you to make. Beginner’s guide to plugins.
Ultimately it’s about someone’s natural capacity to hear stuff. There is so much variation in recordings. It’s tough to give standardized answers to solving problems or how to use a plugin or piece of equipment. I just decided I needed to devise my own methods.
Paul, you’re an honest pioneer and I always look forward to your insights.
Hey, thanks for the discussion. I’m looking for new interface right now and the N is on my shortlist.
A Demo unit with 8IO is already on the way.
Since I’m using the dangerous bus+ I’m just afraid that I need 16…
Anyway:
My question:
1. In your opinion it’s worth the money.
2. Have you ever used yours with ADAT?
Thanks✌🏻
Great video.
🤓🤓
Great vid man, liked and subscribed 😁👍
Thanks Bill appreciate it 🙌🤓
So are you now tracking and mixing at 96K then?
I'll record at 96k in the id14 but still mix at 48khz. The high end roll off is in the preamp so only affects recordings 🤓
Very, very😉nice empirical test!
I wonder what would happen making x50 or x500 passes with the Lynx and the color it supposedly adds🕵🏻
Pointless test tbh. Never really understood why people do those tests when you really only do one or 2 round trips on one source at the most in reality 🤷♂️
You could argue in a chain of gear on kick, then gear on drum bus, then gear on mixbus. Maybe 5 or 6 pieces of gear but the kick is then swallowed up by the rest of the drums, then drums by the rest of the tracks. In the science of differences, any difference caused by ADC is completely swamped by the difference of the rest of the tracks.
Doesn't really pose any big difference still.
I always measure things based on how they will actually be used.
Somebody could say "ohhh but after 50 round trips the audient really starts to deteriote when the lynx starts to crumble at 100"
Are you doing 50 trips of ADC on a source?...
“no but that's not the point"
So what is the point, that the lynx's conversion can do something better that will only happen when used in a way that no audio engineer will use it?
"yes!!!"
And that's when you let the Internet be the Internet and dissolve itself
Have you ever used access analog without putting signal thru any gear? (i have not, wondering what that might affect) If you record thru audient, send it to access analog via their plugin, you never input the true original analog into the analog input of the AD converter on their end, it's your digital put thru their D/A then routed to their A/D. What am I missing. Is there some magic that let's you send you interfaces analog in directly across the net to their analog inputs? I understand access analog value of getting analog gear 'coloration', but beyond that I don't see the benefit, especially for this comparison. Full disclosure, I use Behringer UMC404HD and love it. Just wondering if I'm missing something about access analog or how all this processing works.
The biggest misconception is that I'm recording through the audient. I'm not. Somebody gave me an idiotic comment during the week about the test being flawed as the access analog is being 'bottle necked' by the audient.
In actual fact it's all done purely in the daw with access analog. You don't need an interface and can even use an fl studio or AISO driver when using protools.
The daw track signal is sent to an online server which recieves that signal and passes it through the converters and the gear and streams it back out all lossless to the daw in real time.
All the access analog gear uses lynx converters for conversion.
In the daw all you do is set up a new track and set the input as the output of the access analog track. Record the track and then align manually after due to the latency. Or alternatively you can upload the file to the server and do an offline print where you simply download the file after its processed it through the gear.
Daw signal is streamed lossless over a server which passes the signal through the analog chain which you have virtual control of via the robot arms on each part of the gear, that processed signal is streamed back lossless to the daw which you can then print to a seperate track and align manually
That's how it's done
My 404 has inserts after the pre-amp. I'll need to try that out.
Thanks Paul, I appreciate your video, lots of information easy to digest and it cheered me up. Thank you
🤓🤓
This isn’t really an accurate test.
I get the jist of what you’re trying to do. But, it’s not scientifically credible, as you have two distinct signal chains. You have no idea what the actual hardwired signal path is at AA. They say a simple cable. But is it really, or is it through their patching relay etc.
The only way to make true comparisons, that qualify empirically based conclusions is to use an identical signal path, except for the variable being tested.
If you think good conversion is a white elephant, then you should debate Bob Katz.
Tbh I never said it was 100% scientifically accurate.
I did a test with what was available. Regardless of the variables being a cable it's still the exact same digital file being streamed lossless 24 bit into a converter and then going back out, streamed lossless into the same daw and being printed in the exact same way as the id14.
It can be flipped the other way that the lynx has an advantage that AA's cable is better quality than mine.
Theres no way to prove how much of a real audible difference there is via using access analogs signal chain. There's as much as 5 lufs of a difference in the null. Is using the same cable or me having the physical hardware going to get that 5 lufs difference of the id14. I'd very much doubt it but again I can't prove it
In the end I recieved 4 nasty emails from disgruntled lynx users demanding the audio files and claiming that I had no idea what I was talking about and name dropping such and such.
I offered them all to send me their converters to test transparency against the id14 at 96k. As you said remove the variables.
3 have not replied back to me and the other one told me that they wouldn't want my dirty inexperienced hands on something that I'll never be able to afford. Wished me good luck in making mediocre records through my id14.
Tbh I'm not fussed. I know that the id14 is transparent enough recording at 96khz to print analog gear through. That was the main point of the video to test if and how it degraded the audio quality of the printed hardware. I do expect there to be converters that are more transparent than the id14. There must be. I'm not doubting that for a second.
But until somebody hands me their converter and asks me to test it under the same circumstances I couldn't really care what others use or what so and so has to say. to be honest as I'm perfectly happy with what I've got.. Well not really as I want to upgrade to the iD22 now haha but for now I have no issues using the id14. I tested it and was pretty happy with the results 🤓
@@PaulThird that’s all well and good, mate. But, you make a bold statement saying you’ve ‘proven it’ and it isn’t conclusive.
Yes, 5dB RMS is pretty significant difference. Too significant for it to be the actual DA/AD process. It’s more than likely a slight phase shift, which I would be surprised if it was the Lynx itself.
As for cable quality, that definitely is a white elephant. Im saying I doubt AA is a direct cable IO. For them to be able to allow reordering of units, means they have some form of patching. That’s either digital or digitally controlled analogue relay. My point being that these are not insignificant factors to consider.
There’s deffo a lot of snobbery in music m. So don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying that the best debaters acknowledge the shortcomings of their own methodology and viewpoints. It actually makes you more credible than less.
You could get in touch with Lynx and ask them to send you a unit for comparison. Then you could make a direct test and draw a line under it forever?
Good luck with the channel.
Very nice video, I've always wondered this. What surprised me once when I recorded guitars for an album, is when the mic preamp died and I ran out and got a second hand Behringer 8 channel mixer for like 10 euros. The sound of its preamps for guitar blew me away. Not because it was top notch or something, but it wasn't so different from the TrueSystems Precision 8 and what kind of sound we wanted to get. I realized back then that it's true as they say: "It's not about the gear, but all about the ear". A great producer can do much better job with only plugins than a mediocre engineer with top end gear.
Yup very true 🤓
Digital and Analogue... I swing both ways! 😁 Digital is far superior to analogue in so many ways it's not worth discussing... but, regardless of viewpoint the argument boils down to "how it sounds". In analogue terms... the same reel of Ampex 456 will yield audibly different results on a Tascam 22 or a Studer A812. In digital, the same ADC chips could be used by Behringer and Lynx - but the clocking, filtering and other "audio science" that is applied whilst converting the signal from A to D is what you're paying for. So, yes, all AD/DA conversions will sound a little different as every company is convinced their's sounds the best! Pure measurements may reveal which company succeeded in transparency... but it does not guarantee it will be perceived by us as the best sounding. Vive la différence!
Great examples!
Long story short that's the conclusion of this video.
The reason I made the video was that an analog guy told me
'sadly your interface isn't really up for the job of optimally printing outboard gear'
'I should add - if your AD-DA's don't have sufficient dyamic range to support and match a piece of outboard you will never capture the full sonic capabilities of that said piece of gear'
I then gave him the dynamic range stats of the id14 and info I gave in this video.
He then told me that he knows better as he had an rme fireface and didn't trully appreciate the quality of his ssl bus compressor until he put it through a symphony.
I then asked if it was possible that it was the sound of the converters he liked and not that he was getting the full sonic capabilities of his ssl.
I was then told
'you simply cannot make bold statements that "its the conversion I'm hearing" when you have zero experience with high end converters, proper studio monitors & decent room acoustics. All you have is a pc with cool plugins'
In the end, we all know it was the difference the converters added. Nothing to do with 'the full potential' of the analog gear.
The problem is the marketing hype from the manufacturers themselves. This is what lynx say on their website regarding the aurora:
Transparency Matters
Signal coloration is additive and can kill an otherwise pristine mix. That’s why a colored mix begins to collapse while the transparent mix has space, definition and a level of detail that is simply unattainable with converters that add color and distortion. Lynx’s hallmark sonic transparency is why Lynx converters are being used in the most mission-critical audio applications and in the world’s finest recording facilities. Lynx converters have been specified for their uncanny ability to convert signals without adding any artifacts or color. For audio engineers and producers demanding the most pristine recordings and mixes Lynx is the converter of choice at facilities like Dolby’s new mega complex of audio research, Skywalker Sound, NPR, and the Smithsonian Institute. Lynx converters pass the most stringent tests and shoot outs to become the sought after converters for these discerning professionals. Precision matters more than ever and there is no place for even the slightest coloration or degradation of the signal.
Paul Third - I get a better null with an audient id14 at 96k than the aurora. Oh and I can definitely hear colour of some description in the aurora and also slight bit more high end
Lynx: does the aurora sound better though..
Paul Third - 🙈
Id just rather they were just up front and said.. Look.. We know that your gonna buy what sounds best. Our converters aren't as transparent as we make out. If they were then we'd all sound the same. To stand out from the crowd we change the sound a certain way to enhance the sound of your hardware.
I'm fine with that but it's marketing BS like this that has guys giving me a hard time cause I'm using an id14 to print hardware making ridiculous claims regarding dynamic range and loss of hardware fidelity 😂
@@PaulThird I feel your pain! Any 24 bit audio interface has more than enough dynamic range to print analogue signals. Signal to noise is another story - digital eats analogue for breakfast. As for AD/DA converters... the difference between "high end" and "entry level" has levelled out to the point where we virtually need to do null tests to hear it! In the digital world "pure" is easy... but "sounding good" is the holy grail. Marketing is their last hope at convincing you that what you're hearing is "better"... when in fact, "better" is subjective and therefore an endless quest.
god these videos are so satisfying "It is what it is, it's done, I've just done it!"
🤓🤓
Well done Paul, that was a really nice explanation of the importance (or non-importance) of bit depth and its influence on quality.
🤓🤓
Man, you're the mythbusters of audio equipment industry 😁 I'm about to purchase one of lynx converters instead of an audio interface. You just made me think twice.
Yeah it's pointless spending that kind of money in today's market. The audient evo 16 & SP8 together is only £800 for 16 in and out with smart gain and decent conversion.
If universal audio didnt give me the apollo x6 I would be audient id44 expanded by SP8 with topping dx7 pro+ as my main DAC via spidf.
£1500 all in and I'd have the option of 12 mic/line ins, 4 JFET DI's, 12 line outs, 2 sets of ADAT in and out whilst being monitored by arguably the best DAC amp on the market
Compare that to an 8 channel lynx converter for over 3 grand.. Waste of money
Even my current setup of apollo x6 (expanded by SP8 for more inputs) + topping dx7 pro+ comes in at £2800.. Which is STILL cheaper than a limited 8 channel lynx aurora with a shit headphone amp.
Easy maths haha
I own an iD44, you can bypass the preamps by using the insert returns, same as the id22!
🤓🤓
Well okay.....
There's a LOT packed into this episode, too much to properly unpack now.
But let me say a couple of things:
1) Your takeaway that nobody should be stressed out about the differences or doing damage to their sound by using a modern Budget interface is absolutely correct.
2) That is Because, as with your mobile phone, this is 2021 not 2011 or 2001. The actual "converters" inside of an "interface" are chips, and those chips come from like 3 companies, none of which have their names on your interfaces. The companies that sold you an Interface, built Circuitry around those chips, and a dozen companies ALL using the Exact Same chips, will have a dozen different results. What has changed, or rather evolved, is just like Apple's new M1 chips are changing the game, so is the way Apple is designing the Circuitry. So the Chip Manufacturers, as well as the Interface Manufacturers are all getting better and better.
3) If you're just now tuning in to a "program already in progress", and you probably have to be a certain age to even get That reference, then you can be forgiven for not hearing any differences between interfaces costing hundreds and interfaces costing thousands. That gap has shrunken to the point of near irrelevance for the vast majority of the work being done. But there was once a significant difference between the boys and the men. However, boys grow up.
4) About a month ago you and I had a back and forth about much of the same topics regarding Bit Depth and Dynamic Range, Fixed Point vs Floating Point, as well as Sampling Rates and Oversampling.
1-bit = 6dB DR
16-bit = 96dB DR
24-bit = 144dB DR
32-bit Floating Point = Effectively Unlimited DR
And
1X= 44.1 & 48kHz
2X= 88.2 & 96kHz
4X= 192kHz
Well, the Chip Manufacturers made all the chips 4X. But the question is whether the Pros outweigh the Cons going from 1X to 2X and again from 2X to 4X. My ears, as I said before, as well as many I know that have tested, do hear a consistent improvement moving from 1X to either 2X or 4X. But I can't easily tell between 2X and 4X, by ear.
Acustica have stuck to 96kHz I assume for similar reasons. 192kHz provides an Insignificant (if any discernable) BENEFIT for a quiet Significant COST (in the form of CPU usage and Data Storage).
This is a fantastic comment but I don't get the last bit haha number 5
Remember I have aspergers so I struggle to read between the lines sometimes. I'm quite literal. Ive re-read it but just dont understand exactly what you mean 🤓
Agree with almost everything (about the audio) but i think that Intel and AMD need to do custom CPU for audio processing like mining for Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, because the oversampling at 192khz instead of 96khz especially in the shelving eq stage (bax etc..) and the Stereo image stage it's quite big and pleasing to my ears/feelings
@@AftertuneMusic Agreed! I’m running out the door, but….part of my previous rant on the other video was about a seemingly contradictory consensus. Why is it that in RECORDING at 96 vs 192, the differences are minor to most, but in OVERSAMPLING Plugins, the 2X vs 4X difference is plainly noticeable?
And if you track at 192, does it Still make sense to Oversample?
Something else is going on, that I don’t yet understand.
I haven’t done the extensive testing that I plan to (hopefully in the fall), but I’m all ears as to the discrepancy or others experiences.
@@PaulThird Hey Paul, yeah let me apologize for number 5. I know what I was trying to say, but after re-reading it, what I wrote is basically unreadable. I just got home, it’s been a long day, I’ll try to fix it tomorrow. But for tonight, yeah that was a mess….
@@PaulThird Hey Paul, I just edited number 5 out all together. It was unfixable and didn't belong with the other 4 anyhow.
As I've told you before, I REALLY like what you are trying to do with this Channel. I love that you are Setting up tests and Showing examples of whatever topic you're discussing.
Substantiating you Claims.
At the same time, every channel has to be entertaining on some level, rather than 10-minutes of charts and graphs, devoid of personality.
That range, I was putting between Julian Krause who is presenting facts and data with an android-like lack of human expression, and WhiteSea who's every video has a thumbnail of him making some distorted facial expression next to a click-bait title, and his videos themselves are always hit-n-miss regarding whether or not he even understands the topic.
You've consistently produced quite useful and validated information on this Channel.
But in this particular video, you seem to be uncharacteristically defensive and eager to Prove some point. I'm sure that the comments coming your way are as ridiculous as the internet always is.
Brush your shoulders off. You don't need to respond to the haters. Your Videos, and the content within does all the work for you. Getting all exercised and adversarial, doesn't really add anything to the Audio Excellence you, and your real audience is reaching for.
Among many other things, I'm a thirty plus year television producer, the original "content creators". My advice for every "show" is to define what the show is, and who the show is for. Beware of "mission creep", getting pulled in various directions often outside of the scope you really want to focus on.
All that said, maybe you do wanna be the Myth Buster and take on all the haters week after week. And more power to that.
But that takes a lot of time and energy, and the opportunity cost is at the expense of the audience that really wants to grow and build, and not be bothered by the nonsense.
I hope this comes across better than my last fiasco.
I am very much rooting for you and this channel.
Man I love my ID14. Amazing for the money. Was glad to bin off my Gen 1 Focusrite! Haha. Great video as always mate! 👍
Thanks man appreciate it 🤓 also great seeing a lot of love in the comments for the ole id14 💪
Hey Paul, I'm bit confused on all I've seen on quality! I need at min 6-8 in and out for mix and mastering. Would list of few converters or interfaces converters do you recommend buying based on quality and cost? Can you please put a small list together based on the test you have done overall! Thank you in advance!
Also, if I have a really cheap USB interface with ADAT, and say I put a expensive AD/DA converter on ADAT, will i lose the quality of the expensive unit by running it through the ADAT of the cheaper unit for its USB connection?
Excellent informative video Thanks very much
🤓🤓
This was very good and insightful.
🤓🤓
Always with dope videos bro !!
🤓🤓
I knew you where going to bring the fire and you did! On behalf of all the cheaper interface users, We thank you sir!! 😌🤝👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
🤓🤓🤓🤓
Awesome video buddy 💥👌🏾
Thanks man 🤓🤓
Great video. So to use the ID14 mkiii in 96, do you go into the iD software and just set the sample rate to 96? Would I also set studio one to 96? Thanks!
Yes, record at 96 but I never tested the mk2, just mk1
Awesome Job!! This would also apply for the Audient iD4 I'm assuming?
I'd think so 🤓
Thanks for covering this topic. 🙌
🤓🤓
Hey buddy, thanks for making this. I see absolutely no dialogue on this and I’m glad I’ve seen this before making a dumb purchase. Would an SSL 2 be able to bypass their preamps or should I invest in an audient id ?
if not which is the best choice for quality budget conversion.
Nah ssl looks pretty limited on that front which is understandable at that price. I'd say audient is good money spent. If id44 is too much then iD22 is another good option 🤓
I think those of us who invest in high end converters aren’t doing so for transparency most of the time (as it’s a given). Different converters have different flavors and color the sound in different ways. I know you touched on this, but it’s no small thing.
I don’t even bother with specs when buying converters. I simply shoot them out with my old converters and see which feels nicer to track and mix through (and it is a feel thing). Avid and Apogee and Lynx sound very different - it’s actually quite drastic if you get used to one then switch. You may not hear it on just one track but the cumulative effect of it on many tracks becomes very noticeable. That’s what you’re looking for.
Also one thing you didn’t mention - some high end converters impart a pleasing sound when you clip them with a hot signal - something you’re definitely not going to get with an Apollo.
Great video, great tests. I use various convertors/interfaces, from cheap SSL2+’s to Merging, Dangerous and moderate priced ones like Apollo. Although the ones that have transformers can be useful if you want that color (like the switchable/defeatable Dangerous Music ones), most of the time I want clean acquisition and conversion. That is one of the things I love about DSD 256+, in that I can loop, insert or whatever I need to do and never have to worry about aliasing or filter/phasing issues. However, for many recordings and workflows even a fairly cheap Focusrite Scarlett is beyond anything that is audibly discernible- especially in complex music.
technology has caught up and became a lot more inexpensive. Its a great time for those new to the industry definitely!
Hi Paul😊, I always enjoy your channel. I have a first gen iD44 and kept thinking, why not go into the insert jack?? Then I remembered the insert was the main reason I picked the iD44 to begin with. It doesn't seem to add much color to me, but your tests don't lie. Keep up the good work and thanks!
🤓🤓
Thanks for making this video.
🤓🤓
I watched an interview with Eddie Kramer where he said he loved the Burl converters because "they sound like tape". I love tape, but was really puzzled by why this would be the case when, surely you'd at least want the option of transparency with expensive converters. Some reliable sources are of the opinion that, most budget interfaces released after about 2003 have good enough A-D converters for professional recording and that it's most likely the preamps that would cause any degradation. How do early studio converters compare to later budget converters anyway(?) Cheers.
I don't have any early converters 🤷♂️
Wow I LOVE this !!! Thank You
What a great test!! Thank you. It’s more confirmation for me to not get hung up in what equipment or plug-in or sample rate is “better”. Better is always subjective, use your ears!! The only important thing is to understand what’s happening and why so you can consistently get the result you want.
🙌🙌🙌
A lot of ppl say things like just use only your stock plugins to mix when they themselves don’t even do that, even though you could do it, 3rd party plugs make things easier and in most cases sound better
First generation ID14 user with ASP880 where I can bypass preamps. I use a Motu 24Ao for out conversion out tobmy console and outboard and the ASP for conversion in. I'm happy enough. Love Audient and Motu stuff.
🤓🤓
Thanks, Dude, I feel lighter somehow.. a great test and conclusion..
🤓🤓
Where would you look for preamps if you needed 24 channels? The cheapest you can find? Asking for a friend....me.
Probably buy 2 RME 12mic or 3 Audient ASP800's
What is the noise input on Universal Audio Interfaces?
dunno. Surely Julien Kraus will do a uad test soon enough
You can't release this during footy match. Will watch later 🔥
I made sure It was uploaded so I could watch second half 😂
@@PaulThird don't listen to people who say it won't work with analog it's all about how much power needed is provided to the audio interface specially the usb ones make sure to get the full benefit of you're audio interface to connect it using a usb c cable or you'll get less volume out of your mic preamp and headphone amp
Very Interesting. I use a apogee element 24 myself. I know the higher your sample rate the higher your frequency range extends. I’m guessing this is why the roll off is more prominent at 44.1khz since half of 44.1 is 22.05 which is your highest audible frequency at 44.1. Naturally half of 96k is much higher, making your highest frequency 48.
BINGO!!
Hey Paul!! I love your channel! So much useful info. Two questions for you.. if and when you ever need more than two inputs (mixing drums for example) what do you use at that point? And second... you say you mix on headphones. What make and model do you use?
Thanks again for the great content!
I decided not to be a recording engineer a good 8 or so year ago so sold most of my mics and also my mackie onyx blackbird and focusrite saffire Pro. As I'm not a recording engineer I only need 2 mic inputs for my own stuff.
If it's drums I'll pay drummers I know to record and send me the stems to mix.
In terms of the headphones I use bose QC35ii and sonarworks. It was a surprise from the wife like 3 or 4 Christmas's ago when my beyerdynamics broke but she went to currys and the guy sold her these 🙈 it was still a good like £350 or summin and I couldn't bare to tell her they weren't what I would've picked so I just made do as I was a store manager at that point and just using all my stuff for my own music and shouting out plugins. They are great as they are wireless and have noise cancelling so was great for taking the dog out on a walk and stuff but I knew I needed to invest in sonarworks if I was gonna use them for mixing.
Tbh I can't complain as I get messages from guys with big studios and expensive monitors telling me they can hear what I hear so I know they are still good enough but my plan is to invest in hifiman sundara after recommendations from engineers I trust and possibly buy a seperate headphone DAC as well. Just so I know I'm definitely hearing as much detail as possible 🤓
Hooo boy. Now you've gone and made it. Excellent video and nice to hear that you and Julian Krause are aquaintances. I'm a very big fan of his and I'm also a big fan of you now. I LOVE audio bs uncovering. Keep it up!
I've never met or spoke to Julian but an engineer friend of mine follows him and shares some of his stuff. I should actually watch some more of his stuff 🤓
Great video Paul. I recently bought a Scarlett Solo, (I try to do voiceovers in my spare time). A sound engineer in USA reckons I have distortion in my dry recordings. Paul, what’s the probability that the Scarlett solo is causing the distortion please?
I’m going to buy the Audient Id4 not the 14. Would sound recording be identical do you think all things being equal?
Thanks mate.
Chris
If you or the engineer hears the distortion then fair enough but if he's saying that there's distortion just cause he knows what type of interface you are using then don't worry. Base everything on what you hear. Do you hear it?
I have no experience with scarlett stuff so id suggest you check out Julian Krause's vids and check out his table of interfaces as he includes how they all compare specs and measurements wise. He maybe has a video on the scarlett solo.
Normally distortion will only occur if you go in too hot and clip the mic pres. Or you may hear extra noise or artifacts if are using a worn xlr cable that needs replaced. Being focusrite I wouldn't imagine it would be causing distortion with the levels set right as they are so unbelievably popular.
The id4 is the id14 but with less inputs essentially. The recordings should sound identical
@@PaulThird thanks Paul for info.
No I don’t really hear the distortion only my rumbly sort of voice, it’s how I sound I think. You could be onto something with old xlr cable being used . Thanks again. Chris
I’ve been using the Aurora N for 2 years. You should hear the difference between 2” tape and aurora n! Let’s just say the tape realism and 3d is HUGE.
Hey, Im just looking for a new Interface, after 2 years what’s your thoughts on the aurora?
Its on my shortlist…
earned that sub, excellent tests and breakdown. cheers
Thanks appreciate it 🤓
One of the best audio-nerd UA-cam videos. Ill be recording at 96 from now.
What interface are you using? 🤓
hahaha you crack me, good detecting, i found a similar thing in my travels. are you running out the back of your interface and back into the inputs while at 96khz in the daw?
Yup exactly that 🤓
I was going to link you to that Present Day Production video until you mentioned it lol.
I watched quite a few videos before doing this haha 😅
Since this is way above my head.... should I be recording at 96K with my Apollo X4 then?
No, unless you are recording with UAD plugs on the way in, then it's something to think about
I've been arguing this point for years on youtube.
I was like do the tests yourself just don't take someone's word for it.
People believe to much instead of finding out the facts. Same with politics.
Great work!
honestly the amount of garbage i see all over youtube is crazy. Some of the comments I get i'm like... WHY WOULD YOU EVEN BELIEVE THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE!! haha
Its either down to confirmation bias or lazyness. Either it suits what they want to believe or they cant be bothered actually testing it for themselves.
Great work mate
Thanks mate 🤓
You're absolutely right mate. And the thing is, the audient converters are some of the best converters ever made, people don't know. it's sitting next to apogee, merging anubis, etc. I loved the way you really approached this scientifically and did a great job.
No no, its not the best ever made or sitting next to Merging anubis, that being said, it is a very very good device, and you can do a lot with it!
As somebody who loves and also owns an id14 heres my take: I used the id14 as my main for a long time, one day I decided to upgrade to something high end, and first I noticed a small difference, nothing night and day by any stretch of the imagination, after about 4 months of use I switched back to the id14 just to hear it cause I really enjoy the sound of it, and the sound just sounded a little bit more like there was a blanket over it, (nothing substantial and I still stand that the id14 converters are indeed fantastic) but you can have a different experience once you go more high end, trust me, especially if your room is treated ans youre using good headphones or monitors, I actually noticed it with quite cheap monitors first
Now, does that mean the id14 isn't sufficient? NO, the id14 is a beast, both in build and sound, and the id14 is probably going to have better conversion than most stuff that many hit records where done with in the 90s, so there you go! And the sound could even be more appealing for some people
There are no Audient converters. Lol. Audient interfaces use third-party converters.
@@joshsmith7812The id14 mk 1 sounds sounds fantastic . The mark 2 is another level up. Incredibly transparent ! The headphone amp is cleaner and sweeter , plus 4 outputs on back. No brainer!
Hi Paul, I'm looking into the iD14 i have become very fond of it and its about time I replaced my 1st gen 2i2 Scarlett🤣 where did you pick up this interface? i've been in touch with Audient about student discount but they don't seem to be offering it atm and I'm not looking to drop £200 as i am just a student doing this as a hobby! So just wondering if there's anywhere good to get this a bit less, thanks
I got a long time ago. I sold my focusrite saffire Pro and mackie onyx blackbird cause I wasn't recording anymore.
Try GAK or Andertons. They are normally relatively well priced 🤓
So you didn't have a real lynx Aurora at home for the comparison? But you just ran through a voice through some plugin you found online?
No, not at home. I ran the voice through a lynx Aurora (N) remotely via access analog. The daw audio is transmitted lossless online, through the aurora and back lossless to daw. That's why there is inherent latency involved with protools but studio one fixes that with their delay compensation so when I do a print now it's perfectly aligned.
Im genuinely doing the follow up to this now as I wanted to include white noise, pink noise, piano and a mix. I don't know if everything was absolutely perfectly time alligned due to protools but studio one is bang on and I've been able to have more concrete results
Spoiler.. Audient is more transparent at 96khz than lynx at 48khz. But audient isn't as transparent at 48k but still results in inaudible differences
Im a bit confused on the testing strategy here, once and analog source is recorded to digital..... how do you test again.
The lynx conversion goes DAW> streamed lossless to server > through converter > streamed lossless back to DAW.
Doesn't hit the audient once. Instead of using physical cables to record a loop back you essentially use virtually streamed cables. You dont need an interface connected to do it. Could run the daw with a virual driver and print access analog gear into the daw.
The only difference between having the physical unit in front of me and streaming lossless online is that that the audio isn't going through physical cables at my end.
To test the audient conversion you have to create a loop so line out to line in of interface. That's it. Daw audio comes out of the line out but instead of going to a speaker it goes to a line in or preamp so if can be recorded
Awesome vid Paul!! How about making a tutorial on how to test your analog gear? I'm talking about getting some kind of compressor for example and going trough the process. Most producers are getting into mixing these days and starting to acquire analog gear (including myself) Would be awesome to have a process to test them. I have plugin doctor but must of the time I have no idea what I'm doing.. Would be awesome to see you sharing a process with analog gear so that we can copy it and know what to do.. Thank you once again!
ua-cam.com/video/eaMD2XkEm8I/v-deo.html
Try that video out and let me know. I'd need another piece of gear to do a doctor video as I sold it all but that's showing you how to match access analog gear with plugins
@@PaulThird awesome, I'll go watch it right now, thank you!!
I also have the Audient iD14, was thinking of getting the MKII because of the extra outputs (a big plus for my current setup) and slightly cleaner sound and am used to working at 48k... I've also thinking been thinking of working at 96k. Looks like i'll be upgrading my setup when I can with the MKII and 96k soon unless they bring out an iD44 mkII, which would expand my setup hugely.
If you use monitors then the extra line outs are massive for you if you want to use analog gear as you don't need to unplug your speakers.
I've been swaying towards the iD22 just for all the extra options it has. Actually amazing for the price
@@PaulThird Yeah the send and return options are great too on the iD22, i'm a drummer so the added inputs of the iD44 would be much appreciated in my case. Even though I have the 880 also. And yeah the extra line outs would be great for me because I have a reel to reel tape machine that I'd like to send more sounds through but it doesn't feel 'integrated' into my current workflow unfortunately with the MKI iD14 so doesn't get much use... one day! I'll hold out to see if Audient update some more of their stuff first.
yea Id say the quality of the DAC's are more varied in the budget interfaces... AD is cool but better DA for mixing is prob more crucial... cheers
This is one where I think using the remote service vs the unit connected to your system probably makes this a difficult comparison.
Having said that I’ve always felt that Audient have nailed their converter game, and I own and still love their long discontinued modular ADC which sounds awesome!
You point out rightly though that it’s mostly a scale issue here since more channels = more cost.
I am massively skeptical about value for money in converters though and feel the difference even in high end converters wouldn’t be audibly detectable in a blind test.
but.. I want the highest spec in my recordings and I’m happy to pay for it.
Maybe one day I'll be able to do a big converter test but its getting them in the first place that's the problem 😅
@@PaulThird definitely! I’m sure as your channel grows you’ll get the means to do more elaborate content.
Keep it up!
I am just looking for 2 channels, would the RME ad 2 be too much? I plan on getting other out board gear like channel strips. The ssl 12 allows you to by pass the preamps and go straight to the converters from what I hear. Am i better off just doing something like that?
Yeah. Go for an audient id44 mk2
@@PaulThird what about something like the neve 88m?
Ed told me that it's a basic ass interface but with neve pre's. I'd still go id44 and get a golden age premier 573 500 series pre if you want a neve pre
So recording at 48k but exporting at96k? Or just recording and exporting at 96k?
In the instance of the iD14 I'd say record at 96k, export and mix at 48k. With the id44 I just mix and record at 48k
@@PaulThird Thanks for the reply!
Brilliant statement on 'transparency'!
🤓
I can hear the roll off. This subjects extremely interesting.
🤓🤓
Hybrid setup here simple 1 synth .. Everything is pointing towards going 96k - with the plugins, recording quality and even things like time stretching audio... i guess my i7 has its work cut out now :)
🤓🤓
"Test Tubes".. I was giggeling.. Tubes.. tubes guys! Guitar amps! ey?
surrounded by hoards of el84's... fogedaboudittt.. eyy ( dunno why i have the Fonz in my head haha)
Wait so you tested this without actually having the lynx lol?
Access analog streams lossless
They way to try converters, is to loop in out the same song o sound material, and hear how the signal deteriorate through various passes.
The lynx is by far the more clean of all the high AD/DA converters in this test. I upgrade last year from Apollo 8x to Lynx Aurora (n) after trying similar ratio models (Apogee Symphony 2, Digital Audio Denmark and Prism SOund) in my studio and the difference is no small by any means. The round lows, image stereo and depth, and a cristal clear mids and hig mids, definition make my work in mixing and mastering more efficient. Actually already 5 colleagues came to my studio (that have a good sound treatment) to hear it in the last 6 months, and already all of the bouth some of them, like the Lynx Hilo, or the same model that i have.
So of course this depend on your budget, your stage as an engineer, etc, etc. but try it, you don be disappointed.
What you are hearing is DAC to monitors not the sound of ADC which is what this video is focusing on. I did another test a few months ago on the channel and the tests proved that there were no audible difference between the 2. There were differences but none that were audible.
To properly test ADC you must listen to both files on the same DAC. If you base your results on what you hear out of the whole system then that has no relevance to what your client hears or what the ADC is actually doing.
@@PaulThird Again Paul, re read my msg, the way to try ad/da is from doing loops as i explain in my comment. Cheers
Great job Paul
🤓🤓
How exactly did you test the signal using PluginDoctor? Did you just play a white noise in your DAW or did you send the signal in through the input?
Connected input to output 🤓
Could you make a similar test with the Focusrite 2i2 3rd? I've heard that the converters shouldn't be good enough to use 96 KHz.
I'd need to get my hands on one which isn't possible im afraid. It's easy enough to test if you own one though. You can print via a DAD loop and record at different sample rates and then do null tests and measure to compare if a certain sample rate results in a better null
@@PaulThird I do own one, I just don't have a loopback cable.
You don't have a TRS cable?
Love your videos and accent man haha. Keep up the great content!
🤓🤓🤓
In the beginning of the video you compared a chart with levels of dB SPL which use a power ratio, where as the dynamic range of the interface is compared to the 24bit dB full scale, which uses an amplitude ratio. Actual loudness depends on the calibration of your monitoring system or the expected level of playback.
Which chart was it? Is it at the part when I'm talking about the bit depth video?
@@PaulThird at 2:05
Ahhh right OK. That makes way more sense haha always learning 🤓
Now I understand dynamic range..... Thx Paul !!!
🤓🤓
It's not just the rolloff, I also notice the 48KHz sounds "rougher" of "fuzzier" or "grainier" somehow. This is surprising, but I heard it (again, to my surprise) when comparing mastered exports on one of my own projects at 44.1KHz vs 96KHz. The 96KHz sounded smoother and less fatiguing. (It was bowed double bass, so also had a lot of "texture" in the midrange, like this voice, which is I think the conditions where it's most audible.) I was not expecting this, because the math suggests I would not hear such a difference, but the difference is pretty clear to me.
My understanding is the same as yours, that even very cheap converter chips can now be very accurate, and they're all basically the same, with the differences being in the analog electronics. But the bit depth and sample rate DO make a difference.
Remember there is a phase shift going on at 48khz sample rate due to the filter, which doesn't occur in our audible range at 96khz. but in my most recent test I did, 48k & 96k conversion both result in differences of less than 0.1db in relation to the original signal.
However remember that when you listen back at different sample rates you are also hearing the amplified DAC signal on top of that
@@PaulThird Yeah that could be the reason. The math says I shouldn't be able to hear the difference between sample rates and the roll-off shouldn't be too noticeable for me either (my hearing probably tops out somewhere not much above 10KHz these days!), but there is SOMETHING different between 44 and 48 vs 96, which could be the filter. It has to be a very aggressive filter, and I assume that can have audible consequences (though I am far from an expert on audio circuitry). The difference is subtle, but even your null tests shows there is certainly some difference, and that some of that difference seems to be below the 10-20KHz range where there ought to be roll-off.
@ModusVivendiMedia with converters it's normally jitter distortions bring amplified in DAC you are hearing. That's what I've been told anyway. The better quality the clocking the cleaner the DAC signal. There are different variables at play when DAC is running through a speaker compared to ADC but if you hear differences at different sample rates it could be the high end phase shift of the filters but I dunno how much they are audible at 44.1 & 48 in DAC to Speakers.
@@PaulThird That makes sense. It could also be that the particular DAC I'm hearing the differences through works better at a particular sample rate and kind of messes up the sound at other sample rates. Who knows? It just turns out that audio is more complicated than just numbers and math and in the end we have to use our ears!
I was wondering if you were aware that UA-cam adds a brick wall low pass filter at 16khz?
Nah didn't know that. Where did you find that out?
@@PaulThird I heard some tech channel mention it a few weeks ago. I mentioned it to Justin from Sonic Scoop and he persuaded me to do some tests. And sure enough everything I brought in from UA-cam was missing everything above 16khz. I even double checked against the same songs ripped from iTunes and they were “full spectrum”. I’m not sure why they do it, maybe to save bandwidth? And before you ask, yes I was using the highest quality video format and I used the iDAM connection between the UA-cam app on my iPad straight into Logic on my MacBook to record the samples.
Hmmm that's a bit shit is it haha I really can't be bothered uploading everything I do to soundcloud 😂
Tbh I need to test if I really hear 16k and above. I've never actually tested myself to see how high I can hear. I'd like to think I could go close to 20k but I'm a bit wary to actually test it 😅
@@PaulThird i had done those hearing tests on UA-cam and always figured my hearing cut out at 15k but I’ve recently tested it with a tone generator in the DAW and I can definitely hear 16k and I can “feel” up to 18k. But that is just pain not really a note. And I have to turn up the volume to hear it. I’d like to find one of those test like they would give you in school, where they were random tones in alternating ears and you would tap the side of a small divider when you heard the sound. Although I remember those being kinda painful too.
"All of this transparent stuff about high grade converters, is bullshit". YES, thank you, you just saved me $1K. Cheers.
🤓🤓
Nebula 4 it's my analog gear 💯🎉
🤓🤓
@@PaulThird truly amazing combine with oversampling plug in, workflow it's everything tomorrow i got some s*it to do 😅😂
Never stop the experimenting. That's how you learn and keep it fun 🤓 enjoy
@@PaulThird absolutely! Keep expériment and combine multiple vest to achieve the best desire result💪🏻
i have the big brother which can bypass the pre amp. do i still need to record 96k? to be flat?
I wouldn't imagine so for printing hardware as you can bypass the preamp but in terms of recording through the preamps id take a guess that it's flatter at 96k. Depends on the anti aliasing filter at 48k
The amount of fun you had in that video tells me you are happy about rubbing this in someones face! And I love it. If you want to stay clean, stay in the box. Many people believe in magical elves sitting in analogue gear (or their converters).. but all it EVER is, is: light compression, saturation, eq or distortion and a liiiiittle bit of noise. Hardware is fun, it looks impressive, you can use both hands operating it, every unit sounds different.. but there is no magic in there. Magic sure exists, but it's not in hardware-units. I will bookmark this video.. I've got a feeling I'll encounter people that need to hear this in the future - and I didn't even need to eat a fortune cookie to know that.
I'm still getting hate for this video to this day. Guys still refusing to believe that the fairy dust isn't in their converters 🤣
if i record at 96k with the audient14 mkII then export to mix at 48k will i lose that high end or the sound will change?
No
Hello friend! I like your videos. I'm buying everything now in order to start making music. Can you please help me? I've been trying to choose for 3 weeks and I can't. (I buy used things, it's cheaper)
(For recording electric guitar and microphone and for using headphones. I want to do music.)
1. What audio interface should I buy? 80-170$
2. Which studio monitors should I buy? 150-410$ for pair.
3. I seem to have decided on the microphone and headphones. Microphone: Takstar TAK55 Headphones: HiFiMan HE-400i what do you think?
I will be very grateful if you will help me. :)
1. Audient id14 or id4
2. Krk rokit 5 or 6
3. Mic: akg at 2020 or 2050
Headohones: can't beat sundara for value for money
@@PaulThird Thank you very much.
Are KRK the best?
I also watched your video about Audient mk 1 vs mk 2 as I understood there is no strong difference, but my price is 1.5 times more.
Take the mk1?
Depends on your circumstances. If it's recording and you are only using 1 mic then I'd say mk1 would be enough. If you are planning on printing outboard gear then mk2.
KRK's are probably the best for your budget but unless you have an acoustically treated environment then speakers are pretty redundant. Trust me I've been there.
IF you are mixing and don't have the money to acoustically treat the room then I'd say invest in a good seperate headphone amp (topping L30) to drive the sundaras as the id14s headphone output will struggle to fully drive them.
If you've got sundaras, id14 and headphone amp in terms of monitoring you'd be pretty much sorted. It's up to you whether you mix on monitors or headphones but it's all about translation. Investing in good speakers with no room treatment is just a waste of your money
@@PaulThird Thank you so much for your advice!
When I move to a new apartment, I will make my room for a home studio, so I think it's better to buy cool equipment now. :)
And I want monitors not only for my music, but also to listen to other music and watch movies on a PC. Maybe then I'll buy a midi keyboard for music.
(I don't have money enough for sundra :( )
@@PaulThird which option is better for you? audient mk1 or mk 2. If mk2, then you can buy SSL 2 for the same price.
(Many people compare KRK with Yamaha and Adam T5V)
Syncing a video camera at 96 is impossible because the record at 48 but I don't know about the new 4 K video cameras , can you find out if their audio is 96
Video is always 48k, ig you find it to dark.. put a eq on it 😉