Converters

[jkokura]

Hey,

Can anyone tell me how the converters in the Motu 24i/o compare to Maudio's Delta 1010? I currently want to add mor i/o to my Delta 1010...the options are either 1 more 1010, or get rid of the one I have for the new 24i/o and a 424 card.

I only have 1 more PCI slot on my board, which would mean the 1010 would fit - but that's the last I can add. If I were to switch to motu I can add up to four devices before I need to add another card. It's nice to think about...however, I don't neccesarily need more than 16 channels. It'd be nice to have incase I ever do...but I can't garuntee that that many channels will simultaneously be used.

The clincher for the issue for me is which companies converters are better. What's gonna give me better sound over all...

Thanks,

Jacob

[xstatic]

As far as which converters are better, that is very subjective. Personally, I would take any MOTU over M-Audio every time. But, thats just my opinion.

[mrbowes]

FWIW, when i switched from my m-audio 410 (based on same audiophile chipset as in the all the other delta lines) to my e-mu m grade converters, i noticed a difference immediately.

i hate putting words to it, but if i had a gun to my head, i'd say it shows improvement in the depth, making music seem more 3d and natural, blah blah etc etc.

i noticed a similar jump going from a crappy soundblaster live to the 410, so converters definitely do shape the sound. try them out if you can with a reference CD! i usually use the beatles!

peas,

bowes

[chessrock]

Most of the consumer grade sound cards are going to sound about the same.

They all use basically the same basic types of silicone chips in the a/d and d/a process ; which is generally some version of AKM chip. There are some minor differences in Signal to Noise ratio; a db here and a db there. But the only real significant improvements made are between the very earliest versions of the AKM chips that had around 95 db s/n ratio versus the newer ones that are getting around 120.

But for the most part, the biggest difference you'll get with the various audio interfaces out there in the consumer / prosumer bracket like the M-audios, MOTUs, EMUs, etc. are in the features and connectivity. Base your decision on practical concerns; how many inputs / outputs you need. Or whether it has the option of balanced versus unbalanced inputs. Expandability, and stuff like that.

Aside from all the hype you hear in the magazines and BBS's like this one ... there isn't a whole lot of difference in how these cards are being made and what comprizes them. And as soon as one manufacturer makes any sort of improvement in their system, all of the others soon follow suit; there are no real secret formulas out there. Even the so-called "professional" level audio interfaces ala Lynx and RME ... all use the same converters as the cheaper ones like Emu or the newer version M-Audio cards.

Granted, there are differences in how they are utilized, and you can't disregard some of the thought that goes in to the design and engineering in something like a Lynx II or some of the RME's. But even these tend to be of lesser importance than one might think in the grand scheme of things. Even the cheaper stuff can be awfully impressive in what it can do.

If used well, either the Deltas or the MOTUs are perfectly capable of delivering the goods on most any level of project.

[giles117]

I have the 2408Mk3 (same convertors as the 24I/O) and the Delta 1010. I prefer the sound of my Motu Over the Delta.

[Booda]

"Even the so-called "professional" level audio interfaces ala Lynx and RME ... all use the same converters as the cheaper ones like Emu or the newer version M-Audio cards."
"Granted, there are differences in how they are utilized, and you can't disregard some of the thought that goes in to the design and engineering in something like a Lynx II or some of the RME's. But even these tend to be of lesser importance than one might think in the grand scheme of things. Even the cheaper stuff can be awfully impressive in what it can do."

chessrock, I was under the impression from research on the forums and reviews that the LynxTWO is a far step above the consumer cards. ALMOST in the league of Mytek and Apogee (sonically). A couple years ago I was doing a ton of research and was trying to figure out how to get the "Blanket" off my recordings. I had a Aardvark 24/96 w/ built in Pres. The conclusion I came to was that the Lynx would pretty much lift the blanket and that the RME Multiface was not much of a step up (sonicaly). I Had planned on getting a LynxTwo w/ a Sebatron... after a trip to Emergency, most of my $$$ went to pain medication (oh, and some Doctors So I ended up w/ a Layla24 and a Sytek. The RME Multiface and Layla24 are pretty much the same. RME does make some nicer stuff than the Multiface though. So what is it your saying about the Lynx TWO? I've still had my eye on em. & is what you're saying through experience w/ one or just IYHO.

Thanks,
B.

[c7sus]

Chess, the Lynx converters are not the same as the Echo and MAudio. they are AKM's, but they are about $35 a pop. I think the lower priced ones are $10-12.

Lynx support is top notch too. Can't say that about some of the others.

Echo has good support though.

[chessrock]

Actually, C7, if you want to get technical about it, the Lynx I converters are the same as those used in the lower-end M-audio and Echo cards. The Lynx II converters are the same as those in the M-Audio Audiophile 192 and the EMU cards.

Guys, when all is said and done, you're basically talking about a bunch of chips stamped on to a PCI card. There's nothing entirely revolutionary about what Lynx and RME are doing with their technologies that everyone else isn't either already doing, or will quickly catch on to.

If you want to try and lift some sort of imaginary "blanket" or something off your recordings, try some EQ, better mics and/or room treatment.

[Teacher]

design is way more important then what part is used. Just like in cars you'll have a v6 engine one is 200 and another is 300+....same thing basically but how things are implemented are different.

With that said I agree with chess rock if your recording sounds like shit with the motu and m-audio stuff when you move to the lynx2 it WILL make an improvement, the extreme lo's and hi's will be cleaner and it will take to plug-in processing better making your life easier to mix, but its not "Instant pro sound" if your not at that level of mix ability.

[chessrock]

Maybe another way of putting it is that it probably isn't going to lift any blankets. Maybe a very thin sheet, or an old afghan that you use to keep your feet warm.

[Teacher]

almost forgot, the better D/A will make your mix decisions better as well....

if your monitoring/ears/ and environment or up to snuff of course....

[Robert D]

Having upgraded from a Delta 66 to a Lynx L22 (Lynx II converters), I can tell you the difference is subtle. I've A/Bd the two a lot, and there's no blankets involved. Just a slight increase in definition.

-RD

[xstatic]

The Lynx converters really have gotten a lot of hype. Personally I agree with Chessrock to a certain extent about the variances in converter sound. However, I think there is more to it than he is willing to admit. There is a definate sound difference to me between M-Audio conversion and RME, and even an Alesis HD24's converters (which in my opinion are the best bang for your buck converters). There is a lot more to a conversion stage besides just what chip is used. There is still some sort of analog processing and as we all know that can vary widely. As far as Lynx goes though, in my opinion they are pretty much in the same grouping with RME and Lucid as far as I am concerned. You will still notice a big difference when you switch to Mytek and Apogee etc... If you can't notice the difference, than you weren't ready for it yet and just wasted your money, so sell it to me

[therage!]

Originally Posted by chessrock

Actually, C7, if you want to get technical about it, the Lynx I converters are the same as those used in the lower-end M-audio and Echo cards. The Lynx II converters are the same as those in the M-Audio Audiophile 192 and the EMU cards.

I know the 1010 uses the AK5383 but what does the Audiophile use? If it it's using the AK5359 it's got a lower dynamic range than the AK5383.

I'd imagine the 5394A is pretty expensive and would probably be used in the high end Lynx cards.

If you want to try and lift some sort of imaginary "blanket" or something off your recordings, try some EQ, better mics and/or room treatment.

Exactly..

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by therage!

I know the 1010 uses the AK5383 but what does the Audiophile use? If it it's using the AK5359 it's got a lower dynamic range than the AK5383.

I'd imagine the 5394A is pretty expensive and would probably be used in the high end Lynx cards.

Yes. And from what I gather, they are also being used in the new Audiophile 192 and the mulit-channel EMU cards like the 1212M.

I'm not sure what the older Audiophile used, but yes, the 1010's do have the 5383, which sports a still rather impressive 110 db dynamic range. The big difference here is that in the $500 to $700 range, we've got all of these cards like the EMU that are upgradable to 18 inputs and have newer/better AKM chips ... then you've got the Mackie with all those inputs plus the mic pres, onboard DSP, firewire, and a shit load of other stuff from what I can gather.

The 1010 is still a good card; specs out well and should be pretty stable on most systems. If money is tight and you can score one on ebay for between $200 - 300, it's still a good deal. The fact that the converters are housed in the breakout box is a plus ... the quality a/d is a plus, as is the analog section and the wordclock in/out. I jus think the market has gotten a lot more competitive over the last 4 years or so, and suddenly all of these new options have been popping up with a ton of features, better converters, etc. The 1010 is no longer King of the bang-for-buck soundcards.