Need help deciding: Rosetta 200 vs. UA 2192

[monkie]

Hi,

I was wondering which of the two converters (Apogee Rosetta 200 vs. UA 2192) I should get. I recently treated my room and now I'm out to purchase my next gear: a quality converter. Have any of you guys here compared the two or heard their sounds before? I'm doing rock/pop/hip-hop/trance and classical music. Which of the two do you like better or would recommend for the style of music that I do?

Although both of them are two channel converters, the UA 2192 is much more expensive. Price is not an issue to me right now, I just want quality out of my gears. If you would recommend a different convert or something else, please don't hesitate to mention that as well. I'm open to any suggestions. I want your opinions.

Later

[xstatic]

Both are great converters. I love my UA 2192 though. It is not a "pristine" converter. It is accurate, but does have a little bit of a warmth to it. Not sure how or why, but it does. One other big advantage is that it is also a ditribution clock. It has multiple BNC connectors for distributing word clock signals. Personally, when I compared it to the Apoggee, I liked them both just about as well. The Apogge may have seemed a tad more accurate to me, as did the Lavry and the Mytek, but the UA seemed a little "bigger" like it had a bit more dimension. All of the four units I mentioned sounded great though and I could have easily been very pleased with any of them. With the additional clocking features however, I felt the UA was the way to go, and even though more expensive, I have never regretted it.

Plus it looks much cooler than the others in a rack with the silver face and big knobs

[monkie]

Originally Posted by xstatic

Both are great converters. I love my UA 2192 though. It is not a "pristine" converter. It is accurate, but does have a little bit of a warmth to it. Not sure how or why, but it does. One other big advantage is that it is also a ditribution clock. It has multiple BNC connectors for distributing word clock signals. Personally, when I compared it to the Apoggee, I liked them both just about as well. The Apogge may have seemed a tad more accurate to me, as did the Lavry and the Mytek, but the UA seemed a little "bigger" like it had a bit more dimension. All of the four units I mentioned sounded great though and I could have easily been very pleased with any of them. With the additional clocking features however, I felt the UA was the way to go, and even though more expensive, I have never regretted it.

Plus it looks much cooler than the others in a rack with the silver face and big knobs

What is a distribution clock? And what's the advantage of it? As far as converter goes, can you really hear the difference when using a converter and not using a converter? Say, for example... can you still hear the difference even if your room doesn't have the best accoustic treatment? If I play a song through an external converter to a newbie, will he/she be able to tell the difference? I've heard that all the gears in the studio makes about 90-95% quality and the last 10% are made possible with a converter; is this true; consider you don't have the best gears but decent?

[xstatic]

Whether or not you can really hear the difference is going to depend partly on your monitoring. Personally, I think that having quality conversion is a little more important than people around here seem to think. First, EVERYTHING you do in the digital realm requires conversion. Decisions you make based on what you hear are affected by your converters. If you are using a bunch of cheap equipment, having a stellar converter may not make as much of an impact because all the signals you are feeding it have already been compromised. On a track by track basis I do not hear a huge difference in conversion. As you start assembling multiple tracks you really start to notice it more. Some of it is a "feel" thing. Tracks tend to take porocessing a little better, find their place in the mix a little easier etc... Stereo imaging changes a little and the soundfiled tends to broaden and most importantly, deepen. I can not really say if your money is best spent on a high dollar conversion setup, but I do beleive heavily in quality converters. It sucks that it isn't a piece of equipment that you get to constantly fiddle with and actively use, but it is a very important piece of equipment because it impacts everything you do.

As far as distirbution goes, it is necessary in the digital realm. Every digital device you use has a clock. Each device has to be set as a master or slave with only one master in the chain. With the Universal audio you would most likely want to make it the master clock and all other digitally linked devices the slave devices. On a standard converter you can often only slave one or two devices and they are slaved off of the s/pdif, AES/EBU, or Optical connections which are also carrying audio. This method works, and there is still some debate about its quality. With the Universal Audio you can have devices slave form those cables like you would on other A/D and D/A converters, but you also have the option to utilize 4 dedicated BNC style clock ouputs so that your otehr devices can read their clock signals from a dedicated line instead of sharing an audio line. This is generally accepted as the better method, but as far as how much better it actually is there does not seem to be a definitive accepted answer.

[monkie]

Originally Posted by xstatic

Whether or not you can really hear the difference is going to depend partly on your monitoring. Personally, I think that having quality conversion is a little more important than people around here seem to think. First, EVERYTHING you do in the digital realm requires conversion. Decisions you make based on what you hear are affected by your converters. If you are using a bunch of cheap equipment, having a stellar converter may not make as much of an impact because all the signals you are feeding it have already been compromised. On a track by track basis I do not hear a huge difference in conversion. As you start assembling multiple tracks you really start to notice it more. Some of it is a "feel" thing. Tracks tend to take porocessing a little better, find their place in the mix a little easier etc... Stereo imaging changes a little and the soundfiled tends to broaden and most importantly, deepen. I can not really say if your money is best spent on a high dollar conversion setup, but I do beleive heavily in quality converters. It sucks that it isn't a piece of equipment that you get to constantly fiddle with and actively use, but it is a very important piece of equipment because it impacts everything you do.

As far as distirbution goes, it is necessary in the digital realm. Every digital device you use has a clock. Each device has to be set as a master or slave with only one master in the chain. With the Universal audio you would most likely want to make it the master clock and all other digitally linked devices the slave devices. On a standard converter you can often only slave one or two devices and they are slaved off of the s/pdif, AES/EBU, or Optical connections which are also carrying audio. This method works, and there is still some debate about its quality. With the Universal Audio you can have devices slave form those cables like you would on other A/D and D/A converters, but you also have the option to utilize 4 dedicated BNC style clock ouputs so that your otehr devices can read their clock signals from a dedicated line instead of sharing an audio line. This is generally accepted as the better method, but as far as how much better it actually is there does not seem to be a definitive accepted answer.

If you are using a bunch of cheap equipment, having a stellar converter may not make as much of an impact because all the signals you are feeding it have already been compromised.

What do you consider as cheap equipment? I don't have the best equipments but I think mine are decent enough to produce decent quality.

On a track by track basis I do not hear a huge difference in conversion. As you start assembling multiple tracks you really start to notice it more. Some of it is a "feel" thing. Tracks tend to take porocessing a little better, find their place in the mix a little easier etc... Stereo imaging changes a little and the soundfiled tends to broaden and most importantly, deepen.

How is it possible that you do not hear much of a difference in conversion on a track by track basis and only start to hear it more when you assemble multiple tracks? I've never compared tracks with conversions to tracks without conversions before so I probably don't know the difference. Can you get a little more in dept? I appreciate your reply, as I do agree with you that conversion is more important than what people usually thinks about them. Hope to hear from you soon.

[xstatic]

If you are using Behringer preamps and EQ's with MXL microphones, than the UA 2192 is not going to much of a difference to you. If you are using something like a GT Brick or RNP with an Audio Technica 405, you will start to see the advantages of the conversion. If you are using a Martech MSS10 with a nice ribbon or a high dollar condesnor, then you will really start to hear what nicer converters will do for you.

SOund is definately a personal thing. There is no right or wrong, and there is no definitive. The differences I hear in something you may not even hear at all, or may hear differently. It is all very subjective. Another thing that I have learned over the years is that our ears progress, or at least how we listen and how we understand and interpret things. I can remember the days when I would hear two different things and the differences did not seem apparent or I just di not care one way or the other. Now, things are different. Things I used to write off bother me, some of the things I did not like I do etc... Anyhow, converter differences can be tricky, just like comparing preamps. Often times on just a single source the differences may seem very subtle. Sometimes this is because we as listeners ar enot sure what to listen for or how to interpret what we hear. However, once we start to take those tracks and mix them together, especially in our own environment, we start to grasp a bit more of what the differences are as the tracks go together. It could be as simple as a little bit of stereo width or depth, how easily a track sits in the pocket, having the pocket actually widen, apparent volume and/or clarity, A little extra richness, how well a track accepts processing like EQ and dynamic processors, a clearer less strident top end, and basically just a more plesaing sound. These are all things that are affected by a converter.

[SonicAlbert]

I can hear a difference between converters on stereo tracks. Your ears really have to get tuned to listening closely for the right things.

For example, I can hear the difference between my Benchmark DAC-1 and UA 2192, both of which are excellent converters.

I'm a fan of the UA 2192, and I do own one. It's quite detailed and accurate, but also has a certain analog quality to it. While clean and fast it is lacking the sharp edges that you often get with converters. It sounds great in my opinion!

[monkie]

Originally Posted by SonicAlbert

I can hear a difference between converters on stereo tracks. Your ears really have to get tuned to listening closely for the right things.

For example, I can hear the difference between my Benchmark DAC-1 and UA 2192, both of which are excellent converters.

I'm a fan of the UA 2192, and I do own one. It's quite detailed and accurate, but also has a certain analog quality to it. While clean and fast it is lacking the sharp edges that you often get with converters. It sounds great in my opinion!

Your ears really have to get tuned to listening closely for the right things.

How do you get you ears to tuned for the right thing?

I can hear the difference between my Benchmark DAC-1 and UA 2192, both of which are excellent converters.

Why do you have two converters? Is it necessary? What do you listen for in a converter? In comparing converters, is the sound as obvios as comparing microphone preamps? I can hear a huge difference when comparing the Focusrite Octopre and the UA-LA610. Do you think I will be able to hear the difference between using a converter and not using one?

[SonicAlbert]

I think the difference between good converters is more subtle than with preamps. But there's always a noticeable difference between budget gear and higher end gear. So for example, you'd be able to more easily hear the difference between Behringer converters and the 2192 than the Rosetta and the 2192.

As far as tuning ones' ears, that is just a lot of really concentrated and focused listening, along with experience. In general, I find using acoustic tracks of one well recorded instrument, like piano or guitar, to be the best way to really listen "inside" converters. Or pretty much test any gear really. Fully produced tracks of busy and loud songs are quite possibly the worst way to audition fine gear, in my opinion.

I bought the DAC-1 first, but it's just an D/A converter, no A/D. At that time I was using a Waves L2 hardware unit for A/D conversion. I became disenchanted with it after a while, and moved to the 2192, which I'm very happy with. I keep the DAC-1 because it sounds great and you never know when you might need a couple extra channels of D/A conversion.

[monkie]

Originally Posted by SonicAlbert

I think the difference between good converters is more subtle than with preamps. But there's always a noticeable difference between budget gear and higher end gear. So for example, you'd be able to more easily hear the difference between Behringer converters and the 2192 than the Rosetta and the 2192.

As far as tuning ones' ears, that is just a lot of really concentrated and focused listening, along with experience. In general, I find using acoustic tracks of one well recorded instrument, like piano or guitar, to be the best way to really listen "inside" converters. Or pretty much test any gear really. Fully produced tracks of busy and loud songs are quite possibly the worst way to audition fine gear, in my opinion.

I bought the DAC-1 first, but it's just an D/A converter, no A/D. At that time I was using a Waves L2 hardware unit for A/D conversion. I became disenchanted with it after a while, and moved to the 2192, which I'm very happy with. I keep the DAC-1 because it sounds great and you never know when you might need a couple extra channels of D/A conversion.

So for example, you'd be able to more easily hear the difference between Behringer converters and the 2192 than the Rosetta and the 2192.

Have you compared the Rosetta with the 2192? What was your opinions between the two? Are they similar or different in any way? I know that both Universal Audio and Apoggee are well-known for their quality products and both converters are high quality converters, but how come the 2192 is much more expensive than the Rosetta?

I read that more professional engineers in the US uses Rosetta converters more than other brand name converters. I also read from other home studio owner post that some people think that the Rosetta is good because they haven't heard others such as Lynx, Lucid, Benchmark, etc...

After reading so many reviews and forums, I'm not really sure what I wanted to get as a converter. My first choice was the Rosetta 200, then 2192 (but then my budge is only under $2K). My last gear purchase was the UA-LA610 which really improve the quality of my tracks (vocals, guitars, bass, flutes).

In general, I find using acoustic tracks of one well recorded instrument, like piano or guitar, to be the best way to really listen "inside" converters.

I also produce using plug-in instruments like Reason, Spectrasonics and Native Instruments etc..; do you think I will hear the difference when using a converter when bouncing it to audio? Can it improve the sound of software instruments also instead of just acoustic instruments?

In your personal experience and opinion, which A/D/A converter do you think has the most bang for the buck for under $2K?

I bought the DAC-1 first, but it's just an D/A converter, no A/D. At that time I was using a Waves L2 hardware unit for A/D conversion

They have a Waves L2 as a hardware unit too? I have the Waves L2 plug-in. I didn't know that you could or would use the Waves L2 for A/D conversion. Interesting.

[SonicAlbert]

At the time, the L2 hardware had pretty decent AD conversion. The DA conversion was less good, which is why I got the DAC-1. Much better converters have come out since though, which is why I eventually went to the 2192.

I haven't compared the Rosetta with the 2192, so I'm not much help there.

Your budget is what your budget is. That means that if you can't find a 2192 for around two thousand, it's not a consideration. It may be that the Rosetta is the best in your price range. Have you checked Lavry converters, as far as their price? That would be the other brand I'd look at.

Using better DA converters you will be able to hear more accurately what is going on with your audio. So in that sense you'll be able to hear what your virtual instruments sound like better. Should you want to bounce them to analog and back, you'll also be able to do that with better quality.

[monkie]

Originally Posted by SonicAlbert

At the time, the L2 hardware had pretty decent AD conversion. The DA conversion was less good, which is why I got the DAC-1. Much better converters have come out since though, which is why I eventually went to the 2192.

I haven't compared the Rosetta with the 2192, so I'm not much help there.

Your budget is what your budget is. That means that if you can't find a 2192 for around two thousand, it's not a consideration. It may be that the Rosetta is the best in your price range. Have you checked Lavry converters, as far as their price? That would be the other brand I'd look at.

Using better DA converters you will be able to hear more accurately what is going on with your audio. So in that sense you'll be able to hear what your virtual instruments sound like better. Should you want to bounce them to analog and back, you'll also be able to do that with better quality.

Have you checked Lavry converters, as far as their price? That would be the other brand I'd look at.

What is your thoughts about the Lavry converters? Have you compare that with the 2192? As far as pricing goes, it's way way out of my budget.

http://www.awave.com.au/product_info...oducts_id=2523

http://vintageking.com/New-Brands/La...AD122-96-MKIII

Where can you get the actual price that I would pay for if I were to buy it?

I thought the Rosetta 200 would be a great fit for the price, you get both A/D and D/A conversions. Because it's alot less expensive than the Lavry, does it comprimise any quality?

[xstatic]

Take a look at the Lavry Blues series and not the Lavry gold which is WAY out of your price range. Personally, when dealing with similarly priced Apogge, UA, Lavry, Mytek, Benchmark etc... you are looking at a very similar quality level.

[kojdogg]

if you're using a mac another option is the apogee duet-- especially if you're doing one or two tracks at a time. it supposedly uses the same conversion as their ensemble.
that thing, plus the fact that massey is developing au plugins has pretty much guaranteed that my next computer will be a mac of some sort (i'm generally a pc guy).
i'll keep my audiofire12 for the rare times when i need to track drums (and rarer otb mixing) and use the duet for vocals, overdubs (the majority of my recording) and itb mixing.

[SonicAlbert]

The Lavry's I am thinking of for you are the LavryBlack DA10, and LavryBlack AD10. They are each half rack units and I believe list for just under $1,000 each. So that would fit your budget. Yes, the Lavry gold's are well above your budget and the Lavry Blue is really close to your budget, but still maybe slightly too high.

I also agree with xstatic's comment that all the converters in this range will be roughly comparable. Differences between them, certainly, but all within the same ballpark.

[monkie]

I think I'm gonna go with the Rosetta 200. I really appreciate all you guys' help and all your inputs. Now I have more confident on what I want to get. I'll let you guys know how it goes after I use it; that could mean a few months from now or maybe even years from now. Have a great day.

[xstatic]

The good news here is that you are in a win/win situation Good luck

[thehymns]

If you are looking to upgrade your preamps and converters in one step, check out the API A2D.

[monkie]

Originally Posted by xstatic

The good news here is that you are in a win/win situation Good luck

Thanks xstatic.

[monkie]

Originally Posted by xstatic

The good news here is that you are in a win/win situation Good luck

Thanks xstatic.

[monkie]

Is it necessary to get a converter if all you're doing is electronic using softsynths? Someone ask me to produce a few songs for their album, do I really need a high end converter? Most of the stuff I'll be working with includes softsynths (Native Instruments, Spectrasonics, Reason,), Motif sound module, electric guitar (NI Guitar Rig), electric bass, vocals and flutes. Will my clients be able to tell the difference with and without a converter?

Thanks

[SonicAlbert]

You also have to look at what this gig and other future ones will pay you. It's important to be realistic about buying gear that reflects your finances. Buying a 2192 which costs in the mid $2,000's for a gig that pays a few hundred is probably not justified. However, if this and potential future gigs will easily get you over that amount, then you've got a more of a reason to go high end with it.

The Rosetta is less expensive, as is the Lavry black series I mentioned earlier.

That said, you mentioned that price is not an issue. But the thing about price is that you would have the extra money to spend on something else if you got a less expensive converter.

If all or most of your work is soft synths, then a converter is much less important. Depending on your sound card, I still think you need a nice one for any acoustics you record. But I don't think it is necessary to go all out. You will be absolutely fine with a UA, Apogee, or Lavry converter. Any of them will do a great job.

[monkie]

Originally Posted by SonicAlbert

You also have to look at what this gig and other future ones will pay you. It's important to be realistic about buying gear that reflects your finances. Buying a 2192 which costs in the mid $2,000's for a gig that pays a few hundred is probably not justified. However, if this and potential future gigs will easily get you over that amount, then you've got a more of a reason to go high end with it.

The Rosetta is less expensive, as is the Lavry black series I mentioned earlier.

That said, you mentioned that price is not an issue. But the thing about price is that you would have the extra money to spend on something else if you got a less expensive converter.

If all or most of your work is soft synths, then a converter is much less important. Depending on your sound card, I still think you need a nice one for any acoustics you record. But I don't think it is necessary to go all out. You will be absolutely fine with a UA, Apogee, or Lavry converter. Any of them will do a great job.

No samples?

[Rick Shepherd]

I have a 2192 also. If you want to hear what my recordings sound like, you can go to my site: rickschafer.net and listen, just as a frame of reference. I use the Avalon Ad2022 pre and the UA LA-610 strip with the Peluso 2447LE and the Gefell M300 pair for mics. I like the 2192, very accurate!

[monkie]

Originally Posted by Rick Shepherd

I have a 2192 also. If you want to hear what my recordings sound like, you can go to my site: rickschafer.net and listen, just as a frame of reference. I use the Avalon Ad2022 pre and the UA LA-610 strip with the Peluso 2447LE and the Gefell M300 pair for mics. I like the 2192, very accurate!

Hello Rick,

Thanks for the listen. I'm just curious to hear the difference between using the 2192 and without using the 2192. Is it possible if you can provide me a few examples with and without the 2192? I know it might be too much to ask but what can I do to hear the samples? You can PM me anytime regarding this. Anyways, nice songs and nice looking guitars you have there.

Thanks a bunch