Just got the Lynx II !!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rev E
  • Start date Start date
Yup. I can hear the difference. Thanks for posting Rev E ! !


Looks like I gotta' invest in another toy. :D
 
Wow, quite a difference. The Dixie Chick cut was the most telling for me.

Frankly, I thought the Lynx was still masking the 3-5k range a little too much. Not nearly as bad as the veil the 66 was putting on things.

I was thinking of the getting the Lynx II but may save a little more and move up the ladder.

Thanks for the effort Rev E.
 
Rev E>

Artist Administration> Get Links

Direct linking is not allowed unless you pay for the service, multiple violations get you... nailed ;)

W.
 
Originally posted by Teacher wasn't my description of the delta spot on
Click to expand...

Teacher,
Yeah, your initial description WAS spot on. The funny thing is that after getting the Delta, I thought that it sounded pretty good. But a head to head with the Lynx II revealed much of what you guys heard. I cannot go back to anything less than what the Lynx II is doing. It's either Lynx II or better from here on out.

What's worse than all of the A/D conversion stuff is that it's only half of the picture. If there is serious masking going on in both A/D and D/A there are serious parts of the audio spectrum that is being masked. Plus, the dimension that good converters give you is lost in lesser A/D converters.
 
Originally posted by TheRealWaldo Rev E>

Artist Administration> Get Links

Direct linking is not allowed unless you pay for the service, multiple violations get you... nailed ;)

W.
Click to expand...

Thanks Waldo for the info.
 
Originally posted by Middleman Wow, quite a difference. The Dixie Chick cut was the most telling for me.

Frankly, I thought the Lynx was still masking the 3-5k range a little too much. Not nearly as bad as the veil the 66 was putting on things.

I was thinking of the getting the Lynx II but may save a little more and move up the ladder.

Thanks for the effort Rev E.
Click to expand...

Thanks Middleman. Yeah, the Lynx II isn't nearly perfect. I, too, noticed some subtle differences between the Lynx and the original files. One thing that is clear is that I've found out what's responsible for the "big" sound that I've been looking for for the longest. It's in the converters. I've gotten dimension from good preamps, but good conversion seems to be responsible for much of it, especially for acoustic styles of music.

In fact, my test had a few more songs than what I posted. I also recorded a clip from Susana Baca, a Peruvian singer. Her music is acoustic, sparse and you can really get a sense of the differences in a prominent acoustic bass with that sample also. File size was at a premium so I had to make some cuts. Thanks for the response. I'm glad it helped.

As far as moving up from the Lynx II, you should do pretty well. I haven't heard a head to head, but many folks say that the Lynx II gets you in the ballpark of the big-time converters like Mytek, Lavry, Apogee and the rest. From there it seems to be a matter of personal preference and the particular source. I'm glad that my test helped.

Also, realize that some of that masking could be because of the D/A of the Lynx II rather than the A/D. In this particular test, there's no way to tell which conversion process is doing the masking. I've heard from trusted engineer sources that the D/A on the Lynx II card is not a good as the A/D... so D/A may explain for that masking that you noticed since I was essentially using the D/A of the Lynx II card to provide audio for the Lynx II A/D.
 
man, I can't believe the difference:eek:

I'm noticing the difference in the mid highs to highs mostly. Delta 66 sounds like there is a thin cloth in front of my monitors...sounds just like my mixes..:(

Can't imagine how much better someone's mixes would sound if each track sounds this much better.

thanks, Rev!

Al
 
Also, realize that some of that masking could be because of the D/A of the Lynx II rather than the A/D. In this particular test, there's no way to tell which conversion process is doing the masking. I've heard from trusted engineer sources that the D/A on the Lynx II card is not a good as the A/D... so D/A may explain for that masking that you noticed since I was essentially using the D/A of the Lynx II card to provide audio for the Lynx II A/D.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is the big question. I would like to know if the masking is at the D/A end of things too. Could be that the A/D is OK with lower end cards and that an investment in a good D/A would be a cost effective approach to getting a better sound.

Any thoughts on that one to anyone?
 
this test just proved other wise though....rev used the d/a of the lynx 2 for both recordings ....
 
Middleman said:
Yeah that is the big question. I would like to know if the masking is at the D/A end of things too. Could be that the A/D is OK with lower end cards and that an investment in a good D/A would be a cost effective approach to getting a better sound.

Any thoughts on that one to anyone?
Click to expand...

There's a pretty good discussion of this very issue going on at Gearslutz ( http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=6993 ). The long and the short of it seems to be that jitter is introduced in both stages (Analog to Digital conversion AND Digital to Analog conversion). For those who are not aware, jitter is clocking irregularites that result in changes to the signal upon conversion (A/D or D/A). Control of jitter is largely the difference separating better converters from lesser quality converters.

There are two camps and IMO both are right. If you want high-end sound, you need good A/D conversion and quality D/A conversion. The A/D camp says that good A/D conversion is needed because if you jack up the sound upon initial conversion, the "garbage in, garbage out" maxim applies. That is jitter in the input process results in a compromised source recording. The other camp says that even if the A/D conversion was not the best it could have been if the mix engineer can accurately hear the signal for all that it is or isn't, a good mix can still be created due the accuracy.

Frankly, I want both stages to be top-notch. Everyone seems to be raving about the Benchmark DAC-1 digital to analog converter ( see http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/ ). It has a street price of about $700, I believe. The DAC-1 will be my next purchase in the D/A arena. Benchmark also just came out with a 2 channel A/D and preamp in the ~$1000 arena and I hear they are coming out with a 2 channel A/D without preamp in the coming months.
 
I only can find the Lynx II sample but not the others. When I go to 'Rev E' I don't see any songs listed.
 
I just came across this though its 4 months old.

I would just add that I recall a similar finding on DA alone when I upgraded from the 66 to the 1010 a couple of years ago. The second I sat down in front of my speakers before tracking anything through the 1010, just listening to my mixes and commercial CDs, it was a whole dif ballgame in terms of image and clarity. The dif was not small. I have not heard the lynx II and delta 1010 back to back but I doubt the dif would be anywhere near as dramatic as the 66/lynxII comparison.
 
Hey, I listened today. I am monitoring through a Kurzweil Rumour which has very good quality DA.

I'd rather hear a Delta 1010 compared to Lynx II rather than the Delta 66.

I just listened to the first cut. I tried to listen to the second cut but there were some operator error type issues with the Dixie Chicks.

Anyhow, the Lynx II sounds more open. However, through the good converters on the Rumour, it is kind of surprising how good the AD sounds on the Delta 66. It does show signs of pudginess in the mids and a little tad bit of distortion on the highs. However, the main problem with the highs is not the distortion but the lack of wide open highs as with the Lynx.

I wouldn't feel so bad about owning a Delta 66 if I improved my DA to a Kurzweil Rumour/Mangler or a Lucid DA9624.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top