Interesting Converter Comparisons ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessrock
  • Start date Start date
I definitely thought that, in this round, number 3 stood out from the pack. At least to me. The first round I thought could have been a toss-up between 2 and 3. And I still think it's pretty close, but 3, to me, just seemed to have just a tinge more mojo right off the bat.

.
 
I think 3 sounded most like the unprocessed track. I actually like 2 better, though. The high end seemed a little rolled-off on 2 which tamed some harshness in the cymbal hit at 0:14.
 
I just got word that it was the same in both rounds, and that the order went like:

#1 - Art DI/O
#2 - Echo Audiofire
#3 - Apogee Rosetta (24 bit/96K version)


You guys have kick-ass ears. :D

.
 
Cool beans, turns out I don't have ears for shit after all. Interesting though, when you look at the cost difference between Echo & the Apogee. Good fun & interesting test Chessrock.
 
Wow, that was close--I just got done writing down my picks and then I saw your results!!!

So here are my unbiased picks. I tried to just go with my first instinct without too much A/B/C-ing, and I should've stuck with it because when I first went through test2 I was thinking "Hmm I would almost bet this is the same order again..."

worst to best (test1): 1, 2, 3
worst to best (test2): 1, 3, 2

Guess I won't worry too much about upgraded to Apogee just yet...although it would be cool if someone had the facility to record a little drums/acoustic/vocal group split simultaneous to different convertors recording at the same time. I think that might give me a better idea of the real-world use of the convertors.
 
chessrock said:
I just got word that it was the same in both rounds, and that the order went like:

#1 - Art DI/O
#2 - Echo Audiofire
#3 - Apogee Rosetta (24 bit/96K version)


You guys have kick-ass ears. :D

.
Click to expand...

Well, I feel atleast good that I heard it right. I think the second test was more clear, but will admit, I am surprised that the #3 converter was Apogee. I figured it to be an RME level converter, as the samples were closer than I would have expected.

Were the second test samples ran thru 4 conversions as well?

Also, if you'd be willing to do it again and post 24 bit clips I would host them. I am curious as to how much difference that would make. As I said before, my testing here was more significant (as far as the differences heard).
 
omtayslick said:
Okay, my "golden ears" tell me 2 and 3 are close, with 2 being slightly better. #1 seems to be in last place.
Click to expand...

Looks like I can save some dough on converters. Very respectable showing for echo.
 
NL5 said:
Also, if you'd be willing to do it again and post 24 bit clips I would host them. I am curious as to how much difference that would make. As I said before, my testing here was more significant (as far as the differences heard).
Click to expand...

Yea, I'd love to do it again. Go ahead and post me a link to where I can get at the files.

The second time around, I only did 3 generations, because I'm a lazy bastard. :D

If you'd prefer just one, then that's totally cool by me, also. I just prefer 3 or more because it tends to help distinguish them a little. I gotta' tell ya ... the generation one samples are kind of a hair-splitting exercise. Even the crappy ones like the DI/O can hold up at least halfway decent after one round of conversion.

One last thought on this ... I'm not at all certain that this is as much an indictment of the Apogee as it is a pat on the back for the Echo. I really think Echo are that good. Most of the guys here, including yourself, still picked the Apogee. But most will probably agree that the Echo is probably just a small fraction of a step down. I think that would place it squarely in the RME camp (kinda' nice that you can get RME quality for M-Audio dollars). Which really lends credence to the idea of paying the most $$ for the final 1 percent.

.
 
chessrock said:
Yea, I'd love to do it again. Go ahead and post me a link to where I can get at the files.

The second time around, I only did 3 generations, because I'm a lazy bastard. :D

If you'd prefer just one, then that's totally cool by me, also. I just prefer 3 or more because it tends to help distinguish them a little. I gotta' tell ya ... the generation one samples are kind of a hair-splitting exercise. Even the crappy ones like the DI/O can hold up at least halfway decent after one round of conversion.

One last thought on this ... I'm not at all certain that this is as much an indictment of the Apogee as it is a pat on the back for the Echo. I really think Echo are that good. Most of the guys here, including yourself, still picked the Apogee. But most will probably agree that the Echo is probably just a small fraction of a step down. I think that would place it squarely in the RME camp (kinda' nice that you can get RME quality for M-Audio dollars). Which really lends credence to the idea of paying the most $$ for the final 1 percent.

.
Click to expand...

FTP info sent via PM.

Yep, I am surprised a bit myself. Although on the second round it was a lot more apparent which was which to me. It was kindaa funny that some people admitted the Apogee was more accurate, but liked the Echo better. I'd like to see the next test be another commercial release with some real delicate high end stuff going on - something with a LOT of detail. That combined with the 24 bit samples should show a bigger gap - but maybe not........
 
I will definately admit that the difference between the Echo and the Apogee is much closer than I thought. It is also important to remember however that this is just two tracks mixed back through them that have already had whatever they are going to have captured. The difference would almost likely be much larger if the converters were used from step one throughout a recording process:)
 
xstatic said:
I will definately admit that the difference between the Echo and the Apogee is much closer than I thought. It is also important to remember however that this is just two tracks mixed back through them that have already had whatever they are going to have captured. The difference would almost likely be much larger if the converters were used from step one throughout a recording process:)
Click to expand...

It's an interesting and valid thought ... but it hasn't been my experience that way. A converter isn't going to degrade the original signal any differently than it's going to degrade a second or third generation of a signal. This isn't like buying a car, where the car depreciates the most the second you drive it off the lot. :D I hear differences much more clear after several generations of a/d. I mean after four times out and back in ... you should clearly start hearing whatever degredation to the signal that particular converter is going to exhibit, because it's going to collect like moss on a stone. :D

When you've got the original sample as your benchmark ... and you've got three different samples, each of which have been "degraded" by a particular converter at least 4 times over to compare it to ... what else do you want? Seriously ... it's all there. Just listen and decide, from a comparative standpoint, how each sample has degraded from the original. The information is all there for your ears and brain to judge.


.
 
I did find this interesting. It does fit with my own observation that certain "mid range" units get fairly close to accepted high end units in sound.
 
You don´t talk about, but I´m waiting the prizes, Chessrock ... :D

The "cheap one" is ok to me... :D :D :D

And (serious), very good performance of Echo comparing with Apogee.
 
Last edited:
chessrock said:
I just got word that it was the same in both rounds, and that the order went like:

#1 - Art DI/O
#2 - Echo Audiofire
#3 - Apogee Rosetta (24 bit/96K version)


You guys have kick-ass ears. :D

.
Click to expand...

Was the ART DIO run in "clean" mode, or was it pushing the yellow/red leds at each conversion?
 
chessrock said:
I just got word that it was the same in both rounds, and that the order went like:

#1 - Art DI/O
#2 - Echo Audiofire
#3 - Apogee Rosetta (24 bit/96K version)


You guys have kick-ass ears. :D

.
Click to expand...

I just read the downloadable manual for the Echo Audiofire line of interfaces last night. I have'nt ever had the chance to try an Echo product but I have to say that the manual that I read last night is the most clear and concise manual that I have ever read for any product. The mixer app looks nice and clean too (very much unlike M-Audio's Delta panel). I have a couple of questions though. Can the inputs be direct monitored? Can the inputs be direct monitored on all outputs simultaneously? If so, this would be an excellent setup for custom monitor mixing.

Also, it looks like the Audiofire 8 and 12 have different converters than the Audiofire 2 and 4. Does anyone know if this is the case?

I don't know why I'm even asking here. I should just email Echo and ask........
 
Last edited:
I think you'll find them to be surprizingly communicative. I've had nothing but easy and positive dealings with them. Oh yea, and all inputs should be simultaneously monitorable on any of the outputs.

The only thing to be aware of is that the main monitor outputs aren't. So if your multitrack software's master out can only be assigned to one set of outputs ... then that's all the outputs you have for that, besides the headphone out.

This would only be an issue, potentially, when doing punch-ins or overdubs, though. Not while tracking simultaneously, so this may never be an issue. But it could, depending on your setup.
.
 
The Layla 3G has the same specs/converters as the Audiofire line BTW ... in case you need the preamps and extra connectivity. I'm really glad Chess did this little comparison. I've been using Echo gear for awhile and it's nice to see them getting their props....I think the great prices for the Echo products scare some people away
 
well, honestly what i did here;

i used little ipod earbuds and sat in my bedroom, with my computer humming, the tv on inside, parents talking, and listened.

thats a typical place a consumer would listen to something no?

well, i was reading the first have of this post and saying what the hell, everyone says 1 was bad?

well, i picked 1 as the best for both tests. and was i wrong? really, no. just because it's more money doesnt mean its any better.

i definitley disliked 2 in both tests, and 3 was indifferent.
 
For the second round I clearly liked 2 better than 1. But was hard to decide between 2 and 3, but went for 2. So:

Round 2: 2, 3, 1

Would like to hear comparison with some cleaner source material though =P.

Hrm. Haven't given Echo Audiofire any thought whatsoever. I bought the Lynx Aurora 8 recently. Don't know how it compares to it.

James
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top