Layla 24 vs. Aark 24

  • Thread starter Thread starter JFogarty
  • Start date Start date
Well if you just do computer, you probably wouldn't ADAT, unless you need to back stuff up, or transfer to other studios of that kinda thing. Other than that, I'm not sure there's much differnce, thats why I started the thread, to see if either's better ;) Maybe someone that has one of these could give us some insights.
 
Well J, it seems no one that comes to this forum can answer the "better" question. Really in my opinion either is equally good, and either will do the job, your job just depends on your needs. If you're just doing computer recording and you've got enough backup drives to last 5 years then you'll be just fine with the Layla. If you have a serious need for ADAT's then the Aark will be your tool of choice.

Later,
-Brian
 
Of course, I belive that the Aark is cheaper. But it does only record up to 48 Hz. And its debated wether that makes a difference.
 
Oh, it only records up to 48K... then it's set in my mind what I'm getting... the Layla24.

Of course it makes a difference. I'm recording at 48K now and it sounds like crap. If you record at 96K you're gonig to capture more of the true sound... even though you have to resample it down to 44.1K, you're still going to get a better sound than if you just simply recorded at 44.1.
 
if it sounds like crap at 48 there's something else wrong... 96 doesn't make a huge difference as to 48.

guhlenn
 
Well I'm not going to argue with that... there very well may be something else wrong with the setup I've had. But I think the fact that it's only 20 bit recording, and then when I use Sound Forge 4.0 it goes down to 16 bit, it has something to do with it.

The new sound forge (5) has support for 24/96. So I'll be able to know that it's not the computer. Then I just need some good quality mics.
 
the soon to be released aardvark direct pro Q10 records 24/96. its 8 in/out(check the aardvark site for specs). lists for $1000. and later this year aardvark is supposed to release the Q32 which records 24/96 16 in/10(?) out. don't know how much it lists for though.
 
Brian Grey said:
But I think the fact that it's only 20 bit recording, and then when I use Sound Forge 4.0 it goes down to 16 bit, it has something to do with it.

The new sound forge (5) has support for 24/96. So I'll be able to know that it's not the computer. Then I just need some good quality mics.
Click to expand...

The Aark is 24 bit.
 
hey brian,

why are you selling your layla? is the quality difference that apparent or do you have some cash to burn? BTW is that true about the Q32? that surely looks yummie enough... porb is that you'll have to wait forever for it... and the longer you wait the more new and more exciting stuff comes out. and it becomes cheaper by the month it seems... man do i wish i had a lot of money... but that aardvark Q looks VERY tempting...

guhlenn
 
Wow... I don't know how you read what I wrote and got out of it that I'm selling my Layla :) I'm not selling the Layla that I have right now, which is an old Layla 20. I'm simply posing a quesion: Which is better, the Aark or the Layla24.

Hell, if someone wanted to buy my old Layla I'd gladly sell it. I just don't know anyone who likes to buy old technology.
 
the aardvark Q32 was supposed to come out in may or so but they probaly couldn't handle it's release, so they made the Q10 and put off the Q32 for later this year and said they will update some hardware. the original had 8mic/line combo inputs on the front with 8line ins/10 line outs and 4 inserts on the back all in one rack space, with other good features. don't know the list price though

the original Q32 http://www.aardvark-pro.com/direct_pro_q32.html

here's the info on the delay of the Q32 http://www.aardvark-pro.com/salesfaq.html#13

they hid the link to that page but it's still reachable


how do i post a picture of it? it shows front and back and is only about 35k
 
The reason I got an Aark 24 was due in part to this review that I read in Tape Op magazine a few months back. Here is a quote from the review.

"Now here's what really sets the Aark 24 apart from the vast majority of audio cards currently available the SOUND. Recordings I've done with the Aark 24 have been some of the best sounding digital recordings I've ever heard, and are certainly the best I've ever recorded. The increased resolution of 24-bit recording has to be heard to be believed. The analog sections of the card(the converters, etc ) are some of the quietest I've ever heard, no doubt due in part to the fact that all the analog signals are safely contained in the metal Interface box, away from the noise that lives inside the computer.

And if that weren't enough, the Aark Host PCI card is also shielded,
something I've never seen on any of the other audio cards. When combined with a high-quality multitracking program like Samplitude 2496 or Cubase VST, the Aark 24 system is hard to beat. The custom ASIO drivers that come with the Aark 24 make it especially impressive when used with Cubase. When run on a fast computer, I'm willing to say that the Aark 24/Cubase combination will give any Pro Tools system a run for its money. Sound-wise, I believe it annihilates Pro Tools. I never got that flat, "I've been recorded on a computer" sound. The sound is always natural, clear, and uncolored. My recording technique actually makes a difference with the Aark 24. When I record drums with a room mic, you can really hear the room; the differences between a Strat and a Les Paul become obvious in short, the Aark 24 doesn't homogenize the sound like so many other lesser computer interfaces. "
 
yeah, i just found that out two minutes ago through some aardvark product literature. what a bitch that is. i assumed it was 96kHz since it seemed to replace the Q32 which claimed to be 96kHz. hmmm... aardvark should make it more noticable.
 
I was under the impression that it would have DSP effects too, similar to the Direct Pro until I emailed Aardvark. Oh well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top