How do they compare?
ADI-8 is more expensive, but is it really better than A16 Ultra? Is there any serious difference between them? (in sound of course)
A16 Ultra - RME ADI-8
-
snoopy4ever
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Costa Rica
I'd like to compare both from "what their manufactures say" point of view...
First the ADI-8 only has 8 I/0 channels (obviously), and A16U has 16I/O, also the ADI has a nice feature the TDIF conversion, but not many people need that on their setups. Also if you check for the A/D and D/A specifications are not really too much of a difference with A16U's. Both have similar dynamic ranges, I must admit RME has better specs on thier converters, but not really something you would feel a difference, for instance SNR DA 112dBA and A16 110dBA. Also RME remarks its unit has a 1-2 sample delays on digital conversions from TDIF to ADAT and viceversa, it gets worst on conversion from A/D to D/A.. depending on the model it can be from 39 samples to 43, I don't know if the A16U has those delays when you do that on AD to DA, but on the manuals it says you can record and use the z-link option to record to your Hd and use the ADAT outputs at the same time to create a backup or a format conversion on the fly. This of course can be something normal on AD to DA, I'd like to know if A16U also has something like that (I doubt it), but even if it has that problem, I would not change it for the RME.
my 2 cents
Snoopy
First the ADI-8 only has 8 I/0 channels (obviously), and A16U has 16I/O, also the ADI has a nice feature the TDIF conversion, but not many people need that on their setups. Also if you check for the A/D and D/A specifications are not really too much of a difference with A16U's. Both have similar dynamic ranges, I must admit RME has better specs on thier converters, but not really something you would feel a difference, for instance SNR DA 112dBA and A16 110dBA. Also RME remarks its unit has a 1-2 sample delays on digital conversions from TDIF to ADAT and viceversa, it gets worst on conversion from A/D to D/A.. depending on the model it can be from 39 samples to 43, I don't know if the A16U has those delays when you do that on AD to DA, but on the manuals it says you can record and use the z-link option to record to your Hd and use the ADAT outputs at the same time to create a backup or a format conversion on the fly. This of course can be something normal on AD to DA, I'd like to know if A16U also has something like that (I doubt it), but even if it has that problem, I would not change it for the RME.
my 2 cents
Snoopy
you cannot compare that gear just by the usual numbers in specs.
They always read impressive, no matter what brand, but tell nothing at all about the fidelity of the conversion process.
For a rough estimation (without sound) you have to open the boxes and have a look at BOTH analog and digital circuitry.
A simple op-amp costs $1, a high quality precision one is upto $50.
Multiply by the number of channels and it can make a large difference at the basic manufacturing costs of the unit.
Same applies to the AD/DA converters and their corresponding filters.
Next item to check would be the layout of the powersupply and grounding - rarely represented in specs.
Finally of course you can only decide if you do a/b comparisons, which can be extremely tricky as our ears are non-linear converters.
You have to setup the units in a way that they produces exactly the same signal level, otherwise the (slightly) louder one will always win
For itself I find Lembke's statement a bit non-expressive, but it could be the short form of the final result of a thorough comparison
I'm as critical with RME stuff as with Cohiba cigars (which can be marvellous) but frequently don't make it to their reputation.
Yet the company knows they will sell anyway...
cheers, Tom
They always read impressive, no matter what brand, but tell nothing at all about the fidelity of the conversion process.
For a rough estimation (without sound) you have to open the boxes and have a look at BOTH analog and digital circuitry.
A simple op-amp costs $1, a high quality precision one is upto $50.
Multiply by the number of channels and it can make a large difference at the basic manufacturing costs of the unit.
Same applies to the AD/DA converters and their corresponding filters.
Next item to check would be the layout of the powersupply and grounding - rarely represented in specs.
Finally of course you can only decide if you do a/b comparisons, which can be extremely tricky as our ears are non-linear converters.
You have to setup the units in a way that they produces exactly the same signal level, otherwise the (slightly) louder one will always win
For itself I find Lembke's statement a bit non-expressive, but it could be the short form of the final result of a thorough comparison
I'm as critical with RME stuff as with Cohiba cigars (which can be marvellous) but frequently don't make it to their reputation.
Yet the company knows they will sell anyway...
cheers, Tom
Well.. I'll tell you the whole story.
When I first got pulsar2 I bought A16 with it as the front end. At that time I already had Yamaha 01V digital mixer with ADAT I/O. Short comparison of 01V and A16 unfortunately was not in favor of A16. Yamaha (linear inputs) and CW box ADs sounded nearly identical, but A16 sound was a bit more harsh on hi-end. It was very strange because 01V is a piece of older semi-pro technology. But the digital mixer took too much space and finally I got rid of it. Then when I bought the second Pulsar2 I was able to expand my ADDA section with RME ADI-8 DS.
That box was definitely better. When you mix many sources digitized with it (or going live through it) the resulting audio image is more detailed than with A16. After that I sold A16 and replaced it with Lucid ADA8824 ADAT-converter.
Lucid is in another league. It beats RME and definitely beats CW A16. When I simply listened to my old mixes through it's DA it was like earplugs were taken out. I've found many errors in my previous work. I finally could normally track guitars/basses at my project studio with lucid - previously there were always some unwanted frequences present in the track, though my analog signal path didn't change.
I do not plan to drop my RME - it servers as AD-converter for external effect returns.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2004-03-15 07:42 ]</font>
When I first got pulsar2 I bought A16 with it as the front end. At that time I already had Yamaha 01V digital mixer with ADAT I/O. Short comparison of 01V and A16 unfortunately was not in favor of A16. Yamaha (linear inputs) and CW box ADs sounded nearly identical, but A16 sound was a bit more harsh on hi-end. It was very strange because 01V is a piece of older semi-pro technology. But the digital mixer took too much space and finally I got rid of it. Then when I bought the second Pulsar2 I was able to expand my ADDA section with RME ADI-8 DS.
That box was definitely better. When you mix many sources digitized with it (or going live through it) the resulting audio image is more detailed than with A16. After that I sold A16 and replaced it with Lucid ADA8824 ADAT-converter.
Lucid is in another league. It beats RME and definitely beats CW A16. When I simply listened to my old mixes through it's DA it was like earplugs were taken out. I've found many errors in my previous work. I finally could normally track guitars/basses at my project studio with lucid - previously there were always some unwanted frequences present in the track, though my analog signal path didn't change.
I do not plan to drop my RME - it servers as AD-converter for external effect returns.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2004-03-15 07:42 ]</font>
-
Guest
the A16 ultra has NO fan, but the predecessor A16 (w. fan) has 18-bit converters and as such may be difficult to compare with RME's 24-bit stuff.
I assume Lembke used A16 as an abbreviation only as he deals with some sophisticated gear, so he certainly knows the difference.
Regarding improved DA conversion that may also be influenced by the quality of the analog output stage and not necessarily by the converter itself.
cheers, Tom
I assume Lembke used A16 as an abbreviation only as he deals with some sophisticated gear, so he certainly knows the difference.
Regarding improved DA conversion that may also be influenced by the quality of the analog output stage and not necessarily by the converter itself.
cheers, Tom
Yes it was original A16 but for some reason I do not believe that Ultra sounds much better.
Of course the analog output stage of DA-converter unit does matter (as well as AD).
Apogee AD8000 and Midiman Delta 1010 use the same AD-chip (AKM 4393) but their sound qualities cannot even be compared.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2004-03-17 08:56 ]</font>
Of course the analog output stage of DA-converter unit does matter (as well as AD).
Apogee AD8000 and Midiman Delta 1010 use the same AD-chip (AKM 4393) but their sound qualities cannot even be compared.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lemke on 2004-03-17 08:56 ]</font>
well, using a scewdriver voids warranty and opening a device is the worst argument if one wants to re-sell it later
I had something in mind like the attitude of RANE (with your mic-pre for example).
Sunshine's links about this were quite revealing. I'll consider RANE in the first place from now on when in need for some gear they might provide
cheers, Tom
I had something in mind like the attitude of RANE (with your mic-pre for example).
Sunshine's links about this were quite revealing. I'll consider RANE in the first place from now on when in need for some gear they might provide
cheers, Tom