Lynx Aurora 16 vs Behringer ADA8000

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

norman_nomad

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
115
Location
San Francisco
Hey guys,

I know it's bad form to link to another forum, but I can't host files here and I thought you'd find this thread interesting especially since all of you helped me, at one point, to mod my Behringer ada8000.

This thread compares a Lynx Aurora 16 mix to a Behringer Ada8000 (unmodded) mix. Both utilizing 16 tracks of A/D via hardware inserts.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear...5267-lynx-aurora-16-vs-behringer-ada8000.html

Can anyone tell which is which?
 
[quote author="natek"]So what do you think is which!? They still have not posted the results of what people guessed versus what it was! :green:[/quote]

Well since I conducted the test... I have a pretty good idea of which is which.

:green:
 
I did a test like this once only thing is I never changed the converter or did anything different between A and B and about 99% of everyone who heard it chose A or B as the better converter.
 
[quote author="pucho812"]I did a test like this once only thing is I never changed the converter or did anything different between A and B and about 99% of everyone who heard it chose A or B as the better converter.[/quote]

lol. I've always wanted to do something like this... but people tend to hate you after that. :green: I can assure you that everything in the test I did is on the level.
 
I have never heard or used either of them so...............

A , to me sounded fuller [ some may say looser low mid end , duller]
B , a little more shallow & small , maybe more clear , but
that's one listen , first impression on computer speakers
with all the compression i felt it a little funny to know what was
going on [ or not ] with the high end .
 
I tried a little experiment witch those files.
I put the files into cubase.
When listening to the files (I listened to the Dredg file cause I know that song pretty well) I couldn't really hear differences by switching from one track to the other in cubase. I used my external DA converter with Beyer DT770 earphones.
What I did next was to flip the phase of the "processed files" and let them play along with the original.
Perfect files would cancel out of course and I know that you can't really match the volume 100% but now you can hear big differences.
Listening to the residual frequencies on the Behringer track, the highs are emphasized and sound a little brittle while the Aurora has something going on in the mids but still it is a lot closer to the original...
After that I turned the phase back to normal and listened again and now that I new what to listen for I am convinced to hear some hyped highs on the Behringer track.
I asked my girlfriend to switch tracks randomly and write it down so I could do the tests blind. 3 out of 3 times I could seperate the Behringer from the original, 1 out of 3 times I could figure out the Lynx....
But still, the differences are subtle I think, especially as the Behringer costs a little less...
Was that a stupid test to do?

EDIT:
Sorry, I just read the other original thread and he told the same thing as me, but I didn't copy it, I swear:shock:
Best,
Stefan
 
[quote author="steppenwolf"]I tried a little experiment witch those files.
I put the files into cubase.
When listening to the files (I listened to the Dredg file cause I know that song pretty well) I couldn't really hear differences by switching from one track to the other in cubase. I used my external DA converter with Beyer DT770 earphones.
What I did next was to flip the phase of the "processed files" and let them play along with the original.
Perfect files would cancel out of course and I know that you can't really match the volume 100% but now you can hear big differences.
Listening to the residual frequencies on the Behringer track, the highs are emphasized and sound a little brittle while the Aurora has something going on in the mids but still it is a lot closer to the original...
After that I turned the phase back to normal and listened again and now that I new what to listen for I am convinced to hear some hyped highs on the Behringer track.
I asked my girlfriend to switch tracks randomly and write it down so I could do the tests blind. 3 out of 3 times I could seperate the Behringer from the original, 1 out of 3 times I could figure out the Lynx....
But still, the differences are subtle I think, especially as the Behringer costs a little less...
Was that a stupid test to do?

EDIT:
Sorry, I just read the other original thread and he told the same thing as me, but I didn't copy it, I swear:shock:
Best,
Stefan[/quote]

Yes! This is a good way to test. You have to train your ears to know what to hear and then try a blind test.

The Behringer does produce more high end... and I think that's why people liked it more...

It was an interesting test for me... I'm not sure which converter to keep... I think I need to do some more experiments. :cool:
 
[quote author="norman_nomad"][quote author="rodabod"]I'm going to guess that A is the Behringer. I have not used the Lynx before.[/quote]

Cool... care to state why?[/quote]

Apologies for the delay. I just picked up what I notice most times when listening to better converters, and that is that the high-end was clearer. Particularly on cymbals. I would have preferred less compressed material though.

Overall though, I think the difference is certainly quite small and am happy with its performance. The quality of my recording skills currently makes a much larger factor in the quality of the final sound than the difference shown in your test.
 
[quote author="rodabod"][quote author="norman_nomad"][quote author="rodabod"]I'm going to guess that A is the Behringer. I have not used the Lynx before.[/quote]

Cool... care to state why?[/quote]

Apologies for the delay. I just picked up what I notice most times when listening to better converters, and that is that the high-end was clearer. Particularly on cymbals. I would have preferred less compressed material though.

Overall though, I think the difference is certainly quite small and am happy with its performance. The quality of my recording skills currently makes a much larger factor in the quality of the final sound than the difference shown in your test.[/quote]

Yes... I would have to put myself in the same category. :grin:
 
On reflection , i felt that B was not as loud or at a lower level
though you say they were matched ?
[ i like the put one , opposite polarity and adjust for max cancilation
in mono , then restore , method ]
 
During the heavy chorus parts I thought the Behringer held focus better. What I mean is, it sounded like the individual parts retained their ability to be singled out better. I thought the Aurora actually clouded those parts.

It's also very difficult to judge converter detail when the content is of that type. There is so much distortion going on in the actual recording it's hard to separate what the converters add.

Based on what I heard though, I'd say anyone who doesn't buy the Behringer because of the name printed on it is really missing out. It's one of the best values in the business...almost legendary at its' price.
 
[quote author="okgb"]
[ i like the put one , opposite polarity and adjust for max cancilation
in mono , then restore , method ][/quote]

Yes, this is what I did. You can confirm this by taking both files into your DAW and flipping the phase on one and trying to find a tighter null... I think I got the best dull I could.

The problem is, because the Behringer does not have a perfect freq response, it won't null with the top end of the Lynx or the original...at all... there's a bunch of residual stuff from 500hz up. :cry:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top