LYNX AURORA 8 (A/D AND D/A CONVERTER) - NOW WITH CONCLUSIONS!

[Anderton]

Well it's time for another Pro Review, and as always, it seems each Pro Review has its own gestalt. This one was actually scheduled for late last summer, but an illness got in the way and I missed the "window." Luckily, the guys at Lynx were pretty cool about it, and were just as happy that a Pro Review would be happening now. The Lynx had been selling well, and they figured that a little post-NAMM attention might be a nice "second wind."

But then I had to figure out how to approach the Lynx. Frankly, there isn't a lot of controversy around it to make for a juicy Pro Review. Ask just about anyone, and they'll tell you that the Aurora sounds great and costs a lot less than expected. As just one example, I was talking with Steve Thomas from Cakewalk at NAMM about the new Sonar 6.2 update. The subject turned to high-resolution audio, and sort of out of nowhere, he started talking about how great Lynx converters are. Martin Walker of Sound on Sound is a big Lynx fan, and he's another guy with technical chops and ears. And to paraphrase a post that Mike Rivers made somewhere in my SSS forum, "Then there are companies that really know what they're doing, like Lynx."

This parallels my own experience with Lynx. I used to recommend that people never buy an analog audio interface card that sits inside a computer; I always said get one with a breakout box, or use a digital interface. But then I was sent a LynxTWO card to review for EQ magazine. I of course figured it couldn't really be any good, because it sat inside the computer. So I was pretty shocked that the audio quality was equal, or superior, to outboard converters of pretty much any price. From that point on, I had to make an exception about analog audio interface cards.

So what was I going to do for the Aurora 8? Say "Wow, it sounds really good...well, that's just about wraps it up!"? Nah, that wouldn't work. So I decided to take a two-step approach:

* Explain some of the more esoteric features...just what is "double wire AES/EBU," anyway? And what about those expansion cards?
* Get interviews with the engineers at Lynx about what kind of mojo they put into the Aurora, so we could all learn something about what's involved in the design of A/D and D/A converters. As luck would have it, they were very forthcoming; I've captured about a half hour's worth of interesting stuff, ranging from whether master clocks really do improve sound quality (the answer might surprise you) to why PC board layout affects digital circuitry.

Ready? Let's go. As usual, I'll start with some pix to give an idea of what's happening on the outside and "under the hood."

[Anderton]

I don't like to re-invent the wheel with Pro Reviews and reproduce information you can readily find elsewhere.

The Lynx Aurora landing page (http://www.lynxstudio.com/aurora/index.html) will get you the basic specs and idea behind the product. You can also download the manual (http://www.lynxstudio.com/manuals/AuroraUserManual.pdf) in PDF format.

There's also a page with a description of all front panel controls, (http://www.lynxstudio.com/aurora/FRFrame.html) and another page with a description of all rear panel connectors. (http://www.lynxstudio.com/aurora/BKFrame.html) Finally, you can access an FAQ with the top questions asked about the Aurora. (http://www.lynxstudio.com/aurora/topquestions.html)

These are actually excellent resources that are pretty free of hype, intending instead to let you know what the various functions are...if you feel like doing some homework before continuing with the Pro Review, at least check out the landing page.

[Anderton]

The Aurora feels solid, and has a very open panel that doesn't have a lot of controls or switches. I of course wanted to gauge the internal construction, so I took it apart (not a difficult task at all), got out my trusty camera, and started shooting.

As you can see, surface mounting components is the order of the day. I believe the red cubes are relays, which are an expensive way to switch signals but also introduce no degradation to the signal path as it's just a wire being switched - semiconductors need not apply. In the second picture, note the configuration dipswitch.

[Anderton]

The Aurora is available in two models, the Aurora 8 (eight channels of A/D and D/A conversion, 8 channels of AES/EBU digital I/O in single-wire mode, 4 channels of AES/EBU digital I/O in dual-wire mode), and the Aurora 16 (double the numbers in the previous parenthetical phrase).

It seems the same board is used in both models, as when I took the Aurora 8 apart, there seemed to be a lot of blank spaces for extra chips, as you can see in the pictures below. I imagine all you'd really need to do is swap out the front and rear panels and put in the extra chips to end up with a 16, but after checking the web site, there doesn't seem to be any "hardware upgrade" path - not too suprising, as you can't exactly "re-bake" something with surface mount components.

[Anderton]

When I spoke with one of the engineers at Lynx, he mentioned that the power supply design was one of the elements that keeps noise down. Sure enough, there's a big honkin' toroidal transformer, shown in the picture below. (The second photo shows what I think are dual regulators - note the 1000 microfarad capacitor, that's a lot of filtering).

However, the power supply design comes with a tradeoff: It's set at the factory for a specific voltage, and cannot be altered in the field. This goes against the trend toward having "universal" supplies that work on everything from 100 to 250V, but I presume that by optimizing the power supply for a single voltage, they can keep the noise down further...hopefully someone from Lynx is reading this, and can chime in as to why they use the supply they do.

[Anderton]

Well, that's enough to get us started...it's 1:45AM, and I need to get up early tomorrow and do some more videos. But there will be more to come...

[bbauman]

Craig - The main reason we use a linear power supply in Aurora is to reduce the possibility of introducing additional noise typical of a switching power supply. Switching power supplies can generate lots of high frequency noise that can creep into sensitve analog circuitry and get through anti-aliasing filters in A/D converters. There are techniques for minimizing this, but we decided to play it safe with the big honkin' toroidal transformer. The downside is that a linear supply cannot be made "universal" and generates more heat.

Bob Bauman
Lynx Co-founder, Chief Hardware Engineer

[Dr. Gruv]

Hello Bob..

looking forward to the review :) i was one of the first L22 users emailing david h. about the mac drivers for virtual instruments w/logic! way back when... can't remember the number of years ago.. :) gettin' old. nice to see the anouncement of the PCIe cards ;)

-michael droste

say hi to david for me ;)

[Anderton]

Okay, you have all the A/D and D/A conversion. How do you hook it up to the rest of the world?

Actually, this kind of threw me for a bit, because it turns out there are a lot of options. I think I've got this figured out, but if not, I'm sure I'll be corrected :)

Dealing with the analog I/O is relatively easy. The Aurora 8 has two DB-25 connectors, one for 8 analog ins and one for 8 analog outs. The first picture below shows these (along with the MIDI I/O, which we'll be talking about later).

As to digital I/O, there is another DB-25 connector. The second picture below shows this, along with the LSLOT expansion port. The DB-25 connector provides 8 AES/EBU digital outs and 8 AES/EBU digital ins.

However, as well know, XLR plugs don't fit real well into DB-25 connectors, so...

[Anderton]

The existence of DB-25 connectors can mean only one thing: custom, expensive snakes. That's the bad news. The good news is that snakes are less expensive, less messy, and more reliable than having individual cables for every signal path.

Lynx sells suitable cables; the ones shown in the photo were supplied by Lynx for use in this review. For example, the CBL-AIN85 costs $80; it has a DB-25 connector at one end, and 8 standard audio XRL connectors at the other end. A typical use for this is if you have an old 8 track tape recorder with XLR outs, and you want to archive some tapes to digital. This cable will get your tape recorder's analog outs to the Auroras A/D converter. As to where those digital signals go...patience.

Another cable, the CBL-AOUT85 (also $80), does the reverse: It takes the eight analog DB-25 outputs from the Aurora 8 and breaks that out into eight XLR output connectors. A typical scenario here would be if you have a digital source going into the Aurora 8, and want to send it to the outside world. For example, you might have the digital outs of a 5.1 surround system feeding into the Aurora D/A. You can break each channel out into an XLR audio output, which could feed a mixer for blending the surround signals, or for that matter, monitor speakers with XLR inputs.

Now let's look at the Rest of the Story.

[Anderton]

What if you want to get the digital signal to be converted into analog from a computer? Or an ADAT? Or, suppose you want to be able to bypass the converters in a [fill in the name of a digital mixer with converters you don't like] and go directly into an ADAT light pipe in or wired multipin digital input present in the mixer. Well, there are several solutions.

The computer solution involves an accessory card, the AES16 ($695). This is a cross-platform (Windows 2K/XP and Mac OS9/OSX) PCI card with 16 channels of digital AES/EBU I/O on two 26-pin "HD" connectors (these are smaller than DB-25 connectors and have three rows of pins -- 9, 9, and 8).

So suppose you want to use the Aurora 8 as an audio interface with your computer, and in fact, that's what I'll be doing with a Mac to test it out. You slip the card in the computer, and for Windows, end up with drivers for WDM, WDM/KS, MME, ASIO, DirectSound, and GSIF. The Mac gives ASIO drivers for OS9 and Core Audio for OS X. Hook up the CBL-DIGY85 cable ($80) between the AES16 card and the Aurora 8, and the Aurora turns into a major-league breakout box. Now all you need is the XLR breakout cables for the analog I/O. If you need RCA connectors or TRS 1/4", adapter cables are available from Lynx for $6.50.

So yeah, this is a bit of a commitment. You won't find a dedicated instrument input, for example; the Aurora 8 is clearly designed as "brain" that needs to work with other gear.

[Anderton]

If you digital world revolves around ADAT, you're covered there as well. You can get a second board, the LS-ADAT. which for $249 gives you a set of ADAT I/O to go along with the AES16. We're dealing with computer-land here.

If on the other hand you want the ADAT I/O built into the Aurora itself, you can insert an LT-ADAT board into the Aurora. A typical reason for wanting to do this is if you wanted to, for example, bypass the converters in an ADAT. You'd feed your audio into the Aurora's XLR inputs, then feed the Aurora's ADAT out to your ADAT's ADAT in. Of course the same principle applies when using a digital mixer with ADAT I/O.

[Anderton]

In addition to hooking the Aurora into the AES16, it's also possible to patch it directly into Yamaha and Mackie digital mixers. And there's a cable available for hooking into Apogee gear as well. Although the AES16 box says that "Cables will be offered for connection to equipment from Tascam, Sony, and Digidesign," I didn't see anything fitting that description on the web site.

So, what's next? As mentioned previously, I initially plan to test the Aurora as an audio interface with the Mac (dual G5 model). Next, I asked Lynx if they could loan me an LT-ADAT card for use with the Aurora, and I'll use that to test the Aurora with one or more ADAT-compatible devices (e.g., Panasonic DA7). Keep reading...

[Big Boss Man]

Is a PCI Express version of the AES16 going to be available?

[PaulTec]

Is a PCI Express version of the AES16 going to be available?

Hi all,

Yes, we will be releasing a PCIe version of the AES16 mid year. It will be very comparable to the current AES16 in terms of features.

Craig, good catch on the cables. As you mentioned, we don't currently have an off-the-shelf D-SUB solution for Tascam/Digidesign/RADAR format with the AES16, however many users have reported excellent results ordering cables from third party custom shops like Redco (http://www.redco.com/). We make the pinouts for our products readily available, so users can pursue whatever cable lengths or connector types that suit their situation. AES16 pinouts are here (http://www.lynxstudio.com/aes16pinouts.html). Aurora pinouts are here (http://www.lynxstudio.com/aurorapinouts.html).

Paul Erlandson
Lynx Studio Technology
Director of Product Support

[Anderton]

Thanks Paul! BTW your links to the pinouts reminds that I really should have mentioned that the Lynx web site is super-informative and surprisingly hype-free. It's a really good resource, and these days, I count a good manufacturer web site as a definite product "feature."

[Anderton]

Well it seems like I won't be able to test the AES16 with the Mac, because I just found out my dual G5 has PCI-X slots only! Couldn't they at least have included one standard PCI card slot? Grrr...

So I guess I'll test it on Windows, which is a bit of an issue because all my slots are filled up in my main music computer. However, I do have a secondary music computer with open slots and it's no slouch, so I think I'm okay.

Hey Bob or Paul -- I'm assuming there's no way the AES16 card will work in a Mac with PCI-X slots, right?

[PaulTec]

Hey Bob or Paul -- I'm assuming there's no way the AES16 card will work in a Mac with PCI-X slots, right?

Craig,
The AES16 works beautifully in PCI-X slots, Mac or PC. It's a universal form factor and 3.3v tolerant. I've got three in PCI-X slots in a test machine and they work great. We have run into a very small number of PC server boards that will not tolerate 5v cards, but we can actually remedy that with a firmware variation if need be.

PCI-X G5s all work great though.

Now, if only it were so easy to adapt to PCIe :D

Paul Erlandson
Lynx Studio Technology
Director of Product Support

[Anderton]

Great news! And now that I've finished up editing the NAMM videos for Harmony Central (71 in 10 days -- I think that may be a record), I'll be able to step up the pace of the Pro Reviews.

[Anderton]

Okay, I screwed up my courage, took my dual G5 Mac apart, and installed the AES16 board as well as the LS-ADAT board so the Lynx can "talk" with things like the Creamware interface in my Windows computer and my Panasonic DA7 mixer. Funny, I take PCs apart and put them back together all the time, but when it comes to opening up a Mac, I get a bit nervous around the edges...

Of course, in the process I was reminded about how great the Mac's industrial design is :) It's so easy to take apart! Anyway, I just turned it on and it booted up, so now it's time to pop in the CD and see what happens next.

Meanwhile, here are some pictures of the AES16 board. The LS-ADAT is a simple daughterboard that connects to the AES16 board with a ribbon cable.

[Anderton]

The first step is a firmware update for the AES16, as it ships with Windows firmware. You can update to OS9 or OSX. It's all very automated: You expand the firmware update, double-click, and wait while the progress bar works its inexorable path from left to right. This is one of those deals where if the power goes away while updating you're screwed, but I have both my Mac and Windows machines on uninterruptible power supplies....no worries.

It's about halfway through...think I'll check the Lynx site to see if there are any updates I should know about before proceeding. Remember Anderton's Law of Music Software: Never use anything that involves software until you check the manufacturer's web site for updates and known issues.

[Anderton]

Hey, it updated successfully! Cool. You now have to turn the computer off, and turn it back on again.

After digging around on the Lynx site, I found there is indeed a driver update for OSX and another firmware update (there's also an update for the Aurora, but first things first).

As I'm one of those weird people who actually reads the instructions before doing something (imagine that!), I found out that you need to uninstall any existing driver before installing the new one. As the process for doing that on a Mac is nowhere near as friendly as doing it on Windows (you need to use a third party deinstaller for the Mac; Windows just has an "add/remove programs" option), I was just as glad I hadn't yet installed the driver that came on the installation CD.

As to the firmware update, it won't work with older drivers, you need to have the new driver installed. So the path seems clear: Install the update driver, then update the firmware again. Props to Lynx for putting all the necessary stuff on the web site, in an easy to find way.

Here we go...

[Anderton]

I really must say Lynx makes the process easy...the drivers installed just fine, and the instructions couldn't be clearer. I restarted, but it seems to take longer to boot up than it did before...maybe that's just a one time thing as it massages the new software. I'll see on subsequent reboots.

Okay, now for the updated drivers...here we go again. Yup, "update successful." Time to turn the computer off and turn it on again.

[Anderton]

Well I've done a few reboots, and it's back to being lightning fast. Must have been a one-time thing.

[Anderton]

All right! Everything worked and I didn't even need to call tech support.

The mixer application that now sits comfortably in my Mac has four pages: Adapter, Record/Play, Output, and LS-ADAT (because the LS-ADAT board is installed). I haven't connected the Aurora yet so the meters aren't moving or anything, but I've attached pictures of the four pages so you can see the "lay of the land."

[Anderton]

And that's it for today. I'm trying to limit myself to an hour or two a day on a Pro Review so I don't end up where days go by without any posts, then I post a zillion messages. Besides, I like to leave things with a cliffhanger :) -- will the Aurora work with the AES16? Tune in tomorrow!

I also need to go offline for a bit and edit the videos I did with some of the Lynx personnel at NAMM, they provided some interesting insights about how all this stuff works. I'll post them either as MP3s or full videos, depending on how big they end up being.

[PaulTec]

Hi Craig,
I just wanted to chime in quickly about the OSX firmware issue. The current OSX driver (build 42) does NOT require Mac firmware on the card. To put it in "nerd-speak", it supports little endian (Windows) and big endian (Mac) firmware. So someone purchasing a new card will not need to flash the firmware before installing the driver on OSX (although Craig's Rule is still worthwhile - always check the Lynx download page for recently updated drivers and firmware before the initial installation). The new and future OSX firmware updaters will program the card with the same firmware as the Windows updaters.

Another quick point, sometimes we need new firmware for the purpose of compatibility with recent runs of EEPROM chips. To an existing user, these types of firmware updates would not add any performance benefit or utility to the card. It's a good policy to check the Firmware Release Notes on the site to decide if a particular firmware update is worth pursuing.

Cheers-

Paul Erlandson
Lynx Studio Technology
Director of Product Support

[Anderton]

Well...okay...I've been wrapping my head around how to actually test this in a meaningful way. So this part isn't real time writing like the previous section, but the result of my messing around with the Aurora/AES16 for the past several hours.

As with any new piece of complex gear (and despite being "just an A/D and D/A converter" it is complex), it's best to start small and build up from there. So, I hooked up the digital cable from the Aurora to the AES16, booted up the Mac, and opened a file in Peak (there is a test tone sample included with the mixer for doing a check, but I wanted to go for the gusto right off the bat -- no test tones for me!). I connected the analog outs of the Lynx to the ins of my DA7 mixer so I could make sure I was getting signal, and making the mixer work right.

As is my usual protocol, I just left everything in the default positions. Hey, why not? The Aurora was set to internal clock and all seemed well. Setup in Peak was also a piece of cake: Set the sound out to Core Audio, and the hardware to AES16. So far, so good.

I clicked on play in Peak, went to the output page, selected Play 1 Left and Play 1 Right (it was a stereo file, so that seemed to make sense, eh?), and sure enough -- the meters started to wiggle. Still no sound, but I figured at least it was clear the AES16 was accepting signal, so it was time to turn my attention to the Aurora.

There are two prominent front panel switches on the Aurora, one that's To Analog Out, and the other marked To Digital Out. Okay, simple enough: I set To Analog Out to the AES In position (after all, the cable that goes to the AES16 card hooks into the AES connector, and was rewarded with sound.

So despite what was to me a fairly high intimidation factor at first, I was able to get sound happening pretty expeditiously. Good. Now for some testing.

[Anderton]

I had three cables supplied with the review unit: One with 8 XLR audio ins, one with 8 XLR audio outs, and the digital cable that goes from the Aurora to the AES16 card. Well, I should have asked for the one that goes from the Aurora's digital port to AES/EBU digital, as my first ideal was to send the digital out from an old DAT deck playing mono material into the Aurora, convert it, and send its output to my one ADAM A7 speaker. (As a side note, I just love these speakers; they're also great for testing gear, because they're brutally honest speakers.) Then I'd send an XLR audio out from the DAT deck to the other speaker. Switching between the two would then allow me to compare the Aurora D/A to the DAT's D/A, which I figured would be a "no contest" situation -- my DA-30 does not exactly have designer converters. But I figured it would at least establish a baseline of comparison.

However, I couldn't figure out any way to make this happen without the additional cable, so I thought I'd come up with some other quickie test. Moral of the story: If you can afford the Lynx, you can afford to get the extra cables just in case you need to do some unexpected interfacing!

[Anderton]

I took the DAT out and fed it into two Aurora analog ins. One output went directly to a speaker; the other went into the input of my DA7 and out to the other speaker, thus adding an extra stage of A/D/A conversion. I expected there would be some degradation when going through the DA7, but when comparing the two, it was much more than I expected. The sound was muffled and nowhere near as defined.

So then I took the LS-ADAT ADAT out, and fed it into the DA7's ADAT in. This way, I was using the A/D of the Aurora in both cases, with the D/A of the Aurora going into one channel and the D/A of the DA7 providing the other channel. There was a definite difference, although it was nowhere near as dramatic as running through the DA7 A/D/A. The Lynx converters again sound more defined. This was particularly noticeable in the bass range, where the sound was much cleaner. To use a graphic analogy, it was less grainy and more distinct...like using ASA 100 film compared to ASA 400. Of course, I could definitely mix music on either one, but the Aurora was clearly and obviously ahead in terms of sound quality.

[Anderton]

I then thought about setting up some more tests, but while I listening, my setup (which had been working just fine) stopped outputting audio. Curious...

Everything seemed in order: On the mixer's Record/Play page, the inputs were set to Digital In 1 Left and Digital In 1 Right, and the meters were indicating input signal. Okay. On the Output page, if I set the channels to the Record options (in other words, Digital In 1 Left and Digital In 1 Right), the inputs patched through to the outputs and all was well. But as soon as I switched the outputs to Play 1L and Play 1R, the meters went dead and so did the signal levels. Mute wasn't on, and the levels were up; everything seemed the same it had been before.

I checked the Aurora front panel, and the sample rate was correct; the Sync light was lit solid for Internal, which is what I had seleted on the Aurora and the AES16. "To Analog Out" was set to AES In, and "To Digital Out" was set to Analog In. What puzzled me more was that I was sure I had the same settings that had worked previously...so either I'm tired and there's pilot error, or I need to call tech support and see what I'm doing wrong...or maybe there's a hardware problem...or as so often happens in this computer-based world, maybe when I turn it on again in the morning everything will work as expected, and I'll never know why it didn't work!

[PaulTec]

Hi Craig,

I wanted to mention a couple things from the test points so far:
* The AES16 and Aurora 16 default settings should allow audio to pass to the Aurora Analog Outputs and from the Analog Inputs into the AES16. The Aurora default state is AES In to Analog Out, and Analog In to AES out.
* The one parameter that does need to change from the defaults is the clock settings. Both the Aurora and AES16 will come up on Internal as the clock source. Like with any other two digital devices, it is important that one operate as a clock master and the other as a slave. For the purpose of your testing, I would suggest leaving the AES16 on Internal and set the Aurora to AES A. This way, you can test different sample rates without switching the Aurora to match. With our Synchrolock clocking system, it should make no relevant difference if the Aurora operates as a clock master or slave (it's referencing its own crystal either way).

The clocks being asynchronous will have a bearing on the listening test. Even though you didn't hear obvious clicks and pops (the Aurora digital receivers are extremely tolerant), the imaging and sound stage will be compromised.
* It would be a shame to not run the tests that you prefer because of cables - I'll get you a "cable care package" ASAP.
* When the system stopped outputting audio, you did the right thing by checking the Lynx Mixer first. If we don't see meter activity on the output page, then there's no reason to look downstream. The meters are informed by the hardware, so evidently the play stream is never getting to the outputs. I would suggest the following:
1 - check the sample rate that the AES16 is reporting, and see if it matches the sample rate of the audio being played. If the Aurora and AES16 were operating independently clock-wise, its possible the Aurora was set to the right rate but the AES16 was not. Now the AES16 will switch automatically to the rate of the audio stream being played, but if some other process had hijacked the card or if "rate lock" got switched on, there could be a disparity there.
2 - From the Lynx Mixer click File > Restore Defaults. Just in case a parameter got changed - this will get us back to a clean slate. If we're running the AES16 on its Internal clock then the default state should work perfectly for the situation.
3 - I looked through our tech support knowledgbase and only found one incident that was similar to what you describe. In that case, the user had installed a newer driver version on top of a much older driver version and a clean uninstall/reinstall did the trick. Certainly doesn't sound like out problem here, but if the nothing else helps I would try removing the driver package with DesInstall Version 2 (http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/13955&vid=60520&mode=info), then reboot and install Build 42 again.

Standing by....

Paul Erlandson
Lynx Studio Technology
Director of Product Support

[Anderton]

Okay folks, now we have an idea of how Lynx handles tech support :)

The sample rate things sounds like it's on the right trail, I'll be playing with this later tonight. The fact that everything worked perfectly at one point means all I have to do is find out what changed...

Thanks for your patience, you know how it is learning new gear!

[DaveStergo]

My bag is live recording and my weapon of choice is a Core2 MacBook Pro. I am really hanging out for the Firewire card. The only pity is that audio gear is so damn expensive in Australia. The Aurora 16 is $5000! Quality is worth the price tho.

[Anderton]

Well, one of the great things about a Pro Review is I get to embarrass myself in public!

I tried Paul's suggestions and still couldn't get it to work, so I called tech support. I waited on hold for about 25 minutes, but at 5:02 PM Pacific Time on a Friday, Paul himself answered. I ran down the symptoms and within about a minute, he said "Sounds like you're in dual wire mode" and suggested a couple button presses. Sure enough, I was, which suffice it to say was NOT where I wanted to be (we'll get into the whole dual wire thing later in the review). I have a DAT deck hanging over the front panel, and I must have hit a button while I powered off and powered on again.

Bottom line: I don't know the unit well enough to troubleshoot my own issues, but Lynx's tech support solved the problem and was helpful. Always a good thing to know.

Sure is nice having both channels back again :) I rewarded myself by playing a CD through the Lynx converters and I'm grooving on that right now.

BTW on the phone, Paul mentioned that there's an upcoming update that adds some things people have requested. Rather than try to summarize what he said, I suggested he just post it here...so Paul, when you get a chance, give us the scoop on Upcoming Stuff.

[PaulTec]

Craig,

I'm glad we were able to get that resolved - nothing worse than starting the weekend with gear woes.

So I did want to put the word out about the new drivers and firmware for the AES16 that will be released within the next two weeks. There are a number of juicy enhancements:
1) We will now support up to 10 sources per output for zero latency hardware monitoring at sample rates up to 96k. Windows users that use ASIO Direct Monitoring will even be able to get up to 22 sources per output at 44.1/48k. There has been quite a clamor for this capability so I'm very pleased that it's about done (I did a session last weekend using ASIO Direct Monitoring for 16 input channels poured into 2 and it worked beautifully).
2) The AES16 will now support multi-channel interleaved playback, so you can play 5.1 or 7.1 encoded material through the AES16 outputs.
3) Some PC ASIO users had trouble with the PCI instruction updates that were in the last two firmware revisions, even though for most users these changes really improve PCI bus efficiency. The new driver will make these instructions optional.
4) Full fledged 32-bit and 64-bit Vista support (although, for Pro Audio you might want to hold off on Vista for a bit...).

Have a great weekend!

Paul Erlandson
Lynx Studio Technology
Director of Product Support

[Anderton]

...although, for Pro Audio you might want to hold off on Vista for a bit

Hey Paul! Not to hijack a thread about your own product or anything :),but do you have some inside info on Vista that we need to know about?

[Lawrence Farr]

ARGh! Converters, converters.

I'm currently all wrapped up with upgrading my AD. I recently bought a Lavry DA10 for the monitoring chain and I'm VERY happy with that. Been looking at the Blue series or the Myteks for AD. Now along comes this thing. Argh! :mad: :D

I'm curious how it works standalone. I'd be using it (if I buy) with the LT-ADAT option and pushing 8 channels into a Traveler's ADAT input so I wouldn't be using an AES card.

Questions for any Lynx rep who may be lurking:

1. Where is the 8 ch AD (without the DA) using the same converters? Everyone (including me) doesn't need the DA. Honestly, if there was a 8 ch AD version without the DA and with ADAT out I'd pay $1500 for it. Slap a LT-ADAT in one, disable or remove the onboard DA (and the rear connectors and the midi functionality if you like) and call me. I have a credit card waiting for you.

Note: The above assumes that the converters are as close to the high end models as many claim, or just immediately better than the RME's of the world.

2. Where is the standalone 2 ch Aurora? Many people who can't affored $2k might easily blow $600 on a stereo unit.

3. If your new converter's are so good (as many say and I believe) then why have you limited your market so severly? See questions 1 & 2. I can't believe these questions didn't come up during R&D.

Craig, you need some Apogee, Lavry and Myteks in there for comparison though as people looking to step up from MOTU / RME need a frame of reference and a cost/benefit analysis of where these fall in between. Unless they are immediately head and shoulders above those types of units (the MOTU's and RME's) AD/DA many might choose the additional expense of (and fewer channels of) a two channel unit like a Lavry or Mytek or Apogee.

Frankly I'd like to see a direct comparison with the converters in a Mackie 800r.

Thanks. Looking forward to the review.

[Lynx David]

do you have some inside info on Vista that we need to know aboutCraig,
Vista will work just fine if you are only using ASIO, since that bypasses everything Microsoft. If you do use the WDM driver (MME/DirectSound/Direct Kernel Streaming), then you are forced to use Microsoft components, and there are some new limitations with Vista.

The biggest problem at the moment revolves around sample rate support with Vista. Vista wants to be in complete control of the sample rate. That means that any application that used to set the sample rate by itself (CoolEdit Pro comes to mind), can no longer do so. The user must manually set the sample rate in the Audio Control Panel for the device in use. This also means that if you are clocking externally, as soon as the external sample rate changes you must also go into the Audio Control Panel and set the same rate there, otherwise you will not get audio. Some audio cards may get around this limitation with a driver rewrite (the code changes required are not easy), while others may decide that pro audio users really will just use ASIO and leave it at that.

Another issue has to do with device naming. Microsoft completely changed where the device names come from, and Vista the names of the devices by itself (with XP, the driver had complete control over how devices were named). This presents an interesting issue when dealing with a pro audio card that is also used for high-end home theater applications. To allow multi-channel playback for DVDs, the device must be named "Speakers" otherwise Vista simply won't present the Speaker Configuration to let the user select how many speakers they have. In a multi-card configuration, you end up with multiple devices all named "Speakers" which can be confusing to the user.

Hopefully Microsoft will look at some of these issues by the time Service Pack 1 is released.

Thank you,

David A. Hoatson
Lynx Studio Technology, Inc.
Co-founder, Chief Software Architect

[PaulTec]

Lawrence,

Thanks for the feedback. All points duly noted.

ARGh! Converters, converters.
I'm curious how it works standalone. I'd be using it (if I buy) with the LT-ADAT option and pushing 8 channels into a Traveler's ADAT input so I wouldn't be using an AES card.

This is a fairly standard context of use. You would just set LSLOT to be the signal source for the analog outs, and ANALOG to be the signal source for the digital outs. In this state, ADAT input routes to analog output, and analog input routes to ADAT output.


1. Where is the 8 ch AD (without the DA) using the same converters? Everyone (including me) doesn't need the DA. Honestly, if there was a 8 ch AD version without the DA and with ADAT out I'd pay $1500 for it. Slap a LT-ADAT in one, disable or remove the onboard DA (and the rear connectors and the midi functionality if you like) and call me. I have a credit card waiting for you.

This was just a matter of economy of scale. For the price point we were at, it made more sense to offer a bi-directional converter. However, input like yours is put into a AI-driven Super Computer to determine what products we will build next (well....sort of....).

2. Where is the standalone 2 ch Aurora? Many people who can't affored $2k might easily blow $600 on a stereo unit.

Another statement destined for the Super Computer database.

3. If your new converter's are so good (as many say and I believe) then why have you limited your market so severly? See questions 1 & 2. I can't believe these questions didn't come up during R&D.

Well - the first priority was to offer enough interfacing options for the Auroras, so we've put out the PT|HD, ADAT amd LynxTWO interfaces, and will be releasing the FireWire Interface next month. Thanks again for the feedback.

Paul Erlandson
Lynx Studio Technology
Director of Product Support

[Anderton]

Great information on Vista, David -- thank you!

[Lawrence Farr]

Well - the first priority was to offer enough interfacing options for the Auroras, so we've put out the PT|HD, ADAT amd LynxTWO interfaces, and will be releasing the FireWire Interface next month. Thanks again for the feedback.

Paul Erlandson
Lynx Studio Technology
Director of Product Support

Thanks Paul. The process of choosing AD converters is daunting. I want this next step to be my last quality step, I don't want to be upgrading converters again in 2 years. With the recent addition of the Lavry DA10 I can now hear exactly what my Traveler AD sounds like. It's actually pretty good for the money but I know I need better. I'm 'a lookin'. :blah:

Looking forward to a spirited review of the Aurora... and maybe a 4 channel version without the DA? :thu: Hint ....

[alphajerk]

Craig,
Vista will work just fine if you are only using ASIO, since that bypasses everything Microsoft. If you do use the WDM driver (MME/DirectSound/Direct Kernel Streaming), then you are forced to use Microsoft components, and there are some new limitations with Vista.

The biggest problem at the moment revolves around sample rate support with Vista. Vista wants to be in complete control of the sample rate. That means that any application that used to set the sample rate by itself (CoolEdit Pro comes to mind), can no longer do so. The user must manually set the sample rate in the Audio Control Panel for the device in use.

wow, that was one of the NICE things about XP was the ability to change the sample rate on the fly in the application... nice step back they took on that one.

[Anderton]

As Paul was kind enough to send me a cable with AES/EBU XLR ins and outs, I thought I'd take a brief detour from computer-land and check out the Aurora 8 as a "replacement" converter for an existing, older converter - like the one in my TASCAM DA-30. I picked the DA-30 because it had, at least for that time, decent converters compared to what you found in consumer CD players and such. The source material was 16-bit, so even though the Lynx does a lot better than that, there was a level playing field.

I decided to run my first test as follows: DA-30 AES/EBU out to Lynx AES/EBU in, Lynx Analog out to DA7 mixer. Simultaneously, I ran the DA-30 balanced audio outs directly to the DA7's inputs.

But wait, you say: That's pretty dumb, because you're sending BOTH signals through the DA7's A/D and D/A converters, which one would think would tend to obscure any subtle benefits brought forth by the Aurora. But I'll do a test that bypasses the DA7 and goes directly to the monitor speakers next; the whole point of this first test was that I was curious whether any changes would indeed make it through another stage of A/D and D/A conversions.

Furthermore, D/A conversion has the reputation of being the "easy" conversion as opposed to A/D. So in theory, there shouldn't be a huge difference between the Aurora and the "old school" converter, given the various constraints.

[Anderton]

I should probably mention that in terms of sending signals from point A to point B, it's really pretty obvious. There's a switch for selecting what goes to the Analog Out, and what goes to the Digital Out, as shown in the picture.

For this particular application, I wanted to send the AES In (from the DA-30 output) to the Lynx Analog out. Looking at the switch, there are three LEDs for the three choices, and you just hit the switch until the right one lights up.

As I wasn't using the digital outs, I didn't care about that a whole lot.

[Anderton]

To make things fair, I nulled out the two signals coming into the mixer as closely as possible (which was pretty close to zero volume) - I'm well aware of how just a few dB of difference can screw up A-B tests.

Although I really wasn't expecting that much of a difference, I was pretty surprised at how obvious the difference was when comparing the two sets of channels. You know how people talk about a "wider soundstage" with good converters? That was the first and most notable thing. So much so, in fact, that I double-checked my settings to make sure that the audio ins coming from the DA-30 were, in fact, panned hard left and right; it sounded like they weren't. Yes, it was that obvious.

The second thing I noticed was the high frequencies. With the Lynx converters, the highs were very well defined and clean. With the DA-30s converters, it sounds like they'd been sort of blurred, the way a graphics program does a Gaussian blur, where differences in color are minimized. I wouldn't say it was a question of tonality (sweeter, harsher, whatever), it's just that the highs were more accurately, and better, represented.

The third big change, and this surprised me the most, was that the dynamic range of the Lynx sound was clearly better. The DA-30's outs had a flat, almost compressed quality.

But why? It was 16-bit source material, so the better bit resolution in the Lynx shouldn't have made a difference...right? The sample rate was the same, they were feed the same mixer, etc. etc. But clearly, the Lynx sound had more internal dynamics. By that I mean the peaks weren't higher or anything; it's just that within the mix itself, there was not only more definition, but at least the sense of a wider dynamic range.

This reminded me a lot of reviewing the ADL600 tube preamp, which had a very similar sort of clarity within a mix. In that case, I was determined to find out whether I was hearing things or not, and did a 3D spectrum analysis of the signal. Sure enough, you could actually see that the peaks and values had just plain more detail.

So again, why? Here's my theory: I think that the really low noise levels of the Lynx are probably the main contributing factor. I think noise is sort of the audio equivalent of dust. Think about a monitor with dust on it versus one that you just cleaned: The image is pretty much the same, but the one without dust has more definition and clarity. That's pretty much analogous to what I was hearing when comparing the two signals.

As to the superior highs, I chalk that up to better converter technology and circuit design. The smoothing filters and such are just way better these days than they were when the DA-30 came into the world.

Regarding the soundstage, the common explanation there is that if there's no jitter, there's better stereo imaging because the left and right signals stay "glued" to the left and right channels rather than wandering a bit. Makes sense to me. But I also wonder if the heavy-duty power supply design in the Lynx might have an effect as well in terms of keeping the two separare channels truly separate.

In fact, make it's time to attach some of those interviews I did with the Lyxnologists at NAMM...or maybe I proceed to listening test #2. In any event, right now it's time to put dinner together, so...see ya later!

[Anderton]

For this test, I wanted to do a one-on-one test of the DA converters in the Aurora 8 and the Panasonic DA7 mixer. Now, even though the DA7 is an older piece of gear and a mixer, not a specialized converter, the backstory on it was that Panasonic had developed a really big-bucks console for NHK in Japan, and the DA7 was a spinoff that basically took advantage of the fact that the converters had to be made in a certain quantity to make production feasible. So, for the time it had seriously overachieving converters, and they were several steps up from the converters in the DA-30 that I used for the first listening test.

For this test, I ran the DA-30 SPDIF out into the DA7's SPDIF digital input, and ran it through the mixer's D/A converters to an ADAM A7. The DA-30 AES/EBU went to the Aurora 8, where it was shuttled out through the Aurora 8's D/A converter and directly to the input on a second A7. As I didn't have two sets of speakers for comparison, I simply sent the left channel through each one -- with the Aurora, by connecting only one of the analog outs; and with the DA7, by muting one channel and panning the other one.

I didn't know what to expect, which was a good thing because there were definite differences. The DA7 had a full, but less defined, low end. The Aurora 8's bass was much tighter; you could really "feel" the hit of the kick, whereas with the DA7, the hit sort of blended in with the low end to give a more amorphous, but nonetheless pleasing, low end. Also, the Aurora sounded like it distributed the frequencies more evenly throughout the spectrum; the DA7 had a slightly "boxier" and less "open" sound.

However, I should emphasize that while I could hear differences, they were quantitative, not qualitative. As to the midrange, the Aurora again had a clear edge in terms of definition and detail. I'm beginning to think that maybe this is the Aurora "signature sound." The high end held up surprisingly well on the DA7, which was interesting because that was one of the characteristics that attracted me to it in the first place. (Part of it was also the EQ, which sounded unusually sweet compared to other digital mixers of its day. Only later did I find out that internally, the EQ was being sampled at 88.2kHz when the board was theoretically running at 44.1kHz - the same basic principle as to why Guitar Rig and AmpliTube 2 sound so much better when you select "high resolution" mode. But I digress...)

I would say that the Aurora's highs were somewhat less "smeary" and while I should probably check a thesaurus, I'm going to trot out the word "defined" once more. I already gave the dust-on-the-monitor analogy so I won't bore you with it again, but that was equally valid here...there was just a whole lot less dust than with the DA-30's converters.

[Anderton]

Craig, you need some Apogee, Lavry and Myteks in there for comparison though as people looking to step up from MOTU / RME need a frame of reference and a cost/benefit analysis of where these fall in between. Unless they are immediately head and shoulders above those types of units (the MOTU's and RME's) AD/DA many might choose the additional expense of (and fewer channels of) a two channel unit like a Lavry or Mytek or Apogee.

Well companies aren't into the habit of sending me expensive hardware to have around just in case I need to do comparisons, but actually, the reason why I'm making the comparisons I am - to gear that admittedly is not in the same league as the Aurora - is because once you get into the big bucks land of first-class gear, it becomes increasingly difficult to find universal agreement on what sounds "better." I think that's because the differences are relatively small, no matter what marketing departments would like you to believe :)

I'm guessing that a lot of people reading this review are doing so to find out what you surmise - whether it's worth stepping up from units that costs in the hundreds of dollars instead of thousands. I also wanted to start with older converters and move to the present to have a "frame of reference" and a sense of continuity.

So far, there is no question that the Aurora sounds better than less expensive units. No surprise there, I guess, but it's the degree of "sounds better" that interests me: This "definition" quality I keep referring to. It makes listening to music more pleasurable, but on the flip side, it's pretty brutal in exposing things like digital distortion for what it is. (If you think digital distortion is bad, wait until you hear high-definition digital distortion - trust me, it does NOT sound better!)

But to those who don't have a few kilobucks laying around, take heart in the fact that a good mix is going to sound good, whether it's over hundred dollar or thousand dollar converters. The material trumps the playback device every time. Having said that, though, listening through something with a high degree of definition isn't just about more pleasurable listening, or being able to make smoother mixes; there's less ear fatigue, which I believe is an incredibly important quality if you're going to spend hours and hours sitting in front of speakers trying to create the ultimate mix. You have to keep your ears fresh, and something like the Aurora helps to promote that.

Well, that's enough for tonight...

[Anderton]

We interrupt this Pro Review to bring you some...Master Class seminars! For all the geeks and tech heads in the crowd, I cornered Bob Bauman and Paul Erlandson of Lynx at the 2007 Winter NAMM show, and asked them to dish the dirt on what really goes into engineering and designing converters.

In this first part, Bob talks about some general considerations involving converter design. To hear this audio files:

(Windows) INTERNET EXPLORER: Left-click on the attachement name below. Click Open to open in Windows Media Player, click Save to save to the desktop.
(Mac) SAFARI: Click on the attachment name below; it will be opened in iTunes.

[Anderton]

This section covers converter front ends, and some of the design decisions involved in creating this type of product.

[Anderton]

I think this one is particularly interesting, as Bob talks about how different types of resistors and capacitors affect the sound...thick film vs. thin film resistors, electrolytic capacitors, etc.

[Anderton]

This segment talks about the basic principles of clocking with converters. In a later post, Paul Erlandson talks about whether you really need external clocking or not, and whether people might find some types of jitter subjectively pleasing.

[Anderton]

Circuit board design has a major influence on the sound of a converter. In this segment, Bob explains the lengths you need to go to with circuit boards if you want to have good analog performance in a digital environment.

[Anderton]

In this final segment from Bob, he touches on how power supply design affects converter performance.

[Anderton]

In this first of two parts, Paul Erlandson talks about the practice of using external clocks. Does it really make a difference? Check it out...

[Anderton]

Here's the concluding segment about the pros and cons of using external master clocks.

[Anderton]

LYNX AURORA 8: ERLANDSON ON MULTICHANNEL I/O, PART 1

Is the ADAT light pipe the only game in town for multichannel I/O? In this first of two parts, Paul Erlandson explains why AES/EBU is ideal for multichannel digital transfers.

[Anderton]

This segment concludes not only Paul Erlandson's comments on multichannel I/O, but also this series of tutorials.

[Anderton]

FYI: I'm travelling until Thursday and since I can't bring my studio with me, this pro review will be on a short hiatus.

[Anderton]

Having checked out the software and the D/A, I figured it was time to check out the D/A conversion. However, one thing I've noticed is that setting the Aurora 8 up for different tests seems "against the grain" of what it really wants to do, which is sit in a rack, have its appropriate cables connected, and sit there all day to do what it does best.

So, let me describe the test procedure first. I like using different types of material, as different material spotlights different strengths and weaknesses of the conversion process.

My reference A/D is the one in my Panasonic DA7 mixer, which as explained previously, are somewhat overachieving at this price point because they appropriate technology developed for a far more expensive console. Still, these are older 24-bit technology, so I was expecting to have some kind of meaningful difference compared to what I would get from the Lynx.

I devised three tests. The first one was creating a mono guitar, drum machine, and narration mix in the DigiTech GNX4 recorder. I split one audio out into the DA7, and the other into a Lynx analog input. A Lynx digital output fed the DA7's digital in, bypassing the DA7's conversion process. This type of signal source is good for checking out pure bass range and to see how the converters react to any aliasing or funkiness that might be created by a relatively low-cost, do-all digital device.

The next test involved two recordings. The first was Astor Piazzolla's "Love Tanguedia." For those not familiar with Astor Piazzolla, he was an Argentinian who pretty much invented the whole "nuevo tango" movement, which added jazz and classical influences to traditional tango. Aside from giving me something to listen to that I like, the mix of violin, bandoneon, double bass, electric guitar, and piano provided a rich, warm group of signal sources.

The second recording was Angelique Kidjo's Oyaya!, which is Afropop and has plenty of percussion and vocals to run the high frequencies through the ringer. I wouldn't hesistate to recommend CDs from either artist, by the way.

But I had one more task to do. I opened the test selections in Peak 5.2, mixed the stereo tracks to mono, then duplicated the mono track in both channels and burned a new CD. This way, I could be assured the same signal was going to both the DA7's analog in and the Lynx digital in. For playback, I took the balanced outputs from my Alesis Masterlink (the only CD player I have with balanced outs).

At the DA7, I panned each of the test channels to center to avoid the effects of any possible differences between the two ADAM A7 speakers I use for monitoring (although I really can't hear any differences between the two), and enabled both channels. To have the same level difference, I temporarily inverted the phase of one of the channels and adjusted levels for nulling. However, this also required delaying the signal coming from the Lynx somewhat. I don't really understand why this should be so; I would think that it takes a finite amount of time to convert analog into digital, with the only real variable being sample rate. Yet it seems the Lynx converts audio faster than the DA7; or maybe there are other delays caused by going into an analog input instead of a digital input of which I'm not aware. Perhaps someone at Lynx could explain what's happening in my setup that makes the Lynx seem "speedier."

Now that I was set up and ready to go, I could enable one channel or the other and do A-B comparisons.

[Anderton]

Having checked out the software and the D/A, I figured it was time to check out the D/A conversion. However, one thing I've noticed is that setting the Aurora 8 up for different tests seems "against the grain" of what it really wants to do, which is sit in a rack, have its appropriate cables connected, and sit there all day to do what it does best.

So, let me describe the test procedure first. I like using different types of material, as different material spotlights different strengths and weaknesses of the conversion process.

My reference A/D is the one in my Panasonic DA7 mixer, which as explained previously, is somewhat overachieving at this price point because it appropriates technology developed for a far more expensive console. Still, the converters are older 24-bit technology, so I was expecting to have some kind of meaningful difference compared to what I would get from the Lynx.

I devised three tests. The first one was creating a mono guitar, drum machine, and narration mix in the DigiTech GNX4 recorder. I split one audio out into the DA7, and the other into a Lynx analog input. A Lynx digital output fed the DA7's digital in, bypassing the DA7's conversion process. This type of signal source is good for checking out pure bass range and to see how the converters react to any aliasing or funkiness that might be created by a relatively low-cost, do-all digital device.

The next test involved two recordings. The first was Astor Piazzolla's "Love Tanguedia." For those not familiar with Astor Piazzolla, he was an Argentinian who pretty much invented the whole "nuevo tango" movement, which added jazz and classical influences to traditional tango. Aside from giving me something to listen to that I like, the mix of violin, bandoneon, double bass, electric guitar, and piano provided a rich, warm group of signal sources.

The second recording was Angelique Kidjo's Oyaya!, which is Afropop and has plenty of percussion and vocals to run the high frequencies through the ringer. I wouldn't hesistate to recommend CDs from either artist, by the way.

But I had one more task to do. I opened the test selections in Peak 5.2, mixed the stereo tracks to mono, then duplicated the mono track in both channels and burned a new CD. This way, I could be assured the same signal was going to both the DA7's analog in and the Lynx digital in. For playback, I took the balanced outputs from my Alesis Masterlink (the only CD player I have with balanced outs).

At the DA7, I panned each of the test channels to center to avoid the effects of any possible differences between the two ADAM A7 speakers I use for monitoring (although I really can't hear any differences between the two), and enabled both channels. To have the same level difference, I temporarily inverted the phase of one of the channels and adjusted levels for nulling. However, this also required delaying the signal coming from the Lynx somewhat. I don't really understand why this should be so; I would think that it takes a finite amount of time to convert analog into digital, with the only real variable being sample rate. Yet it seems the Lynx converts audio faster than the DA7; or maybe there are other delays caused by going into an analog input instead of a digital input of which I'm not aware. Perhaps someone at Lynx could explain what's happening in my setup that makes the Lynx seem "speedier."

Now that I was set up and ready to go, I could enable one channel or the other and do A-B comparisons.

[Anderton]

My first surprise was that the low frequencies on the drum machine kick were far more present – not muffled, not deep, just more “there.” Also, the upper mids on the DA7 were a bit brighter; some might say “harsher,” but they didn’t sound bad to me. It seemed more like a little bit of a frequency response bump.

The distorted guitar really didn’t sound much different on either one. After thinking about it for a bit, this didn’t seem unusual; it doesn’t have much bass, the cabinet emulation rolls off the treble, and there’s not a lot of dynamic range, either. So, it didn’t really need anything special to sound the way it wanted to sound. Ditto voice: No big difference. But the difference on the drums was quite pronounced, and I appreciated the extra low end because it seemed like an “honest” low end, not one that was hyped.

[Anderton]

Here you could definitely hear a little bit of that high-end harshness/peakiness with the DA7; the Lynx sounded smoother. Also, the low end fullness I picked up with the drum machine, while not as pronounced, was definitely there and an improvement. Now, bear in mind we’re not talking huge differences; but the differences were pronounced enough that even when switching randomly, I coulD pick out which was which.

The other distinguishing characteristic, which I’m beginning to think is a “Lynx thing,” was that sense of three-dimensionality and depth to the mix. The Lynx almost sounded slightly louder; I at first thought I must have hit a slider accidentally or something but no, I check enabling both sources and again, they canceled. Huh? Well, here’s my theory: Being able to hear the mix with more depth gives the same kind of effect you’d normally get by turning up the volume a hair. Everything coming out of the Lynx was just sharper and more defined.

[Anderton]

The results were pretty much the same as: Better bass, smoother highs, more definition. But how it manifested itself changed somewhat. The definition brought out the ambience better, and the scrape of the bow on the violin and double bass had a round, but aggressive kind of “in your face” quality that really made you feel the fact that it was a live recording.

Now, there’s the question of comparing to other A/D converters. And I suppose if I wanted to be really thorough, I should probably get 27 A/D converters in here, and see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But truthfully, I’m not an audio snob; I just care if 1) something sounds better than something else, and 2) its “character,” independent of any comparisons. In all my tests, A/D or D/A, the one thing that kept coming back to me is that the Lynx has a much higher-resolution sound than lesser converters. It’s as if each instrument in a mix was dusted off and polished a little bit. The result is a just plain more pleasant listening experience.

[Anderton]

Even though there are more tests I could do, at this point I feel the basics have been covered. In answer to my original question – does spending more bucks get you a better sound? – the answer is yes, and you don’t have to be a golden ears kinda person to hear it. One of the more interesting things was that I was sitting here listening to the Piazzolla CD in the background, just for pleasure, and had this nagging feeling that maybe the Lynx wasn’t quite as good as thought. That’s when I looked over at the mixer and realized I had mistakenly left the “wrong” input enabled. So even when not doing a direct A-B test, I knew the sound of the Lynx well enough to recognize that wasn’t what I was hearing.

But there’s another aspect to testing. Although cutting back and forth and doing an A-B test is a recognized way to do testing, the above incident brought forth something else: Quality sound is cumulative. Listening to the Lynx, even as background music, resulted in a more pleasant overall listening experience over time. If I was going to listen to music for hours on end, I’d much rather do it through a quality converter! Even if the differences aren’t huge, over time even a tiny bit of harshness, or a little bit of flatness, becomes wearing.

It’s been a real ear-opener to be able to spend some time with some really high-class gear. Now, it’s your turn: Is there some other aspect you want me to investigate? I could go into the software mixer application in a little more depth I suppose, but really, it’s pretty straightforward…ins, out, meters, status, etc. So, before I wrap this review, let me know if there’s anything else you’d like me to cover.

[PaulTec]

To have the same level difference, I temporarily inverted the phase of one of the channels and adjusted levels for nulling. However, this also required delaying the signal coming from the Lynx somewhat. I don't really understand why this should be so; I would think that it takes a finite amount of time to convert analog into digital, with the only real variable being sample rate. Yet it seems the Lynx converts audio faster than the DA7; or maybe there are other delays caused by going into an analog input instead of a digital input of which I'm not aware. Perhaps someone at Lynx could explain what's happening in my setup that makes the Lynx seem "speedier."


Conversion speed definitely varies, and is the sum of the intrinisic delay of the converter chips used (which can vary by sample rate), and any housekeeping tasks like time in and out of an FPGA/DSP. The DA conversion on the Aurora is extremely speedy:
9.4 samples @ 1X rates (44.1k, 48k)
4.6 samples @ 2X rates (88.2k/96k)
4.7 samples @ 4X rates (176.4k/192k)
Plus - 3 samples for the FPGA at any rate.

As a point of comparison, the LynxTWO DA stage (which uses previous generation chips) is between 12-38 samples. With the LT-HD, our Aurora expansion card for users of ProTools|HD, we had to add buffers to slow it (way) down so that the delay compensation within ProTools was accurate. So the Aurora is very fast compared to most converters on the market.

Paul Erlandson
Lynx Studio Technology
Director of Product Support

[ny152]

Thank you Craig for your in-depth review and for the time taken.

I for one have been following this review for several weeks, and it has helped me in the ever-evolving quest for new converters.

All the best,

:)

[Anderton]

Glad to hear it! This has actually been a rather difficult product to review, because a lot of what I've said is subjective...terms like "more defined" aren't the same as, say, a frequency response measurement. And, there's no way that I can demonstrate the differences with an MP3 example file. Just the act of recording what I'm hearing into something else is problematic.

What I can say for sure is that the Lynx sounds just plain wonderful. Whether it's "0.01 audiophile units" better or worse than other high end converters is beyond the scope of this review, and frankly, I don't know how relevant that is because if you get ten engineeers in a room with impeccable credentials, they'll still disagree about audio :) But it's clearly better than even "upper middle class" converters.

I did find it interesting that it sounded obviously different and more "hi-fi" compared to, say, the converters in the DA7 but I was equally surprised that the DA7 converters held their own as well as they did. I guess Panasonic was telling me the truth that their converters really were hot stuff at the time.

But ultimately, the most surprising element of the whole review -- one that I did not expect -- was the effect of listening to the converters in the Lynx over time compared to other converters. There is no doubt in my mind that the amount of listener fatigue -- an even harder to quantify concept than "transparent sound" -- was far less with the Lynx than anything else in my studio. I could really see some rich audiophile buying a Lynx just to listen to CDs, because they really do sound that much better going through good converters.

I'd also like to thank the people at Lynx for being so accommodating and available during the course of this review. This is a good group of people IMHO, and and maybe that has something to do with the quality of the unit.

[ny152]

Thanks for the extra info Craig. Much appreciated!

I know it's been a few weeks but did you manage to get a chance to compare the Lynx Aurora with the other products in the Lynx line. I'd be really interested to know if there is a noticeable difference between say the Lynx Two and the Aurora, both in the A/D stage and the D/A stage?

[Anderton]

Thanks for the extra info Craig. Much appreciated!

I know it's been a few weeks but did you manage to get a chance to compare the Lynx Aurora with the other products in the Lynx line. I'd be really interested to know if there is a noticeable difference between say the Lynx Two and the Aurora, both in the A/D stage and the D/A stage?

I do not have any other Lynx gear here for comparison. But I did review their PCI quite some time ago and was floored at how quiet is was compared to the competition at the time.

My basic take is that Lynx designs to a certain level of performance and then figures out the price, and pretty much you get what you pay for, if not more.

Anyway, I'm back from the Frankfurt Messe and doing the Pro Reviews again...I think this one is pretty much wrapped up, but if there are any remaining questions, let me know! The unit is still set up for testing.

[Projector]

I would have loved for you to hear this unit with The Apogee Big Ben external clock. Many good ears have said that it makes a world of difference and some even choose the Aurora/Big Ben combo (blindly) over the top end apogee setup.


What would be cool is a converter/clock shoot out with the addition of downloadable wave files for people to hear.

[Anderton]

I wonder if they would have chosen the Aurora by itself over the Apogee by itself...the fact that you mentioned it was a blind test is indeed interesting, there's a distinct lack of "scientific method" testing going on in this industry!

Did you download the MP3s earlier in the thread where Lynx's engineers talk about clocking? Interesting stuff.

[Anderton]

Well, I'm boxing up the hardware to send it back home to Lynx, and I must say, I'm sorry to see it go...my Mac never sounded so good :). Seriously, though, my overall conclusion is that this is a very "pro" setup and I can't imagine that anyone would be disappointed or feel it doesn't provide value for money. It sounds great, is relatively easy to hook up, and the mixer applet software - while a bit cryptic at first, because it gives you so many options - it totally solid.

When I started this review, the question in my mind was whether an "upper class" device like the Lynx was obviously superior in terms of sonics to lower-priced converters. The answer is definitely yes. Furthermore, Lynx provided excellent support. Granted, they knew they were dealing with a very public platform, but the experience of other users I've talked to parallels mine...Lynx is a responsive company.

So the bottom line is if you have the money, this gets a thumbs up in terms of sonic purity. Of course, it doesn't have some of the bells and whistles of more mainstream gear (e.g., MIDI I/O, onboard effects, built-in mic pres, that sort of thing) but that's not the point...it's all about conversion, and it does that job really, really well. It was a pleasure to work with the Aurora.

[Sound-Weavers.c]

I have a Lynx Aurora 16 and it is so good - it's difficult to tell it against my Rosetta 800. They now co-exist as AD/DA for my PT HD system. Clocked by a Big Ben. The Aurora 16 is fantastic bang for the buck.

[Vincent]

Craig...Thank You for all of the great info!

You started to mention about clocking with outboard converters, whether ir not it was important to clock them.....did I miss it somewhere?

I 'm currently using a Apogee Rosetta 200 with the Focusrite Liquid Channel going into the computer via a RME Hammerfall DSP Multiface II with the Breakout box.

Is it absolutly necessary to use a Big Ben to clock these units?

Thank You so much.:)

[FM Acoustics]

Just found this review and have a question for the people at Lynx, it concerns the clock provided by the Aurora from its Word Clock output when it's set to internal sync.

Since the Aurora is able to output through the Word Clock connector all the standard sample rates, could you guys tell me how is this realized? Do you use an independent oscillator for each sample rate (one for 44.1, one for 48, one for 88.2 etc) which is activated when you select the corresponding value or do you use one oscillator which provides the base sample rates in conjunction with 2x and 4x clock multipliers for the 2x and 4x sample rates?

[evilio]

Craig - The main reason we use a linear power supply in Aurora is to reduce the possibility of introducing additional noise typical of a switching power supply. Switching power supplies can generate lots of high frequency noise that can creep into sensitve analog circuitry and get through anti-aliasing filters in A/D converters. There are techniques for minimizing this, but we decided to play it safe with the big honkin' toroidal transformer. The downside is that a linear supply cannot be made "universal" and generates more heat.

Bob Bauman
Lynx Co-founder, Chief Hardware Engineer
Hi there , I am a new member here and I signed up basically because I have to sort out very soon an Aarora 16 power supply issue.
I am about to buy an Aurora 16 in the States but I will mainly use it in Europe.
For that reason I need a voltage converter ( switching power supply) to run my 110 v Aurora in a 220v electric field.
By reading the post of Bob Bauman up here I found out that this may cause issues with Aurora's anti aliasing filter.
Do anyone know how much (at which frequencies) and how dramatically a switching power supply (the kind of 110v to 220v) may affect the conversion of a gear such the Aurora Lynx and if is there any way to minimize it like, for instance, buying a specific type of power supply that can reduce "noise pollution"?


Thanx