Any 2192 users?

[imdrecordings]

Just received a 2-610 via UPS today... watched the UA product video.. 2192 looks like it would be perfect.

2 more ad/da.(that sounds killer).. I can clock my ADA8000 and my FF800 to it...

WOW..

Anyone have anything to say or think it would be a great investment for my little studio?

Thanx

Scott

 

[A Gruesome Discovery]

This thread may be two months old, but I just bought a 2192 and FedEx will be bestowing it upon me tomorrow. I'll post my initial impressions here!
I'm moving up from a Mackie 400F firewire interface, which has some pretty nice A/D conversion (the same chip as RME's FW series), but I find the D/A somewhat lacking. It sounds decent enough through my monitors, perhaps a tad bright, but I could definitely see some issues with repeated D/A-A/D conversions, as with using outboard stuff during mixdown. I'm not expecting an earth-shattering, night & day difference with the 2192, but I'm hopeful the improvement will be immediately perceptible, if subtle.

 

[imdrecordings]

awesome
thanks and let me know

 

[A Gruesome Discovery]

Got it late last night & just racked it in. I'm off to work in a few minutes (waiting to get home and test this will be torture), and will post some inital sound-related impressions tonight!
Initial superficial impressions:

• -This thing is huge; it's of course only 1U high but it's over a foot deep; about five inches deeper than the 1176LN or M610/2610. I may have a bit of trouble closing the rear door on my rack once the XLR cables are plugged in!
  -Switches are nice and solid, and knobs make a heavy, satisfying \"thunk\" when turned. High-quality feel overall.
  -I've tested powering it up and have had it on for a while, and this thing gets very warm. Not quite \"fry an egg on it\" warm, but you could probably melt a Hershey's bar (though that will not be part of my testing). The manual says the heat is normal (as with most high-quality converters), and I definitely would recommend leaving at least full rackspace above and below the unit. Since warm air rises, I'm probably going to move it closer to the top rackspace, and possibly even put my rackmount fan panel in the spaces above it just to be safe.

I'll get to the sound part later, maybe with some pics just for fun. My expectations are very high.

 

[Marrone]

Hee Grusome Discovery!!

Great you are doing a comparison!! I have been looking for user info but could not find anything. I am also thinking about getting the ua 2192 but i never listened to it before. So i am very very curious!! Some questions what kind of audio interface are you using with the 2192 and which volume knob. O almost forgot do you know how they sound compared to the rosetta? Please let me know. Thanks!!

cheers marrone

 

[A Gruesome Discovery]

Great you are doing a comparison!! I have been looking for user info but could not find anything. I am also thinking about getting the ua 2192 but i never listened to it before. So i am very very curious!! Some questions what kind of audio interface are you using with the 2192 and which volume knob. O almost forgot do you know how they sound compared to the rosetta? Please let me know. Thanks!!

Good questions; in my excitement to try this out, I neglected to realize that I don't have any sort of volume knob for monitor control (my current interface has one built in). I'm probably going to order a Goldpoint SA2X stepped attenuator for this purpose, and in the meantime I'll be using the trims on my monitors for gain control. Luckily, I don't plan on mixing anything soon, because that's a lousy solution!
I don't currently own a Rosetta, however I did rent a Rosetta 200 from Dreamhire for the last band I worked with, so it's pretty fresh in my memory. A direct comparison would be better, but that's not in the cards right now; instead, I'll just be comparing it to every converter I've used to the best of my memory- from Terratec to M-Audio to Mackie to RME to Apogee. Currently, I use a Mackie 400f firewire interface, which has the same converters as the RME Fireface series (AKM 5385 and 4358). Surprisingly, these sound very good (I bought it, after all), however their weakness is in multiple A/D/A processes, where the "photocopy of a photocopy" effect occurs.
I also can't find a single S/PDIF cable in my big closet-o'-cables, so I'll probably have to wait until I make a trip to the big box store tomorrow before I can do a real listening test.

 

[Marrone]

Allright!! Very curious!! Keep me posted!! Thanks!!

Great you are doing a comparison!! I have been looking for user info but could not find anything. I am also thinking about getting the ua 2192 but i never listened to it before. So i am very very curious!! Some questions what kind of audio interface are you using with the 2192 and which volume knob. O almost forgot do you know how they sound compared to the rosetta? Please let me know. Thanks!!

Good questions; in my excitement to try this out, I neglected to realize that I don't have any sort of volume knob for monitor control (my current interface has one built in). I'm probably going to order a Goldpoint SA2X stepped attenuator for this purpose, and in the meantime I'll be using the trims on my monitors for gain control. Luckily, I don't plan on mixing anything soon, because that's a lousy solution!
I don't currently own a Rosetta, however I did rent a Rosetta 200 from Dreamhire for the last band I worked with, so it's pretty fresh in my memory. A direct comparison would be better, but that's not in the cards right now; instead, I'll just be comparing it to every converter I've used to the best of my memory- from Terratec to M-Audio to Mackie to RME to Apogee. Currently, I use a Mackie 400f firewire interface, which has the same converters as the RME Fireface series (AKM 5385 and 4358). Surprisingly, these sound very good (I bought it, after all), however their weakness is in multiple A/D/A processes, where the "photocopy of a photocopy" effect occurs.
I also can't find a single S/PDIF cable in my big closet-o'-cables, so I'll probably have to wait until I make a trip to the big box store tomorrow before I can do a real listening test.

 

[A Gruesome Discovery]

Alright, time for a review! If you don't feel like reading all this, let me sum it up for you: this is a positive review, and this unit is awesome. I originally intended to answer the original poster with a quick opinion, but I have a lot to say about the 2192, and since my girlfriend will punch my face if she hears me babble on excitedly about \"transformer coupled, discrete analog signal paths\" one more time, I'm going to have to get it all out of my system right here. So on with the review!
I've had a bit of teething trouble regarding the integration of this unit into my setup, but after some cable shopping and trial-and-error, it's up and running! I'm not completely finished integrating it into my system; I still plan on picking up either a Goldpoint attenuator or a Coleman monitor control box (haven't totally decided yet), but I'm temporarily running an A-Designs ATTY attenuator between the 2192's analog outs and my monitors. A quick test between a 2192 -> monitors setup and a 2192 -> ATTY -> monitors setup reveals no difference in the signal except at very high levels of attenuation, where the L-R image shifts a little due to the intrinsic nature of potentiometers; otherwise, this setup is perfectly suitable for a listening test.
I ended up spending a lot of time getting the 2192 to play nice with my Mackie 400F; had I looked at page 41 of the 2192 manual, I would have saved a few hours, but I'm one of those \"never R's the FM\" jerks. My current tracking setup is something like this:
(Source) -> 2192 XLR ins ; 2192 S/PDIF out -> 400F S/PDIF in ; 400F S/PDIF out -> 2192 S/PDIF in ; 2192 analog outs -> ATTY -> Event ASP8s...and I'm clocking the 400f via an Apogee WydeEye BNC cable. The 2192 has FOUR wordclock outputs, so it makes a great master clock, eliminating the need to daisy-chain digital devices; anyone with multiple digital devices should instantly recognize how useful this feature could be.

Image 1: Racked up. I mentioned earlier that this thing gets pretty warm; not insanely hot, but at higher sampling rates it generates a fair amount of heat. These fans may be overkill, but I definitely wouldn't rack it right under something else, especially if you're working at 192k.

(more...)

 

[A Gruesome Discovery]

The forum ate my post, so I guess we'll be doing things in chapters. So, Chapter 2: \"How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Digital\"

The controls on the front panel of the 2192 are very simple; select where to route the A/D, select where to route the D/A, then select either the S/PDIF or AES/EBU outputs. Nothing more to worry about after that. I'll have to switch everything around when it comes time to mix and master with external effects, so the simplicity of the front panel is welcome. Rounding out the rest of the satisfyingly solid and \"THUNK\"-y knobs is a sample rate selector (44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, and 192 kHz all supported) and the wordclock selector (Internal, Clock Input 1, Clock Input 2, AES / S/PDIF, and ADAT; though I'll probably be leaving this on \"internal\" forever). Also on the front panel are a pair of buttons for selecting between AES/ S/PDIF and single- or dual-wire AES. Finally, a solid on/off switch sits at the far right of the front panel, which probably doesn't need to be explained in too great detail, although the unit takes about two seconds to do anything when flipped on. These are a tense and scary two seconds when you first get the unit; you have just enough time to say the words \"oh crap, it's broken!\" before the soft blue lamp finally lights up. A green lamp near the center of the unit lets you know that the wordclock is locked and you're ready to go.
Also on the front panel are some very bright 12-segment LED meters that monitor the incoming audio for both analog and digital ins, with a red OVER indicator that holds for about a second on clipped peaks. These can easily be seen from across the room, and can be calibrated via tiny pots on the rear panel for utmost accuracy. The meters are a tad small, being stacked vertically, but for a 1U box they're perfectly adequate.

Image 2: I tried to take a picture of the rear of the unit, but I didn't want to remove it from the rack due to laziness, so here's a shot through the back door of the rack. I almost killed myself getting back behind this thing, so you better enjoy this one:

Notice how much further this protrudes than the Mackie and M610 below it. It's a big piece; you'll want some clearance.
(more.....)

 

[A Gruesome Discovery]

And now, finally, the sound.
I'm lost when considering the best way to describe the sound of this unit; were I writing a review of a compressor or EQ, I could include some before & after sound samples, but a converter is a whole different beast; going through my A/D into some lossy file format and out of someone else's DA is a pointless endeavor, so I'll just have to try my best at a verbal description.
The 2192 sounds great. Hell, it sounds amazing. The best way to describe it is that it sounds \"analog\", as cliched as that may be, but it's true. This is surely a result of the discrete Class-A signal path. The flipside is that it's not perfectly transparent. There's an extremely high-quality analog signal path to go through before the sound becomes 1's and 0's, and that imparts its own sort of color. I find this color to be fantastic; it's akin to going through a very good analog channel; in fact, I find the sound somewhat reminiscent of the output transformer on an 1176LN with no gain reduction, though perhaps a bit more subtle- that pleasing sound you get when you just run a signal straight through it. That old \"just put it on something and it sounds better instantly\" thing. I love it, but it may not be everyone's cup o' noodles. Some applications would probably benefit from a more neutral A/D; It's really up to personal preference. You may not want that tiny bit of color in your A/D, and many people are of the philosophy that an A/D converter should just sound like it's invisible - like it's not even there. For these folks, I would probably recommend a newer Apogee, Lavry, or Benchmark A/D; these are crystal-clear and will definitely please anyone who wants utmost transparency when going into the digital domain. I, however, am not one of these people; I mainly do rock music, and with the short time I've spent with this unit, I can tell it's the best purchase I've ever made. It is, though, one of the all-time \"YMMV\" units.
(more...)

 

[A Gruesome Discovery]

The place where this sweet sounding analog path will come in handy is when multiple tracks recorded through the 2192 are mixed together. On single sources, it sounds nice & clear with a touch of something extra, but when your tracks are stacked up, that's where I can see this thing adding some of that hard-to-attain \"glue\". You know, a nice bit of uniformity to each track that adds coherence and depth. It's tough to attain when mixing \"in the box\"; it's much easier to get it when on a console. There's currently a move towards summing out-of-the-box, which in my limited experience with summing boxes does tend to impart some of that glue, but I don't think it has anything to do with the summing bus. I think it has more to do with running all of your sources through high-quality analog devices, where certain harmonics are imparted on all elements, blending a \"rigid bunch of tracks\" into a \"smooth mix\". I can see the 2192 yielding some of this coherence to otherwise disparate tracks.
One interesting thing I've noticed is that the harder you hit the A/D's input, the sweeter it sounds. Now, that makes sense, since we're talking analog here, but it makes me reconsider my methods of working. I'm a firm believer in recording stuff at relatively low levels, because headroom is digital audio's best friend. With 24 bit, there's really no need to peak anywhere near the clipping point. I think the \"record as hot as you can without clipping\" piece of advice has lead to lousy recordings and has given digital audio a bad name. But with the 2192, I have to tell you, I'm tempted. Hitting the inputs hard sounds great- yes, I said it. Hitting the INPUTS of a damned A/D converter sounds GREAT. I'm not really sure how I feel about that. I think it's a good thing, but now I might have to change my way of recording, and once I do, I may never be able to use another A/D again. Which I'd actually be OK with, to tell you the truth.
Now, I should elaborate on the color thing. I've spent a lot of words describing it, and it's noticable in a way, but don't be mislead: it's definitely subtle. This is in no way a distortion box; it's not muddy, it's not some \"tube saturation\" circuit, it's a clean A/D with a *TOUCH* of sparkly goodness as a bonus. The frequency response is extremely linear; there's no humps or dips in there to make it sound \"vintage\" - it's not that kind of color. It just sounds \"good\" - that's it, that is precisely the phrase I've been looking for to finish this review. It's a little colorful while being extremely clean. It just sounds really damn good.
Image 3: Finally, a family portrait of my rack. Everybody looks very happy.

Yeah, that's probably about enough typing for one night.

 

[Marrone]

Dear Gruwesome discovery,

Thank you a lot!! I have been waiting for your review and it is one of the best reviews i have read since a long time. Thanks for taking the time to write such a extensive review. You do not see this a lot nowadays. I was having my doubts getting the ua 2192 or getting a apogee rosetta but now i'll probably get the ua 2192. I wanted to rent them to listen to them, but for some reason the ua 2192 is not really well-known. A lot of shops do not know them or/and do not have them in stock and they are not going to order one for me to try it out. So if i understand this correctly the apogee rosetta sounds less warmer than the ua 2192. I am doing pop and r&b/hiphop. Do you think the ua 2192 will give the sound i am looking for? By the way if you only need a volume knob check out the SPL Volume2. I have not tested it but i heard it is very good. Thanks again!!

Cheers,

Marrone

 

[A Gruesome Discovery]

So if i understand this correctly the apogee rosetta sounds less warmer than the ua 2192.

Not exactly; I wouldn't call the 2192's sound \"warmer\", because \"warmth\" implies a less-than-even frequency response, at least to me. It sounds different, though. Both are clear, clean units, but the 2192 has something extra. You'll have to try it out to see if you like the extra something. You might prefer a more transparent unit, but there's only one way to find out.
Unfortunately, nearly everywhere is sold out of 2192s; I think more are being shipped later this month, but it's almost impossible to find one now (I got lucky; there was an unopened return, and I had a preorder). Maybe when the new batches are released, you'll be able to locate a unit for test. Good luck!

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

This is surely a result of the discrete Class-A signal path. The flipside is that it's not perfectly transparent.

I don't think the discrete Class-A signal path should be contributing any warmth but rather a lack of loss that you'd be used to with other converters. The Lynx Aurora also has a discrete path & is generally not considered to be a warm or colored sounding converter. That said, I'm in no way contradicting what you're saying about the 2192 being a warm sounding unit - I haven't used it yet - but just that something else must be the cause.

 

[Spiritworks]

I have used a 2192 for a while now, but on the end of my signal path. I mix out of the box to an Otari MTR12 1/2 inch tape deck, then through the 2192 to a Masterlink @ 96khz via s/pdif. The result, IMHO, is wonderful. Another cool thing about the 2192 is that it can be a format converter. And don't forget the clock, which has enough outputs for distribution to several devices.

 

[azulay]

Well, I'm just about to upgrade my converters (lousy digi002),
I would ofcourse go for the UA ones (just because everything I bought
from UA turned out to be an amazing product) but it isn't relevant for me
since I need at least 16 ins and the its a 2-in unit.

Now I'm thinking about going for a Lynx Aurora16 unit. I was wondering
if you think that I would benefit from clocking this unit to the 2192,
or monitoring through it (though my JBLs has digital ins).

What d'you think?

 

[imdrecordings]

Well, I'm just about to upgrade my converters (lousy digi002),
I would ofcourse go for the UA ones (just because everything I bought
from UA turned out to be an amazing product) but it isn't relevant for me
since I need at least 16 ins and the its a 2-in unit.

Now I'm thinking about going for a Lynx Aurora16 unit. I was wondering
if you think that I would benefit from clocking this unit to the 2192,
or monitoring through it (though my JBLs has digital ins).

What d'you think?

How are you getting 16 in, through your 002r? I though they were 8 in analog, 8 in light pipe and an extra 2 in through SPDIF.
I can't see how you could use the AD16 without changing your entire rig and ditching PTLE.(not a bad idea)

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

It can be done in PTLE via M-Powered & the M-Audio ProFire Lightbridge.

 

[Marrone]

Does anyone ever compared the UA2192 with the Benchmark adc-dac or Lavry Blue?? If yes can you please try to describe the difference? I unfortunately do not have the opportunity to try them out and i am about to get the ua2192 but am having my doubts. Thanks!

Cheers

Marrone

 

[imdrecordings]

Does anyone ever compared the UA2192 with the Benchmark adc-dac or Lavry Blue?? If yes can you please try to describe the difference? I unfortunately do not have the opportunity to try them out and i am about to get the ua2192 but am having my doubts. Thanks!

Cheers

Marrone

I've heard they compete with Prism converters.
Whatever that means.
:?