|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.133.26.88
I am going to buy 1 of the 2 but can't decide which way to go.These cost about the same when you figure in a better power supply for the DAC,Which one would you buy and why.Thanks for you input.
Follow Ups:
I'm not going to read this entire thread, but I will tell you that I used an L22 for a year before I went to a Nixon DAC. I changed to the old school TubeDAC + with 3XAC, and greatly preferred it over the Lynx.The USB TubeDAC was a huge improvement, and then the current Nixon USBTD is absolutely ahead of the old one. I am impressed!
Differences you'll hear. . .
The Lynx L22 is more accurate than the old TubeDAC +. It seems to retrieve more data. This is not a huge difference, but you will notice it. The new USB DAC is so much better though, I don't think there would be more detail.
The BIG difference IMO is that the Nixon DAC just sounded a LOT more like real music when I made the switch. The difference here was uncanny. The Nixon DAC was almost scary after listening to the Lynx L22. Things were so much more real, dimensional, and there was a lot more real silence between notes than with the Lynx card. The Nixon DAC transferred every bit of emotion that the Lynx DAC sort of glossed over. I decided long ago that if I couldn't get emotion from a system, I didn't want a system.
These differences are from a 3 year old version of Scott's DAC and power supply. I wouldn't even put a Lynx in my machine now to compare if someone gave me one. The new generation of Nixon's DAC is just so far beyond what we were listening to three years ago.
Anyway, you were asking for real comparisons, so there ya go. Take it for what it's worth.
With the extra detail retrieval of the new UFO DACs, is there less of the smooth and unfatiguing sound compared to the old version Scott Nixon USB DACs? How would you describe the overall sound character differences between the old and new Scott Nixon tube DACs?
No way. It's still as easy to listen to with the extra detail. It still sounds like real music.New is more controlled with greater detail. The soundstage has exploded in width, and depth. Bass is much better and more natural. The overall character remains.
I failed to mention that I had a custom breakout for the Lynx card using Vampire CM2F/CB jacks and cryo treated silver plated wire.
So, lots of speculations and no actual comparisons between the new Nixon UFO USB dac w/ ax4 PS vs. this sound card? Arguing theory and statistical measurements isn't nearly as much fun to me as actually sitting down and listening to 2 components to determine which is "best," specs and BS theory be darned....I suggest you buy both, compare, and sell the one you don't like in YOUR system. You won't loose much money, as both have good resale....For those theoretical number cruncher folks, I have a fantastic Pioneer stereo receiver from the 90's I'll trade you for your noisy, poor measuring, theoretically highly flawed big buck tube amps at any time. Looking to trade for flawed amps from Thor, Tenor, ASL, Jadis Cary, AR, Manley and the likes, please, so I don't get taken too bad, on the rated specs side of things.
I was thinking the same thing.I have the Nixon, but I have never heard the Lynx. Therefore it would be pretty silly to claim the nixon is superior.
That said, I really love my Nixon. The music that it makes is wonderful. It makes me happy. I have the thing playing music every waking hour i am at home.
admin - audioreview.com
Hey anyone know what dac chip the Lynx uses?
The Lynx user guide mentioned a control panel action to calibrate the ADC and DAC channels to null DC offset from thermal drift.That's pretty slick! They must digitally null the inputs and then activate a relay connecting them to the outputs and use them to measure the DC offset. Then, numeric offsets are applied to every data sample going in and out to compensate.
Pictures of the card look fairly good too, with nice LC filtering of the PCI bus +/- 12v power, and regulators for the other voltages.
Get the Lynx L22 if you are going to buy just a soundcard. But...Still better is to get something cheaper like a Juli@ and get a TVC volume control. Better yet, get both the Lynx and TVC, use it balanced. If your amp is unbalanced it's also the ideal balanced/unbalanced converter (just connect pins 1 and 3).
i've a juli, emu1212M, 040USB, dddac, rme fireface and a lynx. i'm only listening to the lynx now:-)
D,Thanks for posting this. I have often thought that trying the budget cards would only reinforce my Lynx purchase, and it looks like I may have been right.
actually i missed out one. i also have the terractec phase 24. if you are asked to rank them, i think i would say1. lynx
2. rme fireface
3. emu 1212m
4. 0404usb
5. julie
6. dddac - 60 chips
7. terractec phase 24.now the dddac is kind of different. for poor recording, it sounds the best. but good recording especially live recording, it just pales by comparison. mind you i'm already using the optical extender for the usb connection. however i'm still keeping it for those recordings.
rme and emu 1212m is pretty close. it is not like night and day different.
this is all based on my system. so YMMD. i'm using a 27 preamp, 45 power amp and driving a lamhorn. i also have 2 rythmik subwoofers with plenty of room treatment. in fact i've 11 20in+ bass traps in my listening room:-)
I find the E-MU 1212M to have a slight edge sonically over the Lynx L22. Technically: slightly better DACs, audio stage isolated from the PCI bus, and native rate clocks rather than synthesized.The breakout cable for the L22 tends to pick up noise - I noticed some harmonic multiples of A/C frequency on a friend's L22.
As I pointed out before, this may be due to band width limiting on the 1212. Use a top quality play back system, and the result may be different.
.
There are serious issues in imposing band limiting at 20k on a 96/192k card.First it makes the measurements better and EMU/Creative are good at this game.
Second, why introduce phase issues by having an extra hf filter when it is the design and operation of the digital filter that plays a key part in making hirez digital audio sound good.
Yes, we all know you hate Creative, but why do you have to lie and make up untruths to justify your bias?There is no "extra filter", and at 96kHz the E-MU 1212M has a usable frequency response (+/-3dB) up to 48kHz. I have no idea what you mean by "band limiting".
I suspect you have never owned this card and have never measured it, and all you are doing is spreading misinformation based on prejudice.
Hey Fangirl - see EMU specAnalog Line Outputs (2) Type: Balanced, low-noise, 3-pole low-pass differential filter
D/A converter: CS4398
Level (software selectable):
- Professional: +4dBu nominal, 20dBu max (balanced)
- Consumer: -10dBV nominal, 6dBV max (unbalanced)
Frequency Response (20Hz - 20kHz): + 0.0/-.35dB,
Dynamic Range (1kHz, A-weighted): 120dB
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (A-weighted): 120dB
THD+N (1kHz at -1dBFS): -105dB (.0006%)
Stereo Crosstalk (1kHz at -1dBFS): < -115dB
There is a low pass filter other than the brickwall filter. I read this in a review before I decided not to buy the 1212M.Just because you own one and seem to think that you are the only authority, there is no need to accuse people of lying.
Actually the EMU manual says it is a two-pole filter. Why don't you eat your own words and accuse EMU of lying?
What's so strange about the specs? Doesn't say anything about "extra" filter to me. You do realise that every DAC needs a low pass analog filter post DAC, don't you, and that E-MU is simply describing the characteristics of this filter?*** There is a low pass filter other than the brickwall filter. I read this in a review before I decided not to buy the 1212M. ***
If you are referring to the low pass analog reconstruction filter, then yes every DAC needs one (and it is separate from the digital oversampling brickwall filter). This is also the case for the RME and Lynx and in fact the majority of DAC designs, so you shouldn't buy them either.
The only DACs that don't have two filters are non-oversampling or non-sigma delta modulated designs (which are in a tiny, and disappearing, minority).
*** Just because you own one and seem to think that you are the only authority, there is no need to accuse people of lying. ***
No, I don't think I am the "only" authority, but I do speak from experience. If you truly believe there is some sort of extra "evil" filter in the 1212M (over and above the digital filter and the required analog reconstruction filter), why don't you show us exactly where it is located on the circuit board?
Incidentally, since you are so hot against "extra" filters and "band width limiting", you do realise that this is exactly what upsampling is? Upsampling is a fancy term for an extra, redundant, "band limiting" digital filter.
If you are as knowledgeable as you make it out to be, you will know that a 3-pole active filter is not necessary from 20k. There are manufacturers who use much slower slopes for better sonics. In this sense, the EMU is band limiting. I would summise that this is for spec reasons, to cut out hf artefacts.As for digital filters, there are filters and filters. See dcsltd.co.uk for white papers on how these affect the sound.
.
nt
If you can't, then you are either lying, or don't know what you are talking about, or both.PS - I hope you realise that the number of poles does not indicate the steepness of the filter. You are confusing between poles and orders I think. In any case, measured data shows that the frequency response is +/-3dB to 48kHz for a 96kHz sampling rate I fail to understand exactly where the bandwidth is limited, except at Nyquist.
Why do you think that people lie. Perhaps this tells more about yourself.
Let's see ...1. You claim there is an "extra" filter, but cannot or will not show us where this filter is located.
2. You say the output is "bandwidth limited", yet measured results say otherwise.
Why do I think you are lying? Gee, I don't know ...
Furthermore, you confuse between filter slope and the number of poles in a filter - two unrelated concepts.
Can you give us one reason why we should even pay any attention to anything you say in the future? Otherwise, it's time to move on.
as i said. it is my personal preference.
i'm aware that 1212M has better dacs but i dont' think it is the whole story. i've not made any loop back test on the l22 yet. 1212m still suffers power supplies effect. the effects of 60hz power supply noise is still clearly visible on the loop back test.regarding the breakout cable, i made my own so i don't know whether the one came with the card is any good.
*** the effects of 60hz power supply noise is still clearly visible on the loop back test. ***Not on mine. Not in the loop back test, and not during recording. I can send you some graphs if you want. And I've tested it in several PCs.
Perhaps you have a defective unit?
-----------------------------------that's interesting. i've seen not just on mine but those from the interent as well. it is on the RMAA intermodulation distortion spectrum. anyway if you managed to get rid of it, good. here is the link of one of the results
I don't really see any issues with power supply noise. There is a weird spike around 1800Hz in the 1212M results, but other than that the results are pretty clean.So I'm not sure what you mean when you say you have seen it in other results on the Internet.
I also have an E-MU 1820M, and the results are virtually identical with that unit. So i don't think my results are atypical.
I could show you the other graphs, but they are pretty clean ...
But I run a dedicated 20A circuit for audio, and apply power supply filtering (not just between the equipment and mains, but also between equipment connected on the same circuit).
i didn't go to that extreme but i've good power supplies for a dedicated pc for measurement.
what's the intermodulation distortion spectrum look like? do you see the 50/60 hz?
There's some harmonic distortion, but they are multiples of the fundamental frequencies, not the power supply (no multiples of 50Hz)
what do make of the signal near the 50/60 hz region? lynx is the only card that does not show that signal whatever that is. here is the link for lynx
The normal IMD test signal consists of 70 Hz and 7000Hz, which is what is displayed on my graph and also the results you linked to.Your results are weird because they are not showing these fundamentals.
You must have changed Rightmark options to measure IMD using 11kHz and 12kHz signals. This is not the standard way to measure IMD as per EIAJ.
Incidentally, I noticed that you results show a significantly higher noise floor between 100-500 Hz, indicating that you do have some issues with power supply noise.
Try measuring again after changing the settings in Rightmark.
is because any harmonics of 11 and 12kHz are higher than Nyquist (assuming 44.1kHz sampling rate) hence the test will give artificially good results for any soundcard.
they are not at 44k. they are 96k. in fact lynx performs better at 96k than 44k
and they appear to be significantly better than yours at 96k (3dB lower noise floor, which means the noise level is half that of the lynx, plus lower THD and IMD). The only area where the L22 wins is frequency response (since the 1212M is slightly aggressive in it's low pass filter).This is not surprising, because the 1212M has a number of design advances over the L22 (slightly better DACs, noise insulation from the PCI bus, and better clock). To my ears, this translates to a slightly better sound as well.
The reason the 1212M is cheaper is not because of quality, it's economies of scale. Lynx is a small company, and the L22 uses expensive FPGAs. E-MU on the other hand is using the 10K2, the design cost has been fully amortised through the high volume sales of Creative's consumer cards. E-MU is probably leveraging the production efficiencies of Creative as well.
o.k. i'll try and see.
and it seems that Rightmark has been configured to generate test signals at 19 and 20kHz for IMD.This is a silly way to measure IMD, because it's so close to Nyquist it's unlikely to result in any measurable harmonic distortion.
question...did you try the Juli@ in balanced mode? I had the card for 6 months before I even realized it had one...it's a whole lot better than the default.
no. i'm afraid. but i suppose it equally applies to most of the sound cards. that's my next project ie to build a line of balanced playback.
Thanks a bunch!!
You're making me jealous.
I would go for the Lynx. Whhile i have nothing against the Nixon dac, the Lynx seems like a better value. Your not only getting a very good sounding analogue output, but a high quality digital output as well should u want to go with an external dac in the future. The Lynx also gives you word clock capability if you ever want to go in that direction.
Frank,You never cease to amaze me!
OO btw Im saving up for a LYNX myself:)
It makes sense now, if you have actually heard it. I think it is worth every penny. My birdland Dac was about $300 more expensive, and the Lynx is just better.
I havent heard the L22 yet, but I have heard the LynxTwo in my buddies home studio. I think they probably sound pretty similar?? It sounded quite good through a pair of active Tannoy monitors. Ive been using an inexpensive Chinese made DAC the Zhaolu 2.5 that I picked up for $150. It sounds great when connected to the digital out of my Marantz cd63 but pretty crappy connected to the PC via the Xfi spdif output. I actually get better sound from the Xfi analog outputs! I cant wait to get the Lynx:)
Do you suspect the spdif out from your Xfi is causing the bad sound on your Zhaolu? I was thinking of getting one myself and modifying it.Which flavor Zhaolu do you have, what op amps, and any mods?
Hey MArk are you planning on getting the AD or CS dac chip in yours?? I went with the CS. There are tons of mods you can do to this dac, check out Headfi they have a whole long thread about it.
I have not decided on which chip, let alone which of the various inexpensive Chinese or other dacs to try! I have countless posts to read through at head-fi still and haven't found the key posts which are difinitive on ranking all the various dacs!
Yes I think its the Xfi gigital output causing the less then great sound. Because when I hook it up to my Marantz cd67s digital output it sounds great. Im using Ad4652 opamps in mine.
Why?? Do I never cease to amaze you??
I would recommend the l22 simply because I know it works and sounds great. THe software is bug free, and easy to use.THe sound is definately worth the price, in fact it is a true hi-end value IMHO.
Nothing against the Nixon, it is just that the Lynx sounds better than more expensive Dacs than the Nixon.
BUt, if you are a gear changer, go with the Nixon as it is probably easier to unload when the upgrade bug bites....but with the Lynx you may not ever want to upgrade.
> > Nothing against the Nixon, it is just that the Lynx sounds better than more expensive Dacs than the Nixon.This is hilarious.
The thing that makes some sense to me is that with the scott nixon you rip music onto hard drive and eliminate any moving parts (being the transport) thus eliminating chances of any jitter.Your thoughts?
L22 using PCI, while Nixon using USB bus. PCI bus is most high speed than USB. Most jitter is came from bus handling. PCI bus is more efficient than USB when playing music but inconvenience when plug and unplug.
With both the Lynx and Nixon your playing back files from your PC.
NOt sure what you are saying, I mean if you rip something, why would the Lynx be any different?Also, I think that the elimination of jitter is optimistic at this point, no matter which way you go.
The sound described by the other poster here is very accurate of the lynx. It is not tubelike, and it is not solidstate sounding either. It just seems like it lets the music through.
First, I admit that I never heard the Nixon. I bought the Lynx L22 based on a few posts here. I bought it from Zzounds which allows you to return it in within 30 days if you don't like it.It needs a few hours break in -20 or so- and has what I would call a highly resolving sound with a very low noise floor. It is not harsh but it is not rolled off or tube-like. An added plus is that you can record and play back files at up to 24 192. I recorded a few SACD'S at 24 96 with it using my Kern-modified Sony scd777es. I could not tell the difference from the original.
I suggest trying the Lynx and returning it if you don't like it before you buy the Nixon.
Ok.
I understand now that both are the same for retreiving data,I will be getting the lynx ,but this card seems to have been around for many years,apparently they are ahead of their time in bettering dacs and other soundcards available today.Thanks all for posting.I appreciate it very much!!!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: