Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Computer Audio Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RME HDSP 9632 vs Lynx AES16. Separately powered SSD vs separately powered HDD.

Posted by hfavandepas on October 5, 2010 at 06:08:49

In Reply to: Lynx AES16 posted by fmak on October 4, 2010 at 12:26:29:

Hi Fred,

I use/have both digital interfaces / (sound) cards you mention. I tried a lot of interfaces / (sound-)cards too combine with my cMP-setup:
* PCI
- ESI Juli@ S/Pdif toslink or RCA
- EMU 1212 M S/Pdif toslink or RCA
- LynxL22 XLR AES/EBU
- Lynx EAS16 XLR AES/EBU
- RME HDSP 9632 S/Pdif toslink or RCA

* USB
- EMU 0404 S/Pdif S/Pdif toslink or RCA
- ESI GigaPort DG ADAT toslink

The Lynx AES16 and the RME HDSP 9632, are the only ones that I decided too keep and use. Too my ears also the ESI Juli@ and the Lynx L22 do a very good job as digital interface. May be because of (non) synergy between the various components in my system, I label these as very, very, slightly (!!) less though.

I can second your experiences with the sound differences in the mid frequency’s between the two cards as you describe them. Having also heard more RME products (ADI-2, Fireface 800) I must ad that: these sound differences are in line with the RME ‘house-sound’ / ‘RME sonic fingerprint’. In my experience all RME products that I know of, have a open, detailed and somewhat ‘forward’ sound in the mids.

Not having heard the UA2192 myself, the UA2192 is also know for it’s somewhat ‘dark sounding’ sonic fingerprint. As a being good and regarded unit, it’s sonic fingerprint is often described on the gearsluts forum. From that I guess that the ‘RME-sound’ and the ‘UA2192-sound’ are a good match / have synergy, which could lead to the impression that the RME unit is a ‘better’ unit than the Lynx digital I/O.
In my setup with the Lavry DAC and the K&H O300, the RME HDSP 9632 sounds slightly 'on the bright side'. The sonic fingerprint of the Lynx AES16 is a better fit in my setup (too my taste).

* The driver / firmware (software) side of things.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that all drivers and firmware (also being software) CAN (!!) have their own sonic fingerprint / impact on sound quality. Just as all other software can have. Examples: K-mixer, ASIO, kernel streaming, digital sound processing & editing software, plug-ins, up and re-sample algoritmes, players, ect, etc.
For a non-professional like me, it’s mostly un-clear what the cause is of these sound differences introduced by software, but it’s safe to say: already with a basic but good setup, everyone is able too hear these differences.
So why exclude drivers and firmware from it?

* On the quality of power supply and the pollution from motors.
I’m not an expert in this matter, but I guess the absence of a motor in a SSD also contributes too the positive impact on sound quality. Pollution from a motor probably not only travels around on the power supply lines to various parts of the MoBo but also might travel over the SATA line onto the MoBo. Since there still is a sound quality improvement, even when both SSD and/or HDD are separately powered and thus pollution can not reach the mobo through the power lines.
You have a scope. You can investigate what travels over the SATA line onto the MoBo when a separately powered HDD is used in comparison with when a separately powered SSD is used.

Mark

Edits: 10/06/10

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---