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

[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, 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!

 

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 about

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. 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.

 

 

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'.

 

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