Prism Dream ADA 8XR

[JamesSimpson]

Okay so I got to blind test this against a Digi 192, the results were rather staggering, the same basic mix recorded into the prism and into the 192, A/B blind comparison, I picked out the Prism straight away.

The high end had more clarity while being smoother, the stereo image seemed wider and more stable.

I had always thought that anything above £1500 for a converter and they all become down to specific taste Apogee, Prism, Lynx.

This thing just seemed to everybody for lack of a better word "better". You will no doubt say ofcourse an 8k box will sound better than something that costs 2k, which is obvious and absolutely that is the case, I just didn't expect to hear as much of a difference as i did.

So how long is it before something like this filters down into the pro-sumer market? Is the Orpheus conversion identical?

[narcoman]

The Orpheus is better than an ADA. Not much between them - but yes - it's better. Less facilities - but in terms of sonics just better. I'm suprised you found such a huge difference between the 192 and the ADA. Yes the ADA is better - but I've always found it to be a "bit" better - but not night and day!! But hey - as long as it's better !!

[Ted Kendall]

What I can say is this - when I bought my ADA-8, conversion ceased to be an issue for all practical purposes - and it wasn't as if I was using rubbish before, either. This applied at any sample rate, too - 16/44.1 was just as good subjectively as 24/96. All of which tends to support what some of us have been saying for centuries - there are things in digital which matter far more than the numbers game, such as clock stability, monotonicity, correct dithering, decent engineering. All these cost money, but boy, do you appreciate them when they're there.

As for the Orpheus, I've heard it said it's better than the ADA-8. It's a little difficult in this context to improve on something which is already inaudible. But I'm willing to bet it's no worse - fiendish clever guys they are at Prism.

[Steve Hill]

A very happy Orpheus user here.

I think the Digidesign guys really are behind the curve here. I'll concede they have industry standard software (and some very good hardware - Ikon etc). But that's all the more reason why they have no excuse for locking the industry into less than first-class converters. The 192 is a pretty dated box now...

[narcoman]

i dunno Steve - lot of naysayers about the 192..... but i've used 'em a lot {have one for my sins, and use them or the ADAs at Abbey Road often} and, apart from the ADA, Orpheus {which I have to say - is THE best converters I have ever used bar none} and Radar ADA - there is nothing to touch them. They work - they work well!! Limited in what they can do though in terms of facilities - unlike their rivals!! But they really are first class! The ADA hasn't changed much over the last near ten years - in fact if they put the Orpheus in a PTHD connectable box they'd render the ADA redundant!! I guess that's why they don't !!

You around for a visit soon?

[Hugh Robjohns]

I'm not surprised you found the ADA to be 'better' than the 192. And the Orpheus is definitely a little bit 'better' again -- although it's not as versatile a box, as others have said.

It's a combination of things, which includes clocking, converter monotonicity, filters, power supplies and -- very importantly -- high quality analogue I/O stages.

Cut any of those corners and you can hear it...

Hugh

[ken long]

All 3 are very very good convertors and so they should be at that level. The common quality between them is that they are transparent!

I use the ADA-8XR from time to time and I've used the Orpheus twice (not really in anger). I didn't feel one was better than the other in terms of sound capture or replay - both were clean. The 192s of this world have their deserved place also and the PTHD package is a solid one.

The main difference, as touched upon by narco, is in the routing features and capabilities. The ADA-8XR beats the other two hands down!

But big sonic difference? I'm with Ted on this one.

ken

[ken long]

Quite right.

Hugh, do you think we'll be seeing some new SADiE / Prism DAW integration packages soon?

ken

[Hugh Robjohns]

Oh Yes!


Hugh

[ken long]

Do tell! Will you please, please review this in the mag???!!!

I understand its a small market compared to the usual Cubase/Logic/Pro Tools solutions but its one we should all aspire to!

ken

[Guest]

Oh Yes!


Hugh

Hmmmm. Maybe I'll hold off on the LRX2s and have a chat with SADiE then.

[afterworks]

Not had the pleasure of the Orpheus yet...

But I sat in on my mixes being mastered the other day where he had 3 ADA's and I was suitable blown away...but there was also Prism EQ and Comps in the rack...

They're definitely nicer than the 192's IMO

[Hugh Robjohns]

Maybe I'll hold off on the LRX2s and have a chat with SADiE then.

The LRX2 is a lot more than just a converter, of course. it also provides the DSP and, most importantly, the hardware control surface.

However, SADiE version 6, which is due out very early next (i've played with some of the the betas already) has been rebuilt to run natively. So it no longer requires the SADiE hardware (LRX, BB2, PCM8 etc) and the capacity is limited only by the computer you're running it on.

More importantly, it will find and use whatever soundcard/interface the computer knows about for its I/O.... and if you plug a Prism Orpheus into the computer via Firewire, SADiE 6 will find that and use that for it's I/O. I've used that combination and it's georgeous!

That's a very attractive high-end package which is also very compact and convenient for a lot of applications.

Hugh

[ken long]

.... and if you plug a Prism Orpheus into the computer via Firewire, SADiE 6 will find that and use that for it's I/O. I've used that combination and it's georgeous!

Review coming?



ken