Analog to Digital converter shootout between the Burl B2 Bomber ADC, the Rupert Neve Designs Master Bus Converter and the Universal Audio Apollo X. Audio Examples available at www.rhcmusic.com/shootout
I actually like the way the RND sounds on this print. Lots more punch. Might not have the same puffy thing as the burl, but the burl feels a bit smeary. The RND seems to just have more force.
It's also worth noting he's hitting the burl harder. Look at the printed waveform. However, the burl does sound like it's very forward, and the neve does sound like it has more separation. So, tomato tomato. If I had to choose "yould you rather have the burl or neve?" I'd say "yes". :)
The Burl has a pleasing color but the low end was so saturated that it erased the dynamics of the bassline and messed up the groove because you can longer feel the distinct attack of individual bass notes, all that's left there is a squishy bass image floating back and forth in space. Damaging a musician's performance and turning it into EDM is something you don't want to do to a musician.
@@gregbradshaw7220 If you dial it back by increasing the headroom then you lose A/D clipping which gives transparent gain that's unmatchable by plugins because it's free of aliasing. So you better not be clipping the B2 cause bass gets smeary at that input level. I'd rather saturate upchain in a way I have actual control over and then clip into a transparent converter that clips well.
@@gregbradshaw7220 I have the B2 and the input level knob is actually POST transformer (and pre-converter). This lets you control how much you're clipping the AD converters without altering the sonic characteristics of the transformer output. In other words, the only way to 'dial back' the transformer is to dial back the signal going into the B2. It's worth noting that on the Neve MBC, the ADC Calibration (i.e. input level) is PRE limiter and PRE transformer, so changing the calibration/input level can dramatically change how hard the limiter and/or the transformer is being hit. This is actually one of the reasons I went for the B2 instead of the MBC.
Burl in a landslide. Wonder, though, how the mastering engineer would feel. Predict the ME would prefer no iron, would interfere with the more subtle points. But hey, It ain't his baby!
I’m interested if you could get the same low end punch out of the MBC with the blue silk engaged? Great shootout, any studio should be happy to have any of these.
It should be noted that UAD no longer use the AKM DAC chips since AKM production facility was destroyed by a fire, same for other companies like RME and many others who now use ESS chips
recently looking into the Burl b2, but I want to know if there would be difference in playback for mixing if I get the Burl b2 DA converter?? I currently have a Uad apollo firewire. Thank you
Great tips and info! I've been a long time Apollo twin user and I now own the the 6X I'm not happy with the sound of the converters they seem to have a light hard muddy distortion sound when I tried a few different audio interfaces the muddy distortion went away I love the UAD Apollo plug-ins zero latency etc... I'm thinking of getting a Burl Audio B2 Bomber ADC 2-channel AD Converter and bypassing the Apollo 6X converters. This is my home studio I'm only tracking one or two tracks at a time. Cubase pro, Apollo 6X, LA 610 mic pre, MacBook pro I'm also getting a Apple Mac-book Pro M1 Max 16" Space Gray 10/32C 64GB RAM 2TB SSD and a BAE Mic Pre & EQ w/ PS. Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated Thanks. 🙂
My ears must be getting better, for I heard this a few months ago, and could not tell the difference. Now ... the differences are obvious. My preference is precisely the reverse of the play order, so Burl B2 comes out on top. However, I wonder if this difference would disappear if you ran the it with an EQ to push the mids before inputting into the MBC, or if there is something extra that happens there that EQ can't copy.
The Burl definitely has PUNCH! Didn't expect to be that obvious. Thank for doing this awesome shootout. I was in dilemma between B2, MBC, and HEDD (or upcoming Interstellar). Now I know that B2 win over MBC. Do you have any experience with HEDD?
loudest sounding always wins. burl was driven the hardest it seems, apparent in the larger waveform too. also could be lower input impedance on the input path of the burl. if you gain match them all they sound damn near identical
Burl is the one for me. Not just saying that because I have one either. ;)... The MBC without the Transformer engaged sounded good. I didn't really like it with the Silk engaged. Just a preference thing. But the Burl definitely suits my style of music (Hip Hop/Rap) better imo. Thanks for this video!
The best balance is the Neve Mbc without transformer. You can feel the bass groove clearly, hearing the bass sliding. It's nice. Also making the song more presence against Apollo X. B2 added much more low end, but the snare drum sounds nice and the high end is open. Thx for sharing!
Can we hear the difference thru YT? Can we hear the difference without being thru YT? These are the questions. Maybe I've heard some but I'm not 100% sure it's not my imagination and the name of the converter. More added artificial bass in the Burl? Maybe. Maybe not. There's one tool the laws of physic give us to hear, and see it if we do'nt hear, it and it's called the null test.
Thanks a lot for the shootout! I didn't like the Burl with my own mixes (and instead use a Forssell) but it's easily my favorite out of this bunch -- sounds great on your work.
Toronto studio owner, too. You're almost there, brother - swap those Apollos for a Mothership and don't look back. I did exactly that a few years ago. The difference wasn't subtle.
The Burl sounds amazing! Your video and the difference with how the Burl sounds is the reason I’m getting one to try personally in my spot with my X6, I’ve heard other tests and it’s not as noticeable as your video, plus all the praise the ADC gets it’s time to run it with my chain and see how I like it. Maybe you could shed some light on a couple questions? Are you running the Burl into the Apollo X via toslink/Adat? If so is the Burl B2 bomber clock set to EXT and are you clocking it off the Apollo? If it is being sent over toslink/ADAT to the Apollo does it need to be connected with a WORD clock as well? I’ve been looking into it and the way console has options for both(but can only choose one) makes it unclear if both(toslink/ADAT and WORD clock) would be needed, or all the clocking info handled over Toslink/ADAT? I know there’s tons of ways to go about this, but just wanted to get an understanding of what you did in the video, as it’s not even close with the way that particular mix sounds through the Burl. thanks and cool video!
The Burl brings the Magic. I'm listing on desktop computer speakers and the Burl sounds the Best. Thanks for this, I'm now willing to spend a little more for the BURL.
Love the vid thank you for doing this shootout!!! I am also printing all of my mixes through the Burl B2 and I love it. I was also pretty intrigued by the new RND master converter but after hearing it I am more than happy to just stick with my Burl. Just gotta find a boatload of money to get a mothership now lol
Between the first uad and second Neve (tans on) you basically went from cheap cheesy sound to A full blown studio a with a 8068! The burl is epic but the problem is in this situation you want to glue the tracks together and the burl sounds like you are in the room with the artist before it was even recorded. The burl has the most separation of probably any audio circuit out there! You could use it driving the trans and glow the track together and it would be great like the Neve was for this context 👍
Was the mix completed on the Burl? On this system it seems to be a hyped low end, not like the mix at all. Also, were the MBC transformer and blue silk functions fully engaged? Burl is pleasing, but hyped. Barefoot Microstack45 is the playback system here.
When I first listened to this about four months ago, they all sounded the same. But now that my skill level has improved, the Burl B2 without question.
The Burl level is a tad off, but if you knows these converters, THAT is what they sound like. Probably my favorite overall, but the MBC with transformer is less congested and more clear. The apparently discontinued Mytek Brooklyn ADC was similar with its transformer sound.
Hi from Calgary! For mixing and mastering ITB exclusively on headphones ( Audeze LCDX & Focal Clear Pro MG) which One if the following do you recommend me: - Lynx Hilo TB - SPL Phonitor XE + DAC 768 Thank you
Very interesting comparison thanks. One thing to add perhaps, you're mixing, and in the mastering mindset, it's great to be able to make your converter totally transparent if need be. So the MBC might have an edge there (just like the Dangerous AD+ btw). And did you try the two SILK variants (blue and red) on the Neve? would be nice to compare to the BURL.
This is newbie question but I’d like to buy a Burl but I’m so used to the Apollo workflow with console. I hate monitoring through plugins because even when the buffers are all the way down, there’s still latency. With the Apollo I can monitor through their plugins with little to no latency. My question is, is it possibly to buy a Burl and use it for what it’s meant for while using the Apollo format or is it only one or the other? Thanks in advance.
I’ve got both and mix into the Burl - works like a charm - the two Apollo X16s handle I/O for the hardware - my DAC is a Dangerous Convert2 at the moment. Hope that helps!
Thanks for the comparison video. I made some comments over at Gearslutz. Both the MBC and Burl are a nice improvement over the Apollo. The Burl has a nice colour and mid range push and the MBC has a nice top and bottom with maybe a tad more clarity. I need to download the high res files and have a listen in my DAW. I'm trying to chose a new converter at them moment and currently use an Apollo X6, so this has been very useful.
I liked the BURL. It added dimension. It's cool how the difference sonically is subtle, but the difference in how it makes the mix feel is huge. Those BURL transformers really create a vibe.
What's a good interface to use for Burl? I don't want to buy some really expensive interface since the Burl will be doing the converting? So where does that leave you? And if i understand correctly to buy and use a burl interface i/o you first have to spend a 2000 usd on just a metal chasis "mother ship" Is there cheaper options for interfaces with quality inputs and ouputs?
Burl will give you a little extra boost sonically, but is it worth it price wise, when probably 99% of people who listens to your music wouldn’t notice at all?
I would say a product like this is for professionals who need to get that extra 5% of our their sound to ensure they edge out other engineers in any shootout. Obviously, it comes down to skill more than anything but when everyone is good, this might help you get that sound you need to move your career forward. Just my 2 cents.
The funny thing is you’ll never hear an ADC it only quantized the signal, it’s the DAC your listening to… All ADCs for the last 30 or so years aren’t missing any codes and have guaranteed monotonic transfer functions so they are accurate to the least significant bit, which at 24 bits is below the quantum thermal noise threshold. So what your hearing is the cash that changed hands…
Louder always wins. Normalize them and do a blind test. With levels matched and no confirmation bias, it doesn’t matter. Then little Johnny listens on his phone and you spent an extra $5,000 for what? Don’t get me wrong, I’ve played the game, and have a really nice setup, but gear is the drug for you, not (always) necessarily the music. I sold my Tascam TSR-8 in 1997 and have been digital since.
That’s not the test thou. The test is to prove; when you convert the analog mix via those 3 converters, what sounds better. Each one behaves differently, and it’s loudness is a part of its character. So if one makes it louder, that’s something that people using the 3 products would want to know. The drug is making a killer record that sells.
@@rosshayescitrullo3319 Yeah, you’re right, the drug is to get it sonically perfect, but the chase is crazy! I’ve even considered going back to tape. When people start complaining about Lynx, Apogee, even UAD, come on, man, how much more do you need. Of course, I’ve never heard of anyone leaving Burl, so there’s that. I know the addiction well…
@@rosshayescitrullo3319 I guess the question is, these pieces of gear all have their own input gain knob. It looks likes in your session the meters were pushing higher on the Burl test. If there was extra loudness to be had after passing through the converter, perhaps you could measure that after the test in terms of how much headroom was left? Not suggesting there was any bias involved in the test, but suggesting that with this test there is no way to confirm if the added loudness from the Burl was due to different input gain. Thanks for making the video though and I think we all appreciate that you took the time.
@@nickwisse8762 well I’ve done the mix in analog, so the best representation of what we’re comparing this to is the outputs from the ssl; and then that output was put into all 3 converters and the result is the test. The Apollo doesn’t have a variable input so I did that, and then used whatever setting on the neve and the burl had respectively to get it as close as possible to the gainstages. Both units also only have 2db input variances so you’d have to reengineer the devices to make a test that could match each other exactly. I still believe that the test is about using each piece of gear as it will work for anyone who buys it; and those gain choices are what you have to decide on in the real world. I can tell you that changing the inputs adds more saturation to the signal so adding or taking away on either unit would also present a very different signal too. Thanks for watching!
I wish I liked the UAD more but that Burl is magic. The RND is also very nice but the Burl is clearly better. What converters did you track with? I have a pair of UAD 8p’s and I’d like to cross over to Burl but I can’t afford to update all at once so I’m trying to figure out if starting with adding Burl gear for tracking first or if starting with mixing (and tracking with UA) is the way to go for now.
great video and feedback on the gear. Would you use the BURL ADC also for tracking besides running your mix through it? 2) do you have the digital outputs of the BURL connected back into the digital inputs of your Apollo system? i find myself stuck choosing between the BURL and the "Silver Bullet" from Louder than liftoff and putting the RND ORBIT in front of it for summing, too many freaking options :-(
Ya I often track vocals or stereo instruments through it cause it’s an incredible sounding converter. I would very much like a mothership to have 32 I/o of this.
Will a converter set up like this improve my mixes and tones if im just running a RME Fireface 800 into a computer? Or would i not see the benefit in a modest set-up like im running? For monitoring i run 3 sets, with focal trio6 be 8s as my preferred.
Have you already spent the money on the room acoustics? That would be more significant of a change then the converters, but after you have the room dialed in at mix position and you can hear deep into the mix, then the converters will he significant. Thats my 2 cents anyways.
The Burl with the transformer sounds clearer. The MBC with/without the transformer also has a clear sound but the Burl is slightly clearer. The Apollo sounds a bit dark to me.
In my opinion, I think the most appropriate ones are the neve with no transformer and the apollo. The mix itself is nice; a bit pulled back on the top end which works great for the style. The transformer warmth in my opinion did not compliment the mix, it dulled it out and you lose clarity. It focused in too low of a mid range. This is not to say they are bad, but maybe just not for this specific application to my ears. Thanks for the shootout!
I prefer the transformer because it sounds more like tape. And what it does it that it makes the mix sound wider and bigger. Making your music sound more professional. But you could also use the SSL Fusion Analog Outboard Processor to get a similar sound but the basic Apollo converters just aren't professional enough for pro quality.
Yeah. Defo smth like 1dB louder. In fact, that nulls out any credibility for this comparison. There are differences between em, null testing clearly shows them. But I would suspect its the rest of the chain that creates quite a lot of variability in each run thru. Analog desks have that analog variability. Run the same thing thru twice, and this kind of difference level is what you will get each time. Other type of tests might show the ADC performance better. And I suspect that bit is quite negligible. But what do I know.
Thanks for the video Ross, super helpful. It's the 'Limiter/SC/HPF' that really swings it for me. The B2 is 2.5k so for only 1k more you get that limiter and more control on the transformers.
Thanks for this. I just ordered a burl b16 and b4. The b4 is a preamps but also lime in bypasses and is straight conversion. I’m going to shootout it vs my other converters in a couple weeks. Stoked to hear all these. I was considering the neve but after this video I’m glad I got the burl.
Hello Ross.. great video.. i loved the burl sound the most in the video... i have a question..my A/D converter is also the burl B2... in my analog chain, the last unit before i hit my Burl B2 is the Maselec MPL-2 Limiter.. Do you think its a good idea that i sell the burl and maselec limiter and get the RND MBC? i am just thinking that maybe with this unit i would have more versatility with the tone shaping options (transformer, tranformerless, silk red, silk blue), the side chain option in the limiter thats not in the maselec which i think is a great addition...etc..
I'm looking at getting one of these, but I don't understand how they fit in the chain. I see some people using it to track and bypassing the converters on the 8pre, and I see people using it after a mix then pushing to the adc and then back into the DAW!!!
crazy: I can hear the differences on my iMAC 24" in the Studio. I really hear better transients and depths on the burl. Sounds more "like a record" indeed!
I think the MBC without the transformer sounded best for this mix. It sounded like the vocals were less muddy (maybe masked less from the low end weight from the transformers?)
@@rist98 I agree. It's TRUE. One thing that blew my mind when using saturation was that the nominal level stayed the same, but it sounded louder. So I assumed it was level matched, but there was percieved loudness.
@@badmonkeymusicproductions3569 Yeah. Its probbably just pushing on the limiter more. All examples touched 0db, but the Burl was clearly louder sounding. Took -1db to correct it. This single fact means this is scientifically a very bad comparison. Idk how one would miss a 1db diff when creating this comparison.
The Burl most definitely is incredible. I’ve been using a B2 Bomber as well and it just does this thing to gel everything together that literally nothing else does. Weight, bass tones always sound amazing, and the stereo width makes whatever you panned sit in the “correct” location. I can hard pan left and right in the box and things always sound a tad claustrophobic and narrow but boy does that change once the Bomber is patched in. I use mine in tandem with an SSL Fusion and Warm Audio Bus Comp and the combo is fantastic. Recently I’ve also been experimenting with triggering the comp the kick drum via external sidechain and that just locks the groove in even further (if you get your latency offsets right lol).
I was looking at comments and surprised for the little love the Neve got. Probably because it’s new. I thought [transformer in], it was punching through the mix bus, even on the fade out. Clarity and loudness really shone through.
Nice shootout. The Apollo does seem to have a bit more coloration in the highs, the Neve has a certain neutral softness to it, while the burl definitely adds some thickness and depth. They all sound pretty good. That burl is nice though, neve with the transformer is real nice too.
Did you happen to compare the clocks of each? I have Apollos and Burls as well that everyone just loves the sound of. Just ordered the Neve to to use in conjunction.
Hi Ross, great shootout, thank you. I'm very impressed with the Burl (agree that it's the best sounding of the three). Would you say it's the same thing with Burl vs Neve preamps (for home recording)?
Why do these “shoot out” videos never include a null test? Even just a blind trial. Prove to me the files are different and I’ll begin to believe that it isn’t all just confirmation bias.
Did you use the Converters of the Apollo x16?? The x16 has the flagship converters not used in the x8. But I use the Dangerous convert ad+ and it uses a pair of Hammond transformers with an emphasis knob to dial in to taste. Great shootout
With the burl, can hook up an external pre ( Audient preamp ) to it to record vocals? If I can…. Would my vocals sound higher quality compared to an Audient id24 audio interface? Or would it be the same quality for recording vocals?
I have an audient. What gave me immediate higher quality vocals was a decen tube mic CAD M9 with a mic capsule swap with a capsule off amazon and a better mic pre. In using the VMS ONE pre and the size and quality of the vox and other recordings is noticeable but still wont get you the quality of going straight into a BURL...but very respecable and much better than every interface pre under $2k that ive tried or listened to
As Eric Valentine knows, this is all B.S . The colour you achieve in your mix is effected far more by the processing up stream and the balancing of the mix.
"Balancing," yes, obviously. This guy has a great balance to begin with; he just wants some final bit of "color" coming off his analog mix buss. I don't know what you man be "processing up stream." I guess that could be mastering. Personally, I couldn't really tell hearing just those short passages.
