I guessed correctly for the Lynx. It’s the only one that literally sounds like the guitar player is in my room with me. It sounds like there is absolutely nothing in the way. The other all sound good, some darker than others, some thinner, some brighter. But, they all sound like I’m listening to a recording. The Lynx sounds like a live player right in front me in my room. Doesn’t sound like a recording. Impressive.
Not surprised I have spotted the Scarlet easily, but somewhat surprised i prefer the sound of RME over UAD Lynx on the top tho, more balanced and sweet
This video has changed my life cause i want now an RME, i was in struggle between UAD and RME, but this was an eyeopener for me thanks mate for this video
I thought A, B, and D were pretty similar overall, with A and B being the most similar sounding. C was most noticeably different. I was curious as to where the similarities and differences lie, so I captured the audio of each performance, ran it through Ozone's Match EQ and did comparisons against each interface. This is the results I got. The RME and Focusrite are nearly identical, with the Focusrite having a slight dip of 1-2 db from 3k and up. The UAD is extremely scooped in the upper mids. This scoop starts at roughly 300hz, moves down to a roughly 4-5 db dip at 5k, and then jumps up at 6k to finish out the spectrum about 2db down when compared to the RME. The Lynx and RME are actually the closest for most of the eq spectrum. The Lynx has a slight boost between 1.5 - 3k, peaking at around 1 db or so at 2k. Then experiencing another boost starting at around 8k, quickly spiking up about 3-4 db around 13k, and then falling off at an even rate to meet the RME at 20k.
I own an RME, but if I am being honest, I doubt anyone could tell which recording is best in the context of a mix with other instruments. That said, if the rest are recorded in a sub-standard way then it certainly has the potential to bring down the quality of the overall mix. However, if it is a GOOD song and GOOD arrangement, it will continue to be a good song and arrangement even if it is lacking in sonic quality (by today's standards). Just my opinion. Thank you for the effort involved in putting something like this together. Cheers.
I'd have to give it to the RME. There was clarity in the bottom frequencies which was surprisingly lacking in the Apollo. For my money, that tiny, tiny difference could be the difference which makes someone listen to your music a second time.
I preferred A and C in both comparisons but that might just be personal preference for the way I like to hear acoustic guitar, the other 2 were a little darker, but barely and some people prefer that. All this comparison really demonstrates is that they’re all really good and you could create great recordings with any of them.
A and D were my favs but I could also have taken C. The RME sounds really tight and pristine. I am a bit of a converter skeptic but I guess in this shootout the one I didn’t like was the cheap one! FWIW 🤷🏻♂️
the first time I took the last option and the "worst" option was b. but the db difference of the converter was noticeable. the apollo also sounds very good and the rme has surprised me badly. for its fame despite this all are good options but if you want to sound pro the lynx
Lynx is a class above the rest in this test. Apollo's warmth suits acoustic guitar, I liked it. RME on the other hand too flat and clinical for this, not flattering at all. Scarlett can't really compete obviously.
RME & Lynx deffo the cleanest, most detailed sound to my ears. Focusrite and Apollo lacked some clarity, though warmer than A & D. Impossible to say which is the most transparent sound unless you were physically in the room. I would go for transparency of audio converters over sonic character all day long. The combination of mic position on an acoustic guitar and the availability of some premium software plug-ins in most DAWs these days mean that it's easy to sculpt EQ etc judiciously or not at all. Once your incoming audio has been coloured by a converter's sonic character, I think there's less potential to recover a transparent sound if that's what's desired. FYI I was listening on a high-end pair of Monitor Audio hi-fi speakers fed from a top of the range Yamaha Aventage amp. I assume that your average Joe doesn't sit in front of neutral studio monitors when listening to music. The superiority of the RME & LYNX over the other two was fairly clear to my ears. However with more people listening to music through earbuds, it would be interesting to know anyone's impressions on this comparison if that's how you listened to the recording? Great video btw. Many thanks.
I listen with earsBuds and the same... But i work since 15 years with Apollo first Gen... Non i want evolved my workflow with a Analog Console and better Converter... (i have a Studer269, Neotek series1 and an old French Plus30 - PlusXXX)...
I had a RME and then changed to Lynx. They're both great, but I`ll stay with my Aurora, it sounds more `real` - it is hard to explain, but as I deal mostly with acoustic instruments Lynx just shows me better what I'm hearing `live`
I've owned RME products before, though not babyface, so I recognized it easily,you will notice it sound a bit bright. What surprising me is Focusrite, it was the cleanest and most banlanced sound, although it may not impress you. UAD and Lynx both add more bass and persent a fuller sound,make it lively,which suits my listening preference. Tbh,I hardly tell the differences between the latter two. Oh, I forgot to mention that when I listened to your performance, I used a cheap earbuds connected to a windows laptop, this earbuds is not balanced tuning,it has little bass whlist concentrate more on the mid and high frequency. I like your video,this comparison really helps a lot,.Very interesting,we all know these interfaces are clearly face different market(and this is the reason I love this comparison).When taking the price into accout(not everyone has unlimited budget,right), I think Fousrite is definitely worth considered,and now I know why is has best selling.
I think for an electronic or singer songwriter project with few audio tracks, practically any interface could do a good job. Preference in audio interface would really come into play when you have 10-30 tracks recorded through the interface stacking up. Then, any particular character of the interface would stack together and become a very distinctive additional sound in the mix in addition to any instrument parts recorded - just by virtue of all the stacking. It would dominate the character of the mix. Either recording a 10-20 track project or running the same recording through the interface multiple times to see where the sound ends up after say 20 or 30 trips would be more telling.
A,B and D are all very similar. A and B differ in how much dinamic range they have aparte, but real close! D is very realistic! C sounds more like it has eq and little compressed! C is the more colored of them all
i noticed lynx, rme, focusrite and apollo as last. it is interesting that; Focusrite's tonality sounded better to me than Apollo, warmer, sharper and more detailed. i found apollo's tonality dry.
Interesting...... I noticed the Aurora used a Midas preamp, which if memory serves me well, can be coloured depending on how you use it. A neutral preamp on the Lynx would have been preferable, but that said, the Lynx definitely picked up the transients of the strum better than the other 3 units, and had a very full and balanced sound. For me the next best was UAD along with RME, which has a slightly thinner sound in the bass end, and lastly the Scarlett Focusrite, which seemed to smooth out the transient detail, making the recording sound muddier than the other 3. Having used both the Lynx and RME interfaces, the differences between them seemed about what I'd expect. I recently mixed an album for a band which was transferred from tape via Lynx Aurora converters and compared the result with my Mytek AD converters, direct from the tape machine. I have to say that the Lynx sounded better to my ears, it definitely had slightly clearer transient detail than my Mytek. The Mytek is no slouch in terms of quality either. Lynx sets the bar very high with their converters.
I'm a songwriter and not a mixer and I guess my ears are broken because I couldn't really hear much difference. I eventually want to replace my Clarett with an RME UCX but it's more about their software/support, not the sound.
In today's market , the majority of converters are so close. There is not a huge difference between them and in a context of a mix it won't matter . People just want to hear good music . As long as its close people don't care. With all of these interfaces you can make and produce professional music.
IDK, man. The Focusrite is clearly the weakest one. Of course, what you say can be true if you only put things that are on the same league in the comparison. It is also important to remember they all reproduce audio differently as well, which will affect your mixing probably more than the input you had when recording.
Wow, you can really how much more hyped the high end on the UAD and lynx units are in the pre-processed take. As usual, these are all fine units, but the RME just has that magic ability to make it sound like you're sitting there in the room.
@@Hugoknots ok king poptart, linear logic and critical thinking mean anything to ya? A total impossibility based on the info presented, the question is how far behind are you?
@@bonzology322 do you know what your even writing? the key word in the original statement was "like", in full it reads, "…sound like your sitting there in the room". an already subjective statement being dumbly criticized by lord goofball himself AKA you
RME fanboys are all the same. The only hype is "RME just has that magic ability ..." More bottom end on the Apollo Twin. There's no hype there. Also it's just one source. Then There's the Twin mkII and the Twin X series that RME Babyface can't even touch. Also check the specs. The numbers don't lie. The Apollo has quieter preamps, lower THD+N, and higher dynamic range. That's why it sounds better. And again, that's just the original Twin.
After owning and using all, I kept the Aurora n and could not go back. Just so much less work to do on the frequency spectrum as what you put in it, it outs out without adding a flavour I would rather get from my ore amps, mic and compressors. Rme would be what I would have if I could not have my lynx.
@@MELOPSMUSIC Get the Aurora, and use both at the same time, do blind tests, and make a decision based on that. Ear needs proper optimised enviroment, do it in dark room so you ears work the most, rather than eyes...
In the blind test I really felt the intimacy of B and I replayed it a few times. I knew that C would be the Apollo since they are notorious for their clarity through the high end. But in the reveal I was shocked. I didn't expect B to be the focus rite but rather the RME. I was correct with C and was back and forth on wether the Lynx was D or Focusrite. All sound very good, but it seems as though these interfaces shine with different instruments. I feel UAD Apollo can become deeper through the processing of EQ and perhaps layering. Watching the piano blind one before this video, having both clarity and low-end is a win. I will see if I can find one for a singer. Thanks for this video. edit: Just listened again but with AirPods instead of my MacBook speakers and UAD (c) was definitely more clear and intimate but I can see why people can say the highs are harsh and B suddenly more "cheap" sounding. Lynx was very well balanced but with maybe too much lows. But Lynx was probably the best and UAD second best in regards to clarity. With these sort of instruments you want the clarity so that the low end doesn't battle with bass or kick in your mix. But if it's an acoustic track, I think Lynx would probably be better for the job. At this point, producers should switch their interfaces to record different things because it's clear that some things are just better for others. 😂
Considering every converter you own and listen thru plays it´s own version, pretty much is almost impossible to really hear it. But...i´ll look to get the Aurora.
I liked the rme overall all those presented. I did not like the focusrite at all. The rme handled the low end much better than all of them as it was more focused and everything was detailed and crisp. I prefer clean less coloured signals coming leaving me with the chance to decide what direction to go in the mix and post.
It’s almost like the focusrite is $150 and almost all the other options are around $1000 lol. He could’ve at least used a Focusrite Clarett+ or focusrite pro series
Great video! Nevertheless, I must copy and paste the same comment I wrote for the video comparing the same pieces of gear using piano samples: for a fare comparison, the recording must have utilized very the same midas preamp for all of the other pieces of gear bypassing their own preamps!!! Aurora is a convertor, which doesn't have a preamp(s), which makes it unfair to compare with a product that has precisely been balanced for/with a specific preamp that comes with it... I insist: the own preamps of these pieces of gear must've been bypassed!! Instead, midas preamp must've been used for all of the AD-DA convertors in order to appreciate the quality of very the DA-AD convertors!!! Though, I should add that in this video I recognize some qualities of the aurora "sound", which are more obvious on the unprocessed parts. On the other end, however, this made me consider the following: which of these convertors had been used for the editing/processing the sound in the second part of the video? Was it processed on one converter, while featuring the result played through 3 of the other converters? Or, has each of the samples been processed separately using the same convertor used during the recording of the corresponding sample? Anyway, I think, this video is one of its kind (in a good way) giving at least some ideas about these pieces of gear. Thank you.
@@mariusangel2593 all the new interfaces sound great these days but what I realized is that for me, doing the least work later and then just knowing that I don't have to even look out for little oddities in frequency responses and representations is what I paid the extra money for aside from the massive io options I have with my Lynx (n) that go beyond all the others. My lynx is also actively up upgradeable. I chose a usb but I can buy a dante or thunderbolt or hd connection if and when I want as well as being able to record without a computer as it has an sd reader!! I would not ever go back to UA or any others.
In the Piano comparison. I had dead on which were the RME and Lynx Aroura over and above the rest. Here. Mic'ing an acoustic. The playing field was much more level. I will say the signal to noise sounded best on the RME Babyface Pro FS, but overall clarity of all the interfaces was fairly good. Nothing great or stand out here. They all did a good job. Not a great micing performance for the test if I'm honest (shrug).
It's funny, the Apollo was the one that I didn't like the most. I'm on the market to buy a AD converter and, I was in doubt between apollo and Lynx. Now I'd probably buy the Lynx
I thought C is Scarlett, cause it sounds toooooo muddy. for me D is the best. detailed, balanced, tasty. the next is A. but the difference between D-A and B-C is huge. the UAD's converting.... nah.
A (RME) is the best. Everything else sounds like it is trying to give you a colored representation of the recording. It is easier to start with a clean and pristine recording as the RME has done here. This track will be much easier for an engineer to comfortably add to a multi track recording. I'm surprised with the Apollo though. It was way too muddy for me to believe this to be consistent with what I've heard in the past. I remember it being warm but no to the point where it would be unusable as in this example. The Lynx gets honorable mention. Slightly colored but still flat. Would be a good interface for someone that wants to get a quick recording and send it to social media or something.
I was pleasantly surprised that to me the first one sounded like trash. Even compared to the 2nd one. No wonder I sold that pos... and still keep my first gen 2i2 Scarlett. Wow. Best sounding one to me was D, though. Although I should be able to test it before giving up 4 grand.
A- good sounding and warm B- no-no C- ok but too bright D - ok After listening on MacBook speakers. I owe UAD (and had a few units over the years) and I was very very surprised and... disappointed a bit since I marked it as 'too bright'. Overall - now-days everyone should be concentrated on getting a nice song and learning how to use gear they already have to its bets potential as oppose to blaming the interfaces etc 🙂
A sounded more expressive and open. Nice sound. Then C and D can also go but more dull sound and less detail. But overall A wins. RME sounds nice I must say.
For my ears, C was significantly worse than the rest, a bit washed out, less transparent and tight. I immediately assumed it was Apollo, which I don't own precisely because of that sound. But I wasn't sure whether it could be Focusrite, which I haven't heard before. I was a little prejudiced, so I'm very surprised at the quality of the Scarlet, didn't expect this. After all four impressions, I was relatively certain that A had to be RME because of its very good bass resolution, clean separation, stability and neutrality. I wasn't sure about D, it sounds very warm, but clear and tight. And slightly compressed, I think many people call this a more "musical" sound. Unfortunately I've never heard the Lynx before, but now I think it sounds very nice. But not as analytical as RME converters, which I prefer to work with, also because of outstanding stable drivers and awesome support.
RME sound like RME (overall correct definition, but too much tight in the bass). Focusrite was the worst sounding card, followed closely by the Apollo (this last miss a lot of definition). Lynx have both good bass and good definition and openess. But you are comparing there Converter and preamp, it's not fair, the price aren't also the same...
What I heard listening on speakers at a nominal level. RME & Lynx seem to be very similar. Focusrite is sonic-wise the weakest. UAD seems to be the most even overall.
I picked B because it was natural. A, C, & D all hyped the bass and C & D had a tape warming effect. All those things I can add later, what I want is a clean slate to work with and I found that in B. I listened with wireless AKG N700 headphones and B (to me) was un-hyped. How do I find what was what? I know it's a blind test but I've picked and would like to know what I picked.
![Audio Interfaces Blind Test: UAD Apollo VS Focusrite VS RME Babyface VS Lynx Aurora [NO TALKING]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
