Metric Halo review

[cfmsp]

Scot,

 

I'm not aware of any significant rationale to justify the increase in price of the Sonic Studio gear. OTOH, neither have I studied them closely.

 

I don't believe the Jensen transformers come into play for audio playback (it's a mic preamp feature), and therefore highly doubt that is the reason to justify price increase on the Sonic Studio.

 

My belief is that the margins on Metric Halo gear are low (as with most pro gear compared to audiophile gear), and the MH gear is SUCH a high value that Sonic can offer their versions at much higher margins (with some subtle tweaks) and get it, perhaps with the promise of higher touch service thrown in for good measure.

 

My personal experience with Metric Halo is that BJ, Jon Stern and the team provide the best service in the business - even if without catering (should I say coddling) those who demand the utmost in personal service (and are willing to pay for it).

 

Perhaps an example of SOnic's higher level of service is the promise of total credit on an upgrade. You KNOW you're in a high margin business when you can offer this, IMO.

 

OTOH, Metric Halo offered all existing customers an astounding price on the ULN-8 immediately upon introduction, so they also offer the best they can within their model.

 

I don't see the need for the apparent higher margin for higher service model of Sonic, or see the value of the 'tweaks' offered, such as EQ. Perhaps someone from Sonic can clarify any misconceptions I may have.

 

I consider Metric Halo, Audiofile Engineering and Sonic/Amarra as three of the absolute best firms in the audio business when it comes to service/support and quality of their products, and this is from direct personal experience, as well as from research prior to becoming a customer of all three. For what they offer each are par excellence. [note: They are also each exclusively catering to the Mac community.]

 

That said, the pricing of Sonic/Amarra products is, IN MY OPINION, not anywhere near the same high value mark as set by Metric Halo and Audiofile Engineering.

 

Thus far, the only overlap as regards audiophile playback has been the MH gear made for Sonic, which I have not considered for reasons noted above.

 

Soon there will be overlap in the digital audio(phile) playback market - between Amarra and Audiofile Engineering. It should be interesting.

 

As Barry has stated - consistently with pretty much every report I've seen - AE's Wave Editor is a very close second to Sonic's Soundblade when it comes to flat-out transparent audio performance. It is also SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper (something approaching 15-20x).

 

but I digress...

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I think I recall Gordon Rankin letting something slip about a "new playback" engine called Twilight. Haven't managed to dig anything up on this. If you know something, spill your guts, man!

 

As for your ULN-2 -- I noticed you've made your choice for MH gear over the SS choice. Was that price alone? Or some pre-existing relationship? Just curious.

 

Also noted that you use Amarra for playback -- are you using the "full" version, or just "mini" on your ULN-2?

 

[labjr]

Hi Clay,

 

"That would be a step backwards in my view, even if planned to be used in a rack, the current PS flexibility would seem to be useful for battery powered function."

 

In my opinion, only if someone needed to use it on battery power. I haven't found the need to do that in my home setup. Of course, that was only my hypothetical list of things they could cut out to make an audiophile product. I think they probably never will though. I would be happy if they upgraded the ULN-2 To ULN-8 level of performance. Because I'd have a hard time settling for less than the best performance.

 

And not that the ULN-8 isn't a great deal because it's obviously a steal for the recordist, but probably more than I'd like to spend for what I'll likely use it for. In the end I just might buy it. But probably not before I buy a house. Then maybe it could be used for part of an 8 channel home theater system.

 

I would like to compare the J2 with the Wavelength amps I currently use. I did have intentions of building the F5 and bought a lot of the parts but I'd been busy with other less important things like work. Then the J2 came out. I guess If Nelson releases the schematic at some point I may try to build it instead. Of course I wouldn't expect it to sound quite as sweet as a factory built amp.

 

Regards,

 

Larry

 

[labjr]

''I don't think they're close. The '8 is in a class by itself, in all aspects of its performance and capabilities. The ULN-8 (particularly at 192k) is the very first digital device I've heard where my long held feelings that there are some things the best analog does better, have simply evaporated. I have yet to hear what I consider a serious challenger (at any price), let alone something that might beat it. It makes many a much more expensive and highly touted device sound like the designer still has a bit of work to do."

 

[/i]

 

Hi Barry,

 

I read a white paper by Bob Stuart a few years ago which I think explained that 88.2/ 20 was all that was ever needed for the highest sound quality.

 

I've also read Dan Lavry's white paper that explained why 96 / 24 was all that was ever needed. I think he wrote something like " We don't need more dots." And recommended against recording at 192 and converting to 44.1

 

I realize these papers are 4-5 years old, and I'm not an engineer, but I've always felt the lack of data flow at higher frequencies was a big part of digital audio's problems. Clocking has come a long way too. And Lavry still does only 24/96.

 

Why is it the ones who don't do 4x sampling rates or don't know how to do it have a paper that explains why it is unneccessary?

 

Did Metric Halo sneak up on these digital audio gurus?

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Larry,

 

I think Metric Halo snuck up on everyone, especially the makers of some considerably more expensive pro (and audiophile) gear that can't touch the ULN-8.

 

Some folks don't seem to think 192 (or 24-bit) is necessary. That could simply be because that is how they feel or that is how they hear it.

 

Regarding 192k, I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that I've encountered some gear spec'd for this that does not perform at this rate as well as it does at the lower rates. For my ears, 192k is an appreciably larger step up from 96k than 96k is from 44.1k. I was cautious about using it at first but once I listened to a test recording I made with the ULN-8 at 192k, there was no going back. I do all my recordings at 24/192 now.

 

Whether we see more of this in the future remains to be seen. A lot of music being called "high res" is still at 96k (and make no mistake, I think it is when compared with redbook).

 

As to 24-bits, here's what might be another surprise: most of the software I've checked out doesn't handle 24-bits very well and is not what I'd call "bit clean" in the low order bits. I would think this carries over into hardware too where low level linearity isn't always what we'd hope it to be. This is one of the advantages I find in Sonic's soundBlade editing/mastering application. It does happen to be the best sounding such app I've yet heard and it might be alone among such apps in being bit clean all the way down. (Metric Halo's 80-bit Console software and the Reaper multitrack app are two other types I've found to be exceptional.)

 

So, while I always find theories interesting, the ones I find most interesting are the ones that come from the folks whose products actually (and in this case, quite easily) outperform their competition.

 

Just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"Why is it the ones who don't do 4x sampling rates or don't know how to do it have a paper that explains why it is unneccessary? "

 

Well, it would serve to invalidate the level of someone's conviction if they made a product that they said was unnecessary, wouldn't it?

 

But, I do get your point... and I agree with it.

 

BTW, Dan Lavry was seen recently on head-fi arguing rather vociferously, some would say, over aggressively, that (his) scientific facts support his opinion as being the only possible true position.

 

clay

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

"In my opinion, only if someone needed to use it on battery power. I haven't found the need to do that in my home setup."

 

Larry,

I like having the option, for multiple reasons. I spend a lot of time outdoors, and have been mixing high quality music and outdoors since years before the Sony Walkman was available. I also like to be able to record/listen anywhere, anytime.

 

For this reason, I just bought Gordon's Async USB Proton, which is tres portable, and great sounding as well.

 

I also like the idea of having a system that could function off the grid, for that dream retirement home that might be literally off the grid.

 

Amplification is the only significant challenge, especially being a fan of Class A amps.

 

The new Red Wine Audio products could start a resurgence in this sort of thinking. It's also good for the environment, if you accept the need to dispose properly of batteries past their usable lifetime, etc.

 

 

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[labjr]

"BTW, Dan Lavry was seen recently on head-fi arguing rather vociferously, some would say, over aggressively, that (his) scientific facts support his opinion as being the only possible true position."

 

He can argue all day. But while everyone starts to defect to MH, he's got to be wondering why. I got to think these guys are busy trying to reverse engineer Metric Halo products to try to figure out what they're doing since their entire business is in jeopardy unless they can convince people to continue to pay more for their products just because they have "gold" faceplates when the MH product not only sounds better but takes the place of multiple other boxes.

 

If I was a startup company I wouldn't hire someone who didn't believe it's possible to improve on the current technology because of a theory.

 

It only makes sense to me that higher sampling rates will improve the accuracy of higher frequenies. It's the clocking that has to be improved, I think, proportionately as the sampling rate increases for it to work well.

 

Regards,

 

Larry

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"I think I recall Gordon Rankin letting something slip about a "new playback" engine called Twilight. Haven't managed to dig anything up on this."

 

AE is being characteristically quiet about this, and given the hoopla (& resultant marketing snafus) surrounding Amarra's introduction, rightly so. As a loyal customer of Matt & co, I'm very respectful of their 'keep it under wraps' philosophy. I asked months ago online if they had plans - their response:

 

"Typically, we don't comment on unannounced products. I'm not sure where that rumor started. Suffice it to say, if we were to be developing such an application, it would be very high quality, work with any DAC, and be priced *very* competitively."

 

Back to Scot:

"As for your ULN-2 -- I noticed you've made your choice for MH gear over the SS choice. Was that price alone? Or some pre-existing relationship? Just curious."

 

I was aware of the Sonic gear before purchasing the ULN-2, but, I picked up my Metric Halo on 14 day trial from B&H Photo ($1495) without ever having heard it anywhere, or even knowing anyone who had. The closest I got to an "audiophile" recommendation is that someone on AA mentioned that it had been recommended to them along with an RME, but they had picked the RME due to it being PC-based. The pros raved over it.

 

The sound was soooo gooood that I never bothered to listen to others on my shortlist - one of which was Lavry, another being the Apogee Mini. Gordon's Brick was also a possibility, but I was also considering a recording device (not that I needed one, since I already had two portable mic preamps of high quality) so the ULN-2 made more sense financially.

 

"Also noted that you use Amarra for playback -- are you using the "full" version, or just "mini" on your ULN-2?"

 

I bought the full version, despite that I don't plan to purchase 176k/192k material anytime soon.

 

Amarra has more features in the full version, and as an 'early adopter', I believe I will get all future upgrades included in the initial purchase price.

 

clay

 

 

 

[stian]

Hi Arthur,

 

Thanks for the link. I am aware of VNC based "remotes" and usually use a macbook to control the music server. Still hope that MH will implement IR control of the ULN8 since I use my iphone as itunes remote and would prefer not to shut down that app everytime I change volume.

 

Best regards

Stian

 

[stian]

Hi Telstar,

 

A bit early yet, as I have not had as much time listening as I would like lately. The first impression of the ULN8 was of ease and a total lack of grain. Very natural and detailed bass. The FF/buffalo (with 6F8G/6SN7 tube output stage, LDR based volume control) seems to have a more "vivid" sound and a greater perceived dynamic range and bigger soundstage. The ULN is in comparison a bit "polite". I have not yet played with the output gain jumpers on the ULN, but will get to that this weekend.

 

Best regards

Stian

 

[cfmsp]

 

"It only makes sense to me that higher sampling rates will improve the accuracy of higher frequenies. It's the clocking that has to be improved, I think, proportionately as the sampling rate increases for it to work well."

 

When might diminishing returns kick in with respect to sample rate increases?

 

I think that's the $64k question with regards to "cost effective" increase in sample rate, i.e. at what price-bracket/quality-level does it make sense to purchase a 176/192k playback device?

 

To me it seems a little bit surreal when I see people coming on CA asking for 192k capability in a $500 (often less) DAC, or ignoring USB becuase the current batch of devices are limited to 96k, or choosing not to upgrade their DAC (to 96K capability from RBCD) becuase they;re waiting for 192k to get sorted out (altho less so this latter reason than the earlier examples).

 

You've hit on the issue that I believe might be disguising the 'knee' of the DR curve, performance deserving to be called ultra-high res (i.e. 176/192k and above). Barry was the first to point out - that I can recall - that higher res gear does not always deliver the goods becuase, well, the engineering challenges increase significantly. It's not as simple as popping out the 96k DAC chip and replacing it with a 192k chip. This is yet another reason for me to be satisfied with my 96k ULN-2, at least it was up until the release of the ULN-8.

 

Hopefully, Barry won't mind that I repeat his recent assertion that moving up from 192k to DXD/DSD/etc. does NOT improve the sound quality - to HIS ears.

 

Bruce, OTOH, does hear an improvement with even higher rates than 192k, and records at such rates.

 

As to my perspective, wake me when I can listen to Natalie Merchant's catalog - as IF it had been recorded originally at 192k (which pointedly does NOT mean upsampling - I can do that myself with Wave Editor's iZotope 64-bit SRC now).

 

Until then, I'll be quite happy with a 96kHz DAC (or I would have been until the '8 came along).

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Clay,

 

"Hopefully, Barry won't mind that I repeat his recent assertion that moving up from 192k to DXD/DSD/etc. does NOT improve the sound quality - to HIS ears."

 

I would point out that I do not consider the move from 192k (as delivered by the ULN-8) to DXD/DSD a move "up" by any means.

 

Yes, technically, it represents an increase in sample rate but it also represents a steep increase in noise at the top and a diminution of word length, though this last is a function of it being a different format.

 

So my assertions regarding DSD are that I personally don't like it and wouldn't use it in my work. I don't compare it to 192k any more than I'd compare Night Train to Dom Perignon. ;-}

 

I don't know if higher sample rates than 192k would sound even better. I know I don't like the sound of the DXD/DSD format and find it quite discomforting. While I deem it superior to CD in the lower half of the spectrum, I'd rather listen to Redbook myself due to what I call the "silent scream" at the top end. This is how I hear it of course. I know lots of folks who are enamored with their SACDs.

 

If B.J. ever came out with a 384k device, I'd be anxious to listen to it. As I said earlier, for my ears, 192k from the '8 represents a considerably larger step up from 96k than 96k does from 44.1. Right now though, I haven't been able to yet identify any "issues" with 24/192 from the '8 and find the sound to match my mic feed. I've never been able to say that about anything in my experience before. (And the top end is sweet and it is in reality. No DSD "scream" and no "hifi" top end here, like many audiophile favored components have. Treble in real life - just like bass and midrange - doesn't "announce" itself. It is just there. Same as the '8 presents it.)

 

As always, just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[labjr]

"how much is enough?"

 

I guess when enough trained ears can't hear the difference. Barry has already said with MH the 192k sounds the same as the mic feed. So I would say it's probably good enough for most audiophiles.

 

At 192 there's more than four times as much data at a given frequency to reconstruct the original wave than CD quality. Since there's only two samples per sample at the nyquist frequency and only four at half of that. For redbook that's only four samples per cycle by the time you get to 11.25 khz. It doesn't seem like enough samples for accurate reconstruction of the high frequencies where a lot of low level detail and harmonic imformation probably lies. Good enough for reproducing triangle waves I guess but maybe not for complex audio waves. I would think this causes a strange intermodulation problem since the accuracy of the information decreases as the frequency rises. You have accurate representaions of lower frequencies mixing with inaccurate high frequency information.

 

In theory, red book looked great when they developed it. But we know now that's not the case.

 

BTW isn't DXD just LPCM at 24/192 ?

 

[RHA]

Barry said "don't hold your breath" on an audiophile version, but it wouldn't be hard to please me. For starters use consumer audio connectors (XLR, RCA), with perhaps an additional in and out on the back. Give me a pre-configured MIO mixer that will facilitate basic plug and play capabilities to play back from iTunes/computer; retain the mic pres with RIAA eq for recording LPs and facilitate easy routing to your editing App. (There is definitely a learning curve to set up your own mixer... even when using their pre-configured templates. I'm still working to get it right). For those who want to use it as a Preamp/DAC add a remote and replace the ADAT with a digital input for use with a CD transport. What have I forgotten? That would do it for me. I'm easy. What do you want?

Cheers, Rod

PS. Let's keep the price down I don't need a heavy metal designer chassis, with gold plated designer inputs,etc. Just the sound man! But if you really wanted to get fancy you could add some of the software features in Spectrafoo to analyze your room and maybe do a little DSP correction or even help align the azimuth on my phono cartridge. No that would be cool in an audiophile package!

 

[cfmsp]

nice simple wishlist.

 

"replace the ADAT with a digital input for use with a CD transport"

 

you do know you can setup the ADAT input for Toslink, right?

 

I'm assuming you asking for Toslink, as there's already a Coax and AES/EBU digital in. The ULN-2 (with 2D card) has every consumer usable input but USB and BNC.

 

I use it for connecting to APple TV, Oppo DVD players and even Apple Express, on occasion.

 

clay

 

[labjr]

. . . I'll settle for a ULN-2 with upgraded converters and preamps. The phono EQ can be done in the digital domain.

 

I'll trade everything else for a woman that will allow me to buy it.

 

Regards,

 

Larry

 

[ackcheng]

Hi Barry,

 

May I ask you what software do you use fore recording? Or does sounblade has the recording function as well?

 

Yours

 

Arthur

 

[RHA]

I don't use the ULN-2 other than iTunes playback and recording LPs (using the built in RIAA eq). I had overlooked the capabilities you mentioned. Even makes it a more attractive bargain doesn't it!

Cheers, Rod

 

[RHA]

When you find that woman let me know if she has a sister. ;-)

Cheers,

 

[cfmsp]

 

"I had overlooked the capabilities you mentioned. Even makes it a more attractive bargain doesn't it!"

 

It's the Swiss Army Knife of 2 channel digital audio. it does pretty much anything and it's NEUTRAL.

 

clay

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Arthur,

 

While soundBlade does have a recording function, I do all my recording using the Record Panel, which is part of the MIO Console software that comes with the Metric Halo interfaces.

 

It allows recording in multiple formats with as many channels as one has inputs (I use just two to record from a single pair of mics). After trying it out several years ago, it quickly became my favorite way to record audio.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"BTW isn't DXD just LPCM at 24/192 ?"

 

multiple times two...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_eXtreme_Definition

 

clay

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Larry,

 

"BTW isn't DXD just LPCM at 24/192 ?"

 

It runs faster than 192. And based on my experience with how many designers seem to have a lot of trouble getting their clocks together for 192k, I'm not personally juiced on the idea myself.

 

Just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[labjr]

Now I remember reading about it. Wikipedia calls it a PCM-like signal. Sounds like PCM to me. How could they tout the benefits of DSD when they convert it to PCM to edit if they didn't name it something else.