Sycraft
So at the very least I'd need to see a blind test where someone demonstrates they can pick out their modded kit reliably before I'm interested. Then to really be convinced I need to see measurements to make sure that it actually made the sound better, not just different.

 
Wow. I'd be interested to know what that measurement is that proves that something sounds "better" to the human ear. I'll have to use it on all my mixes. 
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 

I agree with most things said here but wanted to bring some logic to it as well.  For me, I noticed immediately when the 24i returned - same space, amp, & speakers.  I can't quantify better but did notice the difference and liked what I heard. 
 
I liked the sound of the MOTU before, just wanted an upgrade and thought modding what I already had was the more frugal way to go.  It made more sense to spend a couple hundred on a mod than spend 2-3 times as much and reduce I/O count to boot replacing it.
 
I also noticed an unquantifiable difference/improvement when I moved to a Lynx L22 card. 
 
Last year when I did a DAW upgrade with Roseberry, I moved on to a MOTU M8 USB interface because of the lack of dedicated PCI slots on current MBs.  This time there was really not as much quality differentiation and though I might be tempted, wouldn't consider modding it even if BLA offered one for it.  It is completely capable and probably overkill.
 
I don't make money with my DAW nor depend on it for my livelihood but like everyone else do desire the best bang for the buck.  ATM, I'm totally content with my M8, Akai EIE Pro, and Focusrite SOLO each of which is used for different things and as I stated earlier for what I do, the quality difference even among these three while noticeable is probably negligible.

Eddie TX
Wow. I'd be interested to know what that measurement is that proves that something sounds "better" to the human ear. I'll have to use it on all my mixes. 
 
Cheers,
Eddie

 
You can quantify that, in his talk he talks about how they did just that with speakers. You do proper blind subjective tests to find out what people like. Then you measure the objective differences. With speakers that is as flat as possible an on-axis frequency response and well controlled directivity.
 
For something like electronics, particularly when used in a studio when what is correct matters, not what is the most pleasing, it would be flat FR, low noise, low distortion of all kinds, and so on.
 
So ya, this really is something you can measure. You take a modded and unmodded piece of gear and do a proper blind test, see if anyone can reliably tell a difference. If not, well then you are done, mods aren't useful audibly. You can measure it if you like to see if there are any measurable differences (we can measure way more precise than we can hear). If you can hear audible differences then you go and see what those differences are. If it is something like lower noise and flatter FR, then cool, you've found a useful mod. However if they are things like higher harmonic distortion and a HF rolloff, then the mod is a waste of money as it is changing the sound.

Anybody who claims that the best measurements always correlate with the best sound is selling snake oil. If I ever hear "look at our product's measurements -- obviously it sounds the best!" I run away.
 
I learned this a while back when digital audio first arrived on the scene. "Digital is so wonderful -- such low noise and distortion, no wow & flutter, tremendous dynamic range! Perfect sound forever!" Yes, but there was one small problem. It didn't sound good.
 
Obviously, digital audio technology has come a long way since then, to the point where it can sound very good indeed. But still, many of us prefer the sound of tape, vinyl, transformers, and even (shudder) tubes -- despite their poor measurements. Hey, did you know you can get DAW plugins that simulate the sound of these things, to make you think your digitally-based music was recorded with a bunch of crappy analog gear? 
 
I'm not claiming that analog recording is more accurate than digital. But it does tend to help many types of music sound "better" to many people. Even if the measurements would indicate otherwise.
 
Sorry for the off-topic content. Back to the OP and Black Lion: they are well worth checking out. You'll notice that the naysayers have no experience with their products or services, so I wouldn't bother giving their opinions much credence. 
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 

Again, missing the point. There are two problems with what you are espousing:
 
1) In recording/music production accuracy of reproduction is paramount. After all, how will you know if the plugins you are using are giving you the intended sound, if you aren't getting accurate sound? If you monitor your mixing and mastering on a signal path that introduces lots of colouration you aren't going to get a good mix. You might think a vocal sounds nice and "fat" and "warm" when in reality your system is doing that, but the track you are laying down is not. You need your gear to be accurate so that the decisions you make are reflected in the recording. Again, this in in the talk I linked.
 
2) We CAN measure what sounds good. Really, we can. You can do double blind, subjective tests. You ask people to decide what they like, to rank it, and to talk about why. You then compile and analyze those results and you can get statistically valid data as to what people like. If you find a high r and p value, you know you have something that holds true across many listeners and we are able to find this for many things. You can then do measurement analysis and figure out what it is they are hearing that they like (or don't).
 
Really, math and science work, they really do. It isn't magic, it isn't some black art that can't be understood, it is math and science. A DAW and plugins, which is all just math, wouldn't work otherwise. And part of that science that we are better and better at is studying preference and why humans have it. Turns out often not to be arbitrary.
 
As for us naysayers... well maybe we don't have experience with their products because we have experience with electronics theory that tells us why they are not likely to be worth the money. I can think of a lot of things to spend $750 on that I know will improve my life rather than a Fireface UFX mod that I can see no evidence helps. Remember: The burden of proof is always on the claimant. They have to prove their mods do something, I don't have to prove they don't. They also make some pretty extraordinary claims like "The difference after the mod is analogous to the effect of comparing regular flat and pixilated video to the vivid sharpness and dimension of High Definition." The difference between SD and HD is exceedingly easy to see, and to test. Something like that should be 20/20 in a blind test choice and the measurements should be clear as day on an AP.
 
However I'd be happy to test it, if you want. I happen to work for a University that has all the equipment we'd need for some good measurements and tests. If you want to purchase a modded unit for me, or lend me one for an extended time, I'll spend the time arranging a test.

Gee, thanks for all that. I had no idea how math and science worked.
 
I'm not sure why you're talking about monitors. Obviously, your monitoring chain and environment must accurately reflect what's been recorded. I'm saying that digital recording, while theoretically and measurably more accurate, doesn't necessarily sound as good as analog in many situations.
 
Blind tests and interviews and statistical analyses of people's tastes are all well and good, but when it comes to what I personally do when making music, I'd rather just trust my ears to let me know what sounds good and what doesn't. I don't have time to arrange a blind test for every new piece of hardware or software I audition or to assemble a focus group to tell me whether my latest fader move improved things. Seriously, if I started second-guessing everything I hear, I'd never be able to mix a track.
 
If it sounds good to me, it is good -- that's how I like to do it. All the theories, measurements, claims, test results, and forum postings in the world won't convince me something sounds good if I don't like what I hear -- and vice versa.
 
Finally, I doubt you're going to have much luck forcing gearmongers to start providing irrefutable proof that their products are worth the asking price, or to stop using hyperbole in their ad copy. If that happened, how could we make fun of them? It would be so boring. 
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 

Eddie TX

Sycraft
So at the very least I'd need to see a blind test where someone demonstrates they can pick out their modded kit reliably before I'm interested. Then to really be convinced I need to see measurements to make sure that it actually made the sound better, not just different.

 
Wow. I'd be interested to know what that measurement is that proves that something sounds "better" to the human ear. I'll have to use it on all my mixes. 
 
Cheers,
Eddie
 

Many of the mods BLA has done is slated to improve the accuracy of the hardware, not so much the subjective, audible improvements--although there's claims to support audible improvements as well. Bitflipper does have a point in that what BLA does should be backed up by credible, measurable tests. Whether your ears can hear the difference is irrelevant, other than the idea is to get the (potential or audible) faults out of your signal chain.

I use a BLA clock on my MOTU, and I've made some OP-AMP mods that many claim to improve my signal chain. Can I hear a difference? I think the biggest difference is in the clarity of transients at 96Khz because of the external BLA clock. Aside from that, typically OP-AMP mods aren't always measured improvements, since an improvement can be subjective. In may cases they simply change the character to some very critical ears out there. And I'll admit, even as a Mastering engineer, I can barely tell a difference in many of them.

Are BLA mods placebo? Maybe some good A/B tests would help, but if were after accuracy vs. clarity, smoothness, warmth, etc. then measuring the difference between modded and un-modded with the appropriate measurement tools is a good start. Blind A/B tests might be faulty if other parts of the audio interface is different. In cases like that, perhaps the audio other interface might be the improvement, not the mod.

So, let's go back to the OP and BLA. Should the OP invest $ into a BLA mod? Depends. Are there issues cropping up that cause unwarranted artifacts in the audio, or smeared transients? Is this an attempt to do a mod based on others' feedback? Does the OP want to improve accuracy of the hardware, or simply make it sound better? For the latter, I'd go down the path of more training and practice in recording/mixing/monitoring before I would go to BLA. Invest in better mics, room, Pre's, plug-ins, monitoring, cabling, etc. first.


If the OP has the best gear he needs and significant training and experience, a mod is not likely the direction I would go unless under a significant budget. The experienced ears, one who has exhausted all other areas of studio building, will demand simply a better audio interface and maybe it's time to upgrade.

After reading all the back and forth on this, I decided I'm not really interested.
 
Anyway, my original question was asked more out of pure curiosity than any real desire to send my Babyface in for their upgrade service. I've seen many references to Black Lion over the years I've been doing home recording, and I was curious to know what others' experience was like.
 
As mentioned above, there are a lot of other avenues I could pursue to improve what I'm hearing in my home studio (in particular, my studio area is badly in need of acoustic treatment, which I think would be a far better investment of time and money).

In this bizarro world of "alternative facts", it's encouraging to see a win for Reason.

Amicus717
After reading all the back and forth on this, I decided I'm not really interested.
 
Anyway, my original question was asked more out of pure curiosity than any real desire to send my Babyface in for their upgrade service. I've seen many references to Black Lion over the years I've been doing home recording, and I was curious to know what others' experience was like.
 
As mentioned above, there are a lot of other avenues I could pursue to improve what I'm hearing in my home studio (in particular, my studio area is badly in need of acoustic treatment, which I think would be a far better investment of time and money).

I think nearly everyone goes through this phase of searching, and it's healthy. However, the thing I realize from most of the professionals I've spoken to is, the one thing everyone should work hardest to improve is ear-training and just listening. So much of what we do is highly dependent on what we do vs. what we use.

Acoustic treatment will provide some seriously satisfying results. Placement of your speakers will, too. I just recently published the acoustic measurements of my room, which has great acoustic treatment. here
 
In the graph near the bottom of the page, you can see how my room responds from my listening position, and it's amazing how great the room sounds, all the way down to sub 30Hz. That treatment made a huge difference in what I was hearing. My output was (at the time) a Soundblaster Audigy 2 card from 2003, although these measurements were made through a MOTU 24CoreIO D/A.