Digi 192 Latency vs. Apogee Latency Both with HD

barryjohns · 10th February 2007

I have read in parts of other threads that the 192 I/O works seamlessly with HD as you would expect, that you will get the best latency performance. In some of those threads I have read that when using Apogee Converters with the Apogee HD Card you will get more latency when recording. Can you shed some light on the performance perspective alone? I believe the general consensus is that Apogee and other like them are better than the 192 in sound quality. Not really wanting to debate that in this thread. I am looking at strictly performance/reliability.

kittonian · 11th February 2007

The Apogees and many of the other 3rd party converters that have PT|HD i/o option cards do not share the same latency as the Digi 192 i/o. Therefore you have to manually compensate within PT in order to utilize outboard gear as i/o inserts in your mix.

The Lynx Aurora however is identical to the Digi 192 i/o in terms of latency and operation. You get 16x16 analog and 16x16 digital via AES/EBU simultaneously at sample rates up to 192khz in a 1U rack configuration. The units sound great and are as close to the sound of a Prism ADA-8 as I've ever heard (0 coloration in sound). I have mine clocked to a Big Ben to accommodate multiple digital pieces in the studio (I like to keep everything locked to the same clock).

studilaroche · 11th February 2007

Anybody have any specs on this? How much more latent is the Apogee in this situation?
Ben

kittonian · 11th February 2007

It's actually the opposite. The Apogee is a much faster converter than the 192. The Lynx is as well but with the LT-HD card the converter speed is slowed down to exactly match the timing of the 192.

Apogee has a tool on their site called AD-CALC. You can use that to gauge exactly what you'd need to do in order to have PT in perfect time when using i/o inserts.

Ruudman · 11th February 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by barryjohns

I believe the general consensus is that Apogee and other like them are better than the 192 in sound quality. Not really wanting to debate that in this thread.

Not wanting to debate either... but I believe there exist no such consensus

ruudman

thephatboi · 11th February 2007

what Joshua said....

10th February 2007	#1
barryjohns Lives for gear Joined: Oct 2006 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 3,054 Thread Starter	Digi 192 Latency vs. Apogee Latency Both with HD I have read in parts of other threads that the 192 I/O works seamlessly with HD as you would expect, that you will get the best latency performance. In some of those threads I have read that when using Apogee Converters with the Apogee HD Card you will get more latency when recording. Can you shed some light on the performance perspective alone? I believe the general consensus is that Apogee and other like them are better than the 192 in sound quality. Not really wanting to debate that in this thread. I am looking at strictly performance/reliability.

11th February 2007	#2
kittonian Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 4,324 1 Review written	The Apogees and many of the other 3rd party converters that have PT\|HD i/o option cards do not share the same latency as the Digi 192 i/o. Therefore you have to manually compensate within PT in order to utilize outboard gear as i/o inserts in your mix. The Lynx Aurora however is identical to the Digi 192 i/o in terms of latency and operation. You get 16x16 analog and 16x16 digital via AES/EBU simultaneously at sample rates up to 192khz in a 1U rack configuration. The units sound great and are as close to the sound of a Prism ADA-8 as I've ever heard (0 coloration in sound). I have mine clocked to a Big Ben to accommodate multiple digital pieces in the studio (I like to keep everything locked to the same clock). __________________ Joshua Aaron President/Chief Engineer AudioLot/AudioLot Studios High End Pro Audio Sales & Consulting Recording/Music Production/Mixing http://www.audiolot.com Follow AudioLot on Facebook for AudioLot's BIG DEAL Gear Specials, Morning Mix Tips, and more by clicking here AudioLot is located in Hollywood, CA. If you're in the LA area and are interested in coming by to see any of the gear we carry in person, please let us know.

11th February 2007	#3
studilaroche Gear maniac Joined: Nov 2005 Location: ATL Posts: 208	Anybody have any specs on this? How much more latent is the Apogee in this situation? Ben __________________ http://studilaroche.podomatic.com http://www.studilaroche.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
UAD-"What Latency?" + other PT-LE latency results	BradG	So much gear, so little time!	16	29th March 2006 01:52 AM
Apogee Mini-Me -> Latency Problems!!	bernband	Music computers	7	5th March 2006 02:09 PM
Apogee Mini-Me -> Latency Problems!!	bernband	Low End Theory	2	5th March 2006 01:04 AM
Digi 002 getting around recording latency...	angopop	Low End Theory	5	1st June 2005 03:48 AM
Latency in Digi 002R as compared to MBOX	littledoodler	Music computers	8	29th March 2004 09:55 PM

11th February 2007	#6
thephatboi Lives for gear Joined: Nov 2005 Location: LA Posts: 558	what Joshua said....