96 io or 192

music · 15th April 2004, 12:49 AM

Charles, I am going to upgrade from mix plus to hd1. Converters-192 or 96. I will be reording at 44.1 and 24 bit. I was going to get hd with the new apogee ad 16 x series converter but they are not ready and there are some questions around the support digi will give the apogee hd cards. So it comes down to money at this point. Do you know if the 192 and the 96 have the same converters? Have you tried both? If you have compared, does the 192 sound "that" much better or just a little. I need 16 in and 8 out. If I get the 192 I will need to get the extra ad card for 16 in. If I need 16 in for the 96 will I need to buy two units? How do either of these compare to the 888/24 (which is what I have now)

Thanks,

Keith

ixnys · 15th April 2004, 01:05 AM

I have a 192 i/o but have yet to record anything at 192 samples. I still stick with 48khz because even with a HD3 I seem to run out of DSP power sometimes, plus I ALWAYS go over 30 tracks. I think the converters in the HD i/o are great. I have an Apogee PSX 100se and I don't see much of a difference between the two.

C.Lambrechts · 15th April 2004, 01:53 AM

both the 192 and 96 are improvements to the 888/24 imho. The 192 stands out by miles not only in possibilities but especially in sound.

Kinda like comparing the 888 to the 882 at the time.

I have both but only use the 192's for recording / inserts. the 96 is my hardware synth input device. 8 analog and 8 optical with presonus pre in front of it.

When I first got both I did some (not very extensive) recordings on both to compare them. The difference is not minimal. the impressions I had back then where that the 192 was very tight and clear in the bass and clear / bright but not harsh in the mid and highs. I mentioned harsh because that's where the 96 comes in ... harsh ... or rather ... and less detail down below.

just a side note.... wordclock is VERY important in the response / achievement your AD/DA will give you. It can make or break your convertor. FWIW it might very well be that that's the field where digidesign gained the most in the way their convertors improved. The internal clock of the 192 is FAR superiour to what the 888's wher capable off. Probably the most difficult decission we had to make when we changed from mix to HD was wether to keep the aardsync as a master clock or sync the whole system with the sync I/O ... the aardsync is still there ... but it was a difficult call .. and more a feeling then better or worse realy.

music · 15th April 2004, 02:26 AM

Big Benny? hmmm. For the wordclock?

Keith

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mytek 192/Digi 192 A/B	oscar_wonderboy	High end	8	21st April 2006 10:24 PM
Apogee DAx clocking 192 or Big Ben and another 192?	Dirty Halo	High end	10	11th March 2006 10:46 AM
192: think of it this way	u b k	High end	1	11th June 2005 08:45 PM
192 sample rates on PT HD 192 I/O?????	atticus	So much gear, so little time!	11	5th December 2002 08:30 PM

15th April 2004, 12:49 AM	#1
music Gear nut Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 130	96 io or 192 Charles, I am going to upgrade from mix plus to hd1. Converters-192 or 96. I will be reording at 44.1 and 24 bit. I was going to get hd with the new apogee ad 16 x series converter but they are not ready and there are some questions around the support digi will give the apogee hd cards. So it comes down to money at this point. Do you know if the 192 and the 96 have the same converters? Have you tried both? If you have compared, does the 192 sound "that" much better or just a little. I need 16 in and 8 out. If I get the 192 I will need to get the extra ad card for 16 in. If I need 16 in for the 96 will I need to buy two units? How do either of these compare to the 888/24 (which is what I have now) Thanks, Keith

15th April 2004, 01:53 AM	#3
C.Lambrechts Lives for gear Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ans (Liege) Belgium Posts: 3,214	both the 192 and 96 are improvements to the 888/24 imho. The 192 stands out by miles not only in possibilities but especially in sound. Kinda like comparing the 888 to the 882 at the time. I have both but only use the 192's for recording / inserts. the 96 is my hardware synth input device. 8 analog and 8 optical with presonus pre in front of it. When I first got both I did some (not very extensive) recordings on both to compare them. The difference is not minimal. the impressions I had back then where that the 192 was very tight and clear in the bass and clear / bright but not harsh in the mid and highs. I mentioned harsh because that's where the 96 comes in ... harsh ... or rather ... and less detail down below. just a side note.... wordclock is VERY important in the response / achievement your AD/DA will give you. It can make or break your convertor. FWIW it might very well be that that's the field where digidesign gained the most in the way their convertors improved. The internal clock of the 192 is FAR superiour to what the 888's wher capable off. Probably the most difficult decission we had to make when we changed from mix to HD was wether to keep the aardsync as a master clock or sync the whole system with the sync I/O ... the aardsync is still there ... but it was a difficult call .. and more a feeling then better or worse realy. __________________ Chris Lambrechts MiLaR Event ITB or OTB ... Who cares .... it's all about MIXING.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

15th April 2004, 01:05 AM	#2
ixnys Gear addict Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 325	I have a 192 i/o but have yet to record anything at 192 samples. I still stick with 48khz because even with a HD3 I seem to run out of DSP power sometimes, plus I ALWAYS go over 30 tracks. I think the converters in the HD i/o are great. I have an Apogee PSX 100se and I don't see much of a difference between the two.

15th April 2004, 02:26 AM	#4
music Gear nut Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 130	Big Benny? hmmm. For the wordclock? Keith