The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
96 i/o or 192 i/o Question Audio Interfaces
Old 3rd December 2008
  #1
Gear Addict
 

96 i/o or 192 i/o Question

Can someone please clear this up? My question is regarding the converter quality of the 96 & 192. Other than the additional input and output and the fact that the 912 and can up to 192Khxz sampling, are the converters quality the same? Meaning if I am running a mix at 44.1KHz and only using 8 channels of i/o. Is the 192 going to make any difference at all??? Thank you,
Tguy
Old 3rd December 2008
  #2
If I remember correctly, the 96io is basically the innards of the old Mix-era 888, which many find to sound brittle or unflattering. The sound of the 888 was a lot of the reason why Apogee became known for quality converters, since the 8000 sounded so much better than the 888 and was the only affordable alternative.

The 192 implemented a new design, and the AD/DA does sound different regardless of sampling rate.
Old 3rd December 2008
  #3
Gear Addict
 

So the 96 i/o and the 888-24s are the same? Can someone verify that? Why wouldnt people just buy the 888s then and use a legacy port on the 192s. Is that just Digis way of making you pay $2000 for something that is worth $300?
Old 3rd December 2008
  #4
Gear Maniac
 
Gearhero's Avatar
 

No digi converter sounds even close to acceptable. Once Dan Lavry comes out with a 192 converter buy that. Until then use RADAR and forget about protools if you want your music to be the best it can be.
Old 3rd December 2008
  #5
Gear Addict
 

I have heard the 192s up close and work done on the 192s without external converters. To my ears, they are acceptable (and quite good). However, I have not heard the 96s or anything (to my knowledge) done on them. I guess that is my real question.
Old 3rd December 2008
  #6
Lives for gear
 

The 96 interface sounds great. I've mixed and recorded a bunch on both and have never heard a real difference between them....mostly @ 44/48 but a couple projects have been 88/96.

-B
Old 3rd December 2008
  #7
Gear Addict
 

Thanks. I used to own an 888-24 when I was working on MIX system and I have to say I thought that interface was really bad.
Old 3rd December 2008
  #8
Gear Nut
 
Stefanizzi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhero View Post
No digi converter sounds even close to acceptable. Once Dan Lavry comes out with a 192 converter buy that. [...].
...But there are some other decent ADC on the planet! heh.
Don't wait, get a Sphinx II or a dCS 905 and go to DXD (or 192kHz if you like).

Best Regards
Old 3rd December 2008
  #9
Gear Addict
 

I had also heard, just to note, that if the 96s are clocked with an Apogee or similiar, it will actually make them sound better in terms of conversion. Is this true? I have an Apogee Rosetta and can use it to clock the 96. Both the 96 and 192s are old in terms of digital technology though. My Steinberg MR816 has really nice converters. But has digital conversion really gotten any better (overall) in the last 5 or 6 years? I know there have been minor improvements but nothing as big as the 16bit to 24bit leap.
Old 3rd December 2008
  #10
Gear Maniac
 
Gearhero's Avatar
 

yes, actually try clocking them with an isochrone atomic clock. Joel Hamilton swears by this.

The advice of this forum has always been that converters are critical to your sound. Also converters will all sound different. Therefore if you really care about your music you should invest in not only Apogee but Lavry's, Myteks and Cranesong HEDD depending on what sounds you want to capture. All converters have their strengths and weaknesses just like pres.
Old 3rd December 2008
  #11
Lives for gear
 
jslevin's Avatar
The 96 i/o sounds like hell. It is below the standard of low-cost Presonus and Alesis interfaces, to give you an approximation.

The 192 i/o sounds pretty good and totally acceptable.

The 192 Digital i/o sounds like whatever converters you connect to it.

The concept of fixing a $300 converter by attaching a $1000 clock to it ought to be viewed with considerable skepticism. Are we supposed to believe that converters are not important, but clocks are?

Okay, maybe -- sometimes a lousy converter is really just a decent converter on a lousy clock, that is true, and it may be the case with the 96 i/o. But instead of spending money on an external clock, why not just get a converter with a better internal clock?

If you're on a budget, your best option is just to start with a 192 i/o. If you have a little more flexibility, try the 192 Digital and pick out a nice converter for it -- a Rosetta or Lucid would do nicely.

JSL
Old 4th December 2008
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhero View Post
No digi converter sounds even close to acceptable. Once Dan Lavry comes out with a 192 converter buy that. Until then use RADAR and forget about protools if you want your music to be the best it can be.
Rubbish, the 192i/os are quite competitive with any converter out there.

I wasn't sure until recently, but a tech team from one of the big 3 labels carried out extensive listening tests recently, with the view to archiving analogue multitracks. The list of listeners (20 + working engineers/producers) was quite impressive in itself.
They compared the Digi 192's to other converters like Apogees, Lavrys, UAs, Prisms & Pacific Microsonics along with various clocking options.

The winner was the Digi 192 clocked by the Isochrone 10M Antelope.

I have to admit I was surprised and also realise that a listening test is not a scientific study.
Admittedly, the clock is more expensive than the converters and the result goes against much current thinking and trends, but there you go.
Old 4th December 2008
  #13
Gear Maniac
 
Gearhero's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRB View Post
Rubbish, the 192i/os are quite competitive with any converter out there.

I wasn't sure until recently, but a tech team from one of the big 3 labels carried out extensive listening tests recently, with the view to archiving analogue multitracks. The list of listeners (20 + working engineers/producers) was quite impressive in itself.
They compared the Digi 192's to other converters like Apogees, Lavrys, UAs, Prisms & Pacific Microsonics along with various clocking options.

The winner was the Digi 192 clocked by the Isochrone 10M Antelope.

I have to admit I was surprised and also realise that a listening test is not a scientific study.
Admittedly, the clock is more expensive than the converters and the result goes against much current thinking and trends, but there you go.
Cool, did they publish the study or was it for internal purposes only? If published can you provide a link. Interesting that they chose the one clocked with an isochrone 10m. That goes against the accepted scientific rational of external clocking not adding any pleasing distortion to the sound.
Old 4th December 2008
  #14
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhero View Post
Cool, did they publish the study or was it for internal purposes only? If published can you provide a link. Interesting that they chose the one clocked with an isochrone 10m. That goes against the accepted scientific rational of external clocking not adding any pleasing distortion to the sound.
No, it won't be published anytime soon. The tests are still ongoing, awaiting final approval of the "Man".
Things like final tape machine have to be decided.

I'm just happy we don't have to spend £25,000 on new converters.
Old 4th December 2008
  #15
Gear Addict
 

"The 96 i/o sounds like hell. It is below the standard of low-cost Presonus and Alesis interfaces, to give you an approximation."

Are you sure about that? Have you heard the bull **** that is out there man? Does anyone agree with me here. Below the standard???? Wow that is harsh. Have you done an A/B comparison yourself?
Old 4th December 2008
  #16
Lives for gear
 
jslevin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tguy View Post
"The 96 i/o sounds like hell. It is below the standard of low-cost Presonus and Alesis interfaces, to give you an approximation."

Are you sure about that? Have you heard the bull **** that is out there man? Does anyone agree with me here. Below the standard???? Wow that is harsh. Have you done an A/B comparison yourself?
I don't do A/B comparisons, I do actual work. I bring in gear, and my staff and I use it.

I have used the 96 i/o, and its converters were noticeably worse quality than a stock Alesis HD24 or a Presonus Firestation or Firepod. I am assuming that their current and more recent or high-end products are as good as or better than their old ones.

JSL
Old 4th December 2008
  #17
Gear Addict
 

So what you are saying is the 96i/os are inferior to the 002 and 003s?
Old 5th December 2008
  #18
Lives for gear
 
jslevin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tguy View Post
So what you are saying is the 96i/os are inferior to the 002 and 003s?
No, by "their current products" I was referring to Alesis and Presonus.

The 002 sounds more or less like ass, but I can't recall the 96 and 002 well enough to compare the two. I haven't heard the 003.

JSL
Old 5th December 2008
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by tguy View Post
Can someone please clear this up? My question is regarding the converter quality of the 96 & 192. Other than the additional input and output and the fact that the 912 and can up to 192Khxz sampling, are the converters quality the same? Meaning if I am running a mix at 44.1KHz and only using 8 channels of i/o. Is the 192 going to make any difference at all??? Thank you,
Tguy
I have both 96's and 192's ... the 192's sound quite a bit superior to the
96's. As far as 192's compared to other converters .. honestly, I don't think
the 192's get the respect they deserve. It's a really fine box with a very
stable clock.

As far as the 96's are concerned .. i have no problem with the 96 D/A .. I
have a problem with it A/D...

jeff
Old 5th December 2008
  #20
Gear Maniac
 
Gearhero's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jslevin View Post

The 002 sounds more or less like ass
True it does sound like ass. I can spot tracks made with it just by the stench. No professional would touch it.
Old 5th December 2008
  #21
Lives for gear
 
whitepapagold's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhero View Post
Once Dan Lavry comes out with a 192 converter buy that.
Are you for real????? Do you even know Dans stance on 192k? Jeeze what a ridiculous statement. You plug the guy then ignore the entire foundation for his work....

Buy a Lavry NOW. They sound incredible. 192 is BS and a waste of drive space. I own the Digi 192 and Lavry black- the Lavry is definitely preferred but I still like the 192 for bang for the buck.

This site makes me sad...
Old 5th December 2008
  #22
Lives for gear
 
jslevin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitepapagold View Post
Are you for real????? Do you even know Dans stance on 192k? Jeeze what a ridiculous statement. You plug the guy then ignore the entire foundation for his work....

Buy a Lavry NOW. They sound incredible. 192 is BS and a waste of drive space. I own the Digi 192 and Lavry black- the Lavry is definitely preferred but I still like the 192 for bang for the buck.
+1, and thank you, I forgot to mention this. Don't be sad.

Anyone "waiting for the 192 Lavry product" is simply clueless. You might as well wait for a Lavry cassette deck.

JSL
Old 5th December 2008
  #23
Gear Maniac
 
Gearhero's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jslevin View Post
+1, and thank you, I forgot to mention this. Don't be sad.

Anyone "waiting for the 192 Lavry product" is simply clueless. You might as well wait for a Lavry cassette deck.

JSL
I want one of those Lavry cassette decks. Probably have the best analogue path ever!
Old 5th December 2008
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jslevin View Post
+1, and thank you, I forgot to mention this. Don't be sad.

Anyone "waiting for the 192 Lavry product" is simply clueless. You might as well wait for a Lavry cassette deck.

JSL
+2.

So true.

Just another bunch of people won over by a clever marketing ploy.
Old 5th December 2008
  #25
vdz
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tguy View Post
So what you are saying is the 96i/os are inferior to the 002 and 003s?
i owned a 002 & 003 before and the 96 i/o converters is a few steps up from the 003 and definitely the 002
Old 5th December 2008
  #26
Gear Maniac
 
pieter's Avatar
 

Owned a 96 and 192.

192 is clearly a step up.

However sold my 192 and bought a Lynx Aurora 16.

Now got double the quality and double the number of channels (16 in/16 out + 16 digi in and 16 digi out) with money to spare !
Old 5th December 2008
  #27
Lives for gear
 
jslevin's Avatar
With money to spare? I doubt very much you sold your stock 192 for more money than you paid for the Aurora. (It's a good piece and a great value, but it's amazing the exaggerations people throw around concerning this product.)

JSL
Old 5th December 2008
  #28
Gear Addict
 

Has anyone tried clocking the 96i/o to an Apogee or something else and got better results? I am going to try it myself but will most likely sell the 96i and pick up the 192. Honestly, I have the Rosetta but I really am not "wowed" by it. Its very acurate but the 192s seemed more "musical" to me and easier to get results from.
Old 5th December 2008
  #29
Lives for gear
 
DJamesGoody's Avatar
Buy a lynx aurora and spend the rest of your time and money learning how to record instruments properly, and all should be fine.

Some of us have made respectable recordings with those things called 888/24. Tools don't make the mechanic fellas...
Old 6th December 2008
  #30
Lives for gear
 
jslevin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGoody View Post
Some of us have made respectable recordings with those things called 888/24. Tools don't make the mechanic fellas...
If you really believe that, what are you doing here, and why not tell him to just get the far cheaper 96 i/o?

Of course tools don't make the mechanic. Obviously. But a good mechanic wants good tools, so he/she can do his work as well as possible, as quickly as possible, and without wanting to kill someone by the time it's done.

JSL
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
RedWallStudio / High End
61
Petrusha / So Much Gear, So Little Time
16
Mike Caffrey / So Much Gear, So Little Time
8
vudoo / So Much Gear, So Little Time
4
dartmusic / Music Computers
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump