[cannone]

i'm helping somebody rig out a studio. we are installing an A&H GL2400 desk
and a PC running Cubase 4, but i am looking for a GOOD soundcard to pair up
with it

I've looked at the MOTU 24i/o which seems to have what i'm looking for. the
only thing i'm worried about is that the 24i/o is only 24/96. i'm worried
that i install it and in a year or so from now the client need 24/192 and
the card isn't compatable.

does anyone know of something similar to the 24i/o which is 24/192
compatable?

TIA

K.C

[Dave Allison]

Motu HD192 ?
http://www.motu.com/products/pciaudio/HD192/

Significantly more expensive though.

I get good results with a 24I/O

Dave.


cannone wrote:
i'm helping somebody rig out a studio. we are installing an A&H GL2400 desk
and a PC running Cubase 4, but i am looking for a GOOD soundcard to pair up
with it

I've looked at the MOTU 24i/o which seems to have what i'm looking for. the
only thing i'm worried about is that the 24i/o is only 24/96. i'm worried
that i install it and in a year or so from now the client need 24/192 and
the card isn't compatable.

does anyone know of something similar to the 24i/o which is 24/192
compatable?

TIA

K.C

[cannone]

Hi Dave.
Thanks for the reply.
i've checked out the HD192 and it looks good. 1 quick questions..are the XLR
in's +4 Line inputs or is that actually a a Preamp?

K.C

"Dave Allison" wrote in message
...
Motu HD192 ?
http://www.motu.com/products/pciaudio/HD192/

Significantly more expensive though.

I get good results with a 24I/O

Dave.


cannone wrote:
i'm helping somebody rig out a studio. we are installing an A&H GL2400
desk
and a PC running Cubase 4, but i am looking for a GOOD soundcard to pair
up
with it

I've looked at the MOTU 24i/o which seems to have what i'm looking for.
the
only thing i'm worried about is that the 24i/o is only 24/96. i'm worried
that i install it and in a year or so from now the client need 24/192 and
the card isn't compatable.

does anyone know of something similar to the 24i/o which is 24/192
compatable?

TIA

K.C

[HKC]

I've looked at the MOTU 24i/o which seems to have what i'm looking for.
the only thing i'm worried about is that the 24i/o is only 24/96. i'm
worried that i install it and in a year or so from now the client need
24/192 and the card isn't compatable.


You could easily turn that one around and ask yourself, do I see DVD audio
taking over during the next couple of years. If not then there can be saved
a lot of money not jumping on that wagon until it´s actually in sight. Think
of all the people who jumped on the (at that time) expensive 96 train and
nothing happened, most still record in 44.1 or 48.
24 bit was, and is, a huge success, the additional bandwidth..... well not
so much. Remember that 192 KHz puts 3-4 times more pressure on your hard
drive and recording 24 tracks at one time is obviously a lot in 192.
Just my opinion, I still record 24/44.1 but I will change that when it´s
called for until then....who cares, the difference is hardly audible, it´s
basically invented to keep us all handing over our hard earned cash.

[cannone]

yeah...i get it.
i did the same years back and bought a Echo Layla20bit and lots of companies
were bringing out cheap 24bit cards. but i bit the bullet and bought a high
end 20bit, cause the sound quality was MUCH better than the cheap 24bit. and
at the end of the day, most people are still just mixing to cd which you in
any case need to dither to 16bit 44.1khz

as mentioned in one of my other posts, i took a look at the MOTU HD192
(after Dave Alison recommended it) and i looks good and gives you 192k, etc
but is only 12 channel and would work out more than double the price of the
24i/o if i bought another 12ch expander.

if the chances are we're never going to use the 192k, then why spend the
extra...
could use the cash on other items for the studio instead

Thanks. i'll put it to the client

"HKC" wrote in message
k...
I've looked at the MOTU 24i/o which seems to have what i'm looking for.
the only thing i'm worried about is that the 24i/o is only 24/96. i'm
worried that i install it and in a year or so from now the client need
24/192 and the card isn't compatable.


You could easily turn that one around and ask yourself, do I see DVD audio
taking over during the next couple of years. If not then there can be
saved a lot of money not jumping on that wagon until it´s actually in
sight. Think of all the people who jumped on the (at that time) expensive
96 train and nothing happened, most still record in 44.1 or 48.
24 bit was, and is, a huge success, the additional bandwidth..... well not
so much. Remember that 192 KHz puts 3-4 times more pressure on your hard
drive and recording 24 tracks at one time is obviously a lot in 192.
Just my opinion, I still record 24/44.1 but I will change that when it´s
called for until then....who cares, the difference is hardly audible, it´s
basically invented to keep us all handing over our hard earned cash.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 2, 3:17 am, "cannone" wrote:

I've looked at the MOTU 24i/o which seems to have what i'm looking for. the
only thing i'm worried about is that the 24i/o is only 24/96. i'm worried
that i install it and in a year or so from now the client need 24/192 and
the card isn't compatable.

You should talk to your client, or at least figure out what you'll be
delivering in another year. While most of us agree that buying new
gear that isn't capable of 96 kHz sample rate isn't, as a rule, a good
investment, many of us are still debating whether 96 kHz recording is
really necessary. Nobody can see any practical use for 192 kHz
recording other than very specialized projects. If all you need to do
is DELIVER 192 kHz files, you can record at whatever sample rate is
convenient and convert the final product to whatever sample rate the
client wants. Nobody will ever know the difference unless they're
specifically looking for content above 45 kHz or so.

If you want better QUALITY than the MOTU 24 can offer, you might look
into Apogee AD16 and DA16 or Lynx Aurora converters with Firewire I/O.
But that's something that the project and the rest of the budget
should dictate. Apparently you're just getting set up to do something
new, or buying gear to match a specific client's projects. You need to
find out what you'll really need, not just what he thinks you need.

[Arny Krueger]

"cannone" wrote in message
...
i'm helping somebody rig out a studio. we are installing an A&H GL2400
desk
and a PC running Cubase 4, but i am looking for a GOOD soundcard to pair
up
with it

I've looked at the MOTU 24i/o which seems to have what i'm looking for.
the
only thing i'm worried about is that the 24i/o is only 24/96. i'm worried
that i install it and in a year or so from now the client need 24/192 and
the card isn't compatable.

does anyone know of something similar to the 24i/o which is 24/192
compatable?

I have half a dozen cards that can do 24/192, and I've never used them for
anything but testing. I've done some recording with them @ 96 KHz, and there
seems to be no advantage to it. Here is a collection of recordings presented
after being downsampled. Most people find that downsampling is undetectable
until the sample rate is well below 44 KHz.
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

As far as consumer interest in 24/192 or 24/96 goes, you should know that
sales of both DVD-As and SACDs dropped like 50% in the last half of 2006,
according to the RIAA. IMO this is just a matter of the truth outing - even
the basic CD-A format has more dynamic range and bandwidth than is required
to reproduce music effectively. Consumers are spending their money on lower
resolution formats, not higher resolution formats. And, this is despite the
fact that the use of higher resolution formats is becoming more practical.
For example, I have a portable digital music player that has always been
loaded with primarily 16/44 files - no MP3s to speak of. It still has more
music than I can play in any reasonable amount of time.

There is no reliable evidence based on consumer use of so-called "hi-rez"
audio recordings that shows any audible evidence of any audible benefits at
all for so-called hi resolution distribution formats, despite at least 5
years of attempts to develop it. OK, there are all sorts of informal
evaluations, magazine reviews and sales pitches. People tend to be
optimistic about new technology. But, when basic experimental controls are
put into place, their alleged benefits disappear.

If you understand how recordings are made and played, the reasons why are
clear, and have been discussed here many times. It's not just the regulars
at RAP that say this - big-name recordists like Katz and Massenberg agree.

In production, 24 and 32 bit processing can make sense, because it provides
performance and convenience advantages. However, even the era of 96 KHz
sampling in digital mixing consoles may be drawing to an end - the last 3
new digital consoles that Yamaha announced top out at 48 KHz. Admittedly
their focus is live sound, but the message is that despite the continued
drop in the cost of processing power and high sample rate converters, the
real world payoff for high sample rates just ain't there.

[HKC]

if the chances are we're never going to use the 192k, then why spend the
extra...
could use the cash on other items for the studio instead


I actually do think that 192 KHz may happen but like somebody else
mentioned, you won't be able to hear it and you can just convert the files
after you have mixed. I don't think that it will happen anytime soon though
and at the moment MP3 (or the Apple equivalent) seem to be what the world is
going for due to all the internet action.
Back in the 60s everybody had reel to reels but they lost completely out to
cassettes in the 70s due to convenience and certainly not quality. So
history repeats itself and in the end most of us are in it for the music so
as long as it doesn't sound terrible who cares.....
Strange words coming from a guy with a closet full of expensive mics,
vintage guitars and amps, all the latest plugins, $2000 preamps, even $200
headphones (and lots of them) etc but I seriously think that in many areas
and particularly as far as dynamics and bandwidth goes we have reached, and
passed, the point where our ears can tell the difference.
I can easily make a CD so loud that most players won't be able to play it
back without distorting, and it still doesn't sound overly compressed in the
controlroom but what's the point. When the world gets better playback
equipment I will consider buying whatever it takes to keep up with that
standard but at the moment I'm way ahead of them.

[Philip Homburg]

In article ,
HKC wrote:
I actually do think that 192 KHz may happen but like somebody else
mentioned, you won't be able to hear it and you can just convert the files
after you have mixed. I don't think that it will happen anytime soon though
and at the moment MP3 (or the Apple equivalent) seem to be what the world is
going for due to all the internet action.
Back in the 60s everybody had reel to reels but they lost completely out to
cassettes in the 70s due to convenience and certainly not quality. So
history repeats itself and in the end most of us are in it for the music so
as long as it doesn't sound terrible who cares.....

[...]

I can easily make a CD so loud that most players won't be able to play it
back without distorting, and it still doesn't sound overly compressed in the
controlroom but what's the point. When the world gets better playback
equipment I will consider buying whatever it takes to keep up with that
standard but at the moment I'm way ahead of them.

What a strange argument. In the past (cassettes replacing reels) but also at
the moment (mp3 for downloads) the low quality format has many practical
advantages.

But talking about CDs, putting the same music in higher quality on a DVD
doesn't cost a lot more (for some reason, DVDs often retail for less than CDs,
and they contain apart from the video part more audio as well. So production
cost can't be an issue).

My DVD (not DVD-A) player is quite capable of sending 96 kHz to a high-end
DAC.

But somebody seems to have decided that better than 48/16 quality can only
released in weird encrypted formats.

So I just limit myself to buying CDs until somebody comes up with a reasonable
format.

(Compressing music until it doesn't playback properly on most CD players
strikes me as a bad use of bits. The idea behind 24 bit/ch is supposed
to be that you don't have to get as close to 0dBfs as possible).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

[Arny Krueger]

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...

My DVD (not DVD-A) player is quite capable of sending 96 kHz to a high-end
DAC.

But somebody seems to have decided that better than 48/16 quality can only
released in weird encrypted formats.

It's all about content protection. SACD in particular seems to have been
invented to try to keep everybody from making digital copies. Thing is, ADC
price/performance has improved to the point where even back-to-back
conversions need not have any audible effects, and at a mot-unasonable
price.

So I just limit myself to buying CDs until somebody comes up with a
reasonable
format.

The biggest problem I see with commercial CDs is that so many of them are
super-compressed.


(Compressing music until it doesn't playback properly on most CD players
strikes me as a bad use of bits. The idea behind 24 bit/ch is supposed
to be that you don't have to get as close to 0dBfs as possible).

16 well-placed bits is all that needed to convey the full dynamic range of
just about any studio or live recording with plenty of headroom.

[RD Jones]

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
The biggest problem I see with commercial CDs is that so many of them are
super-compressed.

It's the hard clipping that really annoys me ...

rd

[Arny Krueger]

"RD Jones" wrote in message
ups.com...

"Arny Krueger" wrote:
The biggest problem I see with commercial CDs is that so many of them are
super-compressed.

It's the hard clipping that really annoys me ...


Agreed.

And of course some mix the two.

:-(

[Dave Allison]

Hi,

It's +4 only, no pre-amps

http://www.motu.com/products/pciaudio/HD192/specs.html

Dave.

cannone wrote:
Hi Dave.
Thanks for the reply.
i've checked out the HD192 and it looks good. 1 quick questions..are the XLR
in's +4 Line inputs or is that actually a a Preamp?

K.C

"Dave Allison" wrote in message
...
Motu HD192 ?
http://www.motu.com/products/pciaudio/HD192/

Significantly more expensive though.

I get good results with a 24I/O

Dave.


cannone wrote:
i'm helping somebody rig out a studio. we are installing an A&H GL2400
desk
and a PC running Cubase 4, but i am looking for a GOOD soundcard to pair
up
with it

I've looked at the MOTU 24i/o which seems to have what i'm looking for.
the
only thing i'm worried about is that the 24i/o is only 24/96. i'm worried
that i install it and in a year or so from now the client need 24/192 and
the card isn't compatable.

does anyone know of something similar to the 24i/o which is 24/192
compatable?

TIA

K.C

[Mogens V.]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...


My DVD (not DVD-A) player is quite capable of sending 96 kHz to a high-end
DAC.

But somebody seems to have decided that better than 48/16 quality can only
released in weird encrypted formats.

It's all about content protection. SACD in particular seems to have been
invented to try to keep everybody from making digital copies. Thing is, ADC
price/performance has improved to the point where even back-to-back
conversions need not have any audible effects, and at a mot-unasonable
price.

So I just limit myself to buying CDs until somebody comes up with a
reasonable
format.

The biggest problem I see with commercial CDs is that so many of them are
super-compressed.


(Compressing music until it doesn't playback properly on most CD players
strikes me as a bad use of bits. The idea behind 24 bit/ch is supposed
to be that you don't have to get as close to 0dBfs as possible).

Sure. These NGs resently had a very interesting thread about this. About
the raging loudness war. 24 bit won't help much if everybody continues
to abuse those bits to try make dem songs louder than the competition.

16 well-placed bits is all that needed to convey the full dynamic range of
just about any studio or live recording with plenty of headroom.

Hmm, agreed, but WRT classical and such... strikes me that to capture
the full dynamic range of a concert, there's only a few bits left to
define Yehudi Menuhin (sorry bout spelling) when the finger is way up
the high string ending a beatyful vibrato gently lifting the bow. Sorry
bout overrated phrases. And yes, he probably doesn't record much now...

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mogens V." wrote in message
...

16 well-placed bits is all that needed to convey the full dynamic range
of just about any studio or live recording with plenty of headroom.

Hmm, agreed, but WRT classical and such... strikes me that to capture the
full dynamic range of a concert, there's only a few bits left to define
Yehudi Menuhin (sorry bout spelling) when the finger is way up the high
string ending a beatyful vibrato gently lifting the bow.

If everybody stops playing and holds their breath, the noise floor on a very
dynamic classical recording will be no more than 65 dB below peak levels.
That leaves you 30 dB of headroom (or footroom) in 16 bit land. That's 5
bits.

Audio can be audible even when it is 10 db below the noise floor of a
well-dithered recording. Thus, there is really more like 7 bits of
effective headroom+footroom for a very dynamic classical recording. BTW,
this analysis does not include the benefits of noise shaping, which might be
good for 2 or 3 more bits.

With really agressive noise shaping, the midband noise floor can be close to
120 dB below peak levels on a 16 bit recording.

[Mogens V.]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote in message
...


16 well-placed bits is all that needed to convey the full dynamic range
of just about any studio or live recording with plenty of headroom.


Hmm, agreed, but WRT classical and such... strikes me that to capture the
full dynamic range of a concert, there's only a few bits left to define
Yehudi Menuhin (sorry bout spelling) when the finger is way up the high
string ending a beatyful vibrato gently lifting the bow.


If everybody stops playing and holds their breath, the noise floor on a very
dynamic classical recording will be no more than 65 dB below peak levels.
That leaves you 30 dB of headroom (or footroom) in 16 bit land. That's 5
bits.

Yup, that's what I meant.

Audio can be audible even when it is 10 db below the noise floor of a
well-dithered recording. Thus, there is really more like 7 bits of
effective headroom+footroom for a very dynamic classical recording. BTW,
this analysis does not include the benefits of noise shaping, which might be
good for 2 or 3 more bits.

With really agressive noise shaping, the midband noise floor can be close to
120 dB below peak levels on a 16 bit recording.

You've probably noted in my studio gear postings, I've got a lot to read
up on; noise shaping is yet another topic. Is this covered in any of the
books in my audio books thread on r.a.t? Haven't ordered any yet, still
compiling shopping lists - which tends to grow all the time

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mogens V." wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote in message
...


16 well-placed bits is all that needed to convey the full dynamic range
of just about any studio or live recording with plenty of headroom.


Hmm, agreed, but WRT classical and such... strikes me that to capture the
full dynamic range of a concert, there's only a few bits left to define
Yehudi Menuhin (sorry bout spelling) when the finger is way up the high
string ending a beatyful vibrato gently lifting the bow.


If everybody stops playing and holds their breath, the noise floor on a
very dynamic classical recording will be no more than 65 dB below peak
levels. That leaves you 30 dB of headroom (or footroom) in 16 bit land.
That's 5 bits.

Yup, that's what I meant.

Audio can be audible even when it is 10 db below the noise floor of a
well-dithered recording. Thus, there is really more like 7 bits of
effective headroom+footroom for a very dynamic classical recording. BTW,
this analysis does not include the benefits of noise shaping, which might
be good for 2 or 3 more bits.

With really agressive noise shaping, the midband noise floor can be close
to 120 dB below peak levels on a 16 bit recording.

You've probably noted in my studio gear postings, I've got a lot to read
up on; noise shaping is yet another topic. Is this covered in any of the
books in my audio books thread on r.a.t? Haven't ordered any yet, still
compiling shopping lists - which tends to grow all the time

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

[Mogens V.]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mogens V." wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Mogens V." wrote in message
.dk...



16 well-placed bits is all that needed to convey the full dynamic range
of just about any studio or live recording with plenty of headroom.


Hmm, agreed, but WRT classical and such... strikes me that to capture the
full dynamic range of a concert, there's only a few bits left to define
Yehudi Menuhin (sorry bout spelling) when the finger is way up the high
string ending a beatyful vibrato gently lifting the bow.


If everybody stops playing and holds their breath, the noise floor on a
very dynamic classical recording will be no more than 65 dB below peak
levels. That leaves you 30 dB of headroom (or footroom) in 16 bit land.
That's 5 bits.

Yup, that's what I meant.


Audio can be audible even when it is 10 db below the noise floor of a
well-dithered recording. Thus, there is really more like 7 bits of
effective headroom+footroom for a very dynamic classical recording. BTW,
this analysis does not include the benefits of noise shaping, which might
be good for 2 or 3 more bits.

With really agressive noise shaping, the midband noise floor can be close
to 120 dB below peak levels on a 16 bit recording.

You've probably noted in my studio gear postings, I've got a lot to read
up on; noise shaping is yet another topic. Is this covered in any of the
books in my audio books thread on r.a.t? Haven't ordered any yet, still
compiling shopping lists - which tends to grow all the time


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

Ahh yes, been away from hardware design too long to remember what it
stands for. I actually used it in my digital delay project back in '84
(finishing project in an electronics education), though in a somewhat
simple form, just adding a white noise generator.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.