Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community (http://duc.avid.com/index.php)
-   Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) (http://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Possible configurations to *get* to 192khz (http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=97181)

Stephen J 02-12-2004 09:48 PM

Possible configurations to *get* to 192khz
 
I have a client I'm working with that insists they want a ton of channels at 192khz for HD.

I know this isn't cost effective, and is not easy to get to, but nonetheless, it is what they want.

If they were to get the control 24, and the 192 I/O - could all of control 24's analog outs(16) via
the pin connector be put into the 192 I/O? The 192 I/O stock configuration looks like it only supports 8 in
via the 25 pin connector. I assume they could buy an expansion card, and thus have 16 in to the 192 I/O running at 192 khz?

What would be some easier, other ways to get more channels of 192 - obviously buy another 192 I/O and find other 8 channel anlog preamps to come in to it.

Has anyone 'had' to make a setup like this?

The client wants around 32 channels + of 192 (which I think is going to be pretttty expensive in the end).

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Redbeard 02-13-2004 10:11 AM

Re: Possible configurations to *get* to 192khz
 
The 192 I/O comes with 8 analog and 8 digital inputs. Therefor, you would need to add an additional analog input card to it to get 16 analog inputs.

My question is if you are going to use the internal pre-amps in the Control 24, why does it matter if you record at 192kHz? Your weakest audio quality link in that chain is not the sample rate.

32 I/O tracks at 192kHz is expensive no matter how you cut it.

Remember also, hard drive size. 192kHz @24 bit = 34.56 MB/minute per track. Thats more than a Gig a minute for 32 tracks.

Your hardrive, backup, and throughput requirement will be huge.

Stephen J 02-13-2004 11:25 AM

Re: Possible configurations to *get* to 192khz
 
Thanks for replying Redbeard.

Yes, I realize that the control 24 preamps being 'the weak' part of the chain.

These are not my choices, or my thoughts. Client install just wants to get the highest
amount of tracks at 192(which I said is very expensive, and not worth it.)

A lot of people buy into the 192 hype. I said to just go 96 and below.

I knew the harddrive space would be huge, but had written it out like that - it makes
even more sense to try to convince them to record at a much lower SR.

Thanks


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:00 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com