ATTN KEN: 002 Performance Question
 

Ken,

I have a question for you....I noticed that there are a lot of optimization for the 002 that concerns me a little...the disabling the network connection, running in 256 mode, firwire drive...etc...

My question is: For people who are running trouble free 001s (with nic cards enabled and, and 1ml colors), if we purchase an 002 will we run into the same problems as the newbies are, or is this just a general optimization rule for all of your products? I am worried that my 001 which is running excellent will actually outperform my the 002 which will prove an unwise investment. I hope I am wrong but it appears that I will get lower performance, physically and aesthetically. I really don't want to have to purchase another HD which will be my third, and drop my graphics card to 256 just to get less plugins. I have no doubt that I will hit the 32 track mark but I am worried about my plugin count.

Can you shed some light on this?

Thanks in advance.

Re: ATTN KEN: 002 Performance Question
 

Citi,
I do not own an 002 (and am unlikely...) [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] but I'm pretty sure that any drive that works with the 001 at 48K would work with the 002 at 48K. I would personally only be concerned if I was going to record at 96K.

On the 96K side, I'm wondering what people who would purchase an 002 level of interest is? I am understanding that none of the ADAT stuff works at all at 96K, so the 002 becomes a 10 input device only...

My RME Hammerfall does support ADAT at 96K. I was hoping...

Mark

Re: ATTN KEN: 002 Performance Question
 

I'd like to hear some actual listening tests on the 002 at 48 and 96. The specs are exactly the same at both sampling rates so I would expect the sound to be the same too.

If the same low pass filter is used at any sampling rate than there would be no difference in the frequency response.

Re: ATTN KEN: 002 Performance Question
 

Mark:

FWIW, as an 002 owner, I can tell you that I have no immediate plans to utilize the 96K option. Given the amount of money invested in the rest of my gear (which is not a ton), and given that I will be making music mostly for my own edification, 48k will probably be more than adequate for me. Plus, the tradeoffs (more HD space, more processing power) don't seem to be worth the benefits, to me.

Of course, I have not had an opportunity to compare otherwise equivalent 48k & 96k recordings, so perhaps I am way off base. It wouldn't be the first time...

Re: ATTN KEN: 002 Performance Question
 

bump