Help for noob re choice of interface...

[AvalonDigital]

Hi Everyone, I'm new here having just invested in an HD/Control 24 rig, and am having trouble deciding which interfaces to go for. (I know this has probably been flogged to death, and I did spend a day looking through previous posts, but was unable to find the specific info I required - so please forgive me for bringing this up!)

Basically I originally specced the system with 96 I/O's, as I had no intention of recording at 192khz as the system was primarily intended for my own use, (I'm a bit out in the sticks), but I've become far more interested recently in commercially renting my facilities etc, (I've realised my location is a selling point as much as a disadvantage, which would certainly help pay for the rig, and be a lot of fun to boot!), to which end I am not sure which interfaces to buy - 96's or 192's.

My concerns break into two categories.

1. Fact
2. Perception

For example...

I have been all over the web trying to find out what people think of 96's. Here's a summary of what I've managed to discover...

My dealer told me that 96's are 'at least as good as MOTU's' (I should hope so for twice the price/ half the inputs!!!), but nowhere near as good as 192's.

Motu told me that they use the same converters as Digi

My dealer told me that that may be, but it's all about the clocking (not according to Digi - see below)

Digi told me that 96 on a 192 would sound far better than 96 on a 96 - and that this was 95% down to the convertors - 5% down to the clocking!!!

Someone on gearslutz said that Emu soundcards used the same converters as the 192

Someone else replied - ahh but it's all about the clocking (not according to Digi - see above)

Someone else said that they were not impressed with quality of 192 for the price

Everything I've seen says 192's waste 96's

Loads of posts on gearslutz's saying the Apogee's/Prizm's waste the 192's
(Although I realise now that gearslutz's might not be the best place for an objective and impartial view on anything that isn't the Canus Gonadus)

etc, etc, etc - arghhhhhhhhh...

Obviously, it's a very subjective topic. What I would like to know is, how good are the 96's - are they

a. Good enough - unless you've got a solid gold signal path
b. Crap - don't touch with a barge pole
c. Actually very good, but you won't attract ProTools clientele without 192's?

Hopefully you can see my problem. I have no experience with either, and frankly, financially and for my rig at the mo - the 96's are a better fit, but I don't want to shoot my investment in the foot with 96's if they are felt to be below par, or have to buy cheap - buy twice, having made a mistake etc, and finally even if I bought 192's - there are those who say they are nowhere near as good as Apogee/Prizm - can't win whatever you do!

As I am not interested in recording at 192 (not enough channels/too much storage - without getting into whether or not it's sonically better) - It seems to me that if I buy 192's it will cost me all that extra dough only for;

a. The privilege of recording at 96khz on a 192 instead of 96 on a 96 I/O - and the perceptible difference in sound quality?
b. Attracting clients who think anything less than 192 is not 'Pro' enough?

I can't vouch for any of the above - these are not my opinions, I need some help sorting fact from fiction so any thoughts any of you guys could give me to help make an informed decision on this would be much appreciated, as I'm wondering if I wouldn't hear a bigger difference in the end result if for instance I spent the extra 2k on a TLM103 & Avalon Voice Channel etc.

Thanks
Jamie

[jeff markham]

i don't think you can go wrong with a 192 ... the clock is wonderful in
that unit .. as good or better than anything else out there. I had two
96's when I got my 192 and i use the 192 as the loop sync master. there was
a noticable improvement in the clarity/fidelity of the 96s when i made
this change.
honestly, i never (or seldom) track at 192, so i don't need the sample rate ..
but the clock makes things much more distinct for my 96's.

i can't say what the differences between an all 192 vs a hybrid 192/96 rig
are .. 'cause i don't have one ;-)

jeff

[soundguydave]

I think you need to do is look at who your clientele would be, and see what they would need/prefer. My guess is a 96 i/o would be fine. I am assuming you are doing music production, but I would bet they would care much more about your microphone and preamp selection than your interface. If I were renting a studio (i do commercial post) I really wouldn't care, as long as you had protools running, a decent mic and everything was hooked up properly.

[AvalonDigital]

Thanks for the replies guys, getting one 192 and clocking the 96's from that occurred to me also, good to know you can hear a difference. I was thinking of going this route, and using the 192 for more critical applications ie vocals/acoustic guitar as opposed to toms/synths etc.

It also occurred to me that I could start off with the 96's, and add a 192 and later, and clock the 96's from that then. Which is presumably what you did Jeff?

soundguy - you also hit it on the head, yeah mainly into music production, but I'd like to get more into scoring as well. Anyway, as you say musos generally probably more interested in mic/preamp, these were my thoughts, but also I am interested in renting the studio as a rural/peaceful/live-in edit-suite - to which end I was worried about the 192.

I had more or less decided to start with the 96's and the nice preamps, then add 1 192 as I go along, clock from there, improve the sound of the 96's and have the 192 for more critical apps in the fullness of time.

Or drop a 96 and go the distance on 1 192 now, either way ultimately this seems like the best way to proceed, 96's clocked from 192 for the extra inputs, 192 for the clock and critical apps.

Any more thoughts welcome.

[jeff markham]

It also occurred to me that I could start off with the 96's, and add a 192 and later, and clock the 96's from that then. Which is presumably what you did Jeff?

yea, that's exactly what i did .. i started out w/ the 96i's .. and then got the
192 later. i actually tried out an external clock box (with "A"'s and "Eees" in the name),
but i like the sound of the 192 better... somewhat heretical .. but... ;-) I think the
ADC's on the 96 are pretty good and i monitor out of the 192 .. so .. it works for me.

jeff