192 I/O: how bad?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Craig F

a lot were made on the 888|24s also, and they were not good

Hit records or the 888|24's

Joking aside, at that time many used Apogee's or other 3rd party converters and the blackies were only interfaces that delivered digital signal to and from PT system. Not always, but most of the time since we're talking about hit records.

HD interface was huge at that time (2002) because the 192 was out of the box a night and day difference compared to 888|24. Sure, IMO, Apogee's still sounded better but the difference became so little not many bothered to upgrade their AD8000's to AD16X's (though many still wanted best DA converter available but that's another story).

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Niels B

I still use my 192 I/O, although not the converters. (...) I read that new interfaces are a lot better than the 192 I/O. Do I get a better sound quality when I would replace the 192 I/O with a modern interface?

Most probably not, if you continue using the same 3rd party conversion. The clocking system in 192 is already top grade and I don't believe the difference in Digidesign interface compared to Avid interface comes from clocking. But if you use 3rd party conversion, the difference in sound can only come from different clocking and I don't buy it if you notice a huge improvement there.

[tekis]

Originally Posted by Craig F

a lot were made on the 888|24s also, and they were not good

I have good friends in Ohio that make incredible sounding tracks with 888's. They have a nice room with nice microphones. More importantly, they know how to use them. And when I listen to their records all I hear is great music. You'd never know that they were using 888's when you listen. Sure, nice convertors are good to have, but at the end of the day, technique trumps all and always will.