Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-26-2004, 10:53 AM
sukks2bu sukks2bu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 293
Default 888 compared to 192

Has anyone done a direct comparisent of the 888/24 IO and the 192 IO?
__________________
Powermac 9600/300 768mg ram OS 9.1.2, PTmix3 V5.1.3, 888/24, Adatbridge, 882/20, PSX-100, BigBen
MacBookPro 1.8ghz 2gig ram OSX tiger, Mbox2 PT V.7
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-26-2004, 11:19 AM
sukks2bu sukks2bu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 293
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

Ok no replies, let me stir it up a bit. I recently did a mix with my partner "lemix" and compared the d-19 20 bit converter to the 192, and the d-19 kills it, much warmer and better seperation. I currently am using a Mix plus system with the 888/24 IO and cant find a reason to upgrade to HD with the 192 that doesnt sound any better than a 10 year old 20bit converter. Further more , the 96k IO is reported to be the biggest peice of shyt that digi has ever released. (reports say). Can anyone comment on the quality of the 888, 192, and 96k IO.
Thanks
__________________
Powermac 9600/300 768mg ram OS 9.1.2, PTmix3 V5.1.3, 888/24, Adatbridge, 882/20, PSX-100, BigBen
MacBookPro 1.8ghz 2gig ram OSX tiger, Mbox2 PT V.7
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-26-2004, 11:42 AM
Extreme Mixing Extreme Mixing is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Van Nuys, CA. USA
Posts: 1,329
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

Don't sugar coat it, say what you really mean.

The best reason to upgrade is to stay current on the software and to have access to new products that are only designed for HD and Accel. If you're still happy with your mix system, then keep it. I still have mine, but I feel that things are starting to change. I don't really know when I'll make the move, but I plan on putting it off as long as I can. It's like buying a car. You come out better if you can drive it for a few years after the loan is paid off, but when it's time to trade, it's time to trade.

Steve
__________________
Steve Shepherd
Extreme Mixing
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-26-2004, 12:20 PM
scottgreiner scottgreiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 878
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

Quote:
Ok no replies, let me stir it up a bit. I recently did a mix with my partner "lemix" and compared the d-19 20 bit converter to the 192, and the d-19 kills it, much warmer and better seperation. I currently am using a Mix plus system with the 888/24 IO and cant find a reason to upgrade to HD with the 192 that doesnt sound any better than a 10 year old 20bit converter. Further more , the 96k IO is reported to be the biggest peice of shyt that digi has ever released. (reports say). Can anyone comment on the quality of the 888, 192, and 96k IO.
Thanks
Can't agree with you there. I find the 192 much smoother in the high freq. and less boxy in the mid freq., not to mention the overload protection, expanded i/o, and the real-time samplerate conversion If you want, I'll gladly trade you an 888/24 for your 192. I'd like another.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-26-2004, 02:33 PM
Sean Halley Sean Halley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 447
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

"I currently am using a Mix plus system with the 888/24 IO and cant find a reason to upgrade to HD "

HD as a system sounds A LOT better than MIx, according to most folks. A converter comparision is only half the battle...

For the record, I'm extremely happy with my 192's...

S..
__________________
"it's not about making the changes, it's about playing ideas in time"

Scofield...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-26-2004, 05:29 PM
roberts roberts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Ont
Posts: 2,438
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

I did a project for a clinet 2 years ago on Mix. (The client is not picky at all just fast in & out demos) They recently did another small project - now with HD. The guy is 65 years old and could hear the improvement between HD and Mix.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-26-2004, 06:08 PM
Will Russell's Avatar
Will Russell Will Russell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Newfield, NY (Ithaca)
Posts: 949
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

The difference between an 888 and a 192 is obvious to almost any listener. The 192 is definately MUCH better sounding in every way, even at 44.1.
__________________
Will Russell
Electric Wilburland Studio
www.wilburland.com
12 core 3.06Ghz MacPro, OS 10.14.5, PT2019.6, HDX, D-Command
Retina 5k iMac OS 10.14.5, PT2019.6, MBox3
Retina MacBook Pro OS 10.14.5, PT2019.6
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-26-2004, 06:46 PM
tomhartman tomhartman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: boca raton, FL USA
Posts: 1,659
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

But if you're using Apogees or the like in your Mix system, I wonder how much of a difference one would hear...?
__________________
iMac 27
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-01-2004, 10:10 AM
sukks2bu sukks2bu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 293
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

Thats cool all, the only thing is, I havent heard anyone say they did a direct comparisent with the same source at the same time with the same mics etc and tell me the pros and cons off either I/O. Thanks guys, I hope I am not coming across as a dick, I am smilling while writting this.I am also considering getting a clock generator and see if there is an improvement in sound. So you can see my dilemna. Do I spend $7000 for an 192 I/O that will improve the sound 40%, or do I spend $2000 for a good clock and improve the sound 20%.
__________________
Powermac 9600/300 768mg ram OS 9.1.2, PTmix3 V5.1.3, 888/24, Adatbridge, 882/20, PSX-100, BigBen
MacBookPro 1.8ghz 2gig ram OSX tiger, Mbox2 PT V.7
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-01-2004, 10:39 AM
undertone undertone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 149
Default Re: 888 compared to 192

I have A/B'd them, using the same mics, speakers, preamps, instruments/singer and so on. The sound quality of the 192 is in itself a good argument for upgrading to HD. Better stereo imaging, more depth, more natural overtones, less dull, less harsh, 192 sounds more 'expensive' etc etc etc. More presence. I compared the 888|24 with 192, both @ 44.1.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
M Micro D/A compared bderkach 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 3 07-26-2010 08:38 PM
MDW V3.0 compared to V2... acacia Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 3 09-29-2008 05:47 PM
10.4.2 as compared to 10.4.9 Muzoid Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 0 05-29-2007 04:20 AM
PT LE COMPARED TO... mykhal c 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 2 01-10-2007 09:29 PM
Anyone compared X-Form? minister Post - Surround - Video 4 10-10-2006 01:52 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 AM.


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