Audio interface quality - 192 io vs 96 io

[SuperPuss]

I have tried a number of search phrases and have looked around but I haven't been able to find any information about the audio quality of the 192 io vs the 96 io.
I am looking into my options for purchasing a HD1 system to replace my trusty 001. I have started doing a lot more with 5.1 and DVDa recently and am wondering if it is worth the extra to buy a 192 io or is the 96 io just as good at 96 KHz?

The bulk of my work is mastering and with the recent addition of DVDa and MLP encoding to my studio, I will be offering hi res stereo and 5.1 mastering and authoring for my clients.
The vast majority of these jobs will probably never go over 96KHz so I am wondering if there would be any sonic benefits to the 192 io when clocked at 96K?
There could be the rare occasion when, if I have the 192, I may get a stereo 192 KHz master to prepare for DVDa but I really think that would be VERY rare. Therefore, if I will not gain anything from a 192 io at 96K, then I'd be better off spending the money elsewhere. If there is a noticeable difference even at 96K, I will still consider the 192 as an option.

If anyone has any real world experience comparing these two interfaces, I'd very much appreciate your opinions.

[matt-o-]

I do not know the 96, but I investigated for myself during the last months, which interface might be worth to buy. It seemed to me, that the overall consensus is, that the 192 is a really fine interface, very good neutral quality. The difference to something like the apogee ad-x converters just being one of taste, not quality. The 96 was more or less judged as average quality, being similar to the 002R converters. I once did compare my MBox with an Apogee DAC, which is not fair, because of the immense difference in price, but they are really worlds apart, something completely different regarding sonic detail. My point for the decision for a 192 was, that it is good enough to stay for the next years. I did not had this feeling towards the 96. BTW, I work only with 48kHz, but I think, the main difference between 192 and 96 convertors is in the topology of the circuits and you benefit also at lower samplerates from reduced noise and distortion.

Hope this helps.
Matthias

[SuperPuss]

Thank you very much for your informative reply Matt. That is exactly the kind of information I was after.
The majority of my projects will be either 96K, 48K or 44.1K but, as you say, even at the lower sample rates, if the converters are better with better filtering and analog stages, this will be noticed at all sample rates.
I am looking probably at a HD1 to start with and adding another card to go to HD2 if / when I need it. I was considering going for HD2 from the beginning but I think I would be better off spending the money on the 192 and have that right from the start. That will then give me the option of mastering 192K stereo DVDa projects too.

[Kelly M. Pieklo]

Sonic benefits aside, the 96 is configured out of the box for 0VU=-18dBFS, and is not able to be calibrated to 0VU=-20dBFS; the 192 can be calibrated.

Not sure if that's important for you - I work in film and broadcast and needed to be able to calibrate differently than the 96 allowed for.

[SuperPuss]

Interesting point Kelly and something that is relevant to me too. I think I am pretty much sold on the 192 now for many reasons