Apogee Rosetta VS 192 conversion

[Tone]

Hi All

I'm currently still on a Mix3 system using an Apogee Rosetta (44.1/48 version) as a front end. I'm doing music programming/production (at 44.1Khz) and I don't generally need more than 2 channels of A-D. I'm looking at doing the HD accel upgrade path and am wondering whether to go for a 192 digital and keep the Rosetta or sell it and get a standard 192. I should say I've been happy with the sound of the Rosetta but I've not used a 192 in a session yet.

Does anyone have experience of both and can say which they preferred? Any help appreciated.

[Tone]

Bump - anyone have any opinions??

[NY909]

I'd be interested in any a-b tests anyone might have done as well. thanks in advance.

[Jeff D.]

I've got the original Rosetta and the 192, and I think they aren't miles apart. The Rosetta is a little warmer, but the 192 sounds good too. I think having the combination gives you more sonic possibilities. I'd get the standard 192 to give yourself more options if I were you.

Plus, if you need to add analog gear on inserts, or hookup older analog verbs for mixes, you'll appreciate the extra analog i/o of the standard 192.

My $0.02.

[Tone]

Thanks Jeff.

[el biciclista]

I agree with Jeff. I have both a 192 I/O and a 192 Digital I/O. I have a Rosetta 800 connected to the 192 Digital I/O. So, I have 24 D/A's that I use to go out to hardware for processing and analog summing. The D/A's in both the Rosetta and the 192 I/O are very adequate, the Rosetta being a little more colored. Sometimes one suits a little better, sometimes the other. Not as much difference as I expected to hear.

For A/D, I have a high end converter, a Crane Song HEDD. I record through the HEDD into HD2. I also use the HEDD for monitoring while mixing, and for the final A/D conversion (after outboard analog processing) to burn the CD.

I think your decision should be based more on how you process (in the box, outboard hardware) and which gear will best fit your methods.
Mike