audiophile 192 vs 2496

[remixer31]

wats up to all,
iam setting up my new system and i need some insight on which card to get , the cards seem to be fairly the same but what is the true difference between the 192 and the 2496 , so if there's anyone running it on a pc please give me some feedback,

thanks

[Mozepy]

I have the 192 and chose it over the 2496 because of it's superior features.

The 192 as balanced analog I/O while the 2496 has unbalanced.
The 192 has a 192khz sample rate (no supported by PT) while the 2496 goes to 96khz.

the 192 also has a monitor out which I don't use because I monitor through my board.

They are both advertised as 4 in and 4 out but that includes the S/PDIF I/O. If you want 4 analog ins and outs you will need an external AD/DA. I have one on order right now.

I am planning to get a Delta 1010 in the future, mostly for the I/O, and use the 192 for it's high sample rate.

[remixer31]

thanks homie , it helps a ton

[3JDamon]

A minor issue on 192kHz capability - there is no practical purpose to use it, no substantial use for even 96kHz, but the simple fact is that it looks better to clients. The best argument I have for getting 192kHz gear is that there is evidence that converters capable of higher clocks are better at 44.1 or 48. Similarily, a car that can do 150mph is probably going to get you up to 60mph faster than one that can only go 100mph.

I mix on an Audiophile 192 at 88.2kHz for CD and 96kHz for video, mostly because there is no such competition in my area anywhere near my rates. Regardless of the sonic benefits it's a compelling marketing angle.

[Mozepy]

Have you ever looked at a 20khz sine wave at 44.1? Every 5th cycle is about 10dB lower then the highest. High Quality converters can make up for it but it can cause tones around 4k on cheaper ones. 192 brings the difference to less the 1dB. Unfortunately if your destination is CD you're stuck at 44.1 but the optimal representation of the audible range(20Hz-20khz) is at 140khz.