192's not time aligned. is this a known issue?!

[vieris]

I work in a large all digital post house. We added a new digital 192 to an existing 32 channel system to make it 48. We always check for time alignment and phase lock.. well the older 192's and the brand new ones do not sync. they are out of phase... are test is simple. we play back a 10k test tone files out all of the outputs and phase them up.. we ended up switching the old 192's out with some others from other systems. all is good now... it is easy to tell what kind of 192's you have, look at the word (Digital) on the 192's. if it's the clean high tech font it is the old model. if it's the older looking (times roman) text it's the new model.. the new one also has flaps on the ADAT outs..

firmware upgrade? this is ridiculous if this is just the way it is..

[vieris]

not to surprising but we just tried a 888/24 on the legacy port and same deal, not synced...fun fun..

[Stan Cotey]

Can you provide us with a bit more information please? Are you using all 192d's in your first setup, or a mixture of 192 plus 192d?

An 888 connected through the legacy port will have a different delay time (by just a few samples) due to differences in buffering between the two hardware platforms.

Regards,

Stan Cotey

[vieris]

yes it has 3 192d's. we don't have any analog.. it was one of are first hd systems. 32 tracks 2 192d's to start. we have now added a new 192d to it and it had the time alignment problems with the new interface.. so we traded out the other 2 old 192d's for the newer models from other HD setups.

we have 12 protools rigs. 8 of them are HD systems.

[Stan Cotey]

Thanks for letting us know. We're looking into this and we will report back as soon as we can.

Regards,

- Stan Cotey

[vieris]

let me know if you find a fix... this is a big problem for us... we are having to do allot of 192 shuffling for future upgrades..

on a side not allot of gear is having this issue, and definitely with SRCing. there isn't a box that can SRC 56 AES or MADI channels time aligned.. Euphonix 726's failed, AMS 960's failed.

will you guys ever make a MADI interface?

[vieris]

Can someone else test this? i'd like to see if it's true with mixing all old and new d192's.

[lancejorton]

yes it has 3 192d's. we don't have any analog.. it was one of are first hd systems. 32 tracks 2 192d's to start. we have now added a new 192d to it and it had the time alignment problems with the new interface.. so we traded out the other 2 old 192d's for the newer models from other HD setups.

we have 12 protools rigs. 8 of them are HD systems.

so you're saying you traded out the old 192Ds with newer ones and the phase problems were corrected?

--
lance

[vieris]

yes.. you cant mix and match with the old with the new.....


systems with all old interfaces work fine

and systems with all new interfaces work fine..

[doug_hti]

An 888 connected through the legacy port will have a different delay time (by just a few samples) due to differences in buffering between the two hardware platforms.

Regards,

Stan Cotey

Hi Stan,

I'm having the same issue with a 888. I have tried to use some simple math by referencing the the D/A and routing latencies in the 192i/o hardware guide but still can't get it right. I can get it "better" but not right.

Most of the time it is not critical, but I specifically have an analog widener (phase manipulator) efx box...that I use on a aux send...
if I have the main source (i.e. stereo guitar track) originating on the 888 with the widener on the same 888, things are fine. If I put the source on the 192i/o with the efx on the 888, there are problems. I have tried delaying the 888 in various times mostly using time adjuster on a master fader, but still no luck.

Anyone have the magic number that works, assuming all master faders/aux sends/etc are the same