Okay--now I can talk

[Undertones]

Originally Posted by Samuel Axelsson

Way to go.

It's PRO

[David Pye]

Originally Posted by JayNocturn

Overpriced old tech: yes .
However keep in mind that it is a tax ride off. So if you make such a little amount that your not paying much tax, then that makes the price seem even bigger. If you are paying losts a year in tax, then the price wont be so bad.

I did make a similar point in my post mentioning this that if you are earning thousands each month the price of a HD system relative to your earnings may not be that great. But I was trying to compare the cost of HD to an equally/more powerful/flexible/portable native system, which FOR ME can do everything I need to do. And as a freelance engineer working mainly with bands, the cost of an HD rig is not only completely unreachable and unjustifiable, it's hugely disproportionate to what I am able to do in a Native system costing a mere fraction of the price.

Originally Posted by TREXROCK

It's unbelievable how many people take the time to come on here and bash PT all while trying to make the people who have invested in HD feel like they made the worst mistake of there life. If you guys don't like it then go use something else? I realize AVID does make some bad moves here and there but IMO they still make the best DAW out there.

Here is my 2 cents coming from someone who has recently upgraded from LE during the promotion.

I wasn't trying to make anyone feel bad about their investment, it is just MY OPINION that the cost is not justified by the system you get in return (the upgrade offer you got significantly helps, but for me, not enough). This is not just down to the cost vs technology aspect of the DSP cards or the interfaces, new or old. It's also down to the value added aspects, loop packages, sampler instruments, and synthesisers you get when selecting a lot of Native software packages over PT.

I'm very aware that an HD system is a good system (and when offset against the earnings of a medium - large studio the cost is negligible), I've used them in studios since their release, and still do now, I'm familiar with all latest versions of PT etc etc etc blah blah blah, basically I don't come here blasting PT and PT users from an ill informed perspective, I just split my time almost equally between HD and Native software and I can see that PTHD makes no sense FOR ME anymore. I can do everything I need to do and more, faster, more easily, and at lower cost in a Native system which (again) FOR ME is absolutely crucial to being able to continue my career in engineering.

[badboymusic]

Brad,

How do the converters compare between the old 192 IO 8x8s compared to the new 192 IO 8x8s? I understand the old 192s were better than the 96s, but how much of an improvement is there if you already own the old 192s and don't need 16x16? I would just be replacing my current 192 with a newer 192, is it worth it?

Thanks

[BradLyons]

Originally Posted by badboymusic

Brad,

How do the converters compare between the old 192 IO 8x8s compared to the new 192 IO 8x8s? I understand the old 192s were better than the 96s, but how much of an improvement is there if you already own the old 192s and don't need 16x16? I would just be replacing my current 192 with a newer 192, is it worth it?

Thanks

Let me go a little deeper.... I was NOT a fan of ProTools until HD came along, it really wasn't about the converters honestly--it was about the internal mix engine. Before PTHD, IMHO ProTools was a glorified editor---but when PTHD came out, it became a more serious tool for actual mixing in the box. Back in the days of PTMIX you had the 888/24 which, to be perfectly honestly, really stunk. There was a huge improvement when re-clocking with an Aardsync but even then the converters were harsh and digital sounding. Nearly every system I sold was paired up with Apogee AD8000's, but even then the internal summing and mixing just didn't sound that good. When PTHD came about, that all changed both internally AND externally. The 96I/O was a HUGE improvement over the 888/24, but the 192I/O really put them into a new category. Finally you could say "wow, that sounds really good". So to that end, the 192I/O is still one of the best converters on the market today....the new line of Avid I/O's just takes that to another level. Does it mean that the older 192 no longer sounds good? Oh heck no! The new HD line of interfaces are certainly better, but it doesn't mean that one has to go there to get a great-sounding converter now. Sure for some it will make sense while for others now it will be more affordable to obtain second-hand interfaces.

So is it worth it to replace your old 192 with the new HD interface? That I couldn't tell you, it will come down to what you need. BUT I WILL SAY THIS....TOO MANY PEOPLE PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE CONVERTER AND NOT ON THE FRONT-END (Mics and Pres). IMHO I think most users will see a bigger benefit out of investing in some nice tube or solid-state front-end before upgrading from a 192I/O to the new HD interfaces. Coming from the 96I/O however, I think there is a more compelling argument.

[ericlees]

hey guys go with apogee symphony!! the new symphony can work with hd by just connecting it to the accel card of you hd rig...and of course...i prefer apogee than avid...

[Thumper1040]

Originally Posted by ericlees

hey guys go with apogee symphony!! the new symphony can work with hd by just connecting it to the accel card of you hd rig...and of course...i prefer apogee than avid...

Even though you probably haven't heard either the new avid io, or the new apogee stuff...

[badboymusic]

Originally Posted by BradLyons

So to that end, the 192I/O is still one of the best converters on the market today....the new line of Avid I/O's just takes that to another level.

Brad,
Thanks for the input.

It sure would be nice to hear a recorded comparison of the old 192 I/O to the new 192 I/O to hear how much of a noticeable difference there really is.

Avid?

[BradLyons]

Originally Posted by badboymusic

Brad,
Thanks for the input.

It sure would be nice to hear a recorded comparison of the old 192 I/O to the new 192 I/O to hear how much of a noticeable difference there really is.

Avid?

IMHO I don't think this will be an easy comparison unless you're in the studio listening directly. Making final recordings for playback are rarely as good as in the studio raw.

[badboymusic]

Originally Posted by BradLyons

IMHO I don't think this will be an easy comparison unless you're in the studio listening directly. Making final recordings for playback are rarely as good as in the studio raw.

Well, if there isn't a noticeable 'recorded' difference, there wouldn't be a need for change, since we are making recordings.

[Andy R]

Originally Posted by BradLyons

IMHO I don't think this will be an easy comparison unless you're in the studio listening directly. Making final recordings for playback are rarely as good as in the studio raw.

Nah, if we have examples at the same resolution as the session, like 24bit 48 or 96kHz, we should be able to judge the difference between the AD.

The DA, could be tested by running both 8 channel mixes through an analogue board.

Short of hearing them in person, I think that's the most practical way to get the word out, so to speak.