Sample Rates...192k vs 44.1k Converts Pros & Cons

[tnie]

What's needed to run 24 tracks of 192k and is there a way run run 32 tracks? For 24 tracks of 192k I would need two 192 I/O with extra A/d D/a cards but how many internal cards? Does only one computer card run 6 channels of 192k or more and is there any way to run 32 tracks or did Digi fall short again?

Also, who is using 192K that can give suggestions?

[tnie]

anyone?

[tnie]

Is each internal card capable of doing 6 channels of 192k? Correct? So, I would need 4 cards just to do 24 tracks of 192k and 32 channels not possible because of Digi? Correct

[john1192]

i am running HD3 and record at 192k all the time. it take alot of DSP to run 24 tracks at 192k. if you really need 32 tracks i would listen to 96k and see how you feel about that. much less DSP, 64 tracks, and it sounds pretty close. but, there is something that 192k has that everyone that has listened to it has commented on. i am sure Digi will get around to more tracks at 192k if we use it. not many people are using 192k, as far as i know. a suggestion for more tracks would be to get yourself a 002R and record synths to it at 96k and slave the two together using MTC. or, run Logic Audio with a some kind of firewire interface that runs at 96k and lock the two together inside the computer using Midi Patchbay / works just like IAC bus in OS9. good luck and happy high resing.....

john

[O.G. Killa]

Each HD card can do a maximum 12 voices at 192KHz (6 voices per DSP chip). Max with HD1 is 12 voices (2DSPs), Max for HD2 or HD3 is 24 Voices (4 DSPs). It won't let you do over 24 voices because the Core and Process cards cannot handle more than a total of 24 streams of audio at 192KHz.

So To answer your question, to do 24 tracks of audio at 192KHz you'd need at least an HD2 system (2 cards). And yes, 32 tracks is not possible. One thing to remember is each HD card has NINE DSP chips on it. So, Running 12 voices on one card takes up two of the DSP chips, but you still have 7 chips left over for plugins. Unfortunately Digi will not let you use more than 2 DSP chips for the Mix Engine (called HD Engine in HD) on each card at 192KHz. Therefore, in order to get 24 tracks you need the second card. You will end up with 4 DSPs (two on first card, two on second) running the Mix Engines. And you'll have 14 DSPs left over to run plugins (seven free DSPs on each card).

You technically only need one 192 for output unless you want to do an inline console kind of thing where track one in PT is track one on the console, Track 2 in PT is track 2 on the console, etc up to 24. But if you're just going to Bounce To Disk, mix using stems (Drums Stereo out to Channels 1&2, Keys to 3&4, etc..), or do a 5.1 Mix you only need one 192.

Hope this is kinda the answer you were looking for.

[Extreme Mixing]

What is it that you are looking for the 192 sample rate to do for you? Did you buy the system not knowing about the track limitation? You seem to be blaming Digi for the 24 track limitation, as though you were misled, but it was no secret when you bought the system. As far as I know, the track count limitations are hardware based and not likely to change. The reason I have not moved to HD is because I don't see the need for the higher sample rates, and I don't want to cut my DSP power in half. Maybe I should be angry that my Mix system won't run 128 tracks or support the higher sample rates.

If you need more tracks, you'll have to work within the limitations of your system. You can buy or rent a second system to syncronize with your system. You can also do sub mixes and bring them into the session. Most people feel that 24 bit 96K audio provides pretty good audio quality. If you need the track count, that may be your best option.

Lets face it: If the music is happening, then the sample rate won't matter. And If the music or the mix isn't happening, the sample rate won't matter then, either.

[tnie]

Thanks for the info........

Steve,

I've been running HD at 96k since the upgrade and I have plenty of tracks. The reason I started this post was to find out if I needed all three cards or two to run 192k without a problem and to find people running 192k for info (not a big deal). Yes, I blame Digi for not having at least 32 tracks because it's there system.........simple. My set up is based on running through an analog console and not a Digi summing number system so it would be nice to have 32 tracks for simple I/O It's your call on Mix vs HD but for me it was cost effective to buy the HD system because I didn't have to sell the house for old Apogee technology. Apogee is still crying because Digi took them off the food chain. Yes, most people don't feel the need but I'm not most people!

[DigiGeek]

but, there is something that 192k has that everyone that has listened to it has commented on.

If you are noticing a difference at 192K over 96K, you need to get a better converter.

Apogee is still crying because Digi took them off the food chain.

tnie, you have said this in more than one post I have read. Have you ever talked to anyone over at Apogee? They are hardly crying about it. My dealer tells me that Apogee is selling better than ever with theier new products. The Rosetta800 is supposed to be the best Apogee converter yet (I myself have yet to hear it, so take that for what it's worth) As a matter of fact, I suspect Digi and Apogee to be on good terms. I mean, the Apogee HD Package is listed in the Digi catalog for crying out loud.

Now, some (if not all) of us Apogee owners were definitely crying about it, and for good reason. Digidesign still has not come up with a suitable replacement for having Apogee converters on a PT system. If you really care about sounding as good as you can, Apogee converters are still preferable to having the HD boxes.

Getting back to the point, If you have a good converter, you will get the same performance at 48K or 96K as you will at 192K, period. If you need to go to 192K to get good results, stop worrying about PCI cards and start thinking about upgrading your converters.

[tnie]

Yes, I have spoke with Apogee when the change was taking place and they conveyed distaste for Digi at the time accusing them of stealing certain ideas. Maybe Apogee and Digi have come to terms for future business or just parted ways? On the subject of dealers I would say their main objective is to make money and to sell as much Apogee equipment as possible. As for Apogee being on Digi’s sight I guess that’s a plus but they’re not making an internal card for the 192 and Digi will not let them into the design loop. Sound is very important to me and Apogee converts are a matter of opinion and not the statuesque! I’ve been hearing that some people are getting better and equal results running at 192k (Digi 192) compared to running Apogee running at 96k.

Oh, I’m not worried about nothing but finding out how many cards are needed to run 192k is important to me……..maybe your not familiar with the HD system? I guess if you don’t hear a difference in sample rate then stay with 44.1k and don’t upgrade it will save you money for the Apogee converts.

[BillSmith]

If you really care about sounding as good as you can, Apogee converters are still preferable to having the HD boxes.

This is a matter of personal opinion and choice...NOT a fact carved in stone.
Why do people say these types of things? I don't get it.
An A/D or D/A converter choice is as personal as it gets...like boxers or briefs
If someone likes a converter other than an Apogee how can you say "they don't care as much"?
That is totally untrue.

There are plenty of us HD users out there who think the converters in a 192 sound great,
just as good or better then anything Apogee makes.
I have not seen an AD8000 in a control room in well over a year....just HD rigs with 192's.
Does this mean none of us care about the records we are making or that we are all deaf... I think not.

If Apogee converters are so much better then why doesn't everyone here in LA have Digital 192's
and a rack of AD8000's to boot? Does this mean everyone making records in the professional arena
does not care how the final product sounds? I doubt it.

The converters in your rack should be there because YOU think they are the best sounding ones to YOUR ears,
not because someone else told you they are the best.

If I made all my music purchases going by what the Rolling Stone Magazine record guide say's are the best
new CD's out rather than making up my own mind I would have the biggest pile of s*** ever compiled in the
history of recorded music.