Good Questions.

1. Yes the S-Nyquist I/O does 6 tracks of 192Khz (and of course 12 of 96, and 24 of 48)

2.There will be virtually no difference between Nyquist and S-Nyquist at 48khz. The difference would only be at 192Khz.

3.You would need full converters on the second RADAR as well. Because, the second RADAR would have no way of "patching in" to the remaining converters on the initial RADAR machine.

Hope I answered clearly, let me know!

Paul

Not only was the reply clear, but it was what I wanted to hear! :D So, that means that at 48 kHz, there are really only two choices, and that, unless one ever intended to go 192 kHz, there's only one choice for 96 kHz. That simplifies it.

Do you know of any review or article that does a one on one comparison of the Classic and Nyquist at 48kHz? Sitting here and trying to imagine those differences, I think about how sometimes transparency and warmth go together, but sometimes you can get more of one and less of the other. Naturally, these things - warmth and transparency - are a little too subjective to be quantified.In the late 70s, when hi-tech analog was already sounding excellent, I recall that many engineers were forever looking for more high end EQ. But sometimes the search for crisp would lead to brittle. When looking for my audio solutions, I have to keep reminding myself that if I am too driven for the broadest frequency response and best specifications, I may make a wrong move if I don't simply consider "musical sounding". Actually, in the multi-track environment, and certainly in pop of any sort, "accuracy" is a moot point as I see it.

I'm not attempting to state any opinion about the difference between the Classic and Nyquist sound. I've not had the opportunity to compare, nor even the chance to hear either in a working environment. Hearing CDs that use one or the other tends to be wonderful votes of confidence, but it says nothing specific about how either would seem to me recording and then playing back audio that I have personally provided for the task. It is always interesting to hear how any system "sounds", and despite flat responses and extreme specs, so far, every system I've ever been involved with does seem to have some sort of sound signature.

Yeah things do get subjective comparing converters, especially at the higher level. But one thing to remember is that the Nyquist (and S-Nyquist for that matter) are newer and "better" converter than the Classic. For instance, they dont just have a different character, but we set out to make them better, with the specs to match. In fact the converter chips are by totally different manufacturers (but if I told you...)

So I would say (though it wasnt under the most ideal circumstances) that the Nyquist converters add a clarity to the warmth (which both have.) Like I said, we're kinda grasping at straws to describe the kind of detail you would really need to hear.

There are no published articles or the like, doing a comparison, but our iZman down in Nashville, did some listening tests at a VERY nice studio, under great conditions. He reported that everyone clearly heard a discernible difference in the high end of the converters (comparing 48 to 48 still.) The various words used to describe it included "sheen, clear, open" while not one ever noted any preference whatsoever in favor of the Classic's. So, there you have it: the Classic are so good that we got a great reputation for our sound quality, and the Nyquists are better.

Cheers,

Paul
iZ

If one were to get the Analog Lovers Bundle during the Analog Lovers Bundle sale, and got the Nyquist instead of Classic converters, would the price difference be the $1,000.00 difference between the Classic and Nyquist converters themselves? If so, that would be $9,995.00, since the bundle as stipulated (with the Classic converters) is $8,995.00.

While both ways are more than I have anticipated, it is possible I would forgo some of my DAW plans (which would be used in conjunction), and opt for recording in the way I am most familiar. When I think of the different capabilities offered by DAWs, the primary wish list is to be able to utilize the Antares products... auto-tune (mainly, although probably not often used), and mic modeler (which is an unknown factor to me, but if I did use, I would think it would be more regularly). Other than that, I my DAW needs are fairly simple compared to what many are doing. I do believe that with a 24 track system I might occasionally need to do some ping-ponging, though, and I suppose it should be totally in the digital domain. I do wonder, however, if it is sonically nonkosher to take 8 vocal tracks and mix them through an analog mixer back onto two Radar tracks.

It's funny, in a way. Before digital, many pro engineers would do such things in the all analog world. Once digital recorders entered the picture, which already had better specs than the analog recorders, all the sudden this whole thing about staying in the digital realm became a must. I am looking for as much pop fidelity as my budget will allow, but at the same time, certain practicalities, if they are not counter to my goals are hard to avoid.

Submixing like that would be totally kosher, although I guess it would depend on the quality of the analog mixer, but the same mixer would be your front end to RADAR anyway, right?

The whole "dont bounce the tracks or do any unneccessay ADDA stages" thinking were predominantly associated with early digital where there was much less headroom, and going ADDA a few times would make a noticable difference, however with today's 24 bit and 48k or especially 96k specs, it is much, much less of a concern.

Yes to add the Nyquists to the Analog Bundle would be another 1k.

Paul
iZ