Ditto! I think I'd rather put the upgrade money into a 2" 16Trk to use just to capture basic tracks(drums/bass).
I begining to notice that drums direct into PT (w/ AD-8000) works best with good studio drummers, but is unforgiving with good hi-energy rock drummers that don't quite understand the idea of "playing to the mics".
Plus, I miss the ability to easily vari-speed drum tracks. I miss the ability to run the track slighty slower when recording vocals. I miss the backwards re-verb effects that you get from flipping the tape. I know how to do it in the computer, but it never seems to sound as dramatic as it did when you flipped the tape.
In the future, I really think I'm going to start using multitrack analog tape on a more regular basis.
I will consider the PT sessions the "masters", and keep recyclable reels of 2" handy for printing slaves.

I don't understand how everyone can be wondering what the HD system "sounds like". I thought the idea of higher-resolution/defintion systems is that the medium doesn't have any sound. The more detail a "recorder" provides, the less the recorder imprints its own sound.
"Transparancy"

If you want to know what HD "sounds like", set up a band with all your favorite mics,pres and compressors; and instead of patching all those signals into your PT system, patch them directly into your consoles line inputs. Isn't that what "HD" should sound like? (I realize my example is not relavant to those users who do mixing exclusively in the computer.)
If this is the case, then I already know what "HD" is going to do to the sound of my work, and I think it's not worth the money. I think I'd rather put my money into something that is going to sound more heavy-handed like "tape".
After all, weren't we all imrpressed with the jump to 24 bit? Wasn't that just 3 years ago? Did our ears develop that much in just 3 years? When I listen to mixes or even rough mixes at home, I can't remember the last time I thought, "gee, I wished those overheads had another 8 bits of dynamic resolution, with the sampling rate increased by 2:1."
C'mon, I too have work to do.

Guys, you are right on spot!

Jules you must have been sitting at the next table at our meeting this morning 'cause you just paraphrased an hours worth of debate for us. We're waiting. and the points you outline I hear echoed by at least 5 friends that own one or more rigs. Now if i could get the laptop rig together ....looks like an mbox but dang it, they coulda done better there as well. If I could just be able to edit across 24 tracks, use beat detective, and Reason with Direct connect and monitor back through the 1/8 th jacks, i could get by without even being able to track. (although If appogee made a little card that would fit the ti book.....oh baby) Craig Z :p

Jules
You said on the DUC you were at the Sony Digi demo. I was there too actually - kept an eye out to see if you might be there but either I didn't see you or failed to recognize you!!
I thought it sounded pretty impressive too and feel excited by all the developments in the pipeline.
So are you in the garden or back on the fence?
I'm definitely going for it. Just peeved that I may have to buy the 96I/O to start as they really don't seem to love that baby.
Renie :)

Originally posted by Renie:
Jules

I'm definitely going for it. Just peeved that I may have to buy the 96I/O to start as they really don't seem to love that baby.
Renie :)

I agree with Julian re HD being the way to go if you're buying into Pro Tools for the first time (which is my situation).

Renie, I had figured maybe two months before we started to get an adequate assessment of the new beast. To me one of the most critical things is the quality of its converters and clocking/sync unit.
What have you heard? Care to share?

I don't understand how everyone can be wondering what the HD system "sounds like". I thought the idea of higher-resolution/defintion systems is that the medium doesn't have any sound. The more detail a "recorder" provides, the less the recorder imprints its own sound. "Transparancy"

In theory you are right on the money. In practice though it doesn't work like this. "Transparency" is a theoretical state that does not yet exist in the audio world. So what we are left with is subjective opinion, and that's what leads to all these discussions.

Greg

Originally posted by stedel:
[

Renie, I had figured maybe two months before we started to get an adequate assessment of the new beast. To me one of the most critical things is the quality of its converters and clocking/sync unit.
What have you heard? Care to share?[/QB]

Stedel, Well I've only heard the new system at the Digi event which wasn't critical listening conditions (!) but there was a depth and oompah! to the mixes that suggested improvements..

Most of the reports on the web forums I read seem very positive. I would be very surprised if the clocking/conversion on the 192 I/O wasn't an improvement . Because I've got a Trak2 I'm not so worried about that as I can use it at 96kHz via AES and clock from it also.
But if the Digi interface is an improvement fine I'll use that instead/as well whatever. I'm concerned that the 96I/O is going to be a weak link because it's so different apparently- although I'm finding it hard to get really clear info on it...like will the AES connections be sonically inferior or is it mainly a A/D D/A issue.
Maybe Greg knows...

I'm looking forward to more power really- at 44.1- using loads of tracks and flexibility withplug-insinc. HTDM RTAS and softsynths --fun fun fun --and to experimenting with higher sample rates and the joys of SRC. Oh no. :D

When are you going to buy?

Renie

I just thought I'd share,

My brother and I are upgrading to HD after taxes are done andplug-insare all up to speed (getting there). We will swap our Mix Cubed for an HD3, and swap our 888/24 for a 192. We will keep our 1622, continue working at 44.1 for now since all our music is synth based with the exception of vocals. We are looking forward to the 192, and the LOADS of DSP and tracks we are going to have hangin' around running the HD3 at 44.1k. The upgrade deals are great, we get some value back on our surrent system before prices drop, we will be up-to-date and ready to roll wherever Pro Tools wants to go in the future, and importantly, the day higher sample rates become standard, our rig will be ready to go if we just get anotehr interface and/or expand the 192. I can understand for a lot of you guys that your upgrade is a little more complicated, but with our core and 1 interface we're only going to be looking at about $6,100. Future-minded, that's what this upgrade is about. We absolutely love Pro Tools.

Dan
Hardnox Productions

I'm concerned that the 96I/O is going to be a weak link because it's so different apparently- although I'm finding it hard to get really clear info on it...like will the AES connections be sonically inferior or is it mainly a A/D D/A issue.
Maybe Greg knows...

Hi Renie, I don't know for sure all I can go on at this stage is the info supplied by Digi. I've quoted Dave Clementson below of the differences between the 96 and 192 interfaces. According to this info the main differences are in the analog paths, both before A/D conversion and after D/A conversion as well as in the ADC chips themselves. From what I understand there shouldn't be much of a difference if you are using the AES inputs excepting that you can't SRC the inputs up to 192kS/s and the post DAC analog signal path isn't quite as good.

Greg

Besides what you get with the 192's AES/TDIF/ADAT/SRC card, the main differences between the 192 I/O and 96 I/O are in the analog signal paths. The 192 has

* ultra-wideband class A discrete bootstrap ADC driver (thanks, Ed Meitner)
* active power decoupling for every active stage (again, thanks Ed)
* fully symmetrical, double balanced signal path
* much better performing ADC chips (the DAC chips are the same as in the 96 I/O but the 192 has better analog circuitry)
* private low-noise shunt regulation for each converter rail
* only Vishay or Beyschlag MELF resistors and dual-biased Wima polypropylene caps in the signal path
* DC-coupled signal path with DC servo offset compensation
* laser-trimmed input network for optimum CMRR
* balanced soft-knee ADC clipper
* separate software-selectable +4 and -10 input jacks
* wideband class-A discrete balanced output driver
* low-noise, wideband current-feedback DAC buffer (thanks for the idea, Michael Grace)
* passive, pulse-optimized DAC anti-image filters
* all relay switching
* dual gain adjusts on each input and output channel for two separate headroom calibration presets
* individually shielded channels for low crosstalk

It's funny how Digi loves the idea of dropping big names regarding the design aspects of the new boxes only to distance themselves later. At one point all we heard about was 'Bruce Jackson, Bruce Jackson, Ed Meitner, Michael Grace". It turns out that Bruce had nothing to do with the design but his name was convenient to drop regarding the controversy over Apogees being arbitrarily and suddenly left out of the loop. When it became clear that Apogees best products were designed without Bruce, Digi backed off their claims as to his input into the design of the 192. Turns out he just 'introduced' a few people. Now, it seems, Michael Grace had nothing to do with the pre amp designs. There is clearly a campaign of disinformation being used to discredit dissenters.
That should raise everyone's eyebrows a bit.
If I seem paranoid, it's only because I'm being followed. :roll:

you are you know. we've all been whispering about it.

Originally posted by Chap:
It's funny how Digi loves the idea of dropping big names regarding the design aspects of the new boxes only to distance themselves later. At one point all we heard about was 'Bruce Jackson, Bruce Jackson, Ed Meitner, Michael Grace". It turns out that Bruce had nothing to do with the design but his name was convenient to drop regarding the controversy over Apogees being arbitrarily and suddenly left out of the loop. When it became clear that Apogees best products were designed without Bruce, Digi backed off their claims as to his input into the design of the 192. Turns out he just 'introduced' a few people. Now, it seems, Michael Grace had nothing to do with the pre amp designs. There is clearly a campaign of disinformation being used to discredit dissenters.
That should raise everyone's eyebrows a bit.
If I seem paranoid, it's only because I'm being followed. :roll:

Hype is hype is hype is hype.
The basic situation is user valuation. Did digi deliver? It's not in their ad campaigns, they're brochures etc...it's all in the usin'. Why wouldn't you go for the higher 190 unit? From a first time purchaser view point this a great deal. 'Specially if you can afford to wait and give time for the outboard to be gone over...I mean just how long does it take to check the quality of these or any converters folks?

Re being followed..did this happen before or after you joined this Forum?
:confused:

Now, it seems, Michael Grace had nothing to do with the pre amp designs. There is clearly a campaign of disinformation being used to discredit dissenters.

I remember watching how the inclusion of the Michael Grace name came about. In a early thread, someone asked digi about the sound quality of the new pre-amp. To paraphrase, Digi stated that it wasn't coloured but was designed with the same philosophy of transparency as the Grace units. Next thing you know is that posts are popping up on the DUC and other message boards saying that the pre-amp was designed with the assistance of Michael Grace. Digi chimed in on one of the DUC threads and clearly stated that Grace had no direct involvement with the design of the pre-amp but that hasn't stopped the rumour mill working overtime.

In other words, how much is this a case of misinformation from Digi and how much is it the DUC rumour mill? The name of Ed Meitner has been used by Digi because he has actually worked for Digi on the design of the 192I/O and Ed Meitner is one of the world's leading designers of cutting edge ADC technology and is particularly regarded for his work in the DSD field.

There is nothing that I've seen from Digi to substatiate your claim of "a campaign of disinformation being used to discredit dissenters."

Greg

Originally posted by KenSluiter:

I begining to notice that drums direct into PT (w/ AD-8000) works best with good studio drummers, but is unforgiving with good hi-energy rock drummers that don't quite understand the idea of "playing to the mics".

I, too have noticed a difficulty in PT in finagling drum sounds from less-than-great drummers, which I had become known for in the analog domain. I'm hard at work on it though, and I'm going to try to get it without resorting to the analog/PT dump. Looking hard and long at the FATSO. Right now tring weird stuff with 1176's and LCA2B. Anyone have any success stories?

PS, using HD2 system on a G4 867. Neve pre's.