24bit 96k vs 24bit 192k converters

Discussion in 'Converters / Interfaces' started by audiokid, Apr 15, 2011.

  • AT5047

    The New AT5047 Premier Studio Microphone Purity Transformed

  1. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Very interesting you are using firewire for mastering, Richard! Wow. I am going away from FW because of the latency I'm experiencing with MIDI. Its minor but enough to be annoying and a detriment. I'm guessing you aren't using MIDI and are direct monitoring so latency isn't ever an issue?

    When we are buying the interface, example : Lynx is approx $700 and the RME is $1200. What are we paying for?
     
  2. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    I should mention the RME HDSPe AES has Midi where the Lynx doesn't, but other than that, they will both work and "sound wise" both would sound the same? Interfaces don't have their own sound like a converter have correct?
     
  3. Big K

    Big K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Location:
    Munich / Germany
    Home Page:
    Are you planing on more then one setup?
    The RME AES has no Optical I/Os. The 16 AES/EBU I/Os will be filled up, soon, when you want to ad some outboard FX or Digital Mics.
    It would not be the right card for me. I went with Optical connections and can work with 36 I/Os (mic-pres or Line I/Os ).
    Mucho flexibility... incl. 1 AES, 1 SPDIF...
     
  4. TrilliumSound

    TrilliumSound Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Location:
    Montreal, Qc, CANADA
    Home Page:
    Yep, Firewire is one of the best thing for me and my workflow, less is more ;-). But latency, if there is, has no impact about what I am doing (Mastering only). Before the FW option card, I was using a Lynx One card (AES out to AES in to the Prism). The Lynx was solid, stable and SIMPLE. I like simplicity (I'm getting old I guess ;-).

    In your case, I think Big K has a good point; more options and flexibility is what you should look at. With these brands, I think you can't go wrong.

    Richard
     
  5. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    I hear ya on the 16 IO Big-K, but that would mean buying a MADI converter which I'm not sure that's the best move for me at present. But if there is a MADI / 16 AES combo, interface, I do that! Is there a card that has this you know of?
     
  6. TrilliumSound

    TrilliumSound Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Location:
    Montreal, Qc, CANADA
    Home Page:
    In my experience, interfaces (AES, s/pdif etc...) don't have a sound on its own, it is just a different transport protocol, connectors, cabling, voltage etc..) but "soundwise" being the same.

    Richard
     
  7. Big K

    Big K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Location:
    Munich / Germany
    Home Page:
    Hmm,
    You said, the devices are not far appart, so, MADI would not be my choice. Why go AES/EBU? Do you have gear that can only work with AES?

    Now, this is just a quick list:
    -RME RayDAT with 4 x 8 optical I/Os ( + AES & SPDIF & Analog I/O -36 ch in total, up to 192 kHz + MIDI ) for 850.-$ US in an i7 PC:
    -Outboard: Micstasy, ADI-8 QS, + 3 more 1 to 8 channel Line/ Mic inputs an outputs.
    -If you have more digital devices that need to cooperate, you might want a solid houseclock like the Rosendahl nanoclocks.
    -Connections: only a bunch of good quality optical cables and a few cheap coax cables for wordclock.
     
  8. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Thanks Richard,

    Rainer, yes, much better option. I was looking at the RME RayDAT but missed the concept of using the ADAT out of the ADI-8 QS or other possible converters without ADAT. When I read the RME RayDAT accepts AES, it looked like it was for only 2 tracks.

    I've never used ADAT for anything other than 2 channels before so I'm unaware of all the various ways to use breakout cables and how versatile the RME RayDAT is compared to just an AES/EBU interface.
    I'm so bend out of shape thinking ADAT is old tech.... for the Tascam DA 88 generation back in the 80's and not a simpler and continued and alternative solution to connect digital/ thus... I'm missing the mark here but I see the light finally.

    Yes, the, RME: HDSPe RayDAT is a much better choice. Thank you, you've helped me more than you know!!
     
  9. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Richard/ Rainer, reading this below is why I was wondering what the differences are with all these cards:
    Quote from RME:

    Learning you are using Firewire for mastering changes my game!

    I was considering something like this card above to connect my Dangerous Master Stereo Outs to Lavry AD10 (for my Mastering CP) but now see I can use my Fireface 800 as the interface only?
    I could use the AD10 spdif out to FF800 spdif in and bypass the RME converters altogether, yes? This... benefiting 100% Lavry's via firewire, yes?

    edit> do adat or spdif bypass the converters on all interfaces?
     
  10. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Confused again, I see this is a converter and interface so no wonder I'm confusing the specs mentioning being significant performance gains.
     
  11. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    Yes. Once something is digital then it's digital. Changing the format from ADAT to SPDIF to MADI to AES is simply changing the wrapper if you will. You are not reconverting anything.
     
  12. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Big mystery just confirmed. Wow... I'm on a new plane now. Thank you.
     
  13. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    I have one question however, I have read numerous times over the years that many people feel AES/EBU ( within a short distance) has better transfer with lengths than other types connections. So back to my question... I'm assuming anywhere up to 12 ft, they all are unmeasurable yes?

    So my obvious route, now that I have this sorted, ADAT like Rainer is suggesting is by far the most pro active direction for me? Cable costs, greater flexibility and more channel count.
     
  14. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    An AES or TDIF D25 connector carry 8 channels regardless of the sample rate. Toslink (ADAT) carries 8 channels at 44.1/48k and via SMUX (combining light channels or bit splitting) it carries 4 channels at 88.2/96k and 2 channels at 176.4/192k. SPDIF is always only two channels again regardless of sample rate.

    Now we have already covered that virtually no one works at 192k because if they are going to that effort then most likely they are working DSD 1 bit which a whole other animal. The key to digital interfacing is a master clock and bnc cables. While ADAT and SPDIF will carry the clock with them it is not as reliable as a central word clock.
     
  15. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Rainer, looking at these two

    Rosendahl nanoclocks Rosendahl Nanoclocks Digital Audio Clock Server | VintageKing.com
    or

    RME HDSP 9632 Word Clock Module (WCM) | Sweetwater.com

    Big difference in cost. I see the advantage of the Rosendahl having more connection. Do they both come close in stability if all I am doing is the two QS's right now?

    The raydat needs a clock so if I go this route, I need a clock
     
  16. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    I'll interject but Rainer will I'm sure give his perspective too. The best clocking source is a star array. Each device gets it's own home run to the clock which is more stable that a daisy chain. This is what makes the Nano desirable. The RME WCM would be no different than using the FF800 as the clock source. You end up having to daisy chain devices. Now if you have two pieces of gear that you are syncing then it's a moot point.
     
  17. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:

    Ah, now I'm back to what for again lol. I understand what I was reading on that now. Then I don't want to be messing around with all this and simply have a simple 16 ADDA I'm back to AES/EBU.

    John, you know I'm doing here. ( 16 IO all to sum into the MixDream) . I want to stay at 88.2 and need 16 DA for this. What do you think is the right direction.


    Everyone, please help audiokid with his new system!
     
  18. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    The Raydat will do 16 channels of ADAT at 88.2k. Four channel per ADAT connector (4) makes sixteen channels. I think that is a good option as far as the computer itself. You still have to get the analog converted to ADAT first.
     
  19. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Got it! This is what I have figured. So, at this point, only using two QS's for this MixDream summing system, I'm tight with the basic clock from RME? If, however, I expand my requirements and add a third QS, a star array would then be absolute at that point?
     
  20. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Thank you John, very helpful here.

    So if I'm ordering cable $: I need 4 ADAT cables for 16 channels of 88.2? If I just stay with AES/EBU with the AESe card, I have 16 channels of any bandwidth regardless , yes?
     
  • AT5047

    The New AT5047 Premier Studio Microphone Purity Transformed

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice