8 mic pres with 24/192

[spam]

Hi Rick and everyone.

I have been researching several audio interfaces with 8 mic preamps for a while now and all seem to have their pros and cons. I am starting to lean towards the Saffire Pro 26i/o, but I am confused on one issue, and hope this is not a stupid question.

As far as I can figure, this unit has different digital outputs that deliver different bit depth/kHz ratios...2 x SPDIF (RCA phono) on rear panel (24-bit, 192kHz); 2 x ADAT In / Out (44.1 / 48kHz), 16 channels; 1 x ADAT In / Out (88.2 / 96kHz), 8 channels S-MUX.

My question is this... is the use of all 8 mic pres availible to output at 24/192 simultaneously to 8 seperate channels to a DAW, through a single connection?

[ricknaqvi]

Hi Spam,

I really hate to speculate because I don't know the true specs of the Focusrite. As far as I can tell from their site, the only place where 192kHz is mentioned is on the SPDIF, not the analog or ADAT inputs. I would give them a call to confirm this.

In regards to the Firestudio:
You only have a max of 96kHz sampling rate. However, you can do 18 inputs at 96kHz and 26 inputs at 44 or 48. You also have the ability with the MSR remote to add talkback, speaker switching, surround control plus a total of 2 additional headphone amps, all of which can have separate mixes coming from the computer. In total, you can do 9 stereo mixes on the Firestudio and route those to any of the physical outputs all with no latency.

The other major feature on the Firestudio is the new clocking circuitry called Jet PLL. It is an amazingly low jitter clock (Below 300 picoseconds of jitter) and sounds amazing.

We'll have full specs and videos on the Firestudio that will go on our site in about 2 weeks.

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Rick

[spam]

Hey Rick, thanks for the reply. Sorry to direct a Focusrite question at you, but as I couldn't find a definitive answer elsewhere, I was hoping you had some insider insight.

So you know, the Firepod is on my short list for a possible 8 pre unit, as well as the M-Audio Octane, and the Focusrite product. Seems a tough choice.

Thanks again.

[ricknaqvi]

No problem.

There are a lot of great options out there today. Now, all you have to do is write some great music!! :-)

Good luck to you. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Kind Regards,

[spam]

Thanks again, Rick!
Rick wrote:
I really hate to speculate...I would give them a call to confirm this.

I had previously sent an email to Focusrite and didn't recieve a reply, so I wanted to get another opinion.

My situation is this... I am looking to get a decent eight channel mic pre (for whole, seperate drum tracking), to compliment a good 2 channel mic pre. I am 95% leaning towards the ADL 600 (overheads for the drum tracks, individual instruments, vocals, etc.) for the 2 channel, but am stuck on the 8 channel unit.

Opinions?

[ricknaqvi]

Hey Spam,

Here's a question:

Are you looking for more of an eight channel preamp to hook up to an existing interface

OR

an interface that has eight mic preamps?

THANKS MAN,

[spam]

Rick, thanks for the interest.

I am looking for an 8 mic pre unit that I can use in conjuction with the E-MU1212M soundcard. I figured that I could dedicate the E-MU's digital inputs (ADAT, SPDIF, firewire) to the multi pre unit, as well as the two analog inputs to a higher end 2 channel mic pre. I don't know if these multiple connections will be feasible, but it seems a good start.

Would I be better served with a mic pre unit that acts as the interface as well? I only have an additional firewire input (TI chipset) outside of the soundcards'.

Basically it is this... I want to be able to record 10 channels (if neccessary) into 10 seperate channels within Cubase or Sonar at as high a bit depth/rate I can.

Suggestions appreciated.

[itsplayed]

First, you'd be limited by the 1212M.

[spam]

Ah, I see what you are saying itsplayed. I remember a while back, you writing about limitations of the 1212M at higher rates and the loss of optional inputs, so I just looked into that... darn it if you aren't right! Back to the drawing board I guess.

Steve ( if I may call you that), do you have any suggestions for what I want to accomplish:
to be able to record 10 channels (if neccessary) into 10 seperate channels within Cubase or Sonar at as high a bit depth/rate I can.

I am not trying to break the bank, but my hands aren't exactly tied either.

[jmail]

Yeah, your 1212 can "only" do 2 channels of 192 & 4 channels of 96k over S-MUX ADAT, 8 @ 44.1/48, so that kills that. The EMU also does not like to share ASIO with other devices. If you're after something for use with the 1212 you have, you'd be better served with like a Behring ADA 8000, Alesis AI3, SM Audio AI8, etc., and do it at 48k, 20 or 24-bit. Or, dump the 1212 and get something like that Firestation...

[ricknaqvi]

If you are going to keep the 1212 then the Digimax FS will give you an extra 8 inputs with pres plus eight outputs at 48k or four at 96 since it only has one lightpipe jack.

A Firestudio will give you 18 simultaneous outputs at 96k and the Firepod will give you 10 inputs at 96k.

Kind Regards,
Rick

[itsplayed]

There's no easy or cheap way to get 8 mic pre's in at 192khz, but if your hands aren't tied, these two will do it for you.........

http://www.mackie.com/products/800r/index.html

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AES16/

...the nice thing about the Lynx is that it will allow for future expansion of another Mackie unit, giving you 16 ins @ 192khz.

[Audiodude]

Maybe the bigger question is why do you need 192 kHz? Are there situations you have run into where 48 or 96 wouldn't cut it?

[spam]

Well this is hard to explain, or is possibly irrational, but...

There is so much (heated) debate about what occurs,or doesn't occur to audio when recording at 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/88, 24/96, etc., that it's impossible for me to decide if it does make a difference, without experimenting for myself.

Now here's where I may make myself look foolish.

I have not recorded anything through mics>preamps>computer, only soft synths, drum machines and samples, so my questions are more proactive in that I want to be able to get the best analog to digital recordings I can (given time, budget and talent), and I don't want to limited by a 96kHz if a 192kHz is in fact better. But the difference of higher rate might actually be intangible so I would at least like to have that capacity.

As I am planning on spending a fair amount of money in the near future for mics and preamps I just don't want to short change myself.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

P.S. Sorry for all this on the Presonus forum.

[Audiodude]

I don't want to start the sample rate debate all over again. It's been done on every forum on the web. But 192 kHz is ridiculous (unless you record bats or dolphins). It's not a matter of opinion as much as it is scientific fact based on the principals of digital audio, and proven many times over in listening tests. I've taken part in a few blind listening tests, and there was no perceived difference between the sample rates from 48 kHz to 192 kHz (and beyond).

A waste of money, bandwidth, and hard drive space. Getting a GOOD preamp and a GOOD converter is far more important than silly specs like maximum sample rate. So get what sounds best for your application.

And, getting back to the fact that this thread is in the PreSonus forum, I'd give a strong recommendation for their new FireStudio, or any of the Digimax line of preamps.

[ricknaqvi]

I was talking to a buddy of mine last night about sample rate stuff.

Since every commercial made DVD plays 24/192, the need for higher sampling rates is justified for people that are doing music for movies. You can record and mix at 24/192 and may actually 'hear' the difference.

If you record strictly music, not only do you have to eventually dither down to 16/44.1 to play it in your home/car CD player, but the sad truth is that the majority of consumers hear music on IPOD's which is far less quality than even 16/44.1.

Don't get me wrong: I respect anybody's desire to buy products that won't quickly get outdated. Nobody wants to buy 'yesterday's technology.'

However, in my old age, I have found that if you get sucked into the 'technology' race you may not get the benefit of what all this technology is really meant for: capturing great music. A lot of these 'specs' are really just marketing hype rather than usable specs that make a difference in how people record music.

I would personally recommend buying solid, reliable gear. Then concentrate on capturing the best performance and writing great songs. That will take you a lot farther.

Just my opinion.....

[Audiodude]

Since commercial DVD's play at 24/192, there's a need to have the ability to output at that sample rate, for sure. But even if you are making music for movies, I still question the need to record at that high sample rate. You can sample rate convert the sessions to 192 if that is what the studios require.

And for the record, the sample rate debate has nothing to do with bit depth. I think everybody agrees that there is a monumental difference between working at 16 bit and 24 bit.

[vulcan_dc]

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

this link was put up sometime back here... should help you on your questions on samplerates

Best wishes...

[spam]

Thanks for all you replies, I value all your opinions and advice.

I wasn't trying to rehash the samplerate debate, just looking for a clearcut answer, and I think I got it.

Good converters and good preamps is my main focus. Just didn't want to not be able to use them to the fullest capability I could. So, all in all, I'm very glad I don't have to worry about samplerate so much.

Thanks for that link Vulcan, I had not seen it yet.:o

[Audiodude]

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

this link was put up sometime back here... should help you on your questions on samplerates

Best wishes...


Great paper! Thanks for the link. Dan Lavry, of all people, knows his stuff when it comes to this. For those who haven't read all 27 pages, here's the summary from the last page:

The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent engineering and scientific reality.

Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.

While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are further disadvantages:
1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage and data transmission speed requirements).
2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required processing power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio quality.

The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio industry salesman (Editorial note: not this audio industry salesman.) have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Weather motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true.

-Copyright Dan Lavry, Lavry Engineering, Inc, 2004

Sorry to Rick for hijacking a thread on the PreSonus forum to get into this. But I did want to make the point that the fact that PreSonus products such as the FirePod and DigiMax line do not sample at 192 KHz is not a limitation. Rather, it's a refreshing bit of good sense. Undoubtedly, a 192k version of any given product will cost the end user more, but fail to deliver any improved performance in a practical sense.

(Again, unless you record bats and dolphins. I actually have a customer who is a biologist and he's the only person I've talked to that really needs to record at 192KHz.) ;)

</rant>

I'll also be copying portions of this thread to a new thread on one of the more general forums.

[vulcan_dc]

ha... ha... that article cleaned me up to.... ;)

The link was contributed by 'waigy '

http://www.audioforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14609

cheers... :D