The difference between audiophile 192 and 2496?
- Thread starter Diffusion
- Start date
Shenanigans
New member
Ill hit you off on that one, as I've done a bit of research, not fully, but enough to make the comparison. The 192 can do 192khz/24 bits, has balanced ins and outs + extra 'monitor' outs (just another balanced out pr). I have the 2496 (which does 96 khz/ 24bits, unbalanced outs)and while I like it, I want the balanced connects of the 192 because my monitors and mixer support balanced cabling. I plan on using both, but Im actually torn between the 192, and the ESI Juli@. I like the GUI mixer panel of the Juli@, a simple matter of taste, I feel it is a bit more informative. I havent found any benchmarks on the 192 yet, but Ive found my 2496 has a dynamic range of 97.8 dB, which is fair, but aged in this day of recording. The 192 claims a dynamic range of 113dB.
On a minor note, I have heard lots on the EMU 1212m, and actually bought one. My advice to you, dont buy one. I returned mine after four days of maddening computer tech issues. It looks incredible on paper, but the chances of you encountering a major technical dificulty is quite high.
On a minor note, I have heard lots on the EMU 1212m, and actually bought one. My advice to you, dont buy one. I returned mine after four days of maddening computer tech issues. It looks incredible on paper, but the chances of you encountering a major technical dificulty is quite high.
hueseph
New member
Just for the record. Nobody in the industry is using 192K files yet. So if you take your mix to a mastering suite, they won't be able to help you. Currently 96K is the standard. If you want to upgrade and you want balanced inputs try the Delta Series or the Mia would be fine but until 192k becomes a standard I don't think it's a wise investment. Not to mention that 192K files will be twice the size of a 96K file.
the dynamic range is
Yeah I honestly can't see the point in 192KHz recording.
Files are twice as big, your DAW will max out on half as many tracks, and for a negligible difference in fidelity. Even balanced cables won't make any difference unless you record in an electrically noisy environment or you run really long cables.
The 192 will be a good card, but I'd go for the Delta 44/66 instead
Files are twice as big, your DAW will max out on half as many tracks, and for a negligible difference in fidelity. Even balanced cables won't make any difference unless you record in an electrically noisy environment or you run really long cables.
The 192 will be a good card, but I'd go for the Delta 44/66 instead
warble
New member
Shenanigans said:
I've seen a few recommendations for the EMU's here because they sound "like the cat's arse"...that's I'm sure, absolutely true, but I've seen horror stories on the net about driver stability and people banging their head with the PatchMix, etc. Sound is ONE thing and I know that in the price range the EMU rocks in this area, but sound is ONE thing. I prefer a mix of sound and stability.
Diffusion: I used to own the 2496 and really liked the sonic quality. I did have some driver/motherboard chipset issues which caused me to move to another manufacturer. It was my first "real" sound card. Dynamic range isn't bad on the 2496, but once you start getting up into 110db+, this to me means better converters and you'll be getting a better sonic quality IMO. 96 vs. 192....well, can't speak much on that one. I'm using 44khz/24 bits and am pleased with what I'm getting on my current system (PreSonus Firepod).