question about hd24 vs. hd24xr

the_man

New member
The only difference between the two is the convereters, right? Supposedly, the XR converters are the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, if I were to use a Tascam DM-24 with it, I wouldn't be using the XR converters, I'd be using the Tascam's. So it'd be a waste of $$$ for me. Does that sound right?

A few other questions:

1. The XR converters enable one to record at higher sample rates, but you only have 12 tracks instead of 24. Is that just 12 tracks simultaneously, or 12 tracks altogether?

2. Are the XR converters available as an upgrade, or would I be stuck with the regular HD24?

Thanks

Kevin
 
I don't know that the converters are any better, just record at the higher resolution. Would that be a waste of money? Who knows.
When recording at the higher sampling rate you only get twelve tracks total, not twenty-four.
And yes, the XR converters are available as an upgraded. Personally, I don't see the need of it since (with a Lucid GenX6 as an external word clock source) the converters on the stock HD24 sound VERY good to my ears.
 
I'm lovin the HD24. It sounds better the the Delta1010 to me even though it doesn't do 96k.


I wonder if it would be wise now that I'm mixing down from the HD24 into the Delta to get an external clock source like the Lucid GenX6?

What do you think Rat?
 
I recently upgraded my HD24 with the new converters and the difference is audible, even when recording with all 24 tracks at the available sample rates. The new converters are well worth the extra money IMHO. Luckily, I was able to get the upgrade on ebay for $250. The converters are similar, if not the same as the ones in the Masterlink.
 
Im sure there is a difference between the two even at 44.1 but im extremely satisfied enough with the original that im not stressed about running at and spending hundreds of dollars for the upgrade. Maybe when im a rich man whiping my butt with twenty dollar bills and it doesnt matter much where i put my money.

Danny
 
darnold said:
Im sure there is a difference between the two even at 44.1 but im extremely satisfied enough with the original that im not stressed about running at and spending hundreds of dollars for the upgrade. Maybe when im a rich man whiping my butt with twenty dollar bills and it doesnt matter much where i put my money.

Danny


Exactly! I'm sure there is other gear, and skills, that are affecting the quality of my recordings more so than the converters. I'll know when I'm pushing the limits of the stock converters and I'll react accordingly. But for now, it rocks the way it is.
 
Track Rat said:
I don't know that the converters are any better, just record at the higher resolution

24XR does indeed have better converters than the HD24. Carry on
 
I worked 2 years with a HD24 at a smaller studio before buying my own HD24XR. The XR's sound about 10% better on regular settings. The top and low end seem to be more clear and real.

Maybe I'm imagining things or it's just my mixer versus the 02R's that studio had, because Alesis never claimed any difference other than the 96k sample rate.
 
Upgrading converters to 96K also means upgrading to higher voltage on the converters which would change the sound to the converters in general. I think it has more change in the Anolog components to the converters than the digital.

I could be wrong though.

Danny
 
Back
Top