Audiophile 192 vs. 2496

  • Thread starter Thread starter IronFlippy
  • Start date Start date
IronFlippy

IronFlippy

Dedicated To My Member
In the debate for a new sound card, I'm putting these two (audiphile 192 and 2496) up against each other. I shall list the differences I have noted:

Audiophile 192:
up to 192kHz sample rate
1/4" TRS I/O
3 pairs of analog I/O ports

Audiophile 2496:
up to 96kHz sample rate
RCA I/O
2 pairs of analog I/O ports


Now, my question is: Are these the only differences? I definately want the MIDI I/O (which both offer), and I'd like at least two different inputs to record guitar and vocals simultaneously onto two separate tracks.

It looks like I'll just need the 2496, but I was wondering if there were any significant improvements other than what I noted to the 192.
 
Unfortunately I cannot compare the two but Audiophile 2496 has 2 analog I/O and 2 digital I/O, not 2 pairs of analog.
 
Alright, then M-Audio is just confusing the hell out of me. When I looked at the pic of the card, it looked like there were 4 RCA connectors on the card itself and then two on the breakout cable for S/PDIF. They labelled the four connections on the card as inputs and outputs. 2 ins and 2 outs. That's in addition to the 2 S/PDIF connectors on the break out cable. When I said 2 pairs, I meant each pair being an input and and output. At least this is what it looks like in the picture.
 
M-audio 2496

Hi, how you doing.I'm using the audiophile 2496 since 2002.It works very well.
I'm using it with Cubase SX2, no problem.You can use it with a lot of software.
Soundforge, Cakewalk, Cubase, Reason, Protools....

To your question about in and out, the 2496 have 2 analogs inputs, 2 analogs ouputs, midi in and out, Spdif coaxial in and out for a total of 4 in and 4 out.

The ratio noise/signal is around 101 db like they said.These 2 analogs in and out are not balanced input ouput ( no TRS ).

Finally, you can go up to 24 bits and 96 Khz audio recording.It don't really
matter if you can go up to 196 Khz instead of 96 Khz, what's important
is that you record in 24 BITS.Each bit ( 8 + than 16 BITS ) have a possibility
of 256 more samples per BIT, so 256 x 8 BITS....That's what important instead of looking at 196Khz like it's better.I'll be back in a few minute,à
i hope it will help you.
 
Hi, I'm back, i was looking at the audiophile 192 and here's my note.

The Audiophile 192 Have 2 analogs inputs balanced
2 analogs outputs, midi in and out,
2 outputs for speakers monitoring, ( specificaly for monitoring speakers )
finally in and out Spdif coaxial.

Comment: the Audiophile 192 is made out of the Audiophile 2496,
it's like the UPGRADE hardware, it comes from the 2496.Read the article
about it at www.M-audio.com in the Product section, PCI interface.

I would buy a 192 instead of 2496, even if i got a 2496.

Why? It's simple.

1-the 192 have BALANCED inputs and outputs.
2-the 192 have 2 analogs outputs espacially for monitoring speakers
3-Like they said you can go up to 196Khz instead of 96Khz.
4-The 192 is made out of the 2496.

So i think you have the answer to your question.If you got any other
questions, no problem, just post it, somebody gonna help you here.
Bye.I hope it will help you make a choice.A good choice.
 
Hi, I'm back, i was looking at the audiophile 192 and here's my note.

The Audiophile 192 Have 2 analogs inputs balanced
2 analogs outputs, midi in and out,
2 outputs for speakers monitoring, ( specificaly for monitoring speakers )
finally in and out Spdif coaxial.

Comment: the Audiophile 192 is made out of the Audiophile 2496,
it's like the UPGRADE hardware, it comes from the 2496.Read the article
about it at www.M-audio.com in the Product section, PCI interface.

I would buy a 192 instead of 2496, even if i got a 2496.

Why? It's simple.

1-the 192 have BALANCED inputs and outputs.
2-the 192 have 2 analogs outputs espacially for monitoring speakers
3-Like they said you can go up to 196Khz instead of 96Khz.
4-The 192 is made out of the 2496.

So i think you have the answer to your question.If you got any other
questions, no problem, just post it, somebody gonna help you here.
Bye.I hope it will help you make a choice.A good choice.
 
Sorry, i post it 2 times. Sorry again, see you next time.
 
Does having balanced I/O really make that much of a difference in terms of noise? Also, you said the 192 has 2 outputs specifically for monitoring, but what does the 2496 have as far as outputs are concerned?
 
In terms of noise I'm very happy with the 2496. If some other card has even lower noise level I would probably have to update my whole monitoring setup first to be able to hear any difference.

The outputs in 2496 are stereo analog out and stereo S/PDIF out. The inputs are similiar. I have my monitoring connected to the analog outs and the digital out is at the moment unused. Also, I haven't even tried the analog ins yet as the only outboard sound source I use is my guitar and my Boss GT-6 preamp/fx-processor has digital out...

BTW, you have probably seen the confusing statements about 2496 having 4 ins/outs. If your programs support it (most do) you can use any individual half of stereo input as normal mono input. It's just a matter of choosing what and how many channels you want to record.
 
Hmmm, I may have worded my question wrong. Let's try this:

The 192 has two stereo outputs, a main and a monitor. What exactly are the differences between them? My guess is that the monitor outputs are for hardware monitoring what is going through the inputs and the main is what the computer itself outputs. I'm assuming the 2496's outputs are like the 192's "main" outputs. I am only talking about the analog I/O here.

And a question about the S/PDIF:
Is there a way I can connect my 5.1 surround sound system to the 2496? The only jacks it has are 3 different 1/8" plugs and my Revolution card takes those, but the 2496 only has S/PDIF surround. Are there any adapters for this? I searched Radioshack and they don't have anything like that.
 
I don't know about the 5.1 as I haven't needed or tried it.

As for the outputs, I would guess they are exactly alike and in the included control panel software you can then determine what goes to which output.

It can also be that the monitor out is somehow modified so you can plug active monitors straight in. Maybe the M-Audio site has more info?
 
S/pdif

IronFlippy said:
And a question about the S/PDIF:
Is there a way I can connect my 5.1 surround sound system to the 2496? The only jacks it has are 3 different 1/8" plugs and my Revolution card takes those, but the 2496 only has S/PDIF surround. Are there any adapters for this? I searched Radioshack and they don't have anything like that.
Click to expand...

I'm n not sure this will help you...

Keep in mind that if you manage to plug a 5.1 sound system to your soundcard in S/PDIF or Optical, you will only be able to listen to DVD in 5.1, you won't be able to mix in realtime using softwares which can. You'll need to use 6 discreets outputs.
 
Hi, I'm interested in sound quality that comes through the spdif in of the AP 2496. Does the sound remain the same as on the source spdif-out, or is it any different? I would only need the AP for that (aus it's digital in-outs).

Could you also tell me which mic preamp i could connect to the AP? Since the analog-ins are not really the best, the preamp should have spdif-out... Could you tell me for some good mic preamps that have spdif out (would the behringer ultravoice 2496 be ok?)

thanx
bye
JK
 
I'm very satisfied with the SPDIF in AP2496. Then again, since it's only data (1's and 0's) going through digital connection anyway, it should remain absolutely unchanged. Just get good quality (and not too long) cables.

As for preamps, Behringers are probably ok, depending on what you do. For most home studios Behringers have quite unbeatable price/quality ratio.

I have a Boss GT-6 guitar preamp/multi-fx connected to the digital in on my Audiophile. I have also tried using the Boss as preamp for microphone and it works without any problems.
 
Hi, Sound on Sound reviewed the audiophile 192 pretty recently. From what I remember they seemed to think the 192 sounded noticably better than the 2496 even at the same sample rates and bit depth etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top