O.K. Would you spend the extra $80 bucks?

[riccol]

I have been very happy for a few years with my Audiophile 24/96

But new computer on the way and putting a card in it

Either a audiophile 24/96 or the newer Audiophile 192

Would you spend the extra $80 bucks for the 192 or save the money?

 

[Garik]

does your 24/96 have ballanced in's and outs?

If not,then that would be a good reason,if it doesnt then i doubt u'll hear much difference.

I have 192,but never had 24/96 so dont quote me

 

[Dr Biscuits]

I've got a 2496 too, and I agree the biggest practical advantage of the 192 is the balanced outs - but depending what you're running it to/from, if your other equipment isn't balanced anyway it won't make a difference.

 

[riccol]

Well I don't have any high end stuff, but my DMP3, Joe Meek, Rnc, and VTB1 all have balanced I/O's.
So your saying that the balanced I/O's make more of a difference that the higher sample rate of the 192?

Is the benefit of the Balanced I/O's in less noise?

 

[Dr Biscuits]

Yes, balanced cables help shield outside noise interference, and it's especially noticable with long cable runs. Personally, I rarely record at even 96k even though I have the option, so I doubt I'd be using 192... generally I work at 24/48.
I'd guess you're going to hear more of a difference (if any) by switching to balanced connections than switching from 96 to 192 - but if you upgrade you'll have the option for both!
Oh, one advantage of a higher sampling rate is lower latency, so that may be a point to consider.

 

[Bulls Hit]

Unless you live next to a substation, or your preamps are 30 feet away from your computer, I doubt you'll hear any difference between unbalanced & balanced

 

[Carter]

Unless you live next to a substation, or your preamps are 30 feet away from your computer, I doubt you'll hear any difference between unbalanced & balanced

This is true!

 

[riccol]

O.K. Didn't spend the extra 80 bucks! went with the 24/96