Sanity Check - Upgrading from a 24i

zemlin · Post by **zemlin** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:31 am

I've been using a 24i for several years (WINTEL), and it's worked well for me. I'd like to upgrade my converter setup, but don't want to spend a bundle. I'm not excited about higher sampling rates - I just want a step up from where I'm at. I'd like to end up with more outputs (the 24i only has one pair of outs).

Options:
1) Buy a word clock and stick with the 24i
2) Give the 24i the BlackLion treatment (does he do the 24i?)
3) Buy a clock and a pair of 1224s (reportedly better converters than the 24i, plus I get more outputs)
4) Buy a 24i/o (is the 24i/o unclocked better than the older gear with a clock?)

Most of my work is location recording - acoustic, choral, multitracking live shows (as well as FOH usually), etc. Limited studio work, and that's usually simple stuff.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:40 pm

Upgrading a clock doesn't improve the converter, it only allows the converter to run at optimal design frequency and response. The clock also upgrades (depending on the clock you buy) the internal audio structure, therefore providing more accurate sampling. Of course with the covnerters, transient response is improved there too. But the cost of a good clock is about the cost of a 24I/O. The MOTU 24I/O isn't a superior AD/DA setup, but it's certainly much improved over the 24i. Before I switched to a ProToolsHD system, I had a 24I/O and a 2408mk3, it sounds good.

IMHPO (In my honest, professional opinion), I would recommend the 24I/O in this instance. You can also chain your 24i onto the PCI-424 card as well for another 24-channels if that is needed.

zemlin · Post by **zemlin** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:51 pm

BradLyons wrote:Upgrading a clock doesn't improve the converter

Understood, and a poor choice of words on my part - it improves the output from the converter, which is really what I'm interested in.

zemlin · Post by **zemlin** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:12 am

Any second opinions?

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:03 am

Hey, zemlin.

It's not human, but it's a second opinion.
I'd go the 24I/O. Brad's absolutely right.
From what I can tell, and I'm in the market for 2x24I/O, running it at 24/44.1 should be a decent improvement over the 24i.
Converter quality has improved much along with sample rates etc., so even at conventional settings, things should sound much better.
As a bonus, you'd get those extra outs you wanted, too.

Hope this helps, zemlin
M

mnewport · Post by **mnewport** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:04 am

We modify the 24i, but we only do the analog stages so you'll need an external wordclock if you want to see improvement in that area.

You only need 44k and 48k output capability for the 24i, so that frees you up to look at the less expensive used market. Companies like Sonic Solutions and Aardvark are two good examples.

Matt
Black Lion Audio

zemlin · Post by **zemlin** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:57 am

mnewport wrote:You only need 44k and 48k output capability for the 24i, so that frees you up to look at the less expensive used market.

My thoughts exactly. I've seen some decent clocks go for pretty cheap on eBAY lately.

msmith92 · Post by **msmith92** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:20 am

the lucid clocks have a good report? the genx6-96 is only $349 on musiciansfriend.com

Don T · Post by **Don T** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:26 pm

Hello,
Frankly, I don't think the 24 I/O is a better A to D. My 24i shows -94db s/n @ 24bit/48k and my 24 I/O is at -87 s/n @ 24bit/96k. My 24i unit has the late rom & cpu. Me thinks they are adding noise to mask the bus & clock noise inherant in the box. I posted about this before and sent some emails to MOTU about it, which went unanswered.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Specs doesn't tell you how something sounds, it's about how it sounds to your ears. There was definitely an improvement in the 24I/O over the 24i.

Don T · Post by **Don T** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:01 pm

Brad,
The reason I checked the specs is because I did not hear an improvement.

WSVP · Post by **WSVP** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:20 pm

Here's a second "hand" opinion.

The dual 1224 option will offer much better converters. Also the 1224 has a separate internal clock which is better than the PCI card. This is a very, very cost effective solution.

If you have a few more $$, You might want to look into a pair of used 1296's and a Lucid clock. This will net much better quality but will cost quite a bit more.

While I do not have any experience with the 24 I/O, my gut feeling is that either of the above units will have better converters than the 24 I/O. A pair of used 1296's will be slightly more money than a 24 I/O but if the whole idea is to get better converters I think it is better to get something that will make a noticeable difference.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:07 pm

Hmmmm well I noticed a difference, but each person's ears are different I guess

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 6:46 am

monkey man wrote:... running it at 24/44.1 should be a decent improvement over the 24i.
Converter quality has improved much along with sample rates etc., so even at conventional settings, things should sound much better.

My prediction relies on zemlin's using the same rate & depth, ie. 24/44.1.
He did say, "I'm not excited about higher sampling rates.." after all.

Another thing: How can it be a fair comparison to use different rates, and non-optional ones at that?
24I/O vs 24i at 24/44.1. That's what I (and Brad?) am talkin' 'bout.
It's not esoteric, but may win-out on practicality in this situation, as no additional clocks are required, and zemlin gets his additional outputs.

They're monkey-thoughts, but they're mine.
At least, I think they are.

M