Lucid AD9624 question

[d-bolan]

So I have an opportunity to borrow one of these for an upcoming record I'm doing. I'm wondering how much nicer these converters are compared to the ones in my 002. If they are similar enough I don't want to ask the favor of borrowing it. I won't be recording more than 2 tracks at once so I'd be able to use it on the whole record.

I'm also curious about running my 002 at 96k for this session because I will be mixing it at a studio on a console to 1/2 inch. If I'm not running any plug-ins, how many tracks can I expect to be maxed out at? I'm on a PC that's not that beefed up specs-wise so I don't want to end up with 9 tracks max and then my computers says "fuck u, i hate u"

Any advice would be great. Thank you for your friendship

champ

[thearnicasync]

1, The Lucids blow the 002 converters away by miles. I've had both, and an Apogee 48k, and the lucid killed it too. Really, really nice converters.

2. If you pc is not beefed up, your computer will not likely do more than 8 tracks at 96k. You may want to post the specs so that people can speculate a little better...

best of luck.

[d-bolan]

512mb ram

60gb

I was thinking maybe it would help if i finally got an external drive, so there'd be nothing on it besides the sessions for the record.

[thearnicasync]

yeah, that would help, but 512 will not likely get you more than 8 tracks of 96k. Maybe if there are no plugs, you could get like ten.

But heck, try it. Maybe your computer will make it happen!

And borrow the lucids.

[JohnDavisNYC]

i've found hard drive speed to be the biggest factor with track count and high sample rates.... i'm planning on building a raid array (one of those G5 matching chassis with 2 200gb drives in it) that is FW800 just for tracking to and mixing from so that i can handle high smaple rates with no problem... i did the phonograph lp at 88.2 and it was a HUGE pain in the ass... i had to mix some songs in sections, bounce sections... it sucked. soooo no 88.2 for me until i have some really fast, high bandwidth storage. also, if you're mixing on a console, the higher sampling rate isn't as much of an issue, as your sounds are getting mixed and eq and reverb and all that shit is happening in the analog realm... i suppose if you're recording chamber music or straightahead jazz or something that is totally pure and acoustic, it would help, but i dunno... i would track at 24/44.1, mix to tape, then capture the mix from tape at 24/88.2 and take those files to mastering, or just master off tape. having just done a whole album at 88.2 of rock music, i just didn't quite find it to be worthwhile at the tracking stage...

john