The usb 3 issue is Apple. El capitan is the first os on Apple to natively support usb 3. Windows 8 is the first for ms.

As far as the z mon and dsp processing, there is an update to S1 on the way to solve that problem.

Not sure what you mean by the loss of bass frquencies. Is it possible that you have a fat channel setting on to cause that?

The fat channel was on when first installed, although technically it was flat I turned all of those things off. I will do some ab tests but I wonder if the bass frequency issue has something to do with the converters. I have heard an Antelope audio zen and it sounded amazing. Not fair to compare a $2,400 dollar unit to a $900 unit but there are differences between high end equipment and mid grade equipment. However, I was hoping this unit was on par with similar priced interfaces like the mbox 3.

Now I haven't made my mind up yet, and it is possible, the bass frequencies are simply an issue of volume and output matching. I definitely, don't think I am anywhere near done with the setup.

Good to hear I am not crazy in terms of z-mix. That solves one issue. The problem with El Capitan is there are so many plugins I own that don't work and even presonus is advising to not upgrade at the moment that USB 3 seems like a distant solution. Again, that isn't my main issue, bleeding edge technology always has problems. My issue is whether there is no loss of function, speed, or latency without usb 3. Again, I know antelope audio zen has very little issues with usb2 but they created and programed their own usb2 chips.

I know its possible to move from Firewire to USB 2 and not have problems, but the latency I am experiencing with this interface at the moment is noticeably worse than my mbox 3.

Who is to blame, (I suspect most of these issues lies in OS X) and what the solutions will or will not be are not my main concerns. The issue is whether this interface is ready for prime time for Macs at this moment. I am not convinced but I will give it the run through for a month before I decide to send it back. I can't use a unit that will be fully operational in a year.

tombrignall wroteThe fat channel was on when first installed, although technically it was flat I turned all of those things off. I will do some ab tests but I wonder if the bass frequency issue has something to do with the converters. I have heard an Antelope audio zen and it sounded amazing. Not fair to compare a $2,400 dollar unit to a $900 unit but there are differences between high end equipment and mid grade equipment. However, I was hoping this unit was on par with similar priced interfaces like the mbox 3.

Now I haven't made my mind up yet, and it is possible, the bass frequencies are simply an issue of volume and output matching. I definitely, don't think I am anywhere near done with the setup.

Good to hear I am not crazy in terms of z-mix. That solves one issue. The problem with El Capitan is there are so many plugins I own that don't work and even presonus is advising to not upgrade at the moment that USB 3 seems like a distant solution. Again, that isn't my main issue, bleeding edge technology always has problems. My issue is whether there is no loss of function, speed, or latency without usb 3. Again, I know antelope audio zen has very little issues with usb2 but they created and programed their own usb2 chips.

I know its possible to move from Firewire to USB 2 and not have problems, but the latency I am experiencing with this interface at the moment is noticeably worse than my mbox 3.

Who is to blame, (I suspect most of these issues lies in OS X) and what the solutions will or will not be are not my main concerns. The issue is whether this interface is ready for prime time for Macs at this moment. I am not convinced but I will give it the run through for a month before I decide to send it back. I can't use a unit that will be fully operational in a year.

A free Studio One update providing full Studio 192 support will be available within the next few days. This update includes DSP Fat Channel and preamp control as well as a link to DSP option that provides a seamless transition during punch ins. You can read about the features in the user manual online now:

http://www.presonus.com/downloads/produ ... ual_EN.pdf

The issue with USB 3.0 and OS X has been reported to Apple for resolution. There are no performance issues or functionality loss when connected to OS X systems with a USB 2.0 cable.

With the Zero-Latency Monitoring support of the Studio One 3 update, you will have no issues with latency even at the highest buffer settings.

awesome! looking forward to the update.

tombrignall wroteawesome! looking forward to the update.

Update is available now!!!

Cheers

Any updates on how Studio 192 sounds?

From what I read on this thread there may be some bass roll-off and the unit may not be on par with mid class units such as a Mbox 3 Pro.

I hope there was something wrong with the initial set-up and impressions are somehow better now.

I've not heard any bass roll off on anything.

Hello Matt.
Good to hear the bass roll off may just be a setup problem of the OP.
I want to replace my FS Project and FS Mobile with 2 Studio 192 but i'm not sure about what to expect from these units in terms of audio performance.
I regularly rely on RME ADI2 for ADA conversion but my hope is that Studio 192 may perform as good... I may be asking too much.
Any opinions about how the Studio 192 actually perform would be great.

I haven't done any live tracking yet. I have run some Capture session back through it and recorded them. Coming from an FST, I like the preamps better. Similar to the RM mixers, they sound more open. Not sure if that's how someone else would describe it, but that is the word that comes to mind for me.

The other thread you responded to has my experience with RS, buffers, etc. If you have more specific questions, or some simple tests let me know. You can PM as well.

Out of curiosity, why 2? Why not a 192 and DP 88? USB can't be chained.

Thanks Matt.

I need 2 192 for 2 different computers/rooms. 192 + DP 88 is a great combo for a 16 in / out setup.
To be honest my main concern is ADA quality. I know this is hard to measure or define but I'd great to know what to expect.

Some similar interfaces i've used and like are:
UAD Apollo, RME Fireface 800, Apogee Ensemble --->TC Konnekt 48 .
Others i've tried offer good functionality but inferior sound performance: MOTU 896mk3, Focusrite Sapphire Pro56, FS Mobile ---> FS Project.
I'd qualify them in terms of sound quality as: A ---> A- ; B ---> B-
My guess is that Studio 192 will fit somewhere between A- and B.

Integration with Studio One is extremely important to me (that's why i'm using FS Project even if it's not all that great) so my hope is that Studio 192 is a no-compromise solution.

Its definately better than the FSP. Of that I am sure.

Maybe there is some kind of test we could do with common circumstances? Each take the same wav file, input into our devices and captured to the pc the same way. I can send you the file captured via the 192, and you can compare that to the file captured via your soundcard of choise, and you can compare away with that?

Just an idea.

Hello again Matt. Thanks for the suggestion. That'd be a good experiment.
I've prepared this simple Loop-back test. Here's the original file and the RME ADi2 and FS Project Loopback ones.

http://1drv.ms/1OqDZnB

From what I hear FSP isn't bad but some detail and dimension is lost.
I'm anxious to hear this file through the Studio 192 converters. I hope you can find the time for the test.

Take care.

I still think the low end is less pronounced. I didn't suggest a bass roll off. In any situation less bass might mean less bass, or more hi end or mid high frequencies. It can also mean a few other things. I am tracking a band Sunday, but when I was trying to setup the kick drum yesterday I did't hear/feel the same amount of low end in the kick that I remember hearing from the Mbox pro 3. Now understand, the MBox pro 3 has some amazing preamps and the setup sounds great. However, it doesn't have any adat inputs, only four balanced, and is far less flexible, support is all but done in terms of support, which is why I am retiring it. So far the 192 has has four firmware updates (maybe five since they have been coming fast and furiously) and the new software update has resolved many of my issues.

So right now the last thing I need to sort is how it sounds. By Monday I should now a lot more and have a better perspective on the 192.

I still think the low end is less pronounced. I didn't suggest a bass roll off. In any situation less bass might mean less bass, or more hi end or mid high frequencies. It can also mean a few other things. I am tracking a band Sunday, but when I was trying to setup the kick drum yesterday I did't hear/feel the same amount of low end in the kick that I remember hearing from the Mbox pro 3. Now understand, the MBox pro 3 has some amazing preamps and the setup sounds great. However, it doesn't have any adat inputs, only four balanced, and is far less flexible, support is all but done in terms of support, which is why I am retiring it. So far the 192 has has four firmware updates (maybe five since they have been coming fast and furiously) and the new software update has resolved many of my issues.

So right now the last thing I need to sort is how it sounds. By Monday I should now a lot more and have a better perspective on the 192.

Now a little background on me. While I wouldn't consider myself a producer I have one time recorded in an amazing studio sonic ranch http://www.sonicranch.com
SSL, tons of Neve outboard, Studer 24 track analog, amazing monitors, a very nice drum room, and your usual setup of amazing gear you wish you could own in your own private studio. I have recorded using Apogee, Apollo, Avid, Focusrite, MOTU, TC Electronics, and RME interfaces. I have also heard Mackie, Antelope Audio, and several other interfaces. This doesn't make me more or less qualified, I am simply trying to establish a base of experiences hearing, recording, and working with various audio products. I certainly wish I could afford doing my next recording project at a professional studio but I am stubborn and would rather spend the down payment on studio sessions on buying my own studio gear.

Now its hard to compare the 192 to an old RME or an even older MOTU, but so far I loved the Apogee and Apollo interfaces but the new Apollo stuff is thunderbolt and I am not ready to buy a new Mac Pro plus external thunderbolt chassis quite yet. While I know what the Apogee and Antelope audio stuff sounds like I feel that I am not making enough (or any money) recording right now to justify buying those interfaces. If I were still in a touring band those are the two I would be looking at, along side RME. Is the 192 close to these three interfaces? Probably not, but for the money so far it sounds good. The problem will be when I do a mix down if there is indeed bass roll off I will know immediately when I try to play the mix in my home theater, my car, or my stereo system. Right now with the MBox 3 whatever I mix sounds the same no mater where I play it so my ears like and understand the sound coming out of the Mbox 3. If I can get the same mix results from the 192 I will be happy. If I mix something down and the levels are all over the place and the final mix sounds completely different in other locations compared to how they sound on my Focal monitors, then I will be sending the 192 back.

I understand me sending it back may not be the fault of the 192 but more to do with painted on ear syndrome and the need to spend more time adjusting. It also doesn't mean the Mbox 3 is better than the 192, it simply means I know the MBox and how it sounds. Perhaps the 192 might even be more accurate, but all I know is when I started using the Mbox I started having much more accurate and balanced mixes right away. I attribute that to accurate and quality DAC but I am well aware it might be how they set up the output of the DACS and every company tweaks their DACs a little differently.

Right now I have no idea, I am completely neutral now that the updates to the firmware have happened. So I will report more on Monday or Tuesday depending on schedule.

Thanks for the detailed input tombrignall.

Regarding bass being less pronounced... that's something i've heard before.
RME ADI2 for example reproduces a very clean but laid back bass... that's very obvious especially when compared to Apogee units or even Apollo. Some may find that disappointing but I actually prefer such response considering the amount of bass my Adam A7X put on my room. Of course less bass can be perceived as clinical, detailed, "less warm"... (vague terms... but that's what we've got to define audio).
I usually feel cheaper, lower-class units conversion as il they were playing a mp3 instead of a 24bit audio stream. It's like some information and nuances are missing.
I've extensively compared different converters and there was no chance mid-class units (motu, tc, focusrite, presonus) could match the perceived quality of more expensive units (Apogee, RME, Universal Audio)... But of course that's to be expected considering the price difference.
Studio 192 price point is slightly higher compared to other units in the market still more affordable than high end ones. So based on selling price only i'd expect to perform close to newer MOTU and Focusrite units (Thunderbolt).

I perfectly understand that and "unstable" rig value equals "0" no matter how good it may actually sound. Reliability is paramount for me too.

I'm an old Mac Pro (2009/2010) user too and can only hope Studio 192 is playing nice on USB2.... that's low latency, no drops, clicks, disconnections, etc.

I might be stating the obvious but it would seem easy enough to record the outputs of various hardware devices and then compare them with frequency or spectrum analyzers to see if bass is more pronounced on one or another.

Perception obviously plays a large part in critical listening but if you aren't sure, measure it.

rokko101 wroteHello again Matt. Thanks for the suggestion. That'd be a good experiment.
I've prepared this simple Loop-back test. Here's the original file and the RME ADi2 and FS Project Loopback ones.

http://1drv.ms/1OqDZnB

From what I hear FSP isn't bad but some detail and dimension is lost.
I'm anxious to hear this file through the Studio 192 converters. I hope you can find the time for the test.

Take care.

Going to try and squeeze it in this weekend. Ill keep you posted

Thanks Matt!

In response to Lawrence:

You're right. Such test should point out any deviations from flat.

A loopback test (round trip) should also uncover any signal degradation (non-linearities) induced by the ADA portion of the device electronics.