The maximum file size limit for Windows on a drive formatted FAT32 is 4 GB. On NTFS and exFAT drives, I don't believe there's any limit. I don’t know why anyone would be using a FAT32 drive these days, especially as their main, internal C: drive. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. 

Best,
Gary 

Gary Galo
Audio Engineer Emeritus
The Crane School of Music
SUNY at Potsdam, NY 13676

"Great art presupposes the alert mind of the educated listener."
Arnold Schoenberg

"A true artist doesn't want to be admired, he wants to be believed."
Igor Markevitch


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Martin Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 1:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] [EXTERNAL] Re: [ARSCLIST] Digitizing Audio Interface recommendations

Hey Tim,

Very good question.  

Why do I cap off at 96/24??

Anything over that seems to be overkill for the material we're working with....And....even 96/24 two channel files over about an hour and five minutes have to be split to be windows friendly as WAV's.  I know there's a work around because I've stored standard WAV's containing up to 4 Gigs of information but don't remember how I managed it and can't find a reference online.  There are other useable file types but WAV is pretty much the PC standard.  (I ain't made the move to Apple yet and don't intend to soon.)

Why would I like to have 192/24 capability?

Because there are some projects that may benefit from the higher sample rate during the processing stages and we already have a few projects that I'm working with that were captured at 192/24 and I don't want to dumb them down until the final stages.  Add to that that the Grammy Foundation "prefers" a minimum of 192 K for grant submissions so you never know when the capability to capture at a higher resolution may pay off.  

If anyone would like to make suggestions or offer insights regarding 96K vs 192K feel free to comment.

And thanks to everyone who has thrown in their 2c worth on the interface discussion.  It really does help in my decision making.

:-)

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Tim Gillett
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2020 9:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ARSCLIST] Digitizing Audio Interface recommendations

Martin wrote: "Although I usually cap projects at 24 Bit/96 kHz I'd like it to be capable of 24 Bit/192 kHz resolution".

Hi Martin, Can I ask why?

Cheers,

 Tim Gillett

----- Original Message -----
From:
 "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List"
<[log in to unmask]>

To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Cc:

Sent:
Tue, 8 Dec 2020 16:13:20 +0000
Subject:
[ARSCLIST] Digitizing Audio Interface recommendations

 Hey Folks,

 It appears I'm in the market for an interface to replace a piece of legacy equipment which is "on the fritz"/"gives up it's useful life with the demise of Windows 7." This unit would replace a Midiman Delta
10 X 10 with rack mount break out box for use on a second computer.
I'm looking for recommendations and am having a hard time making sense of the ads I'm seeing from most retailers who aim their information at the live music crowd. I'd like to keep the price somewhere in the $700 and under range. Below is my short list of requirements and wants. If anyone has any thoughts I'd be grateful to hear them. 

 Although I usually cap projects at 24 Bit/96 kHz I'd like it to be capable of 24 Bit/192 kHz resolution
 8 discreet level adjustable line inputs (mic/line capability is preferred but not essential)  Would also be nice if all level controls and input jacks were front panel accessible

 I've been running a Fireface 800 on my main record computer for several years now with excellent results but this one doesn't have to be quite as high end.

 Thanks! :-)

 Martin

-------------------------
Email sent using Optus Webmail