 |
 |
I use a FAT32 usb drive connected to a RME UFX, and another usb drive used for picking up files from people with Macs. The rest of my hardware is Windows. Don't know if newer UFX's will read/write to NTFS, but mine called for FAT32. Chuck Reinsch On 12/9/2020 12:42 PM, Gary A. Galo wrote: > 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 -- Charles Reinsch KRAB Archive: www.krabarchive.com