Print

Print


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