HI Ralf I must have missed this topic. I have just installed two 64studio iso on both my studio pc's. The main multi track machine has the RME card and I use a behringer DDX 3216. This mean I can stay in the digital domain for most of recording.
I use mainly 32bit at 48 k and synch the desk to the RME. As I record Live instruments, guitars and vocals, sound quality is very important to me. I don't use any Midi at the moment. I will be experimenting with 96k soon and will keep you all posted as regards the hearing results. Cheers Bob (Frank) 2008/6/8 Ralf Mardorf <[email protected]> > John Rigg wrote: > > There are a couple of reasons why 96kHz can sound better. > > > > Most audio ADC chips use an incorrectly implemented decimation > > filter to convert the single bit oversampled data from > > the sampling stage to multibit PCM. If you check any of the > > common ADC data sheets you'll see a stopband spec for the > > filter of about 0.55 x sample rate, a clear violation of > > sampling theory. This allows a small amount of aliasing to occur > > on high frequency signals, and increasing the sample rate shifts > > the problem to a higher, less audible frequency range. Correctly > > designed converters like those from Lavry or Prism don't suffer > > from this, but are very expensive. > > > > The other reason is that non-linear DSP like compression > > or limiting introduces harmonics, which will also produce aliasing > > of high frequency signals. A higher sample rate reduces (but doesn't > > entirely eliminate) the aliasing. > > > > In practice, these effects are often not noticeable enough to > > put up with the disadvantages of doubling the data rate, but YMMV. > > > > John > > Thank you John :) > > this is very interesting. When I worked at Brauner years ago, we checked > out Crystal DSPs and after that we stayed completely analogue. When I'm > talking about digital, I'm only thinking of homerecording. I don't know > how it's today in professional studios. I'll test 96KHz next time I do > homerecording. Until now I guess there are some reasons that speaks for > 44,1KHz when doing homerecording. Homerecording people are using mixing > consoles with op-amp chips, lousy speakers etc. ... I'm speaking for my > own equipment ;) ... it seems to be better to record in CD quality from > the beginning on, because I think it will be easier doing the mastering, > when you always here the quality it will be in the end. The better > quality of 96KHz (and more bit) might be unable to hear, because of all > that phasing done by op-amp chips etc., until now I only noticed a > difference between 44,1KHz and 48Khz for my home equipment. I have to > say that I'm using an Envy chip and a Behringer mixing console, that > might be different for people using a Neve. I think most people using > Linux will do it for homerecording and not for professional recording, > but I'm not up to date. > > Cheers, > Ralf > > > _______________________________________________ > 64studio-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users > >
_______________________________________________ 64studio-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
