Does the Pulsar 1 Classic support sample rates above 48k?
-
nickdrums9
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: NYC
Does the Pulsar 1 Classic support sample rates above 48k?
Does the Pulsar 1 Classic support sample rates above 48k through it's ADAT ports? I'm running Scope v4.0 software with the card slaved to an RME Hammerfall Digiface on another PC. Thx.
-
nickdrums9
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: NYC
Ran a test with ASIO and it works. I thought I remembered someone saying something about the older cards not supporting it.
- Set Pulsar to Master
- Slave Cubase to Pulsar
- Import stereo wave file to Cubase/converts to 96k
- output ASIO to Pulsar ADAT source
Will the ADAT I/O ports support 96k as well? That's my real question.
- Set Pulsar to Master
- Slave Cubase to Pulsar
- Import stereo wave file to Cubase/converts to 96k
- output ASIO to Pulsar ADAT source
Will the ADAT I/O ports support 96k as well? That's my real question.
How about connecting the ADAT in to ADAT out? Monitor ADAT Source, and let us knownickdrums9 wrote:Will the ADAT I/O ports support 96k as well? That's my real question.
more has been done with less
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
-
nickdrums9
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: NYC
Darn, darn, darn, darn, darn. OK, well, I see that the card process 96k - I was able to send the coax signal to an older external converter that feeds a pair of Infinity speakers and I confirmed the sample rate 96k going in.
As a test, I'll route the ASIO source module to the ADAT destination module (which is cabled via lightpipe to my RME Digiface box) and see if I get a signal in the other PC.
Thanks guys.
As a test, I'll route the ASIO source module to the ADAT destination module (which is cabled via lightpipe to my RME Digiface box) and see if I get a signal in the other PC.
Thanks guys.
I use a similar setup exept i have the multiface from rme.Just for your information the rme reclocks every incomming wordclock via bnc/adat/s/pdif.Its part of the steady clock technology.I clock the pulsar via lightpipe to the rme (i only need 44.1) and the result is very pleasing.nickdrums9 wrote:Darn, darn, darn, darn, darn. OK, well, I see that the card process 96k - I was able to send the coax signal to an older external converter that feeds a pair of Infinity speakers and I confirmed the sample rate 96k going in.
As a test, I'll route the ASIO source module to the ADAT destination module (which is cabled via lightpipe to my RME Digiface box) and see if I get a signal in the other PC.
Thanks guys.
you don't need anything above 44.1k. that's what the cd will be. video doesn't require better than 48k. if you can't make it sound awesome, you need more schooling. 
we've argued this point over and over, but suffice it to say that the process to convert files from 96k to 44.1k will destroy whatever gains there may have been at 96k, and the end result may actually be worse than recording at 44.1k in the first place.
of course, just because i say this(to make you feel better) doesn't mean you have to listen to me. i'm nobody's boss....
we've argued this point over and over, but suffice it to say that the process to convert files from 96k to 44.1k will destroy whatever gains there may have been at 96k, and the end result may actually be worse than recording at 44.1k in the first place.of course, just because i say this(to make you feel better) doesn't mean you have to listen to me. i'm nobody's boss....
-
nickdrums9
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: NYC
Funny you should say that. I've only just started experimenting with higher sample rates. I've slaved Pulsar to RME at 44.1 for every project I've ever worked on and I agree, you have to have the ears and the skllls to produce good sounding material. I'm satisfied with the results too.
So then what's all the hype about recording at higher sample rates and why the demand for manufacturers to produce gear to support it? I've been told that tracks sound better in the digital domain at higher rates. Is it true? Makes me think that I could be producing better recordings if I took the leap.
So then what's all the hype about recording at higher sample rates and why the demand for manufacturers to produce gear to support it? I've been told that tracks sound better in the digital domain at higher rates. Is it true? Makes me think that I could be producing better recordings if I took the leap.
there are 2 economic aspects:
if your (say 44.1k) gear is perfect, why would you change it ?
right, you wouldn't
so they introduce a much more 'precise' version running at 96k, fooling people with nonsense sine graphs divided into many segments, and such stuff
(digital signal reconstruction doesn't work by adding 'dot after dot', but that's another story)
suddenly there's an objective reason, they suggest you might miss something essential in the music - so people start buying.
Double the amount of bits for almost the same price is a good deal, isn't it ?
the 2nd point is that digital signal reconstruction requires an anti-alias filter to remove artifacts from the processing that would otherwise interfere with the audio signal.
Such a filter is much easier to design for higher frequencies, as most artifacts map beyond the hearable spectrum then.
The production of gear is more economic, but you still can increase the price a little bit because you deliver 'more' samples
a carefully designed filter will sound as good with 44.1k as with 96k, but it will be more expensive.
it's all nonsense anyway, as even the most elaborate (affordable) studio clock can hardly exploit all the precision of 20 bits (while capturing an analog signal).
Still every converter today features 24 bits and people ask themselves about dithering or chopping off ...
if your (say 44.1k) gear is perfect, why would you change it ?
right, you wouldn't
so they introduce a much more 'precise' version running at 96k, fooling people with nonsense sine graphs divided into many segments, and such stuff
(digital signal reconstruction doesn't work by adding 'dot after dot', but that's another story)
suddenly there's an objective reason, they suggest you might miss something essential in the music - so people start buying.
Double the amount of bits for almost the same price is a good deal, isn't it ?
the 2nd point is that digital signal reconstruction requires an anti-alias filter to remove artifacts from the processing that would otherwise interfere with the audio signal.
Such a filter is much easier to design for higher frequencies, as most artifacts map beyond the hearable spectrum then.
The production of gear is more economic, but you still can increase the price a little bit because you deliver 'more' samples
a carefully designed filter will sound as good with 44.1k as with 96k, but it will be more expensive.
it's all nonsense anyway, as even the most elaborate (affordable) studio clock can hardly exploit all the precision of 20 bits (while capturing an analog signal).
Still every converter today features 24 bits and people ask themselves about dithering or chopping off ...
-
nickdrums9
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: NYC
Glad you commented. Sounds like you are very knowledgable on the subject. That's convincing enough for me. Good, because I really don't feel like changing my setup and going through new growing pains having to decrease my inputs and outputs in half, for one.
This brings to mind another new debate I've seen around forums lately with the introduction of multi channel I/O with Firewire (i.e. new Yamaha N series mixers).... I'd like to hear your opinion on mixing 'in the box' vs. 'out of the box'. Seems like guys are wanting to mixdown their DAW tracks through small mixers, but I hear that unless you are buying something along the lines of a Toft ATB mixer, there's no sonic advantage, and that the EQ's available with cards like Hammerfall and UAD are sufficient - spending $500 - $1000 on a small format mixer like a Mackie Onyx, Yamaha MG Series, or A&H's Zed 14 will not bring anything spectacular to the table. What are your thoughts? I already have nice preamps in the Yamaha i88x, and Presonus Digimax units. Do these small mixers offer better EQ's and stereo imaging? I don't mind mixing in the box and I was leaning more towards the new less expensive Euphonix MC controller once drivers are available for PC. On top of that, I thought my money would be better spent on a 'Dangerous Bus' summing mixer.
This brings to mind another new debate I've seen around forums lately with the introduction of multi channel I/O with Firewire (i.e. new Yamaha N series mixers).... I'd like to hear your opinion on mixing 'in the box' vs. 'out of the box'. Seems like guys are wanting to mixdown their DAW tracks through small mixers, but I hear that unless you are buying something along the lines of a Toft ATB mixer, there's no sonic advantage, and that the EQ's available with cards like Hammerfall and UAD are sufficient - spending $500 - $1000 on a small format mixer like a Mackie Onyx, Yamaha MG Series, or A&H's Zed 14 will not bring anything spectacular to the table. What are your thoughts? I already have nice preamps in the Yamaha i88x, and Presonus Digimax units. Do these small mixers offer better EQ's and stereo imaging? I don't mind mixing in the box and I was leaning more towards the new less expensive Euphonix MC controller once drivers are available for PC. On top of that, I thought my money would be better spent on a 'Dangerous Bus' summing mixer.
-
siriusbliss
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Cupertino, California US
- Contact:
Re: Does the Pulsar 1 Classic support sample rates above 48k
I believe it's 96K through SPDIF only. Can't remember (even though I still have one).nickdrums9 wrote:Does the Pulsar 1 Classic support sample rates above 48k through it's ADAT ports? I'm running Scope v4.0 software with the card slaved to an RME Hammerfall Digiface on another PC. Thx.
Guess I'll have to try it (although I've read the rest of this thread, still not sure).
Greg
Xite rig - ADK laptop - i7 975 3.33 GHz Quad w/HT 8meg cache /MDR3-4G/1066SODIMM / VD-GGTX280M nVidia GeForce GTX 280M w/1GB DDR3
no, a small format mixer would be a bad idea and Scope IS hardware summing! it's one reason to mix in Scope mode.
still, i'll make the appropriate public service announcement that all digital signals should be identical and all this "summing" stuff is hooey. all i know is both i and my clients hear it and different scope mixers sound very different, even though using the same "atoms"(sooo, i guess ultimately it doesn't matter what anyone says, trust your ears...). i'd never by a marketing gadget like the dangerous two bus, however. i bought a REAL mixer with mic pres that made real records in the '80s for two dx-7 keyboards(less than $1000), so a good quality older recording board that will do more than just sum can be had for less than the two bus. my soudcraft 1600 is the size of a dining room table, but it sums better than any "dangereous" product, yet i mix in Scope for convieience(the 1600's TT patchbay connects to my computer's patchbay, which are the AD/DA boxes). for you, i'm thinking maybe a nice 16 channel Ramsa, if you relly MUST sum outside the box. they're compact with16 decent pres and 4 or 8 busses. i've seen those sell for under $400 and i installed an 8 bus in the studio that remixed "The Lion King" all those years ago.
the reason the two bus is even made is because native summing sucks. Scope's summing is very good. FWIW, this mixer uses sharc chips.... as i've said before, most people don't realize what they have with Scope, or what a bargain it is.
there's no doubt that higher samplerates do sound a lttle better, probably because of the anti-aliasing effect(at hearable frequencies) described by astroman. there's also no doubt that resampling will easily introduce at least the same amount of aliasing. so for the additional cost of more than double the resources, dsp, cpu, memory and worst of all hard drive space and resources, the returns are slim to none to negative.
about Mackie-
when Mackie was first made, there were many small companies that made high quality live, recording and club mixers, companies like Allen and Heath(which is now owed by the same conglomerate that owns Soundcraft and several others), Studiomaster, Hill, Ramsa and others made high quality, reasonably priced mixers that were repairable and professional. Mackie discovered that by putting all the components on one circuitboard, they might make the product virtually unrepairable(you could no longer just swap a channel in the feild if all channels are on the same board), but they could make it much much cheaper than anyone else. they hyped the HF eq knowing that most in the biz had lost hearing up there and the extra "sizzle" would be seen by the average guy as "good sounding". they sold the things cheaply, well below what everybody else could sell a well-built mixer for. the other manufacturers scrambled to make a cheap crappy mixer like the Mackie(CR-1604), but for most small companies, the retool was just too expensive and they couldn't compete. since Mackie's main competitors became cheap chinese Mackie knock-offs, Mackie came to be seen as "quality". in reality, Mackie became quality by default by being the best mixer left standing, but originally, the same Mackie was the "cheap sh*t"! Mackie products are often quite functional and good sounding, but they are not "quality". neither are any of the products competing with Mackie. it's fortunate for Musicians these days that cheap toys work well enough to be used profesionally, but it would be foolish to see them as a paragon or even good gear. useful gear, maybe....but not good.
spend your money on mic pres and mix in Scope. most good pres are $1000-10,000 a pair.....
still, i'll make the appropriate public service announcement that all digital signals should be identical and all this "summing" stuff is hooey. all i know is both i and my clients hear it and different scope mixers sound very different, even though using the same "atoms"(sooo, i guess ultimately it doesn't matter what anyone says, trust your ears...). i'd never by a marketing gadget like the dangerous two bus, however. i bought a REAL mixer with mic pres that made real records in the '80s for two dx-7 keyboards(less than $1000), so a good quality older recording board that will do more than just sum can be had for less than the two bus. my soudcraft 1600 is the size of a dining room table, but it sums better than any "dangereous" product, yet i mix in Scope for convieience(the 1600's TT patchbay connects to my computer's patchbay, which are the AD/DA boxes). for you, i'm thinking maybe a nice 16 channel Ramsa, if you relly MUST sum outside the box. they're compact with16 decent pres and 4 or 8 busses. i've seen those sell for under $400 and i installed an 8 bus in the studio that remixed "The Lion King" all those years ago.
the reason the two bus is even made is because native summing sucks. Scope's summing is very good. FWIW, this mixer uses sharc chips.... as i've said before, most people don't realize what they have with Scope, or what a bargain it is.
there's no doubt that higher samplerates do sound a lttle better, probably because of the anti-aliasing effect(at hearable frequencies) described by astroman. there's also no doubt that resampling will easily introduce at least the same amount of aliasing. so for the additional cost of more than double the resources, dsp, cpu, memory and worst of all hard drive space and resources, the returns are slim to none to negative.
about Mackie-
when Mackie was first made, there were many small companies that made high quality live, recording and club mixers, companies like Allen and Heath(which is now owed by the same conglomerate that owns Soundcraft and several others), Studiomaster, Hill, Ramsa and others made high quality, reasonably priced mixers that were repairable and professional. Mackie discovered that by putting all the components on one circuitboard, they might make the product virtually unrepairable(you could no longer just swap a channel in the feild if all channels are on the same board), but they could make it much much cheaper than anyone else. they hyped the HF eq knowing that most in the biz had lost hearing up there and the extra "sizzle" would be seen by the average guy as "good sounding". they sold the things cheaply, well below what everybody else could sell a well-built mixer for. the other manufacturers scrambled to make a cheap crappy mixer like the Mackie(CR-1604), but for most small companies, the retool was just too expensive and they couldn't compete. since Mackie's main competitors became cheap chinese Mackie knock-offs, Mackie came to be seen as "quality". in reality, Mackie became quality by default by being the best mixer left standing, but originally, the same Mackie was the "cheap sh*t"!
Mackie products are often quite functional and good sounding, but they are not "quality". neither are any of the products competing with Mackie. it's fortunate for Musicians these days that cheap toys work well enough to be used profesionally, but it would be foolish to see them as a paragon or even good gear. useful gear, maybe....but not good. spend your money on mic pres and mix in Scope. most good pres are $1000-10,000 a pair.....
-
siriusbliss
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Cupertino, California US
- Contact:
Gary emphasizes the point exactly - why I don't even bother with the 'host battles' on other forums because _I_ know what I have with Scope (and mixing outside even the very good Samplitude), because I can HEAR the difference.
The summing argument is bs.
(although I WILL argue tube guitar amps over stomp boxes or VST plugins anyday
Greg
The summing argument is bs.
(although I WILL argue tube guitar amps over stomp boxes or VST plugins anyday
Greg
Xite rig - ADK laptop - i7 975 3.33 GHz Quad w/HT 8meg cache /MDR3-4G/1066SODIMM / VD-GGTX280M nVidia GeForce GTX 280M w/1GB DDR3
-
nickdrums9
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: NYC
(although I WILL argue tube guitar amps over stomp boxes or VST plugins anyday )
Haha, I have the same feeling, however I must admit that Cubase 4 has some VST track presets that compile multiple plugins and I found one that I inserted on dry Les Paul track that sounded really good. Much better than a pod or v-amp. Still easier to mic an amp and EQ the track, just can't do it everyday in an apartment.
Haha, I have the same feeling, however I must admit that Cubase 4 has some VST track presets that compile multiple plugins and I found one that I inserted on dry Les Paul track that sounded really good. Much better than a pod or v-amp. Still easier to mic an amp and EQ the track, just can't do it everyday in an apartment.
I'll repeat my shameless ad from the other guitar related thread:
try the Sonic Timeworks A100 (ambience reverb), there's a demo...
don't think of it as 'reverb', but more the way you'd apply real tape saturation on something. Kind of brushes the room in a very nice and 'analogish' way
cheers, Tom
try the Sonic Timeworks A100 (ambience reverb), there's a demo...
don't think of it as 'reverb', but more the way you'd apply real tape saturation on something. Kind of brushes the room in a very nice and 'analogish' way
cheers, Tom
I am firmly in Gary's camp as well with the whole sampling rate fiasco. Sampling at 44.1 will not stop you producing excellent quality recordings. Other factors like recording/mixing technique, mic placement etc have far more influence over the quality of the production than the difference in sampling rate between 44.1 and 96.
When I had gear (
), I had spent money on good quality (expensive) tube/solid state pre-amps and compression then ran thru a RAMSA desk into scope. If you got money spend it on some decent outboard for tracking purposes and use scope to capture this.
If you are hearing a big difference between 96 and 44.1 when you record a track then I would question the quality of the converter used. There is a lot of mis-information around about sampling rates and their affects. One big one being that 96k samples waveforms more accurately than 44.1. It doesn't. Nyquist's theorem proves that. It simply allows you to sample waveforms higher than 22.05kHz. In a previous argument with a colleague I did some testing here:-
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... highlight=
When I had gear (
), I had spent money on good quality (expensive) tube/solid state pre-amps and compression then ran thru a RAMSA desk into scope. If you got money spend it on some decent outboard for tracking purposes and use scope to capture this.If you are hearing a big difference between 96 and 44.1 when you record a track then I would question the quality of the converter used. There is a lot of mis-information around about sampling rates and their affects. One big one being that 96k samples waveforms more accurately than 44.1. It doesn't. Nyquist's theorem proves that. It simply allows you to sample waveforms higher than 22.05kHz. In a previous argument with a colleague I did some testing here:-
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... highlight=
Stuart.
-
nickdrums9
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: NYC
This is all very good news to me. It'll save me a lot of research. My setup is pretty decent and things sound pretty good to me at 44.1. Mixes could improve but raw tracks are fine.
The basics -
- Digimax 96k
- Yamaha i88x with plugins
- Pulsar 1 on a P4 2.8ghz PC.
- RME DIgiface on a P4 Dou Core 6600E PC w. (2) UAD 1 PCI cards.
- Cubase 4
- Wavelabs 6
The thing is, I mix on the RME PC, It's a duo core unit. I've had the Pulsar 1 card for a long time and only really use it for routing, synths and samples. I haven't mixed on the Pulsar box before and I'm not sure there would be any real comparison to that of the RME sounding system. When you say 'mix in scope', you are referring to a host application that uses the pulsar/scope card, right? I'm not sure I want to swap the Pulsar card for the RME Hammerfall card. One PC provides twice the performance of the other. A silly question - would it pay to mix on the RME system and send 16 tracks via light pipe to the Pulsar PC as sort of a summing option? Am I going to get some huge benefit with the scope mixer sound or something?
The basics -
- Digimax 96k
- Yamaha i88x with plugins
- Pulsar 1 on a P4 2.8ghz PC.
- RME DIgiface on a P4 Dou Core 6600E PC w. (2) UAD 1 PCI cards.
- Cubase 4
- Wavelabs 6
The thing is, I mix on the RME PC, It's a duo core unit. I've had the Pulsar 1 card for a long time and only really use it for routing, synths and samples. I haven't mixed on the Pulsar box before and I'm not sure there would be any real comparison to that of the RME sounding system. When you say 'mix in scope', you are referring to a host application that uses the pulsar/scope card, right? I'm not sure I want to swap the Pulsar card for the RME Hammerfall card. One PC provides twice the performance of the other. A silly question - would it pay to mix on the RME system and send 16 tracks via light pipe to the Pulsar PC as sort of a summing option? Am I going to get some huge benefit with the scope mixer sound or something?