Creamware, it's time for 96kHz!

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed May 05, 2004 12:02 am

Now that DVD Audio 24/192 and surround 24/96 is promised to a wide diffusion (see: http://www.soundblaster.com/products/audigy2/ ), I urge you Creamware to make the B-2003, Six-String and Minimax fully 96 kHz supported (see: http://shop.creamware.de/shop2000/de/Sh ... CY=CWSynth )

It's time. It's time to try to solve as quickly as it could be the phase problem when more than one DSP used at 96 kHz. It's time to try to definitively eliminate the "Big Module do not fit" error message.

It is possible to do this, so you must do it, for the good of the Creamware community.

Hugh! I said.

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2004-05-05 01:06 ]

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Wed May 05, 2004 1:31 am

i'm not in that community (44.1 to analog, that's the way i go

. (but well, i understand the concern because DVD will replace CD in a short laps of time).

[ This Message was edited by: spacef on 2004-05-05 03:09 ]

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Fri May 07, 2004 1:45 pm

I'm also of the opinion that all samplerates should run now whithout hiccups. But it'll still take some time till DVD audio will dominate the market. According to statistics I've seen 98% of all CD buyers are quite content with the quality of the CD. That doesn't mean that industry will not force DVD audio to become the new standard. much time has passed in the meantime...

/Bernhard

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri May 07, 2004 2:36 pm

From the look of things it seems that AAC is going to replace CDs faster than DVDs.

Shayne

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat May 08, 2004 5:53 am

You can still put a 44.1khz recording onto a 1024kHz DVD_whizzBang_24Ch_surround. Just re-sample the master. I told my work mate what a 128 mp3 conversion does to an acoustic guitar. My work mate said he could'nt give a rats arse because it still sounds good to him.

rodos1979 · Post by **rodos1979** » Sat May 08, 2004 8:15 am

I ve said in on the old CW Forum and I ll tell it here too:
for me, the most important, at the moment, would be the ability to work in 88.2KHz. Since, at the moment we all end down to 44.1, it is better to have to divide by 2 than to divide by 2.176870748299319727891156462585...

But it seems that it is just me in this camp...

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat May 08, 2004 8:24 am

On 2004-05-08 09:15, rodos1979 wrote:
..... it is better to have to divide by 2 than to divide by.....

Which is a popular myth. There is misconception that the conversion from 88.2 to 44.1kHz (popular myth:- you only need to drop every second sample) is better and easier compared to conversion from 96kHz to to 44.1Khz. Absolutety incorrect! The algorythms used for 88.2 -> 44.1 and 96 -> 44.1 are both as complex.

[ This Message was edited by: bassdude on 2004-05-08 09:26 ]

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sat May 08, 2004 11:45 am

Well, it's probably more proper to shift the discussion to "why doesn't all the modes work in the first place?". That's what I'm concerned with. It seems strange that some of these plugs get messed up in 96khz before we even consider doing the 96 vs 44.1 thing. It's a bug, but it's one of those bugs that shouldn't be there in the first place.

DVD permeating the mass? Seems highly possible. I was at the elctronics shop the other day, to see a cheap DVD player+5.1 dolby surround speaker set selling for 1/3 of the price of a CD component player. But man, 5.1 mixing is going to be tough on low budget musicians like me. I can't afford that many monitor speakers! yow!

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-05-08 12:50 ]

rodos1979 · Post by **rodos1979** » Sat May 08, 2004 11:52 am

Hello!

Bassdude, do you have any relative link, where it justifies that? It is not that I question you, I ask you because I am curious to learn!

Thank you

P.S. I agree with you Ken, by the way

arela · Post by **arela** » Sun May 09, 2004 1:56 am

future....
24b 96kHz or mp3?
who will sell tomorrows music, www or local store?
I hope 24/96 will winn, but don't be to shure,
they sell a lot of "mp3 player for joggers" these days.
And do we want to buy 2 copies of a song?
a thread on Adobe forum, i think, most thought mp3, or its like, would be the future.

Another thing is storing, the NRK (norwegian radio) is underway, converting cd's to mp3 (or wave?) - because a lot of (>1000) of the oldest cd's is unplayable.
SR - (swedish radio)- same problem
so.....is the dvd going to last longer than what was espected by the cd's (ca 25 years +)

my best guessing is both.
you'll buy most of your music on www, but some music you want "state of the art" so you buy that dvd.
1 song on dvd for every 1000 mp3?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun May 09, 2004 10:06 am

at the risk of reading boring:
higher sample rates have the purpose of cost reduction in manufacturing consumer gear.
They are NOT intended for a higher fidelity in the first place (considering market relevance).
Of course the advertising will be just the opposite.
They WILL tell people that the higher rate is better (it must be, as everyone can count...) even if the audio quality doesn't change at all.
People will believe that, because 98% of all consumers don't have the experience or abilities to notice the difference.

That about playback of pre-recorded stuff.
When it comes to handle high sampling rates as a producer with quality improvement in mind, there's a huge problem:
the precision of the master clock - at a 2 or 4 times higher sampling rate the stability of that circuit has to be incredibly high.
In other words: the jitter tolerance drops.

With standard circuitry you WILL get a higher precision in analyzing the source signal, but the same time it's digital representation is (may be) significantly distorted.

It may end in a par situation or even in a quality decrease, but it's hard to expect an improvement.
This does not apply to properly (for that purpose) designed gear, but unless a high quality master clock is fed to a Scope system, I wouldn't consider it as equipment of that class - in my very humble opinion.

I'm not dealing with such rates (and gear), so someone correct me please, if my phantasy run wild

just 2 cents, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2004-05-09 11:11 ]

eyesight · Post by **eyesight** » Sun May 09, 2004 11:54 am

HI ASTROMAN

WHAT DID YOU MEAN EXACTLY
I UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT OF THE FRAME WICH IS TO ASKS CREAMWARE TO WORK ON HIGHER SAMPLE RATE
YOUR ANSWER SEEMS TO BE WELL ARGUMENTED BUT IN THE END I DIN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION
SORRY MY ENGLISH IS BASIC...

THANKS

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Sun May 09, 2004 12:02 pm

SORRY MY ENGLISH IS BASIC...

Basic or not English is better spoken not shouted (try switching your caps lock off)

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2004-05-09 13:03 ]

eyesight · Post by **eyesight** » Sun May 09, 2004 12:28 pm

DID I RING YOU ARKADIN?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun May 09, 2004 1:58 pm

On 2004-05-09 12:54, eyesight wrote:
WHAT DID YOU MEAN EXACTLY
...

no problem with the language, here is the core sentence again
>
but unless a high quality master clock is fed to a Scope system, I wouldn't consider it as equipment of that class - in my very humble opinion
>

I suspect the clock of the regular Scope cards not good enough for high end digitzing at higher sample rates - not because it is bad, but because it's just 'regulary' built.

This applies (imho!) to any gear in that price range - the high end stuff isn't high priced just for fun

I suspect there's no difference at all between a high rate digitized signal (via Scope) and a regular one which is upsampled.

But as mentioned above, I don't consider this a dogma because I don't own equipment in that quality range for reference.
These thoughts entered my mind when studying some 'audiophile' articles about ad/da conversion.

cheers, Tom

Post by **hubird** » Sun May 09, 2004 3:05 pm

On 2004-05-09 13:28, eyesight wrote:
DID I RING YOU ARKADIN?

No, says Hubird, but Arkadin has the right (and had the guts) to call you to order.
Never heard of rule nr 1 in the internet: don't shout...?
This is Planetz, not an irc channel.
Try to understand the climate here, and you'll feel home.

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-05-09 17:38 ]

spacef · Post by **spacef** » Sun May 09, 2004 6:14 pm

isn't the latest standard around 192 kHz anyway (2x96) ? what is it used for ? Who is going to hear the difference (what audience, as someone said, people want to buy mp3 now) ? edited : nb i'm not talking about 96/24, just what is 192 used for ? (SO DON'T SHOUT AT ME!)

[ This Message was edited by: spacef on 2004-05-09 19:27 ]

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Sun May 09, 2004 6:53 pm

I maybe be remembering the wrong factury name, but I believe it is Lucid, who makes a 96K converter with a chip, wich can run at 192K. but they found by listening, that the chip sounded better at 96K than at 192K.

mp3 - they will disapear for shure, but they may have some extra years left. I find, that there are basically 2 factors keeping mp3s alive. 1)storage price. 2)internet bandwith and price. I see no reason to believe, that storage and internet price will not drop - while internet bandwith will rise.

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Mon May 10, 2004 6:03 am

On 2004-05-08 12:52, rodos1979 wrote:
Hello!

Bassdude, do you have any relative link, where it justifies that? It is not that I question you, I ask you because I am curious to learn!

Thank you

P.S. I agree with you Ken, by the way

Yep I will try to track down the info for you. I did an awful lot of research on this subject before splashing out on a replacemnt digital mixer about a year ago because I was looking at buying an older second hand 48kHz mixer over a newer 96kHz mixer at a relative same price. The older mixer sounded better to my ears against the newer one even at 96kHz and I wanted to know why. The info is there but it may take some time for me to dig it up again. I did a quick seaych and could not turn up the info. It may have been hard copy? I'll keep looking as it would be good for reference for others as well.

PS I don't mind being questioned or proved incorrect.

I don't take critism personally.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon May 10, 2004 6:43 am

in the meantime these 4 pages on the subject may be interesting (the tradeoff of 192 khz sampling).
They focus on jitter independent effects, a very good description of filter strategies and aliasing.
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/technical_pa ... %20kHz.PDF

cheers, Tom