Minimax ASB in 96khz mode?

Discuss the Creamware ASB and Klangbox hardware boxes

Moderators: valis, garyb

Post Reply
music251
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:00 pm

Post by music251 »

Hi.

I have a couple of PulsarII cards and a whole bunch of CW and Zarg synths, including Minimax. Right now I'm seriously considering buying the Minimax ASB module. Anyway, when looking at the specs, one thing bothered me. Is it possible to run Minimax ASB in 96khz? I have read people saying this greatly benefit other CW synths like Vectron etc. Though I think the Minimax is the best analog-simulation (together with Pro-One and Prodessy), there is still that slightly digital "hue" going on within the sound (although not as bad as those cpu-based plugins most people use). I'm sure running the synth in 96khz could make it sound even more authentic. Does anyone know if this will become possible?

Anyway, I used to own a Minimoog Voyager myself. I had always dreamed of having the real thing, but I found out rather quickly that for a normal guy like me, a real Voyager is too expensive, impractical and heavy to lug around for everyday use. What I quickly noticed about the Voyager, is that there wasn't a night and day difference between it and Minimax at all. In fact, I was slightly let down by the clean output from Voyager, I always felt it was a bit "pinched"/"squeezed" in lack of better terms, and it needed a tube preamp to open up. Then it sounded amazing (although I would have liked more output/clarity in the upper high frequencies), and I got all those old Yes and ELP timbres easily. I never experiemented with a tube preamp with the Minimax, but if that gives the same result more or less, then the Minimax should be an excellent substitute for the MMV. The only thing I really miss is the 96khz option for a more accurate digital rendition of the Minimoog sound, there is certainly enough DSP power in the ASB box for this. I really hope Creamware will add this function, it could possibly bring Minimax closer to the real thing.
Thanks for reading this rather long post!

Regards,
Steinar

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: music251 on 2005-12-28 06:43 ]</font>
EricNS
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:00 pm

Post by EricNS »

On 2005-12-28 05:24, music251 wrote:
Is it possible to run Minimax ASB in 96khz? I know this greatly benefit other CW synths like Vectron etc. (...)I'm sure running the synth in 96khz could make it sound even more authentic. Does anyone know if this will become possible?
Hi,

The sampling rate of the ASB is 44.1 kHz (with internal oversampling) and the resolution 32 bit. There is unfortunately no digital output, the signal is converted to analog.

I don't think that the ASB would benefit from 96 kHz. It won't make it sound more "authentic".

Remember that you'll never hear a sampling rate 96 KHz. The frequency response of speakers/headphones never goes beyond 25 kHz. A sampling rate of 50 kHz is then the maximum you will ever hear (to encode a frequency the sampling rate of the system must be 2x faster).

Sampling rates beyond 50 kHz are only useful for internal processing or high-end converter.

Some people claim that the channel separation is better with 96 kHz audio. I'm not sure, I never noticed a difference...

Sincerely,

:smile: Eric
music251
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:00 pm

Post by music251 »

Hmm.. that's interesting, but I'm not sure if you understood me right. Anyway, I wrote my post a bit quick, I meant to say that I haven't myself tested this 44.1vs96khz thing, but I have seen several others commenting on this - and they seem to think the difference is clearly noticable. Maybe this comes from a more accurate mathematic modelling of the sound? I remember Vectron was mentioned several times in this regard. I have absolutely no knowledge of these things, except than actually tweaking the (virtual) knobs and making decent patches, so I may be wrong of course.

Thanks for the reply!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: music251 on 2005-12-28 13:40 ]</font>
samplaire
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Warsaw to Szczecin, Poland
Contact:

Post by samplaire »

We are not robots with digital filters above 20kHz. Perhaps we don't hear but rather feel the above frequencies so we could benefit from higher frequencuies than 20kHz
Remember that you'll never hear a sampling rate 96 KHz. The frequency response of speakers/headphones never goes beyond 25 kHz
You mixed sampling frequency with sound frequency. they are not the same.
EricNS
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:00 pm

Post by EricNS »

You mixed sampling frequency with sound frequency. they are not the same.
No I didn't.

The sampling frequency samples, well, a sound frequency! A 96 kHz system is made to encode frequencies up to 48 kHz (to reconstruct a signal the sampling frequency must be at least twice the frequency of the signal being sampled). Again this useful for internal processing only, as we cannot hear frenquencies above 20 kHz.
We are not robots with digital filters above 20kHz.
Sure, but your speakers are. The frenquency response of speakers is 20 Hz to 20 kHz at best. So you'll never hear or "feel" frequencies above 20 kHz!

Would a Minimax with a 96 kHz sampling frequency sound better? Hard to tell. The Minimax already uses an internal oversampling, but Creamware doesn't specify how far it goes...

Anyway I wouldn't bother with these "technical" issues. I've heard wonderful sounding synth with first generation 44.1 kHz/16 bit encoders...
The Minimax specifications are high enough, in my opinion.


Cheers,

Eric

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: EricNS on 2005-12-28 15:19 ]</font>
User avatar
astroman
Posts: 8406
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman »

On 2005-12-28 15:18, EricNS wrote:
...A 96 kHz system is made to encode frequencies up to 48 kHz (...). Again this useful for internal processing only, as we cannot hear frenquencies above 20 kHz...
this is only one side of the story - the more important part are artifacts 'folding back' from beyond 20khz into the audible part of the spectrum, where they interfere with the 'regular' part of the signal and blur it.
It's called 'aliasing' because the system treats (for example) a 24khz signal (generated artificially by the sampling process) like it would be 4 khz.

The design of the anti-alias filter (supposed to cut off anything above the sampling frequency) is very important. A simple steep filter has a side effect called 'ringing' which amplyfies frequencies around it's cutoff point, hence increasing the 'aliasing' effect in certain ranges.
Good designs in this context are pretty expensive.

With 96khz the 'aliased' products are beyond the audible spectrum, hence a very simple filter can be applied - an important fact in an industry that outputs in million quantities :wink:
...Anyway I wouldn't bother with these "technical" issues. I've heard wonderful sounding synth with first generation 44.1 kHz/16 bit encoders...
exactly - TDA1541 silver crown converters are still a highly sought item as DA converters for CD playback :grin:

cheers, Tom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-12-28 18:42 ]</font>
samplaire
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Warsaw to Szczecin, Poland
Contact:

Post by samplaire »

Eric, Astroman just said what I wanted to say but more precisely :smile:
On 2005-12-28 15:18, EricNS wrote:
Anyway I wouldn't bother with these "technical" issues. I've heard wonderful sounding synth with first generation 44.1 kHz/16 bit encoders...
I agree with that in 100% :smile:
music251
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:00 pm

Post by music251 »

Ok, thanks for some enlightening answers! :smile: I'm gonna buy the Minimax ASB anyhow, it is a great product IMO.
Together with my Powerbook/EVB3 setup/CME UF7 setup, this is gonna kick butt when playing good old progrock stuff like ELP etc. If you need a good hammond sound, then the EVB3 plugin is amazing, it actually can produce a very credible Keith Emerson sound - that's impossible with any other hammond clone.

So the scope users here that stated that Creamware synths benefit greatly from being processed in 98khz mode were just talking nonsense? Somehow I think this could be more complex than just measuring the width of frequency respons, 96khz is more accurate than 44.1 - as it takes more snapshots per second of the sound? Unfortunately I'm away from my music equipment this Christmas holiday, so I can't check this out myself right now. Though, I understand what you mean, from what you're saying it doesn't sound like 96khz would matter a whole lot. Thanks for the information!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: music251 on 2005-12-29 08:41 ]</font>
Shayne White
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post by Shayne White »

MiniMax's algorithms are oversampled -- i.e., they process internally at 96KHz (or higher -- we don't know) and then downconvert to 44.1 at the end of the line. Many new synths do that as standard to make them sound like true analog without artifacts, because a high quality source downsampled to 44.1KHz will sound better than if the source were 44.1 to begin with. That is why many people record acoustic instruments at 96KHz and then downconvert them to CD.

Vectron and the older synths did not have the oversampling technology, therefore the algorithms were operating at the set sampling rate. It used less DSP power, but it didn't sound as good. However, setting these synths to run at 96KHz would make them sound better because they would run at 96KHz!

MiniMax was designed to run optimally at 44.1KHz with its oversampling technology, therefore it cannot be used at 96KHz. Rest assured, however, that it will sound as good (and probably better) than if it ran natively at 96Khz without oversampling.

Shayne

_________________
Melodious Synth Radio
http://www.melodious-synth.com

Indieanna: Integrated Solutions for the Independent Musician
http://www.indieanna.com

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shayne White on 2005-12-29 12:39 ]</font>
music251
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:00 pm

Post by music251 »

Ok, there we have it.
That's the answer I was looking for!
Thanks!
music251
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:00 pm

Post by music251 »

Hm.. I just experimented with several older Creamware and 3rd parties synths, and there was a very noticeable difference between 44,1 and 96 khz! I even could tell the difference on the Prodyssey in many cases, especially in high register with FM etc. it was easy to hear a difference.
I assume that Prodyssey uses oversampling just like Minimax, since it came out after Minimax.
Again, I would like the option the run the Minimax at a higher samplerate like 96khz, or whatever that equals running a CW synth with oversampling (Prodyssey) in 96khz. I only hope it wasn't this option CW ditched when they went from 6 to 12 voices, a lower, less accurate dsp calculation (khz rate). Very often, one would use the Minimax as a monophonic solosynth, and then it would be nice to have as much accuracy in the dsp processing as possible. I'm sorry if I've completely misunderstood something essential here, but I think I have a good point.. maybe? :smile:

Btw, I just tried the Oddity and Minimonsta - and they were nowhere near CW synths in sound quality.
So anyway, the Creamware synths sound great either way compared to VST synths.
I never use VST synths, but I'm thinking of buying a couple of them for my laptop, but trying these was a big letdown after being used to Creamware synths.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: music251 on 2006-01-07 08:56 ]</font>
Post Reply