Best choices for 96k digital input

A place to talk about whatever Scope music/gear related stuff you want.

Moderators: valis, garyb

Post Reply
jjgoss
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:56 am

Best choices for 96k digital input

Post by jjgoss »

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me the options on an Xite-1D to get a 96k digital stream into the Xite?

It looks to me like there is: 1.) convert stream to AES/EBU to connect to that port, 2.) SPDIF/Optical/ADAT (very uninformed about this), or,
3.) convert to analog and simply connect to the balanced analog port.

A lot of my streams are USB sourced, so it looks like I will have to do some conversion no matter what.

Thanks for any and all help with this.

James

User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 22493
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Best choices for 96k digital input

Post by garyb »

1. sure, that will work.
2. you must use S/MUX which uses 2 channels to achieve 96k, since ADAT is 48k max(2x 48k channels equals 96k of data)
3. this is the easiest method. depending on the signal source, there may be very little difference between the digital and analog signals.

certainly, in a home studio, on a limited budget and with no treatment to the room in your monitoring space, there is little advantage to 96k(although some devices may be best at 96k, especially if the programming of the digital processing on the device was poorly implemented). 96k will use double resources, ram, cpu and dsp. it is pretty expe4nsive for a low budget production. it's better to learn more about audio than the simply use a hammer. :D

in any case, i would not be overly pedantic about it. it is unlikely that this is about the difference between a mega-hit and trash.

User avatar
dante
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Best choices for 96k digital input

Post by dante »

I used to use ADAT in XITE when running at 48Khz but going to 96Khz & SMUX it became less stable. So I fed my Pulsar AES/EBU into XITE-1D and that was absolutley rock solid (although only 1 stereo feed). But I suspect the 96Khz S/MUX instability was just my system - maybe dodgy ADAT cables or ADAT ports in need of compressed air cleaning again. In future I may experiment with S/MUX 96Khz now that I have to ZOOM UAC8 as well as the XITE-1D ADAT to compare results to.

jjgoss
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 1:56 am

Re: Best choices for 96k digital input

Post by jjgoss »

Thanks Gary and Dante, as always, you are both very helpful!

BTW, Gary, when I play, it sounds like trash anyway.

James

User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 22493
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Re: Best choices for 96k digital input

Post by garyb »

:lol:
me too. it gets better with time, though

User avatar
dante
Posts: 4377
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Best choices for 96k digital input

Post by dante »

On a slight tangent, on the UAD2 platform, on most devices (a few exceptions especially Brainwrox) 96Khz uses less than double the DSP of 48Khz.

User avatar
valis
Posts: 5716
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Re: Best choices for 96k digital input

Post by valis »

Quite likely those devices aren't working at audiorate for all internal calculations, and of course any UI related hooks won't be audiorate dependant either.

On Scope you'll notice that Async doesn't go up proportionally with samplerate either (not audiorate, but host dependant).

Post Reply