Sample rates.....what's up with 88.2?

[Neil]

@ DJ
I can imagine your point of view, and it's discussed befor, you're right.

Regarding the demands of clients, I wouldn't let it go that far, I would those clients gently make clear that they shouldn't bother about those technical stuff.
It's the studio's identity and its engineers/producers which makes the difference and what they pay for.
Tell them they are better off than in any other studio.
Beat them by mentioning the nonsensical marketing character of the specs hype, name your exellent clock card as clock master (they like to hear that kind of stuff), tell them that you know exactly how they should sound, etc.

Hu... if these were clients that DJ is bringing into his studio for the first time, you'd be right, but he's referring to clients that may have projects they've worked on at other studios that they are now bringing to him for overdubs, or retracking some parts, etc... yer NOT gonna convert the whole freakin' project someone just did in Nashville or wherever to another samplerate... or even if you converted it as a backup copy in order for those parts to be done, then what're you going to do with the tracks you did if they want to have someone else mix it? Now you're going to have to convert the tracks YOU did to the original samplerate and then place 'em back in the project in the right place (which you can't really do if you can't play it back at that samplerate to make sure they're aligned) or you can make it look like you're a wanker & force the mix engineer to do it. It's one of those situations where you either can handle the business or you cannot - and in a manner convenient to the client.
It's no different than if somone were to call & say: "I have a project on 2" 24-track, can you mix it?" and you don't happen to have a 2" machine.

[hubird]

edit...you was faster

you know obviously perfect
then again...i'm asking myself, how is it possible people were able to create fan-tas-tic music on digital platforms?
Working on my MachineDrum I catched myself lovely lowering the bitrate (I know, something completely different, still...) and/or samplerate reduction on a lot of sounds...
I'm sure the profits in sound that you derive from higher resolutions definitely would be lost in this process.

On a personal note, I so often -after all those years of mixing- feel amazed about the impact of a few but crucial edits regarding mixing/arranging, that I strongly believe in the idea that the musicion's decisions have essentially 1000 times )literally) more influence on the quality of the resulting track than anything else
I wouldn't focus on the 1% profit of higher resolutions, as I see it.
But remember, we are just discussing the benefits and relativiness of technological devellopments
I just tend to emphasize psychological (mucision's) and sociological (market(ing)'s) aspects in the process of making music

[Neil]

you know obviously perfect
then again...i'm asking myself, how is it possible people were able to create fan-tas-tic music on digital platforms?
Working on my MachineDrum I catched myself lovely lowering the bitrate (I know, something completely different, still...) and/or samplerate reduction on a lot of sounds...

Look, it's just a tool, like anything else - you're looking for a lo-rez tool, I'm looking for a hi-rez tool... neither is necessarily "better" than the other, it's just my bit of sonic nirvana, just like a hollowed-out log struck by an antelope femur might be someone else's sonic nirvana


On a personal note, I so often -after all those years of mixing- feel amazed about the impact of a few but crucial edits regarding mixing/arranging, that I strongly believe in the idea that the musicion's decisions have essentially 1000 times )literally) more influence on the quality of the resulting track than anything else

True to an extent... you said in an earlier post that "the musician makes the music"... yeah, but if you really believed that to it's core you wouldn't be on this forum... you'd be out in a field somewhere with an acoustic guitar. You'd be using simple tools. And what if you had no arms, what would your tools be then? Not even an acoustic guitar, that's for sure - you might thump on the grund out in that field with your feet; ok, so what if you had no legs? C'mon, man: "the MUSICIAN makes the music", right??? Well, I suppose you could sing, or perhaps even thump on the ground with your head, but that could get painful... like trying to sync a card that won't work at my samplerate. OK, so let's take it a step further... you've got no ams, no legs, and you're mute and your paralyzed, so you can't even thump your head against the ground in a musical manner. C'mon, you're the MUSICIAN... make the music! What're you gonna do now, learn how to adjust your heartbeat at will to make music that way?

See? Gotta have some tools. The tools just vary from one person to the next, depending on what they're going for.


I wouldn't focus on the 1% profit of higher resolutions, as I see it.

To you it's 1%, to me it might be the incremental difference that gets me to the holy grail of that which I seek.

[hubird]

firstly the post I was typing before I checked for faster replies
(I'm not native-English, I need time for my posts ).

[Hu... if these were clients that DJ is bringing into his studio for the first time, you'd be right, but he's referring to clients that may have projects they've worked on at other studios that they are now bringing to him for overdubs, or retracking some parts, etc... yer NOT gonna convert the whole freakin' project someone just did in Nashville or wherever to another samplerate...

well, you could be right about that, but then, if that's the level the studio is working at, why not work with Protools and mac, or a competetive pc alternative?
If I would want to operate in a really standard professional environment, then I'd know I'd have to pay for it.

Creamware obviously didn't get to get the Protools' alternative, and we should be glad the platform (after the infamous Noah crash) is still alive and even more than that
Anyway, you are right that, on the long term, Creamware has to face the new devellopments, be it 96kHz, Vista, OSX, PCI-e, Dual-Core or the new president of the United States
We all are awaiting the new steps of Creamware regarding cards and platform.
I'm on mac, so I know what I'm missing, and it costs me a lot of mony at the moment to make the switch to OSX possible (by putting my cards in an older mac on OS9 and connect via ADAT/Midi).


Ok, now replying to your newer post.
It seems you feel upset about my opinion about technological devellopments and it's impact on dayly practise of running a studio or actually making music...
Well, there's no need for it, as isn't for bold text
I'm just emphasizing aspects of the subject that others might forget or (seem to) undervalue
I even mentioned my own astonishment about certain insights, as I rationally expected different experiences...
You maybe could think, hey, that's not untrue, I knew it but tend to forget it...or something, or just take notion of different opinions
I do take you seriously, and I'm just a member on an internet forum, so let's argue and inform
Summed together one might get a outperformed picture of all relevant aspects of the discussion.

Still walking and waving tho

[Neil]

well, you could be right about that, but then, if that's the level the studio is working at, why not work with Protools and mac, or a competetive pc alternative?
If I would want to operate in a really standard professional environment, then you have to pay for it.

I think I can speak for DJ here a little bit, as his DAW odyssey & mine are somewhat similar - we both got into Paris as an audio platform around the same time (though DJ a little sooner than me) and discovered that it sounded kick-ass - much better than Pro Tools did at the time. The other nice thing is that it didn't cost nearly as much... less cost/better sound = win-win. Now, this was in the era of the dastardly-sounding 888 convertors & the abslutely horrid PT summing architecture -I think the new HD systems sound quite good, personally. Paris didn't evolve, so we both moved into other platforms as either a replacement for - or in addition to - Paris... as a result of this, I think we've both been in the mode of: "let's see what we can get to sound better without getting into the extreme expense & constant upgrade cycle of being a prisoner of Digidesign", so Pulsar seemed like a good alternative for better EFX/Summing, etc. OMF conversions from PT to something like SX or Nuendo are not really an issue, so strict application compatibility isn't as big of a deal as it used to be. As for myself, I am RGHT on the verge of forking over the cash for a PTHD system, but I am willing to give this Pulsar stuff a shot. While I think the Digi 192 convertors sound good, I like my RME convertors a little better. IME, when it comes to tracking (assuming a good signal chain, of course), it's all about the convertors; when it comes to mixing, it's all about the summing architecture... in my case, this is what I'm hoping the Pulsar card can bring to the table.


Ok, now replying to your newer post.
It seems you feel upset about my opinion about technological devellopments and it's impact on dayly practise of running a studio or actually making music...
Well, there's no need for it
I'm just emphasizing aspects of the subject that others might forget or (seem to) undervalue
You maybe could think hey, that's not untrue, I knew it but tend to forget it...or something
I do take you seriously, I'm just a member on an internet forum, so let's argue

No, i'm not upset at all... just am/was making some points in response to yours.

[hubird]

allright, I believe you, but I get scared by that bold style...

[areptiledysfunction]

@ DJ
I can imagine your point of view, and it's discussed befor, you're right.

Regarding the demands of clients, I wouldn't let it go that far, I would those clients gently make clear that they shouldn't bother about those technical stuff.
It's the studio's identity and its engineers/producers which makes the difference and what they pay for.
Tell them they are better off than in any other studio.
Beat them by mentioning the nonsensical marketing character of the specs hype, name your exellent clock card as clock master (they like to hear that kind of stuff), tell them that you know exactly how they should sound, etc.

I admit, I don't run a studio on a commercial base
Hope Creamware will show us the future soon, with a .... (fill the form)

I live in a small town with some very large competition. One of my colleagues here has Grammy's sitting on his monitor bridge and gold and platinum records on his walls. There are a couple of other studios here who also have a well established clientele and have been in this area longer than I have and are better known. We all get along well and we share our resources when need be, but if someone calls me up to mix their project, I don't particularly want to have to tell a client that there is some reason that it would be easier for him to mix elsewhere because I don't have the capability to deal with audio files that he created in his bedroom on his PC and an EMU 1212. Sorry man. That's not gonna fly here.

[hubird]

ok ok, I'm not argueing the level you wanne operate on, I'm just saying, if you wanne compete on the professional market you're talking about, you have to invest in the appropriate tools
Creamware doesn't offer that at the moment, and we know the reason for it.
I wouldn't call that a shame, it's just the reality.
However, I hope Creamware will do the right thing as soon as possible.
In the meantime, I will make some music, even on 44,1 at 12 bits

[areptiledysfunction]

ok ok, I'm not argueing the level you wanne operate on, I'm just saying, if you wanne compete on the professional market you're talking about, you have to invest in the appropriate tools
Creamware doesn't offer that at the moment, and we know the reason for it.
I wouldn't call that a shame, it's just the reality.
However, I hope Creamware will do the right thing as soon as possible.
In the meantime, I will make some music, even on 44,1 at 12 bits

I understand what you're saying and I'm not trying to beat this system to death over this (well, maybe I was........ ) because I actually like it very much and it is doing many good things here. I guess what really shocks me is that I don't know of any other system that can exceed 48k that won't slave to WC at 88.2k. There may be others but I certainly haven't heard of them so I just took it for granted............my bad, I guess, and maybe I missed it but I'm certainly not clear as to the reason for it. Anyway, it seems to me that Creamware should put a big warning in their ads saying "DANGER...........DO NOT TRY TO SYNC TO 88.2k OR YOU WILL DIE!!!!!...............or something similar....

[Neil]

allright, I believe you, but I get scared by that bold style...

Hu... I was just using the bold font to more readily indicate which words were mine & which were yours, since I was interspersing responses in between your quoted lines. I WASN"T TRYING TO BE OVERLY EMPHATIC!!!

lol

[astroman]

...I guess what really shocks me is that I don't know of any other system that can exceed 48k that won't slave to WC at 88.2k.
...
Anyway, it seems to me that Creamware should put a big warning in their ads saying "DANGER...........DO NOT TRY TO SYNC TO 88.2k OR YOU WILL DIE!!!!!...............or something similar....

well, it might actually help idf they could decide for a way of communicating their gear's specs in an unambiguous way, in the first place trash all those confusing 'option' tables on the site...
in my original Pulsar manual it's clearly written that (a Pulsar One) syncs between 30 and 100khz as a wordclock slave on AES/EBU and S/PDIF - in the 4.5 PDF manual you can only guess that it will (at least the way I understand it).

with a BNC syncplate (covers an even wider range) the syncstate isn't reflected in the samplerate dialog at all (according to what I've read on this board (no red lock-light).

Anyway, I converted a live drum recording from 44.1 24bit to 88.2 and 96 and I could run all files parallel (Asio, in the Reaper App) with no audible differences.
I've only recently noticed this program (by a hint on this board) and begin to like it - would be strange if the 'professional sequencers' couldn't handle the same situation either.

So the project was set to 96k, 2 files with 88.2, 2 files with 96k and the original 44.1 source.
Any source reacted on phase inversion with an arbitrary 'partner' track without phasing or flanging and extinguished between -20 and -40 dB.
Imho that is a fair value for 2 different sample rate converters versus the original running at a 'wrong' rate.

I've no real clue, as I'm as lazy as most with reading documentations - to me it looks like the Scope Asio driver includes an automatic sample rate adjustment (by DSPs) , so it will (most likely) not even put an extra load on the CPU.

cheers, Tom

[garyb]

so run an 88.2k project at 96k and it'll run properly?

[Neil]

so run an 88.2k project at 96k and it'll run properly?

Well, not in my app (CubaseSX v3), it won't... are we sure that the Reaper application didn't samplerate-convert the 88.2k file to 44.1 upon importing it?

By the way, when word-clocking to the BNC "in" on the sync plate, i DO get the red light "lock" indicator at 44.1, 48, and 96k, but not at 88.2 - if I'm understanding Astroguy right, he said he doesn't get the red light when it's being clocked externally.

Neil

[astroman]

I dunno for a project in Cubase, Logic, Cakewalk...
I just added a file with 88.2 into a 96k project in that Reaper thingy and there were no audible artifacts (ok, there is always alittle bit of something if you want to hear it..) , no pitch difference, run length etc. - found it pretty stunning, too.

Btw the only sounds of the drumset that didn't phase extinguish were the attacks of the hi-hat, the rest of the kit was entirely gone.
That reminds me on a 'sampler aliasing test' (recently mentioned in the sts section) where they used a Tambourine that was transposed over 2 octaves.
The STS samplers were mentioned as 'not so good' in this domain.

This is a fairly similiar task, so it points to an internal function imho.
Not that it sounds distorted or bad - more like a sample late or so, and first of all the attacks of the hi-hats.

cheers, Tom

[Neil]

OK, so if Astroman got it to work, then it's possible one of two things ae happening:

1.) When he imported the files with three different samplerates, his application auto-converted the two that weren't at the project's default samplerate.

2.) I have something connected wrong.


Here's what I've got in the routing window:

ASIO2 24-bit source, connected to...
STM 1632 Mixer, connected to...
The default outputs (same ones as when you load the default project
Monitoring through the Pulsar card's analog outs

I also tried connecting the Sync Plate source "Clk" to the ASIO destination clock input, but that made no difference. Should I have any other connections made to the ASIO 2 Destination module? Or have I got anything wrong routing-wise, that you can tell?

Neil

[astroman]

... - if I'm understanding Astroguy right, he said he doesn't get the red light when it's being clocked externally....

Astroguy didn't get any red light at all when trying to do the trick with 'the other' syncplate and hence considered the experiment a failure.
Sometime later someone (considered knowledgeable) mentioned in some other context that the light wouldn't appear in the samplerate.

thanks for making me aware for the next try (if ever), Tom

Neil, that the progam would do it automatically was also my first suspect - the loop's actually a bit too short to really notice, I'll feed it a longer one with the wrong rate...
It's definetely a realtime function and not the app
the machine is a P3 1.3 GHZ, there are 5 such loops in 3 different sample rates, the 44.1 24 bit source is 2.7 MB long.
I quit the app and set Scope to 32k, so no file matched - it launches instantaneously and can immediately playback.

cheers, Tom

[Neil]

Neil, that the progam would do it automatically was also my first suspect - the loop's actually a bit too short to really notice, I'll feed it a longer one with the wrong rate...
It's definetely a realtime function and not the app
the machine is a P3 1.3 GHZ, there are 5 such loops in 3 different sample rates, the 44.1 24 bit source is 2.7 MB long.
I quit the app and set Scope to 32k, so no file matched - it launches instantaneously and can immediately playback.

cheers, Tom

OK, well that's even more strange because how could three different samplerates in the same project possibly play back at the proper pitch & timing?

Anyway, do you think I may have something connected incorrectly, so that perchance I'm NOT getting sync when I should, in fact, be getting it at 88.2k?

I posted my routing window configuration a couple of items up from this post - does that look like I should be able to do it, or do I have something set up wrong there?

Neil

[astroman]

according to the documentation your setup reads correct to me - I'd also assume that the clock to Asio connection is only required if an Adat is connected to the sync plate (it's only mentioned in that context)

maybe I've overlooked it, but does it fail only at 88.2 and some other rate works ?
it should, as BNC sync isn't that uncommon with Scope systems.

For me it's still obscure how the connectors are terminated or if that's required at all. For example if it works similiar to the old ethernet, you couldn't simply connect the plugs but needed a T-connector and a termination resistor on each side.
You didn't happen to smuggle in an old network cable accidently ? (in case there's no sync at all)

you seem to have the proper gear and listening conditions (opposed to me) - shall I sample the output and post the original file ?
I wouldn't suggest the method as a general rule of thumb for critical sources, but it may be acceptable on a lot of 'bread and butter' jobs

cheers, Tom

[garyb]

astro, it's shocking, but scope won't lock to 88.2k. actually, it will, but the clock is reported as 96k.

[Neil]

[quote="astroman"] maybe I've overlooked it, but does it fail only at 88.2 and some other rate works ?

Yes the other samplerates lock.

For me it's still obscure how the connectors are terminated or if that's required at all. For example if it works similiar to the old ethernet, you couldn't simply connect the plugs but needed a T-connector and a termination resistor on each side.
You didn't happen to smuggle in an old network cable accidently ? (in case there's no sync at all)

Nope, normal 75-ohm BNC cables, and I tried it both terminated & unterminated.

you seem to have the proper gear and listening conditions (opposed to me) - shall I sample the output and post the original file ?

Nah, wouldn't make any difference - i know these files are not the issue - they, after all, play back fine through my RME convertors.