PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

looks very nice
congrats Jurgen

This looks amazing! Very impressed indeed and the price is excellent!

I have a couple of questions:-

- Does the omission of Z-link suggest that support for that interface is being phased out?
- Will we see a MADI interface on Scope or XITE at some point?

Shroomz~> wrote:This looks amazing! Very impressed indeed and the price is excellent!

I have a couple of questions:-

- Does the omission of Z-link suggest that support for that interface is being phased out?
- Will we see a MADI interface on Scope or XITE at some point?

Hi Shroomz, long time no speak. Hows things in snowy Scotland.

Yup, am very interested in this too and would also like to know more about whether we'll see some kind of MADI interface for Scope/XITE.

And looking forward to some more amazing devices and modules from you and Sharc when SC release the new SDK.

Cheers for now and hope the weather improves for you guys up there soon.

Tim

t_tangent wrote:Hi Shroomz, long time no speak. Hows things in snowy Scotland.

Hi Tim, it's very snowy! Scotland practically ground to a halt in the past week.

Yes, this interface has really got my attention. It's much cheaper than something similar from RME and has more features!

Just trying to get my head around the omission of Z-link in favour of MADI and what it means for future Scope hardware etc, hence the questions I asked.

~Mark

yes, there should be MADI for XITE. the advantage of MADI is that it can carry 64 channels via optical cable.....

we made a small vid for the A16, hope you like
sorry still only in german

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bad-LXtDVYQ

-Juergen

anyone got one yet? how's the quality?

well, i'm biased, but where the A16 Ultra was very good, the A16 Mk2 is excellent. you absolutely cannot get a better AD/DA in that price range.

Juergen has had quite a bit of experience since the Ultra and the Ultra has been sold to Bose for their test rigs over and over. the Mk2's AD/DA and noise floor have definitely been upgraded. i'm disappointed that there's no z-link, but i understand why(economics). MADI is cool, i would love it if Juergen would design a MADI adaptor for the XITE....

If there is no z-link how do you plug the A16 mkII, in ADAT ? (without madi)

yes, through ADAT.

I hope there will be a MADI (or ADAT) expansion for the XITE1. I have so much gear connected to my PCI Scope system that I can not make the switch to an XITE1. There is still that mysterious XTDM connection

it's possible, but Juergen has to make it....
time and money...

JuergenK wrote:Hi guys,

Gary, thanks for announcing "my" A16 MK-II !!!

I hope you guys like it, I had to listen almost 10 years for complaints for the old A16 ultra, so I tried to put EVERYTHING in what I had on the wish list...if I forgot something, please not tell me

Greets,
Juergen from Ferrofish

What were the complaints? What's the difference between the old and new when it comes to conversion?

Thanks

garyb wrote:well, i'm biased, but where the A16 Ultra was very good, the A16 Mk2 is excellent. you absolutely cannot get a better AD/DA in that price range.

Juergen has had quite a bit of experience since the Ultra and the Ultra has been sold to Bose for their test rigs over and over. the Mk2's AD/DA and noise floor have definitely been upgraded. i'm disappointed that there's no z-link, but i understand why(economics). MADI is cool, i would love it if Juergen would design a MADI adaptor for the XITE....

Ah! You just answered me Gary. Ye, shame about Z-link.

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:After heaing Solaris and also seeing the artifacts disappear on the Sine wave demo using 96k, I can say that is something I look forward to also.
Perhaps the difference isn't that noticable in the mid ranges, but the highs appear to better tuned and the lows are tighter since the waveforms have less smearing from the artifacts.
But 192k shows me that Jurgen isn't going anywhere for another few years or so.
I hope to get to NAMM so I can see the guys and see this + Solaris...
The Founding Fathers are so much fun too..

That's interesting Jimmy, and I wonder why using a higher sample rate would affect frequency ranges in particular sounds?

There's an ongoing debate that all DAWs sound the same but I believe that there are variables that make things sound different.

What do you think creates the artifacts with the samplerate you use?

Thanks

The Nyquist rate, dictating that 2x the sample rate can contain all the information of 1x frequency bandwidth, is theoretical. Too many people quote that rate like it was realistic (44.1khz to cover 20khz of bandwidth). But no system can run perfectly in a theoretical state, there's noise, quantization, etc. So bumping things up to 96kHz does a more realistic job of covering 20kHz. It also means there's far more wiggle room for all the anti-aliasing calculations that goes on at so many steps, especially in oscillators and filters.

Since there is no ZLINK on the A16, nor MADI on XITE yet, it would be nice to have the core of the SCOPE system run at 96kHz, but then down-sample that to 48Khz for the A/D conversion. This would allow full channel bandwidth over ADAT (8 channels, instead of S/MUXed down to 4), but full frequency range during calculations. Maybe with the SDK out there again, it's possible.

jksuperstar wrote:The Nyquist rate, dictating that 2x the sample rate can contain all the information of 1x frequency bandwidth, is theoretical...
...But no system can run perfectly in a theoretical state, there's noise, quantization, etc. So bumping things up to 96kHz does a more realistic job of covering 20kHz. It also means there's far more wiggle room for all the anti-aliasing calculations that goes on at so many steps, especially in oscillators and filters...

the fact is as simple as the 'Nyquist rate' dictates that (unavoidable) aliasing products fold back into the audible spectrum with a 44.1k sample rate.
With 96k those artifacts are still present, but fall into ultrasound.
Additionally theyare are easily removed with a filter design that affects the signal far less than the typical 44.1k setup.
The sound doesn't gain definition by 'better' processing or more precision, but by washing it from disharmonic content (which is what aliasing products are).
Of course there's always the possibility that the analog design of the (converter) box is improved, too...
Imho the biggest problem of the latter is the economic aspect of the product - the A16mk II is a great combination of fidelity-price tag.

cheers, Tom

let me fold some art_facts vibes

tgstgs wrote:let me fold some art_facts vibes

It sounded very clean at all the samplerates you changes it to.

Was that recorded at 96kHz?

astroman wrote:

jksuperstar wrote:The Nyquist rate, dictating that 2x the sample rate can contain all the information of 1x frequency bandwidth, is theoretical...
...But no system can run perfectly in a theoretical state, there's noise, quantization, etc. So bumping things up to 96kHz does a more realistic job of covering 20kHz. It also means there's far more wiggle room for all the anti-aliasing calculations that goes on at so many steps, especially in oscillators and filters...

the fact is as simple as the 'Nyquist rate' dictates that (unavoidable) aliasing products fold back into the audible spectrum with a 44.1k sample rate.
With 96k those artifacts are still present, but fall into ultrasound.
Additionally theyare are easily removed with a filter design that affects the signal far less than the typical 44.1k setup.
The sound doesn't gain definition by 'better' processing or more precision, but by washing it from disharmonic content (which is what aliasing products are).
Of course there's always the possibility that the analog design of the (converter) box is improved, too...
Imho the biggest problem of the latter is the economic aspect of the product - the A16mk II is a great combination of fidelity-price tag.

cheers, Tom

I thought evan at 44.1kHz the aliasing sidebands are taken care of if the filter is built correctly. Isn't it a trade off of:
Bit depths,
sample rates
Filters for conversion
Correct dithering?

I'm still a firm believer that DAWs can sound different even though the maths are supposed to be the same. How they interact with drivers of different hardware plus plugins adds to the variety.

I'm interested in which artifacts you are talking about. does 44.1kHz still allow sidebands to seep through if there are problems with the filters?

Thanks