PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I just tried to slave my Pulsar rig to my Mytek WC at 88.2 kHz. The system appears to be properly slaved but 96kHz shows up as the sample rate in both the Pulsar GUI and on Cubase SX? Is it really possible that Pulsar can't sync to 88.2?............and please, no sidetracking this about how I should use lower sample rates. That's not the issue here. I don't have any pre recorded 88.2 audio files here to test. Will Scope sync to 88.2 or not?

Thanks,

I pretty sure it should.

voidar wrote:I pretty sure it should.

If you, or anyone else here has used this system at 88.2kHz and can verify that though the sample rate in Pulsar shows 96k but it is actually sampling at 88.2k or has any 88.2k files to test, it would be much appreciated. Even playing back some 96k files with the card slaved to 88.2k would prove this because the audio would be playing back at a lower pitch..or..........does anyone here have a link to any test tones of the same frequency (or sweep) that were sampled at 88.2 and 96k? Lots of tones out there but I can't seem to find any that were done specifically for bats or dogs.


Thanks,

first of all you really should consider lower samp...[snip]

the proper sync should be easy to verify if you record a chord (with something that makes sound independent from your DAW, render the wav file as an 88.2 khz file in your sequencer, slave Scope to the 88.2 k wordclock, play back the file and the same cord on an instrument of choice.
They should be in tune - if not, the 10% detuning will certainly sound terrible...

The value on the GUI is a rendered number anyway - it's not measured but picked from a list of values - I'm pretty sure they left it out intentionally, as the circuit cannot generate that clock rate on it's own. Imagine what would happen if there was a number that you couldn't activate ...is my card broken ? it sounds great, but I just cannot click the 88.2...

chgeers, Tom

Hey Deej... thanks for checking into this for me - i thought I would ask some of the Pulsarheads here, as well.

In my case, what's happening is not that the project plays back at the wrong speed, it's that it doesn't play back at all. In CubaseSX I get the: "samplerate could not be set" error and although the project loads & "plays" it's dead silence... channel meters in the project show activity, but nothing gets sent to the ASIO, i'm assuming. Open up the project settings window & sure enough it's locked at 96k, not 88.2.

So, unless I've got something wrong going on, this Pulsar stuff will apparently NOT sync to 88.2 (via wordclock, anyway). I also tried the XTC mode & inserted a couple plugins in Cubase to see if they would work at 88.2k, and that's a big, fat nope... they pass audio that way, but with a bazillion jittery artifacts, IOW: not processing at 88.2.

So if anyone's using a Project Card (o I guess ANY of the cards) w/SyncPlate at that samplerate, I would certainly appreciate it if you could run through the proper configration for me.

Neil

Seems to safest solution would be to just go 96kHz - any specific reason against this?

Mr Arkadin wrote:Seems to safest solution would be to just go 96kHz - any specific reason against this?

Yes. Absolutely. The track count and processing resources in Cubase SX can be drastically reduced at 96k as opposed to 88.2k if you're running an older single core CPU. Also the resources used by the Scope system would be somewhat less at 88.2 than 96k and sample rate conversion is much simpler and therefore possible artifact issues are reduced when going from 88.2k to 44.1k. I honestly don't know why developers even implemented 96k. It's much less optimal. At 88.2 you get adequate high resolution (60k is actually likely the ideal sample rate) and you have much more flexibility as far as resources are concerned. This is a glaring oversight IMO. The fact that Scope will not function at 88.2k is actually sort of disturbing to me. Personally I use 44.1, but I occasionally have clients in here that want to use higher sample rates. I haven't since I got these cards but now it looks like I'm going to be limited in what I might want to do and after spending over $2400.00 on Scope hardware that sorta' pisses me off actually. I guess it's not wise to ever assume anything. Glad I didn't sell my RME cards yet.

Mr Arkadin wrote:Seems to safest solution would be to just go 96kHz - any specific reason against this?

Well, numerologically, 88.2 works out to a "9" (88.2: 8+8+2=18; 18: 1+8=9), while 96k works out to a "6" (96: 9+6=15; 15: 1+5=6), so 88.2k is 3 better.

OK, seriously, though... yes there is a reason - a couple, really:

1.) I have a metric shitload of projects at 88.2k. Can't exactly justify re-recording everything for the benefit of a particular DSP card.

b.) The difference between 88.2k & 96k in terms of processing power required when it comes to projects of many tracks is not "roughly 9% greater", it's significantly greater. Probably more like: "9%, times the number of tracks you have" or something like that. IOW, I've tried converting an 88.2k project to 96k and whereas 40 tracks at 88.2k with various plugins takes me to 60% on my CPU meter, the same project at 96k takes me straight to lockup.

Besides... it's really the numerological thing.

I'm quite sure Astroman will jump in here, unless he get's tired of explaining that those numbers aren't actually important at all regarding sound quality at the end of the ride (44,1)

At the moment I'm exploring my new Machinedrum (Elektron.se), an exclusive and a modern majestuous machine yet 12 bit, and it's the best buy of my life.
Put me in the camp that thinks the musicion makes the music
Hope to prove it soon.

And on a sidewalk (OT), to stay honest and not only mentioning the bright light :

http://www.elektron-users.com/modules/n ... mpost15324


(Relevant for -among others- Shroomz).

heh.. i sold my MD/UW to get the Creamware stuff, best buy of my life

[quote="hubird"]I'm quite sure Astroman will jump in here, unless he get's tired of explaining that those numbers aren't actually important at all regarding sound quality at the end of the ride (44,1)


Pardon me if I overstep my Newbie bounds here, but if he wants to jump in he can save his breath telling it to me, he can instead try to convince Rupert Neve, Geoff Emerick, and Dan Lavry.

Perhaps I also feel that the numbers at the end of the ride - so often these days consisting of the phasey, frequency-limited true end-user destination of the mp3 format - means that the better resolutions we start off with means that the better it holds up through all that downline bastardization.

means that the better resolutions we start off with means that the better it holds up through all that downline bastardization.

...and that idea is exactly what Astroman will fight against
I can't reproduce his argumentations, the most important thing I remember is that a decent clock is 1000 times more important regarding aliasing/jitter effects than downgrading processes ever will.

We're not talking about mp3 of course

I don't have the knowledge to even think of throwing myself into the technical aspects of the subject, but as long as the modal HiFi listener listens to 44,1 on regular home sound systems I don't bother about higher resolutions.
DVD makes more possible, but the world as a whole isn't really listening to DVD yet
I admit I don't produce expensive sounding super-airy popular music, if I was able to anyway
Partly low-fi but powefull and dynamic quality is what I'm try to be focussed on, at least since I'm back to 4 on the floor in my studio.
No offend, just thinking while typing

hey Neil, now that you've updated your computer system to the contemporary century, are you now at full speed steaming up to the newest technology demands?

hubird wrote:

means that the better resolutions we start off with means that the better it holds up through all that downline bastardization.

...and that idea is exactly what Astroman will fight against
I can't reproduce his argumentations, the most important thing I remember is that a decent clock is 1000 times more important regarding aliasing effects than downgrading processes ever will.

We're not talking about mp3 of course

I don't have the knowledge to even think of throwing myself into the technical aspects of the subject, but as long as the modal HiFi listener listens to 44,1 on regular home sound systems I don't bother about higher resolutions.
DVD makes more possible, but the world as a whole isn't really listening to DVD yet

This audible samplerate stuff has been argued to death for years. It really doesn't matter a damn bit whether 88.2k sounds better than 12k. What matters is that this platform is limited in functionality when integrating with a commercial studio. When I have clients who want me to mix projects that they have tracked at 88.2k at other studios and who also are not naieve and ask me why I'm having to upsample or downsampe their audio files in order to mix them and why they are being charged for the extra time it will take to batch convert these and then create a new project and load them all up it looks amatuerish to them so I'm going to have to build another computer now and use my RME cards in it and pay for more infrastructure, cabling, buy another patchbay, etc. This shouldn't be necessary.

hubird wrote:

means that the better resolutions we start off with means that the better it holds up through all that downline bastardization.

...and that idea is exactly what Astroman will fight against

He's going to fight against common sense? Great, THAT'S certainly something to look forward to. So what you're saying is that this thread is going to turn into something like the guy who goes to New York City for the first time, and asks how to get to 5th Avenue, and instead of giving him directions, everyone tells him that he really doesn't want to go to 5th Avenue, he should go to 42nd Street instead?

[/quote] I can't reproduce his argumentations, the most important thing I remember is that a decent clock is 1000 times more important regarding aliasing effects than downgrading processes ever will. [/quote]

Yes, and speaking of a decent clock... is there indeed any way to get this card to sync to my decent clock at 88.2k?

hubird wrote:hey Neil, now that you've updated your computer system to the contemporary century, are you now at full speed steaming up to the newest technology demands?

Don't know what you mean here... it's not an old computer - it's an Athlon 64 3000+. It's purpose-built as a DAW platform & is pretty robust. Or were you talking about the fact that I added (or am attempting to add) a Pulsar card to the mix?

i'm sure that this was possible at one time, but i checked v3.1c-4.5 and no love. the card wouldn't slave at 88.2k.

first, i think that this is not good. i must point out however, that 88.2k downsampled to 44.1k is not just taking half of the samples, the math is as complex as downsampling from 96k. i would also point out that mr neve doesn't live in the same world as the rest of us. for him, money is no issue when working on a design or recording. there's no advantage to the higher sample rate for pop music and that's not just my opinion, it's verifiable fact. that said, 88.2k is a standard rate, it is supported on the a16 and absolutely should be supported on the card. the old ads for the syncplate indicate that the 88.2k samplerate is possible. i'll communicate this to CWA on monday. i'd like to find out what can be done(if anything) to fix this in the short term. i don't think this is a reason to dump the cards, there are workarounds and this won't be the difference between good and bad projects, and of course these cards sound better at 44.1k than many products do at 96k, but this still shouldn't be, and i am personally embarassed by it.(Neil knows why)

@ 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)

Neil wrote:

hubird wrote:hey Neil, now that you've updated your computer system to the contemporary century, are you now at full speed steaming up to the newest technology demands?

Don't know what you mean here... it's not an old computer - it's an Athlon 64 3000+. It's purpose-built as a DAW platform & is pretty robust. Or were you talking about the fact that I added (or am attempting to add) a Pulsar card to the mix?

sorry, thought you was our old member Neil from (as far as almost) the Shetland Ilands
(tho I vaguely realized the style of your post wasn't Neil's, should have noticed more consciously )

garyb wrote:and i am personally embarassed by it.(Neil knows why)

ayiii

garyb wrote:i'm sure that this was possible at one time, but i checked v3.1c-4.5 and no love. the card wouldn't slave at 88.2k.

first, i think that this is not good. i must point out however, that 88.2k downsampled to 44.1k is not just taking half of the samples, the math is as complex as downsampling from 96k. i would also point out that mr neve doesn't live in the same world as the rest of us. for him, money is no issue when working on a design or recording. there's no advantage to the higher sample rate for pop music and that's not just my opinion, it's verifiable fact. that said, 88.2k is a standard rate, it is supported on the a16 and absolutely should be supported on the card. the old ads for the syncplate indicate that the 88.2k samplerate is possible. i'll communicate this to CWA on monday. i'd like to find out what can be done(if anything) to fix this in the short term. i don't think this is a reason to dump the cards, there are workarounds and this won't be the difference between good and bad projects, and of course these cards sound better at 44.1k than many products do at 96k, but this still shouldn't be, and i am personally embarassed by it.(Neil knows why)

Hey, Gary... is it simply something that's not available in v4.5? Was it available in earlier versions (let's say a v4.0?), if so, would it be possible to get THAT firmware version? I'm interested in making this thing work, maybe I just need a different, if older, version of the firmware.


Now, again we go forward on the "other" issue... Regarding anything residing above the final Nyquist frequency of a CD, here's a way to see for yourself... go find a pair of Earthworks TC-30's... they run flat up to 30k, pipe them through a pair of Grace's or Focusrite ISA's or other preamps that have a freq response of 100k or greater... track a piano or better yet a vocal through them at 88.2k and then also track it at 44.1k. Downconvert the 88.2k using a good-quality samplerate convertor or simply bounce to disk to 44.1 in your DAW application, then play 'em back & compare. If you don't hear a difference, buy new monitors. lol

Regarding yet another reason for using samplerates higher than 44.1 or 48k... track anything at 88.2 or 96k... throw a spectrum analyzer that will go up to at least 32k on that track, adjust for greatest resolution/sensitivity & play back the track... regardless of the frequency content of that track, you will see a little spike at right around 32k - those are your FIR filters ringing. That point varies with the samplerate you use... if you were recording at 44.1 or 48k, that spike would be within the audible range. 60k (if there was such a samplerate) would get it right at or just past the outside edge of most people's hearing, especially considering it's a very low-level artifact... 88.2k is the next most efficient samplerate up from the nonexistant "60k", and hence gets it well out of range.

But then what do I know?