Now they tell us!

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:47 am

After everyone has complained about MiniMax mysteriously not working in 96khz mode, CW finally says on their shop page that neither it nor Six-String are 96khz compatible.

Not that I use 96khz anyway or own those synths, but why??

Shayne

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 6:34 am

The filters are too dsp heavy to be run at high samplerates.
Anyone getting Pro One to do 96kHz? Didn't think so, for the same reason IMO.

I'd love to hear those filters and osc's at 96, but I also understand the filters are very powerfull. It's a bit of balancing between filter quality and samplerate...

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:04 am

hmmm, thought I've read it somewhere the filters of the MiniMax are actually kind of oversampling (based on the common 44/48 k rates).
An increased base rate at 96k would either need another internal upscale to 192k (resulting in realtime problems) given it's a scalable architecture (which I dunno), or completely mess things up.
Would be intersting to get some details on the issue.

my 2 cents, Tom

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 7:41 pm

On 2003-03-03 00:47, Shayne White wrote:
After everyone has complained about MiniMax mysteriously not working in 96khz mode, CW finally says on their shop page that neither it nor Six-String are 96khz compatible.

Not that I use 96khz anyway or own those synths, but why??

Shayne

I use the Minimax at 96 kHz samplerate with SFP 3.1c, so it's another CW BS...I've bought the Minimax at its very beginning and have corresponded with CW on this topic, right now my Minimax works perfectly at 96 kHz!...Knowing now what you point out, I'll be very carefull with my CW upgrades!

What I understand with this, is that Noah will not allow 96kHz samplerate...And I guess CW don't want us to compare, or I don't understand why they do what I consider beeing a foolish move.

I feel sorry about this kind of policy, really sorry...

Maybe it's time for CW to be bought by another company with importants banking funds, i feel their policy so silly these times...

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-03 19:47 ]

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:15 am

I'm shocked

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:20 am

How can CW allows themselves a such move, it's scandalous. Limiting the use of the Minimax...Incredible

Who do they think we users are?

There's something really wrong.

Post by **garyb** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:06 pm

who is REALLY buying music in a format that can use 96k at the moment?

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:54 pm

Not me at least!

And Grok, why do you need three different posts to express the fact that you're shocked??

[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-03-04 13:55 ]

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:26 pm

Why shouldn't I ?

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 17:56 ]

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:30 pm

On 2003-03-04 12:06, garyb wrote:
who is REALLY buying music in a format that can use 96k at the moment?

Don't you sometime think about the near future?

Cheers,
Grok

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:37 pm

For my friend King of Snake I repeat it once again:

"This surreptitious move made by Creamw@re is totally scandalous"

I think they are in problems right now for doing things like that. A regression!

It's difficult for me to admit this fact, but it has be done! Incredible...

Come on Creamw@re! Stop doing silly things!

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 09:51 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:39 pm

Grok, me too I'll repeat :
high sampling rates have nothing to do with quality.
Their only purpose is to make consumer equipment cheaper in production and tell those customers their new units are four times more powerful, so a two times price increase would still be a bargain.

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2003-03-04 16:40 ]

Michu · Post by **Michu** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:59 pm

@astroman - yeh, that seem to be (at least partialy) true for audio recording. but it can be useful with synthesis...

@grok - why do you assume, that they did it on purpose? could you think for a moment that they met some technical difficulties, instead of thinking how to make users life worse?

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:02 pm

What is very very sad though, is that people will start believing the hype, and then you'll *have* to be operating at 96kHz. Nothing to do with quality though, it's just so you can say you work at 96kHz and not the old time, out of date, crappy 44/48 rate.

Alanis Morissette's "Jagged Little Pill" was recorded/edited/mixed on old 16bit blackface ADAT's with the stock converters. (They were running through a nice Euphonix console though). Sounds fine to me!

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:43 pm

@grok - why do you assume, that they did it on purpose? could you think for a moment that they met some technical difficulties, instead of thinking how to make users life worse?

I assume they did it surreptitiously on purpose because they met some technical and commercial difficulties that they believe can be resolved only by making users life worse, wich is not their first problem!

Shame! Shame!

I said.

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 08:40 ]

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:49 pm

On 2003-03-04 17:02, bassdude wrote:

What is very very sad though, is that people will start believing the hype, and then you'll *have* to be operating at 96kHz. Nothing to do with quality though, it's just so you can say you work at 96kHz and not the old time, out of date, crappy 44/48 rate.

Alanis Morissette's "Jagged Little Pill" was recorded/edited/mixed on old 16bit blackface ADAT's with the stock converters. (They were running through a nice Euphonix console though). Sounds fine to me!

Hey Bassdude, why doesn't Creamw@re sells 4 tracks cassettes recorders? I'm sure you'll buy them coz you know it sounds fine!

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-04 17:55 ]

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 7:09 pm

About samplerate: I think much depends on the amount and kind of processing.
For recording, it does not make a big difference. For synthesis and heavy processing though, it does make a big difference. Try creating high pads with lots of reso on different samplerates. Or make naughty filtered basslines, or use some oscillators. Bassdude, I think most of her tracks' processing was done on great analog gear we can't afford.

As most of us don't use 96, CW still got us their best filters in Minimax.

at0m.

Post by **garyb** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:21 pm

obviously.

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 2:54 am

On 2003-03-04 17:49, Grok wrote:

Hey Bassdude, why doesn't Creamw@re sells 4 tracks cassettes recorders? I'm sure you'll buy them coz you know it sounds fine!

_________________

Grok, you've lost me here....

@Atomic, yes you are right of course, I am speaking purely from a recorded audio point of view. I'm one of the few here that use Pulsar systems for audio production only, and not synthesis.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:03 am

Some people are making far too big a deal about this IMO.