>48khz sampling rate with 001

[hubbellclef]

I was wondering if it is possible to get a sampling rate greater than 48khz on the 001. I was thinking of buying the new Focusrite ISA 428 Pre Pack, which has a 192khz A/D converter on it. Could I just hook this up through the optical inputs on the card of the 001 and have a 192 khz sampling rate? And would I just slave the Pro Tools Clock to the Focusrite 428 then?

Thanks,
hubbellclef

[Slim Shady]

Nope, the 001 is limited to 48khz no matter which input you use. You'll have to move to a 002 or HD system if you want higher sample rates. Sorry, but those are the breaks [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Duardo]

I doubt you'd hear an appreciable difference in quality anyhow...certainly not enough to justify reducing your track count by 75% and quadrupling the amount of HD space you take up...

-Duardo

[Bloux]

are you guys noticing a difference from 44.1 to 48k?

[Duardo]

No...but I do notice a difference between a signal recorded at 44.1 and one recorded at 48 and then converted to 44.1...the latter always sounds worse.

-Duardo

[soundboy69]

No, not really. It really depends on the source and the rest of your chain. I really only begin to notice a big difference at around 88.2 and 96kHz, especially w/ acoustic instruments. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[naireko]

any of us REALLY running 48k sessions without 6045 errors?

seriosuly... who's running 48k with no problems? I gave up on 48k awhile ago.

[The Mighty Burner]

I don't percieve much of a difference between 41.1 and 48, but I DO percieve a significant difference in bit rate (16-bit vs. 24-bit)...

[Park Seward]

According to the published specifications of the 001, there is NO difference between 44.1 and 48 sampling. The frequency response is the same and the low-pass filter is the same. Those who hear a difference have an active imagination.

Also, converting from 48 to 44.1 has drawbacks:

"For a start, look at Multirate Digital Signal Processing by Crochiere and Rabiner.

Almost any technique for producing good digital low-pass filters will be adaptable to sample-rate conversion. 44.1:48 and vice-versa is pretty hairy, though, because the lowest whole-number ratio is 147:160. To do all that in one go would require a FIR with thousands of coefficients, of which only 1/147th or 1/160th are used for each sample--the real problem is memory, not CPU for most DSP chips. You could chain several interpolators and decimators, as suggested by factoring the ratio into 3*7*7:2*2*2*2*2*5. This adds complexity, but reduces the number of coefficients required by a considerable amount.

[From Lou Scheffer:]

[soundboy69]

Right on, Park... [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

This is exactly the reason why factor-of-two SRC (i.e. 88.2>44.1) almost always sounds better than others.