Mix in 44.1 but monitor at 192k?

[The Weed]

From what the OP is saying, it sounds like he's playing back through his onboard soundcard, not an interface. Any settings in Windows Sound should have no effect on the signal from Pro Tools to an interface.

[atticmike]

Originally Posted by The Weed

From what the OP is saying, it sounds like he's playing back through his onboard soundcard, not an interface. Any settings in Windows Sound should have no effect on the signal from Pro Tools to an interface.

No you can play back in Windows with your interface, in my case the Aurora (n) and then set up the output sample rate to 192 (system settings) for example while it plays back 44.1 in foobar (media player)

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

[Rich Breen]

Originally Posted by atticmike

Not all of them unless you buy merging or Cranesong.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

Yes, pretty much all of them. Bob O is correct of course - you'll have a tough time finding a modern D/A that is not internally oversampling in order to relax the burden on the anti-alias filters.

[Teej]

Originally Posted by Rich Breen

Yes, pretty much all of them. Bob O is correct of course - you'll have a tough time finding a modern D/A that is not internally oversampling in order to relax the burden on the anti-alias filters.

I guess it's worth saying there's still a difference between oversampling designed into the DAC vs upsampling the audio before it hits the DAC.

I just checked the manual for the latest Mytek DAC, the Brooklyn+ ... no mention of upsampling anymore, so I guess they've deemed it unnecessary to be user-selectable in their latest designs? On my Stereo-192 (new in 2011) the upsampling sounds dreamy, almost "holographic" for lack of a better word but certainly not closer to the source.

Is there a point at which upsampling/oversampling became commonplace in DACs as part of the design? I remember hearing about this around 2010/2011 actually so maybe the Stereo-192 is the exception from the norm being able to turn it off...? Or is this really a more recent development from the last decade that it's taken for granted as part of the design? Or am I conflating oversampling for the LPF with upsampling at some other stage of the DAC?

sorry, lots of questions there but I'd like to get my head straight on this...

[atticmike]

Originally Posted by Teej

I guess it's worth saying there's still a difference between oversampling designed into the DAC vs upsampling the audio before it hits the DAC.

I just checked the manual for the latest Mytek DAC, the Brooklyn+ ... no mention of upsampling anymore, so I guess they've deemed it unnecessary to be user-selectable in their latest designs? On my Stereo-192 (new in 2011) the upsampling sounds dreamy, almost "holographic" for lack of a better word but certainly not closer to the source.

Is there a point at which upsampling/oversampling became commonplace in DACs as part of the design? I remember hearing about this around 2010/2011 actually so maybe the Stereo-192 is the exception from the norm being able to turn it off...? Or is this really a more recent development from the last decade that it's taken for granted as part of the design? Or am I conflating oversampling for the LPF with upsampling at some other stage of the DAC?

sorry, lots of questions there but I'd like to get my head straight on this...

Yes but to my ears, having a interface convert audio of 44.1 with 192 kHz let's it do it with higher precision and sonically better outcome when monitoring.

I am aware that most converters do upsample internally but I always compare this with the source material and the Aurora (n) has been the closest so far.

The worst experience I've had lately was with Cranesong's Quantum converter, which changes the sonics of the source drastically. So unless you print through it, you'll be fishing in the dark when it comes to monitoring digital content without reviewing it's sonic imprint.




Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk