Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71  
Old 06-19-2003, 01:59 AM
MichaelK MichaelK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 180
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Haigbabe: ignoring the troll bait and getting to the topic...

I never said the 002 didn't have better converters. I said it's the first I'd heard of it and asked if anyone could confirm. I'll be the first to admit that's a great thing, though I use an outboard converter anyway.

But outside of "low latency monitoring" mode, the 002 has higher latency than the 001. That's not so great.

As for recording at 96K, that's all well and good if you have the mics, the room and the half-million dollar desk to capture anything above 20K, and the D/A converters to translate it for the top-notch analog mastering facility necessary to make it reproduceable. I'm willing to bet if you had the budget for those projects you'd have a yourself nice HD system rather than the 002. But short of all that, your recordings on the 002 at 96K will sound absolutely the same as 44.1.

But you have Bob Katz's email address, so maybe I'm wrong.
__________________
- Michael
System details in my profile
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-19-2003, 06:27 AM
rwhitney rwhitney is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 117
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

This is a great, enlightening (and important) discussion! I think Duardo is right, but I've got to mention that, back in 1987, tc electronic designed and implemented A/D converters that ran at 1MHz to avoid the pitfalls of filters (like anti-aliasing, since artifacts would result way above human hearing anyway, they left out the filters altogether!), and the device that employed those converters, the 1176 digital delay (still sort of available), is one of the cleanest digital devices ever produced (IMO). This has nothing to do with the technical "debate" at hand, of course, but it points to another aspect of why higher sample rates may sound better: if the filters can be placed at higher frequencies, fewer artifacts reach the audible spectrum (?). (Besides, I think several posters have more-than-adequately explained the "representation" issue, so maybe it's time to move on
__________________
Ross Whitney
rwhitney@uci.edu
Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz (OS 10.5.6) / Apple Xeon 2x2 dual-core (OS 10.5.6) 6 GB
RAM w/PT-LE 8.0
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-19-2003, 07:33 AM
N-G-NEER N-G-NEER is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Jacksonville Beach, USA
Posts: 545
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

I wonder folks if you are too caught up in the sheer mathmatics of the image, and are therefor failing to understand what the actual differences are in the conceptual higher frequency recording, ie. 96K or 192K. When we record a Bass guitar the fundemental tones are down around the 40-80Hz range. Applying your argument we don't need to record anything above that because anything above that isn't part of the original(Fundemental) sound, but in fact it is the harmonics that live above and below those fundemental tones that create the shape and charachter of the "sound" we have come to know as a bass guitar. Likewise it is the harmonics that reside in other sounds withing our hearing range that affect our perception of the world around us, as much, or more, than the original sound, especialy if the original fundamental is above the frequency threshhold of human hearing. It is a fact that those harmonics or fundemental tones above the frequency threshhold interact with other frequencies that are within our range of hearing to create what we percieve as our suroundings, whether it be a jack hammer, a city street, or a violin. That also makes the often elusive difference between a poor instrument and a great one.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-19-2003, 08:03 AM
dkrz dkrz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area (USA)
Posts: 1,046
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Right now, most of us need to get our final product onto a CD. As we know the current standard being 16x44.1

Take your finest HD recording, lop of a bunch of all those "extra" beautiful bits(truncation), add a bunch of noise (dither), and have a drunk DJ overcompress the crap out of it. Broadcast that over "FM" radio waves or bounce it off a satellite spinning around the world at 4 miles per second. Wow... great. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Kind of like saying 8bit x 11khz media sounds better truncated from 24bit x 48khz than 16x44.1. Silly really...

I think the whole HD thing comes from a cumulative gathering of ALL the gear in the signal chain. Most people that can invest or afford HD systems will most certainly be able to afford the best mics, consoles, real "rooms", acoustic treatment, $12,000.00 dollar monitoring systems, players that can play, etc. So yeah... Sounds better. Sure.

dk
__________________
www.dpksound.com
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-19-2003, 10:03 AM
nickair nickair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 32
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Let's keep one thing in mind. We're never going to record sine waves or square waves anway. We have good built-in generators that will make that fine.

To understand the problem with recording frequencies, let's imagine two situations. One recording session is made with 2 proximity mics on two different violins. The second situation is using a single stereo mic couple, and the couple is placed at 3 meters of the two violins.

Violins produce harmonics much higher than 20k, but we can't hear them, but these high frequencies affect the mix of the two violins, in the 20-20000hz. Significant modifications that affect the sound.

In the first situation, with proximity micing, if you record at 44100hz, the sound reproduced will not be "exactely" the same as the original, because all the high frequencies will be rounded by the filters, and the mix made in the mix table. In the second situation, with a stereo couple, the modifications will be made in the air, let's say the mix will be made in the air. And even if you record at 44100hz, you will HEAR exactely what you heard when listening to the original sources (the violins).

So, I would say that it is pretty important to record with high sampling frequencies when recording classical music or jazz, or such subtle music. But when recording rock, or whatever powerfull music, it's less important to have really high frequencies, because I'm not really sur that it's so important to have very high definition (or higher definition than 44100 can produce)...

What do you guys thing about that?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-19-2003, 11:15 AM
Lowfreq Lowfreq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Newbury Park, Ca.
Posts: 651
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

quote: Duardo
I know, but you did say that Firewire means "cleaner and quieter operation over PCI design". I was just pointing out that the HD system uses a PCI design...so Firewire isn't better by design. If you took an external converter and ran it into a 192 IO, a Digi001, a Digi 002 and an M Box you'd wind up with the same thing all around.

Not exactly (seems to be a theme here). You took that statement out of context (also seems to be a theme here) of the discussion which related the 002R Firewire I/O & the 001 PCI interface. Nothing more, nothing less. Apology accepted.
Now can we get to REAL topic like...How about that new Metallica CD?
[img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-19-2003, 11:39 AM
xian$ xian$ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 122
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

I haven't read the entire entry, but being someone who wants an 002 rack... are PC users going to get screwed here? i see that the 002r is Mac Only... Is the 002 mac only as well?


I love both PC's and Mac's so I don't want to hear any mac snobs diss the PC... can't we all just realize they both suck just as much.. and both rock just as much...
__________________
Mac Mini 1.5GHz Intel Core Solo, 512 RAM, Mbox, PT 7.1, Oxygen 8.
Dell Inspiron 9300 1.0 RAM, Mbox PT 7.0, external firewire drive, Oxygen 8.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-19-2003, 02:25 PM
Chaasm71 Chaasm71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 68
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Muspro. All the articles you quote don't say anything particularly wrong. I just think they are misleading by omission.

Yes, you do capture more information when you sample at a rate larger than at 44.1kHz. But, in that quote, it wasn't mentioned that the extra information is inaudible to humans. So, big deal, right?! I mean, whenever you are digitizing a signal, you need to find out what frequency range interests you (your bandpass), and than sample at a rate greater than twice the highest frequency (Nyquist). If you go much higher than the Nyquist frequency, you just get irrelevant info that you are gonna filter out anyways!

Yes, you do loose information when you digitize a signal (all the stuff that goes on in between the samples). The cool thing is, if you sample at 44.1kHz, "all the stuff between the samples" is high a frequency stuff that we humans can't hear. So, again, as stated in Shannon's theorem (read the first page of the article Duardo pointed to), if you band pass limit your signal to between 0 and 20kHz, then you can exactly (as exactly at your DA converter lets you) regenerate your input signal if you sample at a rate greater than 40kHz (e.g., 44.1kHz sounds good).

So, I don't think these engineers are wrong, I just don't think that they are telling you everything you need to know. Look, AD DA conversion is used in lots of different places, not just audio recording. It is used in all sorts of scientific data aquisition systems which need to sample at much higher frequencies than just 44.1kHz. Lot's of experiments aren't band pass limited to 20kHz like our ears (i.e., one cares about higher frequency phenomena), so the requirements of the experiment dictate sampling at a higher rate. Not just because they can, but because they need to to get relavent high frequency information.

So...I think it has all been said now (many times over on some points!). If anything is still unclear, read read read read!!! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] If these results don't seem intuitive, just remember that intuition is learned, not innate. If it was intuitive, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and nobody would know the names Nyquist, Fourier or Shannon. They were brilliant people for figuring this stuff out.

Hope this has helped you out, or at least made you curious enough to go out and buy a book on digital signal processing or Fourier transform theory or...

Cheers!

Charlie.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-19-2003, 02:38 PM
Duardo Duardo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 978
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Quote:
When we record a Bass guitar the fundemental tones are down around the 40-80Hz range. Applying your argument we don't need to record anything above that because anything above that isn't part of the original(Fundemental) sound
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, that's not my argument at all. Harmonics are very important and that's why we need to be able to capture everything we can hear. The high "C" on a piano is just below 4,200 Hz, so most of the audible range (in terms of frequency) is only going to be harmonic content.

[quote]Let's keep one thing in mind. We're never going to record sine waves or square waves anway. [quote]

Maybe not in a pure sense, but all waveforms can be broken down to individual sine waves. Even a square wave is just a sine wave with an infinite number of odd harmonics.

Quote:
Violins produce harmonics much higher than 20k, but we can't hear them, but these high frequencies affect the mix of the two violins, in the 20-20000hz. Significant modifications that affect the sound.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If the inaudible harmonics do affect the mix of the violins in the 20-20kHz range, then we can capture those effects.

Quote:
You took that statement out of context (also seems to be a theme here) of the discussion which related the 002R Firewire I/O & the 001 PCI interface. Nothing more, nothing less.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How did I take it out of context? I was under the impression that you were saying that the 002 sounds better because it uses Firwire instead of PCI. Is that not right?

Quote:
I haven't read the entire entry, but being someone who wants an 002 rack... are PC users going to get screwed here? i see that the 002r is Mac Only... Is the 002 mac only as well?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">PC users are only going to get screwed if you consider having to wait a little longer getting screwed. The 002 works on both Mac and PC. Only people who are getting screwed are Mac people who are still running OS9.

-Duardo
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-19-2003, 03:39 PM
muspro muspro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 90
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Ok guys,

This has been great. Here is what I have learned:

1. 2 samples of a waveform is all that is needed to accurately capture it digitally and then have it recreated "exactly" by a good DA.

2. Higher sample rates don't technically increase the resolution of any audio information less than 1/2 of the acutal sample rate. It is just a waste of samples in that area.

3. Higher sample rates only increase the resolution of higher frequencies. (related to above)

4. Higher sample rate converters CAN and/or DO sound better becuase:

a - They can capture harmonic content above 20k
b - The low pass filters are around 96k and not as
harsh in the more audible areas around 20k.
c - They can be a newer higher quility converter than
current 44.1/48k converters.
d - They may have a beter clock making it seem that
they higher SR is the reason for the beter sound.
e - There are probably other reasons.......

5. Most books and mags don't qualify the specifics of the higher sample rate making it seem that higher SR equals more resolution thus better quality to our ears in all frequency ranges.

6. I won't need 96/192k until those converters a way better than any available 44.1/48k converters.

That's about it. This is just a basic overview, I hope I got it right.

Thanks Guys!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
003 Discontinued? bootc Pro Tools 10 58 12-05-2011 07:15 PM
Is 003 really discontinued? ripekeai Pro Tools 9 15 03-29-2011 07:05 PM
Digi 003 Rack Discontinued? Tritono9 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 12 06-04-2010 07:39 PM
Digi 001 discontinued? Dino Bonanno 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 1 01-13-2004 08:22 PM
001 being discontinued??? fabpab 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 5 11-10-2002 05:18 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com