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
  #101  
Old 06-20-2003, 04:00 PM
Carl Z Carl Z is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 656
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Sorry to go off track, but, I'm thinking about dumpimg my 2" stuff into PTools. The studio that I work with just got HD with the 96 i/o. Does anyone know how the 96 sounds at 48K?

C
__________________
"I'm one of the few people I know who knows the few people I know" - CL
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-20-2003, 04:14 PM
Park Seward's Avatar
Park Seward Park Seward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Posts: 4,284
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

I have heard from some plug-in manufacturers that their calculations can be made at higher precision if they use a higher sampling rate. This gives them more headroom and they can extend their integers before they have to round off or dither.

I don't know if we would be able to hear the difference.
__________________
Park
The Transfer Lab at Video Park
Analog tape to Pro Tools transfers, 1/4"-2"
http://www.videopark.com
MacPro 6 core 3.33 GHz, OS 10.12.1, 8 GB RAM, PT12.6.1, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, PreSonus DigiMax, MC Control V3.5, dual displays,
Neumann U-47, Tab V76 mic pre, RCA 44BX and 77DX, MacBook Pro 9,1, 2.3 Mhz, i7, CBS Labs Audimax and Volumax.
Ampex 440B half-track and four-track, 351 tube full-track mono, MM-1100 16-track.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-20-2003, 04:27 PM
Chaasm71 Chaasm71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 68
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

This may sound kind of cynical, but it seems to me that the people with the most to gain from us (the consumer) adopting the latest and greatest standard are device manufacturers and people who sell software that run on said devices. So, I can certainly imagine that someone with something to gain (device and plugin developers) will sing the praises of the latest and greatest technology.

However, I'm an physicist. I like to see data that proves a point, or hear a reasoned arguement. If somebody can show me two reconstructed waveforms (within the 20Hz-20kHz band) that look different on the same device using the same AD DA simply because the system was operating at a different sample rate, then I'll be interested. Otherwise, I'm not to movivated to go out and plunk down a bunch of cash to feel like I'm leading a technology race. Note, I DO understand that people who are in the recording business (I have a day job in R&D so I'm not constrained in this way!) can find themselves in the unenviable position of having to 'keep up with the Jones' so to speak. The recording business is really competitive, and everyone is looking for an edge on their competition. However, the only real winners are the people selling the gear, not the people buying it. Think of NEW SUPER IMPROVED ULTRA SPACE AGE TIDE DETERGENT. Every couple of months, there's a new and improved laundry soap out. Well, since that have been going on for more than 30 years, all I can imagine is "WOW, people sure musta been dirty 30 years ago, because with all these improvements, I've still got grey whites and faded colors!". So, if you hear a difference, spend your money. I'd rather buy another guitar...

Charlie.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-20-2003, 04:27 PM
Carl Z Carl Z is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 656
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Also curious, if people do hear a differnce fom recording at 192 vs 48 on the same converters- Why?
__________________
"I'm one of the few people I know who knows the few people I know" - CL
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-20-2003, 05:14 PM
masmit masmit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Z:
Also curious, if people do hear a differnce fom recording at 192 vs 48 on the same converters- Why?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Two more octaves? Better filters? Clearly sampling at 192 is different from sampling at 48. The benefits or neccessity of it are subjective.

Cheers, Mark
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-20-2003, 05:35 PM
Chaasm71 Chaasm71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 68
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Two more ocatves of what? I'll tell you what: Entertainment for dogs! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Well, it would entertain them if a 20kHz reconstruction filter hadn't taken it out. There's nothing subjective going on here! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Charlie.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-20-2003, 05:41 PM
B-Grade B-Grade is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 133
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

CarlZ, My man.

Cut to the chase boys. Use the slide rules to tell why there IS a difference, not why there shouldn't be. I've heard nyquist bastardized for years. I can hear the difference. Everyone I've AB tested with can hear it.
__________________
Mac 5,1 12-core Mojave
PT 2020.9.1
HDX - MTRX Studio
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-20-2003, 05:46 PM
Duardo Duardo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 978
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom line: higher sampling rates more accurately depict true wave forms at any frequency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, that is just plain wrong.
-Duardo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, in theory, it is as right as 1+1=2, as you point out in your other quote:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing sampling rates allows us to more accurately portray these tiny subtleties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it does, but we don't need to portray them if we can't hear them. These tiny subtleties you're talking about are high-frequency sounds we can't hear. You can't say that 44.1 kHz isn't enough to accurately reproduce material below 20kHz because it can't reproduce the sound above that frequency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, not quite...because they don't more accurately depict true waveforms at any frequency. Those "subtleties" that they do reproduce are frequencies above the Nyquist frequency.

Quote:
I've already conceded that while the wave may be getting more and more "perfect" with more and more samples, no one would be able to hear any difference.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Right, but we need to separate what we're talking about here...within the range of human hearing, the wave is not getting any more perfect with more samples.

Quote:
You guys are obviously very smart, so let me ask again: mathematically, wouldn't you want to deal with a very, very precise digital signal, at the highest sampling rate/bit depth, to do calculations on and then dither it down at the last possible instant?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes and no. Pro Tools LE, for instance, processes internally at whatever sampling rate you're running at, but at a higher bit depth (32-bit floating point). As far as frequencies are concerned (sampling rate), when we're mixing we're mainly just adding them together...we're not going to create harmonic content above our highest frequency by adding one frequency to another. Remember, any complex wave can be broken down into individual sine waves at various frequencies, and likewise adding multiple sine waves together will create a complex wave...but it won't create frequencies that are higher than any of the individual sine waves. (As mentioned earlier, other processes may do more complex things, and many of them do upsample to process and then downsample again...but we don't need to start off or end up with more detail than we can perceive, although I suppose there may be an advantage to avoiding even one of the extra processes...but then again, that doesn't have anything to do with a better representation of the audible range, which is what this thread seems to be about now.)

With bit depth, though, it's a different story entirely...dithering is related to bit depth, not sampling rate, and you certainly are better off keeping things at the highest bit depth you can (to a degree, at least) and dithering at the last possible moment. This may be a huge oversimplification, but when we're talking bits, we're talking multiplication and division, not addition and subtraction. Think of it in terms of whole numbers...when you add or subtract whole numbers, you don't need any finer resolution than a whole number. When it comes to division, though, you do...just divide 1 into 3. You can't express that number exactly with decimal places...but if you're going to take 1, divide it by 3, then multiply it by 5, and so on, you can pretty easily see what a difference a few extra decimal places can make.

Quote:
It's the same reason why the internal path of a lot of audio software is more precise than the inputs and outputs and, in a more real-world example, why the internals of accounting software deals with numbers to the ten-thousandth of a penny. Because constant truncation affects the end results.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Right...but most audio software is more precise than inputs and outputs in terms of bit depth only.

Also, you have to consider that as far as frequencies are concerned, we can sample exactly what's going in, so long as it's below the Nyquist frequency. However, as far as bits are concerned, an audio signal will never be exact. Our signal will almost always fall between two quantization steps (if you picture things as a graph, the only time this would not be the case would be when the wave passes through the "intersection" of the horizontal (bits) and vertical (sampling rate) lines). This creates a random noise called quantization noise, and that's why with more bits we have a wider dynamic range...because that quantization noise gets pushed down lower and lower the more bits we have. In a nutshell.

And yes, before someone says something, there actually can be inaccuracies in terms of frequency response...that's what jitter is, basically...but that's somethign that can be measured and, to an extent, controlled, whereas there's nothing that can really be done about quantization noise.

Quote:
Sorry if the statement seems ignorant. Just trying to "get my learn on."
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not ignorant at all. Very valid question.

Quote:
So, I can certainly imagine that someone with something to gain (device and plugin developers) will sing the praises of the latest and greatest technology.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, you may be surprised...go to the AES convention, or NAB, or NAMM, or whatever, and talk to as many converter manufacturers as you can...some of them will tell you that they're making converters that run at higher sampling rates. Just don't expect to see anythign like that in their ad copy.

If I were making a converter, I'd certainly want it to be able to run at as many sampling rates as possible, even if it sounded the same at all of them...so it would be compatible with as many systems as possible. People who want to get to the bottom of this kind of stuff represent a fairly small percentage of the user base, and most will read the marketing blurbs and figure they need the latest and greatest and need to run it at its "full potential" to get what they paid for...and regardless of the fact that my converter may sound better at one rate than another (a representative from Benchmark has even said on these forums that, in their opinion, the technology they use is inferior at 96K compared to 192K and therefore their DAC1, while capable of accepting a 192K signal, actually downconverts to 96K for playback), I'd want as many people to buy it as possible.

Quote:
Also curious, if people do hear a differnce fom recording at 192 vs 48 on the same converters- Why?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Could be a number of reasons. The filters would be the main reason I'd think. Jitter. Other components or aspects of the design of the converter. Who knows...there are apparently some people who can hear up to about 26kHz, and if you've recorded a source with a lot of content between 20 kHz and 26 kHz, it may make a difference to them. Your playback chain may distort a little above 20 kHz which could affect the information below 20 kHz and that may actually sound better to you. Some people may think they hear a difference but really they don't (if you don't do a true blind test it may be hard to actually not be affected by your prejudices). I'm sure there are other factors that could come into play as well.

-Duardo
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-20-2003, 05:58 PM
Kickin.da.speaker Kickin.da.speaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 2,081
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Quote:
Cut to the chase boys. Use the slide rules to tell why there IS a difference, not why there shouldn't be. I've heard nyquist bastardized for years. I can hear the difference. Everyone I've AB tested with can hear it.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I've already answered that: You have more room for the filter to cut off in A/D and D/A conversions, so you don't need such a steep cutoff slope, and can create filters that create less distortion.
__________________
David.

6am eternal
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-20-2003, 06:04 PM
Duardo Duardo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 978
Default Re: Digi 001 discontinued?!

Quote:
Two more octaves? Better filters? Clearly sampling at 192 is different from sampling at 48. The benefits or neccessity of it are subjective.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No argument there. Of the two things you mentioned, the second is more likely than the first. I never argued that it wasn't "different". I never even argued that higher sampling rates aren't "better" (although I don't believe that they necessarily are). I've said all along that if a certain converter sounds better at a higher sampling rate, then if you can afford the bandwidth you should record at that higher sampling rate. But the main thrust of this discussion has been whether or not the material below 20 kHz is represented more accurately at higher sampling rates because there are more samples per wafeforem, which is not at all subjective...it is not.

I have to say that I've been involved in several threads similar to this one over the years, and I'm a pleasantly surprised that this one has progressed as it has. Usually people just get pissed off and start calling each other idiots and the thread just dies. It seems like people have actually learned things here. Nice.

Who knows, maybe if the thread weren't titled "Digi 001 Discontinued?" it would have degenerated by now...

Quote:
Cut to the chase boys. Use the slide rules to tell why there IS a difference, not why there shouldn't be. I've heard nyquist bastardized for years. I can hear the difference. Everyone I've AB tested with can hear it.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How can you use a slide rule to tell why there is a difference? You say you've heard Nyquist "bastardized"...how can you be sure that it's Nyquist, and not the filters or some other factor?

The one thing that you can tell with a (proverbial) slide rule is that if there's one thing it's not, it's Nyquist.

Quote:
I've already answered that: You have more room for the filter to cut off in A/D and D/A conversions, so you don't need such a steep cutoff slope, and can create filters that create less distortion.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I've already answered that: with good oversampling systems, you don't need a steep distortion-inducing filter; you can have a nice gentle analog filter whose phase shift is way beyond audibility, and then a nice clean steep digital filter that doesn't have the distortion analog filters do.

But I'm not saying those filters are perfect, and I think that in those converters that do sound different at different rates, that's most likely the main contributing factor.

-Duardo
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 06:05 AM.


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