nobody interested in 96 Khz???

[elbanano]

Truth is, it's gonna happen. DVD's are successful, will be even more so in the near future and above all, the 24/96 scenario offers Digi an upgrade path that we will all drool over. Rest assured they're already working on it. With all the talk of Pro Tools being inferior to Analog, you can bet your ADATS they will try to be the first out the door with a working system capable of "matching the sound quality of Hi-end Analog in a compact, user friendly package". So let's save our nickels and dimes in a big glass jar. Not long from now, we'll all be taking out loans...

[[email protected]]

My clients have never asked about 96k. The fact is that 99% of the general population are thrilled with their 16/44 CDs. Three out of four I'd say are perfectly fine even with store bought prerecorded cassette tapes!

[[email protected]]

Digi, if you are reading this thread, I'd much rather give you a lot more money for 24/44 SUPER Mix Farm cards with 48 cpu chips on each!

[matt connolly]

And no one has asked for DSD yet? I know that processing in DSD is still very impractical, so it will be a long way off. But I'll ask.

DSD?

[Steve MacMillan]

If you are a gun for hire editor, you are going to want 88.1/96k the first time somebody asks you to edit some tracks cut on something else at 96k.

sm

[noisefloor]

Editing what? Music or dialogue? Seems like a simple solution to me: do a sample rate conversion.


Mike

[Joris Vincken]

My clients certainly would not here the difference. The will notice the difference with the new upcoming stuff like plugin synths etc. I'd rather see improvements in the current TDM system, like a 32bit TDM bus (oh i'd love more headroom), masterlist CD as a plug-in!, stereo tracks and changing plug-ins while playing.

[Farmer Dave]

The only reason I'd want it, is if it becomes some sort of standard & all of a sudden I can't work because "everyone" is using 96k.

AFAIK - In Post anyway, almost everyone is still using 16-bit. To my ears, the bit-depth is drastically more important than sample rate. So the move to 24-bit "should" be more important. If we all of a sudden went to 96k, but have stayed at 16-bit (for post now!), then it would seem like a knee-jerk "well it just must be better" response.

[Steve MacMillan]

noisefloor,

I edit music, and there is no way a producer who records at 96k to going to let me sample rate convert 48 or more tracks of audio so I can work in ProTools. Not to mention the time it would take and the loss of quality. I imagine that the day I'm asked to edit 96k is not that far off, I would hate to lose the gig to somebody editing in Cubase or something.

sm

[Steve MacMillan]

noisefloor,

I edit music, and there is no way a producer who records at 96k to going to let me sample rate convert 48 or more tracks of audio so I can work in ProTools. Not to mention the time it would take and the loss of quality. I imagine that the day I'm asked to edit 96k is not that far off, I would hate to lose the gig to somebody editing in Cubase or something.

sm