Instead of S.Rate conv and Dither... How about?

[Booda]

I came across this CD Recorder HHB CDR830plus while looking for a new CD player. It got me to thinking....

Instead of doing a Sample Rate conversion and Dithering... couldn't someone use their Mix and Master programs (SX, Wavelab, for me) keeping the project in the higher rates (24-96 ect..) then send it to this unit and burn a master copy?

I'm thinking It would depend on the converter quality... & it also has a Word Clock in. I have Lucid converters and WC so I can see doing it 2 ways... 1. sending the Info via Optical and then the HHB (clocked to the Lucid) would convert and Record or 2. send the Info via XLR Analog out of the lucid to the HHB.

On a side note... I thought it was ironic there is such a big discussion on Dither going on here right now... hopefully I'll get a few comments.

Also, I could get this unit for about $200 (used) & if anyone knows of a decent not too expensive Rack mount CD Player could you let me know.

Thanks,
B.

 

[pezking]

These are very good CD recorders IMO - I use them fairly regularly. For $200 I wouldn't hesitate in buying one.

The highest sample rate the unit will take in is 48kHz, not sure if it's 24bit or 16. Either way, all it'd be doing is again, reducing it down to 16 bits, most likely adding dither on the way!

Sending analogue to it just means that the CD recorder has to sample that analogue signal - this will incur a loss in quality. Not sure at what rates etc. but having had a quick glance, I think it samples at 24 bits (and will add dither as it samples!!!). So... When it's burning it to CD, it has to reduce that down to 16 bits, most likely adding dither again (can't be sure as it doesn't seem to be in the product literature).

So I don't see why you'd wanna do that...

I use the CD recorder for mastering from DAT. Essentially copying the DAT, through the desk to add fades etc.

The unit plays CDs too, maybe I missed the point of your last question - did you wanna use it to copy CDs too?

 

[mshilarious]

The specs on its analog inputs are not very good. In fact, 92dB SNR is so bad I suspect they may be using a consumer level (-10dBV) as nominal. Even so, that gives you a pro SNR of 104dB, still not great. SNR is a fairly good proxy for overall converter quality.

But you are talking about a digital transfer, so if you send a different bit depth or sample rate, the box will still have to do SRC and/or dither, if it is able, as part of its internal DSP. Why would I consider that better than WL6's SRC, or another SRC I can buy? Also, once I burn the premaster CD, I still need to run an error test on it.

If you use better quality conversion to affect the SNR via D/A/D, you still risk signal degradation from noise and interference. But even then, I'd still pull the digital back to PC for burning. It's a lot simpler doing a CD (PQ, CD text, ISRC, etc.) via WL et al rather than the menus on a rackmount box.

Maybe try testing your SRC plugs until you are satisfied they are as transparent as possible instead? There are some good ones out there.

If you need a rack burner, then OK. But I would not expect a technical improvement. Different, perhaps. Better? I would question that.

 

[Booda]

The unit plays CDs too, maybe I missed the point of your last question - did you wanna use it to copy CDs too?

No, I was just hunting for a Racked CD player and came across this... then got the crazy idea of skipping sample rate conversion. + it's purple

Maybe try testing your SRC plugs until you are satisfied they are as transparent as possible instead? There are some good ones out there.

Actually mshilarious, I don't use any plugs when I convert the sample rate. I do use the uv22hr for Dithering that comes w/ Cubase SX3. I'm feeling a little stupid at the moment
I've been using Cubase for quite a few years and thought that the SRC was handled by Cubase in the Audio Mix down... I'm pretty sure it is but it looks like I have a little homework to do. Some how SRC plugs have gotten past my radar... I've never had any problems or questioned the sound quality but I guess it could be better. Luckily I have primarily recorded at 24/44.1. In the past, if it was a simple acoustic tune, I'd record 24/96 but everything else was 24/44.1 on my Layla24 converters. Now that I have Lucid converters I've just recently been primarily recording 24/48.

Thanks for the replys,
B.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

SNR is a fairly good proxy for overall converter quality.

Interesting. I'm not saying this is wrong, only that I have not heard this one before, or thought much about it in this way, FTM. I'm just curious if you're baing this conclusion on any particular data or thought process.

It seems to me - at first blush, anyway - that it should be entirely possible to make a fairly standard or even substandard-sounding converter that still has a pretty quiet design, and vice versa, that one could actually convert fine but still inject too much noise into the signal before conversion (via a noisy preamp, for example.) Though I might be missing something there.

Is your conclusion based upon the fact that it just so happens that those that make quality converters also care enough to keep a thumb down on the noise in the rest of the circuit, and there just aren't many grade B or C converters being put into clean boxes, or is there a more elegant technical correlation between the conversion design itself and resulting S/N that I have a chance to learn here?

G.

 

[mshilarious]

Actually mshilarious, I don't use any plugs when I convert the sample rate. I do use the uv22hr for Dithering that comes w/ Cubase SX3. I'm feeling a little stupid at the moment

Instead of "plug" perhaps I should have said "algorithm". It makes little difference to your audio whether the algorithm comes in a VST wrapper.

That said, Cubase probably is using an internal algorithm to do SRC during a render, and if it's anything like WL's internal SRC, I much prefer the Resampler plug that came packaged with WL5. WL6 has an even better SRC, but I haven't ponied up the money for the upgrade yet.

 

[SonicAlbert]

If your DA and AD converters sound better than your dither, then by all means go another round through them. But if that is the case, then something is wrong with the dither algorithm you are using, or the software settings you are using with that dither.

The whole point of SRC and dither is that it should not be heard: the result should sound identical or as close to identical as the original. I think that is much more achievable through software than through another trip through converters. Don't forget that you get into error rates and all that stuff with recordable media like CD's. You should definitely kn ow what the error rate on that CD recorder is before buying it.

Generally speaking, I'd only take another trip through converters if there was some analog processing I wanted to employ. Other than that, I'd keep it digital and find dither that I'm happy with, even if it means buying another application to do it.