Higher Resolution...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zetajazz44
  • Start date Start date
Zetajazz44

Zetajazz44

New member
I've been reading various articles about how to record at higher resolutions like 96Khz and 192Khz... I believe I have a basic understanding of how a higher sample rate could improve my recording just as a higher resolution on an image increases it's quality...

After reading about the Focusrite ISA428 I've become a bit confused...
The specs read:
"Four classic Rupert Neve-designed transformer-based preamps, 8 channels of cutting-edge A/D conversion, running at up to 192kHz"

With this preamp, will that enable me to record at 96Khz and/or 192Khz? What would be the difference in using this device as opposed to a standalone converter like RME's ADI-4 DD?

In short, I'm asking how do I go about being able to record at 96Khz or 192Khz? What equipment do I need? How will it interface with my Digi001?...

Just on a quest to make a better sounding recording...

Thanks in advance,

Zetajazz44
 
Use the Digi's digital in (therefore bypassing the Digi's built-in A-D).
 
Your Digi 001 won't go above 48k.

There's a big debate about high resolution recording. Not everyone agrees that 192k is better than lower resolutions. In fact, some say that 24/96k is as high as you should go with PCM recording.

You should read Dan Lavry's article called "Sampling Theory". Here's the site:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/index_html.html

Follow the link to the "Support" page, and there you'll find the link to the "Sampling Theory" article.

There was a huge discussion about this article and high sampling rates in general at prosoundweb.com a while back. There were some very smart people contributing to this discussion, and it is an interesting and at times heated discussion. Well worth reading, but please note that the thread is over 800 posts long!

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/288/0//1341/?SQ=c25266041e754006698f4466d68393f8
 
I'm a big Lavry fan (hardware AND Dan's theories on digital recording) myself. I'm also a big fan of recording at the target rate.

But I'd still bet that you'd get MUCH better performance out of the 428's converters (even at 44.1) than you would from the Digi's...

So don't neccessarily feel bad if you can't currently take advantage of higher sampling rates - I can go up to 192, but rarely go over 44.1 anyway. With some of the conversion out there, there's just not enough of an advantage to go higher.

IMHO, YMMV, yada, yada...
 
Thanks all!

So, in short, to better my sound at this point, the ISA 428 would probably be my best bet... Right?

Thanks again!

Zetajazz44
 
I expect that the Focusrite will be a noticable improvement over the Digi 001 pres and converters, yes. Also, you are ready for 96k in the future whenever you get a soundcard that supports it.
 
In my experience,

There is a sonic improvement at 88.2, as opposed to 44.1 and 48. not because of any of the reasons I thought, but because with the protools rig I have (HD3), the filtering imposed on an 88.2 session by the converters is WAY out past any nyquist nightmare, and I get a more "open" sound with more separation and clarity across a ton of tracks. I have the luxury of starting all my sessions on a Studer 827, and going into protools at 88.2 seems to win as far as quality/ease of use. The projects that simply use one reel of tape for a whole record (a lot of sessions these days) I still feel confident about the sounds when going into PT at 88.2 clocked to an aardsync II. I simply tried to ignore the hype (as always) and use my ears, and I really feel that 88.2 is a great way to make a record.

That being said: I have done plenty of records on ADAT's and with old protools and on 001's and stuff that i really enjoy. YOU make it work. There is no silver bullet.
 
I think that in the end, it all comes down to costs.
You can record at higher resolution by buying equipment that will do it (many available).

44.1 kHz and 16 bit was never intended to be the "best" quaility. It was merely the best available at reasonable cost at the time the standard was being established. that was what...30 years ago ?

Higher resolutions cost more and require more storage space. Most average consumers are satisfied with LOWER resolutions, such as MP3 ! So the transition to higher resolution is still slow and expensive.

It is there, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top