20 Apr
2007
20 Apr
'07
11:07 p.m.
I helping a friend out who wants to put together a linux / ardour setup.
However, the sound device he origionally suggested was RME's Fireface,
which is a no-go.
I'm having trouble finding a device with similar specs. Does anybody
have any suggestions on devices that work with linux (alsa or freebob)
that can handle the 192k sample rate, have at least 8 analog line
level inputs (not concerned about preamps) and are in the same price
range?
There are lots of nice units out there, but finding something that can
handle 192k kinda reduces the selection really quickly.
The only others I could find that fit those factors were the Roland
FA-101 (only 6 inputs when at 192k) and Apogees stuff (a bit on the
pricy side). So I wanted to see if anybody knew of others that I
didn't think of.
Thanks,
-Reuben
21 Apr
21 Apr
4:57 a.m.
I'm having trouble finding a device with similar
specs. Does anybody
have any suggestions on devices that work with linux (alsa or freebob)
that can handle the 192k sample rate, have at least 8 analog line
level inputs (not concerned about preamps) and are in the same price
range?
Focusrite saffire Pro 26io may suit your needs.
There are lots of nice units out there, but finding
something that can
handle 192k kinda reduces the selection really quickly.
Why the 192kHz is so important?
Regards,
Ctirad
11:04 a.m.
On 4/20/07, Reuben Martin <reuben.m(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I helping a friend out who wants to put together a linux / ardour setup.
However, the sound device he origionally suggested was RME's Fireface,
which is a no-go.
I'm having trouble finding a device with similar specs. Does anybody
have any suggestions on devices that work with linux (alsa or freebob)
that can handle the 192k sample rate, have at least 8 analog line
level inputs (not concerned about preamps) and are in the same price
range?
There are lots of nice units out there, but finding something that can
handle 192k kinda reduces the selection really quickly.
I have spent the last year recording extensively at 96khz. There are only
three real features of 96khz recording that I notice:
1) Stereo imaging seems slightly better
2) Mixing it is much easier, much more headroom, I haven't used a compressor
in ages
3) Recording low volume (environmental) sounds sounds much better.
That said, recently I moved back to recording at 44.1.
1) What you hear is what you get - if you are primarily targeting CD - many
an export from 96khz to 44.1 has gone south for me.
2) Much less disk space used
3) Lots more tracks feasible
4) Most plugins were designed and tested at 44.1 and 48khz and sound best at
those rates
So, given that my mics aren't capable of exceeding the headroom afforded by
96khz, I don't see any good reasons to go to 192khz, and I plan to only
rarely and in special situations, move up to 96khz in future recordings from
44.1 or 88.2.
The only others I could find that fit those factors were the Roland
FA-101 (only 6 inputs when at 192k) and Apogees stuff
(a bit on the
pricy side). So I wanted to see if anybody knew of others that I
didn't think of.
So... when I decided to get up to 16 tracks on my RME-multiface I just added
an 8 pre Digimax FS and connected it's ADAT output to it. The pres are very
quiet and sound pretty darn good. Now I can do 12 tracks at 96khz or 16 at
<=48 - but it won't do any higher than 96khz.
So the original thought of fireface + digimax FS might be an option so long
as you stayed below 96khz.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
-Reuben
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
--
Mike Taht
PostCards From the Bleeding Edge
http://the-edge.blogspot.com
11:35 a.m.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 08:04:43AM -0700, Mike Taht wrote:
I have spent the last year recording extensively at
96khz. There are only
three real features of 96khz recording that I notice:
1) Stereo imaging seems slightly better
2) Mixing it is much easier, much more headroom, I haven't used a compressor
in ages
3) Recording low volume (environmental) sounds sounds much better.
This looks more like your 44.1 or 48kHz HW having problems than any
inherent advantage of 96 kHz.
--
FA
Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !
11:57 a.m.
"Mike Taht" <mike.taht(a)gmail.com> writes:
There are only three real features of 96khz recording
that I notice:
The only theoretical benefit of 96kHz over 48kHz is that the input
filters on the AD does not need to be so sharp that it affects
frequencies below 24kHz. At least to my knowledge.
I've still to find the reason for 192kHz.
Mixing it is much easier, much more headroom
Wouldn't this translate to bit depth?.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
1:04 p.m.
On 4/21/07, Esben Stien <b0ef(a)esben-stien.name> wrote:
"Mike Taht" <mike.taht(a)gmail.com> writes:
96khz gives your ears ~2.16x more stereo information.
Now, whether or not the human brain is capable of processing that - or
recording engineers capable of capturing it - I dunno. I will have some
environmental recordings up shortly that, while not recorded using strictly
binaural techniques, sound pretty good.
I've still to find the reason for 192kHz.
Me neither. It's one of those easy marketing sells. I'd rather have better
S/N, longer cables, sweet sounding mics....
There are only three real features of 96khz
recording that I notice:
The only theoretical benefit of 96kHz over 48kHz is that the input
filters on the AD does not need to be so sharp that it affects
frequencies below 24kHz. At least to my knowledge. Mixing it is much easier, much more headroom
Wouldn't this translate to bit depth?.
Yes, 24 bits of audio is much more important than a 96khz sampling rate.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
--
Mike Taht
PostCards From the Bleeding Edge
http://the-edge.blogspot.com
11:46 a.m.
"Reuben Martin" <reuben.m(a)gmail.com> writes:
I'm having trouble finding a device with similar
specs.
Apogee.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
1:15 p.m.
Reuben,
Much to my excitement RME is releasing the HDSP AES-32 card ($795 US) and a
device that does just what you want: the ADI-8QS ($2648 US)
http://www.synthaxaudio.de/rme/ADI-8QS/html_preview/index.html
Bearcat M. Sandor
On Friday 20 April 2007 in an email titled "[LAU] Looking for AD converter"
Reuben Martin wrote:
I helping a friend out who wants to put together a
linux / ardour setup.
However, the sound device he origionally suggested was RME's Fireface,
which is a no-go.
I'm having trouble finding a device with similar specs. Does anybody
have any suggestions on devices that work with linux (alsa or freebob)
that can handle the 192k sample rate, have at least 8 analog line
level inputs (not concerned about preamps) and are in the same price
range?
There are lots of nice units out there, but finding something that can
handle 192k kinda reduces the selection really quickly.
The only others I could find that fit those factors were the Roland
FA-101 (only 6 inputs when at 192k) and Apogees stuff (a bit on the
pricy side). So I wanted to see if anybody knew of others that I
didn't think of.
Thanks,
-Reuben
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
8:35 p.m.
On 4/21/07, Bearcat M. Sandor <HomeTheater(a)feline-soul.com> wrote:
Reuben,
Much to my excitement RME is releasing the HDSP AES-32 card ($795 US) and a
device that does just what you want: the ADI-8QS ($2648 US)
http://www.synthaxaudio.de/rme/ADI-8QS/html_preview/index.html
Bearcat M. Sandor
Hmm, that looks quite interesting. I will look into that more. I had
seen the AES-32 card, but it was not listed in the ALSA matrix. I
assume it runs off the hdsp driver?
@Everybody else: Personally I have no problem with sticking to 96k,
but I think my friend really wanted 192k. It's his buck, so I'm trying
to see what I can find. Hey, everybody wants the latest cutting edge
stuff...
As to the advantages, I think the biggest advantage is in DSP
processing, especially EQ. The higher the sampling rate, the less skew
and distortion result from the Fourier transforms that take place in
DSP processing.
-Reuben
8:47 p.m.
In look up the ADI-8QS (excuse me while I wipe the drool off my
keyboard) I think I may have found something closer to the pricerange
of the Fireface, that features 192k sampling.
It wasn't listed on the web site because it's not out till next month,
but apparently there is an HDSPe series that is an upgraded version of
the older HDSP cards. It is designed for PCI-E, supports 192k, and
apparently has the same AD/DA converters and the ADI-8QS.
http://www.dv247.com/news/RME%20HDSPe%209632%20PCI%20Express%20Audio%20Inte…
-Reuben
On 4/21/07, Reuben Martin <reuben.m(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/21/07, Bearcat M. Sandor
<HomeTheater(a)feline-soul.com> wrote:
Reuben,
Much to my excitement RME is releasing the HDSP AES-32 card ($795 US) and a
device that does just what you want: the ADI-8QS ($2648 US)
http://www.synthaxaudio.de/rme/ADI-8QS/html_preview/index.html
Bearcat M. Sandor
Hmm, that looks quite interesting. I will look into that more. I had
seen the AES-32 card, but it was not listed in the ALSA matrix. I
assume it runs off the hdsp driver?
@Everybody else: Personally I have no problem with sticking to 96k,
but I think my friend really wanted 192k. It's his buck, so I'm trying
to see what I can find. Hey, everybody wants the latest cutting edge
stuff...
As to the advantages, I think the biggest advantage is in DSP
processing, especially EQ. The higher the sampling rate, the less skew
and distortion result from the Fourier transforms that take place in
DSP processing.
-Reuben
22 Apr
22 Apr
4:34 a.m.
Reuben Martin wrote:
As to the advantages, I think the biggest advantage is
in DSP
processing, especially EQ. The higher the sampling rate, the less skew
and distortion result from the Fourier transforms that take place in
DSP processing.
Excuse my ignorance, but as far as I know, a Fourier transformation is a
completely linear operation, so I wonder where the distortion comes from?
Pieter
5:37 p.m.
To answer the origional question (I think) I would go with two Edirol
FA-101s ... I use an FA-66 and like it alot.
_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineap…
23 Apr
23 Apr
3:49 a.m.
sam javor wrote:
To answer the origional question (I think) I would go
with two Edirol
FA-101s ... I use an FA-66 and like it alot.
I should mention that combining two
FA-101's at 192K might not work due
to a hardware bug in the DM1000 chip used for them. Once the ISO
bandwidth exceeds 150Mbit/s some part of the chip crashes. Although
maybe the newer versions have a revised chip in there.
The current FreeBoB version also has some issues with combining multiple
devices. It works but is not a supported feature, i.e. it's not
polished. The next version will have this feature.
Pieter
21 Apr
21 Apr
11:32 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 22:07 -0500, Reuben Martin wrote:
I helping a friend out who wants to put together a
linux / ardour setup.
However, the sound device he origionally suggested was RME's Fireface,
which is a no-go.
I'm having trouble finding a device with similar specs. Does anybody
have any suggestions on devices that work with linux (alsa or freebob)
that can handle the 192k sample rate, have at least 8 analog line
level inputs (not concerned about preamps) and are in the same price
range?
There are lots of nice units out there, but finding something that can
handle 192k kinda reduces the selection really quickly.
it will reduce your disk space even more rapidly, for no benefit that
has EVER been demonstrated in a double blind test. oh, it will also
increase the CPU load making super low latencies harder to achieve (and
perhaps impossible to achieve) until processor speeds increase 4 fold.
23 Apr
23 Apr
9:34 p.m.
On 4/21/07, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 22:07 -0500, Reuben Martin
wrote:
Thanks. That comment comming from you gives more weight when I try to
explain that 192k isn't really all it's cracked up to be by the
marketing and sales dweebs.
Thanks to everybody for the suggestions, it looks like we are
currently leaning towards using the Lynx Aurora 16 paired up with the
RME AES-32.
Regards,
-Reuben
I helping a friend out who wants to put together
a linux / ardour setup.
However, the sound device he origionally suggested was RME's Fireface,
which is a no-go.
I'm having trouble finding a device with similar specs. Does anybody
have any suggestions on devices that work with linux (alsa or freebob)
that can handle the 192k sample rate, have at least 8 analog line
level inputs (not concerned about preamps) and are in the same price
range?
There are lots of nice units out there, but finding something that can
handle 192k kinda reduces the selection really quickly.
it will reduce your disk space even more rapidly, for no benefit that
has EVER been demonstrated in a double blind test. oh, it will also
increase the CPU load making super low latencies harder to achieve (and
perhaps impossible to achieve) until processor speeds increase 4 fold.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
6219
days inactive
6222
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
14 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Bearcat M. Sandor -
Ctirad Fertr -
Esben Stien -
Fons Adriaensen -
Mike Taht -
Paul Davis -
Pieter Palmers -
Reuben Martin -
sam javor