I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

I've been researching the current PC based recording hardware
technology and I'm not sure that this is even possible.

12+ analog channels at 192/24 produces a huge volume of data. This
data has to come into the PC over the PCI bus, and at the same time, be
moved stored on the hard drive. It seems to me that the PCI bus and/or
the IDE bus would present an insurmountable bottleneck.

Is anyone out there doing this? If so, what exact hardware are you
using, both PC hardware and recording hardware. I'd really like to
know.

I'm confused about external A/D converter units (like the FireFace) vs.
internal units like the Hammerfall series.
Which are people using, and why?

Are people using Windows XP?

What actual recording/editing software is up to this task?

Sure it is certainly possible, but there are a few issues at play- first of
all, on a PC, if you are recording ASIO, you need a *really* powerful CPU.
I would recommend a P4 Extreme chip on at least a 800MHz FSB. You'll also
want a couple gigs of memory. Second, you want fast drives.. If you are
using IDE, run a RAID-0 array. If you are going SATA, any drive will likely
be fine, but the 10K RPM Raptors are pretty sweet.

The way things work, you are more likely to have issues with CPU while
recording because of ASIO's need to reserve a certain amount of CPU for
recording.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

please remove "nospam" upon reply

"William Krick" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

I've been researching the current PC based recording hardware
technology and I'm not sure that this is even possible.

12+ analog channels at 192/24 produces a huge volume of data. This
data has to come into the PC over the PCI bus, and at the same time, be
moved stored on the hard drive. It seems to me that the PCI bus and/or
the IDE bus would present an insurmountable bottleneck.

Is anyone out there doing this? If so, what exact hardware are you
using, both PC hardware and recording hardware. I'd really like to
know.

I'm confused about external A/D converter units (like the FireFace) vs.
internal units like the Hammerfall series.
Which are people using, and why?

Are people using Windows XP?

What actual recording/editing software is up to this task?

this is all about harddrive speed.

a pair of 15,000rpm scsi drives in a raid-o configuration is your best
bet. or should i say, your only hope?

help me obi-wan, you're our only hope

William Krick wrote:
I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

Why? Why would he ever need that fast a sampling rate?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Krick wrote:
I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

Why? Why would he ever need that fast a sampling rate?
--scott


He doesn't really "need" to, he just *wants* to. ;-)

DM

In article .com writes:

I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

12+ analog channels at 192/24 produces a huge volume of data.

That's true. Is he crazy, or is he recording something other than the
kind of audio that most of us deal with here?

RME is probably the best place to look, but don't just go to their web
site, contact a knowledgable dealer or rep and ask him for a solution.
They have an 8-channel 192 kHz MADI-AES interface but it's not clear
that their MADI PC card will handle 16 channels at 192 kHz. If it
will, then perhaps a MADI card, two of those converters, and a set of
preamps with AES/EBU outputs would do the trick. But it isn't going to
be cheap.

data has to come into the PC over the PCI bus, and at the same time, be
moved stored on the hard drive. It seems to me that the PCI bus and/or
the IDE bus would present an insurmountable bottleneck.

It would certainly be pushing the limits.

I'm confused about external A/D converter units (like the FireFace) vs.
internal units like the Hammerfall series.
Which are people using, and why?

It's a matter of choice, budget, and flexibility. You need analog
inputs, so you need to put an A/D converter somewhere. It can be as
part of the mic preamp, it can be part of the computer interface, or
it can be a stand-alone unit.

Are people using Windows XP?

Yes. Many.

What actual recording/editing software is up to this task?

I'd look at SADIE, but that's a pretty big task.

Does it have to be a real PC? Is is sufficient to get the audio data
on disk as files (which can be played back or processed later)? If
that approach would work, the RADAR V Digital might be a good
approach. It records up to 24 tracks at 192 kHz and has AES/EBU
inputs. If there's a "double wire 96 kHz" version of AES/EBU now (and
I'm not sure of this) you could record 12 channels with that, and
you can have your choice of many A/D converters that pump out 192 kHz.

It takes all kinds, and people have strange requirements for things
that they don't tell us about, so we think they're crazy. But for now,
I think your friend is crazy.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"William Krick" wrote in message
oups.com

I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my
help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels
simultaneously
on a PC at 192KHz/24-bit.

Need? More likely *wants*.

I've been researching the current PC based recording
hardware
technology and I'm not sure that this is even possible.

12 x 23/192 doesn't seem beyond reason. It's the same basic
problem as 48 channels of 24/48. I've done about half that
with an entirely conventional setup.

12+ analog channels at 192/24 produces a huge volume of
data.

I get just under 7 megabytes a second, which is not all that
much by modern standards. See below.

This data has to come into the PC over the PCI bus, and at
the
same time, be moved stored on the hard drive.

The common 32 bit PCI bus is easily good for at least 132
megabytes per second. 33 MHz * 4 bytes.

Modern PCs can have more than one PCI bus per motherboard,
and they put a number of what may seem to be PCI devices on
other independent data paths.

Check out the illustration of an Athlon-64 motherboard at
for example

http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2...o/index.x?pg=1

Note that the PCI bus has a private path to the south bridge
chip that is independent of the hard drives, independent of
the USB interface(s), independent of the graphics board,
independent of any PCI express devices, etc.

Now, lets talk a second about the capacity of the current
PCI bus standards:

http://www.techfest.com/hardware/bus/pci.htm

"PCI implements a 32-bit multiplexed Address and Data bus
(AD[31:0]). It architects a means of supporting a 64-bit
data bus through a longer connector slot, but most of
today's personal computers support only 32-bit data
transfers through the base 32-bit PCI connector. At 33 MHz,
a 32-bit slot supports a maximum data transfer rate of 132
MBytes/sec, and a 64-bit slot supports 264 MBytes/sec."

It seems to me
that the PCI bus and/or the IDE bus would present an
insurmountable bottleneck.

As they say, do the math. ;-)

Is anyone out there doing this? If so, what exact
hardware
are you using, both PC hardware and recording hardware.
I'd
really like to know.

I've done 24 channels of 24/48 with 3 M-Audio Delta 1010
cards and regular IDE drives. I did not perceive that I was
anywhere near the practical limit. I should try 24 24/96
channels with this setup some time just for grins and
giggles.

I'm confused about external A/D converter units (like the
FireFace) vs. internal units like the Hammerfall series.
Which are people using, and why?

Interal A/Ds have the advantage of eliminating the cost of
another data bus. The converters have a direct path to the
PCI bus.

Are people using Windows XP?

Sure, why not?

What actual recording/editing software is up to this task?

I was using Audition. Audition supports streaming data to 2
logical hard drives at one time. With a simple cheap RAID
IDE subsystem (striping), there are up to 2 physical drives
implementating each logical drive, for a total of 4 drives.
That's only 1.75 megabyte per second per drive which is
almost idling for a modern hard drive.

7 megabytes per second is easily within the performance
envelope of a single larger IDE drive.

FWIW, I've done it with the Lynx AES-16 card. Works flawlessless in Sequoia
with the setup I mentioned earlier.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

please remove "nospam" upon reply
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1121470711k@trad...

In article .com
writes:

I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

12+ analog channels at 192/24 produces a huge volume of data.

That's true. Is he crazy, or is he recording something other than the
kind of audio that most of us deal with here?

RME is probably the best place to look, but don't just go to their web
site, contact a knowledgable dealer or rep and ask him for a solution.
They have an 8-channel 192 kHz MADI-AES interface but it's not clear
that their MADI PC card will handle 16 channels at 192 kHz. If it
will, then perhaps a MADI card, two of those converters, and a set of
preamps with AES/EBU outputs would do the trick. But it isn't going to
be cheap.

data has to come into the PC over the PCI bus, and at the same time, be
moved stored on the hard drive. It seems to me that the PCI bus and/or
the IDE bus would present an insurmountable bottleneck.

It would certainly be pushing the limits.

I'm confused about external A/D converter units (like the FireFace) vs.
internal units like the Hammerfall series.
Which are people using, and why?

It's a matter of choice, budget, and flexibility. You need analog
inputs, so you need to put an A/D converter somewhere. It can be as
part of the mic preamp, it can be part of the computer interface, or
it can be a stand-alone unit.

Are people using Windows XP?

Yes. Many.

What actual recording/editing software is up to this task?

I'd look at SADIE, but that's a pretty big task.

Does it have to be a real PC? Is is sufficient to get the audio data
on disk as files (which can be played back or processed later)? If
that approach would work, the RADAR V Digital might be a good
approach. It records up to 24 tracks at 192 kHz and has AES/EBU
inputs. If there's a "double wire 96 kHz" version of AES/EBU now (and
I'm not sure of this) you could record 12 channels with that, and
you can have your choice of many A/D converters that pump out 192 kHz.

It takes all kinds, and people have strange requirements for things
that they don't tell us about, so we think they're crazy. But for now,
I think your friend is crazy.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Maybe he hears the holes in the swiss cheese ........ I know I do.

I was just transfering some more vinyl and even through the benchmark
the mids and imaging are just not there on the playback compared to the
source. It's better at 96 but still not quite right.

Can't fault him for wanting better quality........ Well then again I
sure was kicked in the teeth for that.

VB

In article writes:

FWIW, I've done it with the Lynx AES-16 card. Works flawlessless in Sequoia
with the setup I mentioned earlier.

Good thought. For 192 kHz, you'd need to run it "double wide" for two
channel pairs rather than four pairs on each connector, so I guess it
would require two AES-16 cards. I supppose that would work.

My L22 card does 192 kHz, as does my Mackie Onyx 800R preamp. I
should try it some time, but I don't think I have any software loaded
on that computer (the famous Win98 PII box) that knows about 192 kHz.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Use Steinbergs Nuendo3 which supports 192Khz sampling rate. You want a
dual CPU AMD Opteron system and two super fast 10,000 RPM SATAII hard
drives (you should easily be able to record 6 192Khz tracks per hard
drive) (Nuendo lets you select a unique hard drive directory for each
audio track! RME brand ASIO cards that support 192Khz are the Firewire
interface called Fireface and the PCI interface called HDSP-9632. This
will do the trick at low latency and shouldn't even be that CPU
intensive if you don't have alot of native FX running.

If no one has mentioned it yet check out the combination of a Lynx Aurora 16
and Lynx AES16 card.
http://www.lynxstudio.com/aurora/index.html

--
John L Rice


"William Krick" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

I've been researching the current PC based recording hardware
technology and I'm not sure that this is even possible.

12+ analog channels at 192/24 produces a huge volume of data. This
data has to come into the PC over the PCI bus, and at the same time, be
moved stored on the hard drive. It seems to me that the PCI bus and/or
the IDE bus would present an insurmountable bottleneck.

Is anyone out there doing this? If so, what exact hardware are you
using, both PC hardware and recording hardware. I'd really like to
know.

I'm confused about external A/D converter units (like the FireFace) vs.
internal units like the Hammerfall series.
Which are people using, and why?

Are people using Windows XP?

What actual recording/editing software is up to this task?

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1121516502k@trad...

In article
writes:

FWIW, I've done it with the Lynx AES-16 card. Works flawlessless in
Sequoia
with the setup I mentioned earlier.

Good thought. For 192 kHz, you'd need to run it "double wide" for two
channel pairs rather than four pairs on each connector, so I guess it
would require two AES-16 cards. I supppose that would work.

My L22 card does 192 kHz, as does my Mackie Onyx 800R preamp. I
should try it some time, but I don't think I have any software loaded
on that computer (the famous Win98 PII box) that knows about 192 kHz.



Hi Mike,

I'm 'pretty sure' that the Lynx AES16 can do 16 channels of 192kHz on a
single card in single wire mode but I haven't tried it or researched it in
particular. more info at :
http://www.lynxstudio.com/aes16specifications.html

--
John L Rice

Just FYI and FWIW :

My newest DAW is :
WinXP Pro SP2
ASUS NCCH-DL motherboard with two 2.8 GHz 800 Mhz FSB Xeon procs
1 gig ECC RAM
UAD-1 and AES16 cards on the 32 bit PCI buss
Adaptec 29160 SCSI card on the 64 bit PCI buss
lots of SCSI drives.
Cubase SX3

My fastest setup is two IBM 10k RPM drives in a software RAID 0. On these
drives I was able to record and playback 56 tracks with out drop outs etc.

Keep in mind I only had 8 channels of converters at the time so the PCI buss
activity was a lot less when recording then it would of been if I had 56
channels of inputs ( 7 times the data streaming into the PC ) I would think
that more actual inputs would reduce the amount of tracks I can do at least
a little but on this motherboard i have my digital audio I/O card and hard
drive interface card on separate busses so it might not make a huge
difference.

--
John L Rice


"William Krick" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

I've been researching the current PC based recording hardware
technology and I'm not sure that this is even possible.

12+ analog channels at 192/24 produces a huge volume of data. This
data has to come into the PC over the PCI bus, and at the same time, be
moved stored on the hard drive. It seems to me that the PCI bus and/or
the IDE bus would present an insurmountable bottleneck.

Is anyone out there doing this? If so, what exact hardware are you
using, both PC hardware and recording hardware. I'd really like to
know.

I'm confused about external A/D converter units (like the FireFace) vs.
internal units like the Hammerfall series.
Which are people using, and why?

Are people using Windows XP?

What actual recording/editing software is up to this task?

In article .com writes:

Use Steinbergs Nuendo3 which supports 192Khz sampling rate. You want a
dual CPU AMD Opteron system and two super fast 10,000 RPM SATAII hard
drives (you should easily be able to record 6 192Khz tracks per hard
drive)

The "should be" is a bit suspicious. You have this setup and are
recording 12+ tracks at 192 kHz right now, right? So that's how you
know?

I'd be mighty disappointed if I spent all of that money to find out
that it doesn't work. Probably the original poster's friend would,
too.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I'm 'pretty sure' that the Lynx AES16 can do 16 channels of 192kHz on a
single card in single wire mode

I wasn't aware that there was any hardware yet that supported
single-wire 192 kHz, but it seems that the Lynx Aurora does. So I
guess the simple answer to the original poster's question is the
combination of a Lynx Aurora 16 A/D/A converter and AES-16 coputer
interface card. But before I plunked down my money, I'd look the
dealer (or Mr. Lynx) in the eye and say "Can I really run 16 channels
at 192 kHz with this system?"




--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message...

But before I plunked down my money, I'd look the
dealer (or Mr. Lynx) in the eye and say "Can I really run 16 channels
at 192 kHz with this system?"


I'm still wondering why *anyone* would want to record at 192K. (?)

Even after finally getting into ProFools, everyone I know with concern
about their product, runs at 24 bit 44.1. (Plus, they're almost all being
fed by 192 interfaces).


DM

GPS for bats?

The MOTU HD192 has 12 in/outs and goes upto 192K.






"William Krick" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a friend who has a home studio. He's enlisted my help in
building a new PC to use for recording.

He needs to record 12 or more _analog_ channels simultaneously on a PC
at 192KHz/24-bit.

I've been researching the current PC based recording hardware
technology and I'm not sure that this is even possible.

12+ analog channels at 192/24 produces a huge volume of data. This
data has to come into the PC over the PCI bus, and at the same time, be
moved stored on the hard drive. It seems to me that the PCI bus and/or
the IDE bus would present an insurmountable bottleneck.

Is anyone out there doing this? If so, what exact hardware are you
using, both PC hardware and recording hardware. I'd really like to
know.

I'm confused about external A/D converter units (like the FireFace) vs.
internal units like the Hammerfall series.
Which are people using, and why?

Are people using Windows XP?

What actual recording/editing software is up to this task?

In article YaeCe.2412$2h1.1053@trnddc05 writes:

I'm still wondering why *anyone* would want to record at 192K. (?)

Yes, after all this razzing, the original poster has been silent.
Maybe he's trying to find out what his buddy is really after?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Just speculation but, if he's after classical recording maybe he should
investigate digital stream? 2.8 million samples per second (IIRC) @
1bit depth would probably do the trick. Might be a tad spendy, but
maybe should be considered. That is, IF classical is his game.

"will" wrote in message
ups.com
Just speculation but, if he's after classical recording
maybe
he should investigate digital stream? 2.8 million samples
per
second (IIRC) @ 1bit depth would probably do the trick.
Might
be a tad spendy, but maybe should be considered. That is,
IF
classical is his game.

192 KHz 24 bit stereo is 9,216,000 bits per second.

Sorta shames 2,800,000 bits per second, no?

Ahhhh... And the crazy friend surfaces!!!!! And I do indeed hear the
holes in swiss cheese.... Woohhhaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Actually the original post comes from a conversation I had with Mr.
Krick one day as I lamented my current 20 bit Layla based set up.
Wasn't bad for it's day. In fact was kind of fun.

But I've done so much to improve sound quality in other areas in the
interim. Got some great pre's (including the Mercenary River NV). Got
some great mic's including a U87. It's time to do something in the
area of conversion. Want the best converters I can find in the $3K-5K
range.

Resolution sort of became the focus of this discussion. Probably my
fault. Should have made more clear that my top consideration is best
quality converters for the price range indicated, end of story. Am
looking into Aurora 16. Thank you for that suggestion.

All of this said, I'm not sure resolution isn't a consideration. Some
here have said that there is no difference, you'll only dither to CD
quality anyway. Maybe so. I couldn't claim to know for certain. But
after recording a track I tend to apply multiple filters (high pass,
compression, limiting, etc). It makes no sense to me from a
computational standpoint that greater resolution during filter
applications does not minimize error at the final dithering stage. But
then again it makes no sense to me that Carl from Aqua Teen Hunger
Force doesn't have his own friggin show either. That guy's friggin
funny.

Have any of you out there who've said no difference recorded large
scale projects at extremely high resolution and A/B'd them with lower
resolution versions? Do you know for certain that artifacting isn't
minimized overall?

wrote:

Have any of you out there who've said no difference recorded large
scale projects at extremely high resolution and A/B'd them with lower
resolution versions? Do you know for certain that artifacting isn't
minimized overall?



A quick Google search of this group will answer that question for you.

I've never gone as far as doing a "large scale" project at hi-res, but
I've done some test sessions comparing 48k to 96k. My opinion was that
if there was any difference (and I couldn't even say for sure there
was), it was so small as to be insignificant. The weight of the guitar
pick would make more difference.

I understand the reasoning behind capturing at higher resolutions, but
I'm also familiar with the concept of overkill. At some point, the
extra storage space and processing overhead requirements totally swamp
any theoretical benefit.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

wrote in message
oups.com


Actually the original post comes from a conversation I had
with Mr. Krick one day as I lamented my current 20 bit
Layla
based set up. Wasn't bad for it's day. In fact was kind
of
fun.

I still have a 20 bit Layla, but it ties my DAW in knots
after about 30 minutes of recording with 20 channels.

But I've done so much to improve sound quality in other
areas
in the interim. Got some great pre's (including the
Mercenary
River NV). Got some great mic's including a U87. It's
time
to do something in the area of conversion. Want the best
converters I can find in the $3K-5K range.

I think several posters have mentioned Lynx Studio. If
you're spending that kind of money Lynx can absorb it
getting to 12 channels, and you'll get great performance for
your money.

Resolution sort of became the focus of this discussion.

Audible or measured?

Probably my fault. Should have made more clear that my
top
consideration is best quality converters for the price
range
indicated, end of story. Am looking into Aurora 16.
Thank
you for that suggestion.

So then you'd need a Lynx AES16 card on top of the Aurora?

All of this said, I'm not sure resolution isn't a
consideration.

There's a controversy over what is enough resolution.

Some here have said that there is no
difference, you'll only dither to CD quality anyway.

Worse than that, look at the dynamic range (IOW resolution)
of the real-world input signals. The real world is a noisy
place compared to modern converters.

Maybe
so. I couldn't claim to know for certain. But after
recording a track I tend to apply multiple filters (high
pass,
compression, limiting, etc). It makes no sense to me from
a
computational standpoint that greater resolution during
filter
applications does not minimize error at the final
dithering
stage.

Of course not. However, if you have a signal with 80 dB
dynamic range (outlandishly high in the real world) and pass
it through a converter with just 90 dB dynamic range, the
resulting signal's dynamic range is degraded to only 79.6
dB.

Have any of you out there who've said no difference
recorded
large scale projects at extremely high resolution and
A/B'd
them with lower resolution versions?

Not large scale projects. I did some work with really
stripped-back projects to get a project that started out
with super high dynamic range.

Do you know for certain
that artifacting isn't minimized overall?

Listen for yourself:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

They are billed as sample rate tests, but I also did some
dithering down.

Here's some simpler tests:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html

and

http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/

In article .com writes:

All of this said, I'm not sure resolution isn't a consideration.

Oh, it certainly is. What most of us think is NOT a consideration is
recording at 192 kHz sample rate. That's sample rate and not
resolution. While in theory, they're not related (you need only
infintessimally more than one sample per half-cycle of the highest
frequency in order to reconstruct the waveform with perfect accuracy)
intuitively, having a couple more samples to average out errors surely
couldn't hurt.

But there are some component performance issues that are present with
real world components today that prevent really accurate performance
at 192 kHz. While there are certainly some 192 kHz converters that
sound better than some 96 kHz converters, it would mostly be your
imagination at work if you thought that the best 192 kHz converter
sounded better than the best 96 kHz converter. Dan Lavry has a paper
on his web site that you might find stimulating:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf

Have any of you out there who've said no difference recorded large
scale projects at extremely high resolution and A/B'd them with lower
resolution versions?

I can't imagine how a valid experiment like this could be constructed.
You could send the same analog audio sources simultaneously to one set
of 192 kHz converters and to another set of 96 kHz (or lower)
converters, record the outputs of both, use the same mix parameters to
mix both, and compare the mixes, but:

- You would have recorded with two different A/D converters. Even if
both were the same make and model, simply switched to different
sammple rates, you still have no guarantee that they're actually
operating identically other than the number of samples they
generate per unit time.

- Mixing (assuming "mixing in the box" here) may not work the same
for two different sample rates. You're adding (nominally) twice as
many samples for each time interval, so rounding errors may make
the mathematical results different.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo