Topic: interesting comment by Doug

[Brian]

i've never seen 192 carried over a single aes cable. every 192 transfer i've ever done has been via wide wire (dual). i'll have to checck the AES specs...

this is correct.  i just checked a bunch of specs on different pieces of gear with AD converters.  all of the AES inputs say up to 96kHz.

but there is a new standard coming out for..........nevermind heath got it

[JasonR]

I've played around with 24/192 on the 722 (line input), but not in the field yet.  To my ear it's a pretty significant step in the right direction over 24/96, but nowhere near the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96.  I'd record at 24/192 except that my only playback of 24-bit is DVD-Video which won't support more than 24/96.  I guess I've gotta upgrade to a DVD player that can do DVD-Audio.

- Jason

[JasonR]

FYI: The 722 and 744t have an "AES3id" input described as "unbalanced digital input accepts two channel AES3 (or S/PDIF) on BNC connectors.  Supports sample rates of up 200 kHz."

[scb]

i think i've sent 192 via aes frm a mytek to a 722.  i can try tonight if you guys want

[bkirby]

I'm interested Scott. I wonder why more people are not recording at 192kHz for archive purposes when it is an option! I know many DVD-A player can olny support 24/96 playback, but some do! It soulds like the old DAT debate of 16/48 vs 16/44.1, but everyone seems to be going to the lower resolution. Is there a problem with tranfers or firmware with 24/192? I'm just confused why more of these haven't shown up...

Just my .02...

[dmonterisi]

I'm interested Scott. I wonder why more people are not recording at 192kHz for archive purposes when it is an option! I know many DVD-A player can olny support 24/96 playback, but some do! It soulds like the old DAT debate of 16/48 vs 16/44.1, but everyone seems to be going to the lower resolution. Is there a problem with tranfers or firmware with 24/192? I'm just confused why more of these haven't shown up...

Just my .02...

i bet it's a file size v. increased perceived resolution issue.  are you getting that much more out of a 24/192 recording of a PA in a hockey arena to warrant doubling the file size?  12 gigs for a 3 hour show is a lot of space.

[heath]

i bet it's a file size v. increased perceived resolution issue.  are you getting that much more out of a 24/192 recording of a PA in a hockey arena to warrant doubling the file size?  12 gigs for a 3 hour show is a lot of space.

my thoughts as well.  I do a lot of 192 work, and the storage space is a major consideration when clients are deciding on whether to go 96 or 192...

h

[bkirby]

Agreed about the file size. Still seems like the old 16/48 vs. 16/44.1 debate. For festivals, completely understandable. For one show, why not? You can always dump the 24/192 to a smaller rate for listening and uploading, but keep the 24/192 as archive, but maybe that's just me and I'm a dork!

Again, just my .02...

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I believe that the single wire spec for 192 is AES3.

For me storage space is not a consideration.  The main reason I record at 24/96 instead of 24/192 is that I am way behind on moving masters to DVD and CDDA so I want to eliminate the extra step of resampling the 192 to 96, which I must do since I'm burning LPCM audio DVDs and not true DVDA discs.   

For two reasons, I'm not really that worried about giving up the resolution right now.  First is the comparison circulated months ago of the 24/96 to 24/48.  That comp revealed that the two were almost indistingushable.  Although I could hear a small difference betwen the two sources, I could not pick out which was 24/96 and which was 24/48.  Second reason is the test that Nick did with the upsampling DAC.  He reported that the audible difference between CDDA and native 24/96 was very very small.  So I feel that when I get something like the Bel Canto 2.0 that upsamples all inputs to 192, my 96 stuff is going to sound just fine.

So I think 192 is more important for those who are doing some DSP operations on the signal in post than for guys like me who are just wanting to burn straight to a playable media and rock out.

[CQBert]

I ran the steep roll off for the acoustic portion of the show.  Drums were provided by a cardboard box and I nearly always run omni.  Sounds great - there is no real base below 40htz in an acoustic show anyway.

Also keep in mind that nearly every high end mic pretty much has its own roll of from 40Htz anyway.  You are not really taking much out of it, rather managing the low end to eliminate boom - at least I hope I am.

CQBert