ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 96 kHz ?  (Read 8559 times)

David Sturzenbecher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1411
    • Sturz Audio
96 kHz ?
« Reply #50 on: November 12, 2017, 08:29:41 am »

Here is an old post from the DUC (2005) explaining their delay compensation methods

Quote from: Sheldon Radford


The various delay compensation options come into play when a signal is routed to a destination via multiple paths - an input assigned to both Mains and a sub-group, and the sub-group is then assigned to Mains, for example. In this case the signals would normally cause combing (phasing) because the path through the group is a few samples longer than the direct path. D-Show's delay compensation takes care of this scenario as follows:

Off
No delay compensation is applied. This mode provides the least amount of latency on all signal paths for any routing scenario. Use this mode if signals are not being routed to outputs via multiple paths - when doing a basic mix of all channels straight to LR, for example.

Mix only
The system compensates for all internal routing delays excluding insert delays for output buses. Use this mode if you're not using any plug-ins, hardware inserts or graphics EQs on the output buses, but you are routing a signal to one or more outputs via mutliple paths.

Mix & Inserts
The system compensates for all internal routing delays plus all insert delays caused by hardware and software inserts on output buses, as well as graphic EQs.

An example of when to use Mix & Inserts mode:
Drums are being routed directly to Mains and also through a sub group routed to Mains, and a compressor plug-in is inserted on the sub-group for some additional "punch". Choose Mix & Inserts mode to ensure the direct signal and compressed bus signal combine properly and don't "phase out".

~Sheldon




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Logged
CTS-D, CTS-I
AES Full Member

Roland Clarke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2017, 06:13:51 am »

As pointed out by Peter, all inserts and external efx on analog boards had this issue as well.  This is simply inheritance in using this signal path combination.  The big difference is that with some digital desks, you can actually account for it and make it go away (pretty cool really).

This isnít strictly true.  If you use an analogue console using analogue compressors, gates, tape delays, there is no latency issue.  Of course if you inset a digital unit, say on a vocal, this also shouldnít be a problem and reverbs, as long as they are on sends and you are returning only the wet effect signal also shouldnít be an issue.

The problems I was talking about are parallel processing, the sort of thing you were mentioning with iemís and latency introduce on one channel against another due to an inserted plugin.

The point I was making was that as far as I was aware only Avid has end to end compensation.  It might well be that others are implementing this and they should, itís probably the only real issue with digital workflows.

As another aside, I was talking to the other band engineer on the gig last night and he also mentioned that heíd had far more issues with M32ís regarding faders than X32ís.  I would have little hesitation recommending an X32, though Iím not a great fan, it offers more at its price point than the competition, you want better, you need to up the budget, but not spend that on the M32, which I feel is seriously overpriced.
Logged

Roland Clarke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2017, 06:33:46 am »

I think we ...Peter, Scott, you, me....are all saying the same thing regarding a desk's ability to incorporate external processing into the overall bus latency scheme....doesn't happen unless something truly special is going on. 
Does Avid actually account for external processing delay on a channel, and then adjust all buses?
Certainly doesn't happen with an x-32 :)

I have to say something sounds funny with the x-32 times you posted.
IME, if you split the soundcard's output to go to an x-32 channel input and also to the soundcard's input  for a reference loopback, .......you should read .81ms. 
Something doesn't sound right with 1.5ms. .....too much.
And your 0ms timing has me puzzled too...it sounds like you're pulling reference from an x-32 output????

No, the Avid delay compensates only within the console.  You could, arguably, add delay to other channels to compensate for either the ad/da conversion delay if using analogue kit or the digital latency if using something like waves server, HOWEVER, the whole deal with the Avid desk is that it is not just using a channel strip, it contains a whole load of plugins that can be used combined with or instead of its general channel eq/compressor/gate and this is automatically compensated for.  It was true even a few years ago that most Avid users, just didnít bother carrying additional outboard as it wasnít necessary.  If you really have that waves plug that you must use, you can route via AVB through a protools rig and in answer to a comment above, the latency on the plugins was even back in the profile days a question of 2-6 samples in most cases.  Iím not sure what their end to end latency is on the new S6L, but this should be well within the realms of its competitors and is not going to be an issue for foh.
Logged

Scott Slater

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 211
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2017, 08:02:04 am »

Floating point has no more resolution than integer based when you are talking equal bit depths.  Most modern consoles use 24-bit, bit depths which gives 16,777,216 points of resolution within a single value.  This is true regardless of whether or not you are using floating point representation or integer values.
Logged

David Sturzenbecher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1411
    • Sturz Audio
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #54 on: November 13, 2017, 08:26:56 am »


The point I was making was that as far as I was aware only Avid has end to end compensation.  It might well be that others are implementing this and they should, itís probably the only real issue with digital workflows.



Looks like you can add the PM10 to the list as well.

https://youtu.be/WkoV7lMVmOg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Logged
CTS-D, CTS-I
AES Full Member

Corey Scogin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1047
  • Birmingham, AL, US
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #55 on: November 13, 2017, 11:17:53 am »

Floating point has no more resolution than integer based when you are talking equal bit depths.  Most modern consoles use 24-bit, bit depths which gives 16,777,216 points of resolution within a single value.  This is true regardless of whether or not you are using floating point representation or integer values.

This statement is untrue.

The resolution of the floating point value depends on the mantissa or "value" part of the number. It requires more bits to implement the exponent. Ex: 32-bit float with a 24-bit mantissa and 8 bit exponent is equal in resolution to 24-bit fixed.

Most consoles use 24-bit A/D and D/A but internal processing is higher. The X32 is 40-bit float internally.
Logged

Andrew Broughton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1248
    • Check Check One Two
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2017, 11:19:22 am »

Looks like you can add the PM10 to the list as well.

As has been mentioned in this thread a few times.
Also all Midas consoles except the M series and also the A&H dLive (but done in a better way).
Logged
-Andy

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle..."

http://www.checkcheckonetwo.com
Saving lives through Digital Audio, Programming and Electronics.

Mark Wilkinson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #57 on: November 13, 2017, 01:37:26 pm »

Following all the links and info that has been posted,
makes it appear that 96kHz is more about maintaining timing between coherent signals while minimizing latency,
.........than anything to do with single-signal sound quality. Or so it seems.....
 
The PM10 vid in one of David's posts, that uses sample counts to illustrate, makes it seem a lot clearer.
Thanks all.
Logged

Scott Bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1293
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #58 on: November 13, 2017, 06:47:51 pm »

This statement is untrue.

The resolution of the floating point value depends on the mantissa or "value" part of the number. It requires more bits to implement the exponent. Ex: 32-bit float with a 24-bit mantissa and 8 bit exponent is equal in resolution to 24-bit fixed.

Most consoles use 24-bit A/D and D/A but internal processing is higher. The X32 is 40-bit float internally.
Yep.

By increasing the internal processing bit depth to a 40 bit float, I suspect that one would maintain all the significant digits and create near infinite dynamic range.... arguably the best of both worlds computationally.  Still, performing floating point calculations is more difficult and time intensive.  Today's hardware is fast enough that it no longer matters so I suspect we have seen the end of the integer DSP in digital mixers.
Logged

Lance Rectanus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
  • NW Ohio
Re: 96 kHz ?
« Reply #59 on: November 13, 2017, 08:06:24 pm »

I think of 96 kHz in sound as being similar to a higher mega-pixel (MP) count in photography (my day job): more usable information if your output can make use of it. A 4x6 at the corner drugstore can only use so many pixels to make the photograph while a 30" x 40" print from a pro lab will use, and show, everything that was captured initially. Along with high MP files comes the need for more processing power in the computer doing the image processing. I assume that a 96 kHz capture device (newish board) would have significantly more on-board processing power than and older 44/48 kHz-capable board would.

Could the more powerful chipset be the reason for the lower latency with a 96 kHz board?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.092 seconds with 24 queries.