Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tim McCulloch]

When you start to look at this stuff in detail you will also realize that there is a lot more to the sound of a digital desk than the mic preamp’s. 

There, fixed it for you...

[Peter Morris]

There, fixed it for you...

thanks Tim ...

[Spenser Hamilton]

I think we can all agree that having a latency < 1mSec is going to be fine in any situation.

The issue is that there are a lot of desks, even pro desks, that have a lot more than 1ms of latency.

A Profile system, running analog into an LM26 running a modest FIR preset, plus 60 feet from PA to FOH has enough latency that you can clearly hear it when talking through a VOG mic.

The same setup with a Digico desk running 96KHz, running into the AES inputs of the LM26, did not suffer the same problems, even when we switched over to analog it was still acceptable. Not because the Digico is better (not touching that argument), but because we were able to shed a significant amount of latency.

IMO, that is the real advantage of running higher sample rates.

[Mac Kerr]

A Profile system, running analog into an LM26 running a modest FIR preset, plus 60 feet from PA to FOH has enough latency that you can clearly hear it when talking through a VOG mic.

And that's almost entirely the 60' from the PA to FOH. Sound through the air is approx 1ms/ft, so 60'=60ms.

Mac

[Peter Morris]

The issue is that there are a lot of desks, even pro desks, that have a lot more than 1ms of latency.

A Profile system, running analog into an LM26 running a modest FIR preset, plus 60 feet from PA to FOH has enough latency that you can clearly hear it when talking through a VOG mic.

The same setup with a Digico desk running 96KHz, running into the AES inputs of the LM26, did not suffer the same problems, even when we switched over to analog it was still acceptable. Not because the Digico is better (not touching that argument), but because we were able to shed a significant amount of latency.

IMO, that is the real advantage of running higher sample rates.

Latency can become an issue for some IEM applications above about 3ms, for FOH applications it’s usually not a problem.  It’s generally acceptable to time align the arrival of loud stage instruments (back line) to FOH - that will give you at least 10 -15 ms to play with.

[Spenser Hamilton]

And that's almost entirely the 60' from the PA to FOH. Sound through the air is approx 1ms/ft, so 60'=60ms.

Mac

This was an A/B scenario. The difference between the Digico running AES versus the Profile running analog was the difference between acceptable and "oh my god, that sounds strange".

[Mark Wilkinson]

The issue is that there are a lot of desks, even pro desks, that have a lot more than 1ms of latency.

A Profile system, running analog into an LM26 running a modest FIR preset, plus 60 feet from PA to FOH has enough latency that you can clearly hear it when talking through a VOG mic.

The same setup with a Digico desk running 96KHz, running into the AES inputs of the LM26, did not suffer the same problems, even when we switched over to analog it was still acceptable. Not because the Digico is better (not touching that argument), but because we were able to shed a significant amount of latency.

IMO, that is the real advantage of running higher sample rates.

Ok, but I don't think that because different desks may have different latencies at 48k , that it helps sheds any light on whether 96k is better than 48k...
That just tells me some desks are better engineered than others...
I mean if the relatively low cost x-32s comes in at .8ms....well, why do other desks have more?

Referring to your other post about 96k using better algorithms....that's really what i was asking about in the opening post...
I feel pretty confident that 96k doesn't use anything different for AD/DA conversion (other than anti-aliasing, which Peter posted addition info about),
or for IIR xovers, parametrics, shelving,  or any FIR, ........ (these I'm more confident about)

But I have no clue about FX, summing, etc.
Nor do i have a clue if 96k and fixed point vs floating, or bit depth, or other processing factors, couldn't be implemented with 48K...
Hard to isolate variables, huh?

[Peter Morris]

Ok, but I don't think that because different desks may have different latencies at 48k , that it helps sheds any light on whether 96k is better than 48k...
That just tells me some desks are better engineered than others...
I mean if the relatively low cost x-32s comes in at .8ms....well, why do other desks have more?

Referring to your other post about 96k using better algorithms....that's really what i was asking about in the opening post...
I feel pretty confident that 96k doesn't use anything different for AD/DA conversion (other than anti-aliasing, which Peter posted addition info about),
or for IIR xovers, parametrics, shelving,  or any FIR, ........ (these I'm more confident about)

But I have no clue about FX, summing, etc.
Nor do i have a clue if 96k and fixed point vs floating, or bit depth, or other processing factors, couldn't be implemented with 48K...
Hard to isolate variables, huh?

I don't know what Avid do, but Midas allows you to select what things you want aligned, when you line everything up on the Pro series the latency can be quite high ... 8 or more milliseconds even though its 96K

[Bob Leonard]

Higher sample rates will equate to higher latency. 8.49ms is a bit high, and right on the borderline where it can be noticeable. 

[Andrew Broughton]

Higher sample rates will equate to higher latency.

It sounds like you might have that backwards.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ProSoundWeb Community]