halcyon said:turtle,
but Audigy (1 and 2 both) has Firewire out
Not that you can use it for DVD-A digital output (at least not yet) AFAIK.
I knew you meant this, but I needed to clarify so others would not misunderstand it.
regards,
Halcyon
OR it could be possible already:
http://www.1394ta.org/Press/2002Press/september/9.23.ti.htm
/UrSv
Have to correct myself a bit.
The original S/PDIF standard states:
Audio format : linear 16 bit default, up to 24 bit expandable
Allowed sampling frequencies (Fs) of the audio:
44.1kHz from CD
48 kHz from DAT
32 kHz from DSR
Now manufacturers are already using 24 bit 96 kHz without problems, because there are no limitations in the S/PDIF interface for higher sampling frequencies. I don't see why not 192 kHz could be used. It is just a matter of higher bitrates and getting the right chips.
Note that the professional balanced AES/EBU interface can not without problem use 24 bit, because it uses some bits for other information. This is not the problem with the consumer S/PDIF interface.
The original S/PDIF standard states:
Audio format : linear 16 bit default, up to 24 bit expandable
Allowed sampling frequencies (Fs) of the audio:
44.1kHz from CD
48 kHz from DAT
32 kHz from DSR
Now manufacturers are already using 24 bit 96 kHz without problems, because there are no limitations in the S/PDIF interface for higher sampling frequencies. I don't see why not 192 kHz could be used. It is just a matter of higher bitrates and getting the right chips.
Note that the professional balanced AES/EBU interface can not without problem use 24 bit, because it uses some bits for other information. This is not the problem with the consumer S/PDIF interface.
I don't know any of this stuff really but what is the Sanyo receivers we read about (check LC89055W):
http://www.semic.sanyo.co.jp/solution/vrs/vrs_dir_e.htm
Or (CS8416):
http://www.cirrus.com/design/products/overview/detail.cfm?d=1005
Aren't those 192 kHz SPDIF receivers?
/UrSv
http://www.semic.sanyo.co.jp/solution/vrs/vrs_dir_e.htm
Or (CS8416):
http://www.cirrus.com/design/products/overview/detail.cfm?d=1005
Aren't those 192 kHz SPDIF receivers?
/UrSv
Hi,
My M-audio superdac works pretty well at 24bit/96khz connected to an Audiophile 2496 pc card with standard 75 ohm 5 mm CATV coax. As far as I now all M-Audio stuff uses native sample rates, no resampling at all. Only standard oversampling.
But why do you want 192kHz? There are no standard software carriers for it except your harddisc.
My M-audio superdac works pretty well at 24bit/96khz connected to an Audiophile 2496 pc card with standard 75 ohm 5 mm CATV coax. As far as I now all M-Audio stuff uses native sample rates, no resampling at all. Only standard oversampling.
But why do you want 192kHz? There are no standard software carriers for it except your harddisc.
Hi Johan,
I know. But how much well recorded software is available at 96kHz that justify the format? Before this will settle some years will pass by IMHO. Microphones that can record up to 50 kHz faithfully are still rare at recording sites, although these exists. So I am wondering what justifies 192 kHz over 96 kHz at he moment? Maybe if you are a pro in the recording business. And even then…
I know. But how much well recorded software is available at 96kHz that justify the format? Before this will settle some years will pass by IMHO. Microphones that can record up to 50 kHz faithfully are still rare at recording sites, although these exists. So I am wondering what justifies 192 kHz over 96 kHz at he moment? Maybe if you are a pro in the recording business. And even then…
Yes you are right in that how could anyone record anything for such a bandwidth. I for my self bought a professional mic for my own use, and I can be happy if it records up to 20 kHz without too much attenuation and with a S/N ratio better than 60 dB (!).
And how on the earth do anyone know how these devices perform above the 20 kHz listening border?
The hifi-freaks always states that listening to a device is at least as important as making measurments. But if it is hard to say for a "normal" person how good a recording sounds (vs looking at mesurments) at say, 1 kHz, who is able to say how the sound "sounds" at 50 kHz? Then the hifi gurus can't use their ears anymore, but have to trust mesurments only. Ok, there was a need for a higher sample rate than 44,1 kHz but maybe this belongs to another tread, also
And how on the earth do anyone know how these devices perform above the 20 kHz listening border?
The hifi-freaks always states that listening to a device is at least as important as making measurments. But if it is hard to say for a "normal" person how good a recording sounds (vs looking at mesurments) at say, 1 kHz, who is able to say how the sound "sounds" at 50 kHz? Then the hifi gurus can't use their ears anymore, but have to trust mesurments only. Ok, there was a need for a higher sample rate than 44,1 kHz but maybe this belongs to another tread, also That's why I'm convinced that all listning tests need to use a double blind methodology ... but that rarely happens.
I did a big search on 'double blind' on google once, and it was some interesting reading. I think the hi-fi industry doesn't much want to hear about this as it turns out a lot of very expensive equipment sounds about the same as some typical consumer stuff.
Does that mean expensive hi-fi is a rip off? No! A Jaguar performs about the same as a Ford Taurus, but Jag is not going to loose sales to Ford.
I did a big search on 'double blind' on google once, and it was some interesting reading. I think the hi-fi industry doesn't much want to hear about this as it turns out a lot of very expensive equipment sounds about the same as some typical consumer stuff.
Does that mean expensive hi-fi is a rip off? No! A Jaguar performs about the same as a Ford Taurus, but Jag is not going to loose sales to Ford.
Their is other reason to record at more than the minimum. If one is doing alot of digital manipulation after the recording having a higher sample rate and also resolution(record at 24 but the wave is 32) will help. It limit the error when doing calculation and mixing etc...
Thats what I think anyway and may not be the general opinion.
---Their is still a limit tought recording at more than 96khz is kind of useless--- ...Would really like recording at 32 bit thought.
Thats what I think anyway and may not be the general opinion.
---Their is still a limit tought recording at more than 96khz is kind of useless--- ...Would really like recording at 32 bit thought.
Kay:
I couldn't find pinouts in the manual, but it looks like the same connector as the SB Live!.
I did buy one, but I'll have to return it - several times per DVD, it 'stutters' and then voices aren't sync'd with the sound track. Then it starts breaking up.
I have a hunch this is the first generation board that was recalled, OR I have a driver bug. I have downloaded all the recent drivers (Creative's site doesn't have any newer ones), so if it's a driver bug it isn't fixed yet.
Also, one problem I found was that you can't tell the board to do 4.1. All the '.1' formats with less than 5 channels assume your PC speakers actually have the sub cross over, so there is no actual output on the subwoofer jack in the back. This was fairly frustrating, as I don't have a center channel yet, but do have 4 good speakers and a good sub. Guess it's time to get a center channel.
I couldn't find pinouts in the manual, but it looks like the same connector as the SB Live!.
I did buy one, but I'll have to return it - several times per DVD, it 'stutters' and then voices aren't sync'd with the sound track. Then it starts breaking up.
I have a hunch this is the first generation board that was recalled, OR I have a driver bug. I have downloaded all the recent drivers (Creative's site doesn't have any newer ones), so if it's a driver bug it isn't fixed yet.
Also, one problem I found was that you can't tell the board to do 4.1. All the '.1' formats with less than 5 channels assume your PC speakers actually have the sub cross over, so there is no actual output on the subwoofer jack in the back. This was fairly frustrating, as I don't have a center channel yet, but do have 4 good speakers and a good sub. Guess it's time to get a center channel.
Well, I'm dredging this up. In this (lengthy) thread on AVSForum , the M-Audio Revolution is quoted as NOT supporting any kind of 'positional' audio via hardware.
I want a very good audio board for my HTPC, but I ALSO want to play the occasional game. Not having hardware accelerated DirectSound (I guess I could live with not having EAX) is really terrible.
It's a shame, the bass management looks to be much better with the Revo.
Any thoughts? I'm close to going back and getting another Audigy
I want a very good audio board for my HTPC, but I ALSO want to play the occasional game. Not having hardware accelerated DirectSound (I guess I could live with not having EAX) is really terrible.
It's a shame, the bass management looks to be much better with the Revo.
Any thoughts? I'm close to going back and getting another Audigy
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.