Best 192 Khz audio interface for Samplitude

HenrikBjorslev wrote on 1/26/2018, 4:52 AM

As I've just bought the Samplitude PRO X3 suite I'm looking for an excellent audio inteface with at least 8 mic preamps and 192 Khz AD/DA convertion of high quality to use as front end for my DAW. I'm considering the Universal Audio Apollo 8p, does anyoneone know how the integration with Samplitude is for this model or some of the other new Thunderbolt interfaces from Universal Audio?

I'm mainly recording acoustic music, classical and traditional, with high-end tube- and condenser mics, so I'm looking for high quality mic preamps and a very open and transparent sound stage.

Hope someone can advise me in the jungle of expensive hardware,

regards Henrik.

Comments

emmrecs wrote on 1/26/2018, 6:24 AM

Hi, welcome to the Magix forums.

I have to ask, why do you want/need to record at 192Khz?!! I saw your statement about a very open and transparent sound stage but are you aware that no mic in existence can actually record frequencies anywhere near to 96Khz (maximum frequency recordable is exactly half of the sample frequency) so the vast majority of the samples you write to your hard drive will actually be digital zeros = digital (convertor) "noise"? No known loudspeakers/monitors can actually reproduce any frequency above about 25 to 30Khz (and the ones that can extend so high tend to be very, very expensive) and the highest frequency that any human can hear is about 20Khz, and then only when the listener is a baby!

Another factor to consider is hard drive space. A recording made at 192Khz will use four times as much hard drive space as one made at 48Khz and, as stated before, most of that space will contain inaudible and unreproduceable audio!

Sorry if I seem to be pouring cold water on your aspirations but this "problem" of recording at very high sample rates is one which is a source of much misunderstanding and hype.

Jeff
Forum Moderator

HenrikBjorslev wrote on 1/26/2018, 7:07 AM

Hello Jeff.

Thanks for your comment, I've actually heard that before, that there's no need to record in 192 Khz, unless you want to use it for SACDs, which I might be tempted to. I don't say I want to record in 192 Khz, I'm of course aware of the need for more CPU power and storage space, so if I can't hear the difference, I'll use a lower sample rate. But anyway, most high-end audio interfaces come with 192 Khz as their maximum, so I'm still looking for something like the Apollo 8p or even better, if I can afford it.

A little more than 10 years ago I was at an AES demo in the DR Concert Hall, where they compared 44.1, 96 and 192 Khz sampling frequencies in an a/b test with a metal string guitar. At 44.1 it was completely dead compared to the direct sound, at 96 Khz it was improving quite a lot, but not untill 192 Khz it was a sound rather similar to the original, reproducing most of the super crisp overtones. We were explained it was due to mirroring into the audible spectrum below 20 Khz, so in order to have this mirroring of disturbing signals placed above the audible spectrum, you needed to use a sampling frequence of 192 Khz. This was an arrangement by AES, so I don't think they were manipulating anything, and there was a VERY obvious difference, not just nuances. It was the best available converters at that time, and as I understood it, it was a theoretical issue you couldn't solve without using a very high sampling frequency. I've also heard with my own ears, that SACDs sound better than the same material released on red book CDs! Why would that be, if it hadn't to do with the sampling frequency?

Anyway, I'll of course make a serious test when I get my new DAW running, if I can use 96 Khz or even lower frequncies without loosing anything, I'll be a happy engineer :-)

Regards Henrik.

emmrecs wrote on 1/26/2018, 9:52 AM

Hi Henrik,

A little more than 10 years ago

and in those 10 years AD/DA convertor technology and the sound reproduction chain has improved no end!!

And, with all due respect to the AES, the only really valid method of running a similar A/B test is "blind", making sure that everything (technology, room, playback facility, etc., etc.) is identical but without the audience knowing which sample frequency is being used at which time. It is my understanding that, under such conditions, no-one has ever been able to "prove" that higher sampling rates actually carry benefits!!

😈😈

Jeff

robertNC wrote on 1/26/2018, 1:34 PM

HenrikBjorslev, you can ask at the samplitude and sequoia forum; there are some orchestral recording engineers that post there

http://support2.magix.net/boards/samplitude/

HenrikBjorslev wrote on 1/26/2018, 2:29 PM

Thanks robertNC, I thought this was the Samplitude forum.

Jeff, I agree a blind test is necessary, when you are talking nuances. But this was like hearing the difference between a saxophone and a clarinet, so no need for blind test there ;-) I know converter technology has improved, but this was explained as a fundamental problem, you couldn't come across. Of course I hope there's no need to go higher than 48 Khz.

MattyLada wrote on 7/6/2018, 12:08 PM

Hi...as per my knowledge there are certain aspects of Samplitude which are among the very best tools I have encountered for manipulating musical audio. The Ammunition compressor is incredible, as is the guitar amp (Vandal) and the spectral cleaning and de-clipper are really useful. It has a convenient mp3 encoder, though I tag in foobar2000 because the Samp tagging method has that old unfriendly feel to it. I like the little de-esser quite a bit.It reminds me a bit of that robot-Jedi from The Revenge of the Sith, General Grievous. He has four awesome lightsabers and can jump around and has a cool grappling hook, but is constantly nursing a horrible wheeze and is held together by a dead metal skeleton. His overconfidence is tiring, and becomes his undoing.

pcb assembly usa

fan-boy wrote on 7/10/2018, 10:53 PM

if someone looks at the actual number of Samples per cycle, when using 44.1 khz Sampling frequency , when using a 20 khz analogue test tone , 44,100 Samples per second , doesn't give very many Samples per cycle at 20 khz test tone . 44.1 khz Sampling is pretty poor at 10 khz and above . Below 100 hz analogue ,....44,100 Samples per second gives sufficient Samples per cycle .

I know , I know , all the empirical fudge factors that say sample at twice the highest frequency is supposed to be sufficient . but everyone knows that 44.1 khz PCM Sampling gives minimal quality at 20 khz analogue .

so , yeah , the only way I would ever consider digital audio to be as good as analogue , is if the Sampling is done at 32 bit 384 khz to get good 20 khz analogue performance . even that is a fudge . cause me personally , the Sampling would need to be 32 bit 768 khz PCM . at that point , I most likely would say Digital audio is as good as analogue . file sizes will be very large at 32 bit 768 khz PCM .

MP3 is the worst , as too many harmonics are stripped out , to reduce file size .

if you want to Master your analogue audio in the highest digital quality , then use ADC of 32 bit 384 khz .

Samplitude will need to support 32 bit . and your sound card will need to support 32 bit 384 khz .

if your hardware max's at 24 bit 192 khz , then ADC record at 24 bit 192 khz .