SPDIF at 96k

ibanman555

ibanman555

Member
Hello all,

As mentioned many times before, Axe Fx XL+ will only work with SPDIF at 48k.... but I have recently opened a session in Pro Tools 11 to record at 96k and didn't notice any problems. My interface is a RME Fireface 800. I found this interesting, but I'm sure I am missing something. It appears whether my session is at 48k or 96k, I am still able to record via SPDIF without a problem. Can anyone confirm that this is true? Does anyone know what the actual latency is using this method over analog? I did try 44.1k (yeah no....) just to make sure I wasn't loosing my mind.

Well, thanks for any knowledge, if I can record at 96k this way, that's great. I just want to make sure I know if there is some issue that would cause that I am not aware of.
 
Quite possibly, the RME may well have sample rate conversion on the spdif input, where its a multiple it likely stay in sync anyway, but my money would be on sample rate conversion
 
Why are you recording at 96k? I'd like to hear your reasons for for using it. Also, you must have one helluva computer.
 
smfelton said:
Quite possibly, the RME may well have sample rate conversion on the spdif input, where its a multiple it likely stay in sync anyway, but my money would be on sample rate conversion
Click to expand...

I believe your correct actually.... Under clock mode shows 2 different rates on my computer.


Lionheart said:
Why are you recording at 96k? I'd like to hear your reasons for for using it. Also, you must have one helluva computer.
Click to expand...
Well, here’s the thing: I don’t think there’s a massive difference between 48/24 and 96/24, OK? I’m not one of those guys who’s going to pour scorn on anyone who listens to CDs. I like listening to CDs. I think they still sound great — when they’re mastered well. But 96/24 does sound a little bit better, and there’s no excuse not to record at 96/24. That’s the bottom line. There’s no excuse, because the computers that we record on now are so powerful. There’s no reason not to be recording everything at 96/24. We now have the media to be able to download at 96/24, and we can release things on Blu-ray and DVD and keep all that resolution.

I’ll say it again. It’s not a question to me of being a massive leap forward. It is a little bit better, and there’s no excuse not to release things in 96/24. That’s the way I feel about it. Why would anyone record at 48 now? Why? But people still do.

My computer is the epitome of overkill :laughing:
 
Lionheart said:
You must have the ears of a bat if you can hear any difference between 44.1 and 96. o_O
Click to expand...

I don't particularly hear it, but in one instance switching from 48 to 96 on a DigiCo SD10 console, some channels began clipping merely from the increased high end information quality... most likely stuff we can barley hear.... but it's there. Same monitor mixes, same settings. Blew me away. That's enough to make me a believer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom