Hi Tom,
The Cube-Tec Audiocube restoration plug-ins work fine at 192/24, and are
available for the likes of ProTools and Sequoia, in addition to the
Cube-Tec Audiocube platform (a special version of Wavelab).
http://www.cube-tec.com/products/virtual-precision-instruments-for-pro-tool
s/pro-tools-vpi-overview
http://www.cube-tec.com/products/virtual-precision-instruments-for-sequoia/
vpi-s-sequoia-restoration/vpi-s-sequoia-waveform-restorer
Not all the Cube-Tec Audiocube restoration plug-ins are available on
ProTools, but many more appear to be available on Sequoia.
The Cube-Tec plug-ins have supported 192/24 since we started using them in
2005.
Iım not sure that there is that much more information present at 192/24,
and the algorithms from Cube-Tec perform equally well at 192/24 as they do
at 96/24. It can be argued that there is more spatial information
(two-channel or multi-channel) available at 192/24 since the human brain
can perceive very small L/R differences, but many listening systems and
rooms are not up to the task of reproducing those spatial differences
faithfully (i.e. due to room reflections). For the most part, Iım just as
happy with a 192/24 as a 96/24 recording. The leap from 44/16 to 96/24 is
huge, but the leap from 96/24 to 192/24 is more incremental. The chief
limitation for many recordings is not the media or the format, but the
recording itself.
Eric Jacobs
_________________________
Eric Jacobs
Principal
The Audio Archive, Inc.
1325 Howard Ave, #906
Burlingame, CA 94010
tel: 408-221-2128
[log in to unmask]
http://www.theaudioarchive.com/
Disc and Tape Audio Transfer Services and Preservation Consulting
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 8/28/14, 4:47 PM, "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I've asked mastering pros at two major facilities (which I won't name but
>account for a large number
>of reissue masters from Sony and Warner/EMI) why they continue to work in
>96/24 when there is demand
>for 192/24 downloads and theoretically the now readily-available output
>from higher-resolution ADC's
>would be "better" due to more information being present.
>
>The answer I was given, from both places, is that most or all of their
>most-used digital tools work
>in 96/24 and not 192/24. Is this true? Still, today (late 2014)? Why?
>
>I was surprised to learn that many DSP tools in Sony Soundforge don't
>work in 192/24, so I assume
>this is true of other pro-grade DSP plug-ins and programs and hardware.
>
>-- Tom Fine
>
|
