Good question about processing time. I¡¯ll have to run some experiments
and let you know.
Exports and anything that involves I/O takes longer since there is 2x
the amount of data.
On 8/29/14, 4:29 AM, "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Eric, do they take any longer to run at 192 vs. 96? I mean in real-time
>playback or file exports.
>"The chief limitation for many recordings is not the media or the format,
>but the recording itself."
>From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric Jacobs
>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 9:23 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24
>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
>Audiocube platform (a special version of Wavelab).
>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
>I©öm not sure that there is that much more information present at 192/24,
>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
>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
>to the task of reproducing those spatial differences faithfully (i.e. due
>room reflections). For the most part, I©öm just as happy with a 192/24 as
>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.
>The Audio Archive, Inc.
>1325 Howard Ave, #906
>Burlingame, CA 94010
>[log in to unmask]
>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
>>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