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."

Amen, brother!

-----Original Message-----
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

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).

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

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
The Audio Archive, Inc.
1325 Howard Ave, #906
Burlingame, CA 94010

tel: 408-221-2128
[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 
>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