• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

24 /96 hardware synths? where are they?

vveerrgg

TRIBE Promoter
The only 24 / 96 synth i konw of are the things coming from Nord.



sweet machine.. but not the sound I'm lookin for.

Any suggestions on other 24 /96 synths that are hardware?
 

Mike Goodwin

TRIBE Member
no I dont know and for sure man where the hell are they? Even the powercore virus hates to run at that speed. Seems way overdue.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
Fuck 96 cuz all native instruments supports it, and so does Arturia stuff. Most stuff does though not hardware of course. In reality it should all be 192 or higher. The reason for the snap on analog often has to do with how fast it can react to something. Even at 192Khz it will have huge artifacts that analog does not. The bit depth is negligible because how quiet do you really need your noise floor.

Tried the TL audio liquid compressor before and though it was good at 192Khz it still was no comparison to the analog ones.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
Humanjava said:
Fuck 96 cuz all native instruments supports it, and so does Arturia stuff. Most stuff does though not hardware of course. In reality it should all be 192 or higher. The reason for the snap on analog often has to do with how fast it can react to something. Even at 192Khz it will have huge artifacts that analog does not. The bit depth is negligible because how quiet do you really need your noise floor.

you say some weird things sometimes - are you talking about how fast the filters and envelopes react?
if so, digital is at least as fast as analog.
one of the reasons that analog compressors are gentler sounding is that they can't react as fast - with the absurdly short attack and release possibilities of digital compressors, it's possible for them to open and close at a frequency within the actual audio range, which sounds really shitty and accomplishes nothing.

i do agree that with most analog-style synth sounds, bit depth isn't as important as sampling frequency, as most classic analog synths weren't velocity sensitive and tend to be played at a pretty constant volume.
however, unless you're dealing with really high pitched sounds, or sounds with lots of super-high harmonics, you're not going to get much aliasing even at 44.1
personally, i like my high pitched sounds to be a bit clangy and metallic, so i don't care at all.
with bass sounds, or mid-range chord pads, you don't have enough high frequency content to get into the problems you have with recording cymbals and vocals at 44.1

bottom line, if you want analog, use real analog. embrace digital for what it is, flaws included (and hopefully enjoyed). most of what we now enjoy about analog technology were considered to be flaws by the people who designed the equipment.
 

vveerrgg

TRIBE Promoter
but there's a clear audio difference in reaktor between playback at 16/44 and 24/96.

and don't even start me on effects etc..... trust me.

you gotta do an A <-> B comparison between a piece of analogue gear, 16/44 and 24/96 or even 24/192

you WILL hear a difference. And if you're like me.. you'll be seduced by it.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

why not

TRIBE Member
vveerrgg said:
but there's a clear audio difference in reaktor between playback at 16/44 and 24/96.

and don't even start me on effects etc..... trust me.

you gotta do an A <-> B comparison between a piece of analogue gear, 16/44 and 24/96 or even 24/192

you WILL hear a difference. And if you're like me.. you'll be seduced by it.
not saying there isn't a difference - when recording acoustic instruments, or using effects, the difference is quite noticeable.
i just don't really see the point with most synths - the way most people use synths, there is very little dynamic range, and very little high frequency content, which is where you really hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96.
i guess it's a philosophical difference - i don't really ask that my VSTs are convincing reproductions of analog, so i'm not that concerned with their 'flaws'.
i was mainly taking issue with humanjava's comment that digital wasn't 'quick' enough to do convincing synth sounds, which simply doesn't make sense to me.
 

Mike Goodwin

TRIBE Member
vveerrgg said:
but there's a clear audio difference in reaktor between playback at 16/44 and 24/96.

and don't even start me on effects etc..... trust me.

you gotta do an A <-> B comparison between a piece of analogue gear, 16/44 and 24/96 or even 24/192

you WILL hear a difference. And if you're like me.. you'll be seduced by it.
I do know what your talking about here verg. For many sounds i will here little to no difference at all. But with other sounds, nice saw based pads and FM synths for example I do indeed here a big difference, it is by no means a..... hmmm i think i can tell,... can you tell? type thing. I dont always feel that it is always a "better" sound. But there is more detail that is for sure. Sometimes the hole harmonic balance of the sound shifts. As for dynamic range I totaly agree with Why Not. I end up compressing most of my stuff so much that a few db of range would never be noticed. Having the option to run synths at high samples rates should be an option in this day in age. It is well overdue.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
why not said:
you say some weird things sometimes - are you talking about how fast the filters and envelopes react?
if so, digital is at least as fast as analog.
one of the reasons that analog compressors are gentler sounding is that they can't react as fast - with the absurdly short attack and release possibilities of digital compressors, it's possible for them to open and close at a frequency within the actual audio range, which sounds really shitty and accomplishes nothing.

i do agree that with most analog-style synth sounds, bit depth isn't as important as sampling frequency, as most classic analog synths weren't velocity sensitive and tend to be played at a pretty constant volume.
however, unless you're dealing with really high pitched sounds, or sounds with lots of super-high harmonics, you're not going to get much aliasing even at 44.1
personally, i like my high pitched sounds to be a bit clangy and metallic, so i don't care at all.
with bass sounds, or mid-range chord pads, you don't have enough high frequency content to get into the problems you have with recording cymbals and vocals at 44.1

bottom line, if you want analog, use real analog. embrace digital for what it is, flaws included (and hopefully enjoyed). most of what we now enjoy about analog technology were considered to be flaws by the people who designed the equipment.

Ask me if I am surprised that you don't know what I mean. Most people have bought into the bullshit of reading specs that are not telling the full story, or any of the story for that matter. A large reason the better hardware compressors sound better is not because of noise floor or that they react slower. For a fact I have used some that can be right up there with software. Of course to be fair some optical compresors are used for acting slower. But the reality is often they are taking in an analog signal so therefore they keep the harmonic content intact or do their compresion in an anolog domain. Sampling at lower frequencies will have a lower rise time causing a shift in phase and a cut off in the natural envelope of sounds. Just because you do not hear it that does not mean it is not moving or reacting to the human ear. A big part in the way humans here has to do with time and relations and yes phase. So a higher sample rate can keep this more accurate. Take a look at the graph of an analog burst vs the relative sample rates. I find it no wonder that when we recorded with DSD at 1bit it sounded the best and IMO as close and in some cases better than two inch tape.

Sorry to use this image again but it give an idea. There are tons of other resources.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
Mike Goodwin said:
I do know what your talking about here verg. For many sounds i will here little to no difference at all. But with other sounds, nice saw based pads and FM synths for example I do indeed here a big difference, it is by no means a..... hmmm i think i can tell,... can you tell? type thing. I dont always feel that it is always a "better" sound. But there is more detail that is for sure. Sometimes the hole harmonic balance of the sound shifts. As for dynamic range I totaly agree with Why Not. I end up compressing most of my stuff so much that a few db of range would never be noticed. Having the option to run synths at high samples rates should be an option in this day in age. It is well overdue.
i can totally see FM synths sounding totally different at high sampling frequencies, and also know what you're talking about when you say it may not be a 'better' sound.
for me, when i want to use an FM synth, i'm thinking of the sound of the 80s FM synths, in which the shortcomings of digital at the time played a big role in shaping what they sound like.
however, that kind of makes me want to have the option of playing with them at high sampling rates, just to see what new sounds would be available.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

why not

TRIBE Member
Humanjava said:

you realise how short the smearing that this graph shows is, right?

i'm well aware of the phenomenon you're talking about, but it's not something that's going to make an audibly slow attack - it's more something you'd describe as a colouring.

if that's all you were talking about initially, than never mind - it's sometimes hard to tell what you're actually going on about.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
why not said:
you realise how short the smearing that this graph shows is, right?

i'm well aware of the phenomenon you're talking about, but it's not something that's going to make an audibly slow attack - it's more something you'd describe as a colouring.

if that's all you were talking about initially, than never mind - it's sometimes hard to tell what you're actually going on about.
It does make a difference and is why sometime CD has a bit of a slugish sound compared to analog. There are of course other factors such as the filtering used, etc, and why often upsampling or 1 bit multi-sampling filters are used. The phase difference are signifigant enough to cause things such as "ringing" an often characteristic of lower quality digital sound. Also lack of space and depth is another characteristic of these problems. Either way some studios are now going to 1inch tape for mastering running at 15ips instead of 30ips and the sound quality is through the roof. Digital is not there yet but it is getting closer when used at a higher quality.

Put it this way if this was visual such as film the differences would be enough that most people would not accept a lower format. Imagine a TV quality feed blown up to a full screen. Too many people work on little monitors where the sound does not matter. Often people forget that their music will be played on larger systems or PAs.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
i'm going to try to refrain from debating until i figure out what humanjava is actually trying to say.

Humanjava said:
It does make a difference and is why sometime CD has a bit of a slugish sound compared to analog.
so are you still trying to say that 16/44.1 will cause an audibly slower attack and release on digital synths? i can't tell.

Humanjava said:
There are of course other factors such as the filtering used, etc, and why often upsampling or 1 bit multi-sampling filters are used. The phase difference are signifigant enough to cause things such as "ringing" an often characteristic of lower quality digital sound. Also lack of space and depth is another characteristic of these problems.
or are you talking about the general sound of 16/44.1 recording, or of digital synths?

Humanjava said:
Either way some studios are now going to 1inch tape for mastering running at 15ips instead of 30ips and the sound quality is through the roof.
see, this is one of those weird things you write sometimes - are you really trying to claim that 15ips is better than 30ips? is that a typo or what?

Humanjava said:
Digital is not there yet but it is getting closer when used at a higher quality.

Put it this way if this was visual such as film the differences would be enough that most people would not accept a lower format. Imagine a TV quality feed blown up to a full screen. Too many people work on little monitors where the sound does not matter. Often people forget that their music will be played on larger systems or PAs.
have you actually been to a club lately?
average low end studio monitors offer better fidelity than 98% of the club systems out there - it's absurd to suggest that the differences you're referring to will actually be heard in an average club.
most medium to large sized rooms have so much phase cancellation going on and ugly reflections that you'd be lucky to be able to tell the difference between an MP3 and vinyl, let alone the differences you're talking about. maybe in the booth you might be able to hear it, but that's not what the audience is hearing.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
why not said:
i'm going to try to refrain from debating until i figure out what humanjava is actually trying to say.



so are you still trying to say that 16/44.1 will cause an audibly slower attack and release on digital synths? i can't tell.



or are you talking about the general sound of 16/44.1 recording, or of digital synths?



see, this is one of those weird things you write sometimes - are you really trying to claim that 15ips is better than 30ips? is that a typo or what?



have you actually been to a club lately?
average low end studio monitors offer better fidelity than 98% of the club systems out there - it's absurd to suggest that the differences you're referring to will actually be heard in an average club.
most medium to large sized rooms have so much phase cancellation going on and ugly reflections that you'd be lucky to be able to tell the difference between an MP3 and vinyl, let alone the differences you're talking about. maybe in the booth you might be able to hear it, but that's not what the audience is hearing.

No you did not read that 15 ips can sound better than 30ips it is just when you change the format it will. What I said was a 1inch mastering machine, meaning 2 channels. This format trades tape width instead of speed to achieve a lower noise floor due to tape hiss and extended freq responce. Check out Tim De Paravicini's work he does on such units. He is one of the best designers of highend mastering gear and one of his works is the all tube cutter system at The Exchange in London UK.

For the record I am not saying that 16.44 will sound slower on a software synth because there are many other factors. But I have done countless reviews and had more than my fair share of times playing with some great gear. Tape sounds the fastest and with the most demension. I have heard some great digital formats but not as good as a great analog source.

I did a review a few months back of an SACD.CD. DVDA player that was in the 10K $$ range and funny thing is my 2K turntable sounds way smoother, faster, and more organic. That is on all forms of music. As for the clubs sounding less than a decent pair of monitors there is no question some truth in that. But what I am saying just like when you blow a picture up you still might notice things that you normally wouldn't.

Of course to be fair the 10K CD player sounds better on CD than a SACD will on a 2K player. Same goes for soundcards, analog, or whatever else but that is just common sense.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

why not

TRIBE Member
Humanjava said:
No you did not read that 15 ips can sound better than 30ips it is just when you change the format it will. What I said was a 1inch mastering machine, meaning 2 channels. This format trades tape width instead of speed to achieve a lower noise floor due to tape hiss and extended freq responce. Check out Tim De Paravicini's work he does on such units. He is one of the best designers of highend mastering gear and one of his works is the all tube cutter system at The Exchange in London UK.

why mention the tape speed at all?
tape width and speed are akin to sampling frequency and bit depth - increasing either will help.
doing a quick google of your Paravicini reveals that his machines run at both, but that he wants to introduce a new standard of 18ips, since while he feels that 15ips is better than digital, it's not as good as it could be (and 30ips at 1inch is kind of ridiculous).

again, i'm not sure what you're going on about - weren't we supposed to be talking about digital synths?

there's a saying i heard recently: audiophiles listen for noise, rather than music.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
why not said:
why mention the tape speed at all?
tape width and speed are akin to sampling frequency and bit depth - increasing either will help.
doing a quick google of your Paravicini reveals that his machines run at both, but that he wants to introduce a new standard of 18ips, since while he feels that 15ips is better than digital, it's not as good as it could be (and 30ips at 1inch is kind of ridiculous).

again, i'm not sure what you're going on about - weren't we supposed to be talking about digital synths?

there's a saying i heard recently: audiophiles listen for noise, rather than music.

Ya hence I don't consider myself an audiophile. I think the reason I was talking about analog was to show how it can make a difference and so can higher sampling rates in digital. When you do the comparisons on recording then it should in theory and in many of artists experiences follow over to software synths. I can say the "Crushing" Track I did on Missing Unit and many other tracks I did sounded vastly different and lacking when bounced at 44Khz than the 192Khz. I would not use anything lower than the best I could unless it was for effect.

That being said when we pressed our vinyl even on shit systems you can hear the difference in our track compared to lower resolution versions (eg Master CD).
 

Isosceles_CAT

TRIBE Promoter
FINE! Noone's going to say it? I will.

Humanjava: You sir, are without a shred of a doubt, completely and utterly full of shit. That's all there is to it. (No offence though, eh? :))
 

why not

TRIBE Member
Humanjava said:
That being said when we pressed our vinyl even on shit systems you can hear the difference in our track compared to lower resolution versions (eg Master CD).
what did you press the vinyl off? i didn't think there were many plants still around that will press off of tape - did you send them a 24/96 disc?
did you master it seperately for the CD and vinyl versions?






ok, maybe i'm baiting him, but someone has to humour him
 

vveerrgg

TRIBE Promoter
Depends on the mastering house cutting the laquers for the records. Most mastering houses only request a CD or DAT tape. Some mastering houses accept higher quality source material...... but that depends on the mastering house.

When Shamus (Humanjava), and I cut the MU-008 laquer, we picked a mastering house that accepted .WAV files at 24/192. If you A <-> B the record against other records, even on a low-fi club PA system, you can hear a difference between the MU record and other records. The dynamic range in the tracks sounds bigger and smoother then other records. The sound quality is just is different. I would say better... but thats only becuase it was my objective to have a cleaner sound. The better the sound system the more obvious the difference...... it's amazing!

So if you're looking for an 80s sound. FINE. If you're looking for a studio1 sound. FINE. If you're looking at your studio and are happy..... ignore all this stuff. But if you're looking to be an audio-astronaut and want to go somewhere ppl haven't been before.... you learn. you explore the edges. You do things different.



And although alot of you might think Shamus (humanjava) is full of shit. I doubt many of you have gone into a high end audio store with YOUR OWN MUSIC and listened to it on their systems. BUT not only listen to it on some expensive systems, listened to it on multiple systems. I've done that with my music, and with other styles of music. Speakers worth $10K+ do make the music sound different.

I'm not discrediting music on anything BUT a highend system... I've worked on the crappiest speakers but I took the time to check out some of the "shit" Shamus talks about... and there's more truth to it then you guys are willing to agree to.

Here's a field text for you guys who think this* is all bullshit:
Take 3 CD's..... or atleast 3 songs. CDs or songs you know well, REALLY WELL! Go to Bay Bloor Audio and listen to the music in one of their audiophile speaker rooms..... spend 45 minutes and listen to the EXACT same material on a couple of different speakers... Go to an even better audiophile store and try again.... Do it a couple of times over a couple of months...

You'll hear it in a different way then you did before.

At that point.... you make the judgement call on what you're hearing....


*this = the quest for higher quality sound at a higher bitrate.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

why not

TRIBE Member
funny enough, the most recent single i worked on was mixed down (through an analog board) to 24/96 (although we tracked at 16/44), and i did compare it to the 16/44 mixdown.
there is a difference, and i'm not trying to pretend there isn't.

however, a lot of what shamus says is bull.

this is the guy who thinks expensive speaker cable makes a difference, which is pure snake oil. he also claimed that raising the speaker cables off the ground also effected the sound (more snake oil).
i also remember him talking about using a high end DJ mixer (was it the V5 or the 1620?) to 'master' recordings through (which is definitely not mastering by any pro standard).

anyway, this thread wasn't supposed to be about recording, it was about synthesis, which i'm still not convinced benefits so much from 24/96.
if i want convincing analog, i'll use an actual analog synth, but i'm completely happy with how VST synths sound. i put them in their own category, and actually enjoy their sound for what it is.

i don't agree that 24/96 is really a new frontier - to me, it's just closer to the sound of traditional analog recording, which i like, but don't feel is essential to make something sound good. 95% of the recordings made in the past 15 years were done at what Shamus would consider low-end digital, and they sound fine. could they sound bigger? sure. do they need to sound bigger? not in my opinion.

at this point in time, there isn't a viable consumer format that can actually showcase what high res digital can do. vinyl is without a doubt, a dying and marginal medium. 1000 copies is pretty good for a dance record, which means it's no longer a profitable format. the only way to reach a larger audience is through CD and downloads, which means that for now we're pretty much stuck at 16/44.

as far as being able to tell the difference over a club system, i'll bet you $50 you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test - meaning a copy of the vinyl, and a copy of the CD, and you being able to tell me which one is which. in fact, that would make a nice field trip for the production room, and might help dispel (or confirm) some myths. comparing your record to other records is meaningless - there's too many other factors to be able to pin the difference down to 24/96.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
why not said:
funny enough, the most recent single i worked on was mixed down (through an analog board) to 24/96 (although we tracked at 16/44), and i did compare it to the 16/44 mixdown.
there is a difference, and i'm not trying to pretend there isn't.

however, a lot of what shamus says is bull.

this is the guy who thinks expensive speaker cable makes a difference, which is pure snake oil. he also claimed that raising the speaker cables off the ground also effected the sound (more snake oil).
i also remember him talking about using a high end DJ mixer (was it the V5 or the 1620?) to 'master' recordings through (which is definitely not mastering by any pro standard).

anyway, this thread wasn't supposed to be about recording, it was about synthesis, which i'm still not convinced benefits so much from 24/96.
if i want convincing analog, i'll use an actual analog synth, but i'm completely happy with how VST synths sound. i put them in their own category, and actually enjoy their sound for what it is.

i don't agree that 24/96 is really a new frontier - to me, it's just closer to the sound of traditional analog recording, which i like, but don't feel is essential to make something sound good. 95% of the recordings made in the past 15 years were done at what Shamus would consider low-end digital, and they sound fine. could they sound bigger? sure. do they need to sound bigger? not in my opinion.

at this point in time, there isn't a viable consumer format that can actually showcase what high res digital can do. vinyl is without a doubt, a dying and marginal medium. 1000 copies is pretty good for a dance record, which means it's no longer a profitable format. the only way to reach a larger audience is through CD and downloads, which means that for now we're pretty much stuck at 16/44.

as far as being able to tell the difference over a club system, i'll bet you $50 you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test - meaning a copy of the vinyl, and a copy of the CD, and you being able to tell me which one is which. in fact, that would make a nice field trip for the production room, and might help dispel (or confirm) some myths. comparing your record to other records is meaningless - there's too many other factors to be able to pin the difference down to 24/96.

Better speakers cables can make a difference and I have sat many people down who have heard a difference. That has to do with impedance, inductance, etc. The cost often is more than cheap zip cord. For the record many of the early techno recordings actually came off analog tape and where mastered through an analog system.

I never once said I used an Allen and Heath Xone anything for mastering or a Urie. However I have been in mastering studios where we used Manley Labs custom made mastering consoles, Neve, And a few others. They are prosound of the highest quality and this was even done in fully designed rooms for mastering. Currenty I am not doing that nor do I master vinyl so I send our stuff to The Exchange for the final stage.

Ben you seem to have a really stupid view on things and your close mindedness only show your ignorance. Sometimes even things that are far fetched for your little brain may actually hold some truth to them. I once would have argued some of the exact same things and said oh thats as good as it gets or it does not matter. Funny thing happens when you actually notice something and are proven wrong where opinions change.

There are high end consumer formats called SACD, DVDA, and of course some of the DJ sites like Beatport are offering uncompressed wave formats for dload. I dont think finalscatch did 24.96 for the hell of it.

We do agree on some points though and that is if you want analog sound use analog. Still there is no reason not to push things forwards. With that atitude you would still be sitting on a rock wearing a piece of cloth grunting some useless excuse for comunication well you try and figure out how to eat a bird that you can not catch.
 

Humanjava

TRIBE Member
PS. when I was talking to the guys up at phase one studios to do my 2 inch mixdowns to half inch tape they where telling me how they switched there cables to nordost. Nordost is expensive and the difference is noticeable. Keep in mind lots of what they are doing also goes on CD and they are known to be one of Canada's best recording and production studios.

I wouldn't call those guys wrong either.
 

why not

TRIBE Member
Humanjava said:
I never once said I used an Allen and Heath Xone anything for mastering or a Urie. .
Humanjava said:
Ya its like this if I could do it:
Allen & Heath V6 or Xone 92 and a merging audio DSD system at home so I can do more mastering for new artists. Only better and maybe make some money and then buy that mixer.
:D
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top