KVR Audio

saulc12 · Post by **saulc12** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:08 pm

electro wrote:What if someone released a Hardware DSP Unit that was dedicated to 16 realtime Physically Modelled Orchestral (Brass/Wind) voices running at 192Khz (Sort of like a polyphonic VL-1)? It could connect to our PCs via firewire/and or USB2 and allow us to run the Orchestral VSTI like a DSP cards plugins. Would you buy it and how much would you pay for those 16 voices of polyphony at 192Khz?

Hell no, sounds like overkill to me. I might pay a few quid for a piece of software that did a decent job though, but Yamaha briefly had a softsynth version of the VL-70m built into one of their XG softsynths, something like this, only with more control would make me smile

griels · Post by **griels** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:13 pm

saulc12 wrote: Hell no, sounds like overkill to me. I might pay a few quid for a piece of software that did a decent job though, but Yamaha briefly had a softsynth version of the VL-70m built into one of their XG softsynths, something like this, only with more control would make me smile

Yeah, it was for Win9x only, implemented as a virtual MIDI device. Seer Music licensed the Sondius technology for Reality but never ported it to NT, although they sold the source code to a third party who is supposedly doing this. A VSTi version would make me grin from ear to ear

saulc12 · Post by **saulc12** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:18 pm

griels wrote:
saulc12 wrote: Hell no, sounds like overkill to me. I might pay a few quid for a piece of software that did a decent job though, but Yamaha briefly had a softsynth version of the VL-70m built into one of their XG softsynths, something like this, only with more control would make me smile
Yeah, it was for Win9x only, implemented as a virtual MIDI device. Seer Music licensed the Sondius technology for Reality but never ported it to NT, although they sold the source code to a third party who is supposedly doing this. A VSTi version would make me grin from ear to ear

Yep Seer reality, I had this, but still managed to forget about, but there was also yamahas sy-100xg again win9x only boohoo

electro · Post by **electro** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:22 pm

Kingston wrote:Electro, you might want to study some AD/DA basics before requesting 192khz. Even the chief designer of Lavry AD/DA converters (just about the best in the whole world) units says even 96khz might be too much.

Why?

Study the phrase "There's only one way to draw a sine wave thru two discrete points in time". While only the most high-end converters and clocks meet this specification, it's enough for AD/DA designers to strive for something else than mad samplerates. You will find that the best units in the world sound just about exactly the same at, say, 48khz and 192khz. (and no, protools HD will not sound the same, guess why?)

192khz is thoroughly prosumer driven marketing. Like most of the time, prosumers don't quite know what they're requesting.

Now before you get mad at me,

DSP *internal* samplerate is a whole different issue and has everything to do with the output quality of whatever is being modelled. Here 192khz suddenly isn't such a big number, and it is usually filed under "oversampling". Math accuracy is the goal here.

That doesn't mean the unit has to output this ridiculous rate.

Softsynths should be able to run at 192Khz. A/D is not an issue when the audio is generated via DSP.

electro · Post by **electro** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 11:27 pm

Lunatique wrote:I think if you're going to make the user go to the extra trouble of connecting to an external device via USB or Firewire, then you should make sure you have a product that is significantly better than something like Synful or Edirol HQ Orchestra. Both of those are small in size and great in sound quality/playability, and neither makes you have to connect to something external. The whole point of using external DSP power is to have something that would be too taxing for your DAW's CPU, and that suggests something very highend and powerful.

the horsepower to run 16 voices of sonically accurate orchestral Physical Modelling calls for DSP!

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:41 pm

Electro,

are you really running 192khz projects on that A64 3200@(2.2Ghz) and 2 UAD1s?

if so, I have to hand it to you, that's the most efficient form of bandwidth and CPU waste I've heard in eons!

I'd be curious just how you justify yourself to do that? And how do you get any music done with all that bouncing and waiting?

Softsynths should be able to run at 192Khz. A/D is not an issue when the audio is generated via DSP.

Yes but D/A is, in which exactly the same laws apply! Maybe you should google up on what Dan Lavry has to say on the issue, and not trust companies like Motu.

electro · Post by **electro** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:34 pm

Kingston wrote:Electro,

are you really running 192khz projects on that A64 3200@(2.2Ghz) and 2 UAD1s?

if so, I have to hand it to you, that's the most efficient form of bandwidth and CPU waste I've heard in eons!

I'd be curious just how you justify yourself to do that? And how do you get any music done with all that bouncing and waiting?

Softsynths should be able to run at 192Khz. A/D is not an issue when the audio is generated via DSP.
Yes but D/A is, in which exactly the same laws apply! Maybe you should google up on what Dan Lavry has to say on the issue, and not trust companies like Motu.

A unit constructed now should be able to do 192Khz, especially if it is modelling real acoustic inst.

UltraJv · Post by **UltraJv** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:44 pm

So many people are saying NO to 192khz and no notice is being taken lol I can see this project getting nowhere

96khz is far too much let alone 192khz. Any unit using this as a selling point has run out of ideas to put it ahead of the pack. If people wanted 192khz, the sale of SACD / DVDA would be through the roof, its barely selling attal. Show me an amplifier that can do 192khz, its on longwave in the RF band

Jaeson Merrill · Post by **Jaeson Merrill** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:48 pm

hehe buzz words, buzz numbers..

gimme updated versions of synful orchestra anyday.

electro · Post by **electro** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:52 pm

Do any of you think that the UAD-1 shouldn't be able to run at 192Khz?

UltraJv · Post by **UltraJv** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 4:54 pm

Why do people run a poll to get an opinion and then ignore the result of the poll?

I think soundcard makers are going to 192khz because of SACD/DVDA. Vstis and synths dont need that.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:12 pm

saulc12 wrote:
griels wrote:
saulc12 wrote: Hell no, sounds like overkill to me. I might pay a few quid for a piece of software that did a decent job though, but Yamaha briefly had a softsynth version of the VL-70m built into one of their XG softsynths, something like this, only with more control would make me smile
Yeah, it was for Win9x only, implemented as a virtual MIDI device. Seer Music licensed the Sondius technology for Reality but never ported it to NT, although they sold the source code to a third party who is supposedly doing this. A VSTi version would make me grin from ear to ear
Yep Seer reality, I had this, but still managed to forget about, but there was also yamahas sy-100xg again win9x only boohoo

I'm running Reality on my win 98e OS (Dual boot) and it's capable of some great sounds but because it doesn't work with either ASIO drivers or WDM it's tends to crackle a lot on my system. Such a pity they didn't develop it further. It's still for sale though - only something like $40 or so now.

Also I tried a demo of Yamaha's softsynth (I think it was also win 9X only) but you couldn't edit any of the sounds and I couldn't figure out how to even access the VL sounds - just managed to play the XG soundset set and that was it.

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:57 pm

electro wrote:

Do any of you think that the UAD-1 shouldn't be able to run at 192Khz?

No-one's saying UAD shouldn't do 192, they're saying they don't use and didn't buy it because it could do 192. Is it sinking in yet?

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:54 pm

Kingston wrote:...(and no, protools HD will not sound the same, guess why?)...

I'm curious: why is PT HD the only unit that will not sound the same at 192k?

Interesting debates, btw. Note: 80% say they're not interested to date.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:29 am

bduffy wrote:
Kingston wrote:...(and no, protools HD will not sound the same, guess why?)...
I'm curious: why is PT HD the only unit that will not sound the same at 192k?

It's certainly not the only unit that doesn't have awfully good conversion. PT HD has quite generic converters and clocks, it's even worse with older versions. They aren't quite comparable to say, Benchmark, Lavry or even the entry level hi-end converter DAC1.

The fact that 44.1khz will sound pretty much the same on 96khz (or 192khz) is only true with the absolute best converters and clocks. See my first post for the quote that explains it.

By the way this is assuming you aren't a dog and can't hear anything above about 20khz.

and I'm only talking about the converter/clock quality here, not plugins or program internal DSP processing.

KVR Audio

A 192Khz PM DSP unit dedicated to brass/wind/reed modelling?

Would you purchase a 192Khz PM DSP unit dedicated to brass/wind/reed modelling?