Couldn't the ridiculously high sample rate have something to do with it too? Everyone always trots out the Lavry white paper when sample rate is brought up and he explicitly and carefully explains why "current" electronics do not support sample rates above 96k and goes so far as to explain that you are actually converting with considerably less fidelity by trying to convert at 192. However...that article is a little long in the tooth by now and I have no idea if it still applies to more modern converter designs (although I'm unaware of major innovations in converter design that's a bit outside of my area of expertise). Maybe a DAC/hardware designer could chime in on that.
Also there was yet another new 1073 offering released recently, (I think it was Gemini Audio, right?) I haven't had a chance to check out any of their stuff, it's all pretty new, and I definitely don't need or want a new flavor of 1073...but that is probably worth checking out too, with so many 1073s to choose from I can't imagine they would have released theirs if it weren't competitive. However I can't give you any actual feedback on that one.
Hey Barendse - I certainly hope I am not making a mistake LOL.
My two cents and this my own subjective meanderings in the topic - nothing scientific about what I am about to say so take it with a pinch of salt. Prismsound has a smoother top end without a doubt and a more fluid presentation. It is not the best there is - I am sure the Horus which goes to 384 khz may well be the most transparent convertor out there, but I cannot afford it he he he. Bricasti, Burl? Lots of choice but the more you pay the better the sound stage, blackness,depth and fluidness. Anyway, I came from an RME 800 Firfeace background and there are definitely subtle presentation differences. In my lowly experiences of sampling with both I have found the RME has grittier highs but it does have lovely mids. It seems to pick up the harmonic distortion better than Prism IMHO but the highs get a tiny bit strident after a while on edgy hardware. Cables and convertors make a certain difference admittedly but I have found that high sample rates made the biggest difference for me. Almost all my samplings have been high resolution and this does make for a smoother presentation. This is not directed at you in particuar but I can understand how some ears are not accustomed to this. All the convertors I ever owned from the nineties, starting with the almighty SB16 gave me that noisy gritty crunchy thang. Kinda got used to it actually until I heard some real convertors. . Then I became an audiofile ( audiofool?) who could hear the differences in cables. Then I stepped up to DSD and that was a revelation - those Korg recorders made me realise what audio should sound like. I was going to do all my samplings VIA DSD at one stage but it would only have been two channels a time and time is money. Orpheus gives me eight. The ultrsonics of DSD have also ruined a couple of live gigs I had so there are issues on either side - but when DSD is done right it is just jaw dropping. I am now used to the smoother presentation of audio and it can be a little wierd when the audio is liquid and fluid. Grit and scratchiness in other convertors may well give the impression of punch which can be desirable depending on genre.
Depends on what you mean by better. One man's meat may be another man's poison so to speak.
My opinion - If you mix music that requires fluid motion such as orchestral work then the 192 khz is your ticket as the high end is more relaxed and the depth and stereo imagery is sharper. Perhaps country, Jazz and folk can benefit as well. Basically anywhere where you want to hear the room. If you are into rock, electronic music, pop then perhaps 96khz makes more sense.
There is one person I know who works at 192 khz native. Just a few tracks at a time then out to a mixer or console.
At any rate the decision is up to the end user to determine what suites their workflow I guess.
h-man wrote: At any rate the decision is up to the end user to determine what suites their workflow I guess.
That is something I really value about the Nebula developers: they each do seem to have slightly different notions when it comes to workflow which provides meaningful choices not only from one piece of hardware to the next (which we already know will produce some variation) but also in how we prefer to work.
All that has been said here I can hear in libraries.. Alex and CdSoundMaster have more punch maybe but Henry is the king of smoothness.. I've been pursuing that king of smooth sound for a long time in digital domain, that's why I get so excited with almost every new Henrys' release.. Anyway, time to get started saving for that prism orpheus.. to get that sound and fluidness in my recordings.. not only in nebula..
i know we got seriously offtopic.. but about the src.. to me.. I still mostly work in dark ages of 44 or 48khz and Ive noticed I mostly prefer srced 96khz preset versions over the more gritty native 44.. 44 presets sound more thin to me.. and also when working in 48khz the 96khz presets convert so much faster then 44 to 48! It's because of the easier math (diveded by 2) I guess.. I too have yet to try that gemini ams N**e 1073..
lipa wrote:i know we got seriously offtopic.. but about the src.. to me.. I still mostly work in dark ages of 44 or 48khz and Ive noticed I mostly prefer srced 96khz preset versions over the more gritty native 44.. 44 presets sound more thin to me.. and also when working in 48khz the 96khz presets convert so much faster then 44 to 48! It's because of the easier math (diveded by 2) I guess.. I too have yet to try that gemini ams N**e 1073..
Totally agree with this ,
Another thing is that the test tone sent out at 96khz has a different effect on the hardware its self .It would make sense to have 88.2 for 44.1 and 88.2 projects ,96 for 48 and 96 projects.
Another great example of the subjectivity of audio..... If I am working in 44.1kHz, I still prefer the sound of the native 44.1 presets. I don't know why, but they sound better to me. Maybe it is all placebo, and because I like the quicker work-flow. But they always sound best to me when comparing.