|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
|
|
Computer Audio Asylum Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Or firewire. [nt] posted by Charles Hansen on February 7, 2009 at 16:43:48:
I certainly don't question your business decisions, and your thorough explanation is completely sensible. I needed to point out that there are other very worthwhile solutions that already exist that exceed 24/96 (for those of us that wish to take advantage of the highest resolution files), are field-tested and proven, and manufactured by noteworthy pro companies. Their hardware and firmware was made for the long haul....recording and mastering studios will accept nothing less.I purchased what I purchased knowing I won't need to upgrade for perhaps a number of years. With over 2000 CD's, I have plenty of 16/44 material for years to come, but my setup (with pro-level mastering software) allows me to playback any hi-rez available up to 24/192, more of which will be coming in the not-too-distant future via download. In fact, more is coming out weekly.
As I stated earlier, I wanted my cake, etc. etc. That's why I waited as long as I did to make my purchases. If someone else is happy with the limitation of 24/96, or in the alternative, doesn't see that as a limitation, more power to them. There are many paths to Nirvana. The whole point is to enjoy the music, as Stevie R. always says.
But, I do take issue with this statement:
But even Apple didn't think it was important enough to include support for Firewire audio devices, so the pro manufacturers were *forced* to write their own device drivers. (Not an easy task, but much easier than designing a complete computerized audio workstation from the ground up!)
So?? And the pro manufacturers, stepped up and wrote those drivers....years ago. And they still operate easily and efficiently in a myriad of pro interfaces, many of which have implemented 24/192 for some time. And to them, 24/96 is already in the rear view mirror, with some product already being fazed out because of that limitation. State-of-the-art is now considered at 24/352.4K and 24/384K. Heck, Tim de Paravicini deduced the digital equivalent of the best analog reproduction at 24/384, perhaps 20 years ago. This ain't new information.
But in your view, what is the difference between what these manufacturers were required to do, so many years ago, and the hoops that Gordon has been jumping through (recently) to make USB work properly, at 24/96?
Edits: 02/07/09
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Good response.... - alan m. kafton 18:49:17 02/07/09 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
