[belyin]

In the ever optimistic attempt to simplify my system, I'm thinking about getting an outboard DAC to use with a Masterlink 9600 to replace an Anthem CD-1. I use the Masterlink for recording projects, so it is often in my system, but it's DAC seems to be its weak link and would need an upgrade if the Masterlink is to be my only cd spinner. The Chime appears to be a winner, but my question is what will happen when I send it a 24 bit/96hz or 88.2hz digital signal recorded on the harddrive of the Masterlink, since this is the rate we use for recording projects.

[hagtech]

The HAGDAC would get pretty darn close to the 88.2k.  All three rates will be locked by the receiver and digital filter, the problem is the reclocker.  It is tuned for 44.1k.  So we need 22.5792M VCXO instead of the 11.2896M one.

It is possible to swap in a 22.5792M VCXO and lock only to 88.1k.  

If you don't mind my asking, what do you normally record in?  88.2 or 96?  And why?  Do you then (after processing) convert back down to 44.1k for CD burn?

jh

[belyin]

Jim, I am not a recording engineer, so I defer to the engineer that I hire. His feeling (and certainly there is disagreement on this point) that one should record at the highest density possible for a number of reasons:a) it may keep your options open for transferring to future media--say if DVD-A became the norm (doubtful,s but clearly the Redbook standard won't last; b) you can never add resolution, so always start with the best source; c) if you are doing much processing in the digital domain, it will be cleaner when peformed at the higher sample rates; d) since I'm recording acoustic music (improvised jazz) he finds it captures the real time/space nuance of the event as well as a truer tone of the instruments.

I have made 5 cd's to date. The first was recorded to a Tascam D-88 digital tape machine through a device that doubled the sample rate to 88.2. The second was recorded to the Masterlink at 24/96. The third was recorded to half inch analog tape (all of these projects were recorded straight to two-track stereo) with the Masterlink as a safety at 24/96 (it may have been at 88.2, now that I think about it.) The fourth was the only one we have multi-tracked, and it was recorded to ProTools at 24/192 and mixed to the new two track Tascam DSD recorder (it has no hard drive--it records to DVD-R's. And the session I just did this week was recorded straight to two track DSD, with the Masterlink at 24/96 as a back-up. Actually we use two Masterlinks--one is mine and one is the studio's. With digital, redundency is a must. And I like having it on the Masterlink so I can listen in my system to evaluate the tracks and work out sequences for the cds. I believe we used Apogee converters for all the digital formats, except of course the DSD.

When the cd is mastered is goes into the Sonic Solutions mastering suite for final sequencing, editing, and level matching. In the projects I have been involved in, the minimal signal process we have done has been analog (minimal eq, usually with a Manley Massive Passive equalizer, and perhaps a tiny bit of compression with a tube compressor) so this is another reason for maintaining high resolution. The data is only dithered down to 16/44.1 in the last step, when it prints to cd-r. I don't have the experience to say this is the best way (and I'm sure nothing is the best way in all circumstances) but I trust the people I work with (my mastering engineer is John Fischbach, who was the lead engineer on Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life, so he has a wealth of experience to draw on.) And I have been very happy with the results.

The analog tape probably sounds the best, but the cost and inconvenience make it difficult to work with. What attracts me most to tape, however, is knowing that it won't be any more obsolete than it is now. There may no machines to play it back on, but at least the concept will remain viable. Digital is a big leap of faith . . .

[hagtech]

clearly the Redbook standard won't last

That's what they said about the LP!  But I understand your point, digital is going the way of hard drives.  Multiple formats, rates, channels, etc.

Looks like maybe a lot of folks record at 88.2 or 96.  At least at this point in time.  The top end is 192 (maybe someone is doing 386?).  I am becoming very interested in this subject because I want to do an ADC.  I think a high-end recording channel belongs in a music system.  Haven't quite figured out where I'm goin yet, but I am seriously thinking about getting a mac-mini to use as a server.  It spits out to my CHIME using USB.  It'll also play DVDs, so I guess I can hook up the TV.  Maybe it has surround capabilities, I don't know.  But I do know that USB works both ways.  And it is time we add an ADC to the music system.  A lot of my customers ask about ripping vinyl to disc.  I want to give them the best.  I guess that means an ADC needs to work at 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, and maybe 192.  Hopefully, I can narrow that down a bit.  

Right now I am working on a kit tube compressor / mic pre.  Probably stereo.  I can apply my hard-earned experience of clean tube stages with years of solid-state work for a novel side chain.  It is something I always wanted to do (like I did a phono stage).  It will branch me out into the professional market a bit, but I think mostly with amateur recording and home studios who want the top end sound on a budget.  And in fun half-kit form.  Yes, it seems out of place, but this will all come together in a few years.  The mic pre and ADC and DAC and everything else I am working on will converge on a single path.  If I mentioned I was going to write mac software you'd really think I was nuts.  This will all make sense in about three years.

Right now, I just want to absorb as much about home & pro studio recording as I can.  

jh

[belyin]

I think the market exists for a AD for home use, but I suspect it would not support a real high price. People seem to want a good solution for burning cds of the lps (heretics!!!, so for that Redbook should be fine. At the high end of the scale, the market would be pro audio. As home studios prolifferate, I suspect the true pro-studio will go ultra high-end so they can truly offer something you can't do (or do well, at least) on your home PC. Manley has managed to straddle the high end home and pro markets, but it would seem a big challenge if you aren't connected to that world. There are plenty of small, specialist manufacturers and modders in that world, but they have built upon their professional and personal connections.

I would think the tube compressor would be an interesting product. There are a number of them out there, and of course the vintage units change hands for big money, but if you have something good it might generate some interest. As for digital, it seems to be the domain of a few big companies. Studios find digital gear a constant problem, what with glitches and compatibility issues with computer software and what not, so they may be less eager to take a chance on a small company without a track record and proven service. On my multi-tracked session, the Apogee 192 convertors wouldn't link up with the Mac running Pro Tools;  if something breaks down in the digital recording chain, you have stopped the show and that is expensive. I'm not saying what you come up with would not be reliable, just that it might be hard to get studios to take a chance on something new.