Higher sample rates don't give you more processing, but rather require more to achieve the same things.though with some algorithms they do give fewer audible artifacts and/or less audible distortion. Ummm.assuming equally powerful processors and otherwise identical algorithms (which of course is not the case here), the SQ would only be able to do half the amount of processing per sample, and so be at the disadvantage. And the user interface as well, I suppose, which doesn't affect the sound directly but surely can affect the quality of the mixes one gets out with the equipment. It's not the sample rate alone that gives one digital mixer an an advantage over another, rather it's the whole design and the programming and the processing power available for that programming. For me, that means that the SQ has double the amount of processing going on giving it every advantage in sound quality equally powerful processors and otherwise identical algorithms (which of course is not the case here), the SQ would only be able to do half the amount of processing per sample, and so be at the disadvantage. you can hear it.īoth the SQ and X32 have 0.7mSec latency. The dLive engine was designed from the ground up for 96Khz and the algorithms take advantage of the 2x processing advantage over 48Khz for sure.
0 kommentar(er)
