<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[Modartt user forum - A Zoom R24 24\96 Soundcard and Pianoteq 4.5]]></title>
	<link rel="self" href="https://forum.modartt.com/extern.php?action=feed&amp;tid=2899&amp;type=atom"/>
	<updated>2013-06-19T07:11:21Z</updated>
	<generator>PunBB</generator>
	<id>https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?id=2899</id>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: A Zoom R24 24\96 Soundcard and Pianoteq 4.5]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=926774#p926774"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>those differences you are writing about are typical results of 16 versus 24 bit resolution. What many people don&#039;t understand is that, contrary to analog, digital sound get more distorted when the level is LOWER ! Simple: there are less and less bits left to describe the waveform. 16 bit is definitively not enough to reproduce those &quot;reverb (or resonance) tails&quot;: it becomes more and more blurred in digital noise. 24 bit is all right, since, even when the level is very low, there are still enough bits to get a smooth curve in the waveform reproduction.<br />I&#039;m not sure at all about 96 KHz however. Here some other parameters are involved, mostly the filtering of aliasing problems. I&#039;d choose a good filter @ 44.1 rather than a poor one @ 96 K.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Luc Henrion]]></name>
				<uri>https://forum.modartt.com/profile.php?id=6</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2013-06-19T07:11:21Z</updated>
			<id>https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=926774#p926774</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[A Zoom R24 24\96 Soundcard and Pianoteq 4.5]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=926767#p926767"/>
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>I may be one of the last people here to use Pianoteq at 24\96, but it&#039;s new for me, so please bear with me. Just wanting to share my experience here and ask if it resembles the experience of other people. Three days ago I set up a Zoom R24 external recorder\sound card, which is 24 bit, with a 96 kHz sampling rate. Not state of the art, these days, but an upgrade from my NI Kore I. My subjective impressions:</p><p>1. Worries about the effect of Windows drivers are gone. Using my older NI Kore, clicking on Control Panel\Sound always showed that Windows had loaded its own drivers, even though I was running the drivers for the Kore, and Pianoteq showed the Kore as the sound card in Options\Devices. The Zoom setup software nudges the Window&#039;s drivers out of the way--when I click on Control Panel\Sound, the Zoom drivers are shown as the default. I do not know if the Windows drivers really ever touched the sound or were bypassed with my old system, but now at least I can remove any worries about that part of the signal chain.</p><p>2. More importantly, with the card and Pianoteq set to 24\96, the general difference in sound is immediately, but subtly, apparent. I would not call it overwhelmingly different, in the sense of suddenly hearing entirely new piano sounds. Instead, each element in the sound is a little better defined.</p><p>3. What I noticed most, after only a few seconds of playing, was the definition and presence of the sympathetic resonance--I seem to hear it now as more distinct from the reverb, which is itself therefore better defined. I also sense the location of the sympathetic resonance much better. </p><p>4. Everything else, as would be expected with 24\96, has a more precise outline, particularly things that extend in time. Seems odd to write that. What I mean is that, while the hammer strikes seem a bit better defined, what I notice more, of course, are the evolving elements and changing levels. As would be expected. One result is that I notice the effect of small parameter changes much more on things like the Direct duration.</p><p>5. I want to be careful what I say here, but because the separation and &quot;directionality&quot; of the elements such as the reverb and sympathetic are improved, I have a better sense of the piano sitting in a precise physical location. I have not experimented yet with what this means when moving mics around and working with the reverb. However, one thing that I think I hear is that when setting the initial delay in the reverb, I can tell a slight difference--the separation between that first return and the other vibrations is more distinct.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>6. I probably shouldn&#039;t try to quantify the added realism and expression. Maybe 10-15%? Saying more might&nbsp; be an exaggeration and I can imagine someone hearing less of a change, since it&#039;s a really a matter of subtle improvements in most of the elements. Certainly not a single glob of sudden sweetness. But the overall effect is hard to describe--the combination of every small improvement creates more than the sum of their parts.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>Has anyone else made this upgrade recently? Impressions?</p><br /><p>(More generally about the Zoom:</p><p>Of course, the financial factor comes into play. I ran across the Zoom on sale. Praise be to Amazon gift cards and birthdays and Father&#039;s Day...&nbsp; </p><p>Seems a bit like underkill, since it&#039;s easier to edit a track on a computer. But there are advantages to this and similar units:</p><p>1. Eight inputs including a mic and amped guitar input. Very good for just kitchen table recording of drafts and for overdubbing several instruments at once onto a drum part or piano part. <br />2. I can keep many things plugged in at once--synth modules, other keyboards, a mic, a guitar.&nbsp; <br />3. Since I can keep so many things plugged in at once, I can easily record my hardware stage piano directly into my computer at any time. I rarely use the piano sound on the hardware keyboard, but it&#039;s there for quick drafts and its organs are good. I&#039;ll also be able to easily do tests on the piano samples. <br />4. Has internal drum patterns that are fine for drafting or just as a metronome of sorts.</p><p>All in all, more expensive than I like, and it has probably been superseded by something that will do more for less, but the results for me are still good.</p><p>Two negatives: </p><p>1. So far, I have not been able to find a way to assign the sliders to midi cc&#039;s outside of a software sequencer. By default, when using the Zoom R24 as a computer interface, all of the sliders seem to be assigned to modulation1\pitch bend. In Pianoteq standalone, if I assign one slider to control Unison detune, for example, they all control Unison detune.) </p><p>2. There are just two controls on the Zoom driver&#039;s options dialog box: the Sample rate and bit rate. The Kore software was very good--it allowed me to test various settings and made suggestions about what to try to fix problems. On the other hand, I have had no problems with the Zoom.)</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Jake Johnson]]></name>
				<uri>https://forum.modartt.com/profile.php?id=11</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2013-06-18T16:07:34Z</updated>
			<id>https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?pid=926767#p926767</id>
		</entry>
</feed>
