Anyone running their x1800 at 96khz? If so, do you notice a difference between 96 and 48khz? Are there any advantages/disadvantages using 96khz versus the 48 or 44khz settings? I am currently running 48khz and can hear the difference between 48 and 44khz. The sound appears to be a-lot “stronger”. Thoughts??
It will all depends on what source you are playing into the mixer. Everything will be of need to match
Not sure, my x1800 is in the box right now. Does the x1800 have an internal/work processing sampling rate setting in its on-board utility? I know you can change the sound card rate on your computer and the digital output rate on the mixer, for sure. The MP2015 I don’t think we have any control over the sample rate and output settings on the mixer itself. I know with the x1700 the 96khz internal work sampling rate under utility does some amazing upsampling that I like the sound of. If you put it at the rate of what you’re piping in, then it’s pretty close to just the original source, but the upsampling sweetens it up and makes it more musical to my ears. I find that also to be the case with Burmester Audiosysteme’s interpolative upsampling. Going digital in and digitally out on the x1800, I did not hear that much sweetening at what appeared to be 96khz throughout, but then again the SC5000 is already sending 96khz into the mixer. I don’t think I even bothered much testing the analog inputs or any lower sampling rate digital inputs, so cannot really say the x1800’s resampling is any worse than the x1700.
Flop ! No one else have talked of old Rane mixers of this whole thread. Staying topic seem is so difficult yes
You wont notice the difference at home. The average listener won’t notice the difference on a system, however you will notice the difference.
It’s a currently-produced mixer from InMusic that I’ve also used with the SC5000s besides the x1800, is relevant because it is a completely digital mixer like the x1700 & x1800, and has some settings and doesn’t have others. The x1800 and the MP2015 both lack some of the settings options of the x1700.
The x1700 definitely has an audible and pleasant effect on the music when set to 96khz throughout when sending lower sampling frequency SPDIF or analog sources into it. The x1700 only needs the internal work sampling rate set to a specific rate on the mixer (as opposed to the SPDIF output setting) when the USB soundcard inputs are being used so the computer rate matches the mixer rate. The x1700 has all of these possible settings in its on-board utility menu.
According to the MP2015 literature, its internal work sampling rate is at 96khz but may change depending on if the USB soundcard inputs are used. There’s some vague aspect in how that’s talked about in the Rane manual, so I can’t be sure if the MP2015 is resampling differing-rate USB soundcard inputs or if the computer setting is automatically changing the internal work sampling rate on the mixer so they match. For sure, you cannot manually change either the internal work sampling rate or the SPDIF output in the Rane mixer settings utility. I cannot remember if the x1800 was this way or not and whether it required such a manual setting to match the computer, changed it automatically, or just resampled the USB inputs.
When you say, LargoS, that the x1800 has to be at the same internal work sampling rate as whatever is piped in, that is probably not always the case, and would likely only potentially be the case if the x1800 requires that for USB inputs usage. djock12’s observation that some 96khz mode on the x1800 seems to change the sound might be the result of either the USB soundcard usage either altering the internal work sample rate setting of the mixer and/or the sample rate of the software the USB sound card is communicating with, or it could simply be the result of multipoint interpolative upsampling occuring with sources other than its set internal rate.
Theres an effect that is disabled when using 96khz. But besides, the higher settings mean nothing if the source audio doesn’t match.
Any justification or evidence for thinking that?
I think he is referring to “if it’s not there, you can’t add it.”
If you are playing mp3’s, for example, the output of the player is only going to reflect the transient frequency of those files as they are played. What the OP is not taking into consideration, is the quality of overall output while mixing multiple sources and utilizing FX.
Yeah, not to mention advantages depending on the types of resampling being done and the DAC stages. Even on the old DJM-800 when piping 44.1 into it, switching the rear from 96 to the lower settings is a rude awakening when going into another DSP… granted there’s no internal sample rate work setting on the Pioneer. I presume the x1800 sample rate setting is for matching it to your computer and USB audio, as on the X1700.
If I export a project in a daw and it’s set to 44.1, what good would setting the mixer to a higher sample do?
There’s no need to keep prattling on about ancient stuff. It don’t matter what some old kit did or didn’t do. Here’s a denon dj forum. Just talk denon
What are you talking about?
The older stuff isn’t so old that it’s irrelevant.
Potentially higher quality processing within the mixer.
What older stuff are you referring to?
I may not be understanding this principle. If the source is made with a lower sample rate, how would processing it in a higher sample rate help the sound? Is there a video explaining?
See about 30%,of your posts. They seem to use mentions of old tech and long long length as an a way of attempting to score credibility.
That’s a good question. There is specifically NOT a video metaphor that does it justice. The nature of both electronic and acoustic instruments has a lot to do with even-order harmonics and it’s possible to interpolate these harmonics. Even if you’re not interested in that aspect, end-user or DSP coder, all resampling methods have trade-offs. Using simple, linear resampling methods produce all sorts of issues if it’s not just in the right circumstances. Every time you have to resample digital audio information you have a whole variety of techniques available, some very processing-intensive (one tradeoff) and pretty ingenius. Some of it can make the sound more “analog-like” than what you started, while others you’re just trying to find ways of minimizing aliasing distortion on the presence regions of human hearing (most sensitive areas for us). Most modern high-end DACs now have their own oversampling multiplier just specifically so a different filter can be used. One of the reasons DACs sound so much better than 40 years ago. You might not even like or be able to tell a difference with higher sampling rates, though, depending on the implimentation. You might send 44.1 into a digital mixer like the X1800 and even prefer the sound of it staying in 44.1
It’s important to know where you were in order to know where you’re going. You have to compare things like that. Comparing denon present to denon past isn’t as effective as taking a wider perspective by also comparing with other brands and what they did/are doing.