Kemper Amps Forum

Quoted from "ajs"

Didn't I read somewhere that a higher bitrate was planned? I'd be surprised that it's set at 44.1 and is intended to stay there.

Yes, it's my opinion that most pro recordings are made at 44.1, and that opinion is based on it being true! :-)

Personally I prefer 88.2 or 96 but it's a lot more tricky and sometimes impossible to work that way meantime.

You think that the SA-CD is not pro?

Of course SA-CD is pro spec but I rarely speak to any producer or engineer who works at anything other than 24/44.1 so it makes sense to me that if there's only one bitrate in the Kemper meantime that it would be 44.1.

Has there been any statement from Kemper that it's either going to stay at 44.1 or be increased? I'd be very surprised if it's to stay at 44.1, it may be the most usual rate to work at meantime but it's almost bound to increase as more gear and processors can actually cope with it.

I suppose there may be some resistance since some seen unable to hear any difference! I think that's dependant on what they may be doing with it, though. I can certainly hear a huge improvement in, eg, some plugins and then no difference in others.

Btw, I guess you all know that but it is sample rate what you are referring to now, not bitrate.

Of course.

I only play an ignorant idiot on the internet.

I prefer to record analog sources at 88 and when I tried Kemper analog out into my soundcard at different sampling rates there was a definite difference.

Quoted from "Per"

Bear in mind that most DAW's mixers are pretty primitive literal summing devices that don't do any waveform reconstruction so the nyquist limit doesn't necessarily readily apply. Without the reconstruction prior to summing (and summing with higher bitrate aliasing) you can get artifacts and loss of fidelity in the audible range,

Can you explain this waveform reconstruction prior to summing?
Never heard of that.


CK

I believe you mean that the ADC uses an anti-aliasing filter and the DAC a reconstruction filter. As for the summing, maybe I am wrong but I don't think you can do any reconstruction when summing digitally since the reconstruction term is used when converting from digital to analog. I believe it simply refers to reconstructing an analog signal from its digital representation by interpolating what is missed between each step in the digital form.

I think that what you are basically saying is that summing signals sampled at 44.1k will render worse results than summing signals sampled at for example 96k and then converted to 44.1k. Because when you do the sum of the higher rate since those are closer to the real thing the result will be more accurate and the risk of aliasing or artifacts is much lower. Right? I am sure Christoph is aware of all that already anyway.

Maybe I am wrong but I believe that if we don't get higher sample rates is because probably the processor will not be able to handle those. Maybe offering 48k would not be a considerable extra load but 96k is much more to take. You can easily notice that when you run certain plugins on the computer and use high sample rates. Another option would be to render everything at 44k and then do a sample rate conversion at the end, but maybe that is too much load as well if you want to do it with pristine quality.