Can someone explain the logic behind not including 96k?

    I have ordered a Kemper and am waiting patiently for it to be approved in Canada. When looking at the device the only thing that weirded me out was its consumer grade input and output with spdif. What is the reason for this? 96k is getting very very common for recording, making the digital not compatible with a lot of peoples sessions in their DAWs. My computer is 5 years old so I still with 48k usually but come Jan I will have a new one and will want to use 96k. This will mean I will have to use the analog ins and outs of the Kemper. This is acceptable but I would much prefer to use the digital.


    Anyways. I'm just curious as to why Kemper went with spdif. The digital would really only be used in Studio situations and most of these people have AES (not spdif) and like to record at 96k.


    So Kemper.... Why?


    EDIT: one more question. Why can it only be master and not slave in digital? Very weird.

    Quote from thedommer

    I did search. there are a billion threads on digital so I am having trouble finding a reply from Mr. Kemper.


    Dom

    http://kemper-amps.com/forum/i…earchID=420459&highlight=


    This is a link of the posts from Mr. Kemper, hopefully you'll find the replies you're looking for this way.


    Sigh.. links still not working.
    Ok, go to Members, find CKemper, and you can find all of his posts there.

    Use your ears, not your mathematical sense.

    96 kHz would require sampling rate converters in the KPA, which is pretty complicated to realize and does not improve the sound quality by a single bit.
    I sometimes wonder why sampling rate converters are not provided by audio interfaces.

    Ah I see. How would it not improve quality? I'm more thinking about the re-amping. Going from sound card to Kemper and back again without using digital is 4 stages of conversion. Seems like there would be a bit of degradation especially with the average users sound card. If my session is at 96k I would have no choice but to use analog for the re-amping.


    Also the 96k would only be Digital to Digital conversion. Is that not much cheaper than A/D?


    Right now all the digital in/outs in the the box are 24/44.1. So by sample rate converter you mean something that takes that 24/44.1 and converts it to 96k. I could see how this would not better the quality since it is taking a lower rate and "faking" the higher rate. I presume this is what you mean?


    So the only solution would be to have the entire box at 96k? And that is to expensive? And would not be better sound quality at all?


    Also curious why the Kemper can only be a master and not slave?


    Thanks for replying to my uneducated questions. :) Much appreciated! I am waiting with great anticipation for the CSA approval so I can finally get mine here in Canada.
    Dominic

    Quote from thedommer

    I'm more thinking about the re-amping. Going from sound card to Kemper and back again without using digital is 4 stages of conversion.

    That´s why reamping over SPDIF makes so much sense and works perfectly.


    I agree that we should have a SPDIF Slave option soon, which will make life a little easier.


    But neither do i need 96 Khz or AES. I think that not even 5% of all KPA users would use those.

    It does internal oversampling, that's why i can't understand why it's so hard to provide higher sample rates.
    Any explanation? (i had the same question for my Axe Ultra)

    Quote from tylerhb

    That´s why reamping over SPDIF makes so much sense and works perfectly.


    I agree that we should have a SPDIF Slave option soon, which will make life a little easier.


    But neither do i need 96 Khz or AES. I think that not even 5% of all KPA users would use those.


    +1 :thumbup:

    96k is something very funny indeed, because most of the people admit that they can't hear the difference between 48k and 96k and above. This being said, I can accept that someone can, but in most cases, I think it's just about the bigger number before the letter k :)

    Use your ears, not your mathematical sense.

    Quote from richaxes

    96k is something very funny indeed, because most of the people admit that they can't hear the difference between 48k and 96k and above. This being said, I can accept that someone can, but in most cases, I think it's just about the bigger number before the letter k :)


    That is very true but those of us who work in the industrie (I used to but not anymore) know those cork sniffing clients or picky producers who would insist on recording with 96k even if they don't have a clue about it.


    Sometimes when working with clients it really is all about numbers...


    But modern DAWs should be able to handle different samplerates in the same project so it shouldn't be a problem to switch to 44k when recording the Kemper and switching back when you do the drum overdubs.

    Quote from Garrincha

    That is very true but those of us who work in the industrie (I used to but not anymore) know those cork sniffing clients or picky producers who would insist on recording with 96k even if they don't have a clue about it.


    Sometimes when working with clients it really is all about numbers...


    But modern DAWs should be able to handle different samplerates in the same project so it should be a problem switching to 44k when recording the Kemper and switching back when you do the drum overdubs.

    Word.

    Use your ears, not your mathematical sense.

    mixing at 96k seems to be fairly common from what I gather simply because some plugins react better at the higher resolution.


    Really though the only reasons I want the Kemper at 96k:
    - so that I can use the digital I/O no matter what sample rate the session is at.


    What Daws allow multiple sample rates at the same time? I mainly use protools 9 and Studio one 2.

    Quote from thedommer

    mixing at 96k seems to be fairly common from what I gather simply because some plugins react better at the higher resolution.


    The question is: why do they react differently at lower resolution? Probably suboptimal code.


    We use higher sampling rates to avoid exactly this. But only where it's required.
    Often much higher than double rate.
    But that does not automatically qualify for higher sampling rates thru Spdif.