Thanks for the very informative post.  I'm still a little unclear on the
this though:

 >You'd never burn a 16\44.1 master to a CD, you always downsample first. So
 >that the effect that moves a 45kHz signal down to 38kHz has something to
 >work on.

Could I trouble you to expand on this?

WytRaven

http://wytraven.8k.com/

At 12:29 PM 31/10/00 +1100, you wrote:
>In general I'd suggest you stay away from the whole Analog->Digital
>conversion thing. You could do digital only hardware effects (buy an SB Live
>value and you've got the SPDIF I\O you'd need too). It's a fairly tricky
>thing to do it right. Certainly I'd forget 24bit or 96kHz for a whole range
>of reasons including:
>1) Good luck ever getting 24\96. As an example, Creative don't make
>especially good soundcards but they still have access to proper technology
>(i.e. multilayer PCB's, proper Audio design engineer's (if not the best),
>sophisticated EMI reduction software) and one of they're "16-bit" soundcards
>can only achieve 13-bits dynamic range. Why cause it's REAL hard and REAL
>expensive to design even a 16\48 soundcard let alone 24-96.
>
>2) You're not leaving any DSP headroom. You always have more effects
>headroom then master headroom. This is why 20\48kHz is a common format.
>You'd never burn a 16\44.1 master to a CD, you always downsample first. So
>that the effect that moves a 45kHz signal down to 38kHz has something to
>work on. A 20\48 converter is prob. more manageable and well suited to CD
>mastering. 24\96 is more for DAT (24\48). You'd need a REAL good ear to
>notice the lack of >24kHz artifacts in a 48 compared to a 96 recording.
>
>3) 24\96 converters alone can easily cost in excess of US$100+. Then you
>need to ensure other components like amp will also meet the required specs =
>more money.
>
>If you want to investigate musical effects as people suggested, buy either
>an eval kit if you're real set on hardware, or more sensibly use a PC with a
>soundcard. Get CSound for a programming style view of it or
>Reaktor\Audiomulch for a graphical view of it. Or as suggested write your
>own. Easier to master DSP on a 500+MHz system with Floating point ops and
>abundent resources then master efficient DSP later.
>
>If you want high quality audio I\O from your PC and really want to make it
>yourself, a USB based digital I\O unit might be more managable. Then all you
>need is a fast-ish UART (a scenix could probably handle 1 I\O) and a SPDIF
>transciever and reciever.
>
>BTW: The SB Live is quite a good choice for experimentation. It has the same
>DSP chip as the Emu APS and the value version probably less than many DSP
>eval kits. There is info at http://come.to/sblive on writing DSP microcode
>for it. Unfortunately most support is Linux based as there are Open source
>drivers for Linux.
>
>Tom.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: WytRaven [mailto:wytraven@KIK.NET]
>Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 6:35 PM
>To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
>Subject: [PIC]: Muso's of the world unite! ;)
>
>
>Hi guys,
>
>I am a muso and my primary interest in subscribing to this list is to glean
>information about using PIC's in music related experiments.  I am an
>enthusiast not an engineer and would like to apologize in advance for
>asking stupid questions occasionally.
>After noting the interest that the MIDI keyboard question has raised I
>would like to request that those of you out there who are musicians post
>some info on the viable use of PIC's in music.  Personally I would like to
>know if the PIC in any of it's many forms is suitable for sampling and
>processing 24Bit/96KHz Audio.
>Is it possible to use twin 12Bit ADC's to sample a signal, one sampling the
>+ve part and one the -ve part?
>After zero response to my first post asking about audio sampling with PIC's
>I did some research...yes, OK, so I should have done that first...From what
>I could find, there is no single PIC that can handle this kind of through
>put but there's nothing stopping me from using 2 or three is there?
>
>WytRaven
>
>http://wytraven.8k.com/
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
>ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
>(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.