ANYONE USING SAMPLE RATE 192KHZ HERE THAT WORKS WITH LP64 ?

Im using 192khz sample rate on my projects and LP 64  EQ  & Multiband doesnt work well on X2. anyone using it too and experience this problem?
I can hear sounds more clearly on 192 than the lower sample rates.
My audio interface is Roland Quad-capture. 

when inserting LP64 on a bus  the sound is garbled and deleting it crashes X2. didnt experience these on 8.5 and x1.
try at 41.1khz  works perfect.

i captured a video of this problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrcS1YK5fKA

Because he thinks he can hear the difference at 192Khz! I wonder why he thinks he can hear the difference? Is it because he is switching and doing any AB testing himself. You have given no details under what conditions you are supposed to hear the difference. 

I have done experiments such as this before except in a controlled AB blind test environment (with expert listeners) and no one could pick any such sampling rate differences. I have even compared a very high quality analog source to a 44.1 / 16 bit bottleneck and still no one could hear the difference.

It has been written by experts that in fact the higher sampling rates are not as good as they say. The highest sampling rate that is actually required is about 60KHz so really 44.1 or 48 would easily be fine.

Concentrate on good compositional skills, performance, capture etc. These are far more important than sampling rates. In fact the sampling rate is the least important aspect of the recording process. I wonder what your music is like. If your music is boring no sampling rate is going to improve it. If it is fantastic, then even at 44.1 it is still going to sound fantastic!

The extra data generated is totally unnecessary and remember all your plug-ins and everything are working way harder and for what, some imaginary improvement.

If you are recording classical music I still say the differences will be very hard to pick. Bit depth is a much more important parameter. 24 Bit being the best option in many cases.


The LP64 is a nice EQ and you are on the right track there. Although it may glitch it is still a very nice and transparent EQ.

Jeff Evans


Because he thinks he can hear the difference at 192Khz! I wonder why he thinks he can hear the difference? Is it because he is switching and doing any AB testing himself. You have given no details under what conditions you are supposed to hear the difference. 

I have done experiments such as this before except in a controlled AB blind test environment (with expert listeners) and no one could pick any such sampling rate differences. I have even compared a very high quality analog source to a 44.1 / 16 bit bottleneck and still no one could hear the difference.

It has been written by experts that in fact the higher sampling rates are not as good as they say. The highest sampling rate that is actually required is about 60KHz so really 44.1 or 48 would easily be fine.

Concentrate on good compositional skills, performance, capture etc. These are far more important than sampling rates. In fact the sampling rate is the least important aspect of the recording process. I wonder what your music is like. If your music is boring no sampling rate is going to improve it. If it is fantastic, then even at 44.1 it is still going to sound fantastic!

The extra data generated is totally unnecessary and remember all your plug-ins and everything are working way harder and for what, some imaginary improvement.

If you are recording classical music I still say the differences will be very hard to pick. Bit depth is a much more important parameter. 24 Bit being the best option in many cases.


The LP64 is a nice EQ and you are on the right track there. Although it may glitch it is still a very nice and transparent EQ.

I believe this is all governed by the signal being properly band limited with well designed quality filters. So he may be hearing a difference. We and hardware are not all created equal.

I'm thinking if you are needing 192kHz for some sound reason then why are you using a budget interface to do that?
 
Don't get me wrong I love my Quad Capture and if somebody required some output at 96kHz for some DVD project or such like, if that was specified, I could cater for it, but I can't for the life of me think of a valid reason for doing anything at 192kHz other than wanting to quickly fill my HD with audio files.
 
It can sometimes benefit to get a real low latency to increase the sample rate on some interfaces, but the Quad's driver will increase the buffer size in relation to the sample rate so there's no benefit to be had there even.
 
I'd love to hear the reasons why 192kHz is required here if only to become more enlightened of any of the benefits I might be missing.  I'm currently unaware of any.
 
But each to their own.

The reason i use 192 is i hear it clearer than 96 or 44.1 and using quad because it offerred 192khz.
what im researching is if anyone using almost the same as my gear , which I see you are using quad capture too, that is having some problem with Lp64 at 192 sample rate so i can eliminate or come up to a conclusion whats causing  the sound garbled and causing it to crash. if you can share me your experience on your quad at 192 Khz then I would  appreciate it alot.

I thought this site is for someone who needs help to solve problems. my question is clear. 
"Anyone using sample rate 192khz here that works with LP64?"
I experience garbled sound and causing X2 to crash when inserted in a bus. Please dont question why i like the sound of 192 better, please dont question why I use 192khz.
jonbouy can you help me with this, can you try it so i can single out whats causing it, my cpu, my quad capture , the way I installed it, or the X2 software. thanks. 
 

  

You question is very clear. Unfortunately, you're going to find only a tiny handful of people recording at 192 simply because the downsides far outweigh the negligible advantage gained. 

Quite frankly I see you using a MK-4, an SM 58 and a Casio keyboard. And you don't list your monitors but I'm guessing something pro-sumer. They are hardly the tools which would warrant  recording at 192. Of course it's your system, you can haul crap in it if you want to. Just don't expect that there will be many people using your same setup and 192.

I have done a test for you but I am a Studio One user so at least I can tell you what happens under Studio One. I created a session at 192K (highest Studio One sampling rate at the moment) and inserted the LP64 over a track and there were no issues for me so it does all work normally but then many things tend to work very well under Studio One. Mind you I was only trying it on one track. StarTekh brings up a point below. Did you try setting you playback latency high to give this the most possible chance of working fine.

I did have a bit of a time though setting things back, everything did not want to go back for some reason! But I sorted it in the end. I thought I was going to be stuck at 192K forever LOL!

We are questioning your approach and you should not be so defensive about it either. There are some good people here who know a lot and what we are saying is you don't have to record at the rate. Maybe think what we are saying could be worth looking into that is all. I know for a fact I could setup a test for 44.1K vs 192K that you would fail and if that were the case would you consider using a lower rate?

It is a bit like, Oh my car makes a funny rattling sound when I travel at 200 MPH and we are saying don't travel at 200 MPH but rather at the speed limit and you will still get to where you are going but no rattle.  

Anyway I hope you sort it out. It certainly looks like it should work anyway and you should be able to record at any rate you want to.

Jeff you are right, MILLION THANKS TO YOU , I set the asio reported latency to the highest and try to go down to the last settings which lp64 eq and multiband works perfectly at 65.8 msec total roundtrip.
It was set to 33 msec which is my setting for mixing which i did not suspect it  needs higher setting in X2.
 PROBLEM SOLVED!!
THANKS TO ALL WHO MADE COMMENTS!!!!

Phrygiann your question was indeed clear and if I had the overhauled version of LP64 that comes with X2 I certainly would have tested it for you.
 
I wasn't dismissing your decision to run at 192 kHz, as was more intrigued as to the reason you choose that sample rate when currently no industry standards require it.
 
I know some of the hard core synth guys will sometimes use it on synths not equipped with over-sampling and I've understood the reasoning behind that.  I've yet to hear of a good reason to use it during the standard course of music production.
 
I was hoping to learn something.
 
It's more important for me to run my Quad with a 5ms round trip latency figure than it is to consider the marginal differences between 44.1 or 48 kHz and higher rates but I totally respect your decision to run at whatever rate you want.
 
No offence meant.