Another introduction!

Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Author
robert_e_bone
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 8968
  • Joined: 2007/12/26 22:09:28
  • Location: Palatine, IL
  • Status: offline
Re: Another introduction! 2013/09/02 11:53:35 (permalink)
For ME, even if my interface supported 192k sample rates, I would still opt for 48k, and possibly 96k.  I choose 48k as it doesn't drive my system to the edge - it just works without complaints (dropouts, etc), and I have no issues with the sound quality I get at that rate.
 
I am a keyboard player, and most of the commercial sounds out there are only sampled at a bit-depth of either 16 or 24 bits and a sample rate of either 44.1 or 48k.  So for MY particular needs, I would  be making my system work harder for no significant gain, as capturing audio from samples that started as 44.1 or 48k rates would not get any enhancement by running Sonar at 96k or 192k.
 
Vocals, live drums, or sounds generated by synths that are NON-sample based would have greater resolution at the higher sample rates, but since I cannot detect a difference, I don't bother with anything over 48k.
 
Higher sample rates also generate HUGE and MASSIVE audio files, and it takes WAY more time to process things at those rates.  So, again for ME, I prefer to have things take less time, and I don't have to worry about fussing with things - everything on my system is cheerfully tooling along at 48k.
 
Here is a link to some thoughts on higher sample rates and other white paper topics:
 
http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry-white-papers/
 
Try some experimenting at different rates and see what makes sense to you, balancing out the potentially better sound against the performance and time costs of running at higher sample rates.  At the end of the day, it boils down to that which makes sense to YOU, for YOUR system.
 
Bob Bone
 

Wisdom is a giant accumulation of "DOH!"
 
Sonar: Platinum (x64), X3 (x64) 
Audio Interfaces: AudioBox 1818VSL, Steinberg UR-22
Computers: 1) i7-2600 k, 32 GB RAM, Windows 8.1 Pro x64 & 2) AMD A-10 7850 32 GB RAM Windows 10 Pro x64
Soft Synths: NI Komplete 8 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, many others
MIDI Controllers: M-Audio Axiom Pro 61, Keystation 88es
Settings: 24-Bit, Sample Rate 48k, ASIO Buffer Size 128, Total Round Trip Latency 9.7 ms  
#31
jonboyuk
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 9
  • Joined: 2013/08/27 13:05:18
  • Location: UK
  • Status: offline
Re: Another introduction! 2013/09/02 15:18:28 (permalink)
Hi Bob, absolutely. As it happens, I only use 48kHz most of the time for the reasons that you've already explained. I was just really interested in why the latency would drop when (as you rightly say) higher resolution audio is synonymous with a higher use of resources.
 
It has been beautifully explained by Jim on page 1 :) I will check out the white papers though - thank you.
 
 

Rig 1 - PC
Intel i7 at 3.8Ghz, 16Gb RAM, GTX 670, 160GB SSD, 1TB HDD, 2x23" 1080p LG monitors, DVD/Bluray, USB 2&3, Win 8 x64
Rig 2 - Laptop
Intel i7 at 3.2Ghz, 8Gb RAM, GTX 650, 160GB SSD, 1TB HDD, 15.4" 1080p monitor, Bluray, USB 3 only, Win 8 x64
Audio
Roland Quad Capture
Guitars - Ibanez EP9 Acoustic, Ibanez Jem 7VWH
Amp - Line 6 Valve 112
Keyboard - Evolution MK-149
Drums - Pearl Export Series (1996) Paiste Cymbals
Speakers - Yamaha TSS-15 5.1 system
#32
ston
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 965
  • Joined: 2008/03/04 12:28:40
  • Status: offline
Re: Another introduction! 2013/09/02 15:44:41 (permalink)
wizard71
No it probably isn't right, I googled it :-)

:-D
 
++ Great post from Jim.  Is interpolation a factor d'you think?
#33
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 9871
  • Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
  • Location: Ohio
  • Status: offline
Re: Another introduction! 2013/09/02 16:23:42 (permalink)
doncolga
In the big picture, is the lower latency impacted by the machine working harder @ 96K?




Yes, the higher the sample rate, the greater the load on the CPU.
The higher the sample-rate, the less time the CPU has to fill the buffer (ASIO buffer).
If the buffer isn't filled in time, a dropout or glitch will occur.
 
There's no absolute right/wrong answer when it comes to sample-rate.
I believe I can hear a more 3D soundstage and more detail when using higher sample rates (88.2k/96k).
That said, I don't think any record has been (or will be) bought because the sample-rate at which it was recorded/mixed.
There are far too many other important factors.  The first (and main) being the song itself.

Best Regards,

Jim Roseberry
jim@studiocat.com
www.studiocat.com
#34
Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Jump to:
© 2025 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1