Focusrite 2i2 - cannot use it at 24KHz/96bits

Question for those using the Focusrite 2i2 Interface (v1). I cannot use it ar 24/96. I did everything that should be done in Prefrnces, driver settings, audio data, etc. I have a short "beep" with a blink of a message every second or so. Too fats to read the message.

Any ideas as to why and what. I could do?

Runs perfectly at 44.1/16

Why 96 hz when your using a el cheepo interface?? What benifit is this> 
You'd haver to upgrade your entire signal chain to hear that 0.2% improvment in sound quality your going to get. 
If I was an international recording star I might concider a higher rate, I'm not, and niether are my clients. So we really like 44.1 :)   I would use 48 hz and be done with it. 
 

Cactus Music
You'd haver to upgrade your entire signal chain to hear that 0.2% improvment in sound quality your going to get. 

 
I am afraid you are perpetuating the myth that makes 96 K attractive to so many. It is absolutely not the case that 96 K samples per second improves the sound quality over 44.1 K by any percentage. What increasing the sample rate does accomplish is to enable the accurate encoding of higher frequencies. Since 44.1 K sps is more than twice the 20 Khz frequency that represents the upper range of human hearing that represents the best sound quality that can be heard. While 96 K sps will enable you to accurately encode a 48 KHz tone, it will enable you to extend the frequency range by more than 100%, but no one can hear it. 
 
Although there are endless discussions about oversampling, aliasing, foldover and ultrasonic interference, that may be relevant in designing sampling interfaces, there is no way to put a percentage improvement on the "quality" of the sound produced by setting your store-bought interface to a higher sps. 

Thanks all. I think that will be it. I will try 48k / 24bit to if it works. Worse case I will keep 44.1k at 16 bits. No problemo. Just wanted to try it. But agree that I wont notice the difference unless I invest in the whole chain.

But my next invetsment will most probably be in VSL special edition.

Use 24 bits regardless of sample rate.
When mixing , 24 bits vs 16 bits may very well be audible.
No controversy about bit depth.

24 /48 here.
I don't think the Scarlett 1st gens supported 96. I thought that was only for the new ones (3rd gens)
I have a 2cnd gen Scarlett 18I8 and I don't get 96 on mine.

JonD
Marcel,
 
Since THambrecht has verified that the 2i2 does work at 24/96, there is clearly something wrong with your installation

Your right. cant believe I never realized this. TBH, I never record anything higher than 48 (always in 24 bit)

Thanks again everyone. I wil try re-downloading the latest driver (I already use it) and uninstall/reinstall the whole thing. Maybe a registry cleanup with CCLeaner could help too. I did a few extra tests. Looks like the issue is more related to 16bits versus 24bits in Sonar Platinum. No problemo in other software such as the free Kontakt or Guitar Rig players

mcouture1961
Thanks again everyone. I wil try re-downloading the latest driver (I already use it) and uninstall/reinstall the whole thing. Maybe a registry cleanup with CCLeaner could help too. I did a few extra tests. Looks like the issue is more related to 16bits versus 24bits in Sonar Platinum. No problemo in other software such as the free Kontakt or Guitar Rig players

Did you try to setup the sample rate in Windows?

Hi Scook
I am at work right now. Will check that as I get home. Pretty sure I put 24 bits in both settings.

You could try running the Windows program that captures the screen as a movie, and then pause it at the place where the notice appears so you can read what it says. Your computer is trying to communicate...maybe the lady from the movie "Arrival" could help 
 

Cactus Music
Why 96 hz when your using a el cheepo interface?? What benifit is this> 
You'd haver to upgrade your entire signal chain to hear that 0.2% improvment in sound quality your going to get. 
If I was an international recording star I might concider a higher rate, I'm not, and niether are my clients. So we really like 44.1 :)   I would use 48 hz and be done with it. 
 

Exactly!!  I doubt most people could actually hear it.  Especially on those great $10 ear buds they got from Wal-Mart.

gswitz

Cactus Music
Why 96 hz when your using a el cheepo interface?? What benifit is this> 

I actually think the benefit of a double rate on a cheap interface may be significant because it could give the sound of a better clock - resolve or improve jitter.

There maybe more audible difference on an inexpensive interface than on an expensive one.

There are a couple of reasons why higher sampling rates will not reliably improve quality. The first is based on good theory and has to do with how the sound is encoded digitally. See my horrible explanation earlier in this thread for an outline. The best argument against the inescapable math of the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem is that the presence of correctly encoded ultrasonic frequencies becomes audible when the sound waves interact with the ultrasonic waves that change the quality of the audible range either after they are reproduced in air producing interference summations (comb filtering), or within the analog realm in the system as intermodulation distortion. That such an ultrasonic presence in the audible range will always produce a better quality (or even a more accurate reproduction) of sound in every case is doubtful.
 
The second has to do with the way an interface (cheap or expensive) and signal chain has actually been constructed. An engineer, especially one working on a budget, would likely feel he should make his microphone, speaker, amplifier, or sampler work most reliably at frequencies within the audible range. One would expect that a cheaper unit would likely not use the higher cost components needed to maintain linearity and avoid distortion at ultrasonic frequencies. While in theory a perfectly encoded signal having had all the higher frequency components filtered out by a perfectly constructed antialiasing filter should be identical whether encoded at twice or four times the Nyquist frequency, it is highly unlikely that the same signal will be encoded identically even in the same audio interface at different sampling rates. Components that produce a linear result from 20-20,000 Hz with acceptable electronic noise and distortion may well not work as well at 40,000 Hz. It is not uncommon to hear people express the opinion that there is a sweet spot sampling rate that sounds best on their interface, and it is not always the highest available. If you can truly hear a better difference at a particular sampling rate, it makes sense to use that rate. If you are basing your decision on some misunderstanding of theory, then maybe not. 
 
http://productionadvice.co.uk/high-sample-rates-make-your-music-sound-worse/