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. 

phrygiann


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. 

Roland needs to put a little more effort on their filter design then. I'm not using 192 kHz but I am interested in what you mean by doesn't work well. Could you elaborate.

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.

Im using 192khz sample rate on my projects

 
I'm wondering the reason why?

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

phrygiann


     I can hear sounds more clearly on 192 than the lower sample rates.

The needle just broke off my meter...

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.

Jonbouy

Im using 192khz sample rate on my projects

I'm wondering the reason why?

Yeah, I agree. I mean ... after all ... one of the 'engine' improvements in X2 is the ability to record at "pristine" 384kHz sample rate.

192kHz is so 2011.

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.

Good point rabeach. In fact I was also reading a very interesting article about this very thing and yes the OP may hear an improvement at 192 KHz for sure but it is only because his particular interface may sound better at that sampling rate. But other interfaces however can sound superior to 192 Khz at a much lower rate. It does have a lot to with the design of the converters etc.

What is incorrect with his post is that he is implying that all converters sound better at the highest sampling rate when in fact they do not. Some can sound excellent and very hard to pick at 44.1 KHz but not sound so great at 192 KHz.

I must be one of the lucky ones that has great sounding converters at the lower sampling rates.