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.

All I can say is ... if Cakewalk took the time to put the effort in to making X2 capable of supporting 384kHz ... it must be important and none of you can argue about this whole sample rate thing any more!

There! I WIN!

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'm sorry but I don't use the Cakewalk LP stuff, I'd like to but the version I have whilst the DSP works well are so problematic to adjust I gave up with them long ago.
 
I don't use 192kHz either.  Basically I will concede you may be able to hear differences on some equipment those differences as already suggested on this thread are likely to do with things other than sample rate.  Difference also don't always equate to improvements.
 
You could move some piece of furniture in your room and it would probably make a significant difference, but would it necessarily mean better?
 
I just produce my stuff to the accepted norms of 24 bit, 48 or 44.1 kHz and I'm fine with that.  Perfectly good quality, sane file sizes and great round trip latency whilst tracking is plenty enough for me.  I like to make music, I leave the extreme sonic lab testing to others.

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. 
 

  

I remember a test Bob Katz did on this. Blind of course. I think the conclusion was it all comes down to filter quality. I think maybe at 96 it was easiest to create a transparent filter, and at 192, the quality actually goes DOWN. But a properly designed filter at 44.1 is indistinguishable. However cheaper filters ARE audible. Can't remember, but it's all in his book.

Bottom line, the differences are so sublte, you'd get a better result recording at 48 and recording a performance with a super low latency and actually capturing quality recordings, than dealing with the latency you'll get at 192, not to mention that no plugs will ever be optimised for 192. It makes no sense to me.




He is right though, he asked a question and deserves a real answer. But I think this one will need to come from Cake, cause I don't see too many people using 192 here... Have you tried using the old LP64 version in X2? The one which stutters whenever you move anything.

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.

phrygiann


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. 
 

  

If no one shows up that is willing to help I'm sure cakewalk tech support have a few roland quad captures lying around and can help you trouble shoot the issue. I'm betting though someone out there will show up and test for you. My device does not sample that high or I would test it for you.

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.

Im hearing system performance issues !!