jyeager11

mudgel

No. What i'm saying is that once you uncheck that box and Don't share drivers with other programs you will be able to play something in Sonar while at the same time play something completely different in another program; though why you'd want to do that I don't know.

While that makes absolutely no sense to me (logic dictates that the whole point of having a "Share Driver With" option is to allow you to "Share Driver With" when it's checked, not unchecked) -- the entire argument is moot because whether checked or not, I can't get Sonar X1b to let me play anything else as long as it's running. It doesn't even need to be playing anything, or even have the window focus. As long as it's simply PRESENT, nothing else will play. Not WMP, not IE, not FF, nothing.

Alternatively, if another application is already playing a sound (such as FF playing a YouTube video, for instance) and THEN I load Sonar X1b, then I'm told by Sonar that the drivers are unavailable and am offered the option to disable or use them anyway. As you might imagine, using them anyway produces no sound from Sonar X1b.

But if I'm on YouTube and the video is stopped, and then I load Sonar X1b, then Sonar hijacks the driver for as long as it's loaded. The YouTube video will not produce sound, and Sonar X1b will. Until I shut down Sonar.

Conclusion :
The "Share Driver With" option in Sonar X1b preferences has absolutely ZERO effect on my Echo Gina 3G. Whichever application is playing sound first is the one hijacking the driver. In the case of Sonar X1b, it doesn't even need to be playing the sound first to hijack the audio driver - it just needs to have been launched while no other applications were emitting any sound.

Any of this make sense to anyone else?

Using ASIO.

Nope none of it makes sense to me either and I get the same issues as you do. I cannot make Sonar play anything simultaneously with my Layla cards or my Fireface 800. As soon as I kill Sonar's audio engine, I can play anything but not until. I didn't know about the kill audio engine thing and used to have to shut Sonar down before I could play anything else, but now I can at least leave it open and just kill the audio engine and listen to whatever I want in any program I want.

mudgel

Sorry you find what I said is illogical. I don't want to argue with you. Nevertheless it is a fact not my opinion.. Nothing I can do about that. You have come to an erroneous conclusion as there are other factors at play here besides the Share Drivers option  

I didn't mean that you were being illogical, but that if the behavior requires that I UN-check "Share Drivers With Other Programs" to share the drivers with other programs, then there is something inherently illogical about that. Not on your part, on Cakewalk's.

That's like saying if I want 64-bit double-precision, I need to un-check that. It makes no sense to me.

If you're using ASIO for SONAR it explains the matter. Windows and media player are not using the same drivers. Windows doesn't work with ASIO drivers. So there's another reason. Widows will be grabbing the MME or Windows sound Mapper(WDM/KS or WASPI driver for whatever programs are running in Windows but if SONAR is set to ASIO then there'll be a conflict which you are experienceing.

Problem solved. MME does indeed let me share the drivers with other programs, so two can play simultaneously. However, in MME mode, my project -- which has only 1 wav file in it and no FX -- stutters. And I'm on a pretty powerful rig, here. This makes MME unusable for me, for whatever reason.

Danny Danzi

Nope none of it makes sense to me either and I get the same issues as you do. I cannot make Sonar play anything simultaneously with my Layla cards or my Fireface 800. As soon as I kill Sonar's audio engine, I can play anything but not until. I didn't know about the kill audio engine thing and used to have to shut Sonar down before I could play anything else, but now I can at least leave it open and just kill the audio engine and listen to whatever I want in any program I want.

Try switching from ASIO to MME. Mine starts stuttering when I do, but at least it allows everything to use the drivers simultaneously. Maybe yours won't stutter.

SvenArne
 
Of course no metaphor is perfect, but I still think it's worth getting one's head around the difference between digital images and digital audio as to avoid falling for the sample rate myths!

An image on a screen is a mosaic of pixels that looks like a picture when viewed from a distance.

Digital audio is a sound wave converted to "snapshots" as you say. But these snapshots are then, unlike the video image, converted back to analog sound, and the resulting sound is continuous rather than free floating snapshots.

All sound, no matter how complex can be broken down into single sine waves representing the fundamental and harmonic components. So long as these sine waves are below the Nyquist frequency they can be correctly described by only two samples! That's why digital audio (after conversion) is theoretically an exact copy of what went in (up to the Nyquist limit of the given sample rate), rather than snapshots!
 
The limitations of digital audio only come into play when exceeding the Nyquist frequency. At 44100 Hz that's 22050 Hz, considerably higher than most people can hear. It can be discussed whether these ultrasonic harmonics can in some way contribute to the impression a recording gives, but recording at 96 kHz certainly won't make your low end tighter like some witchdoctors claim.

Did that make any sense at all or have I had one coffee too many?

Sven

You say all sound can be broken down into single sine wave. Of course it can.
If you want to get all deep here, sure.. You see, now when we’re in the digital world everything can be broken down into ones and zeros. All digital data is just made up these 2 digits.. “On and off”.. That’s all there is to all digital information.

So! In other words there no difference what so ever between a digital image and digital audio. It’s all 1s and 0s.

You also say that the audio snapshots are converted back to analog sound..
I don’t see how this’s got anything to do with the digital representation of it..?

It’s when in the state of being a digital snapshot I compare the two:

Sound/audio snapshop: Use high resolution and bit depth if you want the recorded audio to sound as much as the original sound as possible.

Picture/visual snapshop: Use high resolution and color bit depth if you want the photo to look as much as the original flower and fly (since this was the image in my first example) as possible.

Nothing more, nothing less. Just that..

Even though my point with the metaphor was very very simple, you’ve continued to struggle and finding things that differs with the two, even though it had nothing to do with the actual point. If you want to continue this, please go ahead. ..But I really think it’s getting a bit tiresome now.. :)

bitflipper

the better audio converters you have, the more difference you will hear with different resolutions.

Makes perfect intuitive sense! Unfortunately, in reality the opposite is true.

That's how it felt to me, when I wrote it :)
Now I've learned that it's better to think twice before posting a message.. :P

Loptec

SvenArne: I think you’re wrong. I can use the quality in an image as a metaphor when describing the quality of a sound!

I don't know why people are arguing with you on this. That's what you get when you give everyone freedom and anonymity, I guess. And this is what I hate about the internet.

I happen to find your metaphor of image resolution to be 100% accurate. You want to work at higher resolutions, even if your final output will be low res. Just like you should work in 24b even if the final CD output will be 16b. Your analogy could not be more spot-on, and the only reason I can imagine anyone objecting to it is that they have no idea what image resolution means.

These are usually the same people who think you see MORE of a movie on a standard TV set if you choose "4:3" over "16:9" -- because it removes the two black bars covering 40% of the screen.

I'm getting tired too, believe me.

Fair enough, I may be guilty of stringing together a Straw Man for you Loptec.

My posting spree was more of a kneejerk reaction that comes from reading too many posts of people that liken HD (96/24) audio to HDTV. A metaphor which I'm sure you understand is totally wrong.

Sven

Loptec

bitflipper

the better audio converters you have, the more difference you will hear with different resolutions.

Makes perfect intuitive sense! Unfortunately, in reality the opposite is true.

That's how it felt to me, when I wrote it :)
Now I've learned that it's better to think twice before posting a message.. :P

dont worry about it..i know the feeling..i put alot of hard work in on that thread last night with the kid and the buss..then someelse posted something in there pretty much calling me out

Some good reading in this thread. I'll give you my take for what it's worth as far as bit and sample rates are concerned, float points etc.

I'm of the belief of "if I can't hear a difference, there is no difference and there is no reason to tax my system unless something makes me go "wow". I don't believe in floating points of any kind...32 bit float, 64 bit mix engine.....when someone can prove they can really hear a difference, I might buy into it.

The way to tell for sure is to record a project the exact same way using what you think is so much better verses what is not. Then, instead of you trying to do the comparisson yourself, let someone else run the media player and play the songs. This makes it way different than cuing up the stuff yourself to where it can be mind over matter.

I've only encountered higher sampling rates making a difference 2 times in my life. Once was a project I recorded for a client in 24/88. He was a stickler for that setting, so I went with it. For some odd reason, this project had a much different sound than the one I decided to do using 24/48 as a test project for myself. Everything just sounded thicker on the 24/88 than it did on the 24/48 (especially my guitars) and I made sure I had someone else press the buttons on the media player when I wasn't looking. I picked out the 24/88 every time in under 5 seconds. I played the exact same things using the same instruments as the 24/88. This actually bothered me because I had never used 24/88 before and haven't since then. This thread has reminded me to revisit that to see if I can still tell a difference.

Just recently I did 2 test projects of a 2 minute clip. One at 24/48, the other at 24/96. I hear no difference at all. The other time I HAVE heard a difference was an orchestra I recorded live one time. I was recording them at 24/48 and they decided they wanted to try a song they were just starting to work with just to see how it would sound. The told me they'd probably not get through the whole thing so I decided to track this song at 24/96. They made it through half the song, screwed up and wanted one more shot. I switched back to 24/48 and recorded them.

When I got the material back to my studio, the 24/96 sounded better to me. The instruments were so much more lively and ambient. It is my belief that natural sounding instrumentation recorded at higher sample rates will sound better as opposed to more sonic instruments like electric distorted guitars and electric basses and anything "direct recorded". Anything electric in my opinion will not benefit from the larger sample rate. But it seems to do wonders on acoustic instruments. Try it and see for yourself. Record an acoustic guitar or something using a stereo mic rig at a lower sample rate, then pump up to 24/96 and re-record it. The capture just sounds more like the instrument is in your room and right in your face.

But I've had my best results using 24/48 for most of my stuff over here and it is what the majority of my clients have always sent to me as well when I've had to mix something or master something. I've been working with clients in the audio field for over 12 years now. The most common bit and sample rates I deal with are 24/48 and it's been that way even before I started working with clients on a business level. All the studio's I've ever dealt with recorded in 24/48 also...so I chose that for myself as well.

As for the whole floating point thing etc, I simply cannot hear it and if soundcards can only do 24 bit, wouldn't that be hype to you guys? If I can't hear something that makes an incredible difference, I could care less what the math sheets tell me about what is really going on. That's just what I believe. If I don't gain performance from stuff like this and I can't hear a blatantly obvious sound change or alteration, what's the point? I'm on a site that does these intense shoot-outs with top end mic pre's verses lower level pre's that anyone can afford. I can't tell you how many of those tests we listened to where only the n00bs were claiming they could hear a difference. The seasoned pro's said in an instant "there may be a little difference there, but not one worth $5000."

Then you get the dudes that just think their poo don't stink that just need to say they can tell a difference and are stuck in their ways. This is when you post up 3 of the same file and lie that there were 3 different pre's used...and watch them fall into a world of BS. If you guys can truly hear this stuff, God bless you. I've been told I have some of the best ears around for picking up on stuff and let me tell you, I nearly have animal hearing and can't tell on this stuff. I can walk into a room with my eyes closed and tell you whether or a not a TV is on or off even with the sound muted. I can hear the high frequency of the tubes IF that TV has tubes to the point where I can't stay in the room with it like that because it bothers me horribly.

Try some tests on this stuff and see if you really can hear the 64 bit mix engine, 32 bit float, 16/44 vs 24/48 etc. Do a few test projects playing the exact same stuff using the exact same gear and patches as perfectly as possible and then let someone else cue them up without you looking. I am willing to bet it all makes less of a difference than you believe it does...and if that is the case at the end of your tests, what's the point? The hype? The math it does? If I can't feel it and I can't hear it to where it's blatantly obvious, it simply isn't real to me. I had a respected friend tell me floating points and all that stuff reduce errors or something. What errors? The only errors are if I screw up on a take or get some clipping or an artifact that sneaks through. At the end of the day, someone that knows what they are doing will get good sound out of anything. I can drop recordings I've done on my pre-pro gear using a stock Dell and a Realtek soundcard running at 16/44 with ASIO4ALL drivers that will blow away stuff from pro studio's. I'm sure you guys that know what you are doing can do that too. If something sounds good to me, it is good. If I can't hear something, it's hype. Just my opinion though. :) 

Loptec

Just think of the image as a frame/snapshot in a film. Digital audio is also snapshots that are put together to create the continuous sound.

But you can not listen to an individual sample. A single sample on itself is meaningless. Samples only become meaningful as part of a signal. A single video frame can be watched. You really can not compare audio and picture/video like this.

And for the love of god.. OF COURSE there are things in metaphors that ISN’T alike!!
But there are things about them that ARE alike too! We can make lists of what is and isn't alike in all our lives, but why would we? (Just for a chance to argue, isn't a good reason)

They are more different then they are similar and comparing them like this confuses things. They only look similar on a superficial level. Once you know how they actually work, they are not so similar any more. That is exactly why you shouldn't compare them this way. Actually comparing them this way is a sign that the person doing the comparison doesn't understand the subject well enough.

When saying to someone “you’re eyes are blue as the sky” you’re NOT actually saying “You’re eyes are blue, but there are sometimes white fluffy things floating around in your iris that are called clouds and when you cry the color of your eyes gets all grey and cold”

Yes but you have full artistic license when being poetic. If you are trying to understand or explain a technical subject, you do not have that artistic license! It just confuses things.

.. All you mean with a metaphor like this is “you’re eyes are very blue!”

Actually it means "I want to have sex with you". So if you can get laid by comparing audio to video, go ahead, otherwise don't do it.

UnderTow