jyeager11

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.

MME isn't really for our soundcards though and is an old driver format for Win 98. Our Echo cards recommend WDM or ASIO. I actually get better performance out of WDM for my Layla cards, but not when using Win 7. I can't use anything but ASIO or I get no sound. If you used your onboard soundcard in MME mode, it won't stutter. Your latency will be horrendous but mine doesn't stutter. Set your latency slider for 300ms (center position) and you won't stutter anymore...but you won't be able to record anything there either.

rabeach

The Shanon-Nyquist theorem says you only need twice the audible bandwidth to perfectly reproduce any audible signal.

That is absolutely not what it says.

I love these statements with absolutely no backing.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w...annon_sampling_theorem :

"the theorem shows that a bandlimited analog signal that has been sampled can be perfectly reconstructed from an infinite sequence of samples if the sampling rate exceeds 2B samples per second, where B is the highest frequency in the original signal."

UnderTow

Loptec

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.

There is no such thing as high resolution in digital audio outside of marketing. There is bandwidth determined by the sampling rate and there is dynamic range determined by the bit depth. That's it.

The first thing to understand about digital audio is that it does not work as you would first expect. (And that all the BS marketing is there to mislead and not clarify anything).

UnderTow

jyeager11


I don't know why people are arguing with you on this.

Because it is wrong.

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,

It could be if it was accurate.

 and the only reason I can imagine anyone objecting to it is that they have no idea what image resolution means.

Or because we understand how sampling works. There is no such thing as resolution in audio.

UnderTow

Chregg


what am saying is 88.2 is double the amount of snap shots compared to 44.1

This is the crux of the misunderstanding.  It seems logical but it is wrong. It can be very quickly tested too. Do a sine wave of 20 kHz and see if it is deformed by recording it or creating it at 44.1 sample rate.  If not then you are incorrect in your assumption. All that a high sample rate does is increase the bandwidth. Its that simple. You do not get finer detail or better fidelity with it.

Fully realizing this will make what Undertow is saying a lot more understandable.

jyeager11

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.

Thanks jyeager11 :)
You totally got my point and since you started this thread, that's all that matters.. :)
 
I guess sometimes people just want to be difficult even though they get the point.. just to get a chance to show everyone that “I know this and I know that”. I’m not saying it’s like that in this case, though. I’m just speculating..  What I don’t get is, what’s all this knowledge worth if you can’t even use it to understand a simple metaphor.. Still just speculating..

chuckebaby
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

No worries.. :) Some people just seem to be here to "compete". Fine then, let them.. I'm not sure what they expect to win in the end though.

jyeager11

 

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.

No, I'm still pretty sure what you get is Avatars such as yours!

UnderTow

rabeach

The Shanon-Nyquist theorem says you only need twice the audible bandwidth to perfectly reproduce any audible signal.

That is absolutely not what it says.

I love these statements with absolutely no backing.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem :

"the theorem shows that a bandlimited analog signal that has been sampled can be perfectly reconstructed from an infinite sequence of samples if the sampling rate exceeds 2B samples per second, where B is the highest frequency in the original signal."

UnderTow

And now you see your mistake. You should really try to post factual information.

Danny Danzi

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?

I haven't heard anyone claim that floating point is better than fixed point. (I have seen a paper proposing the opposite but that is another story). The reason for using floating point is because every computer CPU comes with a very powerful floating-point unit. That's all. That is why Pro Tools native uses floating-point and Pro Tools TDM uses fixed point. Itis just what their respective hardware dictates. (Native CPUs = floating-point and Motorola DSPs = fixed point).

UnderTow

UnderTow

jyeager11


I don't know why people are arguing with you on this.

Because it is wrong.

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,

It could be if it was accurate.

 and the only reason I can imagine anyone objecting to it is that they have no idea what image resolution means.

Or because we understand how sampling works. There is no such thing as resolution in audio.

UnderTow

Haha.. OMG.. :)
Is this kindergarten or what?
This really proves my point in my previous msg. :)