Is there anyone recording in 96khz or above?

[Bakiki]

Hi

I'm running Cubase SX3 with in a Intel Core 2 Duo (3.0GHz)
4GB (reads only 3.5 on XP). Using ASIO4ALL and I'm comfortable going as far as 48khz without any problems but this driver can't handle anything above...? I'm wondering who out there is doing anything in 96khz and what drivers, DAW and hardware you're using...?

Thanks

Soundcard EMU 0404 PCI
Intel Core 2 Duo (3.0GHz)
4GB RAM

[tacman7]

What's wrong with emu asio?

I don't know about asio 4 all.

I've run 88.2k and 96k with my emu 1820m without problem.

I'm back to running 48k now though.

I have a dual core running at 3ghz also. Running the higher sample rates did seems a little better but the computer was dragging a little, sluggish. I prefer how it runs at 48k.
That and it cut the amount of plugins in half for my UAD card.

[Bakiki]

The EMU ASIO gives me alot of latency issues at 96khz. So are you saying that you were able to acheive workable latency speeds at 96khz. Is there a big difference between sound quality 96khz and 48 khz.

Thanks

[tacman7]

I'm running 4ms at 48k. I can run 3 but I get some things happening when I have 7 or 8 VSTi's running so I went back down to 4.

Latency wasn't a problem, I was mainly running at 88.2k.

If I wasn't running all those VSTi's and the UAD I think I would be running at 88.2k.

1820m has been around a while but I don't know how it compares with the card your using as far a latency.


SX3, 4GBram, abit ip35pro.

[PeterPav]

Tac,
I heard some stuff recorded at 88 and thought it was a real clear and pleasing sound. I like the higher stuff but I think I'm gonna stay at 44 for the setup I run.

[Bakiki]

Originally Posted by tacman7

I'm running 4ms at 48k. I can run 3 but I get some things happening when I have 7 or 8 VSTi's running so I went back down to 4.

Latency wasn't a problem, I was mainly running at 88.2k.

If I wasn't running all those VSTi's and the UAD I think I would be running at 88.2k.

1820m has been around a while but I don't know how it compares with the card your using as far a latency.


SX3, 4GBram, abit ip35pro.

Are you doing all this on XP or Vista?

I guess I'll stick to 48khz then but I might try freezing all my VST's to see how high I can get as a one off experiment.

Thanks

[tacman7]

XPpro service pack 2

[midKnight]

I'm working in 24/96, and while I don't use cubase, I'm not having any real probs working at that resolution. (I run many tracks, and lots of heavy duty vst plugins.)

I'll have to dig it up, but there was a great debate on here about the differences between using 24/48 and 24/96 and it got quite heated, however at the end of the road, with computing power being so dirt cheap these days, they didn't make any compelling arguments *not* to record at 24/96, so that's what I do.

-N

[Bakiki]

Thanks for your post.

You haven't mentioned what spec of PC your you are using. Do you use the specified sonar ASIO driver or something else.

I know some people question whether raising the frequency will only benefit dogs and bats but it's clear (to me as least) that if you listen to a soundtrack of a DVD and it's equivalent on a CD they sound miles apart. Far enough a DVD is recorded in 24bit/192khz but surely half of that must reveal improvements. If I can find a example of a soundtrack I will post to see what you think...

[midKnight]

Whoops, sorry about that Bak, I should have been more specific..

I'm using a homebuilt pc (as all of mine are)
Asus N32 SLI mobo
Athlon 64 X2 5000+
2 gb of ram
m-audio 2496 card
Nvidia geforce 8600gtx (total overkill for an audio station)
windows xp pro sp2 - gutted to remove pretty much all unnecessary stuff
1TB sata (over 2 500gb drives - 1 OS/program drive, 1 data drive)
Sonar 7PE
lots of VST's

I use the latest m-audio written ASIO drivers. I've gotten lousy results with the WDM driver. The m-audio drivers under windows xp are very stable and mature.

As I don't profess to be a "sonic" expert, like most people I base my judgments on my experiences. So far, with my recordings, I swear I can "hear" a difference in audio quality between the stuff at 16/44 and 24/96. I maybe fooling myself, but I "perceive" there to be a noticable difference in quality, and that's really what counts right, a person's perception?

-N