Twenty Four / 96?

[Majken]

256 samples at 96 kHz is not 6ms, it's less than half of that, around 2.5ms or so. Meaning you should raise it to 512 samples when running 96k.

/Majken

[egbert]

I've gone for 24/48 at 256 (6ms) for now. It seems to work well with the Multiface and probably won't use as much disk space as 24/96. I think 24/96 was pushing the Multiface to its limits.

It makes sense to increase your buffer size if you are increasing the sampling rate. Go up to 512 if you are playing/recording at 96kHz - you will get the same latency as you do playing with 256 at 48 kHz. Your machine will be much less likely to stumble if it is working with larger buffers.

[hibidy]

I've gone for 24/48 at 256 (6ms) for now. It seems to work well with the Multiface and probably won't use as much disk space as 24/96. I think 24/96 was pushing the Multiface to its limits.

It makes sense to increase your buffer size if you are increasing the sampling rate. Go up to 512 if you are playing/recording at 96kHz - you will get the same latency as you do playing with 256 at 48 kHz. Your machine will be much less likely to stumble if it is working with larger buffers.

yes yes YES YES YES!

You won't be f......'n around with the buffer so much in 24/96...........

[munchkin]

Why is does the buffer size double but the latency remains the same when the frequency doubles?

I've set the buffer size to 512 samples at 24/96 which is 5ms. I think that's quite a low latency. Is this a low latency for 24/96 or an average setting?

[BertKoor]

because Time = NrOfSamples / SamplingFreq.
If you double the sampling frequency the time halves. So you can double the buffer size and keep the same latency.

5ms latency is average and very workable I'd say.

[munchkin]

Thanks everyone for your help. It's a lot clearer to me now.

[BONES]

24/96 is the standard now...

Standard for what? Sound-cards? Maybe that has to do with bus-speed?

The first and probably the most important reason why 96 sampling rate is highly sought is because it gives you automatic improved latency.

No it doesn't. Well, maybe, but no more "automatic" than lowering the buffer size yourself.

Switch any host/card from 44.1/48/88.2/96....etc with a 512 buffer setting, and you will always see the latency increase immdiatly. For example, I run 24/96 with a 256 buffer and it's just sick how low the latency is. It puts a bit extra on my cpu's but it worth it.

Wow! You know what else you can do? Change the buffer size from 512/256/128/64 etc and see how the latency decreases immediately. Its amazing!

In deciding how to preceed, you need to look at your goal. e.g. I only record/render stuff to make a CD from it. So for CD audio, I only ever use 44.1kHz as both 48 and 96 would require some interpolation when converting to 44.1 which could affect the sound quality. I record at 24 bit and render at 32 [ORION doesn't render at 24] because it allows me to record something a little quiet and not have to worry about any loss of quality. Its always easier to normalise audio than it is to remove clipping.

[noetic]

I only record/render stuff to make a CD from it. So for CD audio, I only ever use 44.1kHz as both 48 and 96 would require some interpolation when converting to 44.1 which could affect the sound quality.

I also only record at 44.1 kHz for the same reasons as you, plus space concerns and processing power. But barring those factors, recording at 88.2 and downsampling to 44.1 would make for far easier math than from 48 or 96. I wonder what, if any, sonic benefits could be gained from recording at a higher resolution. I'm of the mind that there are more important variables than sampling rate.

[james0tucson]

I know of no one who has the choice yet continues to record at 16 bits but more and more folks are using 44.1 or 48K for the practical as well as possibly "objective" reasons.

I use 48kHz for the simple reason that one of my devices has a very accurate master clock at that frequency, and the related reason that any media I write it to will also be 48kHz. (That's sort of the same reason people who still use CD-Audio format argue in favor of 44.1kHz, but who bothers with that format anymore?)

[VladimirDimitrievich]

I only record/render stuff to make a CD from it. So for CD audio, I only ever use 44.1kHz as both 48 and 96 would require some interpolation when converting to 44.1 which could affect the sound quality.

I also only record at 44.1 kHz for the same reasons as you, plus space concerns and processing power. But barring those factors, recording at 88.2 and downsampling to 44.1 would make for far easier math than from 48 or 96. I wonder what, if any, sonic benefits could be gained from recording at a higher resolution. I'm of the mind that there are more important variables than sampling rate.

Filters tend to exhibit weird behaviours close to Nyquist but its really a moot point since most of them are oversampled internally for that exact reason anyway.

[HanafiH]

if you do a search on the subject i feel the general consensus is that 24 bit is worth it, 96k is debateable. However, running your vstis at 96k could prevent aliasing....

What the man said.

I use 24/48 (because my s/pdif runs at that across the rack) and 24/96 for recoding soft synths and r8brain down to 48.

[HanafiH]

I only ever use 44.1kHz as both 48 and 96 would require some interpolation when converting to 44.1 which could affect the sound quality.

That's a bit of a myth. Converting across exact multiples of the sample rate is an easier calculation, but it is not intrinsically any more or less accurate than non-multiples.

[hibidy]

24/96 is the standard now...

Standard for what? Sound-cards? Maybe that has to do with bus-speed?

The first and probably the most important reason why 96 sampling rate is highly sought is because it gives you automatic improved latency.

No it doesn't. Well, maybe, but no more "automatic" than lowering the buffer size yourself.

Switch any host/card from 44.1/48/88.2/96....etc with a 512 buffer setting, and you will always see the latency increase immdiatly. For example, I run 24/96 with a 256 buffer and it's just sick how low the latency is. It puts a bit extra on my cpu's but it worth it.

Wow! You know what else you can do? Change the buffer size from 512/256/128/64 etc and see how the latency decreases immediately. Its amazing!

In deciding how to preceed, you need to look at your goal. e.g. I only record/render stuff to make a CD from it. So for CD audio, I only ever use 44.1kHz as both 48 and 96 would require some interpolation when converting to 44.1 which could affect the sound quality. I record at 24 bit and render at 32 [ORION doesn't render at 24] because it allows me to record something a little quiet and not have to worry about any loss of quality. Its always easier to normalise audio than it is to remove clipping.

I'd say valid points and raise you a couple of "extra" food for thought "thoughts"

If you can hear the difference/or have the equipment (mutually exclusive) 96k is going to give you better sound results.....especially in mixes and bouncing...(and now my point) it would be best to do 96k and don't worry about the buffer. Of course it does depend on your equipment......and ears.

96k is the standard right now. And I'm talking about studio's, "swaping" or out of house mixing/mastering. It is now preferred to have the tracks at 24 bit/96ksr then the engineers have more to work with. It's kinda like having a big piece of clay to work with vs a just big-enough piece..........it's more flexible.