KVR Audio

MaxC · Post by **MaxC** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:13 am

To save CPU I often mix down to WAV and then insert the WAV in my sequencer. I normally use a sample rate of 48 kHz (which works fine) but I decided to try 96 kHz to increase fidelity. However when playing back the 96 kHz samples my hard drive usage steadily increases until the sound just drops out. Is my computer just ill-equipped to handle 96 kHz audio or is there a possible problem?

My audio card is supposed to be able to handle audio playback up to 192 kHz so I don't think that is the problem. FYI the recorded files were 24 bit and imported into a 32 bit sequencing environment, if that makes any difference. Anyone have any suggestions?

Bonteburg · Post by **Bonteburg** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:22 am

hmm... well as far as I know 96khz *does* pose some extra strain on your HD, so it might not be a problem, but your system might just plain be too slow.
In the way of busting your drive, I don't think that's a real danger.
i might be wrong tho, no expert here.

Marco

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:28 am

Yeah, 24/96 hits the hard drive pretty hard - it's a higher data rate, and thus needs to pull the data from the hard drive faster. How many tracks of 24/96 are you attempting to play back simultaneously? 96kHz is twice the data rate of 48kHz (for the same bit depth), so you should only be able to play back half as many 96kHz tracks compared to 48kHz tracks. Also, if you're running your sequencer at 96kHz now instead of 48kHz, then your CPU will take a hit too, because now all your plugins and other audio processes are processing twice as much data in the same time.

You might want to try changing wavefile cache settings in your sequencer (if it allows). Otherwise, you just have to decide whether the performance hit is worth the extra fidelity. Personally, I don't think it is.

Forever,

Kim.

bitcrusher · Post by **bitcrusher** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:05 am

96kHz is twice the data rate of 48kHz (for the same bit depth), so you should only be able to play back half as many 96kHz tracks compared to 48kHz tracks.

Thats true if bandwidth is the bottleneck, but very often its the actual file-seeking which causes your point of disk-buffer underrun.

I've gotten 62 tracks playback 96k 24-bit from one firewire disk, while recording the stereo mix to the same disk

This was an all-day session synced to timecode too, and it never hiccupped... though I had a second and third drive ready in case I needed to move some files about

cron · Post by **cron** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:17 am

This could be just be down to nothing more glamorous than not defragmenting your hard drive. Streaming such high (or even fairly low) bandwidth files will be almost impossible if your disk is fragged to bits. Defrag your drive and see if that helps.

I'll go out on a limb and say that's almost definitely your problem, in fact.

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:09 am

bitcrusher wrote:I've gotten 62 tracks playback 96k 24-bit from one firewire disk, while recording the stereo mix to the same disk This was an all-day session synced to timecode too, and it never hiccupped...

Wow! How'd you manage that?

Were all the tracks recorded at once, or were there overdubs?

Forever,

Kim.

electro · Post by **electro** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:40 am

bitcrusher wrote:
I've gotten 62 tracks playback 96k 24-bit from one firewire disk, while recording the stereo mix to the same disk This was an all-day session synced to timecode too, and it never hiccupped... though I had a second and third drive ready in case I needed to move some files about

What drive was this? Did you test how many tracks it could do at 192Khz?

MaxC · Post by **MaxC** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:45 am

Jeez wrote:How many tracks of 24/96 are you attempting to play back simultaneously?

Just one

; that's why I thought it a bit unusual that my HD would be brought to its knees. I will try defragging and increasing the buffer/cache or whatever and see if anything improves. Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:01 am

MaxC wrote:
Jeez wrote:How many tracks of 24/96 are you attempting to play back simultaneously?
Just one ; that's why I thought it a bit unusual that my HD would be brought to its knees. I will try defragging and increasing the buffer/cache or whatever and see if anything improves. Thanks for the suggestions everyone.

If you're using Windows, make sure that DMA is enabled for you hard drive.

Forever,

Kim.

Is playing 96 kHz samples supposed to cripple my hard drive?