should i expect every 1394 audio interface to have problems when my WiFi is connected?

I could record at 96K but I just refuse to do it. Seriously, I do master at that rate,sometimes.

Well, I'm new to 24/96, just got a MH ULN-2. I cannot record more than 6-8 tracks (using plug-ins for compression) before my CPU max's out. I have a G4 dual 1 Ghz. I'm returning to 44.1. Can someone explain to me the benefit, if any, of staying at 24bit vs. 16 bit? Will this also strain CPU?

quote:

Originally posted by starfish:
Can someone explain to me the benefit, if any, of staying at 24bit vs. 16 bit? Will this also strain CPU?

24 bit gives you a better signal to noise ratio and a lot more headroom for DSP calculations, ie numbers with a lot of decimal places or "digital detail".

Thanks for the info! Does recording in 24 bit eat up a lot of CPU on playback or is it just the 96k part that loads down the CPU?

No, 24 bit does not eat up your cpu like 96k does. Try 192k, now thats funny with todays cpu's.

quote:

Originally posted by bishopqdog:
I could record at 96K but I just refuse to do it. Seriously, I do master at that rate,sometimes.

Why would you master material at 96k when it was recorded lower to begin with?

FWIW, there was a poll on another popular forum where a lot of pros hang out, and the majority of them are still working at 44.1 (or 48).

Seems like the tradeoff in tracks and processing power simply isn't worth what little possible audio advantage you might get from recording at 96K.

I also still work at 44.1Khz, even though my system is fully capable of doing 96Khz. I go by the Nyquist theorem that shows that 44.1Khz is more than enough to reproduce everything we can hear. I also think that with all converters using oversampling technology, the anti-alias LP filter thing is not an issue for the sound at lower sampling rates these days. As far as plug-ins go, all the best plug-ins are upsampling internally anyway, so even that shouldn't make a difference anymore.

I've had people send me stuff at 96Khz to mix, and I hate it because I get less than half the processing power for plug-ins, and I certainly don't hear anything special about the tracks that made them worth recording at 96Khz (would have sounded the same at 44.1).

However, I do believe it's worth testing your converters in your system with a double-blind test (a friend helps) and making everything else as accurately equal as possible, because some converters may have been purposefully (or not) designed to sound better at 96Khz.

I still think it's all about selling more gear! Don't even get started with ultra-high sample rates like 192Khz!

Steve

thanks, tech.
your post was very helpful and exactly what i was looking for. i think the only reason i recorded in 96k was that someone had mentioned somewhere that mastering limiters worked better at 48, or something to that degree, so i went another step into 96. i had no problem recording drums, but after appying all the FX to the drums along, recording guitars was hell. and don't even think about adding vst instruments!!!

thanks again.

Hi

I'm hving the same damn problem with FST connect. It just doesn't find any drives...what did you do with the drivers that helped??

About the dood that got the anoying error-message...reinstall the succer!

/Rasmus

I've been recording at 44.1/24 for what seems like forever. No real issues with my peecee until I get to 20+ tracks loaded up with plugs, so I added another 256M of memory (up to 1.024G), and the problem pretty much went away. I haven't found the breaking point at 44.1/24 yet.

Just for giggles sake, we tried some stuff at 96. Compy spit the bit right at 10 tracks.

And I couldn't hear a difference....not to say it wasn't there...but MY ears couldn't hear it.