sample rate 96K anyone ?

monosite · Post by **monosite** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:42 am

who plays at a 96k sample rate ?
is it about a good sound card ? loads of ram ? both ?
do you experience any stability or compatibility issue ?

I can't do that with my M-audio fw410 (410 - 44.1k as the name says) I have tried setting 96k in Live, sounds great but it overloads too much and make things uncontrolable.

please advice, thanks

monosite / HongKong
www.moneme.com

Lo-Fi Massahkah · Post by **Lo-Fi Massahkah** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:52 am

I thought 410 was about 4 outs/10 ins... About the 96khz - I know nothing!

monosite · Post by **monosite** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:08 am

Lo-Fi Massahkah wrote:I thought 410 was about 4 outs/10 ins

4 in 10 out actually...just my sense of humour

monosite / Hongkong
www.moneme.com

Lo-Fi Massahkah · Post by **Lo-Fi Massahkah** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:08 pm

monosite wrote: 4 in 10 out actually...just my sense of humour

Well...

That's what I meant!

monosite · Post by **monosite** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:25 pm

no, seriously I am really looking for 96k players here, I mean not just mastering or rendering to disk.
If someone use that sample rate for live performance....then give me a sign.

gaspode · Post by **gaspode** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:35 pm

The main reason in my mind to play 96khz live would be if you record all of your material at 96khz. If you do this then you don't have to worry about any DSP generated artifacts when playing at 44.1khz as they will be there.

Likewise if all of your samples are at 44.1khz you are certainly not going to be gaining much by switching to 96khz... you may avoid clipping in a few rare incredibly short interval instances, but there will be artifacts created by any DSP up sampling as well.

The second reason to consider playing at 96khz would be if you were in a relatively low noise area and you knew that the environment would be quiet. If you have more ambient/atmospheric noises that rely on attention to finer details 96khz will be a whole new experience.

If however you'll be playing live in an overly cramped noisy and stuffy dance hall I really doubt you'll see any difference in sonic quality as everything is getting distorted from the imperfections in the room design and you'll have such a high noise floor that certain frequency sounds will have a very hard time competing.

Greg

monosite · Post by **monosite** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:35 pm

gaspode wrote: The second reason to consider playing at 96khz would be if you were in a relatively low noise area and you knew that the environment would be quiet. If you have more ambient/atmospheric noises that rely on attention to finer details 96khz will be a whole new experience.
Greg

That's it !
I don't make dance music, I don't play in clubs, I perform in fairly small and quiet environments ( around 50 people max). I haven't use any external samples for ages; my raw material is some stuff I have processed , reprocessed over and and other in Live. it's all about atmospehric noise and fine details.

now you got the reason, what would be the way to play 96khz live and keep the system stable ?

eisnein · Post by **eisnein** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:52 pm

hmmmm...

i was actually given loops recently for a live gig to load into Ableton and couldnt figure out why the CPU seemed to look fine, but the little overload light was freaking out. Pops ticks etc. i have a slow machine but it happened on a faster machine too. the people i was working with thought that it was an actual pop in the audio file.

when i got home and copied the audio files to my machine i realized they were 16bit 96k......so i spent my time downsampling them in Logic to 44.1 and they played fine.

so my question to you monosite is this---

i understand your music is played in small quiet environments and that it is all about details....but before that session and this posting, i have never even heard of 16bit 96K as an option or of people using it.

Isnt it true that most of the difference bwtn 44.1K and 48K cannot even be heard not only on most systems but my the human ear in general? let alon 96K? correct me if i am wrong but if you wanted higher quality and more detail maybe 24bit makes more sense?

maybe someone can explain to me what the benefits of staying at a lower bit rate with a higher sample rate?

??

thanks

Elijah

drumroll57 · Post by **drumroll57** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:53 pm

monosite wrote:who plays at a 96k sample rate ?
is it about a good sound card ? loads of ram ? both ?
do you experience any stability or compatibility issue ?

I can't do that with my M-audio fw410 (410 - 44.1k as the name says) I have tried setting 96k in Live, sounds great but it overloads too much and make things uncontrolable.

please advice, thanks

Sounds fantastic (much better than 16 bit / 44.1) the bigger the club, the more you heart it.

Sound card :RME Hammerfall w/ Multiface on Aluminium Powerbook 1.5 Gig with 1 Gig of RAM.

Never, ever had a problem. You must buy the best gear for the job. If it is mission-critical, (and you're playing in front of thousands) there cannot be a discussion about budget being an issue.

If it's in your bedroom, whatever works (part of the time) is fine by me. Yano?...

D.

eisnein · Post by **eisnein** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:30 am

"If it's in your bedroom, whatever works (part of the time) is fine by me."

wow, is it fine by you? im glad you care so much about our equipment!

monosite · Post by **monosite** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:17 am

eisnein wrote: so my question to you monosite is this---

i understand your music is played in small quiet environments and that it is all about details....but before that session and this posting, i have never even heard of 16bit 96K as an option or of people using it.

Isnt it true that most of the difference bwtn 44.1K and 48K cannot even be heard not only on most systems but my the human ear in general? let alon 96K? correct me if i am wrong but if you wanted higher quality and more detail maybe 24bit makes more sense?

maybe someone can explain to me what the benefits of staying at a lower bit rate with a higher sample rate?

??

thanks

Elijah

I was talking 24bit all the way.
I dunno for you but for me the difference in sound quality between 44.1khz and 96khz is huge in term of detail restitution and spacialization.

Now is getting a better soundcard like a Motu or a Metric halo the way to achieve a stable 96K ? or not enough ?

sickpuppy · Post by **sickpuppy** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:21 am

also, would I be right in thinking that timestretching with 96k would produce much better results at larger stretches?

monosite · Post by **monosite** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 1:20 pm

sickpuppy wrote:also, would I be right in thinking that timestretching with 96k would produce much better results at larger stretches?

I guess it would but I am not sure about that.
Does anyone here owns a metric halo or maybe a motu 896HD ?
can you play a session at 96 Khz with things stable ? yano ?[/b]

sample rate 96K anyone ?

sample rate 96K anyone ?

Two reasons to play 96khz live...

Re: Two reasons to play 96khz live...

Re: sample rate 96K anyone ?