Gigastudio3 at 96k

molemac · Post by **molemac** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:33 am

I can't get Giga 3 to recognize 96k even though my Luna 2 and scope 4 are set to 96k. Is there a solution other than getting a new sound card?
I'm on xp.

Post by **Guest** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:16 pm

How can that be the sound card problem?

molemac · Post by **molemac** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:34 pm

good point, except other cards work at 96k with giga3. Any other suggestions?

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:13 pm

CW had to write a new GSIF driver for XP. I guess that driver isn't 96k compatible?

Wonder why no one has brought this up before?

molemac · Post by **molemac** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:56 pm

Which driver was that and does anyone know if they are likely to release a new one soon . It seems that scope v 4.0 has been around a long time without any sign of updates.I am thinking of changing to the rme 9632 instead for my giga pc and using that via adat to the fireface 800 on my daw pc.

wolf · Post by **wolf** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:11 pm

Sorry for the perhaps dumb question but for what do you need 96 kHz ?

best
Wolfgang

molemac · Post by **molemac** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:39 pm

what perhaps dumb question ?
The reason is because I want to run logic at 96k with the fireface 800 on my main pc for my plugins (atmosphere etc....) which I have been told sound a lot better at 96 and my giga pc would also have to be at 96 as a slave as I am sending the giga sounds via adat to the fireface.

wolf · Post by **wolf** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:13 pm

But do the plugins sound better in your ears at 96 kHz ?
Fireface800 is a very good interface, especially the preamps.

Afaik the atomsphere samples are recorded in 44,1 kHz, so it might be its filters, which sound better at 96 kHz (which means they could be better coded for 44.1).

If you have Giga/Luna on a different computer, you could connect it to the fireface via analog connection and run Luna with 44,1 kHz.

best
Wolfgang

_________________
<a href="http://www.worldless.com/sfp">wolf audio design</a>
<a href="http://www.worldless.com">worldless productions</a>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: wolf on 2004-11-18 17:15 ]</font>

molemac · Post by **molemac** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:18 pm

Yea but then I would only have 2 stereo outputs from the luna which is very limiting in a pro studio environment.And also the whole point of getting the fireface is to make use of its superu=ior convertors.Correct me if I am wrong.

Charlie

Post by **garyb** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:19 pm

the converters are not superior. wish i could help you with the giga problem. you do have a gsif module in the routing window, no?

molemac · Post by **molemac** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:25 am

Unfortunately I am away for the next 4 days so will not be able to pursue the thread till I get back.

1/ yes I do have a gsif module in the routing window
2/I was intrigued to find out more about what you said about the fireface not having better convertors than the luna

I currently have the luna with Giga on one pc and logic on the other pc with a delta 1010. I was planning to upgrade both systems and was told that the fireface at £1000 had the best sound quality specs, but if the difference is negligeable there might be no point.

The reason I wanted to change the luna was because
1/no 96k with giga3
2/ 12 frames of latency at scope's ulli setting's lowest (in fact in gigastudio in the plugin latency window it shows that the gsif driver's latency is double that of what scope software is saying.(and in the real world that is what I am getting)
3/ I thought I could improve the overall sound quality of my system using the fireface convertors.
4/ I need more outputs from gigastudio (tha's why I thought of the adat option via the fireface either by getting the home i/o or an rme9632)

Let me know if you have any suggestions for all that

Thanks

Post by **garyb** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:32 am

scope project will do more for you for the money and the sound quality is about as good as it gets, but i am prejudiced so....

*edit* as far as 96k goes, there have been plenty of discussions about it and i don't doubt some things sound better at that rate, but i also don't doubt that most of those gains are lost by downsampling to 44.1k for cd. add to this arguement th fact that the file sizes get ridiculous at that framerate(96khz) making storage a real problem and making your machine have to work so much harder, that the overall benefit and practicality(of 96khz) has to be questioned. really, 96khz is a marketing ploy. once again, check out how great gladiator sounded(won an academy award for sound) using a scope card and giga(cubase VST and OLD giga). how many hits have been done on crappy adats? just my opinion for the sake of the discussion.....

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-11-19 04:42 ]</font>

molemac · Post by **molemac** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:11 am

ok , so you win the 96k argument.I will abandon that concept and return to 48k.
That still leaves me with the output problem (2 analogue,l&r spdif) and the latency problem (current workaround is that I have to set my logic system with a minus 7 midi delay for all giga ports.

Post by **garyb** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:28 am

as i said, a scope project won't cost any more than the whiz-bang you were looking atand it'll do more, plus your luna won't be wasted...

and 44.1k makes more sense if you are going to end up on cd...(no downsampling

)

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:39 pm

You shouldn't have huge latency with GSIF! If you have the ULLI set to the middle setting you can get fairly low CPU usage with rock-solid timing.

IMO 96k is only useful for samplers/wavetables such as STS and Vectron, as it can upsample very nicely. But it takes up so much disk space that I use 44.1 anyway. (Occasionally I'll record one individual line at 96 and then downsample to 44.1.)

However, you shouldn't lose any sound quality by downsampling from 96 to 44.1, as long as you're using a good algorithm (the one that comes with Sonar is excellent). I don't know what you guys use...

Shayne

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:48 pm

the point is that even 24bit 44k is pointless if you don't use a high quality studio clock.
In other words: the distortion from deviating clock pulses will be more significant than the extra quality contained in the bits 20-24

to accurately transmit 20 bits the clock has just a 6 picoseconds tolerance, that's the 150 th part of a nanosecond...

this doesn't affect the (undoubted) more convenient headroom of 24 bits, but the 'sound quality' won't be improved due to increased bit depth.

cheers, Tom

Post by **Guest** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:32 pm

question for molemac

can you provide a giga sample that is 24bit/96 Khz. Or better yet if you know of a place I can download a small sample for giga that is 96Khz/24bit??