96hz 24bit. SCOPE BOARD.

okantah · Post by **okantah** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:50 pm

How is it working on 24bit 96hz with the scope board ? any expeirenced?
Was it succssful ? & what kind of mobo is best fit?
thanx for contribution.
cheers

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:54 pm

Any card can handle 96kHz, but depends on what you want to load on them what board fits you best.

For IO and routing, a Luna could do.
For that plus a synth, some effects or mixing a Scope Project could do.
... and if you want all of that at the same time, the largest deck, or a combination of cards is a must.

Do note that some devices don't run at 96kHz: Minimax for example, and a couple of Flexor modules. Reason for this is that parts of these must at all times remain at the same DSP chip, and 96kHz is sometimes too much of load for that.

okantah · Post by **okantah** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:55 pm

stardust....... thanx for reaction.
your information is something im i know,& i rader needs more info about that,
I need to know about the mobo you used for the 96khz process.
I scope+pulsar.=to 19dsp.& my dsp is full when iload 1 master rev.pro + six strings guitar,which is not normal,i need more opinion from those who has experiment with that .
cheers

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:01 pm

I have a similar setup, and don't work at 96kHz cos it's not reliable enough for me.
If you think it's relevant, I use an Asus P4B533.

There's some things that can make it more stable: do not use insert spaces or large mixers, try loading everything in the Routing Window directly. Use Micromixer instead of STM series. Inserts will sometimes lock stuff to same board/DSP, which may be nefast at 96kHz. Run a search, I've posted more on that.

okantah · Post by **okantah** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:02 pm

at0m thanx for your info,i guess my problems cold be my mobo.sometimes i only like to use my 19dsp for only effects,& dsp would get full with only 0ne master reverb pro.that i find weird,
cheers

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:34 pm

How do you mean, 'full'? Do you get a pop-up saying to reload DSP or does DSP Meter show full use? How about loading a couple MasterVerbs? (not the Pro version) If these load fine, then it's not a motherboard/bandwidth problem IMO.

Maybe the MVpro resorts under the devices that can't do 96kHz, I don't have it so can't confirm.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: at0m on 2005-04-19 01:08 ]</font>

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:49 am

Looking at the results so far, Athlon64 with Nforce/Nforce3 Ultra looks like the best bet - lots of PCI bandwidth to cope with 96kHz.

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:52 am

My boards don't run too well at 96K either. If I try to load up too many ASIO channels, or if I load more than a few voices onto some synths (Vectron is the worst offender), I get error messages. I have plenty of DSP power so that isn't the issue: it says not enough bandwidth between DSPs (it's not an S/TDM issue either). I think 96K with Scope is a "use at your own risk" thing.

Shayne

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:17 pm

Minimax doesnt do 96kHz

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:40 pm

I don’t think working with such high settings worth the effort and DSP waste, unless you are mastering for film or DVD, otherwise, the difference is so negligible that it does not worth the hassle.

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:54 pm

Well, I don't think that's true. 96KHz makes synths sound MUCH better, especially samplers and wavetables. It gets rid of the aliasing. If you can get things to work, by all means do it.

Shayne

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:29 pm

Hoi Nestor and...
Shayne, exactly my thoughts. There's people spending /lots/ of money and sweating blood sweat and tears to make things sound a tiny bit better.

Now if your soundcard had a simple button for 'sound a bit better', wouldn't you use it? Often that little bit makes a welcome difference IMO.
If I can achieve it through modifying another patch, I'm the happiest man around.

Unfortunately... If 96kHz ran stable on my cards, I'm sure I'd use it all the time. Even if I had to record and bounce some more. I'm in a luxury situation with a lot of DSP's, usually my cards are loaded under 50%, same for CPU, so there's some headroom. Processing power is not an issue for me, sound quality is.

at0m.

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:32 pm

Stardust, Minimax filter doesn't fit on a single DSP at 96kHz so it's impossible to even load it, let alone play it once in a while. I suspect the same must be the case for MVpro, STW Softknee Mastering Compressor etc.

Maybe we should make a list of 96kHz non-compatible devices

beerbr · Post by **beerbr** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:30 pm

If anyone use 14/15 boards, they'll all have problem with 96k. The 14/15 dsp board tends to max out the inter-DSP before the real Dsp is fully loaded. Right now I'm working with all my projects in 96k without problem but I have to use 6+6+6 Dsp combination. The 14/15 dsp board CAN NOT use optimal in 96k even in standalone board or combination with another 3 or 6 dsp board.

If wanna work in 96k? Have to buy 3 or 6 dsp and combine it... It's the only way out for now. I hope creamware will fix the problem soon or even make something like "DSP Meter & Inter-DSP Meter & PCI Bus Meter". At least we can know what is going on before getting error..

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:51 am

thanks beerbr, interesting hint..

arela · Post by **arela** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:10 pm

Very-very strange

If this is the case, beerbr, is it so in scope 3.1 too?
I start to realize the reason why so few record 24/96 ...

I recorded 3 guitar tracks, 24/96 som 2 years ago, just for testing.
No prob, but, sry, only 3-6 dsp boards

beerbr · Post by **beerbr** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:31 am

The 3 DSP board and 6 DSP board can be used in 96k with fully loaded their DSPs. But this can not be done with 14/15 DSP board.

devastate · Post by **devastate** » Sun May 01, 2005 4:08 am

I've got to agree with Shayne myself, the quality of the already good verbs becomes amazing in 96khz, they lose muddiness in the low mids and gain a great amount of clarity, even delays and such seam tighter in the mix, on the other side though it seems i now need another 15 chipper (to have 45 in total) and a seperate luna in another computer to run minimax. (i'm a complete scope addict).

geoffd99 · Post by **geoffd99** » Mon May 02, 2005 5:53 am

I can only get 88.2 khz out of my system, even when nothing is loaded. This is running via adat into a second pc, it occasionally hits 96, flashes a lot of 'unlocked' messages then settles at 88.2.
I have 'heard' that new CW hardware might be arriving in 15-24 months - does anyone else know anything?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu May 05, 2005 9:53 am

well, let me put it this way...
I've just straightened a simple project, connected the vinyl player (Shure V15-III) and put on a mint 1973 record (Thin Line by The Impressions, Preacher Man album).
A/B ing isn't that easy due to the resync pause when switching the sample rate, but there seems to be indeed a bit more detail in the highs.
Added a bit Masterverb (non-pro) to the procedure, which seems to emphasize the effect, but still far from mind-blowing.

Now at 44k replace Masterverb with Warp's Ambience A100, setting up a proper room sice and boooaaahhhh, slackjaw.
The complete record sounds like played over a club system or as if the band performed live.
That detail, no a bit of blurry sound - gorgeous

At 96k DSP capacity is exhausted (what else) and nothing to listen, but hell - the difference THAT algo made in the 44k scene outperformed any faint improvements achieved at the higher sample rate at least by a factor of four.

Of course the perceiption of a higher sample rate is anticipated positively (we just can't deny our prejudice), if new.
But maybe it later turns out as the same error that 'digital remastering' did to 'classic' records, which was certainly appreciated as an improvement back then.

I can tell for shure by only the 'sound' of 2 otherwise identical vinyl records, if one of them has been processed this way.
You hear that noiseprint even on excellent recordings, it's not restricted to crap or cheapo stuff.
This also tells that the sampling rate itself isn't very important at all - those records cut in the black matter finally are pure analog carriers

my 2 cents, Tom