how can i import a 192khz wav file and work on it?
something that i cannot understand is how when i import a 196khz wav file in adobe audition or in wavelab it is played at its original speed, but scope card might be at 48khz.
when i choose 96khz the playback becomes 2 times fast but whan i load the wav file on an allready 96khz scope project the file is playedback at the correct speed.
how can this happen?
how can i import the file and work on it originally at its sample rate of 192khz?
sorry but i am confused maybe.
how to work on a 192khz wav through nuendo
i think so. do a google search for "sample rate converter" and see how many pro devices even support 192khz at all. most likely 96khz is all you really need to deal with. if the ad/da at 192khz is really THAT good, you can use the analog outputs of the dvd player......
here's a plugin that can convert 192khz to 96khz: http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brainpro/
here's a plugin that can convert 192khz to 96khz: http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brainpro/
what peice of quality hardware supports 192khz??!!
lynx, maybe, and pt hd.
do you really think that an m-audio card at 192khz is superior to your scope card at 96khz or even 44.1khz? if so, go for it....
most pro audio is going to be at maximum 96khz x2(stereo) or 192khz combined, a high number to make consumers excited....at any rate it's still just 96khz....or maybe I'M confused(possible)...
as i said, do a google search for 192khz sound cards. my bet is you'll mainly find creative soundblaster audigys(w00t!)and some other semi pro stuff, but there you go. if you want to go to lynx or some other very expensive system, you'll find a couple of offerings, but most of them are very limited, usually stereo only. 192khz takes significant computer resources. it's not very practical, but you can certainly use it if you really want to.
lynx, maybe, and pt hd.
do you really think that an m-audio card at 192khz is superior to your scope card at 96khz or even 44.1khz? if so, go for it....
most pro audio is going to be at maximum 96khz x2(stereo) or 192khz combined, a high number to make consumers excited....at any rate it's still just 96khz....or maybe I'M confused(possible)...
as i said, do a google search for 192khz sound cards. my bet is you'll mainly find creative soundblaster audigys(w00t!)and some other semi pro stuff, but there you go. if you want to go to lynx or some other very expensive system, you'll find a couple of offerings, but most of them are very limited, usually stereo only. 192khz takes significant computer resources. it's not very practical, but you can certainly use it if you really want to.
yes there are many game cards that support 192khz.
but what if i want by using my scopes to just import 192khz wav file in my sequencer without downsampling? isn't it possible? which is the way?
_________________
ELVIS LIVES
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ARCADIOS on 2006-01-02 07:37 ]</font>
but what if i want by using my scopes to just import 192khz wav file in my sequencer without downsampling? isn't it possible? which is the way?
_________________
ELVIS LIVES
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ARCADIOS on 2006-01-02 07:37 ]</font>
Wavelab and Audition more than likely support real-time resampling/resample on loading file, given their offline-editing nature. It'll resample based on the current samplerate setting of your soundcard, which is why you can load a 96khz file and have it play at 48khz at normal speed, or switch yourOn 2006-01-01 18:21, ARCADIOS wrote:
something that i cannot understand is how when i import a 196khz wav file in adobe audition or in wavelab it is played at its original speed, but scope card might be at 48khz.
when i choose 96khz the playback becomes 2 times fast but whan i load the wav file on an allready 96khz scope project the file is playedback at the correct speed.
how can this happen?
audio driver to a different samplerate and have the file play at a different speed.
Doing the same in a multitrack sequencer like Nuendo would probably be a bit too much to handle for your processor, especially if you work at 192khz, so you'll have to use r8brain pro or another converter to work with multiple 192khz files.
Those 192khz gamecards are little more than marketing gimmicks, as a clock to properly drive a 192khz converter will cost you a minimum of 1000$ (maybe less if you shop around a bit.) So even if it's for already-recorded stuff, the playback itself will be of very low quality, and totally useless (compared to lower sampling rates) during editing as you won't even be able to properly hear the changes you apply to the files.
Like garyb said, very little stuff supports 192khz right now, I guess SACD/DSD stuff might qualify, but I really doubt those technologies would bring any kind of benefit to you if you are actually considering those low-quality cards for 192khz work =P
In otherwords, 44.1, 48, 88.2 & 96 kHz are absolutely fine for almost all music making & mastering work.
It's more important to concentrate on working with 24 or 32bit audio files when possible, as multitracking & other processes will generally use more 'bits'. To retain quality throughout your process chain you need to use the maximum bit rate whenever you can.
It's more important to concentrate on working with 24 or 32bit audio files when possible, as multitracking & other processes will generally use more 'bits'. To retain quality throughout your process chain you need to use the maximum bit rate whenever you can.
actually i do.
if you want to feed krell amplifiers with B&W 800 and use top end dvd-audio players, there is always the need of testing that high.
my job is a classical singer and all the electronic stuff no matter price seems too little to my ears compared to the orchestras and chorus that i listen every day because of muy subject.
in fact the best system and recording that i have heard of lets say 9th of beethoven, has just a 1% of the real size and about 10% of the feeling, the other 90% is heard only live.
another thing that i should mention is that there are some historic recocordings of the 50s 40s or 30s that have bad sound, but give you the spirit of real big artists.
according to classical music, all kind of machines are just toys.
electric and electronic are a little different.
So, for me, the subject of 44.1, 48, 96, 192, 384,.... is just a game.
i like playing even if i work usually on 24bit/48khz.
if you want to feed krell amplifiers with B&W 800 and use top end dvd-audio players, there is always the need of testing that high.
my job is a classical singer and all the electronic stuff no matter price seems too little to my ears compared to the orchestras and chorus that i listen every day because of muy subject.
in fact the best system and recording that i have heard of lets say 9th of beethoven, has just a 1% of the real size and about 10% of the feeling, the other 90% is heard only live.
another thing that i should mention is that there are some historic recocordings of the 50s 40s or 30s that have bad sound, but give you the spirit of real big artists.
according to classical music, all kind of machines are just toys.
electric and electronic are a little different.
So, for me, the subject of 44.1, 48, 96, 192, 384,.... is just a game.
i like playing even if i work usually on 24bit/48khz.
Well you should also be aware that neither 2, 4, 5.1, 7.1 or any combination of speakers will ever be the same as a "live" performance. At best any 'reproduction' can only be an approximation of what goes on in a live space, especially as speakers generally require that you do a fair bit of engineering to stuff all that sound into something they can easily reproduce. Also panning is NOT the same as a natural head transfer function in a room full of dense reflections, no convolution verb will ever be the same as the 'real' space (too static) etc etc etc etc etc.
Ie, there's FAR more to the live vs. recorded issue than just samplerate.
Ie, there's FAR more to the live vs. recorded issue than just samplerate.
