PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Hello guys!

My problem is that when I use 24 bit96 kHz (in XTC mode) I can't put enough plug-ins on tracks. The performance mostly is near 80%-90% and XTC reminds that XTC is full and I can't use any more of those plug-ins. So, than it recomends to lower a samplerate. But in my opinion tracks sound better when using 96 kHz.

P.S. Mostly I use VSTi, AKAI's and record only vocals.

How about You guys? What could you recomend?

Thank You!

Hi there

Off the top of my head - faster processor, faster FSB, more memory.

What's your system's specs, please?

Royston

I would recomend as much RAM as you can afford, this will make a BIG difference.

Most important is CPU, because 96khz use more than twice of CPU power, than 44.1 khz.
You can freeze some finished VSTi tracks to save CPU power.

96 eats more than twice the DSPs, you will use in 44,1.

Immanuel wrote:

96 eats more than twice the DSPs, you will use in 44,1.

That's a very good point. I'm not familiar with XTC mode, so does "XTC is full" imply that all the DSPs' resources are in use?

If so...more DSPs required!

Royston

I have always been told that RAM in more important in those cases... is it a wrong concept? If it is, why?

Royston
I don't know the particular message.

Nestor
The resource you run out of first is the most important.

Hey, thanks for all of You!!!

I use: P4 2 GHz, 512 RDRAM, HDD IBM & Maxtor, Pulsar II Plus.

See around.

See You around:)

JG, are You from Lithuania?

Nice to see some fellow countrymen arround

Hi Gedas,

nice to see You too!

Tuoj ir Lietuviu kompanija cia susiburs:)

Even as I do agree that 96 khz sounds better, you should remember that if your final work has to be distributed on CD, why not using 44,1 khz immediately. Unless you only play your work on DAT.

Regards,

bluemystic

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: bluemystic on 2004-02-27 05:26 ]</font>

I do not agree with bluemystic
If you want quality, you must always work with highest possible samplerate and bitrate.
And only in final processing before cd burning downsample to 44.1 and dither to 16 bit.
In that way you have much more better results, than working with 44.1khz only.

Juozas.

that may be true under certain conditions and one of them is a top quality, rock solid masterclock.
Jitter sensitivity increases with higher sample rates - as the time units get smaller, the tolerable clock deviation (present in any system) gets smaller, too.
Which means that the clock must be more precise.

I wouldn't trust any 'cheap' equipment with high samplerates, as an increased resolution is paid by increased distortion.

The question is: does Pulsar count as cheap (?)

cheers, Tom

technically, plus: musical choises are much (I say MUCH) more important for your final sound than the difference between 44.1 and 96 KHz...
Besides, I love lowFi...(just to show relativeness)

_________________
Let There Be Music!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-02-27 10:11 ]</font>

i believe bit-depth plays a much bigger role in audio quality than sample rate. In other words - if you use 44.1kHz / 24 bit (or 32 bit), you'll get superb quality.

I'm paying attention to these threads all of a sudden.

I tried doing some recording at 24 bit, 44.1 in Sonar recently. Didn't turn out as I expected. I was only able to record 9 tracks of audio reliably. If I tried to record 10 tracks, Sonar would hiccup and stop abruptly.

I'm just curious, how many simulatneous tracks of audio can you guys record at any 24 bit settings? I'm sure if I tried 96khz, my system would sputter with only a few tracks. What sequencers/recorders are you using at 24/96?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: krizrox on 2004-03-01 08:52 ]</font>

I'm recording ~20 simultaneous tracks @24/44.1 in Nuendo2. (I often record 16 at a times)

more than 32 simultaneous tracks @24/44.1 in VDAT. (never really tried more than this, things can get pretty big!)

VDAT is a winner!