Anyone working with 96KHz 24 bits here ?

K

kylen

New member
I'm trying to move into the 96KHz realm after working in 44.1KHz 24bits for the last year.

I have a P4 2.6GHz Windows XP config w/1Gb memory.

I usually just do 2-4 track home recording type mastering jobs but now that I'm trying this at 96KHz I suspect my buffers and whatnot may not be set up very good. In other words after using 4-5 'mastering' type plugins Sonar indicates 90-95% cpu utilization - soon after I'll get a dropout.

Anyone working at 96KHz/24bits ?

thanx
 
kylen said:
I usually just do 2-4 track home recording type mastering jobs but now that I'm trying this at 96KHz I suspect my buffers and whatnot may not be set up very good. In other words after using 4-5 'mastering' type plugins Sonar indicates 90-95% cpu utilization - soon after I'll get a dropout.
Click to expand...
Well, 96/24 is more demanding than 44/16. But it should do better than that...

What's soundcard are you using and what latency are you using it at?
 
what plug-ins are you using?

24/96 brings my computer to its knees (dual athlon MP1900+) but thats after like 30 tracks and 20 to 30 plugins

you should also try 24/88.2...not as good as 96 but i doubt you'll hear the difference and it frees up space and processing power
 
What's soundcard are you using and what latency are you using it at?
Click to expand...

moskus - I'm using M-Audio Audiophile 2496 set to 1024. Sonar3 is set to use WDM drivers.

teacher - I haven't tried 88.2K that sounds interesting. The plugs I'm using that eat the most cpu are Voxengo mastering plugs like Soniformer2 (32-band compressor), Pristine space (convolving reverb), and Elephant (mastering limiter).

Since I'm just doing 2 track 'mastering' mostly I on't care about latency and have it adjusted high normally when in 44.1K, however while in 96K if I try to adjust the latency override slider in Sonar3 nothing will play untill I put it back. hehe this is even sounding stupid to me.

I have Cool Edit Pro too so I'll set it up and compare performance and maybe see if I can narrow the problem down an see where the bottle neck is.

Thanks for any further tips !
 
try ASIO and see what happens...

those plug-ins you mentioned are very processor hungry plugs but your computer still should be able to handle it with no problem
 
Good Grief ! hehe I just did some reasearch and I guess it turns out that the WDM driver interface (W stands for windows...hehe) has more bells and whistles and overhead (even WDMKS) than the so-called thin layer that ASIO provides...

I never really noticed it till I tried 96KHz.

Thanks Teacher - I'll see what switching over to ASIO does ;)
 
The myths and advantages, as well as the assets and liabilities of recording at higher sample rates has been discussed to death on every board I've visited.

There is what I consider the equivalent of "The Big Thread" on this issue on the Cakewalk Sonar Forum ringing in at 281 replies and 4836 hits. I'd REALLY hate to go through that all over again, so I'll just post the link here:

http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m=50510&mpage=1&key=&anchor#50510

Lot's of resources and information is included from recording professionals as well as hardware and software developers.

Hope this is helpful to those looking to give 24/96khz or 24/88.2 a try. :)

-------------
SteveD
www.DawPro.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top