Is there a better way for this ?

Firefab

Firefab

New member
Hi !

I got the same problem everytime. My problem is switching between 44.1khz and 96khz.

Everytime i open a project in 96Khz I can't listen for example youtube video or spotify and it's a pain in the ass to open the project. I need to close all my program that use audio (Games,Spotify,etc...) and after I can open my project.

Is there a way to switch fast from 44.1khz and 96khz and is there a way to listen youtube video or other program while recording in 96khz.


My soundcard is : focusrite scarlett 18i20


Thanks :)
 
The easiest way is to not bother with 96k. It's a rather pointless sample rate.

The only other alternative would be to have a separate soundcard for the normal windows stuff and just use the focusrite for your daw.
 
Farview said:
It really shouldn't be better at 96k.
Click to expand...
Unless there's something seriously wrong with your converters.

Or, I guess if you're recording things that you intend to vari-speed down. Higher sample rates can make a difference in that case.
 
I would only bother with 96K if recording an orchestra with minimal mics. I know it's supposed to sound better but with rock, pop, etc no. Most rock pop nowadays ends up on MP3 anyway :facepalm:

Alan.
 
Setting aside the 'is there any point' idea, I think what you want to do is set your system audio settings so that everything is always 96k.
That way when you open a session the converters aren't changing settings. It's the change that's causing the problem.

I meet in the middle and have all my sessions and system I/O set to 48. It's a total PITA when someone sends me a 96k session.
 
We'd need to know what operating system you're using but it'll either be under system sound settings or in a focusrite control panel, if there is one.

There may also be some apps where you'll have to change the setting to 96. Any recording suites, audio hijack tools, maybe Skype and things like that? Not sure.
 
I think Windows will set to 44.1 or 48k. I think....

True though -- If you can't make the greatest, most celebrated, audiophile-award-winning recording of all time, it certainly isn't the fault of the sample rate...
 
Farview said:
It really shouldn't be better at 96k.
Click to expand...

Quite and any dubious technical benefits sometimes claimed are often outweighed by the fact that many AI converters are actually optimized for 44.1kHz I understand?

However, two solutions come to mind if OP really want this..

Logging on as different client with an alternative setup. Then, most DAWs have an "Allow Program to Overide Hardware" setting or something similar.

But unless you want to record bats and have super-30kHz microphones I can't see the point?

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
But unless you want to record bats and have super-30kHz microphones I can't see the point? .
Click to expand...
I have an older handheld Zoom recorder. One time I set to it 88K and placed it near the sink while washing dishes. Then I told my interface to run at 88K while I imported the file into Reaper (else Realer would have automatically down sampled and ruined the whole point) and vari-sped it down to halftime. It obviously played back an octave lower, but one could never tell. If the original recording had been at 44K, the slowed down recording would have had nothing above like 11K to play back, and would have been noticeably dark and would probably actually have sounded slowed down. With the higher rate, and whatever mics are stuck to the thing, I got that extra octave of harmonics and room noise, and it remained pretty natural. Then I fucked it all up so you can't really tell what you're listening to, but I think things like drums and especially cymbals would work out about the same.
 
ashcat_lt said:
I have an older handheld Zoom recorder. One time I set to it 88K and placed it near the sink while washing dishes. Then I told my interface to run at 88K while I imported the file into Reaper (else Realer would have automatically down sampled and ruined the whole point) and vari-sped it down to halftime. It obviously played back an octave lower, but one could never tell. If the original recording had been at 44K, the slowed down recording would have had nothing above like 11K to play back, and would have been noticeably dark and would probably actually have sounded slowed down. With the higher rate, and whatever mics are stuck to the thing, I got that extra octave of harmonics and room noise, and it remained pretty natural. Then I fucked it all up so you can't really tell what you're listening to, but I think things like drums and especially cymbals would work out about the same.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ashcat, are you saying that the Zoom recorder's microphones had a response past 25kHz?

There is a (highly unlikely) scenario whereby very high level, very high audio frequencies COULD cause a problem with a 44.1kHz sample rate I understand but it is not something that is going to bother the usual Home Recording bod.

There is a very old audio adage. "The wider you open the window, the more the muck flies in".

In a slightly similar vein, the audio industry is the only one that designs kit to exceed the required bandwidth by massive margins. I am sure air control surface servos do not respond to 0.1mSec events and yet we have mic pre amps that could serve as a MF radio if we bolted a detector on their output.

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
Sorry Ashcat, are you saying that the Zoom recorder's microphones had a response past 25kHz? .
Click to expand...
All I'm really saying is that it worked surprisingly well when I tried it. But why not? The electret condensors on that thing aren't far off from what we use as measurement mics which can easily exceed the human range. The tech is not new and it's not particularly expensive. People do record bats after all. :)
 
ashcat_lt said:
All I'm really saying is that it worked surprisingly well when I tried it. But why not? The electret condensors on that thing aren't far off from what we use as measurement mics which can easily exceed the human range. The tech is not new and it's not particularly expensive. People do record bats after all. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, Ash' my question was sincere. IF the mics go past 20kHz then you obviously need a sampling rate at least twice that to capture the sounds. But WE still cannot hear them! Very few adult males get past 15-16kHz (and if anyone is going to claim they do I want an Audiologist's report!). Few people are bothered by FM's 15kHz limit (or driven mad by remnant 19kHz pilot tone. Some people, almost all female, found the old 15625 Hz TV line frequency a trial. ).

The 20Hz-20kHz bw is a convenience at both ends. Very few speaker/room systems outside cinemas get down to 20Hz!

I suspect those that record bats use a detector to heterodyne the sounds to human range and then record that? There would have been very few ultrasonic field tape recorders!

Dave.
 
Ok, so in the rare instance that one would record something for the express purpose of slowing it down by half, 96k could possibly help.

However, the vast majority of us that are simply recording performances played on standard musical instruments will not get any benefit from a higher sample rate.
 
Farview said:
Ok, so in the rare instance that one would record something for the express purpose of slowing it down by half, 96k could possibly help.

However, the vast majority of us that are simply recording performances played on standard musical instruments will not get any benefit from a higher sample rate.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Consider this: Superior Drummer's samples are all at 44.1K, but it has a tuning parameter for each drum. They did not re-tune the drum over and over and capture a seperate set of samples for each tuning. All they do is play the original samples back faster or slower. When you tune any of these down it very quickly becomes darker and starts to sound noticeably slowed. By the time it gets to an octave down it's very obvious, but it doesn't take that much before it starts sound unnatural, especially against other drums that aren't pitched down. Plus they sound like they're in a completely different room from the rest of the kit. Can't really do anything about the stretching of the room, but if they captured more of the ultrasonic harmonics to begin with, the transients would sound more natural at more extreme tunings.

Nobody much samples just one note of an instrument and maps it across the whole keyboard anymore, but it could be an issue in cases like that also.

But yeah, those high sample rates are for specialty applications, and don't do us any good for most music production.
 
ashcat_lt said:
Yes.

Consider this: Superior Drummer's samples are all at 44.1K, but it has a tuning parameter for each drum. They did not re-tune the drum over and over and capture a seperate set of samples for each tuning. All they do is play the original samples back faster or slower. When you tune any of these down it very quickly becomes darker and starts to sound noticeably slowed. By the time it gets to an octave down it's very obvious, but it doesn't take that much before it starts sound unnatural, especially against other drums that aren't pitched down. Plus they sound like they're in a completely different room from the rest of the kit. Can't really do anything about the stretching of the room, but if they captured more of the ultrasonic harmonics to begin with, the transients would sound more natural at more extreme tunings.

Nobody much samples just one note of an instrument and maps it across the whole keyboard anymore, but it could be an issue in cases like that also.

But yeah, those high sample rates are for specialty applications, and don't do us any good for most music production.
Click to expand...

And of course, they wold have to use specialist microphones to capture those ultrasonics and such mics would likely not be the best sort for general music capture?

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
And of course, they wold have to use specialist microphones to capture those ultrasonics and such mics would likely not be the best sort for general music capture?

Dave.
Click to expand...
And/or the frequency response of the mic will scale up or down with the tuning knob. Something with a strong presence peak at 5K will have that peak move down to 2.5K if dropped an octave, and up to 10K if you turn it the other way. Not much to be done about that unless we're going to use very flat measurement type mics and then apply something like a mic IR after the tuning thing happens. That's not really what SD is shooting for, but if it was me...

...well I guess I'd just buy the things they make that get closest to what I want and work within or against the limitations as necessary and maybe complain about it on some web forum somewhere... :)
 
And I'm sure the intention of the tuning thing in SSD was to tune the toms to a specific scale, add a 4th tom to a 3 tom kit, or match the tuning of a similar snare to the one that is getting replaced. A step and a half in either direction will more than cover it. Tuning a snare, for example, down an octave is getting into the realm of 'strange sounds', so having it sound natural is kind of besides the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top