96khz INCOMPATIBLE with 1632 mixer????????

CAPO · Post by **CAPO** » Mon May 20, 2002 4:59 pm

Ok, I am just curious if anyone knows how to get around this. I have written Creamware a few times and they are unsure as to what the hell this is...

Initial Problem---> Starting from a completely blank setup (IE. NOTHING LOADED) I proceeded to load the 1632 Mixer. Upon doing so I was bombarded with warring boxes that told me my DSP usage was up. I have a Pulsar 2 so I know this cant be the problem... especialy with just ONE mixer loaded. Every other mixer loads perfectly fine, except this one...

Current Problem---> I read some posts about how the sampling rate can effect DSP usage and so I tried seeing how this works with my 1632 problem. Starting at 32khz, next 44.1khz, then 48khz, I loaded the 1632 mixer. NO PROBLEMS OCCURED... BUT... when I loaded the mixer and changed the sampling rate to 96khz, up popped the DSP warning box.

This sequence of events leads me to think that maybe the 1632 mixer is just INCOMPATIBLE with a 96khz sampling rate.

has anyone else had this problem?

I followed the only advice I was able to get from CW (reinstallation of all the software)
and still this problem occurs.

Please tell me someone knows what this is all about! ah! I am way too confused

darolek · Post by **darolek** » Mon May 20, 2002 6:14 pm

Yeah ! It's known 1632 mixer's bug. Look at BUGS thread:
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... tart=40&59

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Tue May 21, 2002 7:54 am

CAPO are you really working at 96khz??? I'm curious what you're doing that requires that... (just to be clear: the mixers SHOULD work at 96khz, so I hope thats fixed soon if it is indeed a problem).

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Tue May 21, 2002 8:01 am

96kHz is no problemo for that mixer here. I even play MediaPlayer to it, sounds normal while I had expected some pitch change.

I'm on XP, have 2 Pulsar1's and a Pulsar2. DSP load is at 4 bars from 14 DSP, got some IO's connected etc.

CAPO · Post by **CAPO** » Wed May 22, 2002 7:25 pm

Yeah, Actualy I realy think that my wanting to use 96khz has mostly to do with psychology. I do suppose that I would not be able to tell the differnece but psychologicaly it just feels better...

My application is that I am recording a Analog synthesizer. I think I might have told you about it at one point Sub but I dont realy remember. I just want to be able to represent as much of my synth as possible and useing Nyquist's theorm I find that I am most comfortable with 96khz... on top of that I am doing a lot of experimental music... and trying to make some of my own instruments... all of these things I want recorded at the maximum sampling rate and bit resolution so that when I dither to cd quality I can be assured in my mind that I did as much as I possible could to record a quality cd. I personaly just like the 1632 because it is of course NEW and has a agreable about of channels (I dont need more than about 16). Thanks for the replies though guys!

I did solve the problem... accidentaly.. I just saved my startup layout with a 1632 mixer in it (dont ask why... I forget) and now I dont have any problems... I cant wait for an update to this update! Oh well, other than a few bugs here and there I am satisfied with the new system. Just wish it supported 192khz!!!!

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Thu May 23, 2002 8:40 am

It's just that 96khz effectively more than halves your DSP power and doubles it's use of your computer's resources (= less audio tracks). But you have a noble goal

You should try 24-bit 44khz, and compare with 96khz, see if it's worth the extra DSP, CPU, HD...

ernest@303.nu · Post by **ernest@303.nu** » Thu May 23, 2002 9:35 am

a bit off-topic maybe.......

I've done some recording of analogue synths @ 96kHz and I can *CLEARLY* hear the difference compared to 44.1/48 kHz.

"are you serious Ernest???!!" - yes I am:)

Synths: Korg MS10/MS20 and Roland MC-202/SH-101 with extreme resonance and filter settings recorded from a channel-direct-out of my Tascam 8-bus analogue mixer. The 'piiiiieeeewwwww' effect of the resonance has a little more presence @ 96kHz.
Enough to do all my work @ 96 kHz??? - Gosh, *NO*

Why the ##%@ would I want 96 kHz? To import into a sampler, 96 kHz sounds so MUCH better when the sample is transposed down. Of course I'm using the sampler @ 44.1 or 48 kHz.

BTW Recently I've done some track finalizing @ 48 kHz instead of 44.1, and it sounded slightly better, but enough to notice. I used Optimaster, PsyQ, EQ and Magneto (DirectX). Original tracks were 44.1 kHz/24 bit, processing @ 48 kHz, finally resampled to 44.1 kHz 24/16 bit with Wavelab.

I'll try to perform the next 'finalizing' project @ 96 kHz, wanna know if there's a difference..... I doubt there is, but if that's the case I'll let you know!!

remixme · Post by **remixme** » Thu May 23, 2002 10:02 am

Remind me what sample rate dvd authoring requires?

subhuman · Post by **subhuman** » Thu May 23, 2002 10:07 am

Definitely doesn't have to be 96khz, and many DVD releases aren't.

http://www.paulstubblebine.com/psm_pages/dvd2.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2002-05-23 12:10 ]</font>

remixme · Post by **remixme** » Thu May 23, 2002 12:00 pm

Ah right, yeah that doesn't surprise me, I really doubt most peoples home cinema system is up to the task of getting the full benefit of 96khz.

CAPO · Post by **CAPO** » Thu May 23, 2002 7:37 pm

Hey what is the chance that Creamware will come out with a 192khz compatible daughterboard? That would be sick! This is what most dvd is (I think.. 99% sure). Once I get the rest of my synth built and running I will deffinetly send a pic (for sh**s and Giggles) to this forum

CAPO · Post by **CAPO** » Thu May 23, 2002 7:39 pm

Oh and Ernest, thanks for tha backin

I knew there were some fellow analog heads out there

ernest@303.nu · Post by **ernest@303.nu** » Fri May 24, 2002 5:43 am

"Thanks"? What does that buy me?

But seriously (and OT), I'm still pretty much into real analogue synthesis.... no physical modelling can get even close to the sound of an MS20 and MS10 patched together and driven by MIDI-sync'ed SQ10 and MC-202 at the same time, while being modulated with MIDI controllers through an 8-channel MIDI-2-CV-convertor

Unfortunately no REAL modular beasts in my studio..... what kind of synth are you building btw?

Unfortunately I'm not very bright at synth-DIY, managed to perform some self-figured modifications to my synths and that's about it

CAPO · Post by **CAPO** » Fri May 24, 2002 4:46 pm

I am building a MOTM modular synth. I actualy plan on soldering up half the circuit boards myself

I will be using some other modules from other companies that strike me as cool... like I already have a TIME MACHINE by Blacet (this is an analog delay)... I just have to assemble this one. I have a DARK STAR chaos module by Blacet (this is a noise module) that is already assembeld.. I plan on getting a bunch more.. .too many to list here. you should check out the websites for MOTM, Synthesizers.com, Blacet, Wiard, and all the other ones that are out there. My fav is MOTM just because of all the rave reviews I hear about it from people like Robert Rich (who's style of music is what I am aiming at for with my own).

Here is the MOTM website if you are interested---> http://www.synthtech.com/welcome.html

anyhow, I cant say I am a total DIY person either... But I want to be one so bad.. and I am going to learn as much as I can possibly learn in order to accomplish that goal.

anyhow,

later dude,