Author:
Date:
Subject:
dm1n1c@hotmail.com
2008-06-18 06:54:28
96 khz/DMA buffer
Hi everyone, I'm running Audition 2.0 on a 2.6 gig intel hyperthread
with 2 gig of ddr-ram and a delta 10/10 card. I increased the sample
rate through the card and the software to 96 KHZ to acheive higher
clarity but I'm getting these clicks and pops on playback. I think
it's because the DMA buffer size on the card control panel isn't high
enough. Can anyone tell me the correct DMA buffer size for recording
at 96 khz so that I don't get these clicks and pops? The other thing
is that a pop up tells me a list of latencies everytime I change the
DMA buffer size on the Delta 10/10 control panel though I think this
is not applicable if you have ASIO compatible software, which I do,
but I'm not completely sure about this.
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Soundhaspriority
2008-06-18 10:01:23
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:edd0fb62-1938-4628-b614-3057b2d9e993@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone, I'm running Audition 2.0 on a 2.6 gig intel hyperthread
> with 2 gig of ddr-ram and a delta 10/10 card. I increased the sample
> rate through the card and the software to 96 KHZ to acheive higher
> clarity but I'm getting these clicks and pops on playback. I think
> it's because the DMA buffer size on the card control panel isn't high
> enough. Can anyone tell me the correct DMA buffer size for recording
> at 96 khz so that I don't get these clicks and pops? The other thing
> is that a pop up tells me a list of latencies everytime I change the
> DMA buffer size on the Delta 10/10 control panel though I think this
> is not applicable if you have ASIO compatible software, which I do,
> but I'm not completely sure about this.
If larger doesn't fix it, it isn't the DMA buffer. Try turning off
hyperthreading. I think that can be found in Control Panel-->System-->Device
Manager-->Processors. You will have to reboot for the change to take effect.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Meindert Sprang
2008-06-19 08:49:46
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
"Soundhaspriority" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aoWdnYiBOaSuiMTVnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@giganews.com...
> If larger doesn't fix it, it isn't the DMA buffer. Try turning off
> hyperthreading. I think that can be found in Control
Panel-->System-->Device
> Manager-->Processors. You will have to reboot for the change to take
effect.
System Message: "Your mouse has moved. Reboot for the change to take
effect".
Meindert
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Soundhaspriority
2008-06-20 00:50:46
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
"Meindert Sprang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:485a0289$0$6028$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> "Soundhaspriority" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:aoWdnYiBOaSuiMTVnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@giganews.com...
>> If larger doesn't fix it, it isn't the DMA buffer. Try turning off
>> hyperthreading. I think that can be found in Control
> Panel-->System-->Device
>> Manager-->Processors. You will have to reboot for the change to take
> effect.
>
> System Message: "Your mouse has moved. Reboot for the change to take
> effect".
>
>
> Meindert
>
>
Yes, of course, you must be running linux :)
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Laurence Payne
2008-06-18 15:07:09
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:54:28 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>Hi everyone, I'm running Audition 2.0 on a 2.6 gig intel hyperthread
>with 2 gig of ddr-ram and a delta 10/10 card. I increased the sample
>rate through the card and the software to 96 KHZ to acheive higher
>clarity but I'm getting these clicks and pops on playback. I think
>it's because the DMA buffer size on the card control panel isn't high
>enough. Can anyone tell me the correct DMA buffer size for recording
>at 96 khz so that I don't get these clicks and pops? The other thing
>is that a pop up tells me a list of latencies everytime I change the
>DMA buffer size on the Delta 10/10 control panel though I think this
>is not applicable if you have ASIO compatible software, which I do,
>but I'm not completely sure about this.
Inbetween the clicks and pops, ARE you getting greater clarity? I
doubt it.
Author:
Date:
Subject:
dm1n1c@hotmail.com
2008-06-18 07:11:49
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
On Jun 19, 12:07 am, Laurence Payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:54:28 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> >Hi everyone, I'm running Audition 2.0 on a 2.6 gig intel hyperthread
> >with 2 gig of ddr-ram and a delta 10/10 card. I increased the sample
> >rate through the card and the software to 96 KHZ to acheive higher
> >clarity but I'm getting these clicks and pops on playback. I think
> >it's because the DMA buffer size on the card control panel isn't high
> >enough. Can anyone tell me the correct DMA buffer size for recording
> >at 96 khz so that I don't get these clicks and pops? The other thing
> >is that a pop up tells me a list of latencies everytime I change the
> >DMA buffer size on the Delta 10/10 control panel though I think this
> >is not applicable if you have ASIO compatible software, which I do,
> >but I'm not completely sure about this.
>
> Inbetween the clicks and pops, ARE you getting greater clarity? I
> doubt it.
Are you suggesting that there is no noticable difference between 44100
and 96?
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Chris Whealy
2008-06-18 16:45:26
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 19, 12:07 am, Laurence Payne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:54:28 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone, I'm running Audition 2.0 on a 2.6 gig intel hyperthread
>>> with 2 gig of ddr-ram and a delta 10/10 card. I increased the sample
>>> rate through the card and the software to 96 KHZ to acheive higher
>>> clarity but I'm getting these clicks and pops on playback. I think
>>> it's because the DMA buffer size on the card control panel isn't high
>>> enough. Can anyone tell me the correct DMA buffer size for recording
>>> at 96 khz so that I don't get these clicks and pops? The other thing
>>> is that a pop up tells me a list of latencies everytime I change the
>>> DMA buffer size on the Delta 10/10 control panel though I think this
>>> is not applicable if you have ASIO compatible software, which I do,
>>> but I'm not completely sure about this.
>>>
>> Inbetween the clicks and pops, ARE you getting greater clarity? I
>> doubt it.
>>
>
> Are you suggesting that there is no noticable difference between 44100
> and 96?
>
There certainly is - you use up a helluva lot more disk space...
Besides this, will you be shipping your finished product to the punters
on a format that uses a sample rate > 44k1?
So even if you record, mix, and master at 96K, you still have to
down-sample the tracks to get them onto CD. Ergo, you loose whatever
benefits a 96K sample rate gave you.
As to whether there is an audible difference between 44k1 and 96K - the
debate rages on...
Chris W
--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Badmuts
2008-06-20 13:22:17
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
> > Are you suggesting that there is no noticable difference between 44100
> > and 96?
> >
> There certainly is - you use up a helluva lot more disk space...
Disk space costs nothing nowadays.
> So even if you record, mix, and master at 96K, you still have to
> down-sample the tracks to get them onto CD. Ergo, you loose whatever
> benefits a 96K sample rate gave you.
No, you don't. The math on audio material with higher bit- and samplerates
is done with much more precision, as is the work done by the human ear
during the production process. You'll end up having a more detailed final
product, even when downsampling.
> As to whether there is an audible difference between 44k1 and 96K - the
> debate rages on...
There's no need for that to rage on. Just use your ears, and equipment good
enough to actually reproduce the difference.
Theo
P.s.: about 5 years ago i used to share your point of view. Then i upgraded.
Author:
Date:
Subject:
Laurence Payne
2008-06-20 12:28:17
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:22:17 +0200, "Badmuts"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> As to whether there is an audible difference between 44k1 and 96K - the
>> debate rages on...
>
>There's no need for that to rage on. Just use your ears, and equipment good
>enough to actually reproduce the difference.
>
>Theo
>P.s.: about 5 years ago i used to share your point of view. Then i upgraded.
It would be very interesting to test which part of the upgrade caused
the improvement.
Author:
Date:
Subject:
dm1n1c@hotmail.com
2008-06-21 01:20:54
Re: 96 khz/DMA buffer
On Jun 19, 12:45 am, Chris Whealy <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 12:07 am, Laurence Payne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:54:28 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> Hi everyone, I'm running Audition 2.0 on a 2.6 gig intel hyperthread
> >>> with 2 gig of ddr-ram and a delta 10/10 card. I increased the sample
> >>> rate through the card and the software to 96 KHZ to acheive higher
> >>> clarity but I'm getting these clicks and pops on playback. I think
> >>> it's because the DMA buffer size on the card control panel isn't high
> >>> enough. Can anyone tell me the correct DMA buffer size for recording
> >>> at 96 khz so that I don't get these clicks and pops? The other thing
> >>> is that a pop up tells me a list of latencies everytime I change the
> >>> DMA buffer size on the Delta 10/10 control panel though I think this
> >>> is not applicable if you have ASIO compatible software, which I do,
> >>> but I'm not completely sure about this.
>
> >> Inbetween the clicks and pops, ARE you getting greater clarity? I
> >> doubt it.
>
> > Are you suggesting that there is no noticable difference between 44100
> > and 96?
>
> There certainly is - you use up a helluva lot more disk space...
>
> Besides this, will you be shipping your finished product to the punters
> on a format that uses a sample rate > 44k1?
>
> So even if you record, mix, and master at 96K, you still have to
> down-sample the tracks to get them onto CD. Ergo, you loose whatever
> benefits a 96K sample rate gave you.
>
> As to whether there is an audible difference between 44k1 and 96K - the
> debate rages on...
>
> Chris W
>
> --
> The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
> But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
> ---- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Want to make a good master Chris, for mp3 and CD. I guess I will loose
it on CD. I'm thinking of converting the final mix to FLAC and using
that as the master. Any ideas on lossless codecs?
|
