Lag using "Square Mod Synth" at 192K?

[tjdover]

Greetings All,

I recently went back to a previous composition I'd done in order to re-render it. It loaded fine, but when I played it back, the entire piece slowed to a crawl and was stuttering horribly. After some troubleshooting, I discovered that it was the "Square Mod Synth" preset (which used the Impulse virtual instrument) that was causing the issue, but didn't realize until later why it was happening.

Originally, I'd composed the track in the 48K, 32 bit (Float), Stereo mode, but had since changed everything up to use the 192K, 32 bit (Float), Stereo setting. Thus, when I played it back in the new mode, it was lagging badly while rendering the sound in 192K. I tried all the other presets of the Impulse VST and they work just fine, so it was something specific to the "Square Mod Synth" configuration.

In the VST edit interface, I saw that the "Square Mod Synth" was based on the "Return of Bender" preset. After meticulously checking each setting, I discovered it was the "shape" setting in the LFO 1 region. If it is set to anything OTHER than "Sqr", it works fine. There is something with the "Sqr" setting in 192K mode that is causing the lag.

So, the simple question is...can this be fixed?

Thank you!
TJ Dover

[Acoustica Eric]

Using 192k is going to test any cpu, especially if you add some heavy virtual instruments.
It's my opinion that using 192k is a waste of cpu resource. The human ear cannot hear any difference between 32k, 48k, or higher. Your just using loads of processing power for no gain.

[Mark Bliss]

Similarly, I have found the vast majority of vst/vsti "cranky" at even attempting 92k much less any higher, and yes.... Fully agree there isn't really any point in it whatsoever in nearly any case.

[mick]

Here is some basic info supporting Greg's reply.
https://www.masteringthemix.com/blogs/l ... a-nutshell

[Acoustica Eric]

That's a great article on this subject. That Greg sure is a smart guy huh?

[mick]

He is!

[dpaterson]

Fully agree there isn't really any point in it whatsoever in nearly any case.

It's my opinion that using 192k is a waste of cpu resource. The human ear cannot hear any difference between 32k, 48k, or higher. Your just using loads of processing power for no gain.

The two of you sure about this??? LOL!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[mick]

If anyone has hairy ears that absorb the finer frequencies then anything above 44.1 wont work.

[tjdover]

Thanks for the replies! The only reason I went up to 192K is that I kept hearing that it was a "professional" thing. That article about sample rate and bit depth certainly clarified a few things for me. Previously, I'd been using the 48K, 32-Bit (Float), Stereo and everything was working fine. If the human ear is limited to the 24K or less range, the 48K sample rate should be more than sufficient. Knowing this, why does Mixcraft even offer the 192K sample rate? Be that as it may, I'll go back to my previous settings.

Thanks again!
TJD

[mick]

TJ I was digging a bit deeper into the bit rate / sample thing and found a couple of posts but this one was simple and non technical so it was an education for me too.

[dpaterson]

What's wrong with this one if I may ask:

https://forums.acoustica.com/bbs/viewto ... =4&t=23716

I take it you didn't read to page 10 then??? LOL!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[mick]

I'm using an M-Audio mtrack 2x2 @44.1
Mixcraft supports 192.000, 176.400, 96.000, 88.200, 48.000, 44.100.
192.000 presents a tiny bit of spike at the end of a repeating loop (or beginning - can't tell which) but 44.100 doesn't. The sound quality is no different no matter what resolution, but because 44.100 filters higher (unwanted) frequencies it sounds cleaner with no loss of detail. My hearing fades @ 8000k so a younger person may have a different opinion, so age is a factor along with headphones, speakers etc. I'll be keeping 44.1. as it presents no problems.

[dpaterson]

My hearing fades @ 8000k

You dunno what you're missing!!! LOL!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[mixyguy2]

Knowing this, why does Mixcraft even offer the 192K sample rate?

Because there are a ridiculously large number of people out there who buy into the "more is better" silliness and want 192. And hey, they want to sell the product, like any business, so like any smart business, they play ball. I don't blame them.

[dpaterson]

Morning.

At the risk of getting banned from these forums TOTALLY and FOREVER:

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here with this sampling rate and bit depth issue. In spite of what's been discussed on various other threads (ad nauseam I might add): higher sample rates and bit depths do have their place. There's more to it than simply saying "well humans cannot hear above ..." (one HELL of a lot more I have to emphasize). The REAL problem, however, comes in when mixing down to a lower sample rate and bit depth.

The saying "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind actually.

And obviously I've been monitoring this thread for the sake of interest and it kinda occurred to me yesterday: whenever somebody asks a question on this particular topic, as did the OP, then everybody is very quick to jump in and say "well you're wasting your time" etc. etc. etc. Fact of the matter is: if somebody (for whatever their reasoning) wants to work at higher sample rates and bit depths well then that's up to them. The OP really was reporting a problem with a particular plugin and even went to the trouble of working out which plugin was causing the problem and why. And based on the post: it's only the one plugin that's causing the problem i.e. evidently without the plugin he was running just fine at 192kHz (I can run just fine at 192kHz too albeit with a big buffer). Whether it's advisable or practical to be working at these high sample rates and bit depths is another story altogether as we're all well aware but this shouldn't be used as an excuse for something not working "as advertised on the tin".

Regards,

Dale.