Dylan Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 The story is [url=http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/07-10-02-OMFI.asp]here[/url] . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 I'd be happy to see tham add 88.2 kHz to their sampling rates. How will you be able to import a project that was done at 24/88.2...if Cakewalk doesn't support it? Don't know what they were thinking when they went: 44.1 - 48 - ??? - 96....???...D-U-M-B!!! Someone must have dropped that page of programming code on the floor during develpoment...and it just got swept away. miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven dunston Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 For marketing purposes, they should have added it. For real-life recording, what's the point? There is no delivery format for which 88.2 is the preferred frequency. I don't hear any difference between 44.1 and 88.2 converted to 44.1. So for me it's not worth doubling the amount of recorded audio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alndln Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 Nice addition,but I would have liked the higher sampling rates and 32 bit as well.One thing I didn't like about OMF in Nuendo is that if you track in 32 bit OMF renders everything to 16,but if you track in 24 it stays.Since I prefer tracking in 32(Nuendo) my only solution is to export and dither each track individually and save as data.These days I'd rather just use Sonar, but it doesn't support tracking in 32,so I guess it'll be a while before I'm happy.I wan't 32/192hz in Sonar and export at 32 bit in OMF RIGHT NOW!!!!!PRONTO!!!! :mad: "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven dunston Posted July 11, 2002 Share Posted July 11, 2002 SONAR has a 32-bit engine, just not 32-bit files. Since there are no 32-bit converters, what is the point of storing 24-bit input as 32-bits? I challenge anyone to hear the difference between 24-bit files processed at 32-bits, and 32-bit files processed at 32-bits, once those files have been dithered down to 16-bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gtoledo3 Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 I'm pretty much with you on this one Steve. It's easy to get caught up in stuff that makes no difference, but adds a whole extra layer of work and b.s.(and sometimes doesn't even sound as good). Want mix/tracking feedback? Checkout "The Fade"- www.grand-designs.cc/mmforum/index.php The soon-to-be home of the "12 Bar-Blues Project" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alndln Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 "Tracking" in 32 will give you a bit more headroom(more gain) at the recording stage,"processing" in 32 will preserve it.Although I don't plan on upgrading to Nuendo 2.0(USB dongle and other reasons)I'd like to do away with it alltogether. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven dunston Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Tracking in 32-bit gives you a bit more headroom ONLY if your converters, room and signal path have more S/N than your project bit depth, minus your headroom. In other words, if you record at 24-bit, with your peaks at -12dB, you have 132dB of dynamic range. You'd need to do a project that required more than 132dB of dynamic range, in a studio with a noise floor and signal path to accomodate it. I've never been in a studio where that is the case. I'm not sure one exists. Most converters have less than 120dB S/N. It's possible to create VSTi/DXi projects where 32-bits can be useful. But unless you have a delivery mechanism for 32-bit files, SONAR's 32-bit engine, combined with 24-bit or 16-bit output, is more than sufficient. [quote]Originally posted by Alndln: [b]"Tracking" in 32 will give you a bit more headroom(more gain) at the recording stage,"processing" in 32 will preserve it.Although I don't plan on upgrading to Nuendo 2.0(USB dongle and other reasons)I'd like to do away with it alltogether.[/b][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by steven dunston: For marketing purposes, they should have added it. For real-life recording, what's the point? There is no delivery format for which 88.2 is the preferred frequency. I don't hear any difference between 44.1 and 88.2 converted to 44.1. So for me it's not worth doubling the amount of recorded audio.[/quote]Not looking to get into the "I can't hear any difference" debate...you are right though...if for no other reason, they should have included 88.2 for the marketing. If they said, "we are only giving you 44.1 and 48 because anything higher is useless"...OK...that's a conscious decision and a stand for "lower rates are good enough." But...they go and add 96 support and leave out 88.2…???!!! It's like a missing button on your shirt...you can get by without it...but it sure would be nice if it was there! :D miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Hey gang, I have used Cakewalk since 2.0. Though I have PT Mix++ at work, and a Digi 001 at home, I still do all of my sequencing, looping in Sonar and then import the midi and audio to track into PT. I have made several posts recently regarding the PT/Nuendo/Cubase SX debate in an attempt to get more info about which way to go in the PC audio world. I have never considered Cakewalk/Sonar as a serious audio environment. Maybe what I am looking for is right under my nose. How does Sonar add up to the above mentioned programs in strictly an audio sense? Mix bus, Pluginns, etc.... Any input would be helpful. Thanks Jotown:) Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alndln Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Great.As Iv'e posted before I find the WDM audio driver spec the best low latencey protocol around for PC.I'm getting 1.5ms and live input of plugs.I guess the only comparison would be TDM plugin quality v/s native.My only real complaints are the mixer being on a seperate page and is a little too big(GUI),The UAD card latencey solution isn't happening yet(soon?)and I'd like to record in 32 bit.Other than that it's rock solid and great for both creating and audio quality. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven dunston Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 96khz is a standard for a specific delivery medium. That's not true of 88.2. Truthfully, I'd like to be able to set my sample rate dynamically on a per-track basis. But it's not something I need. [quote]Originally posted by miroslav: If they said, "we are only giving you 44.1 and 48 because anything higher is useless"...OK...that's a conscious decision and a stand for "lower rates are good enough." [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted July 12, 2002 Share Posted July 12, 2002 Funny...I e-mailed Cakewalk with the same request to add 88.2 and the same question "why not"...and they ain't talking. I'd love to know the real reason it was ommitted... Anyway...88.2 might not be a specific delivery standard...but to me, it makes more sense for tracking and then SRC to 44.1, than it does going from 96. Of course...it's probably not a very audible issue...just math, but it wouldn't have hurt Cakewalk to include it...rather than leave it out. miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted July 13, 2002 Author Share Posted July 13, 2002 I would be surprised to see Cakewalk not add 88.2 support sometime in the near future. Although, if they do this they should also add some type of sample rate conversion as well. My guess is that AES31 support will be next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.