Question about sampling rates

[Rogue]

I've never paid much attention to sampling rates, but have come across some curious issues recently. Most of it is probably more about digital recording in general, but I'm sure the Two-Notes fellows can clear up a few things.

I've recently moved to Reaper software for my DAW. One thing I've noticed is there are multiple places to set up the sampling rate...the rate of interface, the rate of the project, and the rate of the export. Both my project and interface was set to 48 khz. But I exported (by accident) at 44.1 khz. This conversion made a drastic difference in what I heard in the DAW to what the mp3 playback was. I read some plug-ins don't like sample rate conversions and maybe the Two-Notes is one of them? Exporting at 48 khz sounding much closer to what I was hearing in the DAW.

So, what is the best approach here? Pick one and keep it consistent throughout the process? Is there a sampling rate the Two-Notes plug-in performs the best? Would it be better to sample at a higher rate (say 96 khz), and export a wav at 96 khz and the convert that file to a 48 or 44.1 khz? Just looking for a general approach here for the best performance.

Similarly, what is the best approach for bit depth?

Another question unrelated to sampling rate and bit depth, I've found the ASIO drivers sound different than Direct Sound (or whatever). When playing back in the DAW using ASIO drivers, and playing the exported file back in a player (several different ones), the ASIO just sounds better. I can import the exported file in Reaper and it sounds like the playback in Reaper, but not in media player, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Do people mix with the Direct Sound since that is what players use? That is what I've done...record in ASIO for the latency benefits, and mix in Direct Sound so that it closer reflects how it will sound in a player. How do other people address this issue?

Thanks

 

[guillaume_pille]

Hi Rogue,

could you please send a mail to support AT two-notes.com? Just copy-paste your message about sampling rates here, just so we can have your email address and deal with this issue directly.

Another question unrelated to sampling rate and bit depth, I've found the ASIO drivers sound different than Direct Sound (or whatever). When playing back in the DAW using ASIO drivers, and playing the exported file back in a player (several different ones), the ASIO just sounds better. I can import the exported file in Reaper and it sounds like the playback in Reaper, but not in media player, it doesn't sound nearly as good. Do people mix with the Direct Sound since that is what players use? That is what I've done...record in ASIO for the latency benefits, and mix in Direct Sound so that it closer reflects how it will sound in a player. How do other people address this issue?

I have never heard about sound differences between direct sound and ASIO, but it is certain that direct sound can't achieve low latency, so I wouldn't bother using it.

 

[Rogue]

Hi Rogue,

could you please send a mail to support AT two-notes.com? Just copy-paste your message about sampling rates here, just so we can have your email address and deal with this issue directly.

Done.

I have never heard about sound differences between direct sound and ASIO, but it is certain that direct sound can't achieve low latency, so I wouldn't bother using it.

Yes, but the problem is once a file is exported from the DAW, it doesn't sound nearly as good in a player (assuming using more direct sound like). This is probably more a recording forum type question.

 

[guillaume_pille]

Done.

You'll receive news today.

Yes, but the problem is once a file is exported from the DAW, it doesn't sound nearly as good in a player (assuming using more direct sound like). This is probably more a recording forum type question.

I actually don't know the structure of the DirectSound drivers so it is possible there is some kind of audio processing in it, when ASIO is more straightforward, direct addressing of the hardware audio peripheral.

You seem not to be the only one talking about this subject (http://www.hardwareheaven.com/gener...erence-between-directsound-asio-playback.html), I never used DirectSound because of the VERY POOR overall performance of this driver.

 

[Rogue]

I actually don't know the structure of the DirectSound drivers so it is possible there is some kind of audio processing in it, when ASIO is more straightforward, direct addressing of the hardware audio peripheral.

You seem not to be the only one talking about this subject (http://www.hardwareheaven.com/gener...erence-between-directsound-asio-playback.html), I never used DirectSound because of the VERY POOR overall performance of this driver.

I don't know what is going on with these drivers, I just know the ASIO has killer latency and sounds much better than DirectSound. The problem is, DirectSound (in the DAW) sounds closer to what is being played back through my players (Winamp, Media Player, Audacity) of my rendered files.

Do all the mainstream players use DirectSound as their drivers? If so, just about everyone is listening to crap playback of the original. Do people mix to that so that it sounds better on the majority of players? Like I said, this is probably more a recording forum question.

 

[guillaume_pille]

Actually I am on a Macbook Pro but half of our development PCs are on Windows (various versions), they all use ASIO for all applications.

I am not using Windows much nowadays but I think you can have a default sound driver in any application, so you can choose ASIO. The problem with ASIO is that you can only have 1 application using the ASIO driver (so no Reaper or Cubase in parallel with Winamp for example).