Old topic - 192khz? Why not in Auria? N-track iOS can do it

[Joe.dodaro]

Hey there I've been using n-track to record in 192 kHz with my quartet. Don't care what people say I hear a big difference at 192... That's double 96 .. There is a major difference in my opinion.

Been going n-track to logic for a while with awesome results... Why are we limited to 96 in Auria? Would love to use Auria exclusively and get rid of both logic and n-track. The loss in fidelity isn't worth the workflow upgrade currently.

Or is n-track being somehow tricky and creating 192khz waves that are actually only 96khz.

I am definitely ending up with files that are 192khz and open no prob in logic and they sound like the 192khz waves I am recording in logic.

What's up? Just wondering?

My new iPad Pro can really use some major challenges thrown at it.

[Rim]

The last I checked, 96000 was the max supported by the OS. It's possible iOS10 added support for 192, but I haven't checked lately. The truth is, although it's reasonable to expect that 192K would hold a lot more audio information, every audio converter (A/D) made performs worse at 192K vs 96K (and in a lot of cases 48K). There are many reasons for this, but a primary one is because converters use the time in between sample periods to transfer serial data. At 192K (and 96K in some cases), there's simply not enough time for the A/D to finish a conversion before it needs to shift out the serial data. This causes noise, degrading the performance. Have a look at some spec sheets for popular converters and you'll usually see THD+N go up with the higher sample rates. It's a case of diminishing returns unfortunately.

24 bit vs 16 bit is an entirely different thing, however. There's a big perceptual difference (and no noise penalty).

Rim

[Joe.dodaro]

Thanks for the detailed response Rim. My only point that I will add to this is with editing of audio, the more info that is there, the better in my opinion. This is because I tend to mangle my audio to the best of my ability with time stretching as well as effects. The added info really creates a much LESS noisy environment once everything is bounced in place. There is more info there, therefore there is more noise and more editing needed to get things where you want them, but to me there is a huge trade off. I really cannot record my drums at 96k. I can hear the difference. It's like there is a sheet or a "flattening Eq" on the mics at 96k.

I worked exclusively at 44.1 for years because the technical data showed that the difference was negligible, but as soon as an started at project at 192.. I cannot go back.

Also, just a FYI I have been using n-track since getting my iPhone 6s Plus last year. I was able to record at 192 using iOS 9. I am currently on ios9 with my iPad Pro as well.

Again, thanks for the awesome response... Here goes hoping with fingers crossed it may happen in Auria one day. Either way will still use Auria for a full mobile solution.

The last I checked, 96000 was the max supported by the OS. It's possible iOS10 added support for 192, but I haven't checked lately. The truth is, although it's reasonable to expect that 192K would hold a lot more audio information, every audio converter (A/D) made performs worse at 192K vs 96K (and in a lot of cases 48K). There are many reasons for this, but a primary one is because converters use the time in between sample periods to transfer serial data. At 192K (and 96K in some cases), there's simply not enough time for the A/D to finish a conversion before it needs to shift out the serial data. This causes noise, degrading the performance. Have a look at some spec sheets for popular converters and you'll usually see THD+N go up with the higher sample rates. It's a case of diminishing returns unfortunately.

24 bit vs 16 bit is an entirely different thing, however. There's a big perceptual difference (and no noise penalty).

Rim

[theconnactic]

It would be very hard to include support for it, in the case iOS allows for it? Or it would require fair amounts of rewriting to the audio engine, like you said loop recording would? By the way, does iOS already allows for smaller buffers, such as 64 or even 32? For audio recordings with lightweight effects, such as THM, I'm pretty sure the iPad Pro could handle it, if iOS allows it.

All the best!

[theconnactic]

P.S.: but Rim surely has a point (disclaimer: long text!):

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013 ... n-it-isnt/

One excerpt, relevant to the discussion here:

"It turns out that in many cases, we can hear the sound of higher sample rates not because they are more transparent, but because they are less so. They can actually introduce unintended distortion in the audible spectrum, and this is something that can be heard in listening tests."

[Rim]

Adding this as an option wouldn't be too difficult in Auria itself, but I'm afraid a lot of the Auria plugins won't work at all, since they are hand optimized (in assembler in some cases) for each sample rate, and there's no support for 192K.

Rim

[theconnactic]

Thanks for the info, Rim! And what about smaller buffer sizes (64 and 32)?

[Rim]

I just checked and iOS 10 supports 32 frame buffer sizes, so I've just added 32 and 64 to the next update.

Rim

[theconnactic]

Thank you so much, Rim!