TOPIC: IR sample rate conversion

IR sample rate conversion 4 weeks 1 day ago #18315

I tend to get the lowest latency without hiccups running S-Gear at 88khz--usually around 8.2 ms round-trip latency. I have a handful of IRs I like to use that only come in 44khz, 48khz, and 96khz. I'd love to see a feature added to S-Gear that could resample IRs, if such a thing is possible.

Great software, love it!
Last Edit: 4 weeks 1 day ago by martinbuffalo.
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 4 weeks 1 day ago #18316

What sound card do you have?
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 4 weeks 1 day ago #18317

Presonus Studio 26.
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 4 weeks 1 day ago #18318

If you got a better sound card such as rme Babyface pro you could drop your buffers to 64 and get 4ms RTL with zero pops. A cheaper option is a zoom UAC-2. You cannot find better USB interfaces in terms of USB latency and stability. Run S-Gear at 44.1 , 48, or 96 and you'll have zero problems. Apogee duet is also decent with regards to latency. But nothing can touch RME. Check out my post on interfaces. We've done extensive testing on various devices. Rme takes the cake everytime.
Presonus quantum was solid as well but requires thunderbolt
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 3 weeks 6 days ago #18323

I’d love to score a used babyface, but they are too expensive for an extra few milliseconds. At that price level I could by a decent hardware modeler. I’m also running one of the later MacBook Pros, which only has USB-C/thunderbolt 3 ports. I went with the Presonus Studio 26 because it had 4 outputs which is necessary for my particular monitoring situation.
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 3 weeks 6 days ago #18324

You can get a used quantum. That will solve all your problems. The other presonus products are pretty terrible ey regards to latency and stability. Your main problem is your interface. It's not just about latency, it's also about stability. However Rme, zoom tac-2, and quantum are all wonderful products that will give you more than a few Ms in latency. It'll drop your RTL in half. That's your best bet
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 3 weeks 5 days ago #18325

I’d be all over the Zoom if it had more line outs. The others are outside of what I would want to pay at this point.
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 3 weeks 5 days ago #18326

Why not just work at 96k? It shouldn't have a significant CPU hit and may lower the RTL by ~1ms (wow!). Just upsample any tracks you've recorded. Real time sample conversion can increase CPU use, so convert the files first. Upsampling doesn't require a special algorithm for great results because it doesn't reduce information. Many programs can do it. Foobar 2000 works well for that and other types of file conversions.
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 3 weeks 5 days ago #18327

Even the new focusrite Scarlett would be an upgrade. They have a 2in 4 out that might be worth it. But remember the sound card is definitely the one area that can vastly improve your experience with computers. It might be worth it to save your chips and splurge a little. If latency and snap crackle pop bugs you. If not, well then mess around with your sample rates and buffer settings till.you get it decent enough.
SIGN-IN TO REPLY

IR sample rate conversion 1 week 4 days ago #18373

I found a pretty good deal on a B stock focusrite 2/4 thunderbolt interface. Big improvement in the rtl, although I suspect this is an area of diminishing returns for my needs. 8.3 ms was pretty comfy for me. I haven’t finished experimenting with buffer settings, but I seem to be able to get down to 4 ms without crackling and popping.Not sure there’s enough of a difference to justify the additional cost but maybe if I start recording more it will matter more.
Last Edit: 1 week 4 days ago by martinbuffalo.
SIGN-IN TO REPLY
Time to create page: 0.083 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum