Which version of cubase? Nuendo should support 192k. Logic and ProTools do for sure. I'd lean toward Logic though. ProTools is going through some serious growing pains.

As far as what you can do, if you have a proper synth or electronic piano around, use that to record midi but mute the vst output. Instead monitor the output of the keyboard. You might need a small mixer if you don't already have one.

It was Cubase 5
Can't use logic, forgot to mention that I'm on windows 7.

Looks like I'm going with pro tools. I really need to be able to hear the instrument i'm playing in order to play it well. Each sampler is vastly different, atleast to my ear/touch.

Anyone who has other recommendations feel free to help too!

What interface are you using? Sample rate is largely dependent on your interface. If you want to run 192k with ProTools, you will need an HD system which will be in excess of $6000.00 if you get a deal. That is just for the HD1 card and a 192io A/D interface.

You could also consider [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.samplitu…"]Samplitude[/]="http://www.samplitu…"]Samplitude[/] which supports 192k or up to a theoretical 384k. I don't know how that 384k works but 192k is there.

What do you mean interface?

If pro tools supports 192khz, I should be able to use it in there. My puny little $150 m-audio 192 can do it.

Cubase will record at 192khz....I've recorded NI Akoustik Piano samples and a Fantom X7 straight audio into Cubase at 192khz and I wasn't bothered by the latency....but like you said some people can't hear less than 15ms of latency and be affected by it. I've been told that above 20-milliseconds is noticeable.
I use an RME FF800 interface with Cubase and have latency around 6ms and that's using a 256 sample buffer....
I think you're confusing your DAW software as the source of latency and sample rate which is a function of your interface not the recording software.
FWIW 192khz is nice and open and great sound, but the trade off with huge file sizes isn't worth it for me.
I'm happy running at a 96khz sample rate right now at 6ms of latency.

Apparently Cubase 6 supports up to 384k as well but not Cubase 6 Studio or Essentials.

An interface is your recording device, audio interface.

Venik: ProTools M-Powered only supports up to 96k. You need an HD system in order to record at 192k.

Cubase 6!
Did I completely already miss out on my Cubase 5 upgrade!
Crap!

djmukilteo, post: 300100 wrote: Cubase will record at 192khz....I've recorded NI Akoustik Piano samples and a Fantom X7 straight audio into Cubase at 192khz and I wasn't bothered by the latency....but like you said some people can't hear less than 15ms of latency and be affected by it. I've been told that above 20-milliseconds is noticeable.
I use an RME FF800 interface with Cubase and have latency around 6ms and that's using a 256 sample buffer....
I think you're confusing your DAW software as the source of latency and sample rate which is a function of your interface not the recording software.
FWIW 192khz is nice and open and great sound, but the trade off with huge file sizes isn't worth it for me.
I'm happy running at a 96khz sample rate right now at 6ms of latency.

The guy who sold me the East/west Software Goliath and pianos, was trying to sell me what he was calling a "DAW" aswell (Cubase). So I was just taking his word on that.

Anyways how do you record at 192khz in Cubase 5?

I can't use a 256 sample buffer with big samplers, no sound comes out, and especially not with the east/west pianos which I believe has 40-50 gig of samples per piano. When I "record" in Cubase 5 (I think I'm actually developing a phobia), I have to use 96khz, and a 1024 (maybe even higher can't remember) sample buffer, which leaves me with 21 ms. The bigger your sampler, the more latency you're going to have or the higher freq your going to need. I'm basically screwed if I want to hear as I play, without an interface that can record at 192khz.

hueseph, post: 300118 wrote: Apparently Cubase 6 supports up to 384k as well but not Cubase 6 Studio or Essentials.

An interface is your recording device, audio interface.

Venik: ProTools M-Powered only supports up to 96k. You need an HD system in order to record at 192k.

Well, then to answer your question, as I said in my first post, I'm using Cubase 5.

As for 192 Khz, I know for a fact that Nuendo does which costs less than $1000. And I know that there are even cheaper ($100ish) interfaces that record at 192khz, and perhaps even some free ones. Why don't I get Nuendo? Because I don't like stienberg, but it looks like I might have to anyways. I'm really here just looking for some reviews from people who use large samplers though.

See there ya go listening to sales guys! LOL
Your using the E/W stuff in Cubase 5 as a VST instrument right?
As far as I'm aware the wav files for those instruments gets loaded into your RAM and is streamed into Cubase for recording via the E/W software engine as you play.....I take it your using a MIDI keyboard for triggering?
What is the specs on your computer?....RAM, speed, 32bit, 64bit OS?? Large wav samples being streamed require fast RAM and a quick computer!
Maybe your getting MIDI latency but your still at the mercy of your interface or computer not Cubase or whatever DAW you have...they won't fix any of that!
What you really need is "zero latency monitoring" like RME and others have in their interfaces....can you do that with the m-audio?

djmukilteo, post: 300128 wrote: See there ya go listening to sales guys! LOL
Your using the E/W stuff in Cubase 5 as a VST instrument right?
As far as I'm aware the wav files for those instruments gets loaded into your RAM and is streamed into Cubase for recording via the E/W software engine as you play.....I take it your using a MIDI keyboard for triggering?
What is the specs on your computer?....RAM, speed, 32bit, 64bit OS?? Large wav samples being streamed require fast RAM and a quick computer!
Maybe your getting MIDI latency but your still at the mercy of your interface or computer not Cubase or whatever DAW you have...they won't fix any of that!
What you really need is "zero latency monitoring" like RME and others have in their interfaces....can you do that with the m-audio?

Lol, yea I thought that a DAW should technically be the whole shebang.. And sorry for all the jumbled info, this is one of like 4 forums I posted on so I'm not sure what I have and haven't said here lol.

My computer isn't great. I'm using a fantom x8 hooked up through midi to my audiophile 192. Dual core 2.4 ghz. 10,000 RPM hard drive. Windows 7 64 bit. 2 gigs of nice ram, and upgrading to 6 soon. Ironically I think the most limiting spec I have are my old headphones, recently started cracking at high volume =(.

Yes I'm using the East/west as a VST

I can definitely use 192khz with 10 ms and 2048 buffer sampling in the Goliath standalone. It's perfect, I think 10 ms is actually the latency of an actual piano. But I can't really record with it so it's kind of useless. HOWEVER, actually, right after I posted my last post I opened up my cubase 5 to try and screw with it again...And when I activated my audiophile 192 asio driver (don't know why i have to activate it every time)...it gave me a message saying 192khz has been enabled, and it worked great. I recorded a quick clair de lune intro and it sounds great im in love, never recorded with my computer before. So now I'm hoping you can tell me how to ensure that this setting will stick the next time i open it up. Perhaps I could stick with cubase until I learn the ropes or see some better candy in another interface.

While your here, could you tell me the difference in sound between 32 bit 24 bit and 16 bit? Is it fidelity?

Thanks

djmukilteo, post: 300124 wrote: Cubase 6!
Did I completely already miss out on my Cubase 5 upgrade!
Crap!

Ouch! Ya got me.

Venik: an audio interface is hardware. At any rate you answered the question when you mentioned M-Audio. This "guy" is selling legitimate hardware/software right? You would have to transfer authorizations.

Also, you are storing your samples and recording to separate drives?

M-Audio Audiophile 192:
"Zero-latency direct hardware input monitoring plus flexible I/O routing
Monitoring your recording is easy with the Audiophile 192's zero-latency hardware input monitoring support. The separate balanced 1/4" TRS monitor outputs can be routed to a mixer or powered speakers, whichever you need in your studio. In addition, input and output routing can be controlled via included software to provide maximum flexibility for your recording setup. And the S/PDIF digital I/O can be routed to and from external effects processors to give you even more sound shaping options."

FanotmX8....right on....I'm more of an organ player so I prefer the soft key which the X7 as opposed to the weighted..so i went with the X7.....do you have any of the Fantom SX sound cards installed in yours....I have three (Drums, Keys, can't remember the third one) looking to fill it out completely with one more....I love the sound of that machine all by itself....I have the Native Instruments Komplete 6 which has close to 1Tb of frickin samples....and it's completely insane amount of sounds....I'm completely overloaded with samples everywhere....
The Akoustik Piano stuff sounds good to me but I like more of the EP stuff and organs....anyway I digress....

You should really be using this method to monitor....headphones or speakers whatever......that M-audio card is your weakest link as far as the sample buffers and the ASIO driver is concerned....turn the buffers down to like 256 or see if it will go down as low as 64 buffers without dropouts or clicks in Cubase when you record. Also in Cubase there's a latency value in and out, so go look at that in Cubase under Device setting and see what that says. A good system can produce around 20usec of latency with 64 sample buffers, which is completely negligible. The more the buffers (like 1024) the longer the time becomes and the higher the latency....at 1024 you are taking almost twice the time to store a sample at say 256....so you want to set it as low as you can go without breaking up...

You really need to make sure your Win7 is tweaked for performance for sure with only 2G of RAM! ....you should go into the performance settings and turn all the fluffy visual effects and GUI crap off! that just robs all of your RAM...set it for best performance...the screen and GUI will look like old XP but you'll see a major improvement in speed. You don't have nearly enough RAM in your computer to do what your trying to do without having delays....
6Gb minimum would be more appropriate for Win7 64bit....4G will be an improvement but still....on a 32bit machine 4G would be max and fine for XP 32bit but on a 64bit Win7 no way. Those gigabit samples your loading, while running Cubase5 plus using a PCI bus card for an interface!....that's all CPU bus traffic going on! and lots of RAM is needed....you've got the right HDD speed but I don't know if you have a secondary HDD which would also be a big improvement for bus handling....if you only have the one drive your pulling data off that HDD while executing application and OS....your read/write speed is going to bog down...having a second HDD for your sample storage and for writing recorded audio files to would be the better thing to do....

djmukilteo, post: 300170 wrote: M-Audio Audiophile 192:
"Zero-latency direct hardware input monitoring plus flexible I/O routing
Monitoring your recording is easy with the Audiophile 192's zero-latency hardware input monitoring support. The separate balanced 1/4" TRS monitor outputs can be routed to a mixer or powered speakers, whichever you need in your studio. In addition, input and output routing can be controlled via included software to provide maximum flexibility for your recording setup. And the S/PDIF digital I/O can be routed to and from external effects processors to give you even more sound shaping options."

FanotmX8....right on....I'm more of an organ player so I prefer the soft key which the X7 as opposed to the weighted..so i went with the X7.....do you have any of the Fantom SX sound cards installed in yours....I have three (Drums, Keys, can't remember the third one) looking to fill it out completely with one more....I love the sound of that machine all by itself....I have the Native Instruments Komplete 6 which has close to 1Tb of frickin samples....and it's completely insane amount of sounds....I'm completely overloaded with samples everywhere....
The Akoustik Piano stuff sounds good to me but I like more of the EP stuff and organs....anyway I digress....

Nah I don't have any sound upgrades, I mainly like it for it's piano feel, and other gadgets.

You should really be using this method to monitor....headphones or speakers whatever......that M-audio card is your weakest link as far as the sample buffers and the ASIO driver is concerned....turn the buffers down to like 256 or see if it will go down as low as 64 buffers without dropouts or clicks in Cubase when you record. Also in Cubase there's a latency value in and out, so go look at that in Cubase under Device setting and see what that says. A good system can produce around 20usec of latency with 64 sample buffers, which is completely negligible. The more the buffers (like 1024) the longer the time becomes and the higher the latency....at 1024 you are taking almost twice the time to store a sample at say 256....so you want to set it as low as you can go without breaking up...

I can't go lower than 1500ish buffer size without cut-outs, is this a pc problem?
At 2024 and 192khz, I get 10 ms which I cannot complain for. So is an upgrade really necessary?
I still get the occasional artifact, when I play alot of voices in a short time. I'm assuming this is my memory bottleneck.

You really need to make sure your Win7 is tweaked for performance for sure with only 2G of RAM! ....you should go into the performance settings and turn all the fluffy visual effects and GUI crap off! that just robs all of your RAM...set it for best performance...the screen and GUI will look like old XP but you'll see a major improvement in speed. You don't have nearly enough RAM in your computer to do what your trying to do without having delays...

I have a great gfx card that handles all that, with it's own gig of ram or so.

6Gb minimum would be more appropriate for Win7 64bit....4G will be an improvement but still....on a 32bit machine 4G would be max and fine for XP 32bit but on a 64bit Win7 no way. Those gigabit samples your loading, while running Cubase5 plus using a PCI bus card for an interface!....that's all CPU bus traffic going on!

Do you mean motherboard bus traffic? What does the CPU have to do with it? My sound card has it's own ram and cpu.

Also, shouldn't a PCIe card have faster connectivity than an external controller that uses a serial cable? What other means do those controllers use?

and lots of RAM is needed....you've got the right HDD speed but I don't know if you have a secondary HDD which would also be a big improvement for bus handling....if you only have the one drive your pulling data off that HDD while executing application and OS....your read/write speed is going to bog down...having a second HDD for your sample storage and for writing recorded audio files to would be the better thing to do....

I have my OS, VST, and cubase on my 10,000 rpm 74 gig drive. And my samples on my 500gig 7200 rpm drive (JUST bought this yesterday). And a 2 TB 5600 Rpm drive for general storage.

hueseph, post: 300139 wrote: Ouch! Ya got me.

Venik: an audio interface is hardware. At any rate you answered the question when you mentioned M-Audio. This "guy" is selling legitimate hardware/software right? You would have to transfer authorizations.

Also, you are storing your samples and recording to separate drives?

Yea I am.

venik, post: 299979 wrote: I recently bought EW/QL Goliath, and pianos. Both pretty much require that I use 192Khz, if I want to hear the recording as I play it. Cubase tops out at 96khz, and to boot won't let me adjust the sample size. Anywho, anyone else using these huge samples, and plays the keyboard well enough for the latency to really bother them? What did you do?

I get 20 ms, and I need more like 10 or 12 max to feel comfortable as if it were a real piano or synth.

O.k, a couple of things....

What computer are you using? Specs, HD type, speed?
A Recommended system to run PLAY is a Quad Core with 8GB of RAM

In a 64bit environment I run Vista Business 64bit
Cubase 5 64bit
i7 940 2.93GHZ with 12GB of RAM
4 X 300GB WD VelociRaptors.....running 7 EWQL libraries:
EWQLSO Gold/ EWQLSChoirs
VOP
EWQL Pianos Full edition
RA
MOR
SD2

I get 2ms latency.

Cubase 5 to my knowledge does NOT support 192khz and no...EWQL doesn't require the samples
to use 192khz, who told you that?

Samples are recorded in 44.1 /24bit at the highest, while my EWQLSO Gold is recorded at 16bit.

In order to Run PLAY (efficiently) you need:
a Quad Core minimum with 6GBminimum
64bit OS
64bit host
multiple HD's that spread your libaries out. (not to exceed 50%) of the drives storage
7200RPM min...
think newer Caviar Blacks 640GB...do NOT write to these drives, only for sample streaming storage...

SSD's are the best choice.

You also need a competent audio interface...
You do NOT need to reach 192khz.
There will be no audible difference between 24/96 ----192...

Johnny_B, post: 300699 wrote: O.k, a couple of things....

What computer are you using? Specs, HD type, speed?
A Recommended system to run PLAY is a Quad Core with 8GB of RAM

In a 64bit environment I run Vista Business 64bit
Cubase 5 64bit
i7 940 2.93GHZ with 12GB of RAM
4 X 300GB WD VelociRaptors.....running 7 EWQL libraries:
EWQLSO Gold/ EWQLSChoirs
VOP
EWQL Pianos Full edition
RA
MOR
SD2

I get 2ms latency.

Cubase 5 to my knowledge does NOT support 192khz and no...EWQL doesn't require the samples
to use 192khz, who told you that?

Samples are recorded in 44.1 /24bit at the highest, while my EWQLSO Gold is recorded at 16bit.

In order to Run PLAY (efficiently) you need:
a Quad Core minimum with 6GBminimum
64bit OS
64bit host
multiple HD's that spread your libaries out. (not to exceed 50%) of the drives storage
7200RPM min...
think newer Caviar Blacks 640GB...do NOT write to these drives, only for sample streaming storage...

SSD's are the best choice.

You also need a competent audio interface...
You do NOT need to reach 192khz.
There will be no audible difference between 24/96 ----192...

I told myself I needed 192khz, I observed it when I got 22 ms without it. I can't play and record at the same time with 22 ms. I wasn't using this frequency for quality, although I believe I can hear the difference...I was using it for latency.

If you would be so kind as to read the thread, you'll understand my problem better. Which is no longer latency.

I think changing my library from my 10k rpm to my 7.2k rpm hdd fixed it. I'm getting 6 ms now with 96khz and I was able to lower my buffer much lower without artifacts. I did this after I found that I could use 192khz in cubase, but I couldn't write files in that format so the files always came out wrong. So I did some researching and discovered that rpm really means jack shit and is just a marketing scheme, I'd recommend you look into it. I still do get some artifacts thought when I play fast chords though. So I still need help.

I already posted my specs...but I guess I'll post them again...
Windows 7 64 bit
Cubase 5.1 32 bit (are you sure a 64 bit version exists?)
dual core 2.4 Ghz
M-audio audiophile 192
2 gigs of memory (definitely upgrading to 6 or more soon)
A very fast (supposedly) drive for windows and cubase
a slightly less fast drive for libraries
and another slightly less fast drive for storage.

P.S. a 64 bit host is synonymous with a 64 bit OS. But I'm using the 64 bit "play" if that's what you mean.

What is the use of 8 gigs of memory? Mixing? I haven't touched EWQL pianos yet, will that use more Ram than goliath? I only use 500 mb or so with cubase/play active.

I know my specs aren't *ideal*, but I believe my problem is in my settings somewhere. I believe so because while I play and hear artifacts, I can see my CPU only working at 40-50%, and my memory working at <10%. My hard drive is working at something like 5 mb/sec which is cake. There has to be a setting somewhere that's screwing me up when obviously everything isn't hustling.

My ideas are: is there are setting that could be curbing how hard any of them work? Whether it be my ram, cpu, hard drive, or maybe even the "play.exe" itself?

What exactly is the different between 24 bit and 16 bit? fidelity?
Also is there a way to change buffer size INSIDE cubase? for some reason cubase seems to lock me out from changing it in my sound settings.

venik, post: 300706 wrote: I told myself I needed 192khz, I observed it when I got 22 ms without it. I can't play and record at the same time with 22 ms. I wasn't using this frequency for quality, although I believe I can hear the difference...I was using it for latency.

I don't know when you decided to tell yourself you needed 192khz but...
Cubase 5 does not support it (as you know)
PLAY....the sample engine does not support 192khz...

-QL Pianos *GOLD* uses 16 bit samples at 44.1
-QL Pianos (full edition) uses 24bit and definitely not at 192khz
-Most Goliath instruments are 24bit but some are 16bit.

You cannot just take a sample rate and tell it "I want you to be at 192khz" and bam...
it becomes 192khz while reducing latency...IF Cubase supported 192khz you could upsample
but this isn't the same thing when the native samples from EWQL aren't even close to 192khz...

Are you mixing/mastering 5.1/7.1 mixes? No?
Then 192khz isn't needed considering a CD- gets mixed down to 44.1 in the end.
192khz is more demanding than 44.1/96khz hence...require a shit ton more data.

I think changing my library from my 10k rpm to my 7.2k rpm hdd fixed it. I'm getting 6 ms now with 96khz and I was able to lower my buffer much lower without artifacts. I did this after I found that I could use 192khz in cubase, but I couldn't write files in that format so the files always came out wrong. So I did some researching and discovered that rpm really means jack shit and is just a marketing scheme, I'd recommend you look into it. I still do get some artifacts thought when I play fast chords though. So I still need help.
I suggest you check out Soundsonline...(forum section)
I get lower latency figures and never get artifacts, pops/clicks....Why?

venik, post: 300706 wrote: I already posted my specs...but I guess I'll post them again...
Windows 7 64 bit
Cubase 5.1 32 bit (are you sure a 64 bit version exists?)
dual core 2.4 Ghz
M-audio audiophile 192
2 gigs of memory (definitely upgrading to 6 or more soon)
A very fast (supposedly) drive for windows and cubase
a slightly less fast drive for libraries
and another slightly less fast drive for storage.

Cubase automatically detects a 64 OS and installs Cubase 64bit...
In your case W7 may not have been recognized.
Providing your Cubase is legit (dongle and all) you should reinstall...
choose custom, and use the 64bit installer from the DVD disc.
I don't recommend M-audio because they write drivers like a 5 year old tries stay inside the lines
of a colouring book.

venik, post: 300706 wrote: P.S. a 64 bit host is synonymous with a 64 bit OS. But I'm using the 64 bit "play" if that's what you mean.
What is the use of 8 gigs of memory? Mixing? I haven't touched EWQL pianos yet, will that use more Ram than goliath? I only use 500 mb or so with cubase/play active.
I know my specs aren't *ideal*, but I believe my problem is in my settings somewhere. I believe so because while I play and hear artifacts, I can see my CPU only working at 40-50%, and my memory working at <10%. My hard drive is working at something like 5 mb/sec which is cake. There has to be a setting somewhere that's screwing me up when obviously everything isn't hustling.
What exactly is the different between 24 bit and 16 bit? fidelity?
Also is there a way to change buffer size INSIDE cubase? for some reason cubase seems to lock me out from changing it in my sound settings.

1.) You need to read the manuals son. Not skim or skip them.

2.) There are bottlenecks within your system that impede good workflow, and once you record
10-15-20+ instruments either at once or individually your RAM will start to shrink.
I use 12GB's of RAM. Usually deemed excessive but NOT when it comes to PLAY and
the libraries I have. The Pianos library alone is 270GB's! Meaning 10's of thousands of samples can be
streamed from ONE instrument alone...(multiple mic positions) all at 24bit, not at 192khz...
IF Pianos Full edition were recorded in 192khz do you know how many MORE GB's would have been needed?

You cannot change buffer settings because it has been predetermined by certain factors....
Did I mention M-audio sucks?

You asked what is the difference between 16bit and 24bit?
Yet you know the difference between 96khz and 192khz?
I advise you to search google for the answer and have a better understanding of sound engineering.

a 2.4 GHZ CPU won't cut it period.
QUAD CORE minimum with 8GB's of RAM+ 64bit host/OS+ exceptional sound card, or it's your mental state!
You need HD's with fast access times and don't write to the sample storage drives=no defragmenting.

Johnny_B, post: 300738 wrote: I don't know when you decided to tell yourself you needed 192khz but...
Cubase 5 does not support it (as you know)
PLAY....the sample engine does not support 192khz...

-QL Pianos *GOLD* uses 16 bit samples at 44.1
-QL Pianos (full edition) uses 24bit and definitely not at 192khz
-Most Goliath instruments are 24bit but some are 16bit.

You cannot just take a sample rate and tell it "I want you to be at 192khz" and bam...
it becomes 192khz while reducing latency...IF Cubase supported 192khz you could upsample
but this isn't the same thing when the native samples from EWQL aren't even close to 192khz...

I understand that. What you don't understand is that a 44.1khz sample, being sampled at 192khz...reduces latency.

This thread was geared towards people who play the keyboard, well enough to tell the difference between 22ms and 10ms. You show no signs of understanding the significance of latency, or how to help it.

Are you mixing/mastering 5.1/7.1 mixes? No?
Then 192khz isn't needed considering a CD- gets mixed down to 44.1 in the end.
192khz is more demanding than 44.1/96khz hence...require a shit ton more data.

I'm not trying to increase the quality, I'm reducing the latency. Do you understand latency? Perhaps you're too spoiled by your $20k system to understand that freq can be used to up the sample buffer while lowering or keeping the same latency.

I suggest you check out Soundsonline...(forum section)
I get lower latency figures and never get artifacts, pops/clicks....Why?

Because you spent ungodly amounts of money that I am not willing to spend. I'm a hobby pianist, not a sound engineer.

Cubase automatically detects a 64 OS and installs Cubase 64bit...
In your case W7 may not have been recognized.
Providing your Cubase is legit (dongle and all) you should reinstall...
choose custom, and use the 64bit installer from the DVD disc.
I don't recommend M-audio because they write drivers like a 5 year old tries stay inside the lines
of a colouring book.

1.) You need to read the manuals son. Not skim or skip them.

2.) There are bottlenecks within your system that impede good workflow, and once you record
10-15-20+ instruments either at once or individually your RAM will start to shrink.
I use 12GB's of RAM. Usually deemed excessive but NOT when it comes to PLAY and
the libraries I have. The Pianos library alone is 270GB's! Meaning 10's of thousands of samples can be
streamed from ONE instrument alone...(multiple mic positions) all at 24bit, not at 192khz...
IF Pianos Full edition were recorded in 192khz do you know how many MORE GB's would have been needed?

You cannot change buffer settings because it has been predetermined by certain factors....
Did I mention M-audio sucks?

What predetermined factors....? I'm trying to learn this stuff, if you don't want to help, frankly, get out. If you do, then put your ego a side for a few minutes so that you can actually understand what my problem is. Rather than create this sort of scenario where I need to beg you to help me.

You asked what is the difference between 16bit and 24bit?
Yet you know the difference between 96khz and 192khz?
I advise you to search google for the answer and have a better understanding of sound engineering.

a 2.4 GHZ CPU won't cut it period.
QUAD CORE minimum with 8GB's of RAM+ 64bit host/OS+ exceptional sound card, or it's your mental state!
You need HD's with fast access times and don't write to the sample storage drives=no defragmenting.

You aren't helping me at all.
1. Read the thread. I've used 192 khz both in cubase and in play. The only problem was writing the file.
2. You ignored my main problem. Are there any settings that could be bottlenecking? I'm getting artifacts with no real load on my ram, cpu, or hard drive. You say it's my hardware, but my monitoring says otherwise. Everything is running smooth. I'm getting 6 ms, which is probably even a little bit too low. All monitering shows less than 50% load. I'm not getting any artifacts until I play 50 or so keys within a few seconds, and my hardware is showing 0 signs of heavy load! If you genuinely want to help, you need to level with me.
3. Manuals are useless, and I've searched google. That's how I found this site. If you don't want to help, don't click on the thread.

venik, post: 300744 wrote: I understand that. What you don't understand is that a 44.1khz sample, being sampled at 192khz...reduces latency.
This thread was geared towards people who play the keyboard, well enough to tell the difference between 22ms and 10ms. You show no signs of understanding the significance of latency

EDIT: Thanks for inferring I don't know about the subject at hand, I appreciate it.
I did not know that raising sample rates reduces latency...so I at least get why you are doing that...
But I don't think that is what should be...
Now I am thinking your audio interface is the catalyst for your issues.
For an example:

I use a (cheap) Presonus Firebox (cheap)....
I use 24bit/96khz and get 2ms of latency....
The Firebox doesn's support 192khz sample rates (see I know what sample rates are)
but then again, if it did, I would not need to select it because my latency is already low.

venik, post: 300744 wrote: I'm not trying to increase the quality, I'm reducing the latency. Do you understand latency? Perhaps you're too spoiled by your $20k system to understand that freq can be used to up the sample buffer while lowering or keeping the same latency.

I understand latency, but have not encountered it as a problem because my gear is up to spec.
It is obvious you don't understand that inferior components WILL give you MORE latency.
I am not spoiled and my system cost me a very low price, then again I negotiated what I have.
I did NOT know that...Now I know raising sample rates reduces latency. Then again, I've never
had such horrible latency figures such as yours to necessitate the purchase of a 192khz interface.
It's your money, but I chose superior computer first, and a cheap interface (mine) that I could upgrade...
As a hobbyist myself 192khz isn't needed (for me)

venik, post: 300744 wrote: Because you spent ungodly amounts of money that I am not willing to spend. I'm a hobby pianist, not a sound engineer.

I am a pianist/keyboardist since the age of 5.
What I learned that YOU failed to (this far)....is that you need to diversify.
Since it is obvious you lack the funds (as do I) to hire any engineer, producer, etc...
I learned early on that *I* had to do it myself. I learned that I couldn't just post my issue on
an internet forum, and *always* get the right answer.

I get you want things to work right.
Doing things WRONG and buying the wrong gear will net you problems.
Which is why this thread was created in the first place.

venik, post: 300744 wrote: What predetermined factors....? I'm trying to learn this stuff, if you don't want to help, frankly, get out. If you do, then put your ego a side for a few minutes so that you can actually understand what my problem is. Rather than create this sort of scenario where I need to beg you to help me.

Stop being sensitive and stop taking things personal.
I know my budget is small, so when I am told my slow computer is slow, OR
that my interface sucks (if it does suck) WHY would ANYONE take this personal?
Do you own stock in M-audio?

I told you to READ the manual, and you said it was no help? =IGNORANCE
The PLAY manual states there are different engine levels and settings for having more or less RAM...
You are also ONLY running 2GB of RAM in a 64bit? -which I thought wasn't possible, but I guess
as it is right now having a 64bit OS is of no real use for you currently because the main fundamental purpose
for having a 64bit OS is to address more than 4GB of RAM, not less.

I don't have an ego.
YOU just have an inability to accept FACTS that would only seek to help an individual like you who knows little.
I know for a fact I don't know everything and I admit and concede I learn something everyday.
When I am proven wrong I don't get upset (like you) and continue to infer assertions based on nothing
when information only HELPS the person who asks for it in the first place.

I just learned today that using a 192khz sample rate (that Cubase doesn't support)
reduces latency. I've never heard that before, so instead of insulting you, I went out and researched
this newly found information and there it is...you are correct.

At the least...you NEED 4GB of RAM
Even though a 2.4 GHZ is not even fast enough to run PLAY (2.5 minimum C2D, not dual core)
It can run, but you will be bouncing and freezing tracks unless you record one instrument (VST instrument)
at a time and don't exceed high track counts...but not with 2GB of RAM...That is silly number and is barely enough to
a 32bit OS let alone a 64bit OS and a resource hog of a sample engine in PLAY.

Johnny_B, post: 300747 wrote: Note the difference..I asked you questions and
simply asked you to clarify. I didn't label you as you did me. You really think that with all of my gear...6 hardware
keyboards...(and soft synths) that I don't know that a higher latency setting will cause a delay between hitting the keyboard and hearing a delay in sound output? K. keep being defensive. People will be pouring over to help you. One thing:

How in the world are you able to run a 64bit OS with only 2 GB of RAM???

I'm not getting defensive, I'm trying desperately to get an answer for my question. If you don't know, which seems likely, then you should just say so. My hardware might not be the best. But I have evidence showing you that it is not being run at anything near it's full potential. So your point is moot. Only 1 gig of ram is in use more or less running windows 7 64 bit. I'd say anything over 2 gig for anything other than editing or extreme gaming is over kill. My current job is to fix, build, and upgrade computers for a small offshore drilling company. I've been doing this for 4 years or so. I understand computers, so enough of the hardware baloney. I'm not mixing 16 tracks, I don't need 12 gigs of ram. If I find myself uncomfortable with my computer's speed, then I will upgrade it accordingly. At the moment my problem isn't hardware related...well it might be but it's certainly not the amount of ram, cpu, or hdd power as I can see they are not working hard at all.

I understand latency, but have not encountered it as a problem because my gear is up to spec.
It is obvious you don't understand that inferior components WILL give you MORE latency.
You're trying to circumvent your system's inadequacies by raising the sample rate to 192khz to reduce latency?
Do you think there aren't any negatives attributed to doing this? Or there's only a positive: lower latencies?

What's wrong with circumventing my system's inadequacies? I overclock my ram and cpu aswell, saves me $100s of dollars. That's the negative, hundreds of dollars.

I don't use higher sample rates for lower latencies...YOU, obviously do and you are having problems..
I do not. Make sense?

Yes it makes sense, but I'm not going to go out and spend $500-1000 upgrading my computer when my hardware is not being used anyways. Make sense?

I am a pianist/keyboardist since the age of 5.
What I learned that YOU failed to (this far)....is that you need to diversify.
Since it is obvious you lack the funds (as do I) to hire any engineer, producer, etc...
I learned early on that *I* had to do it myself. I learned that I couldn't just post my issue on
an internet forum, and *always* get the right answer.

Once again, I do not need upgraded hardware just yet. My computer's load is not going over 40%. If I needed new hardware it would be going over 100%, let alone 50%. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. 40% load + problems = software problem.

I get you want things to work right.
Doing things WRONG and buying the wrong gear will net you problems.

I haven't bought any gear yet, this is my home computer. When either I find someone knowledgable enough to answer my questions, or figure them out myself. ONLY then I will start upgrading my system. But that's only if I actually find my load going over 50%.

Stop being sensitive and stop taking things personal.
I know my budget is small, so when I am told my slow computer is slow, OR
that my interface sucks (if it does suck) WHY would ANYONE take this personal?
Do you own stock in M-audio?

I'm not taking it personally, stop assuming shit. If you'd use your brain you'd understand I'm frustrated that someone is coming into my help thread. And refusing to help. Rather they come in here telling me what I see before my very eye's is wrong. I know more about my system's load than you do, I'm staring at it. So, why the hell are we talking about it?

I told you to READ the manual, and you said it was no help? =IGNORANCE
The PLAY manual states there are different engine levels and settings for having more or less RAM...

You never said the play manual, I would never read cubase's manual.

I don't have an ego.
YOU just have an inability to accept FACTS that would only seek to help an individual like you who knows little.
I know for a fact I don't know everything and I admit and concede I learn something everyday.
When I am proven wrong I don't get upset (like you) and continue to infer assertions based on nothing
when information only HELPS the person who asks for it in the first place.

It takes more than understanding that you learn something new every day to be egoless. That's only being egoless, once a day. Maybe you should open your mind up to learn new things all the time, rather than just once a day.

I just learned today that using a 192khz sample rate (that Cubase doesn't support)
reduces latency. I've never heard that before, so instead of insulting you, I will go and research this
with professionals and get back to you.

All I did was use my m-audio control panel to lock it at 192khz. Recorded fine, writing not so much, cant force it to write in 192khz. Play, definitely supports it though. I was able to choose it in their own options. Perhaps its your soundcard that doesn't support it?

At the least...you NEED 4GB of RAM
Even though a 2.4 GHZ is not even fast enough to run PLAY (2.5 minimum C2D, not dual core)
It can run, but you will be bouncing and freezing tracks unless you record one instrument (VST instrument)
at a time and don't exceed high track counts...but not with 2GB of RAM...That is silly number and is barely enough to
a 32bit OS let alone a 64bit OS and a resource hog of a sample engine in PLAY.

1. I said I'm upgrading to 6 soon
2. my cpu is not being overloaded, my monitoring says so rather than some internet possibly fictional character. So my 2.4 ghz dual core is working just fine for this application, thus far.
3. I would never record more than 1 instrument at a time, listening is a different story. But when listening you can just up the buffer samples to accommodate the lower speed.
4. Firefox uses more ram than play.exe

See, 4 counts of you being an egotistical unhelpful being. This is why I'm frustrated, or as you would put it "defensive."

If you wanted to simply say "I don't know of any software bottlenecks that there could be. But if you never find them...upgrading your system is probably the best solution." Then I would /applaud and thank you. That, would be honest and helpful. This rant about my specs...is not.

If you want to give it another try, please do. If not, please preface your next post with "I refuse." So I know ahead of time, not to read or respond to it.

venik, post: 300753 wrote: Only 1 gig of ram is in use more or less running windows 7 64 bit. I'd say anything over 2 gig for anything other than editing or extreme gaming is over kill.

We won't get into the *why* either don't have 4GB of RAM yet, or have a 64bit OS when your benefit is ZERO.
For someone that builds computers or not. A Proper builder doesn't build a computer half-arsed....then upgrade down the line when convenient.

Are you aware the strain running a sample rate of 192KHZ has on a CPU/RAM?
Yes? Then your issues are self explanetory (along with the fact your interface is not interfacing properly.
No? Then learn about it. Your a big boy and a highly educated PC builder. Finding out should be cake.

venik, post: 300753 wrote: What's wrong with circumventing my system's inadequacies? I overclock my ram and cpu aswell, saves me $100s of dollars. That's the negative, hundreds of dollars.

So your Quad core (2 X C2D's on one chip=4VT, not a true quad core)
is overclocked....Good of you to mention that, lol!

Incorrectly OC'ing a CPU CAN have errors.
I don't see the point in OCing 2 measily GBs of RAM...You do...
...and you wonder WHY you are having issues.

You're not only cheap, but misguided and extremely ignorant.
Nice.

I'm out of here.
I truly hope you find some much needed open minded-ness and some much needed
patience. If I had sunk to your level (acting like a child) you'd never have recovered.

You are a joke!
And to think I posted on your behalf (at soundsonline) to help you find out your issues.

Good luck with your under spec'd POS.
kthankxbai

Johnny_B, post: 300769 wrote: We won't get into the *why* either don't have 4GB of RAM yet, or have a 64bit OS when your benefit is ZERO.
For someone that builds computers or not. A Proper builder doesn't build a computer half-arsed....then upgrade down the line when convenient.

Are you aware the strain running a sample rate of 192KHZ has on a CPU/RAM?
Yes? Then your issues are self explanetory (along with the fact your interface is not interfacing properly.
No? Then learn about it. Your a big boy and a highly educated PC builder. Finding out should be cake.

You WANT your cpu working hard if you wish to receive low latencies. It is in affect, your throttle pedal. If you want to go faster, you push the throttle.

My build wasn't half-assed, your arrogance never fails you. Computer technology is doubling once every year. My box was top-of-the-line a few years ago.

So your Quad core (2 X C2D's on one chip=4VT, not a true quad core)
is overclocked....Good of you to mention that, lol!

Incorrectly OC'ing a CPU CAN have errors.
I don't see the point in OCing 2 measily GBs of RAM...You do...
...and you wonder WHY you are having issues.

One would OC Ram...to...increase performance...?
I correctly OCed my cpu and ram. Want to know how I know?
1. I work with computers for a living
2. My computer is telling me they are not working as hard as they should
3. My TEMPERATURES are fine.

Temperatures are what tell you if you OCed too hard. Figures I have to give you a lesson on this. Maybe you shouldn't talk about subjects you know nothing about? Including DAWs.

You're not only cheap, but misguided and extremely ignorant.
Nice.

I'm out of here.
I truly hope you find some much needed open minded-ness and some much needed
patience. If I had sunk to your level (acting like a child) you'd never have recovered.

I'd never have recovered? from what? What have you done for me other than act like an arrogant unhelpful ass?
I'm not cheap, I'm smart. I know how to spend my money. Because I know this field very well.

You are a joke!
And to think I posted on your behalf (at soundsonline) to help you find out your issues.

You didn't post on my behalf, you asked a bunch of questions I allready knew the answer to. THANKS!
I can picture you IRL "yea my, uh, friend, has this question..."
I'd also like to thank you for putting words in my mouth.

Good luck with your under spec'd POS.
kthankxbai

It's funny, I have but once attacked you. And it wasn't even an attack, I asked you to actually answer my question. Yet you're posts have a tone akin to hatred. You, need to grow up, not me (seriously, did you just say "Kthxbai"?, just come clean, your daddy bought you your machine). If you're not going to help a tech question, but still post, be prepared to be told you aren't helping. The very least you can do is acknowledge that you aren't helping, then you might gain an ounce of respect.

Ok. I think we need to calm down here. Venik is absolutlely right about sample rate and latency. The higher the sample rate the lower the latency. I don't know why but that IS the way it works. REGARDLESS of what the embedded sample rate of the VSTi is. Have you been able to get those numbers down yet?

PLEASE! Let's keep it civil. I don't want to lock this post as it may serve to help someone who runs into the same issue.

Incidentally, I DON"T have QL but I did happen to get QLPLAY and have reasonably low latencies. Using an MBox2 on Windows XP Pro 32 bit. Running ProTools LE 8.01 @ 24bit-44.1kHz 5.8 ms

Ya..I have to agree with huesph.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this 192khz converter sample rate having effects on Cubase latency. From what I understand Cubase never "officially" supported sample rates above 96khz. I completely understand that 192khz is not really necessary and overkill and there are very few (if any) sample libraries that are done at even 96khz rates. I don't think I've ever seen any sound sample libraries at 192..to keep wav file sizes to reasonable limits, 16bit/44.1 up to 24bit/96 seems to be the norm. I've recently started using ADAT into my FF800 so I'm limited to recording at 96khz now anyway. I tend to leave my sample rate at 24bit/44.1 for recording recently mostly because when I go back to playing an MP3 on WMP or some audio CD, I have to back reset my drivers to 44.1 anyway, so I just leave it there for convenience. I know I recorded at 192khz with my FF800 standalone into Cubase 4 a while back as a test and saved it...played it back...it was a huge file and it sounded pretty open and clean on playback....not a ton of difference between that and other rates. From what I understand Cubase never "officially" supported any rates above 96khz. So now I'm wondering if I really recorded that or not....I distinctly remember Cubase changing the sample rate and nothing gave me an error so I don't know if maybe Cubase 5 changed that and Cubase 4 had it or what....so it's all a little confusing.

If you are playing (midi triggering) a loaded sound sample in Cubase as a VSTi or standalone it shouldn't matter what computer you have beyond the minimum requirement stated by the software manufacturer (E/W Goliath etc.) The minimum specs listed generally will allow the software to execute properly within those parameters.
Having an OC'd CPU or RAM only means everything runs a little faster than a normal system. And FWIW RAM in a computing system is everything, the more you have the faster and smoother and less bottlenecked the system will execute...it's that simple!...nothing magical there....and certainly nothing inadequate in what you stated in your system...loading is not the same thing as instruction set execution speed or interrupt handling and nothing is faster than your CPU instruction set reading and writing data to/from RAM...those two items constitute the entire data speed and throughput of your system...most of the time your CPU and RAM sit "idle" as if they are not doing anything....well they are...they always are...watching and waiting...everything else is slower than they are...even if you have some audio interface or graphics card with its own CPU/GPU and RAM. There still running the show!
You're not recording any audio through an A/D converter interface..??? you're only recording midi events into Cubase and if you have noticeable "delays" is it possible this is midi latency, not converter/recording latency. Is that true?...maybe I misunderstand what you are doing with the Fantom and Cubase?
If you are playing and recording midi than this has nothing to do with audio recording latencies.
On playback if you are using the "zero-latency" feature of your audio interface then you should hear no latency at all...
16bit, 24bit, 32bitFP relates to bit rates you use for recording audio and nothing to do with midi speed or midi events or midi latency. Bit rates have to do with the size of the data word being used in the system which indicate the voltage value of the digitized audio data in the system. A 16bit "word" has 16 ones or zeros in it....so it can have around 65,000 different values, meaning your audio sample at 16bit could have 65,000 different voltage values over a sample rate of say 44.1khz.
24 bit same thing but it's really a 32 bit register within the processor that only uses 24 of the bits to determine the audio data bits and leaves the extra bits left over for other uses by the processor's instruction set.
32 bit FP (floating point) uses the entire word (well over 2 million possible values) and has a secondary bit register to allow it to "float" beyond the static 32 bits of data to allow complex math overflow events...so it can give you much more accurate values...