- #FOCUSRITE ASIO DRIVER NOT WORKING FINALE UPGRADE#
- #FOCUSRITE ASIO DRIVER NOT WORKING FINALE PROFESSIONAL#
Notion Sounds are pretty good with some limitation that really aren't that limiting if effects are provided outside of Notion. Sending Notion Sounds out its various busses into an audio soundcard with multi-outs will provide real-time performance advantages a computer just cannot handle. I'd skip the Miroslav and get a hardware mixer and external fx processing.
#FOCUSRITE ASIO DRIVER NOT WORKING FINALE PROFESSIONAL#
Using external effect processing can make Notion Sounds quite professional sounding. (Notion Sounds have ultra fast load times). Using Notion to its fullest can produce very good results without the hang-ups of 3rd party vsti and the advanced Custom Rule document needs. Notion Sounds have IMO better built-in technique and sound control.
If you are basing your decision on some misunderstanding of theory, then maybe not.Johnnewberry wroteI use a lot of different vsti makers products.ĭon't have the Miroslav however, I suggest the Notion sounds are just as good if used for their If you can truly hear a better difference at a particular sampling rate, it makes sense to use that rate. It is not uncommon to hear people express the opinion that there is a sweet spot sampling rate that sounds best on their interface, and it is not always the highest available. Components that produce a linear result from 20-20,000 Hz with acceptable electronic noise and distortion may well not work as well at 40,000 Hz. While in theory a perfectly encoded signal having had all the higher frequency components filtered out by a perfectly constructed antialiasing filter should be identical whether encoded at twice or four times the Nyquist frequency, it is highly unlikely that the same signal will be encoded identically even in the same audio interface at different sampling rates. An engineer, especially one working on a budget, would likely feel he should make his microphone, speaker, amplifier, or sampler work most reliably at frequencies within the audible range. One would expect that a cheaper unit would likely not use the higher cost components needed to maintain linearity and avoid distortion at ultrasonic frequencies. The second has to do with the way an interface (cheap or expensive) and signal chain has actually been constructed. That such an ultrasonic presence in the audible range will always produce a better quality (or even a more accurate reproduction) of sound in every case is doubtful. The best argument against the inescapable math of the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem is that the presence of correctly encoded ultrasonic frequencies becomes audible when the sound waves interact with the ultrasonic waves that change the quality of the audible range either after they are reproduced in air producing interference summations (comb filtering), or within the analog realm in the system as intermodulation distortion. See my horrible explanation earlier in this thread for an outline.
The first is based on good theory and has to do with how the sound is encoded digitally. There are a couple of reasons why higher sampling rates will not reliably improve quality. There maybe more audible difference on an inexpensive interface than on an expensive one. I actually think the benefit of a double rate on a cheap interface may be significant because it could give the sound of a better clock - resolve or improve jitter. Why 96 hz when your using a el cheepo interface? What benifit is this> Although there are endless discussions about oversampling, aliasing, foldover and ultrasonic interference, that may be relevant in designing sampling interfaces, there is no way to put a percentage improvement on the "quality" of the sound produced by setting your store-bought interface to a higher sps. While 96 K sps will enable you to accurately encode a 48 KHz tone, it will enable you to extend the frequency range by more than 100%, but no one can hear it. Since 44.1 K sps is more than twice the 20 Khz frequency that represents the upper range of human hearing that represents the best sound quality that can be heard. What increasing the sample rate does accomplish is to enable the accurate encoding of higher frequencies. It is absolutely not the case that 96 K samples per second improves the sound quality over 44.1 K by any percentage. I am afraid you are perpetuating the myth that makes 96 K attractive to so many.
#FOCUSRITE ASIO DRIVER NOT WORKING FINALE UPGRADE#
Cactus Music You'd haver to upgrade your entire signal chain to hear that 0.2% improvment in sound quality your going to get.