96K

is anybody using 96k and can you tell the difference between 96 & 44.1?

more bass response.sounds richer.i dont sample in any other rate since i goty the 4000.it used to sound thin 2 me till i startded sampling in 96k.( i was use to the 3000s punch)

No problem then with the reduced voice count and only 2 fx units?

Rob wrote:No problem then with the reduced voice count and only 2 fx units?

... one can always sample at 96 and set it back to 44 or 48 to produce/arrange - to get all poly and fxs back ... just in case ...

And still benefit from the higher audio quality?

I often wondered if that would work: sampling at 96k, playing back at 44. Do you still get a better sound then when directly sampling at 44k?

Theoretically it could indeed work, because an AD at 96k doesn't need very steep filtering to prevent aliasing. But what about the resampling that is done when playing back these 96k samples?

I should try for myself, I know.

what about the book saying if you change to 96k you lose the data on your drive? what is that all about?

You wanna give me some cookies in a jar custom made for 44 cookies.

You have 96 cookies.

You put the cookies in the jar but it's too many to fit all of them.

You lose some of your cookies but I can still see and recognize
that there are cookies in that jar when you finally give it to me.

lamp, you fat bastard, that had to be the worst analogy Ive ever heard.
the difference of 96K versus 44K is mostly psychoacoustic. Your brain recognizes it, but your ears dont consciously register it.

The bass may seem fuller, but only because the higher frequencies are more defined, thus getting less muddled with the bass and mids. In reality, higher sample rate affects the higher end, not the lower end, but the brain "hears" more than the ear does, so since the highs are clearer and more defined, more "space" is left for the bass, making both sound fuller.

Study up on Nyquist.

U caught on to that huh.. funny..

rob ... good questions? and honestly too many for ne ... actually i always expected it to playback at 96 even if the 4k runs at 44 but now i ve doubts myself... please let me/us know once ya find out more about it ...

and on lampdogs explanation ... i been reading and rereading lamps answer and i bet it makes sense for all of ya but mofukkiin italian and horribly speakin and understanding english dude as i am i didnt get a wordi ... i dont even understand whether lamp s been already answering your question or not - - really! - wtf is a jar for example? ... cookies and 4k are news to me too? ... lamp - peace, respect and no dissin at all - could you please rephrase the wisdom in an easy to understand english for me? - i really dont get it - and i would greatly appreciated it ... doesnt have to be long either - yes it does it or no it doesnt - or maybe is enough ...

rookie wrote:what about the book saying if you change to 96k you lose the data on your drive? what is that all about?

as for this question – rookie - dunno which book you r referin to - but i guess its the manual ... and i think you r talkin bout this: whether your 4k is runnin at 44,48 or 96 is a global setting - system clock. if ya decide to change it your 4k has to reboot - which means - that everything you got in your memory s gonna be erased - ... so always save your work before changin the system clock – coz your 4k will shutdown and reboot if ya change the system clock.

but rookies question gotta ba answered takin into consideration somethin else too ... (and i cant think the book does refer to what comes next ... )

a few weeks back i literally used to loose lotsa samples coz of the 96 khz system clock and this cant be intended by akai and is imo nothin else aa a MONSTERBUG. actually i m surprised that noone else posted this - maybe i just haven t seen the respective posts ... dunno ... but i cant really believe that noone else run into thisone before ...

i m still runnin os 1.70 and dunno if the shyt s still there at os 1.71 at all (but its not in the bugfixes – so i fear it is still there): in 1.70 when your copying a multi your 4k unbelievably freezes (black scrren of death!) ... and gives ya the folllowing error message:

Fatal Error! "Data Abort"
( ID: 00000003 , I 00100CFC)
(FSR: C0005003, FAR: EA0042C5)

at first i thought i m in the wrong movie! ... after a small break than i though my multi s fukked up – but i tried with many multis and my 4k crashed everytime. it even does it with the multi from the default items - with and without samples assigned to it - but only at 96 khz. as long you run your 4k at 44 or 48 there s no problem with copying multis.

actually i just wanted to send the shyt straight to akai - but since akai (or numark or alesis or whoever ... ) cutted all the bug and feature issues adresses - i dont see any other way then posting it here - in hope that

1.the shyt s been fixed already in os 1.71 (i still hope even though they didnt say anything about it in the lil bit of coments next to the os release - wouldnt be the first time akai doesnt say what they all fixed!) or

2. someone with a tech adress can send the ish there - i dont have any email adress of akai atm ... or

3. someone from either us or japan can call and inform them when calling them next. akai italy is too fukked up – its gonna take years until they push anything forwards ... if they ever do at all!

anyways - but first - please - anyone on os 1.71 can prove the bug? set 4k to 96 – loadup a multi – copy the multi - do it ... and if then nothin happens its all good ... or – as i fear – its just the same bug as in os 1.70.

peace

yo - save your work first!!!!

I can confirm the bug Alto. It also happens with 1.71. I always work at 44.1k so I never noticed it. I have filed it in the e-mail in wich I collect all bugs I find. Once I will be in contact with AKAI R&D again I will report it. They are working on a new kind of betatesting system now... I wonder how long that will take btw...

Yikes! That's a serious bug. Only at 96k huh? The only thing I come up with is the halved number of effects, and effect settings are stored in a multi, right? Looks like the other two, non used fx blocks are represented by null pointers at 96k, and the multi copy routine doesn't check for null pointers. If that is true, this bug could actually be very old.

Hi Rob,

Just for the fun of it I decided to check. I changed back to 1.10 the earliest version of the OS I have. And guess what: It does not happen in 1.10.

I think it was 1.50 or 1.60 in which the multi has changed for the FX level fix. Maybe that change is the cause for this problem?

....
....

I checked 1.51, no problem. t > w , no problem
1.60, gotcha!

1.60 it is...

Now quickly back to 1.71...