Can't get anything other than 48khz

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

I decided to ditch my prelude x-fi, and so I guess I need to take it out, but I already uninstalled the drivers.

I have an 888S with shitty DDL supported and all of the lossy shitty DTS formats supported.

My realtek driver (2.04, the latest driver) doesn't allow me 96 KHz; only 48.

I've tried 2 channel and Digital PCM output, but it's locked @ 48 KHz; fine for now, but when games are one day in 24/96, that's going to be a problem.

Is it a driver limitation? Or is the particular codec I have unable to output anything other than 48 khz?

 

[Davros]

you know cd quality is 44.1
do you have any audio that is 96 khz
if your unhappy with dts use uncompressed analog

ps: its a hardware limitation 96khz is only usefull to musicians

 

[_xxx_]

Not only musicians, pretty much anything will sound better with 96 KHz.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

you know cd quality is 44.1
do you have any audio that is 96 khz
if your unhappy with dts use uncompressed analog

ps: its a hardware limitation 96khz is only usefull to musicians

Thanks=]
No audio that's 96khz, but in the future I might.
I'm not using dts.
Yes I knew CD quality is 44.1

So the codecs with dts and ddl are all limited to 48 KHz whether you're using the multichannel modes (i.e. dts, ddl) or 2.1?

Was wondering b/c s/pdif can do 24/96 uncompressed in stereo. Just because it can't do 5.1 in 24/96 wasn't an excuse to make a codec that couldn't do 96 KHz for stereo.

I hate lossy 5.1 audio; it's the most overrated technology of the 20th and 21st century if you ask me. 24/96 in stereo would sound way better than ddl at 16/48 compressed.

 

[Davros]

im guessing here but, it could be that the spec for dts is 44khz and thats why your codec doesnt do any more.
ps: if you want ultimate sound quality should you be relying on a codec ?

 

[Johnny_Physics]

You realize that your hearing tops out at around 22khz right?

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

im guessing here but, it could be that the spec for dts is 44khz and thats why your codec doesnt do any more.
ps: if you want ultimate sound quality should you be relying on a codec ?

You realize that your hearing tops out at around 22khz right?

The spec for dts is 48 KHz, and it won't allow 44 or 96.

That was what I thought too, but realtek's website says that the 888S codec supports 44.1/48/96 in stereo thru s/pdif.

To answer your question, I don't care about EAX, and I'm not using analog, so there's not any difference between my prelude and my onboard except the sampling rate is locked at 48 khz. And of course I use wingroove instead of the x-fi hw synth a.

Johnny: That's frequency response not resolution and sampling rate.

 

[Humus]

Johnny: That's frequency response not resolution and sampling rate.

The sampling rate limits the frequencies that can be stored. 48KHz sampling rate can represent all frequencies up to 24KHz, covering everything that the human ear can hear. So I would consider 96KHz to only be useful as an intermediate format for studio work.

 

[Davros]

and the reason your not getting 96khz in stereo is probably because your not playing any audio recorded at 96khz, your codec wont upmix it will play it at the sample rate it was recorded at

 

[Johnny_Physics]

Yeah I was going to write something about old man Nyquist's crazy ideas but it always came out a tad bit more snarky than these boards would allow. And frequency response is only relevant in like, your ears and speakers, but how can those two pieces of crap affect your perception of audio?

Ps. Humus your company let my buddy go so I'm totally ragin' over here.

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

and the reason your not getting 96khz in stereo is probably because your not playing any audio recorded at 96khz, your codec wont upmix it will play it at the sample rate it was recorded at

I can't choose 96 or 44.1 KHz in the driver control panel, it's not about whether my music is being upmixed to 96 khz.

 

[cal_guy]

Thanks=]

Was wondering b/c s/pdif can do 24/96 uncompressed in stereo. Just because it can't do 5.1 in 24/96 wasn't an excuse to make a codec that couldn't do 96 KHz for stereo.

I hate lossy 5.1 audio; it's the most overrated technology of the 20th and 21st century if you ask me. 24/96 in stereo would sound way better than ddl at 16/48 compressed.

That's a big load of BS the quality that AC3 and DTS brought to laserdisc, DVDs, television, and games( including current gen consoles PS3 and xbox 360 as well as PC) for the small bandwidth is impressive. Without these compression methods sound quality would be absolutely terrible. For example 24/96 stereo PCM takes approximately 10x the bandwidth of a standard 6 channel DVD DD5.1 track.

 

[swaaye]

Yeah, since 44.1KHz is enough to satisfy our ears, I don't think you should be too worried about it. 48KHz is more convenient for some DSPs though, such as those used for Audigy and Live! cards. Still, the problems it causes for those chips is basically inaudible in practice. Vista solves that problem completely by doing its own resampling anyway (unless using OpenAL on one of those cards).

As said earlier, higher sampling rates might be useful for archival use in some way. You're just saving extra audio info that is useless for humans though! I think a higher bit depth would be more likely to be beneficial (i.e. 24-bit vs. 16-bit.) More precision to work with when applying filters/effects during production. Useful? I dunno. Ask an audio engineer.

Game devs just need to avoid <=128kbps MP3s and OGGs.

 

[Skrying]

Game devs just need to avoid <=128kbps MP3s and OGGs.

Make that 256kbps and I would agree.

 

[Moloch]

you know cd quality is 44.1
do you have any audio that is 96 khz
if your unhappy with dts use uncompressed analog

ps: its a hardware limitation 96khz is only usefull for pro recording

Fixed.
edit- it seems humas said pretty much the same thing,

 

[_xxx_]

You realize that your hearing tops out at around 22khz right?

And you realize that the higher frequencies and harmonics still change the waveform in a very audiable way? Try downsampling a CD to 22 KHz for comparison. And of course the sampling frequency should be at least double the signal frequency, so 44.1 KHz is an absolute minimum.

 

[Moloch]

And you realize that the higher frequencies and harmonics still change the waveform in a very audiable way? Try downsampling a CD to 22 KHz for comparison. And of course the sampling frequency should be at least double the signal frequency, so 44.1 KHz is an absolute minimum.

um what would be the point of downsampling a cd to 22Khz, that would cut the highs at 11Khz, not proving a thing.
You even say you need to sample at twice yet you tell him to downsampkle to 22khz, I do believe you are confused.

 

[_xxx_]

No, you just don't get the point I meant the source signal, not the playback. Or just run it through a low-pass set to 22 KHz limit without resampling, does the same.

He said you can't hear anything above 22 KHz, but that is simply totally wrong. While you can't hear the individual frequencies, you can very well hear the difference in the complete signal.

 

[Moloch]

No, you are, you said downsampling as in the sampling to 22Khz, that proves nothing because of what I just said, regardless if it it source are playback.
If you were talking about the frequency, not sampling, that would make more sense.
Btw you should know cd's are lowpassed at 22khz.. http://jthz.com/mp3/CD-44100Hz.htm

 

[2008 IQ is unacceptable]

That's a big load of BS the quality that AC3 and DTS brought to laserdisc, DVDs, television, and games( including current gen consoles PS3 and xbox 360 as well as PC) for the small bandwidth is impressive. Without these compression methods sound quality would be absolutely terrible. For example 24/96 stereo PCM takes approximately 10x the bandwidth of a standard 6 channel DVD DD5.1 track.

Yeah, since 44.1KHz is enough to satisfy our ears, I don't think you should be too worried about it. 48KHz is more convenient for some DSPs though, such as those used for Audigy and Live! cards. Still, the problems it causes for those chips is basically inaudible in practice. Vista solves that problem completely by doing its own resampling anyway (unless using OpenAL on one of those cards).

As said earlier, higher sampling rates might be useful for archival use in some way. You're just saving extra audio info that is useless for humans though! I think a higher bit depth would be more likely to be beneficial (i.e. 24-bit vs. 16-bit.) More precision to work with when applying filters/effects during production. Useful? I dunno. Ask an audio engineer.

Game devs just need to avoid <=128kbps MP3s and OGGs.

Make that 256kbps and I would agree.

um what would be the point of downsampling a cd to 22Khz, that would cut the highs at 11Khz, not proving a thing.
You even say you need to sample at twice yet you tell him to downsampkle to 22khz, I do believe you are confused.

No, you are, you said downsampling as in the sampling to 22Khz, that proves nothing because of what I just said, regardless if it it source are playback.
If you were talking about the frequency, not sampling, that would make more sense.
Btw you should know cd's are lowpassed at 22khz.. http://jthz.com/mp3/CD-44100Hz.htm

I'm not considering bandwidth, the quality of ddl and dts sucks, IMO. Any lossy compression sucks, IMO. And guess what, 24/96 stereo lossless doesn't take up any more space/bandwidth than lossy shitty ddl 5.1 and it sounds a lot better, and doesn't require purchasing 5 $100+ speakers.

I really don't know why they just can't at least use wma lossless sd. That's the least they could do. considering they can do wma lossless hd (i.e. 24/96 rather than 16/44 or 48) in stereo and lpcm in 5.1 channels.

Using 256 kbps lossy audio in pc games is stupid, because it winds up making the PS3 a superior tech experience in that area. The whole point of PCs is better quality allowed by more power.

Finally, it's ridiculous to associate sampling rate with frequency response. 48 KHz sampling rates wouldn't exist, nonetheless 192 KHz, if quality was limited by frequency response.