skipping issues with 96khz/24 bit recording

[RandomAwesome]

So I want to start recording everything at 96khz/24bit, but I get skipping issues when I play back the tracks in Reaper. I did a little test the other day with some 12 channel drum tracking. The recording it self is fine, but the playback skips and pops. When I bounce it all down to a 96/24 wav file, it plays perfectly. I'm guessing it has something to do with playing back 10-12 channels of 96/24 wav files simultaneously.

Any help here would be much appreciated!

 

[egan.]

Set a longer buffer.

 

[fizzinbizzin]

had the same problem with my firestudio and set the buffer size higher and cleared it up

 

[RandomAwesome]

That's what I figured, but it didn't seem to do much. What do you guys have your buffers set to for 96/24 recording?

Thanks!

 

[Joshua Wickman]

A higher buffer size is going to give more latency though right?

I know my old 002 i could use low latency monitoring function, but then it would bypass any plugins on the tracks. I always want the least amount of latency for tracking, cause it can really through people off in there headphones when tracking.

I track at 64 but this is in 44.1/24bit. Are you also going to mix in 96khz as well Josh?

 

[RandomAwesome]

Yeah, if that's gonna throw off my latency too much, I'd rather keep tracking in 44.1/24 for now.

It would be nice to mix in 96/24 if possible, but if I had to mix at a lower monitoring rate and then bounce it down at 96/24, thatd be the next best thing.

What do you mean track at 64? like 64 bit?

 

[Uros]

buffer size of 64 samples

 

[RandomAwesome]

Thanks

 

[Uros]

np

btw you're only gonna reap the benefits of 96/24 if you record it in 96/24 as well. No benefits if you track in 44/24 only to up-sample it to 96/24 for mixing, as far as I know.

edit:correction - I've read that some plugins like higher sample rate, but if you want full benefits, you might want to do it the same way right from the get go. Also, FWIW, some people suggest that 88.2 is better than 96, because when you down sample there are no random bits being chopped off (comparing to 96), since sample rate is being cut in half straight. All this is in theory though, and net arguing will never stop anyway.

 

[RandomAwesome]

Haha, yeah, I was wondering about that as well. Reason I'm asking is because I have a vinyl release coming up and I want to do a special mix for it. Definitely want to track it 96 or 88.2, since mixing it up from 44.1 is just dumb IMHO.

 

[egan.]

Keep in mind that 64 samples at 44.1 is the same amount of time (latency) as 128 samples at 88.2.