Migrate to N-track
Hey all,
I tried out N-track back in the days of ver 1.x. At the time my computer was not cabable of doing what I wanted so I went back to tape.
Of couse since computers have improved. I have been using Adobe Audition but I am not happy with it as it is a resource hog. I am looking at N-track again but I have a weird problem.
I am trying to import tracks from Audtion but everything I bring in, is at a much higher tempo. If I import a wav file that was not made in Audition it plays fine.
I imagine their is some type of imbedded info in the files from Audition but I can’t figure it out.
Anyone have an idea?
TIA
dh5150
Most likely, your exported Audition wav files were made at a different frequency than nTrack is currently set up for.
Using Windows Explorer, navigate to an exported wav file and
right click it->Properties
or just hover over it with your mouse cursor and you will be able to see the frequency.
Check and see what nTrack is set up for. You can convert your tracks to the frequency you want using r8brain or dbpoweramp
http://www.voxengo.com/r8brain/
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/
This info and more comes from
http://www.audiominds.com/
Some nTrack users (not me) run this site and there is a lot of helpful info up there.
Doug W
Doug…
U da Man…
For anyone else. My settings for the wav were in 44,1 khz but my N-track was a 96khz. I just changed the settings for N-track to use 44,1 and then my delta aiso drivers had to be set for 44,1 in the m-audio control panel.
Never thought to use 96k for recording. Is there a real difference in the quality of the track at the different frequencies?
Yeah, it sounds a lot better - but it hogs hard-drive space something fierce! 
The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away…
'til next time;
Tony W
It’s a much-debated topic. If you’re worried about resource hogging, use 44.1K – you can do excellent work that way. If you want the best your gear can do and no excuses, use 96K.
My suspicion is that if we did a good double-blind study, results would be mixed. I also believe that you generally have to have truly excellent recordings and mixes before the difference (after being mastered down to 44.1k at the end for CD distribution) would be significant.
However, there are some plugins, most notably simple Chorus/flanger plugins, that sound a whole lot better in 96K. That is, any plug that uses a variable delay line. These should sound notably better in 96k for pretty straightforward reasons.
If you’re releasing your music on music-DVD (where 96k is the standard), it would be more important to record in 96k. But even then, not crucial, and only very discriminating listeners would be likely to tell the difference. (Many people are satisfied with 64k MP3’s, which are clearly inferior!)
For most of us, the bottom line is “suit yourself”. Try it and see if you’re willing to put up with the extra CPU and disk usage, and can tell a difference.
For myself, I suspect I’d get a bigger improvement with better mike preamps. 
What everyone said.
What happens is that at 96 kHz your PC takes a sample (snapshot if you will) of sound 96000 times per second.
At 44.1 it only does that at 44100 times a second.
It is quite a bit different on the I/O utilisation of your PC.
Btw if you look at the difference between 16bit and 24 bit (resource wise) it’s quite huge as well. (the snapshots then is each 2 tothepowerof 16, or 2 tothepowerof24 - quite a difference)
Say - I’m glad you’re over here at N-Track anyway, just wondering, wasn’t the fact that you sampled at 96kHz part of your Audition ‘hogging’ problem ?
W.
Wihan <!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Btw if you look at the difference between 16bit and 24 bit (resource wise) it’s quite huge as well. |
I don’t think I agree. When using 24 bit sample depth, tracks use 50% more disk space & disk throughput than 16-bit tracks. However, CPU usage should be about the same. In either case each sample has to be converted to 32-bit float, but after that there’s no difference at all.
On the other hand, at 96k sample rate, you’re using more than twice the disk space & throughput, and also more than twice the CPU power of the same bit depth at 44.1kHz.
24/96 uses over 3 times as much disk space than 16/44.
Most folks here use 24 bits at 44.1 kHz. As our computers get faster & disk drives get bigger, we’ll probably switch to 24/96 and never look back.