Slow audio playback

Cubase
1

I record podcasts for a friend, using a Dell M6700, Win10 x64, 32gb of RAM, UR44C, Cubase 11 Pro.

Since I got the UR44C, I’ve started recording at 64 bit float and 192khz.

I typically edit the audio on my desktop, Gigabyte X99-SLI, Win10 x64, 64gb RAM, Cubase 11 Pro.

Prior to using the UR44C, I could copy the project over and edit normally. With projects recorded on the UR44C, if I open the project, without attaching the UR44C, my audio sounds like a 78RPM record, played at 33-1/3. If I attach the UR44C, everything is fine. The same thing happens if I just create a blank project and import the audio files.

That tells me it’s probably the Generic Low Latency Asio Driver isn’t able to handle a 64 bit float, 192Khz audio file properly, and I’m fine with that. The weird part is, when I first found this issue, I imported some of the audio files into Audacity, without the UR44C being attached, and Audacity had no problem with the files.

I like recording at the higher rate, because it lowers the noise floor, and makes editing easier, but I would like to edit the audio without having to connect the UR44C, and I would prefer to edit within Cubase rather than Audacity.

Does anyone have an idea how I can edit in Cubase without connecting the UR44C?

Thanks,
Ken

2

I have to start by saying that this is an incredible overkill for what you’re doing. I will refrain from going full on lecture mode and instead advice you to do some research on your own on benefits/drawbacks of using extreme sample rates such as 192kHz.
Spoiler: There are no benefits in your case! Sorry.

Most likely, yes.

Different driver.
You could try using the free “Asio4All” and see if it supports 192kHz.

No, higher sample rates does not lower the noise floor. It allows you to record higher frequency material. A sampling frequency of 192kHz allows you to playback sounds up to 96kHz according to Nyquist. (A young child can hear up to 20kHz.)
How does the higher sampling frequency affect ease of editing?

I understand this post of mine may come across as a little short and obtuse. Digital recording is a large subject and there are more than a few misunderstandings surrounding it. One of the more common misconceptions is this very one, that higher sampling rate automatically leads to higher quality recording. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case.
There are so many more factors a studio facilitator can work on that yields much higher payback than bumping up the sample rate frequency. For example (in no particular order): Acoustics (in both recording space and monitoring space), microphones, mic preamps, electrical wiring, A/D converters, etc.
I hope I planted enough seeds to have you re-think your priorities. If you’re interested in the subject and like to learn more, I highly recommend the book Mastering Audio by Bob Katz.

3

Thanks for your reply. I will try the Asio4All.

As for bit depth and noise floor, it is my understanding that the higher the bit depth, the lower the level of the noise floor, because you’re dealing with a greater dynamic range. I’ve read this in numerous places.

Having recorded using a Scarlett 2i2, Presonus AudioBox 1818VSL and the UR44C, with the default Cubase settings, and using the UR44C at the highest settings available, this seems to be true. I do get a lower noise floor. Using the higher settings, I’ve had to do far less editing of the recorded material, to get the same, or better results. That may just be my perception.

As for being overkill, it doesn’t add anything to my workflow, and my recording computer is perfectly capable of handling the load. The biggest difference, other than the quality of the recordings, is the file size. Since I’m using USB3 to transfer files, it’s the difference between a 3 minute transfer, and a 5 minute transfer. I’ll give up the extra 2 minutes, to cut down my editing time from 5 hours to 3 hours. That seems like a good trade off to me.

I agree with your suggestions on acoustics, microphones, preamps, etc. And I have upgraded various components, as I’ve been walking through this (over 100 podcasts recorded so far). The one thing I don’t have control over is the recording venue. That is chosen by someone else, and I typically have an hour to get in and set up. The caveat here is that, I not only have to set up my audio recording rig, I also have to set up 3 camcorders, and typically, I have about 5 minutes to set up the audio levels for each guest.

I actually have a copy of Bob Katz’ book, which I do refer to on occasion, much like I refer to my books on Live Sound Mixing, Electronics Repair, Database Design, Acting, Vocal Exercises, Home Repair, Guitar Repair, Theatrical Directing, Wood Working, Prop Design, Script Writing, etc. I’m very much a generalist, meaning I deal with many different technologies and disciplines, so I don’t have the time to become the specialist in any of them. :smile:

1 Like
4

Yes, you’re right. Just keep in mind that it is the bit depth of your A/D that this would refer to.
(I commented on this since you wrote “higher rate” that I interpreted as sample rate/frequency. Again though, sample frequency/rate does not impact noise floor.)

I know exactly what you mean. :slight_smile:

5

Asio4All doesn’t work any better. :frowning_with_open_mouth:

6

Does Audacity have its own, proprietary driver then?