Community Forums Archive

Go Back

Subject:88.2 or 96KHz processing bug?
Posted by: Terpsichore
Date:7/8/2002 7:08:52 PM

Even though my sound card doesn't support sample rates above 48KHz, I would like to be able to save, open, and process files at higher sample rates. Then for the final step, save back to 44.1 or 48 and render (play).

But there seems to be a "feature" in SF 5.0 and 6.0 that prevents this from working. If I try to open a 88.2 or 96 file, I get an error message that the sound card won't support that rate, and then it opens displaying a regular series of pulses, rather than the correct waveform; overall file length is correct. It will let me apply processing, but it doesn't mean much since the audio now just pulses.

Anyone else tried to do this? The motivation is to apply DirectX plugins in the "oversampled" domain.

Subject:RE: 88.2 or 96KHz processing bug?
Reply by: Sonic
Date:7/9/2002 2:43:03 PM

Sound Forge 6.0 should open and operate on files of any arbitrary sampling rate from 2kHz to 192kHz, provided the file format is correct. It just can't play them if your hardware doesn't support it.

Uncheck Auto-play in the open dialog. That is the likely culprit of the error message from your sound card.

As far as the pulses are concerned, something is fishy. What is the file format and attributes? Are you using the raw file type by chance?


Subject:RE: 88.2 or 96KHz processing bug?
Reply by: Terpsichore
Date:7/11/2002 7:40:05 PM

Hey sonic, thanks for the response. I also thought this was supposed to work as you describe. It turns out the error message from having auto play on is insignificant to the issue, I just click past it or turn off auto play but the same thing happens.

It looks like the bug is in Vegas. When I take a 44.1 vegas project, change the project settings to 88.2, then render to a wave file at 88.2 (not raw but std PCM), the resultant wave file is corrupt. It is just a series of pulses with some garbage at the beginning, but has the correct length and attributes. (I believe the same bad things happen at 96K sampling.) I tried this routine several times with consistant bad results.

Then, as an experiment, I tried rendering smaller portions of the vegas project, and to my delight those worked fine. I found that I could render the whole project correctly to a higher sample rate if I select an area to render that DOES NOT contain the very start of the project. Curious, isn't it?

Go Back