Interesting! I feel like a sample rate of 196 isn't insanely high for recording good quality recordings. So, sounds like my options are probably some kind of work around, or purchase the next level of software. Thanks for responding as I didn't see this problem listed in anything published. Cheers!
jamesmonty76 wrote: Interesting! I feel like a sample rate of 196 isn't insanely high for recording good quality recordings. |
Well, assuming that you meant 192ksamples/sec, that's going to let you sample frequencies up to 96kHz when the greatest frequency a human can hear (and only children at that) is around 20kHz. You get no benefit in terms of frequency range in any sample rate beyond 44.1k (CD rate). Raising the sample rate beyond that means that you are storing a lot of noise for nothing!
All modern A-D converters use a method called over-sampling, and it is this process that removes the need for anti-alias filters, and it was the phase changes in these that used to affect very high frequencies at lower sample rates. But now there's some good (and reproducible) research evidence that nobody at all can detect the difference between material sampled at 44.1k and anything higher, so it's simply not worth using, quite frankly. And, of course, if you are producing material that's to be broadcast, then you'll need it finally to be at a lower sample rate anyway (possibly 48k if it's for video, but nothing higher than that) and then the Loudness Radar will work fine!