This might just be an ASIO4ALL problem...

But I don't seem to be able to specify any other sample rate than 44.1kHz.  It it happening with my Extigy and my AC'97 motherboard card.  Both are locked at 44.1kHz and I can't seem to find a way to adjust it.  There don't seem to be any settings are where I can, at least.

Don't they follow the sample rate you specify with File > New...?

No disrespect guys but should you be using another ASIO product when you pay for the one in Audition. Even the Premiere ASIO didn't have that many issues?

What's the problem here?

Mark

No disrespect guys but should you be using another ASIO product when you pay for the one in Audition. Even the Premiere ASIO didn't have that many issues?

What's the problem here?

Mark

You do not know what you are talking about.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Then explain to me why!

Mark

Don't they follow the sample rate you specify with File > New...?

Lemme see...

OOOOPS!

How do I convert a session I've already finished?

I'm converting my wavs I made for a Dolby Digital encode.  They 44.1kHz 16-bit when I originally got them, anyway.  Upconverting them anytime in the process will do.

Aaaand now I am encoding a 5.1 ac3...

Thanks for reminding me of the "New Session" menu option.

No disrespect guys but should you be using another ASIO product when you pay for the one in Audition. Even the Premiere ASIO didn't have that many issues?

What's the problem here?

Mark

ASIO is not a product.   It is a DRIVER.  Audition and Premiere use ASIO drivers, if the hardware supports it.  ASIO4ALL is another type of ASIO driver.  

I believe your question is more like "what need is there to use another ASIO supported program when we have paid for Audition?"  Because other programs have much better ASIO implementation.

Because other programs have much better ASIO implementation.

er... based on what do you say that?  You'd have to have access to their program code to make such a judgement.  That's just like saying that if one car gets better miles per gallon than another, it's because one has flat tires.  Could be that - or could be that there's an aerodynamic difference, or an engine efficiency difference, or a driving style difference, or a carb tuning difference, or all sorts of things.

ASIO is not a product. It is a DRIVER. Audition and Premiere use ASIO drivers, if the hardware supports it. ASIO4ALL is another type of ASIO driver.

I believe your question is more like "what need is there to use another ASIO supported program when we have paid for Audition?" Because other programs have much better ASIO implementation.

Well, that's put better than my original but yes, that's what I meant. So, why do you have to use ASIO4ALL in the 1st place.

I haven't put AA2 on my good m/c because I'm waiting for this to be thrashed out. I have a Layla 3G as well so I'm showing a little concern.

Mark

Mark, don't forget that people tend to come to technical forums with problems rather than success stories, and that the membership here (numerous though it is) forms only a tiny proportion of the user base.  So for all we know there are any number of users out there who are entirely happy with the performance they are getting.   And even among the membership here I don't think one could say that those with problems outnumber those without.

I understand Pete. OK, when I get time, I'll load up. If you don't hear from me all is fine

Mark

And even among the membership here I don't think one could say that those with problems outnumber those without.

Well, this is the position I have taken:

I cannot assume that others can run plenty of effects in Audition 2.0 without having problems. The way I look at it is: the many more people who are not complaining are not using AA2.0 in the manner that those, like me, who are complaining, use it.

Case in point - I have not seen anybody state that they use ASIO to the extent that I do without having problems in AA2.0. On the contrary, I see the opposite. People have said that they cannot run Audition even to the extent that I can.

 

Because other programs have much better ASIO implementation.

er... based on what do you say that?  You'd have to have access to their program code to make such a judgement.  That's just like saying that if one car gets better miles per gallon than another, it's because one has flat tires.  Could be that - or could be that there's an aerodynamic difference, or an engine efficiency difference, or a driving style difference, or a carb tuning difference, or all sorts of things.

I believe that it could be said that other programs are better optimized for VST effects than AA 2.0 (based on our tests).

Sonar allows me to put countless more effects in realtime than Audition 2.0.  

It is not accurate at this point in time to say that Sonar uses higher or lower quality internal effects than Audition 2.0.  

But by that token, I also cannot logically state that Sonar's effects are much better optimized due to the former question (of effect quality) not being answered.
 
What I do know is that Sonar's effects work amazingly well in realtime, and, in my opinion, sound very good.

I really like Audition's effects as well, but if someone can only use 5 at a time when in Sonar one can use 25 with subjectively similar results, I am sure anyone would choose the latter.