Stereo Tool https://forums.stereotool.com/ |
|
What is the lowest quality you can run at and still sound good?? https://forums.stereotool.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=31120 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | DJboutit [ Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | What is the lowest quality you can run at and still sound good?? |
What is the low quality % you can run at to help with cpu load and still have good audio quality from Stereo Tool. I am currently I am running at 96% should I run it at 92%?? |
Author: | EliteData [ Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:06 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: What is the lowest quality you can run at and still sound good?? |
Quote:
What is the low quality % you can run at to help with cpu load and still have good audio quality from Stereo Tool.
that depends on what you use ST for and whether your current PC can handle it.I am currently I am running at 96% should I run it at 92%?? if you use it for AM broadcast, 50% is good, for FM broadcast, 75% is good, for personal listening on your sound system or for mastering, 100% is good, theres really no need to go above 100%. |
Author: | DJboutit [ Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:28 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: What is the lowest quality you can run at and still sound good?? |
I run a internet radio station that streams at 160kbps AAC |
Author: | MrKlorox [ Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: What is the lowest quality you can run at and still sound good?? |
I'm curious how the "Latency" size is affected by the CPU "Audio Quality" slider. 150% on 1024 sounds a lot better than 100% at 1024. And 100% at 4096 is better than that. I guess what I want to know is: what Quality should one use for a Latency of 2048 and what difference does it make? I mostly use 1024/150% for gaming or 4096/100% for media consumption (plugin version). I notice the difference most in the sub-bass accuracy. I assume everybody who uses ST for broadcasting would use the largest size available since lag isn't as much of an issue as it is for playing games, right? |
Author: | EliteData [ Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: What is the lowest quality you can run at and still sound good?? |
Quote:
I'm curious how the "Latency" size is affected by the CPU "Audio Quality" slider. 150% on 1024 sounds a lot better than 100% at 1024. And 100% at 4096 is better than that. I guess what I want to know is: what Quality should one use for a Latency of 2048 and what difference does it make? I mostly use 1024/150% for gaming or 4096/100% for media consumption (plugin version). I notice the difference most in the sub-bass accuracy.
on my laptop (Clevo P870DM2_DM3) i operate with 2048 samples at 100% quality at 30mS latency on "normal output" reliably.
I assume everybody who uses ST for broadcasting would use the largest size available since lag isn't as much of an issue as it is for playing games, right? |
Author: | DJboutit [ Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: What is the lowest quality you can run at and still sound good?? |
Quote: Quote:
I'm curious how the "Latency" size is affected by the CPU "Audio Quality" slider. 150% on 1024 sounds a lot better than 100% at 1024. And 100% at 4096 is better than that. I guess what I want to know is: what Quality should one use for a Latency of 2048 and what difference does it make? I mostly use 1024/150% for gaming or 4096/100% for media consumption (plugin version). I notice the difference most in the sub-bass accuracy.
on my laptop (Clevo P870DM2_DM3) i operate with 2048 samples at 100% quality at 30mS latency on "normal output" reliably.
I assume everybody who uses ST for broadcasting would use the largest size available since lag isn't as much of an issue as it is for playing games, right? |
Author: | EliteData [ Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: What is the lowest quality you can run at and still sound good?? |
Quote: Quote: Quote:
I'm curious how the "Latency" size is affected by the CPU "Audio Quality" slider. 150% on 1024 sounds a lot better than 100% at 1024. And 100% at 4096 is better than that. I guess what I want to know is: what Quality should one use for a Latency of 2048 and what difference does it make? I mostly use 1024/150% for gaming or 4096/100% for media consumption (plugin version). I notice the difference most in the sub-bass accuracy.
on my laptop (Clevo P870DM2_DM3) i operate with 2048 samples at 100% quality at 30mS latency on "normal output" reliably.
I assume everybody who uses ST for broadcasting would use the largest size available since lag isn't as much of an issue as it is for playing games, right? mainly, lower frequencies are affected more prominently by lower samples and can be observed on the display scope by using a sinewave tone 60Hz and lower, in some cases, you can hear this distortion as well. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC+02:00 |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |