The fellow who develops Goldwave is also named Chris. I let him use my name 
Actually I rather expected that because we have seen that before in Audacity/Goldwave comparisons.
Another thing that Goldwave WASAPI manages that Audacity WASAPI does not perform reliably is to play the entirety of a track without cutting the end off.
OK, I knew that but I had forgotten, sorry. And although there are obscure ways to launch it from the command-line I don’t think you can give it command-line arguments. The Windows 7 and 8/8.1 Sound Recorder can record to WAV if run from the command-line specifying a filename ending in .wav.
Windows WASAPI is not available in XP. It came in with Vista.
Gale
I tried out Goldwave, not too long, but I needed to know a little more than just that it works with 96/24. Of course the first thing that happens when you try a new software is that you miss the good ideas and functions that you learned to know before. Than you start to learn to know the good ideas and nice implementations of the new software, so that when you switch back to the old software you are missing things, too. (A so-called loose-loose situation 
)
The worst drawback of Goldwave against Audacity that I found up to now is that monitoring (“Software Playthrough”) during recording is not possible. To my point of view this is a knock-out criterion. The way that is described in the Goldwave Help is using Windows sound control and it is an incapable workaround which works only while Goldwave does not use (i.e., record or display) the input signal. That’s really very sad.
Audacity with WASAPI at 48/24 (and less) is capable of monitoring. I’m desperately waiting for Audacity’s full WASAPI support. Chris, can I help in any way? Would a digital audio source (my USB interface), programmed to generate an appropriate 96/24 test signal when no external signal is connected, help? (I let you use my interface 
)
If you enable “Listen to this device” for the input in Windows Sound, and choose “Shared” in Golwave Options > Control Properties > Device, does that work?
And does disabling “Exclusive Mode” in Windows Sound let Audacity record at 96000 Hz?
Can you hear the difference between 96000 Hz and 48000 Hz, either before or after editing your recording?
To be clear, Chris is not really a volunteer for Audacity, but it was I who asked him to join in because he helped implement PortAudio’s WASAPI support.
I will send you both a private message about this.
Gale
Perhaps someone reading this thread could test Audacity on a different interface than Uwe’s at 96 kHz.
Just for you, Uwe, I downloaded and installed the latest version of Audacity, v 2.1.0.
Audacity records and plays back fine for me at 96 kHz in WASAPI mode.
The current version of Audacity is 2.1.2. It is available from the Audacity website: http://audacityteam.org/download/
I downloaded and installed the latest version of Audacity, v 2.1.0. Audacity records and plays back fine for me at 96 kHz in WASAPI mode.
Here I’m standing helpless. I tried 2.1.0 too, but it is the same as in 2.1.2: 48/24 (WASAPI) works fine, 96/24 creates “Error opening sound device.”. BTW, when I switch back to 48 kHz (and rescan, of course), I get the same error message. I must restart Audacity than. But such a restart doesn’t help when I try it with 96 kHz.
What kind of source do you use? Mine is a UAC1 compatible one, that works in MME mode (16 bit) and on OS-X (24 bit), too, so that I don’t suspect an incompatibility there. But there must be a reason…
I ought to try a different 96/24-capable UAC1 interface, but do such devices exist? And I ought to buy it just to try it…
Brilliant idea: I’ll try it on a different PC, that’s easy for me. Just in the other room…
Yes.
But i doubt you’ll find these in today’s marketplace. For instance, The Emagic A26 and A62 are 96 kHz capable and UAC1. You can still find these on ebay, but they are very expensive. Around 125 $ for a “new” one. Of course, these aren’t new, as Emagic was bought by Apple more than 10 years ago and Apple immediately stopped hardware production of all Emagic products. And these interfaces need a firmware loader…
Most others will be 48 kHz only, or UAC2, as far as I know.
Would this one do: http://www.ebay.de/itm/Emagic-A-2-6-V1-7a-USB-mobilen-Audio-Interface-funktionsfahig-/311521799778?hash=item4888256e62? The price doesn’t hurt too much… What about the mysterious firmware loader, would I have to fear that it wouldn’t work without it?
I read a test (http://www.emusician.com/gear/1332/emagic-emi-26-usb-audio-interface/32738) and it it somewhat irritating, e.g., I read: “I was unable to achieve any form of 24-bit operation under Cakewalk Sonar, because Sonar doesn’t support ASIO or EASI drivers. (According to Emagic, I should have used the Windows MME driver.)” Didn’t i just learn that MME does not support 24 bit and never did?
Yes. No firmware means nothing works. You won’t even get a power led.
The firmware is a simple tftp app on the Mac. And the firmware used to be available on Linux 't ill a few kernel versions ago. Then it got dropped because of license problems, which is kind of silly. I saw a page from someone who was using 3 units in parallel to record 18 channels on Linux.
Both devices use the same firmware. To use them in parallel on Linux, each one needs to be on a separate USB bus.
For that price, I’d go for it. The last one I saw on the bay was like 125 € and pretended to be brand new. 
I think I have most versions of the firmware loader for Windows archived somewhere. It’s not a big file, so I could mail it if you need it. You can also find it on old Logic installer CD’s. And these don’t need to be really ancient. It was still on the Logic version 7 or 8 disc, IIRC.
It’s old software and I’ve never tried it on Windows myself. AFAIK it works with XP. On OSX it worked till 10.6 and I had to change some permissions for more recent systems. An exercise I haven’t done for the latest system yet, but mine run well under Mavericks and Yosemite.
I read a test (> http://www.emusician.com/gear/1332/emagic-emi-26-usb-audio-interface/32738> ) and it it somewhat irritating, e.g., I read: “I was unable to achieve any form of 24-bit operation under Cakewalk Sonar, because Sonar doesn’t support ASIO or EASI drivers. (According to Emagic, I should have used the Windows MME driver.)” Didn’t i just learn that MME does not support 24 bit and never did?
I don’t know about Windows, but reading this:
Note that 96 kHz support is not yet implemented on the Mac, although it may be by the time you read this.
leads me to the conclusion that he must have been running a very early driver version. 96 kHz is limited to 2 channels, in stead of 6 because of the limited bandwidth of USB1.1. From memory, I think there are only 3 or 4 versions of the driver, despite Emagic relabeling the device from 2|6 to A26.
With the later firmware, the hardware switches on the interface no longer work with the Mac, as everything can be switched from software. I guess it’s the same on Windows.
TBH, I never used 96 kHz much with these interfaces, as it limits the number of channels.
And according to this, the firmware loader works with Win 7:
http://mtippach.proboards.com/thread/2541/win7-64bit-a62m-works-problem
And several tricks to load firmware from other systems, even in a VM. 
Yes, it’s 16-bit 44100 Hz only internally.
Gale
Cyrano,
thank you for your firmware offer. I’m still not really certain whether the Emagic a) would work at all on my PC and b) whether it would produce a 96/24 stereo signal. It should be a USB Audio Class 1 (UAC1) device and I expect such a device to be plug-and-play. Reading http://mtippach.proboards.com/thread/25%20...%20ks-problem makes it even worse: Dual boot, Win 7, install a virtual machine, ASIO, reboot… That doesn’t make me confident at all. Moreover: A firmware loader (which implicates different firmwares for the interface), up to now designed for up to XP only where, due to MME, more than 16 bit never could have been expected…
BTW, MME, DirectSound and WASAPI:
Yes, it’s 16-bit 44100 Hz only internally.
I read something similar, too. But the fact that using MME we get 96 and even 192 kHz recordings (but 16 bit only) tells me, that you shouldn’t believe everything you read (or you shouldn’t believe that you understand what is written…)
Similar: Chris wrote that “WASAPI is the lowest level at which Windows accesses audio hardware. DirectSound is built on top of WASAPI.” But wasn’t WASAPI introduced after DirectSound? Or has WASAPI later been inserted underneath DirectSound in the sound processing stack (or however it is called in Windows)?
UAC1 and different sample rates and sample widths: As we all know, UAC1 is based on USB1.1 and thus limited to 12 Mbit/s gross and ~11 Mbit/s net. AFAIK, for UAC1 all other aspects are not limited. I.e., you can freely chose sample rate, sample width, number of channels, and input and/or output. When we designed our interface we hoped that that would be true and in fact, up to 96/24 and 192/16, operating as input only, did work, as we expected. When you by a TI PCM270x UAC1 interface chip, it is bidirectional and limited to 48/16. Bidirectionally even 96/16 or 48/24 should work, too.
What I want to say: The Emagic with 2 ins and 6 outs (or vice versa) must be limited in the same way, too. And as far as I read, you have indeed different operating modes which seem even to allow concurrently different sample rates, different sample widths and different numbers of channels for each direction(!). To my point of view 2 x 96/24 in and 2 x 48/16 out could be feasible.
But I still doubt that it simply would work on my PC at all and particularly with 96/24.
And what should be the problem with our interface when it has no problems in UAC1 mode 96/24 on OS-X and when the only difference in the UAC1 protocol is a different parameter in its Audio Streaming Format Type Descriptor and the Endpoint Descriptor (AFAIK, at least)? And when these Parameters are obviously correct (I can send you the USB tree viewer report). And with a self-written primitive audio recording program, based on DirectSound, 96/24 works on my PC, too? Yes, it works!
No one is saying that MME can’t be resampled by Windows or Audacity, but natively it’s 44100 Hz, as far as I understand it.
DirectSound is emulated on top of WASAPI on Vista and later. On XP, there is no WASAPI, and DirectSound thus has less latency than it does on Vista and later.
That direct sound recorder works in XP, I think you have said. Does it work in Windows 10?
Gale
but natively it’s 44100
With Audacity set to MME and 192000 Hz project rate I can make recordings from a 192 kHz source, and I can record frequencies up to close to 96 kHz. And the recorded signal is not an alias or something like that, it is the original signal. So the signal is obviously not resampled. If you want me to I can send you such a file that is recorded in this way.
DirectSound is emulated on top of WASAPI on Vista and later. On XP, there is no WASAPI, and DirectSound thus has less latency than it does on Vista and later.
Ok, that sounds plausible and was one of my suspicions.
That direct sound recorder works in XP, I think you have said. Does it work in Windows 10?
I’m working with Win 10 only and the self-written audio recorder was written in 8.1 (AFAIK) and I run it in Win 10, too. I could send you a 96/24 and a 192/16 recording made by this recorder, too. Or you can have a look on my PC via Teamviewer and verify that really everything is as I - well, as I believe it to be. I’m just very sure, but not more.
Hi guys,
I prepared a website with detailed explanations, information and screenshots in order to make clear what I observe under which circumstances and what I’m talking about. Maybe it helps in any way. Please have a look at:
http://beis.de/Elektronik/DA2USB/AudacityMMEvsWASAPI/Audacity_MME_vs_WASAPI.html
Should questions remain, I can add them to that website.
It is contrary to what everyone else says that I have ever seen, but I have never tested it. Can you generate for example a 90000 Hz tone, record that at 192000 Hz using MME, and that tone is preserved?
Gale
Hi Gale, I made such a recording and added it to the article I mentioned above (http://beis.de/Elektronik/DA2USB/AudacityMMEvsWASAPI/Audacity_MME_vs_WASAPI.html).
I describe all details there, too. The direct link is http://beis.de/Elektronik/DA2USB/AudacityMMEvsWASAPI/Audacity_MME_vs_WASAPI.html#TestSignal0to90kHz.
The recorded file can be downloaded from http://beis.de//Elektronik/DA2USB/AudacityMMEvsWASAPI/Rec_MME_192_0-90kHz.wav.