BJN
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 222
- Joined: 2013/10/09 07:52:48
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/14 05:26:30
(permalink)
I agree, some of the Audiophile snake oil encroaches upon Pro Audio users as you have cited.
There is plenty of marketing hype all competing for Prosumer dollars.
The Meyer-Moran research findings rationalized their preference. Interesting.
As it is subjective it doesn't really matter then at what you record at so long as as take proper care to get good results.
As I read once, at 44.1khz you don't need to use dither noise to render a higher rez mix.
You can have bigger and more creative mixes than having CPU being taxed at higher rez.
------------------------------------------------------- Magic: when you feel inspired to create which in turn inspires more creation. And the corollary: if magic happens inspiration might flog it to death with numerous retakes. Bart Nettle
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:39:01
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/14 07:38:16
(permalink)
Cool, Mike. This basically confirms my earlier assertion that you can record those sounds above the audible range. This defends Amp Simulators including sound above 20kHz. Am I drawing the correct conclusion from your post?
post edited by gswitz - 2014/06/14 10:58:42
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:39:09
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:39:22
|
BJN
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 222
- Joined: 2013/10/09 07:52:48
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/14 21:25:04
(permalink)
A guitar amp and cabinet attenuates higher frequencies way below what even standard 44.1 can capture.
An Amp Simulation isn't true if it is generating content above that of an actual Amp and cabinet.
Most likely you would attenuate it in the mix anyway and probably why some claim digital Amp Sims have an annoying fizz in them.
There are arguments for both sides.
Something needs to be codified.
------------------------------------------------------- Magic: when you feel inspired to create which in turn inspires more creation. And the corollary: if magic happens inspiration might flog it to death with numerous retakes. Bart Nettle
|
DeeringAmps
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2614
- Joined: 2005/10/03 10:29:25
- Location: Seattle area
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/14 22:07:51
(permalink)
You know what I draw from all this?
Properly designed synths and FX work just fine at 44.1k and 48k.
Audio is captured just fine as well.
Poorly designed software might benefit running at 96k.
IF YOU hear a difference in YOUR recordings at 96k, by all means rock on baby!
Its a free country, you are free to purchase all the horse power and storage you'll need.
Jim and Scott will be more than happy to set you right up!
I will happily run, and store, TWICE as many tracks, effects, synth's etcetera, etcetera, etcetra.
Tom
Tom Deering Tascam FW-1884 User Resources Page Firewire "Legacy" Tutorial, Service Manual, Schematic, and Service Bulletins Win10x64 StudioCat Pro Studio Coffee Lake 8086k 32gb RAM  RME UFX (Audio) Tascam FW-1884 (Control) in Win 10x64 Pro
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/14 22:35:42
(permalink)
BJN
A guitar amp and cabinet attenuates higher frequencies way below what even standard 44.1 can capture.
An Amp Simulation isn't true if it is generating content above that of an actual Amp and cabinet.
Most likely you would attenuate it in the mix anyway and probably why some claim digital Amp Sims have an annoying fizz in them.
There are arguments for both sides.
Something needs to be codified.
The problem is that in the process of simulating the amp distortion, frequencies higher than the Nyquist frequency are generated which causes aliasing (imaging). Now the simulator indeed wants to filter out the higher frequencies before its output, but the aliased frequencies have already folded back and become lower frequencies that then can't be filtered. So you need to process things at a high enough rate so that you can filter out the higher frequencies before they alias at an audible level.
 In order, then, to discover the limit of deepest tones, it is necessary not only to produce very violent agitations in the air but to give these the form of simple pendular vibrations. - Hermann von Helmholtz, predicting the role of the electric bassist in 1877.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 00:00:36
(permalink)
BJN
The Meyer-Moran research findings rationalized their preference. Interesting.
I don't think it was a question of rationalization, the hi-def releases had been re-done from original content for that purpose so they really were better in some ways (e.g., less squashing) than the CD releases.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:39:33
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:39:46
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 10:26:14
(permalink)
Hi, guys. Sorry I walked away from this excellent thread, I just got bored after the first 5 pages and it started to become repetitive. I've just read the whole thing now and I gotta say: what a great thread! Wish I had more to add, but I don't. Except for one thing... That, and what appeared to be a condescending comment about whether there would be any "real" engineers on the panel, did not sit well. Craig, I did not realize that you'd taken offense to my query about whether there'd be any "real" engineers on the panel. You have misunderstood me, and that is my fault. I should have explained what I meant. I'll attempt to do that now, at the risk of diverting the thread along yet another point of contention: the definition of "engineer". I do not consider people who make records "engineers". Whether or not they are professionals is not the criterion. If you can drive a car, even very well and even professionally and even win the Indy 500, that doesn't make you an automotive engineer. Being a stunt pilot, even if you're a Blue Angel does not make you an aeronautical engineer. No matter how many times a day you cross the Brooklyn Bridge you're not a structural engineer. The guy who picks up your garbage, despite what his HR department says, is not a sanitation engineer. And creating a Grammy-winning mix doesn't make you an audio engineer. It's simply a problem I have with the dilution of the title. If you call everybody who's a competent user of technology an engineer, then you're left with nothing to call a "real" engineer. Rupert Neve is a real engineer. Dave Pensado is not. Noel Borthwick is a real engineer. Alan Parsons is not. No disrespect to any of them! I hope I've made it clear that I meant no condescension. I have a tremendous respect for you, Craig. Few others have contributed more to the subject of home recording and music-making than you, through decades of writing helpful articles to make it more broadly accessible. Heck, I was a charter subscriber to Polyphony! I bought Cakewalk 1.0 for DOS on your recommendation!
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 12:26:18
(permalink)
mike_mccue
The inclusion of the final opinion that "hi-def" recordings sound better than CD releases seems like a distraction especially in light of the fact that the testing made no effort to compare that distinction. That was merely offered as an off hand opinion.
I suspect it was intended to fend off criticisms from all the people who had mistakenly compared 2 different masterings (CD vs. SACD) and would thus vehemently claim that the SACD sounded both different and "better" because of the format itself. Comparing different masterings on different formats cannot tell you much of anything meaningful about any real or supposed technical limitations of the formats (unless you still can't hear any difference). It's the same with MP3's - you can't just download one and do an ABX with a lossless version and assume the sources were identical; you need to compress the lossless yourself and then compare the results with the original.
In order, then, to discover the limit of deepest tones, it is necessary not only to produce very violent agitations in the air but to give these the form of simple pendular vibrations. - Hermann von Helmholtz, predicting the role of the electric bassist in 1877.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:40:02
|
jbow
Max Output Level: -0.2 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7601
- Joined: 2003/11/26 19:14:18
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 15:29:28
(permalink)
Thanks for an interesting thread. I don't understand the theory or science but I understand what was done and can hear the result. I don't hear more highs but the result sounds like it has more depth and clarity, maybe a bigger soundstage, not sure how else to put it but it does make a difference.
Thanks!
J
Sonar Platinum Studiocat Pro 16G RAM (some bells and whistles) HP Pavilion dm4 1165-dx (i5)-8G RAM Octa-Capture KRK Rokit-8s MIDI keyboards... Control Pad mics. I HATE THIS CMPUTER KEYBARD!
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 16:37:54
(permalink)
I don't agree that just because a plugin sounds better at 96K it is poorly designed. Many of the plugins I am talking about are very well designed. The higher rate is just offering them something different to work with. They are behaving differently at the higher sample rate.
For years we have always recorded in audio systems that were at higher resolutions than the playback medium. What has changed is the quality of the technology more readily available has improved and a lot of people can make great recordings in their home studios now.
We are now mainly recording at a very similar resolution to the playback medium. (only the bit depth is better, is it enough! 48K is NOT substantially better) Producing at close to the playback medium resolution should not sound as good as recording at 96K right through to the mastering stage and converting down to the playback medium right at the last minute. Like we used to. But something basic still remains and that is in more professional situations, working at a higher resolutions still stands. The great thing is now we can have the higher production resolutions in our home studios just the same as they are in the pro studios. Not so much is different.
You just have to admit that 96K 24 bit is a higher resolution and mostly better sounding than 44.1K 16 bit. It is still more expensive to implement in a home studio but well worth it I would imagine. An interesting test would be a live session with all the individual input signals split to two systems. One running at 96K and the other at 44.1K. That way you get identical performances into both systems. If you use K system setup for both and include alignment tones then it would be possible to produce two identical mixes as well. A direct 96K playback to 44.1K playback would be interesting to hear as well as the 96K downsampled to 44.1 compared to the straight in 44.1 session.
For those of us who like working in the synth VST mode more often, then working at 96K is a bonus. I can certainly hear it and loud and clear. I think it sounds very smooth and nice and quite transient as well.
One thing I might try is another 'Prism' test except put a steep LPF set for 15Khz over the output before it is rendered. Then do the two versions of the render at 96K and then downsample it to 44.1K compared to the straight 44.1K version. It would be interesting to hear if the 44.1K version is still brighter.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 18:22:05
(permalink)
You know, Jeff, it occurs to me when you mention the K-System that the meters at 96 will take into account amplitude that cannot be heard. I wonder if this will impact the levels you set on the various tracks.
To tell the truth, I have never been able to use the K-System for leveling as more than a guide. I always have tons of bleed between the tracks. If I set everything the same, then the lead guitar which was screamingly loud in the show will be too loud in the mix too b/c it's coming in every mic.
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:40:16
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:40:44
|
DeeringAmps
Max Output Level: -49 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2614
- Joined: 2005/10/03 10:29:25
- Location: Seattle area
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 19:49:06
(permalink)
"You just have to admit that 96K 24 bit is a higher resolution and mostly better sounding"
NO! YOU have made that statement, this was not the premise that Craig is/was pursuing.
Stay on topic.
Craig has stated that Amplitube in Hi res does not benefit working at 96k, and IIRC IK states its not as efficient.
And, was it Z3ta2, when NOT oversampling, sounds better at 96k; BFD!
If YOU hear a difference, then by all means run at 96k.
For 99% of the work done is Sonar I'm pretty sure we're "safe" at 44.1.
ESPECIALLY if the user is going to "master" (small m) his/her own material and convert to mp3.
And I'm pretty sure that 48/24 is WAY better than the best tape machine, especially after about 50 passes.
But I don't have to admit nutin'.
Nobody saw me do it...
T
Tom Deering Tascam FW-1884 User Resources Page Firewire "Legacy" Tutorial, Service Manual, Schematic, and Service Bulletins Win10x64 StudioCat Pro Studio Coffee Lake 8086k 32gb RAM RME UFX (Audio) Tascam FW-1884 (Control) in Win 10x64 Pro
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 20:49:20
(permalink)
bitflipper
Craig, I did not realize that you'd taken offense to my query about whether there'd be any "real" engineers on the panel. You have misunderstood me, and that is my fault. I should have explained what I meant. I'll attempt to do that now, at the risk of diverting the thread along yet another point of contention: the definition of "engineer".
Got it, and your explanation is much more in character with the "real" Bitflipper  But I've also been a little more sensitive about things lately...there's been a lot in my personal life involving illness and death in those close to me...which shouldn't spill over into my public life, but that's hard to avoid. Anyway, I don't have much more to add to the thread either, although given how many directions it's taken, it's sort of turning into some kind of reference. I do plan to do some serious experimenting, and see what turns up. If I find out anything other than what I've found so far with amp sims and virtual instruments, I'll post the results. Meanwhile, it seems plenty of other people have useful contributions. I'm learning a lot.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 20:57:07
(permalink)
mike_mccue
My interpretation of what it says is that really nice sounding stereo systems sound really nice.
My interpretation is that spending more care on mixing and mastering in order to please more discriminating ears is why the hi-res ones sound better: Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label. High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 21:06:49
(permalink)
I don't mean to speak for Jeff, but I think his statement about 96/24 was more situational - i.e., there are situations where it's demonstrably better and the resolution makes an audible difference. DeeringAmps
And, was it Z3ta2, when NOT oversampling, sounds better at 96k; BFD! Well, I'm trying to be a gentleman regarding products from other manufacturers. I think it's more "diplomatic" to pick a Cakewalk product that can emulate the performance of other virtual instruments that can't oversample. For 99% of the work done is Sonar I'm pretty sure we're "safe" at 44.1. I think it depends on what kind of music you do. Given how many virtual instruments and saturation algorithms I use, I'm not in the "safe" camp but I would guess most people are. ESPECIALLY if the user is going to "master" (small m) his/her own material and convert to mp3. I'm very glad you brought that up, because it's something I forgot to mention. If something does sound better at 96kHz, as noted previously any "goodness" remains if converted down to 44.1. But, it also sounds better if converted to a quality MP3 (e.g., 256 kbps). And I'm pretty sure that 48/24 is WAY better than the best tape machine, especially after about 50 passes. There are a lot of people who would argue that, but I'm not one of them. FWIW, if you think about it, tape with a 100kHz bias oscillator has a sort of "sample rate" of 100kHz because it's lining up all those little magnetic particles at that rate. But I don't have to admit nutin'.
Nobody saw me do it... What happens in Sonar, stays in Sonar. Well, at least until you release it...
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:40:57
|
jbow
Max Output Level: -0.2 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7601
- Joined: 2003/11/26 19:14:18
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 21:30:10
(permalink)
DeeringAmps
"You just have to admit that 96K 24 bit is a higher resolution and mostly better sounding"
NO! YOU have made that statement, this was not the premise that Craig is/was pursuing.
Stay on topic.
Craig has stated that Amplitube in Hi res does not benefit working at 96k, and IIRC IK states its not as efficient.
And, was it Z3ta2, when NOT oversampling, sounds better at 96k; BFD!
If YOU hear a difference, then by all means run at 96k.
For 99% of the work done is Sonar I'm pretty sure we're "safe" at 44.1.
ESPECIALLY if the user is going to "master" (small m) his/her own material and convert to mp3.
And I'm pretty sure that 48/24 is WAY better than the best tape machine, especially after about 50 passes.
But I don't have to admit nutin'.
Nobody saw me do it...
T
That is EXACTLY what I took away from it. I wrote a long post and then deleted it and just added the post above, that I get it (what Craig did) and that it does sound better. I have nothing else to add other than questions but my understanding of the OP was the same. Some VSTs, not Amplitude, not oversampled, recorded at 96, mixed down to 44.1 sound better because aliases get folded back into things we can here.... NOW, don't ask me about the mechanics of it but I understand the simplicity of doing the task and I certainly hear the result.. and I am glad to know about it. I don't guess I have to understand what is going on under the hood to hit the gas and turn the wheel. J
Sonar Platinum Studiocat Pro 16G RAM (some bells and whistles) HP Pavilion dm4 1165-dx (i5)-8G RAM Octa-Capture KRK Rokit-8s MIDI keyboards... Control Pad mics. I HATE THIS CMPUTER KEYBARD!
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:41:11
|
SvenArne
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2719
- Joined: 2007/01/31 12:51:29
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/15 21:45:20
(permalink)
Sifted through this epic thread and my conclusion is as follows:
If it is so that some or most VI's/amp sims/FX sound better operating at 96k and retain that sound even after being downsampled, I really really want SONAR to have the option of "super-freezing" or "over-bouncing" tracks within a 44.1 project.
The process would take a track with, say, an amp-sim effect, upsample to 96 to make the magic happen and downsample again to give me a 96k magic dust-infused 44.1 wav without me having to run the whole project @ 96k from beginning to end!
Did that make any sense at all?
Sven
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
.
post edited by Bash von Gitfiddle - 2018/10/04 22:41:27
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/16 01:10:22
(permalink)
SvenArne
Sifted through this epic thread and my conclusion is as follows:
If it is so that some or most VI's/amp sims/FX sound better operating at 96k and retain that sound even after being downsampled, I really really want SONAR to have the option of "super-freezing" or "over-bouncing" tracks within a 44.1 project.
The process would take a track with, say, an amp-sim effect, upsample to 96 to make the magic happen and downsample again to give me a 96k magic dust-infused 44.1 wav without me having to run the whole project @ 96k from beginning to end!
Did that make any sense at all?
Sven
That makes a lot of sense. I don't know the mechanics/difficulty of how/if it would work, but it sure seems like it would. I even like the term "over-bouncing." I think you may have come up with my favorite kind of idea - something so obvious no one ever thought of it before I guess it would likely extend the time required to bounce, but so what? Must talk to the Bakers about this...
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Remember that 96K TH2 thread? I Just had my mind blown, big-time
2014/06/16 01:22:38
(permalink)
Thinking about it some more...I think you're right with it being more like a super-freeze; I think it might be closer to super-rendering, operationally speaking.
Seems the best way to handle this would be that upon invoking "super-render" or whatever it would be called, it would do the 44>96>44 render and then archive what it is you rendered (amp sim track, virtual instrument, or whatever). That way you could return to the track if needed, but it wouldn't be influencing the CPU.
Another advantage: You wouldn't need to take a CPU hit while recording from enabling oversampling on your plug-ins. It's like you could always record in "draft" mode to keep the latency down, then when you're ready to mix, do the super-render trick to end up with a higher-fidelity audio file, which wouldn't stress your computer out much anyway,
Now I REALLY must talk to the Bakers about this.........!!!
|