Danny Danzi

Like, ever hear a guy praising 24/192 because he thinks he can really hear a difference? The fact is...he CAN, but it's because the card is lame at the lower sampling rates.

My EMU-0404 (PCI) was that way. That thing sounded incredible at 192kHz. It sounded great at lower sample rates, but you could really hear a difference when you popped it up to 192.

I loved that card once they got the driver situation fixed.

@Bitflipper: When it works ... my M-Audio Fast Track Ultra is an excellent unit ... but like you brought up about support ... driver support is non-existent, as well as technical support. The only response you get is RTM or 'Sorry, we've never seen that before, it must be your system'. They won't even let you download previous versions of drivers.

I was looking at a nice 384kHz/64bit converter for only a mere $7,000 the other day.

Jonbouy

I've yet to find an interface which is a bit-crushing, sound mangling, distortion unit

I've got plugs/presets that do dat.

Lots of cool info. Thanks, guys.

The Fast Track won't go above 48khz, so I can't push it. I don't think it'll ruin anything at 44khz, but since I have to replace it anyway, I'll be looking for something better. 

One thing that got me thinking - and I may very well be wrong in this uneducated assumption - is that I've often read how using higher sampling rates when working w/ amp sims could help. My assumption was that the opposite could be equally true, in that, average converters running at 48 khz max could potentially affect the sound, even if just marginally. 

Another thing - and maybe that's totally normal - but I was actually surprised the other day when I opened the input channel in Studio One and saw the meters registering between -90 and -85 db, even w/ the preamps at zero and nothing plugged in. Is this common?

Concerning Apogee, I always had a tough time making my mind. I don't like the purist and slightly condescending attitude a lot of users seem to be having. On the other hand, a couple of friends for who I have the biggest respect wholeheartedly recommended them. Granted, they have the rest of the equipment, so they're not using Apogee converters to record a cheap condenser mic via a $200 preamp...

I've often read how using higher sampling rates when working w/ amp sims could help

That's an interesting supposition, but I can't for the life of me think of any technical reason that would make that true. 


Higher sample rates allow you to record higher frequencies. A guitar amp isn't exactly a high-frequency sound source; there isn't much happening above maybe 10-12KHz, even with gobs of distortion. The speakers just can't deliver highs unless you've got a horn, which most guitar amps don't.

I don't know - apparently it helps reduce the "fizz".

According to Craig Anderton  "Physical amps don’t have a lot of energy above 5kHz because of the physics of cabinets and speakers, but amp sims don’t have physical limitations. So eEven if the sim is designed to reduce highs, you’ll often find high-frequency artifacts, particularly if you run the sim at lower sample rates (e.g., 44.1kHz). One way to obtain a more pleasing distorted amp sim sound is simply to run the sim at an 88.2kHz or 96kHz sample rate."


http://www.harmonycentral.com/docs/DOC-1652

I haven't tested it because my interface doesn't handle higher sampling rates, but most software amp sims indeed seem to have some pretty nasty stuff showing up in the higher frequencies.

By comparison, my old POD 2 seems to roll off pretty drastically starting at 5k, even w/ hi gain models. So much that it actually sounds muffled by comparison. In fact, impulse based cab sim doesn't usually generate as much fizz, though it's still there.

That's there all the time and not unique to amp sims.

I frequently have tracks with EQ settings that look like the screenshot he posted of Sonitus.

That sound he's getting differs greatly depending on the guitar you use, active vs. passive pickups, pre-amp ...

I hate's ta go against what the guy says because he's so well respected ... but this is something that I compensate for on a lot of tracks and in my experience is not unique to just amp sims.

But I'm probably wrong for some technical reason ... he's much more in to the nuts and bolts of this than I am.

That sterile/digital sound he's using as an example was really bad in Guitar Rig 4 until the update prior to the final one, which corresponds with the date of the article. The last update before the final one to GR4 did miracles for it IMO.

I usually use a tighter Q than he's using in the screenshot and use more notches ... but I totally get what he's doing there. There usually seems to be some kind of pattern as to how far apart the frequencies are that need attenuating, so I always chocked it up to something to do with how the converters worked as apposed to a random kind of input anomaly.

Hope that made some kind of sense. :) Doh! :)

bitflipper

I've often read how using higher sampling rates when working w/ amp sims could help

That's an interesting supposition, but I can't for the life of me think of any technical reason that would make that true. 


Higher sample rates allow you to record higher frequencies. A guitar amp isn't exactly a high-frequency sound source; there isn't much happening above maybe 10-12KHz, even with gobs of distortion. The speakers just can't deliver highs unless you've got a horn, which most guitar amps don't.

It makes perfect sense if you think about it from a DSP devs point of view.
 
http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/working-itb-at-higher-sampling-rates/
 
How much of the fact that DSP algorithms work at higher resolutions than the actual audio has an noticeble difference on the end product is a matter of debate but the calculations certainly benefit, whether it's an amp-sim, eq, soft synth or whatever.
 
I rarely bother with it UNLESS I come across an aliasing problem or some noticeable artifact where using a 'different' sample rate ITB will indeed cure it. But in those cases it is often an effective fix.
 
Much like you can cause a 'moire' type effect with a graphic pixel resolution clashing with a pattern in the actual image, such problems also occur within the realm of digital audio processing, choosing a different (and not necessarily higher) SR can often mitigate those kinds of issues.
 
Amp sims are great examples where the distortion, especially in the higher frequency ranges can benefit from using a higher sample rate for the emulation taking place.
 
I'm with Craig Anderton and Bootsy on this one.

In which case, my original question could probably interpreted as - if your converters are of average quality and don't support higher sampling rates, could the higher frequencies actually be affected (even if just marginally) maybe because you're basically running them at maximum capacity? 

IOW, could better converters help reduce artifacts even at 44khz? Or is the notion of pushing them to their limits a bad analogy between analog and digital?