Jeffs test analyzed with HarBal 3 
http://www.screencast.com/t/8v30AG0YIPlE

Craig,
 
I think I see Bit's point-- If we can do it manually by up-sampling the project then down-sampling, why can't the plugin do it for us? This seems reasonable conjecture to me.
 
I do think that by running the whole project at a higher sample rate and then down-sampling once would have likely benefits of artifacts from the filters not finding their way into the audio.
 
I'm sure Bit hears the audible difference in these tracks.
 
On a different note, I'm not sure that bringing up qualifications helps the conversation... saying the Jeff is Pro (suggesting that Bit isn't as qualified at least in part because he's challenging your assertions). There should be empirical truth, like the audible difference in the files you posted. And there is a scientific reason for this. I think we all agree there. And you present a good argument to revisit sample rate choice in our projects.
 
I think Bit is probably on board with all of this. I hear him challenging the ideas. Like if a filter were just applied after the upsample, why would there be audible fold-over frequencies in the output. Seems a reasonable question to me. I think this is the root of his 'bad plugin' argument.
 
There are lots of people here with lots of opinions and different views on the matter. I know a Physics PHD from UC Berkeley and current professor in physics who reviewed this and gave me his opinion.
 
I like the topic and I like how everyone has conversed on it. I want to speak up and say I also like Bit and how he's presented his knowledge. I don't think anything you or Jeff has contributed invalidates Bits challenges. They are reasonable challenges. Same with DrewFX. That dude's freakin smart too.
 
I've learned something from everyone and I'm grateful to all. I wouldn't want Bit to feel quelled b/c some one is being more successful in the industry than he is (or not, idk).
 
As an add, I wonder whether applying the down-sample filter only once in the whole project (by using a higher project sample rate) rather than over and over on each plug-in might not have a cumulative effect improvement like that described by Craig earlier when trying to get noise reduced in an overall project.
 
I also wonder whether bad filters are used in down-sampling within the plugin in order to keep latency as low as possible. This might explain why Sonar's offline down-sampling does a better job.

.

mike_mccue
From my perspective it seems like Craig has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Z3TA+2 and TH2 are crappy.
 
It seems a lot easier to use a product that was made to sound good without using 96k as some sort of work around.
 
best regards,
mike 

And Prism and Wavestation apparently - does your virtual Dulcimer have a 96khz switch?

if your virtual thing is "emulating" something real, then the more accurate the maths the more accurate the emulation - it cracks me up that this stuff gets argued about like it's a religion or something... science, people, it's science!

mike_mccue
From my perspective it seems like Craig has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Z3TA+2 and TH2 are crappy.
 
It seems a lot easier to use a product that was made to sound good without using 96k as some sort of work around.

 
You're not paying attention. I specifically said that I turned off oversampling on Z3TA+ 2 because turning on oversampling did the same thing as increasing the sample rate. I wanted to find out the effects of raising the sample rate on instruments without oversampling, which the Z3TA+ 2 an emulate by simply not engaging oversampling.
 
TH2 doesn't include oversampling but if you look at the landscape of plug-ins, far more don't do oversampling than do. You're basically saying that the vast majority of the industry makes crappy devices.
 
You're welcome to your opinion, but meanwhile, I need to make deadlines, I need quality sound, and I have a solution.

gswitz
 
I think I see Bit's point-- If we can do it manually by up-sampling the project then down-sampling, why can't the plugin do it for us? This seems reasonable conjecture to me.

That's besides the point, which is that most of them don't. You can choose to say this is the way the world should be and complain that it isn't, or you can do something about it. I've chosen the latter.
 
His other point is that "science" doesn't support my contention that increasing the sample rate to 96kHz while recording with certain virtual processes has worthwhile benefits. ("But over the years people have tried and tried and grasped at increasingly unlikely straws to make the case and so far nobody's come up with a rationale that's supported by science.") Yet it clearly can improve the sound quality of certain processors, and science clearly explains why that is so. I don't think that can be disputed unless you don't accept theories regarding digital audio that have been developed and tested over decades.
 
Look, people can do whatever they want. I don't care if their music is filled with distortion, but I do care whether mine is or not. So I will take steps to mitigate it and have an audible improvement in the quality of what I produce and presumably, Jeff Evans will do so too. I've put this information out there, it's not disputable, and people can either take advantage of it or not.
 
Remember, the whole reason I got started on this tangent was to show that running at 96kHz DIDN'T make a difference. I was wrong. As I said earlier, I'm not interested in being right or wrong; I'm interested in the truth. I guess that's not the way scientists are supposed to think

Anderton
Remember, the whole reason I got started on this tangent was to show that running at 96kHz DIDN'T make a difference. I was wrong. As I said earlier, I'm not interested in being right or wrong; I'm interested in the truth. I guess that's not the way scientists are supposed to think

Craig,  It seems like you're getting frustrated here.  I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that all scientists are only interested in being right rather than discovering the truth.  But yes, it's true that ego does, unfortunately, play a role in scientific research.  I've been in the field for 25 years and have encountered some pretty arrogant people.  But I've also met quite a few who were clearly passionately motivated to discover the truth.  Cheers...

I'm not sure that we don't just have a misunderstanding about whether some would just consider 96kHz a "workaround" rather than "intrinsically better" in the situation described.
 
IOW it's about how one characterizes the situation, not what the facts are.

Bitflipper and Craig Anderton going at it. This is frikkin awesome!!!