KVR Audio

Mikem · Post by **Mikem** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:22 pm

I'm considering moving to recording at 96 kHz (for reasons too many to list here).

I remember trying this once before and having SampleTank 2 *NOT* work at 96 kHz, and I'm guessing that's still the case.

What other VSTi's (or effects, for that matter) won't work at 96 kHz? Anyone aware of others besides ST2? I just want to know how much of a headache I may be in for.

-Mike

multree · Post by **multree** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:27 pm

why don't you just switch to 96kHz and see which of yours work and which will not work.... should be faster then for us to guess which VSTis you have - I guess

Spaceman Sounds · Post by **Spaceman Sounds** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:35 pm

Maybe he was asking others who have tried to work at 96khz and found that some of their vsti's didn't work....to comment on which ones

Mikem · Post by **Mikem** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:14 pm

Yes, I could go through them all (I have tons, so it would be no small task).

But I figured a little publicity on the subject would also encourage the offending developers to make their VSTi's 96k compatible.

If the thread idea bothers you, feel free to ignore it.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:51 pm

Might be worth considering it from the other angle as well - which synths benefit the most from 96k? Some already have oversampling (like Sytrus and FM8) while others sound best when they are allowed to alias a bit or sound too different at 96k. On Creamware systems for example its well known that Vectron (a Prophet VS clone) can sound a lot smoother at 96k but that's not always what you want from a synth that is supposed to sound quite digital and some even downsample it to 32k which actually brings it closer to the original sound apparently.

maxhodges1 · Post by **maxhodges1** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:02 pm

Sorry, but I'm really curious why you think you need to record ultrasonics. Care to share a few of your many reasons?

If I wanted to record someting at 96/24 I don't think I'd trust any of my VSTs with that signal. Do you really trust the designers to handle the math correctly?

DSP algorithms require repeated precision calculations to perform filtering, equalization, compression, and expansion, and the end number might not resemble the right product at all, unless adequate precision is maintained. So how well are your plug-ins able to handle expanding word lengths and perform double and triple precision calculations, which slows them down and complicates the whole process? Do their designers truly appreciate how truncating, rounding, and filter rolloffs affect sound quality and quantization distortion?

Aural Chaos · Post by **Aural Chaos** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:43 pm

Did someone just hear the sound of trousers unzipping?

dover666 · Post by **dover666** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:55 pm

i've tested the majority of my vst's at 96k, so if any don't work let me know. soundkill hi_fi actually won't work right below 96k.

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:27 pm

Aural Chaos wrote:Did someone just hear the sound of trousers unzipping?

BertKoor · Post by **BertKoor** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:12 pm

I just heard Max talking out of his belly button...

Mikem · Post by **Mikem** » Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:23 pm

maxhodges1 wrote:Sorry, but I'm really curious why you think you need to record ultrasonics. Care to share a few of your many reasons?

Yeah, that's not really the point of this thread, so I'd rather not divert it. Suffice it to say, if I didn't think there were sonic gains to be had, I wouldn't be bothering.

maxhodges1 · Post by **maxhodges1** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:49 am

BertKoor wrote:I just heard Max talking out of his belly button...

how do you mean?

maxhodges1 · Post by **maxhodges1** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:53 am

Mikem wrote:
maxhodges1 wrote:Sorry, but I'm really curious why you think you need to record ultrasonics. Care to share a few of your many reasons?
Yeah, that's not really the point of this thread, so I'd rather not divert it. Suffice it to say, if I didn't think there were sonic gains to be had, I wouldn't be bothering.

I guess your time is too valuable to share the many reasons. I guess that's why you ask all of us to check your plug-ins instead of doing it yourself.

maxhodges1 · Post by **maxhodges1** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:57 am

Aural Chaos wrote:Did someone just hear the sound of trousers unzipping?

I guess you don't think my points are valid? Let's discuss it then instead of trading put downs! I'm just sharing my perspective, but I'm a reasonable person.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:58 am

i wouldnt worry about it too much. all dsp code should be as dynamic/adaptive as possible and should be able to work at all rates. (i'm saying it SHOULD, not that it is)

if you have effects which need updates in order to work at other rates you might want to try contacting the authors. in some situations adjusting code to be able to handle variable rates is quite easy. a more important question though, rather than "what doesnt work at 96k", what about 98k? 97.624k? 3.89k? 11.5hz?

plugins should work at all those rates. there are some optimizations that depend upon fixed rates, but depending entirely upon those optimized versions of methods in my opinion is extremely bad design.

it might be wise to maintain only plugins which operate dynamically, attempt to get older plugins updated and consider ditching them if you can not.

What VSTi's still don't work at 96 kHz?