The Best Drum Sample Library!

[Burillo]

Well actually its not "bit rate" it is sample rate.

actually, he was right - 16-bit vs 24-bit *is* bit depth, not bit rate or sample rate but that's beside the point though.

[Project16]

Hello all!

Just a question about the 16-bit or 24-bit! (this is the debate here I think )
I start a new audio much more complete than the first bank in my Rickenbacker with a better sampling.
Currently my samples are 24 bits in size but big on my hard and finally I will have a library of about 2GB to 2.5GB.
Do you think it's better to keep them in 24bit?

Regards!

[Burillo]

Hello all!

Just a question about the 16-bit or 24-bit! (this is the debate here I think )
I start a new audio much more complete than the first bank in my Rickenbacker with a better sampling.
Currently my samples are 24 bits in size but big on my hard and finally I will have a library of about 2GB to 2.5GB.
Do you think it's better to keep them in 24bit?

Regards!

yes, keep them at 24 bit

[jancivil]

"Don't be angry" is the resort of a troll that has no real argument on points and is a sign of a lost argument...snip useless rambling snip...So it occurs to me, and to other people here, that you have a belief about yourself (that is probably overconfident). You seem invested in showing that to us. What you're showing is ignorance and that you aren't really dealing with people's points.

If you can't hear it don't assume no one else can't either. I have no need to argue what I hear. The only one losing here is you because of your narrow view.

Listen, I have no interest in showing anything to you. I did not start this "argument". Someone quoted my post and tried to tell me what I can and cannot hear. I can't accept bullshit like that.

What narrow view? What do I not hear do you think, what evidence is there of anyone's hearing? You're saying things which don't really stand to reason, and as if a proof, you can hear it and we can't. It seems important, 'you can't hear what I can' as if it makes a a developer's decision necessary. I like the idea myself, on paper. But then I'm a skeptic when it's presented as you did.

I think should we test you at a stop playback point a few times and when you have reliably detected L versus R hand, we know you're right. It seems absurd, and if you're at the same time arguing more Round Robins is necessarily better, the argument seems to falter. So what point are you after but 'I can hear it'. 'I'm right!'? I don't mind what you prefer but what is there gained by this?

You want to go snarkmeister on 'KVR people'? this exemplifies fighting for your preference of a plugin. You want to say some shit about a product you're too good for. BFD2 is fine for Bill Cobham but here's you.


I do know 'bit' as measured should read as depth, there. *bit rate* is sample rate x bit depth x no. of channels.

[jancivil]

For a reminder, you all said there's no point using more detailed drums samples because you can't hear a difference.

This is what I call lying. I did not say this anywhere.

I never said that either. I use very detailed samples and I'll tend to prefer hihats with more samples per se, based in experience. I have said quite specific things about what you said. I don't buy that L v R is meaningful in itself, in terms of a samples implementation, as per a drum. Are you actually saying that there is an implementation of RR that respects L versus R hand snare samples? Please elucidate us on this particular implementation.

[jancivil]

the preference for more depth has to do with overhead; it's the same thing as a 64-bit audio engine addresses.

If you never have a really quiet passage, chances are this is not a very meaningful difference. But Hollywood sound people pay close attention to noise floor as what they're doing is going to be amplified in the theatre. I have some very long, quiet reverb tails, not to mention some quiet musical passages. So I'm glad that Cubase provides 32-bit fp.

Before the prevalence of 24-bit, people relied on dithering particularly when downsampling. When you amplify the noise floor of digital audio, the dithered result 'softens' what is felt to be a harsh quality, effectively clouding the noise.

I have had things appear on the radio and the jock quickly cranked up the quiet ending. If I had to endure this often enough I might even dither the 24-bit. I'm not very deaf, really.


(So do not downsample the 24-bit in the product you bought.)

[Tubeman]

Evidently you have a misconception as to why we do use the higher bit rate, as Burrillo points out. You shouldn't talk technical, right, because you're not so much competent to do so. Again, the exercise is you telling us about your superior hearing. No one is impressed, dude.

Actually, it's called bit depth. Confusing it with bit rate is the common mistake for people who saw the 'bit' word the first time when they were listening mp3s.

Well actually its not "bit rate" it is sample rate. Still you are clutching at straws correcting Jan there just to make yourself feel sweet. I'll bet my last pound coin that Jan knows the difference.
Your schooling Peter on drums was amusingly painful as I'm sure it was patronizing to Mr.Jones and suddenly backing off Burrillo exquisite as you had no more rope left, Speaking of which...Stop being a prick or if you have superior next level abilities going on then have at the simple exercise I offered and I welcome anyone else to put in tracks if you like for variety of style Tubeman can pick apart

We may record and process in 24-Bit but that is another matter, So Burrillo didn't prove any point for you, Unless I am really missing something?

Dean

Actually, both you and jancivil are wrong. Again. Sample rate is the number of samples taken per second. Bit depth is the number of bits of information in each sample. Why you do keep arguing about this even though it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about escapes me.

[Tubeman]

"Don't be angry" is the resort of a troll that has no real argument on points and is a sign of a lost argument...snip useless rambling snip...So it occurs to me, and to other people here, that you have a belief about yourself (that is probably overconfident). You seem invested in showing that to us. What you're showing is ignorance and that you aren't really dealing with people's points.

If you can't hear it don't assume no one else can't either. I have no need to argue what I hear. The only one losing here is you because of your narrow view.

Listen, I have no interest in showing anything to you. I did not start this "argument". Someone quoted my post and tried to tell me what I can and cannot hear. I can't accept bullshit like that.

What narrow view? What do I not hear do you think, what evidence is there of anyone's hearing? You're saying things which don't really stand to reason, and as if a proof, you can hear it and we can't. It seems important, 'you can't hear what I can' as if it makes a a developer's decision necessary. I like the idea myself, on paper. But then I'm a skeptic when it's presented as you did.

I think should we test you at a stop playback point a few times and when you have reliably detected L versus R hand, we know you're right. It seems absurd, and if you're at the same time arguing more Round Robins is necessarily better, the argument seems to falter. So what point are you after but 'I can hear it'. 'I'm right!'? I don't mind what you prefer but what is there gained by this?

You want to go snarkmeister on 'KVR people'? this exemplifies fighting for your preference of a plugin. You want to say some shit about a product you're too good for. BFD2 is fine for Bill Cobham but here's you.


I do know 'bit' as measured should read as depth, there. *bit rate* is sample rate x bit depth x no. of channels.

I see, now I understand why you are so upset standing on your back feet and started picking on me. I insulted your beloved drum sample library BFD2. Aww.

[Tubeman]

To get this thread back on track... how do these drums sound in bitwig?

Nearly as golden as Tubeman's hearing

Thank you but my hearing does not have a "sound."

[Tubeman]

For a reminder, you all said there's no point using more detailed drums samples because you can't hear a difference.

This is what I call lying. I did not say this anywhere.

One or two of you said it and that is what I am arguing about. You can go back in this thread and read yourself. Or wait, did you not read what we were arguing about and started insulting me just for fun.

[Tubeman]

You've misunderstood. Nowhere I said there is a difference or that I can hear it.

so, do you hear it, or not? from your next quote:

If this is still all too cryptic like it seems to be to the couple of the posters above, why do you use 24 bit samples if you can't hear a difference? Thank you for proving my point.

it seems like you don't hear any difference yourself but prefer to use more "detailed" samples anyway? is that the point you are making? or it's that you really do hear a difference (when in fact there isn't any - this is not my opinion, this is a fact - the samples will null)?

or perhaps you're saying that using 24-bit samples is better because "some people hear the difference" even if you don't? well, guess what - the only people that *will* hear the difference are imagining things and/or are lying either to you or to themselves. there is no difference to hear. how about different DAWs, do they sound different? how about 32-bit vs 64-bit processing?

For a reminder, you all said there's no point using more detailed drums samples because you can't hear a difference.

i said what was the point of using 24-bit samples. increased processing headroom. there is no difference to hear, but headroom isn't about the "difference", it's about noise floor i.e. using 24-bit samples isn't about hearing anything, it's a technical decision. if you hear a difference between unprocessed (or lightly processed) 16-bit and 24-bit samples, you're imagining things. especially if we're talking "spotting in a mix". no one can spot them, yourself included.

this (headroom being the difference) isn't the case with L/R hand samples though, so we're back to square one. so, have you done your blind test? it's a simple question. i was willing to concede to you that i couldn't hear any difference when you could, but now that you appear to be claiming to hear 16-bit vs. 24-bit samples in a mix (or claiming that other people might, which somehow makes it similar to our situation), i'm not so sure you really hear any difference in L/R hand samples either. it may be just more round-robins - which is fine, but isn't quite what you're arguing here.

or, in fact, this might be *exactly* what you're arguing here - trills and other fast repetitions certainly will sound better with more round-robins. that doesn't mean L/R samples are different enough to be considered different sounds as opposed to round-robin variations of the same sound. which is what i have been arguing all along, and which is what you're opposing. so please, do yourself a favor - do an ABX.

Why do you answer the question with question. You are confusing several things here. I am not arguing about bit depth. Why do you keep insisting that I am?

The very point is that even though you don't hear a difference in bit depth you still use higher bit samples. But if you don't hear a difference in more detailed drum samples there is suddenly no point using them. That is illogical. You seem to be unwilling to understand this comparison.

[Burillo]

Why do you answer the question with question. You are confusing several things here. I am not arguing about bit depth. Why do you keep insisting that I am?

The very point is that even though you don't hear a difference in bit depth you still use higher bit samples. But if you don't hear a difference in more detailed drum samples there is suddenly no point using them. That is illogical. You seem to be unwilling to understand this comparison.

the very point that escapes you is that if you're arguing that L/R hand samples are different and i "just don't hear it", this is an invalid comparison. 16 vs 24 bit samples are identical, with the only exception being the noise floor. there is no room for "i don't hear it", because that's not why i (or everyone else) use them.

so, again, are you saying that L/R hand samples are identical (*just like 24-bit vs 16-bit samples*) and really just provide more round robin (headroom in case of bit-depth) to the snare? or are you arguing that they are different (*just like 24-bit vs 16-bit samples*)? if the former - you're proving *my point*, not yours. if the latter - you're even more trouble, because now you're arguing magic.

or do you agree that this analogy with bit depth doesn't work and we get back to our original subject i.e. whether L/R hand samples really are *different* sounds as opposed to more round robins of the same sound? given the earlier arguments about physics (i.e. something about striking along the same radial line will produce the same sound, which i now seem to remember reading elsewhere as well, namely something FXPansion Tremor-related) and about consistency being the goal, i really see the latter being the case, not the former. i'm welcome to change my opinion (i already know my hearing isn't ideal, and i'm not a drummer), but i've got strong arguments in favor of my position, and so far nothing but "my hearing is better" on yours.

[Tubeman]

Why do you answer the question with question. You are confusing several things here. I am not arguing about bit depth. Why do you keep insisting that I am?

The very point is that even though you don't hear a difference in bit depth you still use higher bit samples. But if you don't hear a difference in more detailed drum samples there is suddenly no point using them. That is illogical. You seem to be unwilling to understand this comparison.

the very point that escapes you is that this is an invalid comparison, because 16 vs 24 bit samples are identical, with the only exception being the noise floor. so, again, are you saying that L/R hand samples are identical (*just like 24-bit vs 16-bit samples*) and really just provide more round robin (headroom in case of bit-depth) to the snare? or are you arguing that they are different, *just like 24-bit vs 16-bit samples*? if the former - you're proving *my point*, not yours. if the latter - you're even more trouble, because now you're arguing magic.

or do you agree that this analogy with bit depth doesn't work and we get back to our original subject i.e. whether L/R hand samples really are *different* sounds as opposed to more round robins of the same sound? given the earlier arguments about physics (i.e. something about striking along the same radial line will produce the same sound, which i now seem to remember reading elsewhere as well, namely something FXPansion Tremor-related) and about consistency being the goal, i really see the latter being the case, not the former. i'm welcome to change my opinion (i already know my hearing isn't ideal, and i'm not a drummer), but i've got strong arguments in favor of my position, and so far nothing but "my hearing is better" on yours.

It is not an invalid comparison. 16 and 24 bit sample are NOT identical because the dynamic range is better in the 24 bit sample (assuming the recorded signal and equipment allows this). 24 bit sample takes 1.5x the bandtwidth and memory space compared to 16 bit sample.

L/R samples are NOT idetical either, even though you (you as in "Burillo") can't hear the difference in a mix. It is physically different spot and/or sound seen to the mics and this is a FACT you can't argue. Even if you are one of those mentioned super drummers who hit the exact same spot every time with both hands at 200 bpm, the recording is still different and won't phase cancel. Even if it sounds the same to you, it still has twice the amount of round robins which will add to the realism with faster rolls. You can't argue with this either. Only if you want to make machine gun metal or synth music this does not matter to you.

[Burillo]

It is not an invalid comparison. 16 and 24 bit sample are NOT identical because the dynamic range is better in the 24 bit sample (assuming the recorded signal and equipment allows this).

yes they are identical. try nulling the same sample in 16 and 24 bit. the frequency content and everything else is the same - 16-bit just has a higher noise floor.

24 bit sample takes 1.5x the bandtwidth and memory space compared to 16 bit sample.

FLAC file takes less space and bandwidth than WAV, it's still identical to source WAV, so this argument is silly. no one said 16-bit and 24-bit are identical in terms of being bit-identical. merely identical in frequency and phase content.

L/R samples are NOT idetical either, even though you (you as in "Burillo") can't hear the difference in a mix. It is physically different spot and/or sound seen to the mics and this is a FACT you can't argue. Even if you are one of those mentioned super drummers who hit the exact same spot every time with both hands at 200 bpm, the recording is still different and won't phase cancel.

yes, but this is not what i'm arguing. i never said L/R samples should cancel each other out. my argument is that L/R samples are sufficiently similar to be considered round-robin variations of the same sample as opposed to different sounds. round-robins don't phase-cancel either. the question is, do L/R samples sound different enough to be considered different sounds altogether.

Even if it sounds the same to you, it still has twice the amount of round robins which will add to the realism with faster rolls. You can't argue with this either. Only if you want to make machine gun metal or synth music this does not matter to you.

i am not arguing against it, i'm arguing *for* it. L/R samples are nothing more than double the round-robin variations of the same sound. so, two sets of samples for each hand will be similar to 2x samples for one hand, in terms of "machine gun effect".

[Tubeman]

yes they are identical. try nulling them. the frequency content and everything else is the same - 16-bit just has a higher noise floor.

FLAC file takes less space and bandwidth than WAV, it's still identical to source WAV, so this argument is silly. no one said 16-bit and 24-bit are identical in terms of being bit-identical. merely identical in frequency and phase content.

yes, but this is not what i'm arguing. i never said L/R samples should cancel each other out. my argument is that L/R samples are sufficiently similar to be considered round-robin variations of the same sample as opposed to different sounds. round-robins don't phase-cancel either. the question is, do L/R samples sound different enough to be considered different sounds altogether.

i am not arguing against it, i'm arguing *for* it. L/R samples are nothing more than double the round-robin variations of the same sound. so, two sets of samples for each hand will be similar to 2x samples for one hand, in terms of "machine gun effect".

24 bit samples are not identical if you sample the source at both bit depths. This is assuming the source and equipment used have high enough dynamic range to make a difference. You are still arguing about this even though I have a feeling you know you're wrong.

16 bit FLAC takes 2/3 the space 24 bit FLAC takes. That's 7 GB less on a 20 GB library or 48 GB less on a 145 GB library. Not silly at all.

The question for you is, do L/R sound different enough to YOU. To me they do and you can't argue with that. The last time I was thought controlled was before I was born. Sorry I'm not brainwashable.

Your take on this is weird since every freaking hit is a "different variation of the same sound" since you are recording the same instrument. Whether L/R are just extra round robins or a different sound depends of course how they are recorded. I think we established this few pages ago already. In any case they may be similar but not identical. Which means there is a difference.