Any use of going beyond 44100?
-
- KVRist
- 30 posts since 19 Jul, 2004
Hey,
I tried that Nord G2 demo by clavia the other day, and on the setup screen I had the option to choose A sample rate. the minimum was 44100 but the recommended frequency was alot higher, like 9k or something like that.
It got me thinking: does it really affect the sound quality of VSTIs if you crank up the sample rate of your host program? (mt card is capable of higher frequencies) I thought it was only relevant for recording...
I tried that Nord G2 demo by clavia the other day, and on the setup screen I had the option to choose A sample rate. the minimum was 44100 but the recommended frequency was alot higher, like 9k or something like that.
It got me thinking: does it really affect the sound quality of VSTIs if you crank up the sample rate of your host program? (mt card is capable of higher frequencies) I thought it was only relevant for recording...
-
- KVRAF
- 3511 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England
Oh, man. This thread's gonna go mental!
At the risk of sounding banal, I reckon it's different strokes for different folks here. I've never really felt the need to go higher than 44100 myself, though that's mainly because I prefer to have the extra processing power available rather than (what is to my ears) a barely perceptible increase in sound quality. Others will (and are going to
) tell you differently though. 
At the risk of sounding banal, I reckon it's different strokes for different folks here. I've never really felt the need to go higher than 44100 myself, though that's mainly because I prefer to have the extra processing power available rather than (what is to my ears) a barely perceptible increase in sound quality. Others will (and are going to
- Suspended
- 17889 posts since 14 Jun, 2001 from Somewhere you're not!
I think that greater bit-depth [24-bit or 32-bit] is far more important than higher sample-rate but if your PC can handle both then why not work in the highest quality you can? That said, I always record/render at 44.1/32-bit.
NOVAkILL : Legion GO, AMD Z1x, 16GB RAM, Win11 | Audient EVO 8 | Lumi Keys | Studio Pro 8
Korg Odyssey, bx-oberhausen, Proxima, PolyMax, GR8, JP6K, Union, Atomika,
Invader 2, Flow Motion, Olga, TRK 01, Thorn, Spire, VG Iron
Korg Odyssey, bx-oberhausen, Proxima, PolyMax, GR8, JP6K, Union, Atomika,
Invader 2, Flow Motion, Olga, TRK 01, Thorn, Spire, VG Iron
-
- KVRAF
- 3511 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England
Agreed!BONES wrote:I think that greater bit-depth [24-bit or 32-bit] is far more important than higher sample-rate...
-
- KVRAF
- 7886 posts since 24 Feb, 2003 from Earth, USA
Disagree here. Higher sample rate will give more accurate recreations, and on some VST's, yes it does make the sound a bit smoother. You're playing connect the dots with 96,000 points or 44,100 points over a one second segment. You tell me which would be more accurate and smoother? Also, 96k is going to prevent some aliasing too, at least for freqeuncies up to 48kHz instead of only 22.1kHz.
Devon
Devon
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
- KVRian
- 1202 posts since 8 May, 2003 from Munich
Quite a few synths do profit from an increase in sampling rate as its just like oversampling. I.e. you can get rid of aliasing this way (e.g. try vanguard at 44khz and then at 96).
Markus
Markus
-
- Banned
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 30 posts since 19 Jul, 2004
Well, could the people who did feel a different be more precise? is it a smoother filter? different oscillator sound? I know it sounds better in theory, but DOES IS REALLY SOUND BETTER TO YOU?
How about after your dither it to a 44100 wave?
And I'm talking about strictly VSTIs, not audio.
How about after your dither it to a 44100 wave?
And I'm talking about strictly VSTIs, not audio.
- KVRian
- 1202 posts since 8 May, 2003 from Munich
Download the vanguard demo, try it at 44khz first, then run it at 96khz.
-
- KVRAF
- 2875 posts since 28 Jan, 2004 from Da Nang, Vietnam
I tend to work at 44k, since 96k just taxes my computer too much.
However, I then render at 96k and then downsample and dither in a separate step.
However, I then render at 96k and then downsample and dither in a separate step.
-
- KVRist
- 86 posts since 11 May, 2003
higher samplerates will always sound a bit better, but if a plugin is well programmed it should be a very minimal increase in quality (due to selective oversampling inside the unit).
-
- KVRist
- 487 posts since 19 Jan, 2003
Work at 44.1k to keep the load on the computer to a minimum, bump it to 96k and render to get the best sound out of the plugs.UvRayz wrote:Kuniklo: Could you elaborate on the logic behind that procedure?
If you're using recorded audio rather than everything being generated on the fly, I suspect it would be (perhaps marginally) better to render at 88.2k instead of 96k. The sample rate conversion process, which you would be going through twice assuming you will be converting the final product back to 44.1k, is more straightforward in that case.
-
- KVRian
- 600 posts since 6 Feb, 2004 from London, UK
No, you're not playing connect the dots; yes, in SOME VSTi there's a huge difference in sound between different sample rates (in my experience Lounge Lizard, Powercore 01, Superwave synths etc.; NOT in Pro53, B4 and some others), but it hasn't anything to do with the dots. Sorry, I'm not the best to explain what's happening exactly.DevonB wrote:You're playing connect the dots with 96,000 points or 44,100 points over a one second segment.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
Below the nyquist frequency (Sample rate / 2) there is no theoretical advantage to the apparently higher resolution of 96k. Any benefit lies in the lower order (potentially more linear) anti-alias filter that can be used with the higher rate.
Whether this can be heard is a moot point.
Whether this can be heard is a moot point.
