i think he uses the word 'aliasing' in a wrong context. i also wanted to comment on this, because i've read it several times in his posts (and in the past i made the same mistake) . bmanic hears the results of an asymmetric curve and thinks this is aliasing i believe.martian wrote:i was under the impression that a well designed plain (ie. non harmonic) digital min phase eq shouldnt have any aliasing? so sees no benefit from upsampling in this area. also i find that realtime oversampling itself is quite different to working at a higher samplerate since theres audible change to the phase response in the highs with poly phase.bmanic wrote:If you plan on updating the SV 517 EQ then I highly suggest you try to upgrade it's fidelity too (oversampling perhaps?). You could add an extra button for toggling between original mode (could be default) and oversampled mode so that it retains compatibility with old projects.
Btw, there is a thread somewhere at the sonalksis forum where I clearly demonstrate the benefits of oversampling the SV 517 EQ (audio examples and all).
Cheers!
bManic
Sonalksis Essentials Love
-
- KVRist
- 494 posts since 18 Jul, 2004
- KVRAF
- 11396 posts since 3 Feb, 2003 from Finland, Espoo
yes, this could very well be the case. Whatever happens, it aint pretty!
I'll post some audio examples and comparisons soon. Stay tuned!
In the mean time, have a listen to these original examples that I posted at the sonalksis forum one and a half years ago.
Example 1 Sonalksis EQ -> 44.1kHz
Example 2 Sonalksis EQ -> 44.1kHz -> R8brain -> 192kHz - EQ RENDERING HERE -> R8brain -> 44.1kHz
Both examples have identical settings, the only difference was the upsampling and the plugin running at 192kHz.
Cheers!
bManic
I'll post some audio examples and comparisons soon. Stay tuned!
In the mean time, have a listen to these original examples that I posted at the sonalksis forum one and a half years ago.
Example 1 Sonalksis EQ -> 44.1kHz
Example 2 Sonalksis EQ -> 44.1kHz -> R8brain -> 192kHz - EQ RENDERING HERE -> R8brain -> 44.1kHz
Both examples have identical settings, the only difference was the upsampling and the plugin running at 192kHz.
Cheers!
bManic
Last edited by bmanic on Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Wisdom is wisdom, regardless of the idiot who said it." -an idiot
"They don't ban hate speech; they ban speech they hate." -an oracle
"They don't ban hate speech; they ban speech they hate." -an oracle
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
I like the compressor. I think of it as a more violent Rencomp. Great for rock drums imo.bmanic wrote:Well.. the compressor is extremely good, that's for sure but the EQ is starting to look a bit long in the tooth (though it does possess some magic). The high end is a bit harsh due to aliasing but the lows are very good and even with no eq bands cutting or boosting it does something to the sound which is a bit similar to dithering or such.. subtle non-linearities. (this can be both a curse and a blessing)
Cheers!
bManic
Never got on to well with the EQ. I found the GUI to be to fiddly.
TB
-
- KVRist
- 262 posts since 8 Jun, 2005
Now, that's a stunning example and it demonstrates exactly what I felt about the 517. And - you might not want to believe me
What I mean is, if you leave the obvious, analytic differences of the two examples beside, just describe what you *feel*, for me, the 192kHz sounds much much more open, deep, spatial, agreeable, whatever, I just don't know enough esoteric words in english
Well, I don't want to start the old 44/96/192 kHz discussion here, but for EQs, it's absolutly obvious that magic things happen when working with higher sample rates. And for the 315, as it does slight frequency altering also, I suppose the upsampling test would bring a comparable result to that 517-test as well.
EDIT: Maybe it's that, what I dislike with the 315 - not so much the compressor stage (that is indeed great!), but more its frequency stage, that takes imho a bit of transparency...
-
- KVRist
- 52 posts since 12 Mar, 2003
Ehm, well, I might be wrong here, but I believe the whole point with an upsamplig EQ is that the eq stage is done at the upsampled frequency, like this:
Upsample - EQ - Downsample, in this case:
WavFile 44.1 -> R8Brain to 192kHz -> EQ -> R8Brain to 44.1kHz...
The difference you hear in the two files is, as far as I know, and if I understood the order of processing correctly, the artifatcs/distorsion (or whatever you want to call it) generated by the sample rate conversion...
Upsample - EQ - Downsample, in this case:
WavFile 44.1 -> R8Brain to 192kHz -> EQ -> R8Brain to 44.1kHz...
The difference you hear in the two files is, as far as I know, and if I understood the order of processing correctly, the artifatcs/distorsion (or whatever you want to call it) generated by the sample rate conversion...
- KVRAF
- 11396 posts since 3 Feb, 2003 from Finland, Espoo
No, that's exactly what I meant.. heh. I upsampled, opened the EQ at 192kHz, rendered, then downsampled to 44,1kHz. Sorry my bad, I've edited the original post now for clarification.
Cheers!
bManic
Cheers!
bManic
"Wisdom is wisdom, regardless of the idiot who said it." -an idiot
"They don't ban hate speech; they ban speech they hate." -an oracle
"They don't ban hate speech; they ban speech they hate." -an oracle
-
- KVRist
- 52 posts since 12 Mar, 2003
Right, thought so, then the test is a valid one. Will be quite interresting to listen to!
----------------
www.cutpaste.org
www.cutpaste.org
