Which reverb can rival/test Waves trueverb??

[dusted william]

Yes, dusted william. He seems to think downsampling from a higher sample rate achieves higher quality since it's as if the entire audio was somehow magically "oversampled".

Ok Shy,

I'm going to say this one more time as clear possible.

The end result is to have two versions of the same song in the 16\44.1 format.

step 1

create a little song/loop/whatever with VST intruments, EQ's, whatever. Especially with some high end content.

step 2

render out two (2) versions. One at 44.1 and another at 96 (or higher).

Of course 32 bit is better then 24 is better than 16 so keep it at 32.

*this next step is optional** but make sure you dither to 16 bit**

Next take your two versions and master them, I use SF 6.0 and Ozone, you can use whatever you want.

step 3

Use a dithering app to also dither them both down to 16 bit at this point.


Now you have two versions. The songs should be exactly the same except one is 96 (or higher) and the other is 44.1.

step 4

Use a high quality sample rate converter. Like R8Brain or the free audiomove. Not ones, built into hosts like cubase.

Now you have two versions of the same song both at 16/44.1.

listen to them both.

If oversampling didn't sound better then synths, and fx wouldn't do it in their own plugs. Oversampling in the hosts, at least in Live and eXt does the same as oversampling in the plug.

If you have your project at 44.1, you can oversample Pentagon to 96. If your project is at 96, you don't have this choice as Pentagon is already at 96.

make sense.

dw

[Sascha Franck]

dusted william is spot on. Just try for yourself.
The problem being that you won't be able to hear the final result during mixing. Which makes this approach a no-no for me.

[Marduchk]

i thought this was pretty widely accepted already, dunno why its so questioned, DW def has it right...

[dusted william]

dusted william is spot on. Just try for yourself.
The problem being that you won't be able to hear the final result during mixing. Which makes this approach a no-no for me.

Thanks for the backup!

I know what you're saying Sascha. I try to keep my projects at 96, but at times it's hard on my three year old CPU. I gotta love the FREEZE!

I usually only do the 192 thing for the fun of it

dw

[bduffy]

I think I'll stick with the project's sample rate; I would have to know what the limits of each and every plug-in I use are, in order to hear the same result at the end, right?

[dusted william]

bduffy,

If you want to stick to the project that is fine, but I've learned a tip from Kinston (which is sortof obvious, but good none the less)

Upsample your render to 192, THEN master it in something that will work in 192. IE. SoundForge and Ozone.

this you WILL hear a difference you won't have to worry about all your plugs samplerate limits.

You can always downsample when you need too.

use this...

http://www.lcscanada.com/audiomove/

it's free, easy, and sounds good.

dw

[Sascha Franck]

I think I'll stick with the project's sample rate; I would have to know what the limits of each and every plug-in I use are, in order to hear the same result at the end, right?

Yeah, exactly.

When I've been doing a 44.1 to 96 comparison on some Reaktor ensemble filter sweep, it was an eye opener. And please note that I don't have anything but a mediocre listening environment. In addition my ears are far from being golden. Yet, the difference was massive (!) and could even be spotted easily in some 64kbps MP3 (that I did for a test, so the file was dithered and converted).
However, that's been a while ago, and these days, most plugins should come with better anti-aliasing algorhythms and what not, so it might not be as drastic anymore.
And well, as said, I actually prefer to get what I hear when mixing down stuff. Still, there seems to be quite some stuff which would benefit from higher samplerates - and I'm not at all talking about pristine audio recordings but just about the stuff we all use every day.

[bduffy]

I'm starting to wonder how much better my album would've sounded if I'd gone with a higher sample rate. I didn't realize until recently that EQ's, etc, will sound better at higher sample rates. Poop.

Now the problem is, DW, if I export my mix at 192, aren't some plugins going to sound different? Wouldn't some plugins that don't support 192 not render or create errors? Or, in the best case scenario, filters have more detail, say, then my balanced mix will become unbalanced, no? Or will my host just upsample the whole stream after the plug-ins' math?

I'm going to try this right now...

[dusted william]

Now the problem is, DW, if I export my mix at 192, aren't some plugins going to sound different? Wouldn't some plugins that don't support 192 not render or create errors? Or, in the best case scenario, filters have more detail, say, then my balanced mix will become unbalanced, no? Or will my host just upsample the whole stream after the plug-ins' math?

It is my understanding that a plug that is not 192 ready, will not sound good.

To avoid this, just do your project at 96, and also render at 96.

You can upsample to 192 before you master. when you master all little maths will be done on a better sample rate.

dw

[bduffy]

Now the problem is, DW, if I export my mix at 192, aren't some plugins going to sound different? Wouldn't some plugins that don't support 192 not render or create errors? Or, in the best case scenario, filters have more detail, say, then my balanced mix will become unbalanced, no? Or will my host just upsample the whole stream after the plug-ins' math?

It is my understanding that a plug that is not 192 ready, will not sound good.

To avoid this, just do your project at 96, and also render at 96.

You can upsample to 192 before you master. when you master all little maths will be done on a better sample rate.

dw

Whoa, hold on: you're saying bounce your mix out at 96, then upsample with r8brain/audiomove, then master, then downsample/dither!?!

[Shy]

dusted william and Sascha Franck, I suggest to you to seriously recheck your understanding of 1. sampling, 2. oversampling, 3. dithering, 4. the viability of a higher sample rate in a final mixdown.
Witchcraft doesn't work in the computer world.

[dusted william]

Whoa, hold on: you're saying bounce your mix out at 96, then upsample with r8brain/audiomove, then master, then downsample/dither!?!

that's one of the things I'm saying. Most of our computers can't really do 192 sounds so we have to settle at 96. I think 96 is fine in a host and a step up from 44.1

but when all you have is a two channel wave (a final mix) that you need to master many modern computers (mine chokes on certain settings) can handle a 192 wave in a host or wave editor.

Your master chain, at least in ozone contains many effects, EQ, Compressors, Verb, ect...

The higher the sample rate the mo betta the sounds. If you do your mastering as high as possible the FX will be as good as can be as well. At this stage you can actually hear your changes as you tweak your master chain.



Then you downsample to whatever you want. DVD audio...96, CD...44.1

whatever.



I can save a preset in my mastering chain so I can run one exact same settings on two different waves and A-B them later on.

Try it out in a scientific experiment. You will hear a difference, a slight difference that maybe no one else will care about, but you'll hear one either way.

It makes me want to splurge on R8brain.


dw

[kylen]

It's forced oversampling - instead of just having the plugs do it. I've done it and like it. I'm getting ready to try it again now that I have more cpu power, 96KHz really chewed up my former cpu. I don't know about 192KHz, that might me overkill for me. I was just talking to Kingston about this the other day. Are you guys getting that big of a diff from 96KHz to 192KHz?

ED: OK - I just saw your last post DW, coming from 44.1K should be fine at 96/88.1K then...

[Shy]

Try it out in a scientific experiment. You will hear a difference, a slight difference that maybe no one else will care about, but you'll hear one either way.

Again, sorry, witchcraft doesn't work in the computer world. In a really bad case, the only thing you might hear different is the result of too many stages of unneeded less than optimal processing that combined, degrade the sound.

If you'd like to continue to discuss absolute typical "audiophile" nonsense, provide audio examples. You won't, and if you will, everyone will see how nonsensical your witchcraft theories are.

[dusted william]

dusted william and Sascha Franck, I suggest to you to seriously recheck your understanding of 1. sampling, 2. oversampling, 3. dithering, 4. the viability of a higher sample rate in a final mixdown.
Witchcraft doesn't work in the computer world.

I've never called anyone out in a derogatory way here at KVR and I won't start now, even though I really want too. Your pompous attitude in your first post is

1. uncalled for, out of line, and untrue.

2. annoying.

To me it is painfully obvious, not even a question in what I'm saying. Whether or not it is always easy to notice or hear is besides the point. In my experience it is pretty easy to hear the difference.

I'm just trying to explain my technique to bduffy. Only because he seems interested.

As much as I wish voodoo, witchcraft, miracles and the likes existed, I don't put much stock in them either.

This is fact, plain and simple.
You can believe in whatever you want, I personally don't care.

dw



dw
dw