You're the one being a "dick" calling me a dick when you've been working on it and said you already finished downsampling and all and still haven't posted any samples, but did post lots of fabulous praise and more praise. Let's hear that fabulous comparison then.bduffy wrote:Shy, you don't have to be a dick about it. You know, it takes awhile to bounce, convert and master an entire song at high sample rate.
Sascha said he'd provide something in the morning, I'm working on it right now.
The Upsampling Your Mix Thread
-
- KVRAF
- 5139 posts since 27 Jun, 2004
-
- KVRian
- 1256 posts since 22 Aug, 2003
Shy, let me explain why, as far as my knowledge goes, this type of upsampling makes a difference:
(1) Most of the DSP synths and effects we use do not have perfect algorithms, and do not have perfect internal upsampling and downsampling. Thus they will sound different when operating at different sample-rates.
(2) By exporting a project at a higher sample-rate, you will be recording the output of the algorithm at that sample-rate.
(3) Once you downsample back to a reasonable sample-rate (44.1k), the result will be different than if you had simply recorded the results of the DSP at 44.1k.
This is the fundamental concept of oversampling.
Which of the above statements (1, 2, and 3) is false?
(1) Most of the DSP synths and effects we use do not have perfect algorithms, and do not have perfect internal upsampling and downsampling. Thus they will sound different when operating at different sample-rates.
(2) By exporting a project at a higher sample-rate, you will be recording the output of the algorithm at that sample-rate.
(3) Once you downsample back to a reasonable sample-rate (44.1k), the result will be different than if you had simply recorded the results of the DSP at 44.1k.
This is the fundamental concept of oversampling.
Which of the above statements (1, 2, and 3) is false?
-
- KVRian
- 1256 posts since 22 Aug, 2003
The reason this "oversampling" is advantageous is that, even if your 96k output were to be almost completely identical to what the output would have been at 44.1k, if you do the mixing in 96k, the EQs, compressors, limiters, mastering suites and what-not will be operating at 96k on data that is sampled at a rate of 96k, and this may sound different, and that difference may be advantageous.
-
- KVRAF
- 2049 posts since 18 Sep, 2003 from Seattle USA
You need to try it yourself - if you like it fine, if you don't like it fine.Shy wrote:I still haven't seen one sample. I've only seen placebo heaven from you people.
-
- KVRAF
- 5139 posts since 27 Jun, 2004
I don't need to try it myself because I've tried every single retarded method people have thought of already in previous discussions years ago. Conclusion: you are suffering from placebo.kylen wrote:You need to try it yourself - if you like it fine, if you don't like it fine.Shy wrote:I still haven't seen one sample. I've only seen placebo heaven from you people.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
You know what we mean. Jesus, you're a ball-breaker. Do you see what we're saying now?Shy wrote:I'll ignore the rest and just say one thing: you're confusing upsampling with oversampling.
-
- KVRAF
- 5139 posts since 27 Jun, 2004
No, I only see people claiming that upsampling is oversampling, and I'm guessing they have no idea what they're talking about.bduffy wrote:You know what we mean. Jesus, you're a ball-breaker. Do you see what we're saying now?Shy wrote:I'll ignore the rest and just say one thing: you're confusing upsampling with oversampling.
-
- KVRAF
- 2049 posts since 18 Sep, 2003 from Seattle USA
hehe, Now at 96KHz I turned FAT on in MasterQ so I'm getting 192KHz oversampling there and in Elephant I switched on 4x so we have 384KHz (figures approximate). Of course I have to freeze the track now but I'm surprised how the sound changes...very interesting. I don't know if I'll keep it, takes time to judge new sounds as jens says. Anyway I think we're talking about the last 5-7% of polish or so after all is said and done. Am I wrong or is it a bigger diff for you guys?bduffy wrote:Yeah, man, just when I think I got it all figured out..now I know why everyone's using these higher sample rates...
Oh, and that's some crazy frikkin' setup you got going on there! CPU DEATH!
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
OK, let's get this straight: my project is at 44/32. I export a stereo mix from Cubase at 96khz/32-bit. That's not up-sampling in your book?Shy wrote:No, I only see people claiming that upsampling is oversampling, and I'm guessing they have no idea what they're talking about.bduffy wrote:You know what we mean. Jesus, you're a ball-breaker. Do you see what we're saying now?Shy wrote:I'll ignore the rest and just say one thing: you're confusing upsampling with oversampling.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Well, just from what I've heard so far, I'd definitely say it's in the 10% league. I noticed smoother highs, off the top. I haven't tried switching in a project yet, though.kylen wrote:hehe, Now at 96KHz I turned FAT on in MasterQ so I'm getting 192KHz oversampling there and in Elephant I switched on 4x so we have 384KHz (figures approximate). Of course I have to freeze the track now but I'm surprised how the sound changes...very interesting. I don't know if I'll keep it, takes time to judge new sounds as jens says. Anyway I think we're talking about the last 5-7% of polish or so after all is said and done. Am I wrong or is it a bigger diff for you guys?bduffy wrote:Yeah, man, just when I think I got it all figured out..now I know why everyone's using these higher sample rates...
Oh, and that's some crazy frikkin' setup you got going on there! CPU DEATH!
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Yeah, yeah...I'm just waiting forever for AAMS to analyze my mix. My ears are shot from mixing all day, and I ain't mastering my own shit.Shy wrote:bduffy, how about less talk, more samples?
-
- KVRAF
- 2049 posts since 18 Sep, 2003 from Seattle USA
Then don't try it and start a different thread about something you're interested in. Who cares what your conclusions are or what you're suffering from. Provide samples disproving something, join the fun, we're all testing it out and reaching our own conclusions. Otherwise go out in play in traffic or something constructive!Shy wrote:I don't need to try it myself because I've tried every single retarded method people have thought of already in previous discussions years ago. Conclusion: you are suffering from placebo.