KVR Audio

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:36 pm

Kingston wrote:I have no idea how Ableton Live handles this. I only know that FL studio and EXT will handle such high sample rate exports gracefully, and Cubase/Nuendo doesn't (and neither does protools).

OK, well, that's seriously depressing. So much for this whole thing, then. Like Sascha was saying, I can't afford to work at these rates anyway; to taxing on CPU and disk space! I chewed up, like, 2 Gigs on one mix last night!

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:46 pm

So, did that Shy dude finally shut up?
Seems so. Maybe he's still searching for a sampler which sounds as good at 44.1 as at 96.
Hint: Shortcircuit and SFZ+ are really good candidates (albeit still not perfect, so even when using them there's a difference).

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:49 pm

Maybe the Reason NN-XT high-quality filter will fool him?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:03 pm

bduffy wrote:I can't afford to work at these rates anyway; to taxing on CPU and disk space! I chewed up, like, 2 Gigs on one mix last night!

You might have missed the crucial point of my original tip (that I presume at some point sparked this whole mix upsampling discussion).

1. do your mix and whole production just like you've always done at 44.1 or 48khz. mix it to completion, finish off everything.
2. then take the absolutely *crucial* stems like main vocal, bass submix, drum bus, guitars and the rest and export those with no effects. (a good idea to save the channel/bus/plugin settings here)
3. upsample to 96khz with the best resampler available to you
4. start new 96khz project and import the stems.
5. you probably now have like 3-5 stereo busses to process and mix at 96khz and your machine can likely handle it just fine.

(6. might also be a good idea to render all those synths at 96khz now, but it all depends on whether they play important parts)

everything involving compression, saturation and EQing benefits, reverbs less so.

Marduchk · Post by **Marduchk** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:41 pm

what about reaper?

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:48 pm

Kingston wrote:
bduffy wrote:I can't afford to work at these rates anyway; too taxing on CPU and disk space! I chewed up, like, 2 Gigs on one mix last night!
You might have missed the crucial point of my original tip (that I presume at some point sparked this whole mix upsampling discussion).

1. do your mix and whole production just like you've always done at 44.1 or 48khz. mix it to completion, finish off everything.
2. then take the absolutely *crucial* stems like main vocal, bass submix, drum bus, guitars and the rest and export those with no effects. (a good idea to save the channel/bus/plugin settings here)
3. upsample to 96khz with the best resampler available to you
4. start new 96khz project and import the stems.
5. you probably now have like 3-5 stereo busses to process and mix at 96khz and your machine can likely handle it just fine.

(6. might also be a good idea to render all those synths at 96khz now, but it all depends on whether they play important parts)

everything involving compression, saturation and EQing benefits, reverbs less so.

Mmm, thanks, Kingston. I understood about breaking out into stems; what I don't get there is if I mix this song to "perfection", then send out stems with no effects...it'll be a different mix at that point, won't it? I'd have to apply different EQ and compression and everything could change, no?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:54 pm

bduffy wrote:what I don't get there is if I mix this song to "perfection", then send out stems with no effects...it'll be a different mix at that point, won't it? I'd have to apply different EQ and compression and everything could change, no?

no. you take the channel/plugin/bus settings from the original 44.1khz mix. what would be the point if you exported those stems with the effects (at the lowly 44.1khz) already there?

the whole idea is simply to process *the exact same* settings as 96khz. (although I often find myself doing improvements at the 96khz stage).

for example, my drum bus gets exported with the effects off in the bus *but not* in the individual channels of course. common sense dictates these things.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:01 pm

Marduchk wrote:what about reaper?

thanks for your always valuable and insightful input. helpful *and* funny. who would've thought? I wish I had your wit.

Marduchk · Post by **Marduchk** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:11 pm

Kingston wrote:
Marduchk wrote:what about reaper?

thanks for your always valuable and insightful input. helpful *and* funny. who would've thought? I wish I had your wit.

umm, i was seriously asking...would be nice if a free host handled sampling rates in an optimal way. (cue laputa)

but anyway, as long as we are talking about input, i was the first one to mention "oversampling" and "aliasing" (as points for the troll "Shy" to research) in the original thread.

not a scholar's input obviously... but surely contary to your dick-kickingly idiotic claims. (nothing new there of course)

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:18 pm

Kingston wrote: the whole idea is simply to process *the exact same* settings as 96khz. (although I often find myself doing improvements at the 96khz stage).

True that. Sometimes changes are nice but the general sound is an improvement. Nice upsampling & rendering fever you started this week!

Marduchk · Post by **Marduchk** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:20 pm

actually it was dusted william who REALLY started it.... you can be sure kingston wouldnt have chimed in without already established information.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:29 pm

Marduchk wrote:actually it was dusted william who REALLY started it.... you can be sure kingston wouldnt have chimed in without already established information.

Marduchk wrote:not a scholar's input obviously... but surely contary to your dick-kickingly idiotic claims. (nothing new there of course)

look you obviously live in a little world of your own where imaginary people do imaginary things because frankly, I've no idea what it is you're talking about or referring to.

oh wait. you're just a pseudo nicked troll, always was and always will be, doing your troll thing. next time, a bigger dose of clonazepam please.

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:31 pm

Hey guys,

When I have done these tests on my machines all of my source sounds were virtual. Virtual synths, drum machines, FX, EQ's, MASTERING.

So when I would bounce to a higher sampler rate in ExT and in LIVE it does treat it like the mix is in a higher sample rate and I don't have to worry about how audio is being processed. If I had audio then I think I would treat it how Kingston said, or just do my whole song from the get go in 96.

I like to do my whole song in 96 anyway and use FREEZE, but that's just me. When I use audio in my tracks that is probably how I would do it.

I then take the mix from the render. Upsample that to 192, then I master it seperately in another app using Ozone.

Then I can resample to whatever rate I prefer. I do this so the mastering FX are at a nice and high sample rate even though it kills my machine to do so.

I only do this on full finished songs because it is time consuming and can be a pain in the arse.

dw

Marduchk · Post by **Marduchk** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:35 pm

Kingston wrote: I've no idea what it is you're talking about or referring to.

exactly.

usually its best in these types of situations to do something you may not be used to, which is

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:37 pm

Marduchk wrote:exactly.

and you're still wondering why you've been banned twice. and had to come in with a pseudo nick.

your input around here besides trolling has been null this far. next time, make it count.

The Upsampling Your Mix Thread