The Upsampling Your Mix Thread

[Kingston]

Shy you're fighting a pointless war and are completely alone at that. You already burned the bridges and now dug the trench too deep to get out as well.

[Shy]

Kingston: I'm fighting no war, I've been discussing, but it's people here who blatantly ignore what I've been saying and need constant reminding of it.

[camsr]

camsr not on export exclusively but you can switch under the Audio Prefs:


EDIT: arrg I see you can't switch in the options.. Are you using a sb16 card or something?? Don't think I've ever seen that b4.. You could try a workaround using something like ASIO4ALL..

Hey I'm jumpin in kinda late here.. This is really helpfull info!! I was convinced (b4 reading here) that upsampling just created a huge ass khz space above the existing audio that basically did nothing.. It totally makes sense now why some auto tuners sound better at the highest khz/bit rates.. Thanks for this guys!!

As for CPU claut @ 96 or 192. Would it make sense to do add the effects at the lower speed and when your ready to render/mixdown just increase the hosts clock then output?? Would save a huge headache I'd think..

L

Actually right now Im stuck on a AC97 but the processor is much faster than my usual box. Turn out I can export the track at 192000, as high as fruity goes. BUT THIS PISSES ME OFF SO BAD because I get this HISSING because the freeware reverb Im using can't handle the samplerate! In fact I don't know if any synthedit made plugs can handle this samplerate? Does anyone know?

[Kingston]

Kingston: I'm fighting no war, I've been discussing, but it's people here who blatantly ignore what I've been saying and need constant reminding of it.

yeah. especially considering the fine example you set in the discussion:

I'll ignore the rest and just say one thing: you're confusing upsampling with oversampling.

Conclusion: you are suffering from placebo.

xander, please get the f**k out of KvR and go back to kindergarten. Thanks.

so you shout placebo from the rooftops, demand examples from people when you've prepared to do nothing but try to piss people off. or did you actually have something substantial to add to the discussion? like maybe telling us why everybody but you is wrong about this issue.


I'm sure you can do that, having such strong scientific base on your arguments. Can't you?

[Shy]

Kingston: I'm fighting no war, I've been discussing, but it's people here who blatantly ignore what I've been saying and need constant reminding of it.

yeah. especially considering the fine example you set in the discussion:

I'll ignore the rest and just say one thing: you're confusing upsampling with oversampling.

Conclusion: you are suffering from placebo.

xander, please get the f**k out of KvR and go back to kindergarten. Thanks.

so you shout placebo from the rooftops, demand examples from people when you've prepared to do nothing but try to piss people off. or did you actually have something substantial to add to the discussion? like maybe telling us why everybody but you is wrong about this issue.


I'm sure you can do that, having such strong scientific base on your arguments. Can't you?

And I'll still say that none of you have provided a single proper comparison to prove your ridiculous claims.
You want to ignore xander's post that I replied to? Very well, not taken out of context at all.

[Kingston]

And I'll still say that none of you have provided a single proper comparison to prove your ridiculous claims.

You've been told the procedure at least twice now, for at least two major hosts. It's such a simple thing to do nobody is going to bother posting anything to satisfy your trolling needs.

To test this "ridiculous claim", process, say a drumbus at 44.1khz. resample your source audio to 96khz and process using the same plugins/presets. Compare. There's a very clear difference and pretty much despite the plugins you choose to use.

and that's it. except with the mixdown procedure you're going to have something like 4 upsampled stems going at once so the difference will actually become more audible.

Yes, you are an idiot. and probably chose the wrong hobby. I suggest collecting butterflys or flying kites instead.

[bduffy]

[Shy]

Kingston you continue to surpass yourself in the trolling department. Calling people idiots doesn't make you right, and telling me to perform an idiotic task because you don't want to provide a proof for something that you can't, is not gonna get you anywhere.

[loomchild]

Does the quality of the resampler matter as much in upsampling than it does for downsampling?

[bmanic]

@Shy

A quote from the sonalksis forum. Posted Thu Feb 10, 2005. Trying to demonstrate how upsampling helps EQ plugins, in this case the Sonalksis EQ. Original file was 44.1kHz, upsampled with r8brain free to 192kHz, applied EQ, then downsampled again to 44,1kHz. The example .zip file has both the upsampled EQ version and the normally applied, at 44.1kHz, EQ version. The settings are extreme to show a clear difference so this is not a "real world" test. However, you can clearly hear the difference (listen to the transients and the "smoothness" of the audio around the cut/boost) so just imagine what upsampling a whole project can do for you. This is just one single plugin on a single audio clip.

Just to demonstrate the point, check these small snippets out.

2 files, both with identical EQ settings on the SV-517. One at 44.1khz and one at 192khz downsampled with voxengo's free r8tebrain to 44.1khz at maximum quality.

http://cmt.siba.fi/nisilen/eq_quality_demo.zip

Listen to the snare. It shows very clearly some nasty artifacts at 44.1 which are much smoother at 192khz. I admit that this is a way radical eq setting (+12dB highshelf from 10khz and -18dB mid band at 1.17khz with 0.40 Q). Also, it's not just the high frequencies that get better, the bass also benefits at higher sampling rates. The transients keep a bit tighter and more precise at radical boosts/cuts.

Remeber that all these artifacts add up. Using 20 sonalksis EQs in a track and rendering the whole thing at 192khz makes for quite a big difference to 44.1khz. Is upsampling needed? IMHO, yes, it would help but as I can always choose myself the samplerate when rendering this is not such a big issue.

Cheers!
bManic

[Kingston]

Does the quality of the resampler matter as much in upsampling than it does for downsampling?

matters equally resampling audio either way.

[Kingston]

Calling people idiots doesn't make you right

of course it doesn't. That's why I also made sure I was correct in the first place. Now that bmanic showed up, you might as well crawl back to where you came from.

[loomchild]

I see, thanks

[Sascha Franck]

Sascha, you seem to like missing an important point I've made which is "as I suspected you'd do and commented long ago that you probably meant things that have ridiculously crappy internal aliasing to begin with".
The utter bullshit comes from you, since you did just that. Once you provide one sample made with proper tools (which even you yourself mentioned) you might be taken seriously. "Share your infinite wisdom".

Why are you trying to make an idiot out of yourself?
The examples I posted, while sort of over-emphasizing the problem, are *exactly* demonstrating what's happening in the real life world. I only used such a drastic example because it was crystal clear even for those with less than shiny ears and monitoring equipment (such as me).
I could post various samples using various tools. But then, both the EXS and Kontakt *are* proper tools already. Otherwise they wouldn't be used in countless big studios. They just don't sound as great under 44.1 as they do under 96kHz. And that's all the discussion was about.
I completely fail to see what's so hard to understand.
But, you are still happily invited to post a counter-example. I will upload the wavefile I used for the sampler patch and tell you which root note I used and which chord I played. Show me a single sampler that won't sound better at 96kHz and we can re-start this discussion. In all other cases, you're just talking out of your ass.
I have delivered a *very* valid prove for the "some plugins sound a lot better at 96kHz" thesis, you haven't delivered anything to prove the opposite.
And as long as you won't, why should I even bother about posting some further examples?

The funny thing being that said thesis seems to be happily (or unfortunately, as it has to be) accepted by everyone but you. And as said before, I am not an audioholic at all. Yet, the differences are so incredibly obvious to me (and yes, I'm using quite some industry standard sequencer and plugins, so this is stuff being used in commercial productions as well) that I'm seriously wondering why you even try to defend your absolutely comical point of view. Not a single sign of prove or whatever. Just trolling. Sorry, but I can't call this anything else.

[Shy]

bManiac, thanks for the example. Yes, that's the kind of artifacts that can occur in extreme, non real world examples, but I've still never heard one real world mixdown that actually benefits, and that's why I say it is placebo.