The Upsampling Your Mix Thread

[Kingston]

Shy: look up "aliasing" and "oversampling"

it may help

No thanks, I already know about those. Do you care to say why you think I should look them up?

and you're still wondering why absolutely no one is taking you seriously?

[Shy]

Kingston, you say a whole lot of nonsense without explaining yourself. That's good trolling, keep it up.

[Kingston]

yes but please answer. humour us. because what we're discussing here isn't oversampling that prevents aliasing, uhh, how?

I want to know. maybe you found some revolutionary new DSP process that the rest of us aren't aware of? and why not share your infinite wisdom?

you say a whole lot of nonsense without explaining yourself.

do you know what reflecting means?

[Lagrange]

I think Shy needs a tank top!! BTW Kingston I was refering to when you said Cubase clock upspeed is terrible..

With regards to using soft samplers at higher speeds.. Does it use algos the same way effects are?

L

[Shy]

Kingston: What part of what I've said are you even referring to?..

[jupiter8]

yes but please answer. humour us. because what we're discussing here isn't oversampling that prevents aliasing, uhh, how?

I want to know. maybe you found some revolutionary new DSP process that the rest of us aren't aware of? and why not share your infinite wisdom?

Could be he's using the antialising plugin.
http://www.kvraudio.com/get/2667.html

[Rellik]

Shy:

What have been posted are extreme examples. Real-world situations lie somewhere in between these extreme examples and the perfect situation where no difference would be detectable between processing at 44.1k and 96k.

Obviously if, like you seem to assert, most or even a significant number of DSP synths/effects that people use had perfect algorithms with 16x oversampling etc. etc., then these would be perfect situations and we would have no use for processing at higher sampling rates.

However: we DO use imperfect synths and effects (often intentionally so, for the purpose of saving CPU) that have incongruent outputs at different sampling rates. Your mistake is in assuming that all of us are using super-100%-technologically-mathematically-perfect DSP.

[Shy]

Rellik, I understand what you're saying, but I don't really assume or assert what we use is perfect. Even if it's not perfect at all, in real world situations the differences are not significant enough to be noticeable.

[Kingston]

With regards to using soft samplers at higher speeds.. Does it use algos the same way effects are?

oversimplified, but yes. any softsampler needs to interpolate samples to even work (ie, to pitch the samples up or down) and it will use the same exact algorithm for up and downsampling as well - "for free". exs24 and halion3 are probably the worst in the market in regards to this (but also efficient), while SFZ and FL studio are among the best (high quality but CPU hog sinc interpolation used), for example.

[Lagrange]

Thanx Kingston this has been really usefull info..

[Sascha Franck]

Even if it's not perfect at all, in real world situations the differences are not significant enough to be noticeable.

They are. They may not justify the expense of faster computers or the already presented "workarounds", but the differences are there, clearly noticeable. Sometimes even highly annoying.
I don't use higher sample rates either, but that's purely an economic decision rather than a sound-quality-driven one.

[Kingston]

They may not justify the expense of faster computers or the already presented "workarounds", but the differences are there, clearly noticeable.

It falls under diminishing returns for sure, but this certainly isn't a controversial topic like summing, and the differences are there for everyone to hear (and not imagine like with summing). I wouldn't expect the average joe consumer to care or hear anything though.

[BosseJo]

Last year's Ozzfest? I can almost hear the intro of "Crazy Train".

[xander]

They may not justify the expense of faster computers or the already presented "workarounds", but the differences are there, clearly noticeable.

It falls under diminishing returns for sure, but this certainly isn't a controversial topic like summing, and the differences are there for everyone to hear (and not imagine like with summing). I wouldn't expect the average joe consumer to care or hear anything though.

Good stuff Sascha, bduffy & Kingston --

My primary concern (or interest) is in the increased resolution at higher sample rates of various IRs and delays FX before mixdown (and dither, etc.).

I am not as concerned about anti-aliasing benchmarks on, say, bass-lines, vocals, certain synth parts, kicks, toms (and their overtones/harmonics -- except perhaps for some cymbals/bells) because it is mostly unecessary for what I do -- but FX can apparently benefit greatly from upsampling.

[adj]

Kingston, you say a whole lot of nonsense without explaining yourself. That's good trolling, keep it up.

You know, in fairness, you seem articulate and appear to have a desire to say something constructive, but people like you baffle me.

You enter your point/comments, then when people disagree with you, you provide nothing in the way of reasonable counter-point or example.

I mean, don't you find it disturbing that a twice-banned numbwit like Marchduck can get one up on you?

You leave others with not many choices as to how to regard you -- you are either a malcontent troll that merely seeks to assert negativity and turmoil for whatever personal, tragic reason, or you are afraid to join in and contribute because you lack skills, are paranoid, etc.

What other logical conclusion can one develop about you and what you've posted?

You don't HAVE to enter a thread swinging your fists you know -- it's not the way to get accepted here. Why not take a deep breath, think about things, then provide some examples of what you are asserting instead of just 'downing' everything others say?

Ok - now I've done me good deed for the day...