KVR Audio

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:26 pm

that's the one.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:29 pm

Thanks! It's off now. Sounding very cool, even at only 44/24! I can really see the potential here, the "forgiveness" factor...wow. Figures I'm done my album now

...don't give me another reason to go back in!

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:50 pm

Actually, looks like I can do 96k at work, just that the ASIO4ALL driver will not. I'm going to bounce out some stems and try this in Vegas.

Lagrange · Post by **Lagrange** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:15 pm

I was able to do some recordings with reverb flange effects @ 96 and was surprised to see that the frequency went 2x above 22khz (to 40 or 50 something khz).. I know that recording like this has real benefits but the issue I have is WHAT IS AUDIBLE above 22 (or even lower for that fact)?

Then I was also thinking (deviously) that other non audible audio could be stored there as data hehehe (ie. sharp transients for better slice detection etc)...

L

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:54 pm

Kingston wrote:
metamorphosis wrote:R8brain is excellent, and beats the lot-
if you meant the pro version, you'd be right.

but the free version is not that great. Not as good as audiomove for example: http://www.sg-acoustics.ch/digital_audi ... arison.pdf

the high frequency response is pretty average. Read the charts, and see the very round, ie. non-optimal low-pass filter of r8brain. The noise floor is marginally better than audiomove (meaning under -150dB). It's just that our ears are more sensitive to high frequency/transient response in this context.

Audiomove is also a lot faster since it's able to use multiple cores while processing (more than one file at a time as well).

In that chart, have a look at the weiss saracon graph. That's world class performance.

I understand the graphs - however, in my subjective (aural) tests, R8brain (freeware) came closer to the source 24-bit 96k sound than Audiomove or Cool Edit- for several different songs, in many different sections of those songs-
And that's something that you can't measure in terms of wave experiments, unfortunately.
Cheers though-
Matt

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:56 pm

metamorphosis wrote:And that's something that you can't measure in terms of wave experiments, unfortunately.

it is though. all it means is that you like the lowcut (less accurate) sound better. nothing wrong with that. Who knows what kind of psychoacoustic effects lurk under that -150dB area. Although common sense says there's nothing.

metamorphosis · Post by **metamorphosis** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:56 am

It's nothing to do with whether I 'like' the sound better - in fact I like some of the less accurate conversions better - what I'm comparing is the psychoacoustic similarity to the original source, and NO, you cannot measure that in graphs.
I'm done with this topic-
Cheers,

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:07 am

Shy..?

mustgroove · Post by **mustgroove** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:13 am

One more quick question for this thread...

I remember reading somewhere a while back that if you're eventually going to deliver a mix in 44.1, then it's better to upsample to 88.2 rather than 96, because 88.2 is simply 2 x 44.1 so the eventual SRC will be less problematic, whereas 96->44.1 would result in some harmonics that the 88.2->44.1 wouldn't produce... or something like that...

Is there any truth to that? If the project is destined for 44.1, is it better to upsample to 88.2 rather than 96, or is there no difference at all?

Dayl · Post by **Dayl** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:14 am

heh heh.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:15 am

mustgroove wrote:Is there any truth to that? If the project is destined for 44.1, is it better to upsample to 88.2 rather than 96, or is there no difference at all?

that's a myth from the protools folk that started around '93. These days we have technically perfect resamplers and don't have to worry about any of that.

Marduchk · Post by **Marduchk** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:17 am

someone should make a thread of active protools mythology so we can discern.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:17 am

I thought you knew gearslutz already?

mustgroove · Post by **mustgroove** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:18 am

Sick...

1 more thing... the izotope SRC definitely comes out on top in the infinitewave comparison, but I can't for the life of me find any piece of software that actually uses that algorithm... is it as-yet unreleased, or can anyone point us all to something that uses it?

Barring that, r8brain Pro might be a worthwhile investment...

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:19 am

I don't think anyone has licensed the izotope SRC yet.

The Upsampling Your Mix Thread