Oversampling...
-
- KVRist
- 217 posts since 3 Aug, 2005
Do you think Sylenth is ever going to have an oversampling function?
-
- KVRist
- 372 posts since 19 Feb, 2004
I don't see why it would need it given that the way the oscillators are generated, there are no aliasing issues. Oversampling is mainly used to smoothen aliased artifacts (at the great expense of CPU).
Someone correct me if I'm smoking crack here.
Someone correct me if I'm smoking crack here.
-
- KVRian
- 654 posts since 13 Jan, 2007 from NJ, USA
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 217 posts since 3 Aug, 2005
I don't see why it would need it given that the way the oscillators are generated, there are no aliasing issues. Oversampling is mainly used to smoothen aliased artifacts (at the great expense of CPU).
I ran the default Sylenth preset in 3 projects playing exactly the same thing, and rendered the results, one in 44.1khz, one in 96khz, and one in 192khz. They all sounded progressively better, so this lead me to believe that it would benefit from oversampling.
-
- KVRist
- 372 posts since 19 Feb, 2004
^ cool, let's get really scientific:
1. Did just the Sylenth render sound better, or the whole project?
2. Can you post the three files for us to look at?
3. Did you use a spectral analyzer to see the differences?
4. Did you play back and compare in higher resolution settings? How did you compare them?
5. Define "better" in the context of your experiment.
These are not rhetorical questions and I'm not trying to be a pain...just want to know the answers so that we can have a discussion based on quantified answers. Thanks.
1. Did just the Sylenth render sound better, or the whole project?
2. Can you post the three files for us to look at?
3. Did you use a spectral analyzer to see the differences?
4. Did you play back and compare in higher resolution settings? How did you compare them?
5. Define "better" in the context of your experiment.
These are not rhetorical questions and I'm not trying to be a pain...just want to know the answers so that we can have a discussion based on quantified answers. Thanks.
-
- KVRer
- 22 posts since 30 Oct, 2006 from Sydney
Of course they sounded progressively better, they WERE better. When you play something back at a higher frequency, it contains more information, so the "bit rate to your ears" so to speak, goes up, hence the sound becomes closer and closer to a pure analog sound. Hence "better".tidyguyver wrote:I ran the default Sylenth preset in 3 projects playing exactly the same thing, and rendered the results, one in 44.1khz, one in 96khz, and one in 192khz. They all sounded progressively better, so this lead me to believe that it would benefit from oversampling.
Oversampling will never be able to replace the information that an ACTUAL higher sampling rate has. It is purely an attempt to get as close as possible to a higher sampling rate by averaging the data from the higher sampling rate into the lower one. There are many versions of oversampling, some good, and some bad, but, they are all just a fancy version of down-sampling.
The test you should REALLY be doing, is rendering at 192khz, down-sampling with an expensive down-sampling program, or something like voxengo r8brain, to a lower sampling rate, and THEN comparing the results. That would be a test that would allow you to scientifically prove what you want.
From what I can hear however, oversampling would make very little difference.