KVR Audio

khanyz · Post by **khanyz** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:26 am

No it's crazy to accept the degradation of language. I did mention it's true meaning, which of course it always third on the list.

But that is an entirely different debate, which is out of place here.

Shall we return to the topic on hand?

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:27 am

tony tony chopper wrote:it's not about allowing, all hosts allow 192khz, no? It's about advising..
What is the harm? Higher CPU usage obviously.

you're not doing much advising here though. i think you'd be better off to keep your opinions about what to do or not to do to yourself, and stick to mentioning the fact higher rates can in some cases result in high cpu costs.

...only the whole thread seems to be about the cases where it is pre-justified.

we've already discussed the fact that in some cases this is possible, while in other cases it is less likely to occur.

all of the things i've said in this thread were based upon your desired target rate. if you're certain that you will never use your work at a rate greater than 44.1k and it is certain it will be written only to "cd-quality" mediums then it isn't so much of a concern outside a specific context in which you can justify using a higher rate.

in general though i think people will start to regret using 44.1k today just as much as they regret having material stored on tape from thirty or forty years ago. times have changed and it is no longer the standard rate. now it's more an issue to justify using a lower rate on a per-case basis than it is to justify using a higher one. 48k or 96k should be the default.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:44 am

i think you'd be better off to keep your opinions about what to do or not to do to yourself,

funny because you're the one defending claims that have more to do with religion, with things like this:

in general though i think people will start to regret using 44.1k today just as much as they regret having material stored on tape from thirty or forty years ago.

The evolution of the quality of reproduction stops with our own evolution. A long time ago, those storage media couldn't hold everything we could hear, at the best quality we can. Yeah, that was a pretty good reason to look for better. But now that today's storage media can, you still wanna go further, and you dare to compare it to the past evolution? That would be valid if our ears/brain had evolved too, but I don't think they have (well, mine hasn't. Maybe in a x000 years? Who knows?)

Richard_Synapse · Post by **Richard_Synapse** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:52 am

Aleksey Vaneev wrote:When going from 44.1k to 88.2k sample rate you not only get "1 octave of clarity", you get 2 octaves! Because aliased components travel back on the spectrum after reaching 88.2kHz boundary and they have to travel one more octave to reach the audible band. If you work at 192kHz instead of 44.1kHz you get almost 8 additional octaves for harmonics in comparison to 44.1kHz.

As a general rule this is nonsense- what usually matters is how fast the partials fall off as a whole. Most nonlinear processes introduce an unlimited amount of partials, not just a few selected ones. What's relevant here is how much attenuation you get by oversampling. For strong nonlinear processes such as distortion, this can be very little. Also note you do not gain "8 octaves of clarity" by synthesizing a naive sawtooth at 192 kHz. You gain almost nothing because the partials fall off at only 6 dB per octave. This is why synths using naively generated waveforms still sound bad at 192 kHz.

Richard

gdev1981 · Post by **gdev1981** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:25 am

Merriam-Webster is an American-English dictionary though... so I would take its definitions with a pinch of salt.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:34 am

Merriam-Webster is an American-English dictionary though... so I would take its definitions with a pinch of salt.

try this http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... h/virtue_2

I'm pretty sure that virtue has the same meanings in all languages in which the word is derived from its latin origin.

dalor · Post by **dalor** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:40 am

I always use 96khz for vst instruments. What I'm unsure about is the bit depth?
Any clarification if 16bit / 96khz is good enough when the final result will be 16bit / 44.1khz?

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:44 am

dalor wrote:I always use 96khz for vst instruments. What I'm unsure about is the bit depth?
Any clarification if 16bit / 96khz is good enough when the final result will be 16bit / 44.1khz?

The bitdepth setting only affects recordings,it doesn't do anything to the instruments. They run on what they're programmed to,mostly 32 bit float i guess.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:45 am

tony tony chopper wrote:The evolution of the quality of reproduction stops with our own evolution. A long time ago, those storage media couldn't hold everything we could hear, at the best quality we can. Yeah, that was a pretty good reason to look for better. But now that today's storage media can, you still wanna go further, and you dare to compare it to the past evolution? That would be valid if our ears/brain had evolved too, but I don't think they have (well, mine hasn't. Maybe in a x000 years? Who knows?)

the issue is that well, 48k and 96k are the new standard rates. live with it.

it isn't up to me, it isn't up to you.

it just happens to disagree with you, and agree with me. sad, but it's a simple fact of life.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:56 am

the issue is that well, 48k and 96k are the new standard rates. live with it.

I don't think I have any piece of music in a 48k file on my HD. Do you wanna make stats on everyone's average MP3 collection? You know like me you're not gonna find anything at 48k, even though 48k MP3's exist. Worse, you will only find music filtered above 16k - that's only 2/3 of your range.

For a DVD's soundtrack? Sure. But how is it wrong to write a 44k source on a DVD? What do you think you're gonna lose by resampling to 48?

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:24 pm

Bronto Scorpio wrote:
tony tony chopper wrote:5khz of phatness

Man, almost good enough for a signature!

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:30 pm

khanyz wrote:My particular virtue is impatience. Particular of the ignorance of ignorance (AKA arrogance).

BOAH! This is good. Can I use it freely?

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:32 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:What do you think you're gonna lose by resampling to 48?

why do you think the rate is anything but 40k? if you're going to start to argue psycho-acoustics that's just fine by me, but it really has nothing to do with this discussion. the standard rate on blu-ray is now 96k, care to explain that one?

actually if you really cared why the reason is quite simple. if you process in the source rate, there is no need for re-sampling at any point. same explanation as to why it can be better to use 96k across the board even if plugins support over-sampling.

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:34 pm

aciddose wrote:you're not doing much advising here though. i think you'd be better off to keep your opinions about what to do or not to do to yourself, and stick to mentioning the fact ...

Wow. That was cool. KvR is only about facts? Since when?

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:36 pm

i didn't say it was, i only said he'd be better off since he seems to upset that people aren't agreeing with those opinions.

people can't really disagree with facts - i mean, apparently they can - but you shouldn't be so emotionally damaged by that.

if there is still some misunderstanding - take a pulse waveform, apply a oversample and decimation filter several times in a row and compare the results to the original signal.

you should notice there is severe phase distortion.

change your rate to 96k - apply the same process - decimate to 48k. you should notice minimal phase distortion only amounting to the single filter applied during final decimation.

Best sound quality - run 96khz samplerate, do not oversample.