KVR Audio

sqigls · Post by **sqigls** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:02 pm

i've just moved up to 96 also, loving it, except for the CPU hit obviously.

I heard a set of 24/96 on a Funktion One rig last weekend, right after a set of similar tracks played from MP3... it was like chipboard vs mahogany

BertKoor · Post by **BertKoor** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:26 pm

jancivil wrote:
Dean Aka Nekro wrote:
@midnight wrote:As of today I am now in the land of 96khz. Already everything is sounding more open and airy, crisp analog round fat gooey goodness.

See: Placebo Response.

I suspect the OP has finally bought a proper audio interface, and was formerly using onboard sound. The differences between these are perceptible without doubt.

@midnight · Post by **@midnight** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:15 pm

jancivil wrote:
Dean Aka Nekro wrote:
@midnight wrote:As of today I am now in the land of 96khz. Already everything is sounding more open and airy, crisp analog round fat gooey goodness.

See: Placebo Response.

Lol! You guys are probably stuck at 44.1 and have no idea what you are missing.

Dean Aka Nekro · Post by **Dean Aka Nekro** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:38 pm

@midnight wrote:
jancivil wrote:
Dean Aka Nekro wrote:
@midnight wrote:As of today I am now in the land of 96khz. Already everything is sounding more open and airy, crisp analog round fat gooey goodness.

See: Placebo Response.
Lol! You guys are probably stuck at 44.1 and have no idea what you are missing.

Nah, I have had 24-bit/192kHz available for years, IMHO it is just a waste really. Personally I settled on 24-bit/88.2kHz years ago :yawn:

So is BertKoor correct that you have only just invested in a half decent interface? If so congratulations

s_t · Post by **s_t** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:46 pm

I used to record and mix @ 96Khz. It was easier to get a good sounding mix at 96k. It feels like you need more processing (eq, etc) to get everything sitting well in the mix when working at 44k. However, this is my personal opinion and I don't wish to cause any debate here whether or not you should use higher rates.
Nowadays I use 44k because the cpu/hd strain is too much. But I will move back to 96k as soon as possible (when I'll get big enough ssd drive).

filter303 · Post by **filter303** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:47 pm

I am also using a 96khz samplerate for my projects. Good for plugins that don't have oversampling built in. It's definitely not a placebo.

@midnight · Post by **@midnight** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:12 pm

Dean Aka Nekro wrote:
@midnight wrote:
jancivil wrote:
Dean Aka Nekro wrote:
@midnight wrote:As of today I am now in the land of 96khz. Already everything is sounding more open and airy, crisp analog round fat gooey goodness.

See: Placebo Response.
Lol! You guys are probably stuck at 44.1 and have no idea what you are missing.
Nah, I have had 24-bit/192kHz available for years, IMHO it is just a waste really. Personally I settled on 24-bit/88.2kHz years ago :yawn:

So is BertKoor correct that you have only just invested in a half decent interface? If so congratulations

Why no sir, I just finally have a computer that can handle 24/96 easier than my previous dual core system handled 44.1

But I do find the tone of your posts to be pretty hilarious. You are obviously getting... quite emotional.

here, why don't you listen to some of my music >

http://www.soundcloud.com/michaelgallardo

Jafo · Post by **Jafo** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:30 pm

Hard data or it's just rumor... sorry if that seems harsh. On one level, it's easy enough to compare using only softsynths -- same mix, same plugs, same settings, different sample rates, then a double-blind listen. With audio recordings it's a bit more complex, but using a good rate converter (r8brain, for example) you could downsample rates for all audio and samples. It might also be worth doing an upsample, but I doubt it (you can't gain higher frequencies that weren't there in the first place).

Any takers? My mixing skills are modest, so I doubt I'd be a good choice, but I'm game.

Sampleconstruct · Post by **Sampleconstruct** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:31 pm

PanzerD · Post by **PanzerD** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:40 pm

filter303 wrote:I am also using a 96khz samplerate for my projects. Good for plugins that don't have oversampling built in. It's definitely not a placebo.

I don't think it works that way on plugins.

We actually need a proper test to end those speculations. Someone should render his mix two times, one @ 44k and other @96k then play them side by side with inverted phase.

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:54 pm

It's also important to know if the mix is squashed to shit, or full dynamic content. Here it does(!) make a difference.

Else, I still find it overrated and stick with 48kHz. No, I'm not missing out, I just don't see a reason to go higher as long as(!!!) certain mediums aren't more available (playback devices especially) or affordable (authoring) for the public yet.

Namely HD Audio and Blu-Ray as Audio Medium.

Then again, if your playback engine is crap, why go for a waste of data storage?

t3toooo · Post by **t3toooo** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:55 pm

yes a proper test but do me a favour and readjust the settings otherwise it will sound very different and that would not be a proper test, wouldn't it be?

Bronto Scorpio · Post by **Bronto Scorpio** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:02 pm

I sometimes use 96khz when I record samples I want to pitch way down.
A 44khz sample won't have any information above ~11000hz when pitched only 1 octave down. That doesn't have to be a bad thing but sometimes it's not what I want.

It's also fun to record stuff like birds r bats at 196khz and pitch them a few octaves down. I haven't done that myself but there are some cool recordings of stuff like that on teh intertubez.

Cheers
Dennis

@midnight · Post by **@midnight** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:02 pm

PanzerD wrote:
filter303 wrote:I am also using a 96khz samplerate for my projects. Good for plugins that don't have oversampling built in. It's definitely not a placebo.
I don't think it works that way on plugins.

We actually need a proper test to end those speculations. Someone should render his mix two times, one @ 44k and other @96k then play them side by side with inverted phase.

The difference is immediately noticeable to me using soft synths in the upper octaves. No test needed. Also, being able to disable any realtime oversampling is nice, as 96 is like having a native 2x oversample on everything compared to 44.1, and you avoid the oversample filters.

UltraJv · Post by **UltraJv** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:15 pm

@midnight wrote:
PanzerD wrote:
filter303 wrote:I am also using a 96khz samplerate for my projects. Good for plugins that don't have oversampling built in. It's definitely not a placebo.
I don't think it works that way on plugins.

We actually need a proper test to end those speculations. Someone should render his mix two times, one @ 44k and other @96k then play them side by side with inverted phase.
The difference is immediately noticeable to me using soft synths in the upper octaves. No test needed. Also, being able to disable any realtime oversampling is nice, as 96 is like having a native 2x oversample on everything compared to 44.1, and you avoid the oversample filters.

There have been many tests on this and the result (blind tests) was inconclusive. The conclusion was that some vst produce different results at higher than 44.1 - not better or more accurate, just different :

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76156

24/96khz