RAPID Synthesizer | Rapid 1.8.0 released | Free "SP - Granular Elements"

[Mirko R.]

Why? Are you able to hear frequencies above 22khz? Than you're not a human. Just joking.
Seriously, if you would like to use one single sample that you record on C1 and want to play it at C5 than it would be an advantage to work with 192khz but otherwise there is no reason to use a higher quality than 44 khz. or is there an another reason why you would like to work on 192 khz?

Yes, I am Batman

I just make music in some crossover genres where real recordings (like orchestras or rock) mix with synths. These real recordings were made with 96khz, so I expect every synth or fx in my plugin chain to work with this sample rate, too. That's it ^^

But more in general, not Rapid specific: in the end I think, it doesn't really matter why or why not I choose some samplerate. The plugin should take my settings (may it be the sample rate, buffersize, bitdepth or whatever) as guidline and just do its stuff with it.

It's not a problem. You can work with Rapid in 96 khz and import your samples with 96 khz. It will resample it internally to 44khz and that's all. You will never notice that. btw. I know other very famous synths and rompler which are doing this exactly like Rapid and no one have ever noticed this. The only different is, that Parawave just tell it. maybe it would be better if he doesn't do, and no one would notice it.

[HSum]

@ HSum:
By the way, not that you misunderstood that. Just because the internal samplerate is at 44kHz doesn't mean you can't use it on higher samplerate settings. You can still use the plugin on 96kHz, it's just upsampled. And the processing after generation (in fx chain) still works on a higher rate.

I understood that and I'm totally fine with your position and decisions But the whole chain is just as string as its weakest link and since my synths (plugins and real hardware) and samples are producing output over the full spectrum, this would be Rapid then But maybe I'll try it at least for some lowpassed pads or basses later on ^^ It seems promissing for that.

@Mirko R.
I regularly test my plugins and sort the bad ones out. I never used Nexus for example. Recently I had to revert an effect to a previous version, because the dev had a big "performance update" which just was an internal downsampling XD

[Sampleconstruct]

Anyhow, most Samplers and ROMpler provide their sample source material anyways at 44.1kHz.

Naah, that's a myth, 48 Khz is very common too, so is 96 Khz these days (good for bats).

and suddenly humans are able to hear frequencies above 22khz? this is a missbelife that bats which are recorded on 96 khz sound better or more exactly. if you want, we can make a little game of it. i have here a really good and clean recording-preamt and stereo mics. i will record 10 different drumsamples. 5 with 44khz and 5 with 96khz and if you guess correctly which one is 96 khz and 44khz, I will play for you "my heart will go on" on my recorder (flute),... and i promise you,... i am really bad.
if you're wrong, you have to open a new threat with the title "shame on me" and the text "I am a bad musician". xD

omg, i believe this is a really bad idea for booth of us xD xD xD

You misread my post, I'm not planning to record bats or produce a sample library with multisampled bat sounds, the SR of 96 Khz is good for bats, that's all. And if you play any recorder near me, your recorder will break and your head will hurt

[plexuss]

There is more to sample rates than the Nyquist bandwidth and human hearing. Do some research. If software handles higher sample rates, which is just more data, in a way which leverages that added data for more accurate computations, then the effect is better sounding audio within the human hearing spectrum. Think about it. It's similar rationale for why a wider sample word is preferable - more data, more accuracy. In most cases, I find, working at 96k results in a smoother warmer sounding render over 44.1k. But in some cases it doesn't or it simple doesn't work because certain devs haven't bothered to support higher sample rates forcing us to use 44.1k.

But of course, this is all based on what I hear and so it's as subjective as anything else in audio. I hear a difference, a big difference and prefer to work in 96k. but if you don't or you simply don't believe it, that's fine - work in whatever manner suits you.

[parawave]

Stop whining. Make music.

Your signature hit me hard : D

Anyways ...

@Importer:
If anyone has some suggestions or ideas about new import methods that would be useful for you, I will hear you out. Already had image/bitmap import for wavetables in mind. Although I think it's not really that useful. I'm sure there is that idea nobody has thought of, just waiting to be implemented.

[nordickvr]

...You misread my post, I'm not planning to record bats or produce a sample library with multisampled bat sounds, ...

OK, what a deception now

[Sampleconstruct]

...You misread my post, I'm not planning to record bats or produce a sample library with multisampled bat sounds, ...

OK, what a deception now

Sorry, I know, but it's such a niche market.

[magicmusic]

this demo version is report from AVG virus scanner as idp.alexa.51 Trojan. older demo version work ok. do the plugin network access ?. I also do not understand wy a VST plugin need admin rights. I have my VST folder outside windows dir. maybe a insaller should check first if it should install in windir programfiles. and only if install in windir, it want admin rights

[chk071]

There is more to sample rates than the Nyquist bandwidth and human hearing. Do some research. If software handles higher sample rates, which is just more data, in a way which leverages that added data for more accurate computations, then the effect is better sounding audio within the human hearing spectrum. Think about it. It's similar rationale for why a wider sample word is preferable - more data, more accuracy.

Not that i understand much about these things, but, isn't what you describe rather a matter of the bit rate, and not the sample rate?

[plexuss]

There is more to sample rates than the Nyquist bandwidth and human hearing. Do some research. If software handles higher sample rates, which is just more data, in a way which leverages that added data for more accurate computations, then the effect is better sounding audio within the human hearing spectrum. Think about it. It's similar rationale for why a wider sample word is preferable - more data, more accuracy.

Not that i understand much about these things, but, isn't what you describe rather a matter of the bit rate, and not the sample rate?

The bit rate and the sample rate are tied together: the more samples per second the more bits per second. Sample rate is tied to the upper band limit of the converted audio, for sure, but it also impacts the accuracy of processing that data - the more the better. But, like bandwidth, can you hear it? Many can not. Many can.

[Orbit-50]

I might have been a little early with my joyous comment. Retracting it.

[parawave]

this demo version is report from AVG virus scanner as idp.alexa.51 Trojan. older demo version work ok. do the plugin network access ?. I also do not understand wy a VST plugin need admin rights. I have my VST folder outside windows dir. maybe a insaller should check first if it should install in windir programfiles. and only if install in windir, it want admin rights

No, neither setup nor plugin access the network. It's falsely detected by AVG. It did that before with the previous demos until I requested a white-list entry.

Avast, AVG, AntiVir, wow, do software vendors now really have to contact every virus scanner out there. Annoying. Especially if their white-list service currently doesn't work. I don't even know why they detect it, just because the setup contains a .dll with compressed resource?

[magicmusic]

do you mean with your words "Avast, AVG, AntiVir wow" that more scanners report this as Trojan ?. i install many programs. if compressed resource is not standard behavior maybe this can the reason. that a virus is report from AVG as with your install i get only on older VPS avenger demo. but new avenger demo have problem not

[ZeePok]

Stop whining. Make music.

Your signature hit me hard : D

Anyways ...

@Importer:
If anyone has some suggestions or ideas about new import methods that would be useful for you, I will hear you out. Already had image/bitmap import for wavetables in mind. Although I think it's not really that useful. I'm sure there is that idea nobody has thought of, just waiting to be implemented.

 
How's this? 3D .OBJ (or similar) import for wavetables!

That way one can model a 3D surface (e.g. in Blender) and then import it in a synth to convert it to a wavetable. So one literally could model the wave's surface!

I always wondered if/how that would work ...

[Mirko R.]

 
How's this? 3D .OBJ (or similar) import for wavetables!

That way one can model a 3D surface (e.g. in Blender) and then import it in a synth to convert it to a wavetable. So one literally could model the wave's surface!

I always wondered if/how that would work ...

I think that doesn't bring any advantages. Image-Import would be enough. I wrote me an own little wavetable editor who is able to import images and with black-white values (like a depth-map), you can create evecything you want.

A firend told me, it would be nice if it is possible to import a wave with markers. drom the beginning till the first marker should be the first wavetable-frame. from the first marker to the next should be the second frame and so on...
the advantage: you can make frames with different framesizes and set the marker on the correct zero crosses. that could be a useful feature.What do you think?