KVR Audio

René · Post by **René** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:01 pm

"I do have a perfect resampler which has zero interpolation noise, zero aliasing, flat frequency response and doesn't require extra memory and takes almost zero CPU".

"Just here in my pc."
"But I'm not showing it to anyone."

This is not aimed to anyone, but I've heard it before. A mature discussion requires tests.

-René

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:01 pm

As it's not possible to do it in your plugin

That doesn't matter, this method is so obvious (& common with graphics) that there must be samplers using it.

It's not like it was anything new.. oversampling is just the most generic, all-purpose way to get rid of aliasing. Here, even the fonts this text is written with (if you're under winXP with the other font smoothing enabled) used oversampling. A 4x oversampling normally, that's why the shade of grey is limited.
That or maybe it's a technique that applies to graphics, synthesizers, BUT not samplers (that are nothing but 'sprite blitters')..

autloc · Post by **autloc** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:02 pm

I'm sorry, I'm still finding this thread amusing. I don't think you should be so upset, WilliamK. In the end users know to judge a synthesizer by how it sounds. On the other hand, it's pretty important for a developer, who naturally grows fatigued listening to his or her own synth, to have some way of objectively evaluating some of its fundamental algorithms. This can be useful information to users too, but I'm sure that they know that it has to be weighed along with other factors like filter quality, feature set, CPU load, ease of use, PRICE and whatever else.

george · Post by **george** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:03 pm

WilliamK wrote:Indeed, I'm also very upset with all those "fancy-tests". And I will keep calling it "fancy" as they ARE fancy. They are not pratical, and fools users. I just need to find more people to talk about this in order to shut-down those sites.

I don't think any kind of censorship will benefit the freedom of the knowledge.

Sorry George, Rene and all others that may think I'm being nasty. But is not that. I tried to talk, I tried to be nice about this and find a common-ground. But you are arrogant persons, that think only your way is correct. Sorry, but I'm very upset with this.

I don't get it. What are you talking about?

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:04 pm

But I'm not showing it to anyone

The resampler? I'm showing it to everyone for several months, it's Sytrus. Oh wait you can't load YOUR OWN samples.. booooh.

The sampler? I don't have one yet. It takes a lot of time to develop a GUI & editing tools around an engine you know.

René · Post by **René** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:06 pm

Indeed, I'm also very upset with all those "fancy-tests". And I will keep calling it "fancy" as they ARE fancy.

They ARE fancy eh? Let me guess... because you say so?

Sorry George, Rene and all others that may think I'm being nasty. But is not that. I tried to talk, I tried to be nice about this and find a common-ground. But you are arrogant persons, that think only your way is correct. Sorry, but I'm very upset with this.

Please see above. Please see above. Then have a good laugh.

-René

george · Post by **george** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:06 pm

gol wrote:It's not like it was anything new.. oversampling is just the most generic, all-purpose way to get rid of aliasing

Good point, although not the best CPU friend.

WilliamK · Post by **WilliamK** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:07 pm

autloc · Post by **autloc** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:07 pm

It seems to make sense to include synthesizer technolgy in this discussion. Enough samplers are taking the route of using other ways to represent and resynthesized sampled sounds that the lines are blurred between samplers, additive synthesizers and whatever-the-hartmann-neuron-synth-is. I don't imagine that samplers 10 years from now will just be using big sincs -- I'm sure that they'll be finding, as often as possible, ways of parametrically defining the sound so that the user will have more meaningful control over it's timbre. Unless the only point of interest here is linear, cubic, hermite and sinc interpolators?

René · Post by **René** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:10 pm

Thanks Autloc. But so far I feel that I'm talking to myself here. The guys from DiscoDSP only tries to shut-me-up, and don't really give other ways to proper test the products. I did that test with my own Linear-Interpolation, and I'm upset, as some people would look that graphic and think that my product is crap. And is NOT. Actually, may users are saying that our product sounds crispy. Could that be aliasing related? Maybe. I tried a pure SAW waveform with my own code and also SFZ 72 (HQ) mode. And mine do sound more "open", while SFZ sounds "filtered".

Thanks for talking that much about sfz.

-René

autloc · Post by **autloc** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:10 pm

Actually, may users are saying that our product sounds crispy.

Dude, have you ever looked at the spectrum from the EMU Morpheus? I'm not sure exactly what kind of aliasing distortion they've got going on there, but it is SERIOUS. It's also one of my favourite synths (still is now, even though I don't have it hooked up).

I'm also reminded of when Dreamcast and PS2 just came out. A lot of people complained about how the PS2 wasn't antialiased properly - and that was true. But at the same time, I didn't like the way a lot of Dreamcast games went overboard with the antialiasing -- sometimes I found the crisp (if slightly jagged) lines in PS2 games refreshing.

Variety is good. (but give your users the option

)

(on the subject of sawtooth waves -- I have to admit I hate aliased sawtooths. Aliasing makes them brighter in timbre, but I prefer the smooth sound of a bandlimited saw)

René · Post by **René** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:14 pm

I think that those graphics only scares people from good software. I'm really surprised that no one has sued those owner-sites for "false-information". I know, those tests are correct, I know that. But in a "musical" way, they aren't. Get it?

Everyone gets it. Nobody can dare to think that aliasing is related to the musical properties of playing back a sample in any way. That'd be stupid, right?

-René

WilliamK · Post by **WilliamK** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:14 pm

Majken · Post by **Majken** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:16 pm

Wasn't aliasing what made the Linndrum great btw

- And if you look around KVR you'll find a plugin called Mr. Alias that alot of people really seem to dig.

/Majken

george · Post by **george** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:18 pm

WilliamK wrote:The guys from DiscoDSP only tries to shut-me-up, and don't really give other ways to proper test the products.

William, the sampler comparison page has got guidelines for making a graphic similar to the ones shown. I'm disapointed about your continuous tries to make something different without really know their real purpose.

I did that test with my own Linear-Interpolation, and I'm upset, as some people would look that graphic and think that my product is crap. And is NOT.

Please, let people speak for theirselves. I don't think resampling is the number-one-top-priority to someone looking for a sampler. As previously said it is _one_ of many features to look for and the page makes people aware of it.

I think that those graphics only scares people from good software. I'm really surprised that no one has sued those owner-sites for "false-information".

I'm not afraid about it. That information is completely true and accurate according to what is stated.

I know, those tests are correct, I know that. But in a "musical" way, they aren't. Get it?

Fine, you only need to prove it.

The aliasing thread