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

[tony tony chopper]

When going from 44.1k to 88.2k sample rate you not only get "1 octave of clarity", you get 2 octaves!

how about not calling this "clarity" because it makes it sound as stupid as "you you get 5khz of phatness".
Headroom, that would be a more correct term.

There's nothing to prove as for the virtue of processing at higher samplerates in general, no one in this thread has argued about it. It's only an argument about
-leaving it to the plugin's responsibility (you would look stupid oversampling a plugin that doesn't need it, like I don't know, a gate or whatever)
-forcing it per-plugin
-processing everything at a high samplerate

[Bronto Scorpio]

5khz of phatness

[khanyz]

There's nothing to prove as for the virtue of processing at higher samplerates in general, no one in this thread has argued about it. It's only an argument about
-leaving it to the plugin's responsibility (you would look stupid oversampling a plugin that doesn't need it, like I don't know, a gate or whatever)
-forcing it per-plugin
-processing everything at a high samplerate

What's virtue got to do with it. You either think it produces better results, and is worth the extra resources, or you don't. It's not good or bad.

For newbies, and people wanting advice on it, then the only real advise is try it. They need to decide whether it is better for them and if they are going to take theirs, or others, judgement on it.

Personally, it's obvious to me the advantage in allowing headrom (dynamic and frequency) when I work. How much is more likely to be based on my resources than any theoretical consideration.

And if others don't think there's any benefit, that they should work entirely in the destination rate. Well, that's fine too as it doesn't alter the way I work.

What does bother me (and this is at everyone, including me), is when people mistake prose for proof, and are entirely convinced by purely qualitative argument. There has to be a quantitative element to provide some level of consistent confirmation.

Now if only we could have a consensus on qualitative factors.

Ignorance is Hiss.

Cheers,
Nigel

[tony tony chopper]

What's virtue got to do with it. You either think it produces better results, and is worth the extra resources, or you don't. It's not good or bad.

right, so if it "produces better results", it's still not good or bad. I'll meditate on that.

Personally, it's obvious to me the advantage in allowing headrom (dynamic and frequency) when I work.

it doesn't have to be obvious to you, it's more the business of a plugin's maker. It's only your business if the plugin's maker didn't make his plugin properly, or intended it to leak aliasing. But making it a general case that it's obvious that more headroom=better, regardless of the plugin/process, that's stupid. There are loads of plugins that aren't gonna sound any different because you processed them at a higher samplerate, either because they don't need it, or because they're already handling aliasing internally (not necessarily through oversampling).

[aciddose]

i think the majority of the plugins out there are made by inept fools who have no idea what they're doing with either side of the equation.

what is the harm in allowing someone to use a tool in the manner they wish, or rework it in the manner which would benefit them? arguing against this is pure insanity.

[khanyz]

right, so if it "produces better results", it's still not good or bad. I'll meditate on that.

Perhaps, a better phrase, less likely to confuse, would be good or evil, as virtue is a morale judgement. But sometimes better is not always good, it depends on what better cost. Meditate on that.

it doesn't have to be obvious to you, it's more the business of a plugin's maker. It's only your business if the plugin's maker didn't make his plugin properly, or intended it to leak aliasing. But making it a general case that it's obvious that more headroom=better, regardless of the plugin/process, that's stupid.

No, it's an efficient way to approach things. You start with a general one (that has work in the majority of cases in the past), until you are clear on the specifics of the project and then you alter it to suit.

If I start with headroom, I can always remove it, if it's not beneficial. If I start with none, gaining it is more difficult.

So are you saying that headroom isn't better? And would that be in general? What is you're starting point with a project?

Also, I don't like dealing in "black boxes" so I make it my business to know as much as I can about the internals of a process. I can then make an informed choice about the best way, and the best environment, to use it.

Reducing ignorance is never stupid. Learning from experience and applying (or avoiding, if bad) it to future work is never stupid. Actually, it's usually called intelligence. I'd also call it maturity, but who wants that?

[tony tony chopper]

i think the majority of the plugins out there are made by inept fools who have no idea what they're doing with either side of the equation.

I believe aliasing isn't their only problem (I would be more worried about them crashing the whole session), so that's just a good reason not to use them

what is the harm in allowing someone to use a tool in the manner they wish

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

[tony tony chopper]

as virtue is a morale judgement.

But sometimes better is not always good

what's your mother tongue? (& no it's not a dirty question)

So are you saying that headroom isn't better?

as a user you're looking for less aliasing, not "more headroom" (what for?). "more headroom" may, or may not be the programmer's choice to reduce aliasing.
If you have experienced too much aliasing (of the moiré kind btw, because there are other kinds for which oversampling isn't gonna help much) in a plugin, then yes, oversampling it can be a valid choice.

[khanyz]

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

Oh yes, an evil on a par with Bird Flu and requiring the same level of public announcement, obviously.

But you do know there is a cure?

1) Freeze project if it hits your CPU limit.
2) Try it at a lower rate.

Repeat as required.

The only real advice on this subject should be "Don't let it stop you making music, just use what you have". Oh and try new stuff whenever you can.

[khanyz]

what's your mother tongue? (& no it's not a dirty question)

In order of use:

Yorkshire
Northern
English
High English
Drunk
Southern

Perhaps you should check an English Dictionary, obviously I'm biased towards the Oxford variety. It will confirm my use of language and you might learn something.

[gdev1981]

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

Oh yes, an evil on a par with Bird Flu and requiring the same level of public announcement, obviously.

But you do know there is a cure?

1) Freeze project if it hits your CPU limit.
2) Try it at a lower rate.

Repeat as required.

The only real advice on this subject should be "Don't let it stop you making music, just use what you have". Oh and try new stuff whenever you can.

I wouldn't switch Sample rate mid-project unless I wanted to create some kind of special effect.

[khanyz]

Yes, but sometimes that special effect is finishing it.

I was being flippant though. [flippant]Perhaps I should tag that in future.[/flippant]

[tony tony chopper]

Oh yes, an evil on a par with Bird Flu

Everything in your computer is limited by CPU usage, yes even audio processing. It's not like programmers had the freedom they would need to program anything they dream of. Our HD's are pretty much unlimited these days, but CPUs, keep dreaming.

It will confirm my use of language and you might learn something

I will learn that "virtue" is necessarily a moral quality? In which dictionary?

[khanyz]

I will learn that "virtue" is necessarily a moral quality? In which dictionary?

A quick google of "virtue definition" is:

vir·tue/ˈvərCHo͞o/Noun:

1.Behavior showing high moral standards: "paragons of virtue".
2.A quality considered morally good or desirable in a person.

Synonyms: merit - chastity - goodness

And though it is sometimes, ignorantly, applied out of context. I do think that it necessary to maintain its true meaning.

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

Of course, people who know me will have spat out their food with laughter, but I aim to please.

[tony tony chopper]

And though it is sometimes, ignorantly, applied out of context

write to Merriam-Webster then

1 a : conformity to a standard of right : morality b : a particular moral excellence
2 plural : an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy
3 a beneficial quality or power of a thing
4 manly strength or courage : valor
5 a commendable quality or trait : merit
6 a capacity to act : potency

I don't know, ever heard of the virtues of some aliment? How is that a moral judgement? Crazy to have to debate this if it's really your mother tongue.

This one even provides examples if you wanna learn english
http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/virtue
a good or useful quality of a thing: Mike was extolling the virtues of the car