The Upsampling Your Mix Thread

[Kingston]

time to move on Shy.

[bduffy]

Thanks for the example, bmanic. That's pretty much the difference I heard; smoother highs. Of course, I refuse to post an example until meathead goes away, or he'll think I'm posting it for his benefit. Besides, the effect has been proven.

[Shy]

Time to stop saying nonsense Kingston. + talk to people who are talking to you

[Sascha Franck]

Shy, as bmanic clearly stated, it's just ONE EQ on ONE audio clip.
Can't you imagine that the same sort of problems would occur with less drastic settings when using tons of tracks in a complexed mix? The problems just add up with each and every track. I mean, even for a rather non-technically oriented person like me, it's just engineering 101.
In such tests you simply over-emphasize the problem to make sure everbody (even those with less than stellar listening environments) understands. I can't for the life of me understand why this would have anything to do with being a placebo effect.

[Shy]

Sascha, no, I can't imagine this sort of problem would occur in real world cases since no one has actually ever shown a case where that happens.

[Sascha Franck]

Sascha, no, I can't imagine this sort of problem would occur in real world cases since no one has actually ever shown a case where that happens.

I have. I have shown you an example of an EXS patch that aliases like mad under 44.1 and doesn't under 96. What else do you need?
Yes, most likely, in a "normal" situation, I would use a root key which is sort of centered (say, a C3), but the aliasing already starts to occur on such a patch as well, assuming I'm playing like 2 octaves above.
And indeed, this is a real world case. Very often you just don't have access to proper keymappings, so you gotta get away with a single sample for a patch.
I seriously don't see what's so "non real world" with that.

[Shy]

You seem to think that a sampler that aliases like mad is a proper tool to use and a proper example, there's nothing I can say to that and I happily suggest to you to do anything you can to bypass it's inherent crappiness. People who care about quality in the first place don't use things like samplers that have no form of antialising. Let's say I'm referring to people who use tools that aren't built by monkeys.

[Kingston]

Sascha, no, I can't imagine this sort of problem would occur in real world cases since no one has actually ever shown a case where that happens.

for consideration, maybe collecting butterflies would really be a better hobby?

[Shy]

Your trolling is getting tiring Kingston, this is an audio related thread.

[mauseoleum]

... hush, hush, eye to eye.

[Kingston]

no, I can't imagine this sort of problem would occur in real world

[Shy]

Now it's on to image spamming, great.

[Sascha Franck]

People who care about quality in the first place don't use things like samplers that have no form of antialising.

So, WHICH SAMPLERS WOULD QUALIFY FOR THAT??? WHICH EXACTLY?
Name one, JUST ONE! Post an example, tell me how to reproduce it using a demo and I *may* give you some crediblity. But so far you're just making an ass out of yourself!

[Shy]

Sascha, I need to tell you? You mentioned a few yourself. Good luck.

[Sascha Franck]

Sascha, I need to tell you? You mentioned a few yourself. Good luck.

Those still don't sound the same under 44.1, compared to 96. I said they were getting close. But, by definition, "close" is still different from "identical".
Sorry, no points for you here.