Bitwig

aquilyzer · Post by **aquilyzer** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:56 pm

@pdxindy: For me this is a bug. If the sample will be played on root note, bitwig shouldn't change the sound at all. They should atleast add an option to disable this.

What does the bitwig support say about this? Does anyone report it?

putoff · Post by **putoff** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:41 pm

I think it's irrelevant whether or not you can hear the difference of cut frequencies. The program should be aiming for transparency of source material above all. This, along with the cutting clips introduces clicks bug and there being no way to manually set sample and bit rate are quite strange omissions and should be improved for 2.3.3 as they are quite core functionality of any audio editor.

mosska · Post by **mosska** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:17 pm

for me its a bug, not a feature

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:06 pm

aquilyzer wrote:@pdxindy: For me this is a bug.

If it is a design decision, then it's not a bug. It is functioning as intended (and its not the only sampler that does this). You want it to function differently which is a legitimate wish.

However, I think you hinder the effort to change it by misrepresenting the situation.

majkel · Post by **majkel** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:07 am

If it is a design decision, then it's not a bug. It is functioning as intended

did you design it?? did we request those 'functional' feature?? its a 'studio work' software should be transparent!!
i've got idea: would we get a 'special' release 2.3.3 with bug fix of sampler (only) and those guys which doesnt hear above of 15khz and those which love a current 'design' will not install release..

meta-redundant · Post by **meta-redundant** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:59 am

pdxindy wrote:
aquilyzer wrote:@pdxindy: For me this is a bug.
However, I think you hinder the effort to change it by misrepresenting the situation.

This, exactly.

majkel wrote: did you design it?? did we request those 'functional' feature?? its a 'studio work' software should be transparent!!
i've got idea: would we get a 'special' release 2.3.3 with bug fix of sampler (only) and those guys which doesnt hear above of 15khz and those which love a current 'design' will not install release..

And when combined with the writing above, is exactly why the first thread got closed. I guess some people are worried that the antialiasing filter on the internal low-spec sampler might not be "transparent" at rates less than 48k, and therefore your house could burn down by morning. Thing is, we're not talking about mixing, summing, audio tracks, internal resolution, export, or anything of the sort. It's the sampler, whose behavior is most likely by design (as pdxindy mentioned), and everything's going to be okay. But really, the way to handle this, if you're losing sleep over it, is a polite and professional inquiry to the dev team. Cuz this thread is big on emotion but shy on productivity.

reflekshun · Post by **reflekshun** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:39 am

JHernandez wrote: Generating my own @44.1 gives me the same results. @ 48 it's much better but still a bit of roll off way up high. The 88.2 and 96 files at that site are good.

If the results are better at higher sample rates, that to me is a clear sign that it's an anti-aliasing filter. Thanks for doing those tests! This may actually be a good reason for those using the sampler often to move to 48khz if you're on 44khz.

majkel · Post by **majkel** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:52 am

And when combined with the writing above, is exactly why the first thread got closed.

hmmm... i thought thats we discovered few not comfortable things which could be fixed.
sorry guys sometimes im a bit of ironic but when i read theories:
-sampler roll of above 15khz - ooh its ok, because we not a dogs or bats and not hearing that, or a theory about 'hardware sampler simulation' etc.
-64bit audio playback engine - noo we dont want it, beacause its only a 'marketing bullshit' other has that , but they all wrong
im a bit confused
we've got here a 2 main groups of users:
1) those who are happy with new flashy modulator toys , but dont care about basic things
2) those whos grown up from classic audio workstations and where a basic stuff quality was a priority

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:40 am

majkel wrote:
And when combined with the writing above, is exactly why the first thread got closed.
hmmm... i thought thats we discovered few not comfortable things which could be fixed.
sorry guys sometimes im a bit of ironic but when i read theories:
-sampler roll of above 15khz - ooh its ok, because we not a dogs or bats and not hearing that, or a theory about 'hardware sampler simulation' etc.
-64bit audio playback engine - noo we dont want it, beacause its only a 'marketing bullshit' other has that , but they all wrong
im a bit confused
we've got here a 2 main groups of users:
1) those who are happy with new flashy modulator toys , but dont care about basic things
2) those whos grown up from classic audio workstations and where a basic stuff quality was a priority

You cannot put people into 2 such groups... they don't fit... but now I understand better why you immediately start fighting. You think you are in one group and at war with the other group. It's really not the case.

About the Sampler, I run most of my projects at 88 or 96khz and so there will be no roll off. I also have VST samplers that do not have that roll-off even @44.1 - So I can easily work around that and thus don't consider it all that important.

Me, I'm okay with 32 bit cause it serves my needs just fine. If you want a 64 bit audio engine, you should use something besides Bitwig. A Bitwig developer said they have no plan or interest to implement it. That's the end of that request. Accept it or move on. It's their choice to make cause its their software.

Oh, and the classic audio workstations I grew up with were nowhere near the audio fidelity of modern DAWs... even a 'lowly' one like Bitwig.

sensej81 · Post by **sensej81** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:02 pm

You're guys really strange. You come up with your own theories ,which has nothing to real.
For example some of you came up that cutting above 15k is somewhat of hardware emulation.
But in the bitwig specs there is nothting there about that.
So i would like to have a choice to work with 20-20k or emulate some old hardware samplers.
Majkel gave you a proove that bitwig's sampler is cutting highs above 15k and we should everybody stick with this because this is real and proven.
Bitwig devs should fix this and this should be end of the story.

ToneCre8 · Post by **ToneCre8** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:51 pm

I mean, seriously. Who is defending this? Even if you have another tool or can't hear or blah blah. It should be fixed and I'm sure it will be.

Phil B · Post by **Phil B** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:05 pm

meta-redundant wrote:the way to handle this, if you're losing sleep over it, is a polite and professional inquiry to the dev team. Cuz this thread is big on emotion but shy on productivity.

There should be a button to post this in every thread on every music equipment forum

antic604 · Post by **antic604** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:24 pm

Anyone tried if it's the same if the sample is played directly from the track, insted of via Sampler?

meta-redundant · Post by **meta-redundant** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:56 pm

antic604 wrote:Anyone tried if it's the same if the sample is played directly from the track, insted of via Sampler?

Of course - there is absolutely no similar behavior from audio tracks, plugin processing, summing, anything of the sort. Which is why I suggested above that if people are freaking out about the internal sampler, they just ask the devs. (It seems no one wants to do that - they would rather inflame paranoia and keep adding unproductive posts to this thread).

You'll be sorry you posted in here, antic

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:20 pm

sensej81 wrote:You're guys really strange. You come up with your own theories ,which has nothing to real.
For example some of you came up that cutting above 15k is somewhat of hardware emulation.
But in the bitwig specs there is nothting there about that.
So i would like to have a choice to work with 20-20k or emulate some old hardware samplers.
Majkel gave you a proove that bitwig's sampler is cutting highs above 15k and we should everybody stick with this because this is real and proven.
Bitwig devs should fix this and this should be end of the story.

I think one person wondered aloud if it was some hardware emulation... so what's this you guys stuff and lumping everyone in some imaginary group made up in your mind?

It is obviously done for anti-aliasing. Changing sample rate changes the roll-off point. It only starts rolling off at 15k when your project is at 44.1khz. The Bitwig sampler is not the only sampler that does the exact same thing.

You are correct that it is real and proven. The thing is, your assertion that it's a problem isn't. Most of the time, it is not going to matter at all. In the few instances it might, you can EQ it back to flat, use a higher sample rate, or use a different sampler.

There is nothing wrong with how it is functioning. It is not broken (not a bug) and therefore cannot be fixed. But sure, go ahead and advocate Bitwig add a 'HQ' mode that has no roll off at lower sample rate. I'm fine with it as long as its an option as it will use more CPU. I run my projects at 96khz so there is no roll off for me and I don't want Sampler to start using more CPU.

Bitwig

KVR Audio

Bitwig Sampler Cuts frequencies > 15k (majkel was right)