KVR Audio

robains · Post by **robains** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 6:20 pm

I'm a Sonar 3 PE (soon to be 4 PE) & Project5 user.

Some that seem interesting are:

EastWest Symphonic Platinum series
http://www.soundsonline.com/sophtml/det ... sku=EW-150

Is Kompakt required?
http://www.nativeinstruments.de/index.php?kompakt_us

Also interested in Zero-G Morphology.
http://www.zero-g.co.uk/index.cfm?articleid=787

Put basically would like to purchase high quailty samples preferrable 24bit 96kHz or better.

Alan Lastufka · Post by **Alan Lastufka** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:41 am

LastLibs samples are all 24-bit/48kHz as we've found this offers the best performance/sound ratio wihtout killing your computer.

For more info please visit www.LastLibs.com

Donnie · Post by **Donnie** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:58 am

With out libraries we offer extra 24bit 88.2khz versions for sound sets that really benifit from the extra bandwidth such as cymbals, triangles, violin etc. We suggest that you use the 24bit 44.1khz samples for composing and the 24bit 88.2khz samples for mixdown if you like.

Thanks,

Donnie Christian
http://www.donniechristianstudios.com

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:06 am

Donnie wrote:With out libraries we offer extra 24bit 88.2khz versions for sound sets that really benifit from the extra bandwidth such as cymbals, triangles, violin etc. We suggest that you use the 24bit 44.1khz samples for composing and the 24bit 88.2khz samples for mixdown if you like.

Thanks,

Donnie Christian
http://www.donniechristianstudios.com

Oh. I sense a big argument brewing...

Donnie · Post by **Donnie** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:52 am

Nah, I don't think so. There are plenty of great libraries on the market to go around. What one person likes another one doesn't. Thats what keeps us all in business.

Donnie

robains · Post by **robains** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:20 pm

Thank you for the links. Nice bass sounds -- will these only work with Kompakt?

No one with 24bit 96kHz samples?

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:26 pm

robains wrote:Thank you for the links. Nice bass sounds -- will these only work with Kompakt?

No one with 24bit 96kHz samples?

Halion version is now shipping. Most other samplers can load kontakt format as well.

There's no real need for 24/96 sample libraries at this time. High polyphony would be near impossible, as well as totally tearing up any dfd-style functions. The size of the library would be much larger as well...

It's really just a waste of space :-\ And considering the majority of people who even claim they hear way above 20khz (or some crazy myth about super-harmonics influencing audible frequencies) arent going to be listening to the finished product... non-musicians on 5$ sony headphones will. Id love to entertain the idea that there's an audiphile community that listens to music created primarily with sample libraries, but that doesnt exist. All the communities that utilize high-bandwidth reproduction and capturing devices are way out in left-feild of the sample community.

May I ask what you need this for specifically? If there is a great reason, future lastufka libraries will certainly support it.

bitcrusher · Post by **bitcrusher** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:57 pm

If you want to split hairs, 96k provides a better stereo image than 44.1

The brain decodes phase information well above 20k, if you want to capture what the brain can percieve you need to go to a 384k sampling rate.

Of course typical listening environments (not to mention destination format) make 44.1 plenty.

If the audio was not recorded at 96k, upsampling will not benefit.

I'd only worry about 96k on symphonic type sample libraries.

Best
Steve

robains · Post by **robains** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 2:54 pm

Robert,

May I ask what you need this for specifically? If there is a great reason, future lastufka libraries will certainly support it.

I'm into music creation for myself, how it is appreciated or used by others is up to them and really doesn't have any influence on me and what I want to use for sample rates.

I do understand your point in terms of intended audience, but I'm not making music to be "known" or to appeal to a mass market to earn money. The music I create is not about "them" it is about me.

As far as processing 96kHz 24bit samples with polyphony -- I don't think this is going to be an issue especially with Sonar 4 PE. I have a watercooled PC with a multiprocessor setup -- I've recorded some of my own Acoustic Guitar samples at this rate without any issues so far. Of course my recorded samples are not as good as a true studio setup and hence why I'm in search of such samples.

Thank you for your help, looks like you do indeed have some good libraries.

Rob.

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:31 pm

Something like a well-made acoustic guitar, drum, percussion, or piano library can easily eat up 100's of note of polyphony for fairly simple things due to sample sustains and the presense of multiple microphones.

You're really looking at a matter of hd throughput which wont really be affected by a faster processor.

If you're speaking about one-hit style things, then I can see the usefulness perhaps.

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:37 pm

bitcrusher wrote:The brain decodes phase information well above 20k, if you want to capture what the brain can percieve you need to go to a 384k sampling rate.

The only studies Ive found to support that were flawed severely in the basic scientific method (mostly allowed multiple unchecked variables). If the ear cant hear it, how does the brain decode it? Surely not the skin, we cant even feel touches beyond a reasonable threshold (certainly not sound!).

It's rather funny how all this information comes from the audio world where they have lots to benefit from having some new technology to sell people. I havent heard of many medical breakthroughs in hearing that would cause a need for all this new audio stuff. In fact, the more recent studies Ive read show our hearing is really less spectacular than previous (and commonly accepted) to be though. Our brains are masters of filling in the gaps of what we cant physically perceive.

Donnie · Post by **Donnie** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:10 pm

Robert Randolph wrote:Something like a well-made acoustic guitar, drum, percussion, or piano library can easily eat up 100's of note of polyphony for fairly simple things due to sample sustains and the presense of multiple microphones.

You're really looking at a matter of hd throughput which wont really be affected by a faster processor.

If you're speaking about one-hit style things, then I can see the usefulness perhaps.

Actually with programming you can limit the amount of polyphony a particular instument uses. For example I will only allocate say 10 voices to a ride cymbal because any more will just get lost. The 10 voices still allows the cymbal to play back totally naturally but you don't get hit with excessive voices.

Donnie
http://www.donniechristianstudios.com

Innominandum · Post by **Innominandum** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:50 pm

bitcrusher wrote:I'd only worry about 96k on symphonic type sample libraries.

Why? It's a primitive emulation of a performance using a sample library. As Robert was touching on, if you're that concerned with fidelity then you'd be using the real thing.

robains · Post by **robains** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:09 pm

Robert,

You're really looking at a matter of hd throughput which wont really be affected by a faster processor.

Note sure why you think HD performance is an issue? At 24bit 96kHz that puts out about 281 KB/sec or 0.27 MB/sec -- most mid to low end SATA or IDE hard drives can do 40MB/sec sustained and higher. Bus/CPU stalling is the primary issues, a good chipset and caching process will ensure stalling doesn't happen during recording (and a few other OS tricks).

Innominandum

As Robert was touching on, if you're that concerned with fidelity then you'd be using the real thing.

Your statement seems very primitive -- why limit oneself if one doesn't have to? Starting with a good sample is never detrimental to whatever follows from that sample.

Rob.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:37 pm

bitcrusher wrote:If you want to split hairs, 96k provides a better stereo image than 44.1

The brain decodes phase information well above 20k, if you want to capture what the brain can percieve you need to go to a 384k sampling rate.

Of course typical listening environments (not to mention destination format) make 44.1 plenty.

If the audio was not recorded at 96k, upsampling will not benefit.

I'd only worry about 96k on symphonic type sample libraries.

Best
Steve

I'm sorry but this is just utter bullshit.

96k provides a better stereo image than 44.1? A common mistake to say that, and the real reason for that is our mediocre AD/DA conversion. In bad quality conversion (read: anything below hi-end) you will get noticeable benefit from playing things in higher samplerates, most noticeably on transients and as tighter stereo image. Clocks and jitter errors come to play here as well.

If the converters are up to their task, in other words very expensive ones, they will sound exactly the same on both 44.1 and 96khz. Only recently have high quality converters been able to do this, and cheaper ones have had many deceived.

Read up on converter technology and theory!

One of the only good reasons to use higher samplerates are plugins. The higher the sample rate, the less the eventual digital truncation after lots and lots of serial processes. This is also why many plugins have their internal oversampling.

If you're using higher sample rates for anything else, especially with mediocre AD/DA conversions, you will only deceive yourself and waste amazing amounts of CPU time and HD space.

By the way, our ears (ie the hardware) can only detect frequencies and their phases of up to about 20k. Try to restrain yourself from distrubuting any other kind of information!

Who makes the best 24bit 96kHz samples...