Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.



Forum Jump  
Go to last post
3 Pages<123
Posted on Wed, Nov 13 2019 01:05
by robinlb1900
Joined on Sat, Jun 22 2019, Posts 21
As I said, providing libraries with different rates for different purposes choosing from users is the most sensible solution.
This is not a purely technical issue, but one that involves market factors.
There are always different needs in the market, so three version in differentiated pricing might be more popular.
1, light version: 44.1kHz/16bit, intended for performance oriented or resource-constrained users.
2, std version: 44.1kHz/24bit at present, for normal usage and majority user.
3, premium version: 96kHz/24bit, for high end users of piano solo playback.

Of course, maybe ultra version 192/32 for master level...haha
Therefore, we can both be happy.
Posted on Thu, Nov 14 2019 15:39
by Gabriel Plalame
Joined on Thu, Feb 27 2003, Frogs eater country., Posts 153

Originally Posted by: littlewierdo Go to Quoted Post

My concern is, resources are still an issue for me. I write and compose using a single PC, an Intel core i7 8700k with 64 GB of ram. A full orchestral piece consisting of about 60 tracks in which I use every instrument that is loaded, will eat every bit of that ram up in a heartbeat. I cannot upgrade my RAM any more than that, 64 is my motherboard limit, so my next option would be to start freezing tracks or converting tracks to audio, which would severely hamper my creativity (waiting minutes to unfreeze and reload a track is a creativity killer).

I’m also a single PC user, and I plan to use a laptop to work everywhere, so I feel concern too. And I totally agree about freezing as a ‘creativity killer’, I can’t say it better. Maybe a solution would be to work in 44,1kHz projects and do the final mix and the mastering in a higher sample-rate, but it’s not a time saver, and libraries have to give us the choice.

Originally Posted by: littlewierdo Go to Quoted Post

Personally, no offense meant, but I find it highly suspicious that anyone can tell the difference between 48 and 96 sample rates.

About mic sources I can’t tell. I can just refer to engineers testimonials over the Web here and there.
About synth softwares, to me it is a certitude : using Native Instruments tools like Absynt (my favorite) and others, 96kHz projects really make an audible difference. It’s very hard to tell, but it’s quite the same feeling when you switch from bad monitors to good monitors : a clearer sound, more ‘define’. I’m not sure this is only a pure ‘high frequencies’ point. The ‘texture’ of the sound seems different. To use a photographic metaphor, it’s more about ‘definition’ than a pure frequency dimension, even if it sounds more ‘shiny’ in general. (But I have to confess that it was 44,1kHz vs 96kHz and not 48kHz vs 96kHz, I have to reconsider that, and make more tests...)

However, I’d rely like to share my experience in that field (idealy, I’d like to open a web page with random blind tests, but can’t do this now, I have to record and publish my work with the Steinway D first). I did my first test ten years ago when I used a Pulsar II sound card (Creamware at time, Sonic Core today). It was (and still is I guess) a very good DSPs sound card with lot of synth softwares resources embedded. With it, you just have to click one button to switch the sample-rate. My God… exploring all synth presets in 44,1, when I switched by curiosity to 96kHz, I was really stunishing… It sounded totally different… so much different that I felt the necessity to listen again all presets... I don’t know how much the DSP technology is involved here (or not). I don’t use it any more, I use an Octacapture today, but still fell a real difference with VSTIs synth softwares (Samplitude / Native Instruments / Octacapture and THX Makie monitors, not ‘ultimate’, but good...).

And my concern is also FX. If a synth source makes such a difference, what about FX ? (I didn’t test this to be honest, not enough time…)



Gabriel Plalame

The French dyslexic who speaks badly English.


Asus Prime Z270-K | Intel I5-7600 3,5GHz | Gskill DDR4 | Samsung SSD 960 EVO 500Go M2 2280 NVME x2 + 3 other SSDs | RME HDSP 9652 | Windows 10 pro x64 | Synchron Pianos 1.1.1413 | Samplitude X4 / X5 Suite...
Posted on Tue, Apr 07 2020 20:59
by VladKo
Joined on Tue, Apr 07 2020, Posts 27

It is hard to disagree that 96/24 would be a great improvement over 44.1/24 for anybody who does any post processing. ANd probably for real time play as well (less latency).
And considering that downsampling to 44.1/24 is the last step in VSL workflow, release of 96/24 should be a relatively easy process.
Keep fingers crossed.

Posted on Wed, Apr 08 2020 13:39
by Dietz
Joined on Tue, Aug 06 2002, Vienna / Europe, Posts 7430

Welcome VladKo,

as far as latency is concerned, nothing hinders you from using VSL's instruments at 88 or 96 kHz, as the upsampling for those SRs is done in realtime anyway.


/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
3 Pages<123
You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.