How did I not see this coming! 96khz sounds great but...

[MattiasNYC]

@tedannemann

This is no pseudo science as the higher resolution nearly always gives you better results. You will be amazed how better time stretching and pitch shifting sounds if the algorithms can do their work in a higher sampling rate. Let alone nearly all virtual instruments and plugins do profit from higher sampling rates. Especially the big digital devil called aliasing can only be beaten with oversampling / higher sample rates. I totally agree that the unprocessed signal can’t be differentiated between 44.1 kHz (actually everything over 17k depending on your age) and 96 kHz+. But as I already said this is the same stupid thinking as with the DAW null tests with unprocessed signals. I never ever heard an unprocessed signal on a professional recording - even classical or jazz live recordings are heavily processed all the time… That’s why higher sampling rates are absolutely needed in audio processing because of the cleaner more transient rich sound with less artifacts.

I think the more comprehensive explanation is needed, and your examples are very appreciated. Without being clear we really do risk misinforming people because they draw the wrong conclusions from what we say… or rather omit. That was my only point.

[MattiasNYC]

@trevelyen

MattiasNYC

Thing is i am not trying to say that i am scientifically correct here. to be quite honest i dont have a clue about the science behind audio.

All i know is what i have experienced. that is that after years of using drum samples at 44k, switching to 96k made a MASSIVE difference in fidelity. as far as ableton and summing and nulls and all this rubbish, it doesnt matter to me.

Well, my background is basically making me approach this as an engineer, so my natural instinct is to try to understand why something is the way it is.

@trevelyen

I think of it the same way i think of photography. You shoot in RAW format so that when it comes to manipulating the image there is more information in the file to work with, giving way for more manipulation without too much damage.
Thing is shooting a RAW picture, it looks better than shooting a jpeg anyway before you manipulate it, and i feel the same about higher res audio.

I know you probably won’t like this, but I think you’re wrong about that. Like I said, there hasn’t been any studies that conclusively showed that we can somehow perceive or make use of frequencies that are above what we can hear.

Having said that, it’s of course possible that your converter or other parts of your system functions better at higher resolutions, but as I said, that’s a different issue.

@trevelyen

another way i look at it, although our ears are limited to 20k, things which create sound in reality are not limited to any frequency range. therefore, surely one would want to capture sound from reality with the least amount of limitations, and so if it is feasble to record with the highest resolution, why not? you are capturing a closer representation of reality?

If it costs you nothing and makes you happy, then sure. And I agree that some processing probably benefits from higher frequencies being captured.

[trevelyen]

guys i think i need an rme sound card

[matjones]

@trevelyen

guys i think i need an rme sound card

You will not regret it…,

[tedannemann]

To answer your other question. I do prefer UAD plugins over Waves too due to the better oversampling / filtering. In other words, all my slipslop form above doesn’t happen in the audible range with UAD plugins (at 44 kHz) - and their converters are excellent too. Best bang for the buck are currently the UAD Twin Duo system (USB3 for PC) as you get great converters + extra DSP with a few fine plugins. RME converters are in the same ball park (using a Fireface UCX on the road currently).

[matjones]

I generally prefer UAD over waves too, except in the case of the dbx160 and EMT plates.
The MK2 uad fairchildren?, la2as, 1176s, pultec etc wipe the floor with the waves versions for sure, but as far as i know not ALL uad plugins over sample, much has been written about this on the UAD forums over the years.

[tedannemann]

True. Luckily the average UAD user wasn’t satisfied with aliasing and kept complaining until UA implemented oversampling as well as amazingly clever filtering in their blockbuster plugin range.
I only can hope that I don’t have to wait another 10 years until Steinberg updates their sample rate converter in Cubase. They could at least implement the Crystal Resampler from the past WaveLab versions which aliases in an far more inaudible range at least.

[Edited misleading claims about WaveLab’s SRC and a few typing errors, sorry my English is actually not that good]

[Romantique_Tp]

Wavelab uses SoX resampling now. Crystal Resampler isn’t even included with it anymore.

[tedannemann]

Now I had to be careful with the WaveLab bashing then (still on Wavelab 8.5 here, barely using it I must admit).
If Steinberg would integrate SoX in Cubase 9 this would be unbelievable amazing as it would outperform Logic, Studio One or even Pro Tools in terms of up- and downsampling.

[peakae]

@tedannemann

Now I had to be careful with the WaveLab bashing then (still on Wavelab 8.5 here, barely using it I must admit).
If Steinberg would integrate SoX in Cubase 9 this would be unbelievable amazing as it would outperform Logic, Studio One or even Pro Tools in terms of up- and downsampling.

Agree the SRC in Cubase is showing its age, that is something that could be improved upon and I guess without a huge amount of work.
What I also would like to see in the documentation, is a list of the included plugins and their use of oversampling if any.
And thanks for keeping the discussion on topic, 96k has absolutely its merits when we are talking DSP.

[tedannemann]

@peakae

Agree the SRC in Cubase is showing its age, that is something that could be improved upon and I guess without a huge amount of work.

I posted a feature request but I think Steinberg is presumably aware of it. I guess I am not the first one drawing attention to this issue.

New / Improved / Better Sample Rate Conversion (SRC)

@peakae

What I also would like to see in the documentation, is a list of the included plugins and their use of oversampling if any.

I have the feeling not a single stock plugin uses oversampling (but also aware of that not every type of plugin needs it overall). Even the pricey Yamaha VCM plugins don’t use oversampling as Toshifumi Kunimoto confirmed in an interview:

@Dr. K

However, in some cases, oversampling is an essential technology, indispensable to reduce alias noises as you described. Fortunately, we avoided the oversampling strategy for the Portico EQ and compressor, making them free from undesirable latency problems.

As the RND Portico plugins doesn’t generate that amount of overtones (they are pretty clean sounding) it’s true that the aliasing isn’t audible here even in 44 kHz (at least for me).
However I am shocked that the new MasterRig in WaveLab 9 aliases like hell. Just use the Limiter with the harmonics / maximizer function or the multi saturator and you get a free decimator plugin. For todays standard (Ozone, Lurssen Console, T-RackS all make use of heavy oversampling) this is pretty lame. On the other side you can use the SoX Resampler and then apply the effects - but I bet the average WaveLab (especially Elements) user doesn’t up-sample and just slam the MasterRig on his final tracks because some 14 year old EMD producer on YouTube said everything above 44 kHz is not needed… (Please forgive my polemic tone ).

@peakae

And thanks for keeping the discussion on topic, 96k has absolutely its merits when we are talking DSP.

As I tried the new WaveLab version I scanned the neighbor forum after sample rate discussions. It’s kind of a parallel universe. These guys are talking about 384 kHz including recording (actually sampling not DSP(!)) in 32-Bit float 192 kHz.
Anyway my personal wish is to lower aliasing in Cubase for the stock plugins as good as possible and more important when importing / exporting audio (update for the internal sample rate converter).

[peakae]

http://src.infinitewave.ca/
Is a fun place to poke around, I’m a little shocked by Bitwig’s aliasing, even worse than Cubase.
Anyhow thanks for posting the feature request, I will drop by and leave a +1

[tedannemann]

Recording in higher sampling rates:

Q. Why is 88.2kHz the best sample rate for recording?

Processing / Aliasing:
http://www.keyboardmag.com/how-to/1255/should-you-record-at-96khz/48364