Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

If you need to write about anything else please do it here..
biomuse
User Level X
User Level X
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:37 am

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by biomuse » Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:32 am

fuseburn wrote:Listen for yourself. You have to hear the artifacts and then decide if this is acceptable for you. It's been like this for years and many people have made great mixes with those "erroneously" resampled programs. If you don't hear a difference, be happy and don't waste another thought on it.
This pretty much misses the point.

The reason I'm buying Nebula and its libraries in the first place is because I don't have steady (or any) access to the broad variety of hardware that is being sampled. I'll repeat: part of the value of the libraries to me is that there is some kind of direct, reliable correlation between the sound of the sampled hardware and its emulation in Nebula.

Giancarlo has now said that the SRC in Nebula is not optimal for minimizing artifacts, and he and others have confirmed that there are differences in sound that are not subtle when mixing sample rates. That tells me this is a real and substantial issue regarding the performance of the software. Saying "don't worry, be happy!" doesn't quite cut it. Again, if I wanted that, I'd just go back to using algorithmic plugs.

This issue is solvable in several possible ways, and so it would be better for the platform if it were solved. I would still like to hear from the major library developers on this.
fuseburn wrote:Sounds like a good solution, 44.1 and 96k. If you work at > 44.1, just upsample your material to 96k - powerful systems are cheap these days (seriously !).
I have a 2010 8-core mac pro, and for the kind of mixes I do (elaborate), 96k would still be an uncomfortable stretch in many cases. I'm not alone in that.

User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
Posts: 11214
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by giancarlo » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:35 am

biomuse wrote:
giancarlo wrote:Don't forget our algo is aimed to fast sample rate conversion (thousands of samples, sometimes even pretty long ones). Library developers could use other tools for a proper conversion. I never compared with r8brian really. For sure our approach is very good for music, but you know, impulses are a different beast. Sometimes they are really short (few samples!), so very difficoult to convert properly...

Best thing for a developer would be sampling twice. You could sample @96000, than reduce it, but the result could be not so good. If you need 44100, the best approach is sampling @ 44100.
As someone who works at 44, I'd really like to hear from Michael and Alex on this issue. I've been considering imminent purchases from both of them, but if the official word from the developer is that using the internal Nebula SRC means I'm basically not getting what I purchase, I need to rethink that and wait for some kind of resolution.

There's not much point in using Nebula to get some kind of erroneous approximation of the sound of a piece of gear. You can get that from algorithmic plugs.

44.1 is very commonly used. Given that, there should be versions of all products that work as intended at that sample rate.

here we are speaking about perfection. We are comparting a downsampled 96K library with the same library sampled natively at 44,1K. They are degrees of perfection.

Guys, I think this topic is creating HUGE confusion. Sample rate conversion in nebula is terribly good, obviously you can't get perfection and at the same time speedness. It's still a compromise. A 96Khz library is very good even if you downsample it to 44100. It could be better if it was sampled directly at 44100. But maybe a library sampled at 96Khz and downsampled to 44,1 could be better than a native 44,1 library created by an other developer. Sample rate conversion is just a piece of the puzzle. For example HARDWARE TUNING BEFORE SAMPLING and other details (which hardware, jittering, adda filters, hidden issues in sampling gear).
Don't be too much anal

futur2
Member
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:16 pm

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by futur2 » Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:07 pm

i think there should be a better SCR alorithm implemented in nebula. even if the loading times are longer. or a choice between a fast/better and a slow conversion. i always thought nebula is always aiming for the best!?

the other thing is that there should be a simple way (nat or external) to permanently convert your 96khz libraries to 44.1/48. i know that some people tried this on their own and failed with lots of libraries. whatever the reason is? if not possible otherwise this permanent conversion should be provided by the library manufacturers.
giancarlo wrote:
biomuse wrote:
giancarlo wrote:Don't forget our algo is aimed to fast sample rate conversion (thousands of samples, sometimes even pretty long ones). Library developers could use other tools for a proper conversion. I never compared with r8brian really. For sure our approach is very good for music, but you know, impulses are a different beast. Sometimes they are really short (few samples!), so very difficoult to convert properly...

Best thing for a developer would be sampling twice. You could sample @96000, than reduce it, but the result could be not so good. If you need 44100, the best approach is sampling @ 44100.
As someone who works at 44, I'd really like to hear from Michael and Alex on this issue. I've been considering imminent purchases from both of them, but if the official word from the developer is that using the internal Nebula SRC means I'm basically not getting what I purchase, I need to rethink that and wait for some kind of resolution.

There's not much point in using Nebula to get some kind of erroneous approximation of the sound of a piece of gear. You can get that from algorithmic plugs.

44.1 is very commonly used. Given that, there should be versions of all products that work as intended at that sample rate.

here we are speaking about perfection. We are comparting a downsampled 96K library with the same library sampled natively at 44,1K. They are degrees of perfection.

Guys, I think this topic is creating HUGE confusion. Sample rate conversion in nebula is terribly good, obviously you can't get perfection and at the same time speedness. It's still a compromise. A 96Khz library is very good even if you downsample it to 44100. It could be better if it was sampled directly at 44100. But maybe a library sampled at 96Khz and downsampled to 44,1 could be better than a native 44,1 library created by an other developer. Sample rate conversion is just a piece of the puzzle. For example HARDWARE TUNING BEFORE SAMPLING and other details (which hardware, jittering, adda filters, hidden issues in sampling gear).
Don't be too much anal

User avatar
fuseburn
User Level X
User Level X
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by fuseburn » Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:56 pm

biomuse wrote:Giancarlo has now said that the SRC in Nebula is not optimal for minimizing artifacts, and he and others have confirmed that there are differences in sound that are not subtle when mixing sample rates. That tells me this is a real and substantial issue regarding the performance of the software.
All I'm trying to do is to convince everyone of trying to hear those artifacts with their own ears, and then make their personal judgement. You seem to be confused by what you're reading here. Please find out for yourself what amount of artifacts we're talking about here :D
Giancarlo summed it up perfectly: "Don't be too much anal"
biomuse wrote:Saying "don't worry, be happy!" doesn't quite cut it. Again, if I wanted that, I'd just go back to using algorithmic plugs.
...and - without any traces of irony - you should really know why exactly you're using nebula instead of the algorithmic counterparts which are often way more user-friendly, less convoluted and more intuitive (I know Giancarlo is working hard on that, no doubt) and you get a lot more mileage out of your 2010 8-core mac pro than with nebula. You obviously know, otherwise you wouldn't be here :)
biomuse wrote:I have a 2010 8-core mac pro, and for the kind of mixes I do (elaborate), 96k would still be an uncomfortable stretch in many cases. I'm not alone in that.
That's not true. If your mixes are big and complicated, you know why, so you know what you're doing, otherwise you'd keep it simple and stay away from - from that perspective - unjustified hazzle/CPU-load. If you know what you're doing, freezing is no deal breaker if you're using the right DAW.
We're all looking for the perfect solution, and at the moment it means upsampling your projects to 96k. And wait for AITB to release the announced 96k versions. It certainly won't become any more user-friendly with a better built-in SRC either - it'll rather take longer for the programs to be converted, and the result is bound to be worse than staying on the programs' native SR.
You know the tradeoff between light CPU and quality, so don't be under the illusion that it'll change anytime soon :lol:.
Same-ballpark machine here btw. and I do big nebula-loaded 96k-stuff.

User avatar
tumburu
Vip Member
Vip Member
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by tumburu » Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:57 pm

The only inconvenience to me when working with 96k libraries is the loading time. They do sound on a par with the ones sampled at 44, never noticed any kind of degradation.

What I believe is truly necessary is that the libraries could be converted offline/NAT, and saved at a different SR, at iZotope/Voxengo resampling quality. That would be IMO the most clever thing.

And no, computers are not powerful enough for mixing with Nebula at 96 (mac pro 8 core here too).

User avatar
fuseburn
User Level X
User Level X
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by fuseburn » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:08 pm

tumburu wrote:And no, computers are not powerful enough for mixing with Nebula at 96 (mac pro 8 core here too).
Hence Nebula Server. And freezing :D.
Never claimed it would work in realtime

User avatar
tumburu
Vip Member
Vip Member
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by tumburu » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:19 pm

fuseburn wrote:
tumburu wrote:And no, computers are not powerful enough for mixing with Nebula at 96 (mac pro 8 core here too).
Hence Nebula Server. And freezing :D.
Never claimed it would work in realtime
I have the 8 core exactly for working in real time. Others did that too. That's the computers we have nowadays. Freeze is something I use only on tracks the producer won't ask me to modify all the time and only to leave some headroom. I prefer to master at 96 and mix at 44.

User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
Posts: 11214
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by giancarlo » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:33 pm

futur2 wrote:i think there should be a better SCR alorithm implemented in nebula. even if the loading times are longer. or a choice between a fast/better and a slow conversion. i always thought nebula is always aiming for the best!?
I don't think you want to wait 10 minutes each time you load your project. And I would prefer a native library than a converted one. Sampling rate conversion in nebula is VERY good. I repeat, i didn't compare it with r8brian, I have dont know if it would solve the issue. Implementing something better and enough fast would be time consuming for me, so it's out of discussion.

futur2
Member
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:16 pm

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by futur2 » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:49 pm

giancarlo wrote:
futur2 wrote:i think there should be a better SCR alorithm implemented in nebula. even if the loading times are longer. or a choice between a fast/better and a slow conversion. i always thought nebula is always aiming for the best!?
I don't think you want to wait 10 minutes each time you load your project. And I would prefer a native library than a converted one. Sampling rate conversion in nebula is VERY good. I repeat, i didn't compare it with r8brian, I have dont know if it would solve the issue. Implementing something better and enough fast would be time consuming for me, so it's out of discussion.
ok, what's then with my other proposal? :mrgreen:
whether it sounds better or not, at least there's no conversion time involved.

quoting my post before: "the other thing is that there should be a simple way (nat or external) to permanently convert your 96khz libraries to 44.1/48. i know that some people tried this on their own and failed with lots of libraries. whatever the reason is? if not possible otherwise this permanent conversion should be provided by the library manufacturers."

User avatar
giancarlo
Founder
Founder
Posts: 11214
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:40 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by giancarlo » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:39 pm

mainly bugs

User avatar
AlexB
Expert
Expert
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: NW Italy
Contact:

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by AlexB » Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:41 pm

In this moment I'm very busy and I haven't time to read all now, but:

- you can't change the physics laws
- I know how Katz works, his production and his knowledge so I don't permit to me to call he "an author" as I wouldn't call Alan Parsons an "comic actor" since I have seen his video tutorial... I am not better than them and a little respect is the base of the life...
- I haven't hear nothing wrong in the Nebula SRC, maybe I have broken ears...
- I still produce at 96kHz... Oh yes, 44.1kHz is more easy, quick and it needs less power and ram, but I prefer sound quality, like I have written in the my previous post.

I'll return back in the next days with visual and audio examples. :mrgreen:

Note: you can do / work / use what you prefer, it's your life 8-)
Close your eyes and Mix with the ears
Facebook
WebSite

highvoltage
Member
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:44 pm

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by highvoltage » Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:48 pm

tumburu wrote:The only inconvenience to me when working with 96k libraries is the loading time. They do sound on a par with the ones sampled at 44, never noticed any kind of degradation.
exactly.

and its really annoying when you load up a project and it starts up for 1 minutes.
I converted all the libraries to 48khz that i could, but still some of them can't convert.

futur2
Member
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:16 pm

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by futur2 » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:27 am

AlexB wrote: - I haven't hear nothing wrong in the Nebula SRC, maybe I have broken ears...
care to comment niklas (analoginthebox) post in this thread? ;)

http://www.acustica-audio.com/forum/ind ... =viewtopic

User avatar
scooter
Member
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:24 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Contact:

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by scooter » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:10 pm

What about using a 44.1khz library at 48khz?
That's what I find myself using the AITB stuff at.
Am I at a disadvantage by using AITB libraries this way?

Thanks!
-Scott

User avatar
AlexB
Expert
Expert
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: NW Italy
Contact:

Re: Sample Rate Discussion (off of AITB Germanos EQ Thread)

Post by AlexB » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:07 pm

Ok, some visual and acoustical examples to understand how things happen in real world 8-)

For the test I have used a piece of the song processed with the new GMC eQ: +2dB 60Hz / +2dB 10kHz.
Yes, I have recapped the hardware with the best caps available and the new release will coming soon as free upgrade.

First: listen!
Audio 44.1kHz processed with Nebula program sampled at 44.1kHz

Audio 44.1kHz processed with Nebula program sampled at 96kHz

Audio 96kHz processed with Nebula program sampled at 44.1kHz

Audio 96kHz processed with Nebula program sampled at 96kHz

Using Nebula in down/up sampling doesn't need so much power as many people would think... 8-)

To my broken ears Nebula program sampled at 96kHz sounds better always. More open and deep soundstage, more dynamics and "air".

Second: watch!
If your ears aren't so broken as mine, or you haven't a good room, monitoring system, DAC and so... Use your eyes :mrgreen:

Comparison between audio at 96kHz and the same processed by Nebula program sampled at 96kHz... You save all spectrum frequency and the sense of air.

Image


Comparison between audio original at 96kHz and the same processed by Nebula program sampled at 44.1kHz. You cut, castrate the sound !

Image

Sample rate in Nebula is very, very good! I have done blind test with r8brain, izotope and Saracon. Giancarlo has done a great work ! ;)

Finally, a sine sampled at 44.1kHz and 96kHz. In a world: RESOLUTION !
Image

Now everybody can choose with personal taste BUT you can't beat the law of physics. I won't return on this topic.... I'm busy to sample at 44.1kHz now :lol:

Cheers

Alex
Close your eyes and Mix with the ears
Facebook
WebSite

Post Reply