FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Officially Licensed 3rd Party Developer Libraries
Free 3rd Party Programs
marcpinol
User Level VIII
User Level VIII
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:13 am

FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by marcpinol » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:45 pm

I'm doing the big step from 44.1 to 96 (hoping this will improve my mixes!) and I noticed that FATE installers are copying only 44.1 vectors in my Nebula folder.

Someone knows if a there's a 96 KHz version? I tried to contact with AITB but I haven't got an answer yet, just wanted to know (I hope it won't be a big problem anyway to work with 44 vectors).

Thanks in advance!

sneaky
Member
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 7:51 am

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by sneaky » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:42 am

nobody knows and aitb aint telling. Ive asked this before, seeing the 'coming soon!' blurb. false advertising I guess

marcpinol
User Level VIII
User Level VIII
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:13 am

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by marcpinol » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:34 pm

sneaky wrote:nobody knows and aitb aint telling. Ive asked this before, seeing the 'coming soon!' blurb. false advertising I guess
Yesterday I was searching on internet (when I don't have a prompt answer I usually check it by myself) and I found some threads in Gearslutz that were talking about the 44.1/96 thing with Nebula, AITB, CDSM, ALex B, etc. I didn't knew that some people was so angry about this things. I am not, that's for sure!

Since I paid for FATE and W735EQ I was just hoping for an answer. I had some talks with Tim Cupwise and Michael Angel (I bought lots of libraries in my three months with Nebula) and they've answered always. I won't be upset or anything (not my style), I'm just a newbie asking... But anyway, I really like how the AITB libraries sound, so it's not a biggie if I have to work at 44,1 only with their libraries. It's just a little, very little problem, that's all :-)

Thanks for the answer, sneaky!

russianpolecat
User Level XI
User Level XI
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by russianpolecat » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:18 pm

I'd love to see this happen, particularly with the Comp because I used a 'real' one at a studio once and almost jizzed :D. On drums it's just, well. Words fail me! However, I work in 96khz because I have a decent setup, and so everything is at that sample rate. So, even though I will prob get it, well, I have to figure out a way of including it in my workflow without it being a real pain in the ass. Obviously it is going to sound better at 44k than 44k (arrow) 96 (or the other way around I can't remember), but, well, a 96khz version would solve all that wouldn't it :D

C'mon AITB - lets have it at 96!!

richie43
Expert
Expert
Posts: 5041
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by richie43 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:23 am

I can't really go into too many details because I am not affiliated with AITB, but I do some testing for them and communicate quite a bit with them. But I can tell you that their lack of 96kHz libraries has nothing to do with them not being on the ball or laziness. They have their own opinions and experiences with Nebula and it's abilities, and because of their own work and opinions, currently have all 44.1kHz libraries because they feel like that is the best product (sonically and authenticity) for your money. That's about the best way I can put it. But on that topic, I have a "decent set-up" as well, and have done many many tests with all of the sample rates. And for my own listening tests, I have had someone else randomly select and play audio from different rates while I write down which sample rate is which (mainly 96, 44.1, and 48). I have never scored better than 50%, except for intensely dense acoustic music, like real orchestra. But with every other genre, I was really guessing. I urge everyone who is convinced that their mixes sound better at 96kHz to do this. Of course if you are using Nebula, to be fair, keep 96kHz projects with 96kHz libraries, etc. I have also done simpler tests with mixes with mismatched sample rate libraries, and honestly, they sounded different, but neither sounded better or worse. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but until you do a truly subjective and REALLY blind test, I can bet that your feelings toward higher sample rates is more "snake-oil" than fact. Give it a try.... I dare you.
The Sounds of the Hear and Now
http://soundyaudio.com/

russianpolecat
User Level XI
User Level XI
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by russianpolecat » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:32 am

I don't disagree with you about the sound quality as such, because, as you say, if you're doing mainly rock, pop etc. then you wouldn't easily notice the difference, especially given that most people stream online these days anyhow :D . No, I was talking more from a workflow perspective. Most of the libraries I use are at 96 (it's recommended by most to use this sample rate no?) and it is just a pain to have to bounce everything down to 44 just so I can use one or two libraries and then re-convert or some such. Even if they don't think 96 is the best sample rate or whatever, they could still include it for people. I mean they do so for the reverb libraries so why not other things? Other developers think that 96 sounds better/optimum but still include the 44 versions too...

richie43
Expert
Expert
Posts: 5041
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by richie43 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:42 am

Everyone's experience is different, but I often use libraries that are of different sample-rates than the audio. And I have always had better quality just using the library than bouncing my tracks to fit the library, and then bounce back again. For the record, not all of the devs offer multiple sample rates for their libraries, and of those I use them anyway. Like I said, AITB have their reasons, and what they have is of awesome quality. I guess my real advice is to use whatever you want and don't stress out about sample-rates. Their 44 only libraries have been around for a while now, and it is not such a simple task to go back and magically make another sample-rate for us. So if it is work-flow you are concerned about, just don't change your work-flow; use whatever library you want and get things done!
The Sounds of the Hear and Now
http://soundyaudio.com/

russianpolecat
User Level XI
User Level XI
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by russianpolecat » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:27 am

Yeah, I know. I'll use it anyhow, simply because I love it. In terms of the colour - easily my favourite comp :D

richie43
Expert
Expert
Posts: 5041
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by richie43 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:10 am

Favorite comp? have you tried any of the newer Cupwise or Gemini Audio compressors? Fate Comp is indeed great, but there has been practically a revolution with nebula compressors lately. :D
The Sounds of the Hear and Now
http://soundyaudio.com/

User avatar
cehas
User Level VIII
User Level VIII
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:03 pm

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by cehas » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:42 am

From what I understood from those extensive plugin analysis/sample rate threads on Gearslutz is that the main advantage of using higher samplerates is the reduced aliasing. That's basically it, effects wise.

I usually work @ 44.1k with 96k effects (to save CPU power) and when rendering, I reload the project to 96 and switch on the timed kernels on the master.

I have to admit that the differences are barely noticeable, but sometimes 96k manages to sound more "real", especially on the long run.

russianpolecat
User Level XI
User Level XI
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by russianpolecat » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:14 am

richie43 wrote:Favorite comp? have you tried any of the newer Cupwise or Gemini Audio compressors? Fate Comp is indeed great, but there has been practically a revolution with nebula compressors lately. :D
Of course, they're more 'developed' or closer to real world compression than the N**e comp. But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the colour. The other comps are based on different models and so on. I just love the sound of that particular compressor. I'll use it more in a sort of Mojo way if you like. Same as I do with some of Henry's stuff.

russianpolecat
User Level XI
User Level XI
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by russianpolecat » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:19 am

cehas wrote:From what I understood from those extensive plugin analysis/sample rate threads on Gearslutz is that the main advantage of using higher samplerates is the reduced aliasing. That's basically it, effects wise.

I usually work @ 44.1k with 96k effects (to save CPU power) and when rendering, I reload the project to 96 and switch on the timed kernels on the master.

I have to admit that the differences are barely noticeable, but sometimes 96k manages to sound more "real", especially on the long run.
I was thinking of doing something like that if I need to. Working at 44 and going to 96 to render (I've just purchased a ton of new libraries so I'm still in the stage of defining my workflow and how much I can actually do in a 'live'/real time sense).

fpoitevin
User Level VIII
User Level VIII
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:48 pm
Location: Grenoble, France

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by fpoitevin » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:56 pm

richie43 wrote:I know that everyone has their own opinions, but until you do a truly subjective and REALLY blind test, I can bet that your feelings toward higher sample rates is more "snake-oil" than fact. Give it a try.... I dare you.
+10000 !
Furthermore, I found with blind tests that I very often prefer 44.1k for blues, pop, rock and all other "electric" styles. For classic music, I prefer 96k for the precision of the reverb tails.
I no longer waist my time trying to work with the biggest number !

Just to go a little further (it's not the topic, I know), the sample frequency problem is NOT an audio bandwidth question but a DAC filter behavior.

keep on making music, not looking at numbers !
All the best

François

richie43
Expert
Expert
Posts: 5041
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by richie43 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:09 pm

fpoitevin wrote:+10000 !
Furthermore, I found with blind tests that I very often prefer 44.1k for blues, pop, rock and all other "electric" styles. For classic music, I prefer 96k for the precision of the reverb tails.
I no longer waist my time trying to work with the biggest number !

Just to go a little further (it's not the topic, I know), the sample frequency problem is NOT an audio bandwidth question but a DAC filter behavior.

keep on making music, not looking at numbers !
All the best

François
Beautifully said.
The Sounds of the Hear and Now
http://soundyaudio.com/

User avatar
cehas
User Level VIII
User Level VIII
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:03 pm

Re: FATE EQ+Comp at 96 KHz?

Post by cehas » Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:01 am

russianpolecat wrote:I was thinking of doing something like that if I need to. Working at 44 and going to 96 to render (I've just purchased a ton of new libraries so I'm still in the stage of defining my workflow and how much I can actually do in a 'live'/real time sense).
Doesn't work with all the DAWs 'tho, with Ableton it's really easy, just reload the project @ 96k. I'm also using a some synths that benefit from the 96k SR.

If it's a possiblity, I'd say go for it, even just for archiving. I love having the uncompressed, untouched mixdowns as high quality files and then back them up on a USB stick/HDD.

Post Reply