i really want to know but do you use older libraries or you rely on only NEW recent samples for your productions? does it happen you mix both old and recent?

 

i like to eat them.

 

old = 16bit 44.1khz.
new = 24bit 44.1khz or 48khz.

That is pretty much the only factor in decision making. If the purpose is "hi-fi", clean and modern, I start with a "new" sample.
If the goal is lo-fi, vintage, flavor or sticking it in a sampler, 16bit is fine. Or 24bit with various degrading plugins.

I think separating them to organize separately might be an interesting thing to try.

 

I'm sure some people won't agree, but as soon as I get a new library, I convert it to 16/44.100. This way it becomes much, much smaller and easier to archive.
As I've written many times, the public no longer has the ears to notice or understand high-level audio and Hi-Fi differences and nuances.
People are distracted, they listen to songs on their mobile phones or, at most, on a computer... 16/44.100 is perfectly fine.

Yes Kate, I often mix old and new, it depends on the style of song I'm aiming for. For me, the only problem is quickly finding (among the thousands of samples and libraries) the one that could inspires me to write the new song... but that's another story.

 

You could be converting and archiving something you will never use. Are you going to sit and audition every sample first? Oh, hell no.

 

most people use headphones.. listen on youtube, soundcloud, i tunes, spotify.. only experts will know if its HQ samples i think... and yourself know how you made it.

 

End up looking for a sound, regardless of when it was "made". Super subjective.

 

I converted lot of samples / multisamples from old akai, emu and roland cds to sfz and load them into Tal Sampler. Samples from analog or digital synths especially but also other stuff like real basses and other instruments. Recently been also trying them in Serum 2 since it has sfz import. I mix them with some new stuff too.

 

Last edited: Dec 22, 2025 at 4:16 AM

the same, sfz is the best and convert to flac too

 

Sure, I know that, but doesn't change the basic concept.
For 99.999999999% of listeners, 16/44.100 is fine—in fact, I'd even say it's brilliant. And, compared to having libraries often compressed to four times the size, that's what matters.

When the beat of 'Billie Jean' kicks in or when the LinnDrum LM-1 launches the Intro of 'Thriller' or yet the sound of the frog taken from a Casio toy (also in 'Thriller') - recorded almost 45 years ago - and you can't stop your foot getting goosebumps all over your body... who's the madman sitting there wondering whether it's an old sample or a new one, whether it's 16/24 bit or 44/48/96kHz?
I know not everyone will agree but (even though I recognise that the higher the bitrate, the higher the quality) all the rest is just mental masturbation created specifically to generate hype and sell, sell, sell. What for then? A song that'll last a couple of weeks or a month at most on social media and earn you a hundred dollars?
It's just a big business and... loads of people fall for it hook, line and sinker.

I repeat (Off Topic), the real issue for me isn't the bit rate or whether the samples are old or new (I like them all), but this: I listen to a library and think... mmmhhh yes, I'll take this one, it inspires me and I can write a song for Madonna, the Beatles, Taylor Swift, Sia or The Weeknd.

Then, next day I listen to another one and then another... same story, it inspires me, I take it. Then I convert all and archive everything.
Well, after a couple of weeks, a few months later or more, when I finally start thinking about writing the song for an artist or for myself, believe me... I don't remember which library anymore it was that inspired me for that particular song I had in mind.
Does that happen to you too?

Merry Christmas to all you audio friends and happy music.

 

Last edited: Dec 22, 2025 at 1:19 PM

Calling 16-bit audio "lo-fi" is pretty nuts...

In most use cases, nobody will ever be able to tell the difference.

Can you tell, if someone used a 16-bit or a 24-bit sample, when listening to something?

--------

Regarding how I use samples, I never look if my samples are new or old because that is irrelevant. if I'm looking for a specific sound, that is all that I'm looking for. it doesn't matter if it's old or new or even what bitrate it is, because, like the other man said, in almost every use case, nobody will know the difference.

I guess it also depends on what kind of samples you use and whether and how you process them. Samples are malleable.

Except if your old samples are 8-bit and 11kHz, then you can clearly hear the difference.

 

Last edited: Dec 22, 2025 at 7:54 AM

Let me ask you this, when you import a sample into your DAW; do you allow it to automatically warp, or do you prefer to select a timestretch algorithm yourself?

 

Depends on what I need. If I need it warped, I'll warp it and select an algo that fits. If I don't need it warped, I don't warp it.

 

Sure, but you’re fine with your DAW automatically upsampling it to 24-bit without dithering when you import it, right?

 

Bro, again, it DEPENDS on the situation.

Do you use 1 single process on every single thing you do? Or do you adapt according to your situation?

If something needs dithering, you apply dithering, if something needs upsampling, you either let the DAW do it automatically, if you're not happy with the result, you do it yourself, or find a better quality sample if need be.

I guess you're one of those people who gets lost in the sauce, instead of observing practical use cases and real-world scenarios, since you chose to ignore to answer the very simple question "Can you hear the difference?".

And yes, before you say it, in rare extreme cases, you can hear the difference, but in 99% of cases, you can't.

I'm done with hijacking this thread, because I feel you'll need 20 more questions before you even try to make a point. And the point has already been made.

 

Can you hear the difference in a mix? of one sample. No. But you want to load a bunch of stuff with quantization errors right off the bat? Not using bad ingredients is not getting lost in the sauce. It's starting off with the right recipe.

I do not load 16 bit samples directly into my DAW. If you want your waveforms to look like staircases. That's up to you. Where does this supposed dither happen anyway?




You're done hijacking this thread because it's not going so well.

 

Last edited: Dec 22, 2025 at 9:17 AM

Sure buddy. Keep deluding yourself.

But you know what, the second someone tells me that they can hear quantization errors in my music, or that I should've used a 24-bit sample, instead of a 16-bit one, I'll drop to my knees and gobble that tiny pp of yours until you tell me to stop, deal?

 

I prefer using older samples, like "Best Service Robots & Computers (AKAI)," for example; they simply sound better to me than modern ones. I have a collection of SoundFonts—SF2, over 7000, and The Largest Drum Machine Collection on the Internet (461 drum machines) in *.WAV format. I stopped collecting samples at some point.

 

No dick measuring in this thread, please only bit depth sizings! For example, I use exclusively 32-bit × 192 kHz samples