A lot of DJ Players use CD on their controllers, and strangely, they like it

 

Sample rate debate is like dither debate. Audio geeks will try to prove their point with all the guts, but the listeners of the production will not care about that, plus, they will note your sh*tty mixed snare instead of the sample rate

 

it seems like a new hipster perversion

 

Use 48k. It is the world standard for video production. If your songs ever get sync licensed you won't need to worry about artifacts from upsampling. Plus the file sizes are only marginally bigger, so it's a no brainer.

 

dude's converters probably just suck and is treating it as if its the bitrate's problem

 

You are confusing delivery format with editing format

 

I heard that 48k is the way to go, but I cannot remember why. I set everything at 48k.

 

And no one who claims that he can hear the difference between 44.1 / 96 / 192 kHz or the quality of oversampling ever posts any example to proof it or explains the difference he can hear while using which kind of processing.

Standard (cramped) digital EQs? Sure there is a big difference in the high range, but that's because of the EQ algorithm delivering different curves with different nyquist frequencies.

Saturation/distortion FX? Sure there is a difference because of less/different aliasing.

Oversampled limiters/compressors? Again there is a diference because of inter sample peaks leading to different behavior of the detection algorithm and different aliasing.

So anyone who claims his recording sounds dull at 44.1 kHz but crystal clear at 96 kHz, please provide some files and information about what processing has been done. I'm sure the source of the difference is due to some different processing.

And furthermore, I bet no one of you could clearly identify an original 96 / 192 kHz recording compared to a file that was properly downsampled to 44.1 kHz and then upsampled to 96 / 192 kHz again in a real ABX test just by ear and not by looking at the spectrograph.

 

HANS !!!!!!

 

With simple and effective words, you've just explained why it is preferable to use higher sample rates in a recording studio

 

In these cases, yes, maybe. Different is not always better. One may like the sound of a non oversampled hard limiter on a dance track better that an oversampled true peak one.

Or for example changing the sample rate from 44.1 to 96 kHz in the DAW after dialing in DAW EQs in the mixing stage to get a better result. I once had a client who provided me with 96 kHz stems to get the best out of his master and some tracks had very different high end than in his own example master. We then found out that he was recording and mixing in 44.1 kHz due to saving processing power and finally created the stems in 96 kHz to do "something good" but instead changed all the treble curves of his DAW EQs.

In the end you just have to know what you are doing.

 

*Regardless if it was oversampled or not is the relevant addition here.

I also do not quite understand what the relevant difference between applying a low pass at >20kHz or not should be. It's like saying exactly this. "I have a low pass at 22kHz now everything sounds dull." I doubt this without any tehnical proof that goes beyond golden ears.

 

This video covers it well enough...

If you ask me, I'm using 48 but I used and would have continued to use 44.1 if it wasn't for peers and clients all using/requesting for 48. Now I track/record most projects in 48. The extra headroom helps a little bit with aliasing on some plugins without being too straining on resources, and I can always oversample if I need to.

 

Okay, here it is:

 

No, this is a forum where members can start threads no matter if they have something to say, to ask or post other people's statements to discuss about (within the limits of the rules, ofc).

 

I don't understand why we are even debating on this..

 

Fine. But is it a problem with the technical background of this system per se, or is it just a result of technical failure because FabFilter Plugins are really not well programmed?



Because things this dramatically like the x32 os will not happen when I apply this setting at for example Venn V-Clip. And in this case it really seems not to be relevant for me to be honest.

 

gotta do something in between renders

 

Yes. Both.

Okay, fair enough!
Then let me put it this way:
When you're mastering, and only have this plugin in your chain that uses an antialiasing filter, no problem. When you are mixing multitracks and you are very sparing with effects that use antialiasing, again - no problem.
But it can become a problem if there are several plugins on many inserts in a mix that use antialiasing in the signal path, and on the sub-busses, and several on the stereo bus. Please note: I say it can become a problem, not that it is necessarily always a problem. On one hand, no EQ in the world can restore the increasingly audible loss (or to be more precise: shift) of highs later in the signal chain. On the other hand, this can also be used consciously (or unconsciously) to one's own advantage, in several respects. At least that's my take on it.

 

Last edited: Sep 28, 2023

I thought you can't use oversampling with 44.1.. I was told it doesn't do anything.. that's what I was told anyways