Beiträge von chilly7

Zitat von Ace17

Seriously dude, what's wrong with you?

i do not like people who twist or change words or meaning of other people have seid.
even a singel changed or tiwsted word can change the meaning radicaly, and it is what that man does all the time or
at list in this thread. That man try to look like he has a big knowladge and give us alot of technical staff which
might be correct in most cases but he twist or change one or a fwe words or numbers in that info he gives and that the over meaning what he saying is complitely
falls then. and he wants that falls meaning to give to awrybody.
as it was seid by the God thouse who will change or twist even a singel word in original Bible will be in Hell.
Well that man does not change the Bible but that man gives a correct information in which one or couple changed or twisted words which maked the overal meaning falls.
that what makes me too angre

Zitat von Ace17

No, but you have to admit it might raise some new issues. Like having different max delay times depending on the current sample rate (which is currently not the case). Nothing impossible, at first sight.

Anyway, do you have an idea of why Access didn't already make these sampling rates available?

ok u can ask the same question tape in 1000 BC why Microsoft did no bring Windows 7 already?
get it?!
p.s. if something is still not implemented already it does not meen that it is not a good feature....

Zitat von AtonyB

so I would be upset if Access came along and said hey we've quartered the polyphony on the virus just to satisfy a couple of nutters... can you imagine??

why u puting nonsence again?!
didn't we seid that 96khz should an option. 48 woulkd be still awailable if u need more poliphony.
p.s. ok, please leave this thread now!!!

Zitat von nms

You know Hans Zimmer will spend days working on ONE sound sometimes? Do you know some of the lengths people went to in recording some of the most sonically impressive sounding results over history? Think Thriller was just tossed together by some guys going "bah.. forget all that technical stuff it's the music that matters!" Personally, if I can hear a difference on my iphone playing over speakerphone, I think that's probably something worth concerning myself with. Let's be realistic here.. these days people don't rave about how well the raw Virus oscillators are coded and they don't stand up to current offerings like Diva, Strobe, Massive, or Sylenth. They just don't. The Virus wins by its other merits and deep programmability combined with the user interface. I just wish I had the interface & programmability of my Virus with the raw oscillator quality of today's modern coded offerings. The #1 way a user can improve the sound of older software synths is running them at higher sample rates.

5. Yes, obviously for compatibility. If you work at 88khz which is in fact scientifically proven to be the best SR to work at for digital music production for several reasons then you can't get the Virus operating at higher than 44khz internally if you have a USB plugged into it.
6. Yes
7. The 88/96k environment reduces latency, it doesn't add to it. A 44k synth oversampling to 88k then back down to 44k will have more latency than an 88khz synth going about its business at 88khz.. The 2 issues are the digital audio bandwidth through the virus digital outputs due to usb 1.1 restrictions and the processing power needed. You would be unable to host 3 stereo outs at 88/96k, but you could easily host one over USB, one over S/PDIF, plus your analog outs. As far as internal processing goes, the Ti2 is MORE than sufficiently capable of running at 88/96. People wanting a higher sample rate option for studio recording would trade half their polyphony in the blink of an eye to do it if such a mode were available.

Anyone who actually knows what they're talking about here (ie, absolutely not AntonyB) and the majority of developers who make all our best vst instruments and processing will recommend working at higher sample rates. We're talking about the people who as a matter of fact know better. Even where recording audio is concerned, take Dan Lavry for instance (one of the industry leaders in high end AD/DA conversion) who has openly stated that the ideal sample rate to use in recording is 60khz - and the ideal rate of any that are in current use would be the closest thing up from that which is 88khz.

All of this info is freely available to any of you guys on the internet. There's no excuse for living in the dark about it if you're actually interested in knowing. Go read what industry leaders like Andy from Cytomic (developer of D-CAM Synth Squad, The Glue, etc) or Dan Lavry say about it.

What the current market offers is far from irrelevant. If you don't understand gear at all I can see how manufacturer offerings would be confusing or misleading but anyone who knows what they're doing knows that more isn't always better. I don't need 16 channels of conversion to run 3 synths and I don't need converters that work at 192 or 384khz in order to do my work at 88khz. Lavry for example refuses to offer AD/DA converters that work higher than 96khz. If you spent $8000 on their top of the line Lavry Gold DAC you're still not going to be able to record higher than 96k. Why? Because they know what they're doing and don't encourage recording at higher rates based on evidence showing that going beyond 96k causes converters to be less accurate and not more..

Yes and I might be teaching nuclear physics at Harvard. There is absolutely nothing noble about his involvement here whatsoever. He's trolling a thread arguing about a subject he does not understand and hasn't tested. It doesn't matter how many big words or terms he throws around or how suddenly for internet argument's sake he's finishing a PhD in dsp. It makes zero difference at all when he tries to keep up in a conversation about things he's not qualified to dispute due to not having taken the time to test it on the relevant gear in question. This is why he doesn't know any better. Some people would rather come to a debate with a lot of hot air though rather than take the time to back it up. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. If you're going to waste people's time you'll wear out your welcome.

A lot of people can sound like they know what they're talking about, but ask them to prove their words or back it up and it's a whole other story.

Alles anzeigen

nicely seid,Totaly agree

Zitat von Ruari

sorry guys little oftopic:
ok. i never want to be offensive.
yes u might be right but in the same time that man sounds exectly like thouse who will figh to death and will tell
$ 200 guitar sound exectly the same as $5000 and u do not need to buy 5000$ guitar, or thouse people who
tell that aliens does not exist with no knowladge about that topic and all their will guesses are based on just looking in to the sky.
and if they did not see anything that means it does not exist. and what makes me more angree that they state their
willguesses as a truth.
so i am stoping on that and will better ignore that man.
now lets back on topic
There are a reasons why modern Phisical moddeling VSTs alow u to use a huge upsampling and alow u to run
at 96khz rate. they did not put thouse staff just for fan, but there re is a benefit of using it. and even if u will down
sample the end result to 48khz there still will be benefit

Zitat von AtonyB

chose 44.1 kHz as a sample rate for CD audio with very good reason and that 48 kHz is enough of a concession to relax the requirements of SRC by having a huge guard band (4 kHz!) whilst keeping the bandwidth low.

All the while forgetting that almost nobody can hear 18 kHz, let alone 20kHz anyway!

44.1 at 16 bit was selected not because it is perfect but because they could not put more because cd has a very limited space and in that time DVD or Blurays
was not invented. also a couple TB hardrivers was not mainstream too...
actualy orginaly they wanted to put 36Khz at 10 bit sample rate but it was so bad that they ended up with 44.1 at 16 bit because they could not put more.

Zitat von nms

wtf? difficulty in reproducing it? You really don't seem very good at understanding things man and I have no idea what on earth you are doing repeatedly involving yourself in the topic in this and other threads. Pick a topic you actually know about if you feel the need to comment. It keeps things focused and saves the time of people having to correct you.

agree, i am tied of that anoying man, it seems he just laying on the couch by TV all day long and he does not know how to spend his time so he post
nonsence on the forum

Zitat von AtonyB

Incidentally - there is a discrepancy in the behaviour in some circumstances between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz - which I would put down to being a feature of the Virus... It's by no means a physical limitation. Also, the difficulty in reproducing it also demonstrates what a fringe issue it is.

man u do not need that feature then blow away, because sombody needs that future

Zitat von muzikman2008

A wise man once said....
All good things come to those who wait!

Can i know his name?
A Access CEO? u-ha-ha

Zitat von nms

that pitch doubling trick could yield some interesting results. In theory this should replicate the effects although it obviously doesn't adress the big issue of just wanting that kind of performance to stream live out of the machine to reference while you work and save the time of workarounds. As that file above indicates, there's significant difference between 44 and 48. None of us really has any idea how much improvement we'd see from running it at 88 or 96k without actually doing it. I'm going to have to do some tests.

Sure you can capture and then upsample.. but if the top end sheen is filtered off and a little aliased at the source then there lies the issue. The virus is well documented for having a darker sound, which would disappear when operating at higher sample rates making the darker sound an option rather than automatic.

I think it is nonsence, "if u want to get a dark sound just lower the sample rate"
so if i want a really dark sound should i run awrything at 10 Khz?! bla-bla.
p.s. Just use a lowpass filter man or eq it!

Zitat von nms

Does it really need a rewrite to enable a couple of higher clock settings to the selection screen for those who don't care about the polyphony or output trade off?

People grossly misuse Nyquist with assumptions that were never EVER intended to be made. Nyquist holds water only where capturing audio is concerned and taking liberties with it in a digital production environment will give you wrong answers. 16bit is the distributable format, but we don't work in 16 bit now do we? Why is that? Obviously it's because working with more allows for less loss to inadvertently take place[u ]throughout the course of the digital production environment. It's a fool's move to accept 24bit (or 32bit FP for that matter) without question but deny working above 44k mistakenly citing Nyquist.

The wavetables of the Virus are more alias free than the classic oscillators which are really old now and haven't been updated. Yes, Synth Squad runs circles around it where aliasing and sonic quality are concerned but the interface of the Virus & mod matrix are better than any VST synth I ever used. The GUI and programmability are what makes me feel like I won't part ways with my Virus and just wish I could get that bit extra from it at my 88khz working rate without half assed work arounds that cut into productivity & ease of use.

I've posted this before, but this little experiment shows there is most certainly a difference using the Virus above 44khz. First half is 44khz, second half is generated at 48khz then downsampled to 44.

Virus-Saw-44k-vs-48k-source-downsampled.wav (right click, save as)

It's like taking a blanket off the tweeter and we are talking about a 147hz sawtooth with filter wide open. Oscilloscope & spectrum analyzer used in selecting the takes from many repeated hits to ensure the brightest & purest at each setting, as the virus varies with that.

The reality is, after speaking with Jorg it sounds like we won't see operation above 48k in the foreseeable future. He mentioned their priority with polyphony but I've always prefered quality over quantity and sure would enjoy my Ti2 getting the extra clock modes.
It'd be nice if they found some way to strengthen the core oscillators or (since I know backwards compatibility is importat to them) introduce a fresh set and filter activity that allows you to get the sound of the second half of that sample above even if working at 44 or 88.

Alles anzeigen

totaly agree that qulity should be #1 and only #1 priority.
Then quanity should come next, but not in reverse.
p.s. so hopefuly there will be 96 or 88.2 native sample rates from Virus as soon as possible, because othervise Access loses
too many Studio customers who will go to VSTs alternatives because for a modern VSts high sample rate
or high oversampling is not something unique at all FX expansions DCam Synth Squade, Uhe Ace or Berlin Modular and many more examples....

Zitat von flabberbob

If I understand correctly from previous posts by the moderators, the physical modeling bit IS done at a higher sampling rate (could be even higher than 96kHz), and it is downsampled later in the process, probably to save up on delay/reverb/etc. memory, and FX computing power. Please remember that whatever you do it is always low-pass filtered at around 20kHz, so according to Nyquist, you are covered.

it is still not clear that Nyquist is a "Holy Bible" retorecly speaking...
it term might be used alot as excuse for a lazyness why Audio Cd standart is not still kicked out already in 2012 year, but that is not a point.
luckely nowdays more and more there are possibilities to distribute ur music in high defenition audio to masses.
For example with Blurays or some online stores. also DVD Audio is not really common but it is possible to find it to buy.
but awry years there are more possibilities and even a big distributors and Labels begin to carry DVD Audios....

Zitat von Andy-Robert79

lool my personal opinion . I dont think there is a difference between 48 and 96 in synth sounds.

I think the difference BETWEEN 48 & 96 becomes just a little clear in mastering process, acoustic sounds and maybe reverbs or other mixing efx depending on quality.

So after you record your Virus inside your daw, maybe is better to close the Virus plugin and switch your other soundcard to 96 khz & 32 bits and continue your great work .

I think that your soundcard converters and your mixing&mastering experience will make the big difference . How you fatten and compress and EQ sounds...

there are some great world mixing mastering engineers that prefer 48 khz over 96 khz

Alles anzeigen

Hi
as u seid true, that is ur "personal opinion", but it is not ur "knowladge" 96 vs 48...
but speaking from my "knowladge" but not my "personal opinion" 96 KHz is not just wide frequancy range, but physical modeling software indeed works better at 96khz, belive it or not.
Since Virus is nota rompler but is VA it will benefit as well.
I am not saying that 48 khz is crupp or there is a night and a day difference compare to 96khz but 96khz give a quit better sound quality compare to 48khz.
p.s. What we want from Acces just put them an option to run their synths at 4 different native sample rates 44.1, 48, 88.2 and 96khz. and people according to
their needs will decide what they need more polyphony or less plyphony but a splighly better sound. i am pretty shure in 90 % of studio use 96 and 88.2 Khz
sample rates will be really aprishiated, ofcause for a live use thouse sample rates can be used too, because not many of us need a vey big polyphony as well

sorry for my English it is not my native language but i hope u can understand me.....

Zitat von nms

Is the virus the only synth you use or something and you refuse to actually track anything to audio?? Supersaw orchestra??? I can tell you right now that most professionals (who are the ones most interested in higher sample rates) do not use the Virus in this fashion.

You make utterly no sense. The best modern plugins offer oversampling up to x16 or x32 (beyond what most need or use) and you are acting like having an option for 88 or 96 is some sort of frivolous extreme? Get real. The idea that it detracts from the quality of a product to offer users these extra options is absurd. The sound engine in the Virus is not on par with current digital plugins like D-CAM's Synth Squad or U-HE Diva and it would be a nice asset to add this option for those who'd like to be able to get a little more from its sound.

Btw, you should know better but you reference a "frequency band nobody cares about" as if you have no understanding of digital signal processing, as those words aren't spoken by anyone who knows that's not where the merits lay.

The Virus hardware (Ti2 especially) is fully capable of delivering at least one stereo pair of outputs at 88 or 96khz via USB or S/PDIF. If this was enabled it would take merely a few seconds to switch back and forth for recording something or general use.

Alles anzeigen

Zitat von AtonyB

Maybe its possible to help him to avoid wasting a lot of time and effort into trying to get something he has been fooled into thinking he needs.

Also, by 'got it right' I clearly meant that their decision to not compromise performance by including an option for higher sample rates (I'm assuming the devices are fundamentally capable). It's not as simple as sacrificing voices, either, as they will need twice as much memory in certain stages (or half the maximum delay time for FX, etc.), possibly exceeding the amount of RAM available on the system. That is, unless they do a SRC stage at the front end which renders it utterly redundant.

I would pick more voices, longer delays on FX and more USB channels every time (although presumably a successor will probably be USB 2.0+, so that may be moot). You can get good standalone sample rate converters if you truly are desperate, even ones that are integrated into an audio device.

Incidentally, ACE17 - that would probably yield interesting results, although I think maybe not everything can be appropriately scaled down by a factor of 2 (maybe some non-linear/non-adjustable behaviour in distortions and analogue filter, etc.)

Alles anzeigen

It seems that u don't know what u are tolking about and why in most proffesional studios either 88.2 or 96khz sample rate
are used and what benefits will bring thouse native sample rates to Virus even thought that polyphony might be reduced twise.
p.s. Please if u have no intrest in thouse sample rates please do not post anything here

Zitat von nms

None of us who has any handle on reality believes our Virus was made without room for improvement so do save the comment about how they "got it right". We continue to see improvements to the Virus every year which is a driving force behind the unique value of the Virus. While you're "sure people prefer more voices", there are a LOT of users (most of which aren't hanging out on this forum) who would make use of a high performance mode at the cost of reduced polyphony. Obviously this would be for studio recording, not live.

on the topic of trolling though, what on earth are you doing commenting in a thread about something you have no interest in, requested by people who obviously have different needs and interests than you? What we're after is to have 88/96 enabled as an OPTION that anyone can use or not use according to their needs.

That was my initial thoughts

Zitat von AtonyB

Must... resist... urge...

...Fortunately Marc said all that is needed...

Yes, please resist

Zitat von nms

Yes you certainly should resist the urge. It saves me the time of having to repeat myself or post up examples of how much more the sound & filters open up when running above 44k.
While you might not care about these things AntonyB, I have dropped around $30k into my studio the last 3 years and very much care about the idea of getting better performance & increased flexibility out of my $3400 investment. Especially if it can come from simply enabling two higher sample rates.

The Virus hardware is capable of a higher performance mode at the cost of polyphony. The bandwidth can also support a pair of stereo outs at 88/96 via USB as well as by S/PDIF.

As it stands, the Virus needs to operate at an even multiple of your sound card's sample rate. This is why when working at 96k the Virus operates at 48 but at 88k it operates at only 44k internally.
VC appears to handle the simple (x2) SRC.
It would seem to reason then that the Virus could be enabled to operate at 88khz internally for people working at either 44 or 88khz.

totaly agree

when i am doing DVD Audio i need 96khz though.....
88.2 is good only if u will down sample it to Audio CD, so deithering is better then if u would go from 96Khz,
but if u doing DVD Audio or Bluray 96khz is standart over there.....

Zitat von nms

No way! 88.2khz is more important than 96khz. Right now if you work at 96khz the virus will operate at 48khz internally which is a definite improvement over 44k. If you work at 88khz though the virus only operates at 44khz internally. This is disappointing and at times makes it just a little harder for the Virus to match up sonically to my work environment. Right now the best I can do is change my soundcard's sample rate to 48khz (which causes all my midi gear timing offsets to go out of time while doing this) when it's time to record something, then switch back to 88khz and do a quick SRC of the recorded audio from 48khz to 88.2khz. The sound is more clear & open working above 44k so it's really not ideal composing and tweaking at the lower rate and rendering at the higher. Filters certainly open up more at 48khz I've noticed.

I would kill for the option to run the virus at 88khz internally. I don't ever use my virus for more than a few sounds in a track and wouldn't ever have a problem with halving my polyphony to do it. Right now what I use my Ti2 for most is as a midi controller for my Voyager & Juno 60. Awesome controller and I love making custom templates.. but a little sonic upgrade would be welcome.

Audio resamples cleaner and with less processing working in even doubles between 44khz and 88khz which is why 96khz was intended for the video industry which uses a 48khz distribution standard.

Isn't that a hell of a thing? The video insustry employs a 48khz standard while the audio industry still relies on the same tired old sample rate that came with the dawn of CDs.

Alles anzeigen

ok.we need 44.1, 48, 88.2,96Khz then
Are u happy?

Zitat von Marc

there are parts in the virus sound engine which run on higher sampling rates internally. there are certain things which highly benefit from this extra precision but there are others which wouldn't. this way you get the best result.
marc

Hello
My point is that don't be afraid to implement 96khz native resolution if not in the current but at list in a new gen Virus.
Plyphony? Well just provide 3 modes 44.1,48 and 96Khz and the problem is solved and all targed adience is happy.