Bit Depth, Sample Rate and Softsynths

[djsinistral]

Isn't that like having a flea jumping competition inside someone's lounge, and then deciding "no, this won't do at all. We need to hold this competition inside a cathedral!"

Hehe brilliant analogy! Thanks all for the discussion..

I guessed there's no definitive answer. We're talking about fidelity so high the human ear has no way of discerning the difference...

However, we all know that summing large track counts to stereo exaggerates any audio quality issues (for example, the noise floor in each track is added, creating a much higher noise floor). So we can't trust our ears at the pre-summing stage...

Anyone know what sample and bit-rate recognised producers use for stems? Brian Eno? Richard D James? Joel Zimmerman even?? They're probably onto that 1bit system now

[deva]

Most of the time I render softsynths at 44.1kHz and don't worry about it. Very rarely I'll render them at 96Khz just to see which I prefer, as was mentioned, with a few synths it can make a slight difference. Not better or worse I find, but it's interesting to compare none the less. Even if I choose the 96k version, I downsample it to 44.1kHz right away anyway.

Not sure exactly WHY they sometimes sound different at various sample rate, but there you go. I figure it's an aliasing thing most likely, so using 96k is pushing the aliasing up beyond Nyquist. That's one reason I don't mind downsampling right away to 44.1kHz.

Yeah, I also downsample rendered synths. For me it's an aliasing thing... The high end is a bit cleaner at 96khz. In particular intense modulations and audio rate modulations sound better to me at 96khz. I have no interest in keeping the project at 96khz. In fact, I wish my host could keep the project at 44.1/48 but bounce the synth at 88.2/96

[Tarekith]

Sometimes I like the sound of the 44.1 version better, even if the 96k is technically less distorted. It might have just the bite or smoothness I'm looking for, where as maybe the 96k one sounds too smooth or clean.

[Dragonbreath]

I have always used 48khz for recording audio could notice reasonable difference in quality without too much stress on CPU.

Had heard one day that softsynth sounded better when at 96khz.
Was shocked at difference in sound when I tried it with operator.
It sounded deeper and fuller. Too bad 96khz is too intense for my system on full projects.

[deva]

Sometimes I like the sound of the 44.1 version better, even if the 96k is technically less distorted. It might have just the bite or smoothness I'm looking for, where as maybe the 96k one sounds too smooth or clean.

I pretty much always like the 96khz better... But most of the time I do not even check anymore. I just use 96khz all the time.

[eyeknow]

Look at my specs below.......I still can't use 96k.......after all these years (shrug)

[Mister Natural]

I don't think you'd gain anything noticeable by a human being between 24bit and 32 bit. It's essentially just the volume's dynamic range is it not? Only at 8 bit can you start hearing some sort of noise floor, at 16 bit you've got a huge dynamic range, at 24 bit you've insane room for error. 32 bit? . . .

^ yes

regarding sample rate : really can't hear any diff b/w 44.1 and 48 and 96 - and I am a human being

:=)

[eyeknow]

Here's how it was explained to me once. This is NOT hard fact, just what remember.

If your converters are shit, then sample rate makes a big dif. If your converters are where they should be (motu/rme) then it's really not a big. I feel like with my focusrite I hear quite a bit of dif but with my profire 610, not really so much.

AGAIN, not saying this is some hard fact, but I wonder about it.

[djsinistral]

I use Apogee converters. I shouldn't hear any difference then, no?

[Tarekith]

Your converters have nothing to do with what we're talking about. Everything we've discussed so far is all internal software stuff, with effects that happen long before the audio hits your converters.

Crap converters just mean you might not be able to hear the difference, doesn't mean the difference isn't there and that other people won't hear it though.

[djsinistral]

True. My crappy first converters sounded as clear as a mobile phone speaker. Pretty sure I couldn't have heard any difference between 24 and 32 bit... Or even 16 bit.

[Tarekith]

I can't hear the difference between 24 and 32 bit even on my mastering rig, probably not even 16 and 24 unless it was super dynamic.

[eyeknow]

Well, everyone has a take. There is no hard/fast rules. (and even those will be debated to death)

I've heard more people debunk and downplay this than I've heard believe there is even a diff. I'm just the messenger...

[Tarekith]

Debunk what, sample rate conversion?

[eyeknow]

I don't wanna get into a thing. I'm just saying that this has all been debated to death. One person says there is no difference, another says there is. I'll leave it there. I just brought up what I did because I've heard it before. Not saying it's a hard fact.