hardware vs. software samplers

I suppose it depends on the sound you're looking for, but if you look at the audio via spectral graph, you will see differences, and there are subtle changes in the audio that may not be completely noticeable consciously but can have an effect on someone listening to it. Think about it as you would a florescent tubes or monitor. Refresh rates under 75Hz can effect certain people, and the large reason people became sick in the office in the 80s-90s was because of low refresh rate tubes and computer monitors. Although 44kHz is theoretically high enough for audio to sound clear after a good CD mastering run through, it is always good (especially in any digital art) to have some head room in terms of quality.

I personally enjoy having the frequency spectrum cut off at a higher frequency, allowing me to sculpt the sound with EQs and so on to have a more natural sounding frequency roll off. Then after mastering is done you can downsample it and get the benefits of mastering at a higher sampling rate.

Either way I don't know, I wouldn't use lower quality material just because successful bands have done it before. That'd be like deciding to compress the fuck out of all your music just because a band like White Stripes is popular...

I like the 12 bit sampler sound. It's the one thing that's tempted me to go back to hardware samplers.

  Tamas said:

  blicero said:

  Tamas said:

The thing about hardware samplers is their sample rate may not be so great, but of course I don't have any numbers.

 

If you play live shows, then a hardware sampler that can go as high as 96KHz would be quite nice, but software samplers can go even higher (and of course it all depends on the sample rate of your samples, lol), so in the end I think it'd be more worth it to get something for free than something that may only benefit you in a live environment.

 

audio fidelity is for fags.

 

and richard devine.

 

Lol well if you're using any digital hardware/software, good luck having it sound decent at 44kHz. But I guess if you're just doing it for fun and don't want to release anything on a label then it's ok.

tamas, I've been holding my tongue so far against the utter rubbish you've been sprouting and i'm finding it hard to hold back any longer. you basically want people to think you know what you're talking about by writing in a pseudo-knowledgable way and quoting numbers and figures. to anyone with any idea about music production however, what you say is quite clearly bollocks 100% of the time. i suggest shutting the fuck up about stuff you obviously have an extremely rudimentry grasp of.

  Tamas said:

I suppose it depends on the sound you're looking for, but if you look at the audio via spectral graph, you will see differences, and there are subtle changes in the audio that may not be completely noticeable consciously but can have an effect on someone listening to it. Think about it as you would a florescent tubes or monitor. Refresh rates under 75Hz can effect certain people, and the large reason people became sick in the office in the 80s-90s was because of low refresh rate tubes and computer monitors. Although 44kHz is theoretically high enough for audio to sound clear after a good CD mastering run through, it is always good (especially in any digital art) to have some head room in terms of quality.

 

I personally enjoy having the frequency spectrum cut off at a higher frequency, allowing me to sculpt the sound with EQs and so on to have a more natural sounding frequency roll off. Then after mastering is done you can downsample it and get the benefits of mastering at a higher sampling rate.

 

Either way I don't know, I wouldn't use lower quality material just because successful bands have done it before. That'd be like deciding to compress the fuck out of all your music just because a band like White Stripes is popular...

again - just shut up because you make yourself sound like an idiot. think about it like the tubes on a monitor?? what the screaming jesus fuck are you talking about?? please cease and desist with all your "advice".

Ummmm really what is a forum for, if not getting different opinions?

And just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that my facts are incorrect.

And please, why must you insult me and assume I am talking out of my ass when you don't even have a clue what I'm saying? Considering you make electronic music it's quite surprising that you don't even know what the refresh rate on a monitor is.

Even worse than that, you don't realize the importance of a higher sampling rate? Did you even read my post? Are you not aware of the differences between a 44kHz and 96kHz wav file?

Some of you take things too personally, not everyone will make music exactly the way you do, and there are advantages/disadvantages to the way you do it. Recognize this and don't get all pissy when someone's just trying to give the person the other side of the picture.

And wait, you think that analog synths are better than digital, right? Or at least, you buy analog hardware for that nice "analog sound"? Do you not even realize that one of the major advantages of analog recording is the fact that there is no sampling rate, giving the recording that "warmth"? But whatever, keep telling me I'm an idiot and everything I spew is incorrect.

I'd be fine if you disagreed with my opinion, but really, unless you misread my previous post, I really can't see how you think I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I sample with my computer and with my SP-303, you get way different styles with the two interfaces. Incorporating both is great.

  BCM said:

tamas, I've been holding my tongue so far against the utter rubbish you've been sprouting and i'm finding it hard to hold back any longer.

I have to agree. Sorry Tamas, but you have the air of received opinion about you. Either that, or you're one of the more 'sophisticated' trolls this place sometimes gets.

Kaka

  Tamas said:

Ummmm really what is a forum for, if not getting different opinions?

 

And just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that my facts are incorrect.

 

And please, why must you insult me and assume I am talking out of my ass when you don't even have a clue what I'm saying? Considering you make electronic music it's quite surprising that you don't even know what the refresh rate on a monitor is.

 

Even worse than that, you don't realize the importance of a higher sampling rate? Did you even read my post? Are you not aware of the differences between a 44kHz and 96kHz wav file?

 

Some of you take things too personally, not everyone will make music exactly the way you do, and there are advantages/disadvantages to the way you do it. Recognize this and don't get all pissy when someone's just trying to give the person the other side of the picture.

 

And wait, you think that analog synths are better than digital, right? Or at least, you buy analog hardware for that nice "analog sound"? Do you not even realize that one of the major advantages of analog recording is the fact that there is no sampling rate, giving the recording that "warmth"? But whatever, keep telling me I'm an idiot and everything I spew is incorrect.

 

I'd be fine if you disagreed with my opinion, but really, unless you misread my previous post, I really can't see how you think I have no idea what I'm talking about.

i think you have no idea what you're talking about because you insinuated that a record company wouldn't take you seriously if you sent them a demo with samples less than 96khz. that's absolutely ridiculous and blatantly not true. your advice always has an air of smugness about it as if you think you're advice is the only valid point. I've never heard any of your music and am willing to bet you're not signed to any label so you don't really have any credentials to back your advice up with. and your analogy of the monitor was just silly.

Yeah I didn't get the thing about the monitor.

  Tamas said:

I'd be fine if you disagreed with my opinion, but really, unless you misread my previous post, I really can't see how you think I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Well, you haven't brought up one actual, valid reason that recording at high sample rates can (not "does" or "will") yield better perceived quality (HINT: it's got nothing to do with frequency response). But shit, if you think that having a bunch of inaudible, high-frequency garbage in your recordings is the secret to a pleasing, label-friendly mix, well then by all means carry on. I'm sure that the bemulleted doofus at Guitar Center that sold you on the idea explained it to you with analogies just as obtuse as the ones you've presented in this thread.

The guy at my local Guitar Center told me what I really need is a TC-303 and then run it into a TC-909.

you'd be better off increasing the bit depth. at least it's mathematically perfect when you do your final scale-down.

  Tamas said:

  blicero said:

  Tamas said:

The thing about hardware samplers is their sample rate may not be so great, but of course I don't have any numbers.

 

If you play live shows, then a hardware sampler that can go as high as 96KHz would be quite nice, but software samplers can go even higher (and of course it all depends on the sample rate of your samples, lol), so in the end I think it'd be more worth it to get something for free than something that may only benefit you in a live environment.

 

audio fidelity is for fags.

 

and richard devine.

 

Lol well if you're using any digital hardware/software, good luck having it sound decent at 44kHz. But I guess if you're just doing it for fun and don't want to release anything on a label then it's ok.

  Tamas said:

I suppose it depends on the sound you're looking for, but if you look at the audio via spectral graph...

HAHAHA! Thank you so very much for proving my point.

I listen to music with my ears... not by watching a spectral graph. If you need a spectral graph to tell you that music sounds good, you need help.

i bet Funky Drummer looks like shit on a spectral graph.

  loganfive said:

you'd be better off increasing the bit depth. at least it's mathematically perfect when you do your final scale-down.

finally. someone who understands the problem.

could someone explain the difference between the Roland SP-555 and the 404? i'm thinking the 555 has a sequencer, more pad triggers, the beam thing, and a foot pedal outlet. anything else noteworthy?

404 is a web page error while 555 is a crappy digital multivibrator.

i love analog for its audio accuracy

(true story)

loganfive: good point, I didn't even think about that lol. It's actually funny, I generally don't think about bit depth too much, though I suppose it is more important than sample rate since it may be possible to hear the difference between the two, especially in a fadeout.

blicero: Just because you think it sounds good, doesn't mean it does. If you listen to the same loop for an hour, it will sound great. Leave the room, do something else, and listen to it again, and it probably won't sound so good. Or just take a track off a great album, and listen to it right after listening to your's, and then you'll see how much work is left. And either way, I wasn't even talking about using spectral graphs during mastering, I just meant to see the difference in how much of the frequency spectrum you can use. Though if you do mastering without ever looking at the spectrum analysis, well, I don't really know what to say. I guess I hope you get someone who knows how to master to take a look at it...

Either way I admit my statement was flawed since I didn't mention the bit rate as well, but depending on what you do the quality of the files is important. =) Lol maybe I should just not respond to anymore hardware vs software posts, everyone is wayyyyyy too sensitive about this question...

  Tamas said:

I should just not respond to anymore posts

fixt

  BCM said:

  Tamas said:

I should just not respond to anymore posts

 

fixt

At least you're well aware of the fact that you can only read fragmented parts of sentences... =)

you not follow instructions

oh it's talk out of your arse thread!

isn't a higher sample rate (as well as the bit rate of course) just better for internal accuracy of the math operations which generate the waveform?

isn't a wavetable lookup always aliased compared to an ideal sinusoid waveform... and if something is aliased and you add several aliased things together it becomes more aliased or at least your aliasing won't help in the process.... dunno, much like working with pixel images.

so err you'll definitely notice a difference between 44khz and 96khz when working with Ableton Live for example.... but still Tamas got it all wrong.

  plangplang said:

oh it's talk out of your arse thread!

 

isn't a higher sample rate (as well as the bit rate of course) just better for internal accuracy of the math operations which generate the waveform?

 

isn't a wavetable lookup always aliased compared to an ideal sinusoid waveform... and if something is aliased and you add several aliased things together it becomes more aliased or at least your aliasing won't help in the process.... dunno, much like working with pixel images.

 

 

 

so err you'll definitely notice a difference between 44khz and 96khz when working with Ableton Live for example.... but still Tamas got it all wrong.

Working with a higher resolution will result in a higher quality sounding end product... And the way a track is dithered will make a difference, that's why if you're mastering for a CD and you want to go down to 16 bits it's a good idea to use a good dithering algorithm, like the one that is in the Waves bundle.

  plangplang said:

oh it's talk out of your arse thread!

 

isn't a higher sample rate (as well as the bit rate of course) just better for internal accuracy of the math operations which generate the waveform?

DING!!!

pretty much, thought there's an argument for mixing at a higher sample rate for vinyl reproduction. good quality vinyl (given the right monitoring chain) has the capacity for hypersonics, which, whilst inaudible, can colour the frequency range lower down. cd does better at lower frequencies. (very few people have stereo equipment capable of producing a sound where it'll make a squit of difference though.) as someone earlier said, however, it's best not to add too much energy into the inaudible ranges unless you have a purpose in mind. it fucks with your mixdown levels.

good luck if you're a human hearing the difference between 48 and 96. most mere mortals have difficulty with the difference between a 192 mp3 and a wav at 44/16.

It's always been my understanding that recording and mixing at 96kHz can sound better than 44khz because phase accuracy increases with higher sample rates, improving things like stereo imaging and shit like that. There can be no arguing that DVD audio can provide higher fidelity than CD audio, but it has very little (if anything) to do with the frequency response. It's the same reason you want a mixer with 100kHz bandwidth: phase linearity.

Anyway, wasn't this about hardware vs. software samplers? I think they're both swell. If you're using any kind of hardware sequencer, an "actual" sampler is indispensable. Nice for running through external effects, as well. A bit of a chore to program, but they kind of force you to get intimate with your samples and keygroups in a way that soft samplers don't.