I just upgraded to a lenovo w520 with quad core and living the extra cpu to bring all my old projects to 96khz. I was never a proponent of "more khz the better it sounds", but man does it make a difference. BTW, my scope box died a few years ago so I'm running full native, so I think the internal clock may affect native stuff more than it does for scope stuff, since I guess for scope is internally handled a higher resolution anyway? (anyone correct me)
I've never been a believer in the more khz the better arena, but at least for native stuff, the difference is so great, and the best part is it's immediately audible. So speaking to people who may still belong to the "more khz? bleh" gang, try it, and you'll be surprised. ah well, I may be preaching to the choir..
going up to 96khz and possibly beyond
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3283
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Re: going up to 96khz and possibly beyond
That's the lappy I am thinking of getting, although to use with XITE-1.
Are you talking about VST instruments sounding better, or real-world audio recordings? Or both? The instruments I can imagine would sound better (improving filter aliasing perhaps).
I never got very far with XITE-1 at 96k, but I imagine that some of the instruments may sound better to some degree, but I don't imagine actual audio will sound that different.
Are you talking about VST instruments sounding better, or real-world audio recordings? Or both? The instruments I can imagine would sound better (improving filter aliasing perhaps).
I never got very far with XITE-1 at 96k, but I imagine that some of the instruments may sound better to some degree, but I don't imagine actual audio will sound that different.
Re: going up to 96khz and possibly beyond
Yes it would help to clarify what you're using Mr Arkadin. Some of my eq's will benefit in native form, but a lot of the plugins I own already oversample internally where needed (eq's and VI's). Reaktor and Kontakt would probably benefit, and I'm sure absynth will, but with current styles I don't mix the upper mids & hf's as high as I used to anyway so I'm not sure how much anyone would care unless I'm making pure ambient synth soundbed material.
Some of the synths won't even sound the same in Scope I would imagine, unless they've been updated to run at 88.2/96k as well as 44.1/48. Eq's and filters will benefit where they're not already being oversampled...speaking of which does Minimax work at 96khz these days?
Some of the synths won't even sound the same in Scope I would imagine, unless they've been updated to run at 88.2/96k as well as 44.1/48. Eq's and filters will benefit where they're not already being oversampled...speaking of which does Minimax work at 96khz these days?
-
jksuperstar
- Posts: 1638
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:57 pm
Re: going up to 96khz and possibly beyond
I have a Minimax patch @ 96K just to hear it it. I didn't spend much time with it, but it worked fine.
BTW, I have a Lenovo w520 for 6 months now, it works like a charm. I can't find anything to complain about! Ask if you have any questions.
BTW, I have a Lenovo w520 for 6 months now, it works like a charm. I can't find anything to complain about! Ask if you have any questions.
Re: going up to 96khz and possibly beyond
Good to know, I'm not on current versions of Scope (4.x still) but definitely remember a time when Minimax wouldn't work at higher samplerates since it was already oversampling internally. Nice to know that's been updated for modern workflows.jksuperstar wrote:I have a Minimax patch @ 96K just to hear it it. I didn't spend much time with it, but it worked fine.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Re: going up to 96khz and possibly beyond
I was talking about vst stuff. My scope box died years ago and though I'd love to bring it back to life, laptop + native is about all the time I have to manage these days. (now that our kid is 2 years old)
True, some vsti seem to benefit more than others, some freebie ones aren't optimized and all the patches sound different in 96khz. but anyway, overall improvement is remarkable for vst and vsti. W520 itself is a beast as well.
True, some vsti seem to benefit more than others, some freebie ones aren't optimized and all the patches sound different in 96khz. but anyway, overall improvement is remarkable for vst and vsti. W520 itself is a beast as well.
Re: going up to 96khz and possibly beyond
Yea I understood you were speaking native/vsti, I just used minimax as an example that I thought might be familiar in a Scope community. I don't really use many free vsti's unfortunately though, so can't comment there. Actually that's not entirely true, I do use a few free things still but mostly in the line of http://www.airwindows.com/ (he has some great saturation models, some of which internally oversample some don't) or http://www.soundhack.com/spectral-shapers/ ... I used to use more but since I use Cubase less than Live or Logic I have to worry about compatibility more.
Re: going up to 96khz and possibly beyond
Reaper has many different options for mixing, but not really processing the plug ins, although it does seem to benefit when using the 39bit ( 48bit Integer ), and the 64bit Float option.
I know on the XITE-1 48k processing just so I could use Solaris into AES/EBU does help in the quality of EQ, Delay and Reverb quality, as when I had the cards, I usually used hardware as the effects, except Delays which I like a little dirty, as the converters weren't quite as good and even the A/D for mono hardware effects and Delays was awful.
I know on the XITE-1 48k processing just so I could use Solaris into AES/EBU does help in the quality of EQ, Delay and Reverb quality, as when I had the cards, I usually used hardware as the effects, except Delays which I like a little dirty, as the converters weren't quite as good and even the A/D for mono hardware effects and Delays was awful.