Hello mspape, 

To be honest, we don´t have a plan for the pricing. But it will NOT get cheaper.... If you know that you want Dimension Strings, get it now [:)]

Paul 

As you can read in the first post, the price was 50 Euros less than it is now.

I'm not aware of any sample library that is anything but 44.1 kHz.

24

I doubt there's any jump to 24/96 in the near future.  Or even the mid future.  No point...

Not sure that 96k or 192k can give better sound. It may help for stretching perhaps?

See those discussions:

Serious question about format work

Vienna Library in 96k?

Best,

 There is no audible difference sampling at 96Khz, if you can hear a difference then it is a failing of your D/A converter not performing well enough.

Microphones do not record anything much above 20KHz

Monitor speakers do not reproduce anything much above 20KHz

A human being cannot hear anything above 20KHz

It is always best to get rid of anything above 20KHz, because the only thing it can do is cause aliasing distortion - so if a mix sounds "better" at 96KHz, it's because the distortion added is changing things.

All 96KHz would do, is reduce the computers ability to play about half of what it can do at the moment - for no gain.

 192KHz and 96Khz are used for marketing purposes and have nothing to do with improved quality. 

Equipment developers talk about 96KHz, in a way so that it makes their product "appear" better than mere 44.1/48KHz products.  Recording studios use it to get more business  because the uninitiated customer believes this "is bound to be better", don't forget the average consumer thinks that mp3's are better than CD - because they are a "newer" innovation. It is a marketing world.

If you stood infront of a guitar amp - you cannot hear anything above 20KHz, so recording it at 96KHz, is still not going to let you hear anything above 20KHz.   44.1KHz will record everything and above what you can hear  (by you, I mean a human being).

So there is no difference in the captured audio file at 96KHz or 44.1KHz that you can hear. If you can hear a difference then it can only be the A-D/D-A converter that processes the file so that you can hear it.

So, to keep this scientific,  perhaps you could let us know which microphone, monitors and converters you use,  and most importantly tell us what sounds different between 44.1KHz  and 96KHz.

It could well be time to stop fooling yourself on the placebo effect of pressing the 96KHz button.

A commercial studio may have to produce 96KHz audio for customer requests, and will have to oblige and use it - it is nothing to do with quality.

A quick apology to the OP of this thread, as it has got a little bit hijacked by another topic,  but the original thread topic had run it's course anyway.

The bit depth is the vertical resolution and the sample rate is the horizontal resolution in a digital sound wave. Isn't it possible that having a higher horizontal resolution will make the wave become "rounder" and more accurate, even below 20 KHz? 

Something tells me that with a higher resolution there is more accuracy, especially when manipulating the sound. I have no idea, it's just a thought.

Hi all of you,

I would like to add a practical point of view. 

My violin dimension library take more than 60 Gig on my hard disk (more than 700 Go for my still incomplete VSL's collection; I can already figure that the whole DImension String will take about 200 Gig). That stuff is using a lot of Ram too. So I planned buying a second SSD (drive SSD 1 is allocated to OS and aplications) to replace my 2 Tb internal HD. I'll need a 1Tb SSD and a lot of new memory ("just" 16 Gig at the moment). Moving to 96kHz would cost at least 200% $.

But space is not all. There's also the CPU… My iMac24 2011 (i7) is OK for now. I'm not sure at all it will be powerful enough for my future projects. The new generation of Intel's CPU does a gain of 20-30%. Interesting, but enough? Luckly, I have a second computer, my new MacBook Retina (i7 and SSD). I can use it to relieve my first computer. I am using MIR. So I will have to buy a second license (MIR 24?). I could save money by sending the audio signal from each of the instruments that are on my MacBook to MIR on my iMac. This can work, but the number of instruments should not be too large, otherwise the Ethernet connection between the two devices could be saturated. All this is in the real world with 24bit/44kHz samples. I dare not imagine what would happen with 96kHz samples. A world at 192kHz seems simply unrealistic for still many years.

As many have pointed out, the idea that a sound recording is better by sampling with resolution higher than 48khz is a myth. One can speculate that such a resolution could be useful when complex calculations (EQ, stretching, etc.). But scientific studies with blind tests show that there is no real interest to keep this "quality" for the final product.

Anyway, what I wanted to put forward in my comment is that only important quality gain can justify the additional investment resulting from the transition to the 96kHz standard. In practice, I join those who think it would be a waste of resources (financial as well as technical).

Have a nice day.

@gregb said:

I can hear it with any decent flat set of monitors and any decent mic - more air and less harsh top. Fact is 16/44 was sold as being perfect and it clearly is not....24/44.1 is also not perfect. Why dont you try your own scientific 24/44 24/192 test? :o) I'm out.

You really haven't been reading what's been stated here, from a true 100% accurate scientific point of view - you cannot hear anything above 22KHz - so scientifically recording at 96KHz will make no audable difference, because 44.1KHz will capture everything and beyond what you can hear. If you really can hear a difference, then you best buy a  better quality interface that doesn't add distortion to your signal.

Still,  the whole market relies on gullible people that think something is better when it actually isn't - it's called marketing.... 

Dear Gregb,

Of course I tried 24/92 kHz (on acoustic guitar particularly). Very good mic and monitors and top quality Headphones, more than decent preamp and DA converter, etc. I made blind comparaison. Tested it with some friends too. 24/48 kHz recordings were choosen about 60% (seems to sound a little bit less «Digital»). After two years of hard working, I finished a CD few weeks ago (mix of samples and real audio takes). At my surprize, it seems to sound a little bit better on my audio system after I went from 24/48Khz to 16/44kHz! Dithering added some good «noise»… 😉. So I tried to understand why and I read some interesting papers like this one (see particularly last pages and conclusion).

The 16/24 bit choice is a totally different question. 24 bit adds obvious and tangible advantage for studio working (much much more dynamics). Not so sure for final listener since most of modern music (on CD or other media) is very compressed («maximising» could be a more appropriate word).

Our sound (and music) perception is as subjective than objective. And perhaps it's a good thing after all.

Sorry if you're going out.

 No, I don't assume 44.1KHz captures perfectly upto 20KHz,  I know it DOES.

Here is an intresting web pages that demonstrates this:-

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~glover/applets/Sampling/Sampling.html

It is showing that there is absolutely no point in sampling more than twice the required frequency, that was discovered in 1928 and proved in 1959.

You must never overlook the fact that human beings cannot hear anything above 22KHz (most people struggle above 18KHz), so any harmonics above that will never be heard and thus there is no point in capturing them.

Actually, have you realised that any fundamental waveform above 10KHz will sound like a sine wave to us?  Because the second harmonic is beyond what we can hear.

@andyjh said:

 No, I don't assume 44.1KHz captures perfectly upto 20KHz,  I know it DOES.

Here is an intresting web pages that demonstrates this:-

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~glover/applets/Sampling/Sampling.html

It is showing that there is absolutely no point in sampling more than twice the required frequency, that was discovered in 1928 and proved in 1959.

You must never overlook the fact that human beings cannot hear anything above 22KHz (most people struggle above 18KHz), so any harmonics above that will never be heard and thus there is no point in capturing them.

Actually, have you realised that any fundamental waveform above 10KHz will sound like a sine wave to us?  Because the second harmonic is beyond what we can hear.