128 samples@44.1 ≠ 128 samples@96

Exactly, that's what I meant to say. If you switch the audio system's clock to 96 kHz, the latency will go down.

Kind regards,

Hi all,

About space, I agree that it is no more a problem today (including M2).

About latency, I need to study it deeper…

But let’s talk about sound quality: I did many tests about 44.1 vs 96 kHz with synth sources, and I clearly make a difference (not really with 192kHz, I’m not totally sure).

But it was (reproducible) synth sounds.

I’m not engineer so, three questions here about samples :

Does a mic source will make a perceptible difference between 96 and 44.1kHz ?

Is 96kHz better than 44.1kHz for mixing voices ? (Considering that a sample player is also a mixer.)

And what about processing ? Is is better to process an effect in 96 than 44.1kHz ?

If yes, a 96kHz library would be welcome anyway.

Regards

Gabriel Plalame

This might answer all your questions

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

It would also be interesting to consider the latency of pressing a piano key down, and the time it takes for the action of the hammer to hit the string, and compare it to this latency in using a digital keybed and computer.

I wonder how the two values would differ.....

@littlewierdo said:

Not to mention the memory footprint. A full orchestral piece requires 60 plus gigabytes of ram for me, and that is really nothing in comparison with what it could be. There is a reason why 44.1 at a 16 bit depth rate was chosen for CD audio, this is considered just above the maximum quality that anyone can hear a difference. Anything above this is really unecessary, unless you are time stretching samples (think slow motion video, the more frames you have, the smoother it will be). When it comes to orchestral, I dont think time stretching samples is something many people are apt to do.

1. No disrespect, but have you read the thread?  This is about LIVE instrument playability quality, not RECORDED/MIDI music file playback sound quality or time stretching. 

To summarize, there is a negative effect of latency on pianist's sense of hearing and motor cortex processing as impacted by low sampling frequency.  That is, if you press a key and you expect to hear the sound in 3 Milliseconds, but the sound instead comes to you in 6 Milliseconds, that will be as if the sound board has moved from 3 feet away to 6 feet away.  A bit wierd to say the least.  And that assumes no other latency elsewhere in the sound processing chain.  As there always is this latency in every component, the cumulative effect of latency might mean that the piano sounds as if the sound board is 10 feet or more away.  And that's before we start to consider the effect of jitter, which can be described as the sound board constantly shifting back and forth several feet, with this perceived movement happening from note to note or even during the resonance of a single note.  Aye...very bad indeed for your brain to be 'hearing' the grand piano vibrating back and forth.

Also note that as this jitter is likely random, good luck trying to achieve consistent playback between pieces. And that is true even for playback of MIDI notes in which instruments are closely placed.

There is a way to elilminate the 'sound shifting':  By roughly doubling the frequency from 44 to 96 Khz, the latency of the VSL library is cut in half, and that allows for a more consistent and authentic playing experience. And by doubling again from 96 Khz to 192 Khz the latency is halved again and we have more 'latency headroom' to stay under the audibility threshold.

Don't take my word for it, but do take VSL's deafening silience on this topic as being problematic.  I suggest if my explanations are not sufficient, please research and understand other trusted sources.

2. As to RAM requirements, this piano at 24 bit 44.1 Khz currently has a RAM requirement of 4-6 GB.  Doubling the sampling frequency will half the latency and only require a total of 6 GB * (96/44.1) = 13 GB.  Most laptops with any sort of multimedia claims will have 16 GB RAM or more.

To editorialize a bit, VSL is doing an enormous dis-service to themselves and their customers by attempting to ignore the issue.  Unfortunately, an uneducated customer at some point becomes a frustrated customer...and that's a net negative for musical creativity and classical music as a whole (LONG LIVE POP MUSIC?).

I have, and its chalk full of misinformation and jumps back and forth between audio quality and latency, I was speaking to the audio quality side of the discussion (my response back to you, did YOU read the thread?).

Latency is a huge, convoluted mess of a problem that cannot be nailed down to just one thing, as some have tried to do in this thread. Audio interfaces do not "perform" better with certain resolutions over others, and yes, I confirmed this with a friend of mine who designs audio interface circuitry for ASUS.

Also conveniently missing from this conversation is the significant increase in processing power (and thus delay) required to play back audio with effects at higher sample rates. RAM access times and storage to RAM access times are another big factor, and then, probably the biggest elephant in the room not even discussed is, where the majority of the latency comes from, the MIDI / USB / Firewire interface.

I work with sounds from all sorts of sources, ranging from Orchestral Tools crazy 24 bit samples to, by comparison, EastWests lighter sounds and latency is of ZERO concern to me. It is within expected tolerances of 15-20 MS, all of which is easily compensated for by Kontakt, Play, and Vienna's engines, which have settings that work very well for this. Very rarely do I have to go back and correct timing, unless I am working with something that needs to be REALLY tight (big percussion sections or many staccato notes that need to be really tight).

Finally, most DAWs, on the playback side of things, have a track delay setting that virtually eliminates this problem. My guess is, you havent set a predelay setting in your DAW, look into it, this conversation becomes a moot point once you discover this setting. Then you run into a different problem, calculating the predelay, or determining what the predelay setting should be, because it is different for each manufacturer of soundfonts, and can even be different from library to library (the general default numbers to set in your DAW are 30, 60, or 120 ms). From there, you can add additional time depending on your standard latency, so I usually add about 15 ms and everything I record and playback is spot on the beat.

@TFIS said:

This might answer all your questions

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Hi, TFIS, thanks.

Very good link, the ultrasonic part is enlightening.

If I understand well, high resolution is good for mixing, not delivering. Well, can we imagine a more polyphonal instrument than a piano ? Specially a so powerful multi mics one like Syncron pianos… I very easily get 600 voices with my every day preset with only 3 mics…

Plus, if the VSL team chose the 96kHz resolution to record… it can’t be just for fun…

Regards

Gabriel Plalame

@Crystal said:

Plus, if the VSL team chose the 96kHz resolution to record...it can be just for fun. Regards Gabriel Plalame

@robinlb1900 said:

From this thread, wasn't synchron piano recorded in 96K or higher? Only release version is 44.1K/24bit.

Yes, that's what I mean. "Vienna Instruments are recorded in 96 kHz" (Dietz)

The question is : why ?

If it's better to record in 96 kHz, why reduce it to 44,1 ?

Or, to say it differently : if 44,1 is enough, why recording in 96 ?

Again, SSDs size is not an argument any-more today.

Gabriel Plalame

@robinlb1900 said:

From this thread, wasn't synchron piano recorded in 96K or higher? Only release version is 44.1K/24bit.

I just find this from a french site (https://deveniringeson.com/frequence-echantillonnage/) :

“(...)les pilotes de votre carte son (surtout les convertisseurs professionnel) seront optimisés pour une fréquence d’échantillonnage donnée. En général, les pilotes ASIO de vos convertisseurs sont optimisés pour la fréquence d’échantillonnage maximum qu’elle propose : 96 000 Hz et 192 000 Hz dans la majorité des cas. Ca peut être surprenant, mais vous aurez moins de latence et plus de soulagement pour le micro-processeur avec une fréquence d’échantillonnage plus grande.”

Reverso translation :

“drivers on your sound card (especially professional converters) will be optimized for a given sampling frequency. In general, the ASIO drivers of your converters are optimized for the maximum sampling frequency it offers: 96,000 Hz and 192,000 Hz in the majority of cases. This may be surprising, but you will have less latency and more relief for the microprocessor with a higher sampling rate. »

It could be an element for the discution about latency.

Gabiel Plalame

@Crystal said:

I just find this from a french site (https://deveniringeson.com/frequence-echantillonnage/) :

“(...)les pilotes de votre carte son (surtout les convertisseurs professionnel) seront optimisés pour une fréquence d’échantillonnage donnée. En général, les pilotes ASIO de vos convertisseurs sont optimisés pour la fréquence d’échantillonnage maximum qu’elle propose : 96 000 Hz et 192 000 Hz dans la majorité des cas. Ca peut être surprenant, mais vous aurez moins de latence et plus de soulagement pour le micro-processeur avec une fréquence d’échantillonnage plus grande.”

Reverso translation :

“drivers on your sound card (especially professional converters) will be optimized for a given sampling frequency. In general, the ASIO drivers of your converters are optimized for the maximum sampling frequency it offers: 96,000 Hz and 192,000 Hz in the majority of cases. This may be surprising, but you will have less latency and more relief for the microprocessor with a higher sampling rate. »

It could be an element for the discution about latency.

 

Gabiel Plalame

Right, but we arent just talking about playback, we are also talking about adding FX. The reverbs and other FX we add to our sounds becomes more complex (thus, significantly higher processor usage) with higher sample rates. Its easy enough to test, if you have a library that contains multiple sample rate options, both with and without FX.

Hi, littelwierdo,

I agree that a 96kHz project needs more resources in general, of course, but my quote from the french site really surprise me, and is not totally clear about this : does the Asio optimization for the biggest sample rate concern only the A/D conversion (audio capture) or also the D/A restitution (playback) ? If the playback is also affected, then, logically, VSTIs are or could be affected. Plus, is it the case for all sound cards and all manufacturers ? And how to test this before buying ?

We also have to keep in mind that, as it was said, when the library and project sample-rates don’t match, the real-time re-sampling charge is a problem, specially for a piano library and its outrageous and ferocious polyphonic appetite.

Considering that some engineers make an audible difference between 44.1 and 96kHz at live recording sessions (file by file and/or for the mix ?),

Considering that (in my experience) VSTIs synth software really sound better in a 96kHz project than 44,1kHz, and that when we use that magnificent VSL library, many of us also add synth softwares for sound tracks,

And considering there is no more hardware limitations for 96kHz projects today with a decent computer, in any case not for such a library like Syncron pianos,

So, to use a 96kHz library in a 96kHz project may be the best sound quality/resources compromise for reasonable soundtrack project.

Plus, the big advantage of Syncron pianos is to give us a wonderful natural concert venue for zero CPU charge...

The jitters effects that dmidi mention, and that I didn’t know, has to be taken in consideration too.

And considering that, as Dietz mention, it is recorded in 96kHz, if the VSL team sells a 96kHz upgrade of the Steinway D, I think I’d buy it. They should study the market with current customers.

I’m very curious about the sound quality gain (a really more controversy topic, I think, not sure to launch it here !..)

Regards,

Gabriel Plalame

@Crystal said:

if the VSL team sells a 96kHz upgrade of the Steinway D, I think I’d buy it. They should study the market with current customers.

@Crystal said:

if the VSL team sells a 96kHz upgrade of the Steinway D, I think I’d buy it. They should study the market with current customers.

Maybe before that, the other keys should be sampled, which haven't been.

I can't understand how people can bear 96kHz nowadays. I can't even listen to things under 192kHz. I can feel all that aliasing! So, VSL, please, before going for low numbers, plan to offer us 192kHz samples, multi-channel and sampled in surround!

Paolo

(When I said it was controversy…)

Paolo,

They already record in 96kHz.

Why ?

Gabriel Plalame

@Crystal said:

(When I said it was controversy…)Paolo,They already record in 96kHz.Why ? Gabriel Plalame

@TFIS said:

Maybe before that, the other keys should be sampled, which haven't been.