(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.

@TFIS said:

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

Lower and higher keys have been sampled in whole tone steps, not chromatically.

My concern is, resources are still an issue for me. I write and compose using a single PC, an Intel core i7 8700k with 64 GB of ram. A full orchestral piece consisting of about 60 tracks in which I use every instrument that is loaded, will eat every bit of that ram up in a heartbeat. I cannot upgrade my RAM any more than that, 64 is my motherboard limit, so my next option would be to start freezing tracks or converting tracks to audio, which would severely hamper my creativity (waiting minutes to unfreeze and reload a track is a creativity killer).

Factor in MIR Pro and perhaps a light compression / delay VST (I use the FX builtin to Ensemble 7 as the FX are quite good), and the video editing software I use (Magix Vegas Studio) which I like to have open with the music writing process so that I can write music and time / render it correctly in time with the video and things start to go quite nuts on resource usage. While I know there are options for reducing resource usage, and I certainly could do what I do without having everything loaded all at once, It would slow down the final bit of the process for me, when I am fine tuning the work I do.

It is also worth noting, probably 70% of what I work with is already what I would consider a light library (Special Edition libraries - 1,1+,2,2+,3,4,5,6,&7). I shudder to think how bad it would be if I were using the complete libraries. I mean, in all honestly, with exception to the solo instruments, luckily, I dont see a big enough value in the complete libraries (for me) to use them or I would have to consider replacing my motherboard and doubling my ram, a prospect that would run me about $1000.

As much as I absolutely love Orchestral Tools libraries and some of Spitfire libraries, the main reason I dont use them is the size. They are unbelievably ginormous and unnecessarily so.

I also, as a side note, do not want to introduce complexity in my workflow. Running Ensemble over a network, while neat, adds unecessary complexity that I just dont need or want. As the famous line goes, the more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

Synchron pianos is already one of the biggest piano libraries out there, surpassed only by another piano library that touts a terabyte and a half as I recall. I am glad that VSL decided to release the special edition synchron variant, as it serves well enough to my ear to use for orchestral work, and hell, I think the special edition variant is STILL larger in size than most piano libraries on the market.

Finally, I dont think it is beneficial to anyone to suggest that performance is better with higher sample rates. What we are doing is vastly different than what many articles are writing about, which is simple playback. We are adding FX and we are not merely simply playing wav audio. The audio format is in a proprietary format, not native to what soundcards are acustomed to playing, which adds overhead, increasing processor usage.

All this having been said, I am not against having an optional download for those that want higher quality, although, if this option is provided, I dont understand why they should need to sell it as a "give us more money" choice, because they already have the samples in this format. It would not or should not require much more effort on their end to make this option available, and it should be a free choice, as it is with every other library on the market that offers quality choices (Sonokinetic for example, it is a free optional download).

Personally, no offense meant, but I find it highly suspicious that anyone can tell the difference between 48 and 96 sample rates. Now, between 16 and 24 bit, in very specific circumstances, that I can tell the difference, but the circumstances where I can tell the difference are very specific, having to do with dithering with certain frequencies and lower volume levels. However, who am I to get into a debate over whether someone can hear a difference?

Anyway, I have Physics homework to get back to, make the option available free of charge, choice is never a bad thing, I merely wanted to address the notion that performance was better with higher sample rates.

@Another User said:

Personally, no offense meant, but I find it highly suspicious that anyone can tell the difference between 48 and 96 sample rates.

Regards

Gabriel Plalame

It is hard to disagree that 96/24 would be a great improvement over 44.1/24 for anybody who does any post processing. ANd probably for real time play as well (less latency).
And considering that downsampling to 44.1/24 is the last step in VSL workflow, release of 96/24 should be a relatively easy process.
Keep fingers crossed.

Welcome VladKo,

as far as latency is concerned, nothing hinders you from using VSL's instruments at 88 or 96 kHz, as the upsampling for those SRs is done in realtime anyway.

HTH,

@pablo This a statement that has been long disproven.   Yes, 96k is better, higher resolution is better- even if it is upsampled- unless you have issues with certain types of distortion to begin with lurking in your signal when you do it.  

No offense, but it is often the case that the people who push the narrative that there is no differences between 48k or 96k either a) don't have the system to tun it, or b) cant hear it
I do however wish Vienna would get on board with native 96k samples