As I said, providing libraries with different rates for different purposes choosing from users is the most sensible solution.
This is not a purely technical issue, but one that involves market factors.
There are always different needs in the market, so three version in differentiated pricing might be more popular.
1, light version: 44.1kHz/16bit, intended for performance oriented or resource-constrained users.
2, std version: 44.1kHz/24bit at present, for normal usage and majority user.
3, premium version: 96kHz/24bit, for high end users of piano solo playback.
Of course, maybe ultra version 192/32 for master level...haha
Therefore, we can both be happy.
-
Personally, no offense meant, but I find it highly suspicious that anyone can tell the difference between 48 and 96 sample rates.
About mic sources I can’t tell. I can just refer to engineers testimonials over the Web here and there.
About synth softwares, to me it is a certitude : using Native Instruments tools like Absynt (my favorite) and others, 96kHz projects really make an audible difference. It’s very hard to tell, but it’s quite the same feeling when you switch from bad monitors to good monitors : a clearer sound, more ‘define’. I’m not sure this is only a pure ‘high frequencies’ point. The ‘texture’ of the sound seems different. To use a photographic metaphor, it’s more about ‘definition’ than a pure frequency dimension, even if it sounds more ‘shiny’ in general. (But I have to confess that it was 44,1kHz vs 96kHz and not 48kHz vs 96kHz, I have to reconsider that, and make more tests...)
However, I’d rely like to share my experience in that field (idealy, I’d like to open a web page with random blind tests, but can’t do this now, I have to record and publish my work with the Steinway D first). I did my first test ten years ago when I used a Pulsar II sound card (Creamware at time, Sonic Core today). It was (and still is I guess) a very good DSPs sound card with lot of synth softwares resources embedded. With it, you just have to click one button to switch the sample-rate. My God… exploring all synth presets in 44,1, when I switched by curiosity to 96kHz, I was really stunishing… It sounded totally different… so much different that I felt the necessity to listen again all presets... I don’t know how much the DSP technology is involved here (or not). I don’t use it any more, I use an Octacapture today, but still fell a real difference with VSTIs synth softwares (Samplitude / Native Instruments / Octacapture and THX Makie monitors, not ‘ultimate’, but good...).
And my concern is also FX. If a synth source makes such a difference, what about FX ? (I didn’t test this to be honest, not enough time…)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.
-
@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
-
P Paul moved this topic from Synchron Series on
