Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

195,061 users have contributed to 42,962 threads and 258,121 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 9 new thread(s), 39 new post(s) and 75 new user(s).

  • last edited
    last edited

    @PaoloT said:

    But you are not forced to use 24/96 samples to set your audio interface to 24/96. You can still play lower resolution/frequency samples, and still enjoy the lower latency warranted by higher system settings.

    Paolo

    I agree that there are scenarios where higher sampling rate would impose excess processing or storage.  But the approach of increasing sampling rate after the VSL library actually increases latency, as upsampling the frequency rate requires another processing step.  

    Better that VSL gives us the option of a higher sample rate library.  Then, even in scenarios requiring lower sample rates for recording the orchestra, etc, we could just use a few processor cycles to downsample the frequency rate without even increasing the latency (this only works for downsampling).

    FWIW, I would like to see some double blind latency tests with varying freqency rate.  I would not be surprised at all if we have 'super hearers' that can process sound much faster than average people...and my guess is that some very gifted musicians might actually be able to process better with lower levels of latency. 

    I am trying to systematically eliminate the negative effects on sound quailty and differences in playability between 'mechanically voiced' and 'electronically voiced' grand pianos.  VSL has potentially done much to eliminate potential negative effects, and the 96 Khz might just be another step towards bridging the divide.


  • Just my opinion, and I've been known to speak with my foot in my mouth many times, but this is my understanding (I earned my B.M. degree in Music Production and Engineering years ago when digital audio was new.)

    You’re saying that systems these days are *optimized* for sample rates like 96KhZ @ 24-bits… to the point where input, processing, and output at that rate is actually *faster* than it would be if it had to digitally convert half as much data? Hmmm. You mention a few clock cycles to convert. I’m not a CPU expert nor an Apogee employee, but my understanding is that latency in one's system depends on I/O, processing, and conversion (at least). If I were a betting man I’d guess the nanoseconds it’d take interpolating half as much data would ballpark-equivalent to natively-processing twice as much data.


  • Agree with dmidi. I suggest and look forward to VSL offering 96K/24bit option to users, at least for synchron piano products. Then VSL can continue to stay ahead of sampling source.

  • last edited
    last edited

    @Itchy said:

    Just my opinion, and I've been known to speak with my foot in my mouth many times, but this is my understanding (I earned my B.M. degree in Music Production and Engineering years ago when digital audio was new.)

    You’re saying that systems these days are *optimized* for sample rates like 96KhZ @ 24-bits… to the point where input, processing, and output at that rate is actually *faster* than it would be if it had to digitally convert half as much data? Hmmm. You mention a few clock cycles to convert. I’m not a CPU expert nor an Apogee employee, but my understanding is that latency in one's system depends on I/O, processing, and conversion (at least). If I were a betting man I’d guess the nanoseconds it’d take interpolating half as much data would ballpark-equivalent to natively-processing twice as much data.

    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.


  • last edited
    last edited

    @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 think VSL can provide at least two choices(44.1/96), let the users with different needs to choose. Put aside the purely technical issues, just from marketing point of view, this also shows VSL as a top sampling instrument supplier in world. I did it first:)

  • My friend got Newyork concert grand from Production voices, and they announced that the 96K version would be available soon. Size will be over 500GB by 9 Mics. Maybe VSL can consider similar upgrade for users in future.

  • last edited
    last edited

    @dmidi said:

    [...] 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. [...]

    Sorry to ask the obvious: Why don't you change your audio system's driver to those preferred sample rates if you want to bring down the latency? 


    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • 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,


    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • 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.....


  • last edited
    last edited

    @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.


  • In fact, hope VSL can put up a section of audio recorded with 96K audio source for comparison. I think high quality DAC is also helpful for playing high rate audio source.

  • last edited
    last edited

    @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


  • last edited
    last edited

    @Crystal said:

    Plus, if the VSL team chose the 96kHz resolution to record...it can be just for fun. Regards Gabriel Plalame
    From this thread, wasn't synchron piano recorded in 96K or higher? Only release version is 44.1K/24bit.

  • last edited
    last edited

    @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


  • last edited
    last edited

    @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 For comparation, concert grand from production voices provides 44.1/16bit, 44.1/24bit files and will be 96/24bit. They said different rate for different usage and hardware configuration. Lower rate means wider adaptability and compatibility. I can understand why VSL use 44.1/24 for products distribution at present. Actually, I remember synchron piano is recorded in 192/32bit originally. That's why I hope VSL team can provide high rates format for users to choose in the future.

  • 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. Â»

    It could be an element for the discution about latency.

     

    Gabiel Plalame