"Classical Piano" Library

What you say about the difference between audio and images is true, but it's the closest comparison I could come up with. Anyway, in the military field, there are much higher-performing sampling devices. One of my former professors even works with them. In short, if it were a commercial factor, they would probably have updated to new devices more frequently. Anyway, everyone keeps their own opinion... After all, this is also the beauty of freedom of thought ;-)

Micrologus wrote:

I find the parallel with images inappropriate; hearing is one thing, and sight is another.

44.1KHz is more than sufficient for audio applications. The rest is a placebo effect, or suggestion, or marketing as I told you.

Not at all, my dear "she doesn't know who I am", "electronic engineer", "sound technician", "composer" and so on: we are talking about digital data, A/D conversion and so forth, so the comparison with images is spot on, as you should obviously know, if you had the degrees in engineering and sound technology that you claim to have while treating everyone like fools in your discussions. Even children know that the more information you capture, the more faithful an average of the data you have. It is something obvious and elementary.

Come, there's no need to get worked up over so little, everyone can think what they want. Even though I don't agree with even a single word, everyone can think as they see fit. I think that regarding the image vs. sound discussion, it referred to the fact that in sound we are talking about inaudible frequencies, whereas in images RGB matrices offer a finished and visible product; but more so in the parallel with images, I was referring to resolution. Higher resolution = higher sensitivity. I don't even agree with the marketing choices and I have expressed my perplexities; one could go even deeper into the matter, for example by remembering that the design of a converter requires massive investments, much more than those spent on creating a new CPU, so much so that many electronics giants are joining forces to design increasingly refined devices, and I don't believe they do it just because it's trendy... It's not an iPhone, and there isn't actually this market of millions of people who wake up in the morning ready to spend €8000 on a converter like the Prism. In short, this is a field where if millions of dollars are spent just on design to the point of having to join the efforts of multiple companies, it means that beyond all the technical arguments I have made so far, there is actually an increasingly strong demand... There would still be many, many considerations to make, but I don't think it's worth continuing the discussion this way, so everyone can keep their own opinion; in the end, no one is taking anything away from anyone and we can all remain at peace with each other...

Sorry Simone, you are right.

You don't have to apologize...

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Not at all, my dear "she doesn't know who I am", "electronic engineer", "sound technician", "composer" and whatever else: we are talking about digital data, A/D conversion and so on, so the comparison with images is spot on, as you should obviously know, if you had the engineering and sound technology degrees you keep claiming while treating everyone like fools in your discussions. Even children know that the more information you capture, the more faithful an average of the data you have. It is something obvious and elementary.

So, usually I don't parade my degrees around, for goodness' sake, but since you took it for granted in the other topic that I wouldn't know how to use orchestral VST libraries, I felt the need to point it out, since I inform myself about who I am facing before taking things for granted.

The same thing happened with Simone; he started treating me like a beginner, so I had to restrain him and make him notice that he wasn't talking to an inexperienced person.

Well, take 20 music files with different sampling rates, and tell me while listening to them how many you can guess.

Experiment, if you have such a sensitive ear, and if your pocket is willing to spend €8000 on a converter, that's fine.

Military purposes are different, and I am not an expert in military matters, but I don't think all this research is meant for playing military marches in high resolution

I wouldn't want to delve into the merits of the concepts presented here, but it is not a matter of the ability to recognize differences with more or less fine hearing (even if you had found the difference by even saying that at higher sampling rates the sound gets worse, but now you are changing the rules of the game by challenging us to recognize perceptible differences); it is preferred to sample at higher frequencies to have greater sensitivity when applying filters to the signal, and there the difference can be heard. If you think otherwise (it's you against all recording studios, sound engineers, and so on), I ask you for the umpteenth time to DEMONSTRATE with facts the things you claim. When I have gone against the grain, I have always responded with data and documentation to what I say, and everyone here is aware of this; several times we have engaged in even heated discussions, and the beauty of cultural exchange comes in when one expresses their own view while respecting others and, above all, by arguing their ideas. So far, from your side, I have only read personal opinions that are, indeed, devoid of any foundation. By military field, I mean to say that if much higher performance converters already exist but sampling frequencies have stopped at 192 kHz in the audio field, it is not because of a fashion for higher sampling rate converters; otherwise, we would already be at 1 MHz. Evidently, there are requirements; millions of euros are not spent on useless projects, especially in times of global crisis like this one; I don't believe that audio professionals (in the best studios in the world) play "who has it bigger." But as I repeat to you, if I have to sustain arguments in a sterile way with someone who holds the motto "This is just how I think," for my part, I prefer to interrupt the discussion and everyone can keep their own ideas, as in the best democracies, in friendship and without further problems. I assure you that I harbor no resentment toward anyone and I am sorry if I gave you the impression of treating you like a beginner; I assure you it was not my intention, it is just my way of explaining things, simply... Because I firmly believe that simplicity is the most intimate essence of knowledge.

What I am about to say, I say as an administrator:

I have read other posts as well and I believe we should re-establish a certain order. I assure you that there have never been any problems with the people you have had grievances with; therefore, I propose that everyone calms their tone and restores the balance that has always characterized this forum through control, the intelligence of its members, and respect for each other's interests, regardless of whether one is an engineer or a sanitation worker.

Thank you

TheSimon wrote:

I would not like to delve into the merits of the concepts presented here, but it is not a matter of the ability to recognize differences with a more or less fine ear (even if you had found the difference by even saying that at higher sampling rates the sound worsens, but now you are changing the rules of the game by challenging us to recognize perceptible differences), rather, one prefers to sample at higher frequencies to have greater sensitivity when applying filters to the signal, and there the difference can be heard; if you think otherwise (it is you against all recording studios, sound engineers, and so on), I ask you for the umpteenth time to DEMONSTRATE with facts the things you claim. When I have gone against the grain, I have always responded to what I say with data and documentation, and everyone here is aware of this; several times we have engaged in even heated discussions, and the beauty of cultural exchange comes into play when one expresses their own view while respecting others and, above all, by arguing one's ideas. So far, from your side, I have read only personal opinions that are, indeed, devoid of any foundation. By military scope, I mean to say that if much higher-performing converters already exist but sampling rates have stopped at 192 kHz in the audio field, it is not because of a fashion for higher sampling rate converters; otherwise, we would already be at 1 MHz. Evidently, there are requirements; millions of euros are not spent on useless projects, especially in times of global crisis like this one; I do not believe that audio professionals (in the best studios in the world) play "who has it bigger." But as I repeat to you, if I have to sustain arguments in a sterile way with someone who holds the motto: "This is just how I think," for my part, I prefer to interrupt the discussion and everyone can keep their own ideas, as in the best democracies, in friendship and without further problems. I assure you that I harbor no resentment toward anyone and I am sorry if I gave you the impression of treating you like a beginner; I assure you it was not my intention, it is just my way of presenting things, in a simple way... Because I firmly believe that simplicity is the most intimate essence of knowledge.

What I am about to say, I say as an administrator:

I have read other posts as well and I believe we should re-establish a certain order. I assure you that there have never been any problems with the people you have had grievances with; therefore, I propose that everyone calms their tone and restores the balance that has always characterized this forum through control, the intelligence of its members, and respect for each other's interests, regardless of whether one is an engineer or a sanitation worker.

Thank you

Ok, give me time to get healthy again and I will give you the demonstration; right now I am suffering from a heavy flu.

I am very calm; in fact, I believe I have been offended without ever offending anyone.

Look, it only took a little trip on the Internet and there are thousands of engineers (one must be an engineer to be credible) who have experimented with the same thing I stated, so instead of making me do demonstrations that I haven't done for centuries, I refer you to one of the many articles scattered across the web that deal with the subject; otherwise, I would end up giving you the same demonstrations, and I really have no desire to reinvent the wheel

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

Micrologus wrote:

So, usually I don't flaunt my degrees, for goodness' sake, but since you took it for granted in the other topic that I didn't know how to use orchestral VST libraries, I just wanted to point it out, since I inform myself about who I am dealing with before taking things for granted.

This will be the third or fourth time in two days that you write about your "degrees" and you are the only one who needs to, it seems. I didn't take anything for granted regarding you; it was you, on January 29th, who wrote:

"I have serious problems with these libraries, I also own East West, LASS etc....

but I don't like the result I reach every time...

In practice, I always bin everything with such frustration....

I don't know if it depends on the type of orchestration I do, or something else."

And I "allowed" myself (I even used that word, if I'm not mistaken) to give you some practical advice as a COURTESY; clear? You had absolutely no reason to feel offended and to lead me on through the topics. And don't come telling me that you inform yourself about your interlocutors, because one only needs to look at the response you gave to Thallo, who has no need whatsoever to flaunt degrees and real skills recognized by everyone, both inside and outside this forum.

That said, I am going back to ignoring you.

Well, aside from the fact that there was also a follow-up to these words, namely that I said it is the sound, or rather the samples, that primarily do not satisfy me.

If I had made such a vague statement and you were on the other side of the barricade, I would have investigated by trying to understand the type of problems I have with these libraries (mainly sound quality).

Instead, your response was that I have to fiddle with the MIDI controls; then I don't know what I was supposed to do, I think you mentioned taking a Mozart piano sonata, I honestly don't remember, your intervention was so full of preconceptions that I didn't take it into consideration.

Subsequently, among other things, while also mistaking you for another user, I made sure to specify immediately that I have been using Cubase and relative MIDI since 1988, when it ran on ATARI computers.

Do you feel offended because I am not a beginner?

I only pointed out to you that it is better to get to know people before shooting blindly.

Does all this bother you?

Thallo is another matter; his intervention towards me was disproportionate, and as luck would have it, when the truth is hit upon, the mask always falls.

His intellectual mask has fallen, and in fact, all his ignorance came out given the way he insulted me...

Gentlemen, same story as the other topic ...even if the topic was opened by the admin; therefore, staying on theme.

Otherwise, I will not close Simone's topic but I risk dismissing some users.

The best way to engage is to argue points, so the subject of contention is the "Classical Piano Library".

I don't know if I have been sufficiently clear.

I agree with Frank, we should stay on topic... As long as we are talking about converters and conversions, I believe we are still on topic because we are discussing choices I made in the library...

I am responding specifically to this.

Be careful, web discussions are limited to sampling; they do not introduce discussions regarding future sound processing... Sampled sounds at 44.1 kHz or 192 kHz do not produce appreciable differences if one limits oneself to playing them back; Nyquist teaches us this, and I believe there is no arguing that point. In any case, there are also many other documents showing the behavior of converters when other types of signals (square wave, sawtooth, triangle wave, and sine wave) are sent as input. Obviously, for the sine wave there are no problems, everything is based on that, but when a square wave is sent, one can evaluate the transient response, and in that case, the sampling difference is clearly noticeable!

Here is an interesting article, which is not made of words alone but also of demonstrations with an oscilloscope in hand, and I prefer to rely more on experiments than on chatter.

http://www.remusic.it/IT/Le-vere-misure-del-digitale-prima-parte-008c4400

http://www.remusic.it/IT/Le-vere-misure-del-digitale-seconda-parte-986b6a00

Regarding the fact that 192 kHz samplings sound "worse," well, I think that remains to be seen because it depends on the quality of the converter, and in that sense, we need to agree on the meaning of "sounding worse." Because if sounding worse means that a DAC manages to make you hear more of the bull***t done during the Mix phase, then for me, that sounds better. I can assure you (because I heard it with my own ears) that the quality of the conversion machinery changes the sound, and in a very appreciable way too. Just a few days ago in the studio, I listened to the same sample coming out of an Apogee Rosetta and an 888, which sounded much worse! Both are AD/DA 192/24... Obviously, the sound then changes due to component issues such as the quality of the filters, but the point I made regarding DA is obviously equally valid for AD.

Otherwise, all AD converters would sound great, whereas we know that, if they are poor, they are responsible for being the real bottleneck. In any case, setting aside the transient response—on which 192 converters behave much better, and on which I think we can both agree without much trouble—I would like to see comparison experiments with the same sound sampled at different sampling frequencies, not necessarily 192; 88.2 would suffice for me to minimize the delta relative to quantization noise, applying the same filters to then resample and verify inconsistencies. In any case, from the same gentlemen you mentioned, I have also read articles in which they claim the same thing regarding the number of bits, and this is not true at all! The difference between 16-bit and 24-bit exists and can be heard, even easily by ear.

Excuse me, but regarding this matter, another example comes to mind because transient response behavior is also something evaluated in transistor microphone preamplifiers. At university, we measured a NEVE pre and a pre by Livio Argentini.

We sent a square wave as input and connected an oscilloscope to the output of the pre.

The NEVE began to distort at 45kHz, while Livio Argentini's AL 111 did so at 300 kHz.

Now... Acoustically, the NEVE tends to color, whereas Argentini's pre is very linear and crystalline. It returns exactly what you hear. The idea behind this is that despite the audible frequency being limited to 20,000, there are high-frequency phenomena that probably also have repercussions in the audible band.

Argentini's pre is actually widely used especially for capturing classical instruments, where the aim is to return a sound as similar as possible to that of the instrument without further coloration. I should also have some videos of these measurements somewhere; if I find them, I will post them.

I want to emphasize that these gentlemen are not my friends; it is one of many articles on the Internet, I took a look at it and they seemed in line with my assertions, so it seems that the experiments I conducted years ago were not so wrong after all, if anyone else has reached the same conclusion.

the quality of the machinery is fundamental, well, what can be said about a clumsily designed converter..

Look, regarding the resampling you did, if you have time I can show you some tests that have been carried out on all the most well-known conversion software.

Perhaps it will surprise you that Logic was among the worst, but even Pro Tools doesn't even compare to a free conversion software, albeit by a very small margin.

If you feel like taking a look:

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

Keep in mind that you will find 2 drop-down menus there where you can choose between very well-known software and make a comparison.

Well, what can be said, the money spent most of the time is not supported by the quality offered

We don't understand each other. I am talking about differences once filters have been applied to the file, not just about sampling.

There are anyway other experiments that demonstrate the opposite, like the one I told you about, and speaking of experiments, I would like to see at least one; I'm not asking for much, but here I have heard and continue to hear nothing but chatter. Would you like to show me some graphs?

I didn't do the resample with Logic but with iZotope RX...

TheSimon wrote:

We don't understand each other. I am talking about differences once filters are applied to the file, not just about sampling.

There are anyway other experiments that demonstrate the opposite, like the one I told you about, and speaking of experiments, I would like to see at least one, I'm not asking for much, but here I have heard and continue to hear nothing but chatter. Would you like to show me some graphs?

I didn't do the resample with Logic but with iZotope RX...

But why is the article I posted to you not sufficient, there are also audio files..

Admit it, you are so egocentric that you haven't even read it....

I don't know what to tell you, have fun with your 192KHz, especially the people who will make billions from it will have fun... as well as the bats

No comment, I won't even respond to such provocations... Shameful!

Are you delusional?

Look, I'm the one with the flu, not you, so I am the person who is feeling unwell.....

What is the problem now?

Why do I have to reinvent the wheel?

There are thousands of articles on the Internet, but if you only read and listen to what is convenient for you, what can I do.

I posted an article for you that says exactly the same things I would tell you; there are graphs, even audio files...

There are various links, if this isn't enough there is another one,

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

An experiment lasting about a year conducted by the

Audio Engineering Society, where they demonstrate that no one was able to discriminate between a high-resolution file and a CD standard,

and you are still talking to me about filter application?

First of all, try to calm down with your language. I am not your brother. You keep talking about bananas while I'm talking about lemons. But fine. You're strong, well done, you won! 10+. At least that way maybe you'll manage to stop.