Login

44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby darkskar » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:14 pm

Hi there! (my first post here)

I have read that people use to record:
at 44.1Khz or 88.2Khz for audio
and 48Khz or 96Khz for video.

(And that the ideal frecuency is 66Khz, Wtf?)

Anyway I have 2 question:
What frecuency do you recommend for my recordings using Nebula 96Khz libraries?

Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Cheers and happy new year!! :mrgreen:
darkskar
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:20 pm

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby Tim Petherick » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:47 pm

Hi Darkskar,

Nebula does not have oversampling.

If you want to experiment with oversampling I suggest going here http://www.savioursofsoul.de/Christian/programs/





For ad/da converters ,around 60khz has been debated for a while, I think between 50-60khz so a smooth curve anti aliasing filter could be implemented cutting down on ringing while staying low enough to avoid unwanted distortions, Dan lavry popularised this theory , it can be found in his white papers. I think this is a generalization as in it's easier to design a converter that sounds good at that sample rate. Some converters may sound better at 44.1 than 96 or vice versa depending on design.

It's a usually a weigh up of the anti aliasing filter ringing down through the spectrum at low sample rates and distortions caused by high sample rate, both of those I believe have improved overtime.

On loop back tests I have had best results at 48khz and 88.2khz but this is personally what worked best for me....

I guess it's best to experiment to see what works for you best.

Things to consider are a way up of sound quality and work flow.
Last edited by Tim Petherick on Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Tim Petherick
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:07 pm
Location: Bath , Uk

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby jorismak » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:54 pm

Basically, use what you want.

There are two ways of thinking (none is better than the other one, people will say one thing and then the other):
- Mix with the sampling rate of your intended end-samplerate (most of the time 44.1khz for audio)
- Use the highest you can work with since you might never know later.

And sometimes you see the one in between: "I want to end up at 44.1khz, but I can go higher but I will use a multiple of it, so I end up using 88.2khz". Seeing that there are a lot of libraries on 44.1khz and a lot on 96khz, 88.2khz is not a popular choice :).

Nebula will work (in theory) fine with whatever you give it. The library will be resampled by nebula to the samplerate you are working with. Making sure your project rate and the library-rate math will make sure nebula doesn't have to resample anything, and purists like that.

There is something a bit like oversampling (the QUALITY setting in the MAST page IIRC, which gets increased if it detects an offline render) but as far as I know in processing samples like this (the same as convolution-reverb) there is no oversampling. Since you're processing samples of your source with samples of a capture, making up samples in between is of no to little use.

Amp-sims, EQ's and stuff that do a calculation, then use the result to go into another calculation, then go into another, then into another, etc... There it gives extra precision to make up samples at the input, to get a more precise output. Here (Nebule), I believe not so much
jorismak
Member
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:49 am

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby enriquesilveti » Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:59 pm

EBU recommendations 2013

Production and post production files format BWAV (64 bits) 64 bits float with 96 kHz SR. Delivery files format FLAC 24 bits fixed with 96 kHz SR. For levels see r-128 for AV and K-meter v2 for music.
Enrique Silveti.
Acustica Audio customer and technical support.

MBP 11.5 (i7-4870 | 16 GB | 512 SDD)
SP4 (i5-6300 | 8 GB | 256 SDD)
RME UFX | PS Lyra2 | SD USBPre2
VM U15 | VM W10 | VM OSX 10.12
N4/NAT4 | SPX3 | RX5 | LN2C | Smaart8 | R5 | PT12 | PX10
User avatar
enriquesilveti
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Lodi | Madrid | Buenos Aires

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby kels » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:40 am

.rf64 is the format to go if you plan some serious post-prod work. This format allows multichannels (up to 18), it stores useful metadata like Dolby or the new Loudness for normalisation when audio leveling (see link)

Think of .rf64 as a multichannel .bwf (and .bwf itself being an extended .wav)

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3306-2009.pdf
kels
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:43 am

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby darkskar » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:49 pm

Thanks you very much for your fast and complete answers!
First things first:

Tim Petherick wrote:Hi Darkskar,
If you want to experiment with oversampling I suggest
(...) Some converters may sound better at 44.1 than 96 or vice versa (...) I guess it's best to experiment to see what works for you best.


Thanks Tim, This oversampling plugin makes my reaper crash, so I do not have much success in this regard, but thanks anyway it´s not your fault.

Searching about loop back tests I have found this comparison about a Scarlett 2i2 (in my case I have a F*******e Scarlett 6i6 but it must be something similar.)
Image

Here is the article in case anyone finds it useful:
http://www.hifizine.com/2012/12/focusrite-scarlett-2i2/

I supose 88Khz, or 96Khz will consume more cpu when rendering with nebula and more space in the hard disk so I'm still spinning with this idea.
darkskar
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:20 pm

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby darkskar » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:53 pm

jorismak wrote:Basically, use what you want.
(...)
Making sure your project rate and the library-rate math will make sure nebula doesn't have to resample anything, and purists like that.
(...)
There is something a bit like oversampling (the QUALITY setting in the MAST page IIRC, which gets increased if it detects an offline render) but as far as I know in processing samples like this (the same as convolution-reverb) there is no oversampling. Since you're processing samples of your source with samples of a capture, making up samples in between is of no to little use.


Maybe I am a kind of purist because I'm worried that my sound does not deteriorate.

Thanks for the Quality tip, reading the FAQ...

"E – QUALITY
This is used by Nebula at rendering time, when the user exports audio tracks or bounces them. This feature only works if the host program (VST Host) provides notification of its internal status Increasing it Nebula will be more accurate. The actual program rate will be the result of the division between PROG RATE and QUALITY. Rendering process will be slower."

I supose this works in reaper or will I have to change something? anyway I will try it myself... thank you!
darkskar
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:20 pm

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby darkskar » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:08 pm

enriquesilveti wrote:EBU recommendations 2013

Production and post production files format BWAV (64 bits) 64 bits float with 96 kHz SR. Delivery files format FLAC 24 bits fixed with 96 kHz SR. For levels see r-128 for AV and K-meter v2 for music.


Thanks for the tip Enrique.
As I am only a "onemanband" bedroom producer maybe 64 bits is too much quality for my computer, I have find that my reaper can record at 32fp and 64fp, I will make some tests.

I have studied this K-meter v2, maybe k-14 (v2) works for the metal music I do. I will try it. Thanks!
darkskar
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:20 pm

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby darkskar » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:10 pm

kels wrote:.rf64 is the format to go if you plan some serious post-prod work. (...)


This looks interesting, thank you very much.
Anyway I afraid I'm just an amateur user that make and produce my own music as a hobbie, so I don't need this by now. But thank you anyway.
darkskar
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:20 pm

Re: 44.1Khz or 96Khz? Is there any oversampling for Nebula?

Postby jorismak » Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:07 pm

darkskar wrote:This looks interesting, thank you very much.
Anyway I afraid I'm just an amateur user that make and produce my own music as a hobbie, so I don't need this by now. But thank you anyway.


In that case don't worry too much about it. Look at my post if I'm honest: If your interface supports it, there is little reason to not work at 96khz these days, unless you have an older PC who can't handle it (but 44.1 will be tricky then too :)) or you don't have the disk space.

But since it's hobby-work you won't have 128+ track projects filling up your drive so fast I guess :P.

And what Enrique ment with his post (I guess) if that's the official standard in the pro-world these days to deliver and expect 96khz 64bit wave files. So 96khz is fine.

And it's not important enough to worry about it or to run out the door and get an interface who can do 96khz if yours can't :).
jorismak
Member
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:49 am

Next

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests