Okay everybody has been stepping up there game lately with the eq's... The Massive Passive by AITB has always irritated being that it is mostly sampled at 44.1 but everyone else is at least using 96k now.. I would love to see Alex B, Cdsoundmaster or even Henry O redo this beast.. At this point this version of the Massive Passive as well as most of AITB eq's have been dead to me once I've heard the Alex B or Cdsoundmaster's version of these eq's.. PLUS they have no annoying authorizations.. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE REDO THIS!!! CAN WE START A PETITION!!!???
Not sure if I may add to this discussion or not but may I throw some real world considerations taking it a little wider than the Massive.
Firstly I would love a redo - I think it is an exceptional piece.
From my perspective I have made it a long term goal to provide my libraries at as many sample rates as demand will dictate. But it's a juggling act to be honest as one has to weigh up a few things when producing a library. Time involved, return on investment, storage space, delivery bandwith, ( most commercial providers pay for this ) and finally ease of use.
There are three ways to go really when producing libraries that I have determined. All with pros and cons.
One - sample each package independantly at all major sample rates - in my case it would be 192 khz, 96 khz and 44.1 khz. This gives the most authentic result. But that means I need to do every program three times. One sampling can take 28 minutes at 96 khz if one is doing only 1 pass. More passes means you simply multiply that time by the number. This results in three times the editing time, more HDD space required, more delivery bandwith etc.
Secondly - to sample at a high sample rate and downsample/upsample to the target rates. This gives the end user the rate they want without the loading delay but it is arguably not a true reflection of how each sample rate truly sounds for the purist. It is easier to develop for this as it means only one sampling per program takes place. Similiar to a DSD stream allows for downsampling to any target. SOX SRC is amazing for getting good fidelity in this regard.
Lastly - Provide just one sample rate and allow Nebula to downsample or up sample for the end user. Again has the advantage of one sampling but relies heavily on the quality of the internal resampling algorithm inherent to nebula. Mind you it is very good but going from 44.1 khz to 96 khz is not as good as a native 96 khz sampling. Going from 192 khz to 44.1 khz is equallly unpredictable.
So these are your choices and as developers weigh up a series of decisions they will go one of these three directions I suspect. The most important ought to be the ease of use for the end user but of course one must weigh up whether it is feasible to muliply ones work by three. I know some developers sample full time while others including myself sample part time, in between other work like recording and touring. I will be honest - I cannot live off what I sample so I have to get as much as I can get done in the gaps in my life. This means that I am heading for option 2 more often than not. Are the samplings so much worse - not in my opinion but they can be better if one did this full time and got rewarded for it.
Now, Nebula is a small community and I can tell you that some developers do this more out of passion and a desire to democratise the ubiquity of high end sounds. They simply are not going to get rich doing this or be able to drop everything else - and time is money. Nebula absolutley spanks many coded plugs IMHO but the recognition is not industry wide. Many uninitiated people put the cart before the horse and complain about the workflow, GUI or even mock and sneer and forget what it's about. The sound.
All this to say that if the community grows and fellows like me can do this more permanently due to it being viable, then your wish is my command. Sample rates!!!!! I can give you all of them from 384 khz DXD ( Which Nebula is capable of now ) down to 44.1 khz if you want.
I agree that 96 khz seems the sweetspot. It actually downsamples to 44.1 very well now. Some may feel that it is now hard to tell the difference in sound so much so that developers may well ask if there is any point in 44.1 - don't worry I recognise that many users demand it because that 1- 2 seconds wait can be irritating. So decisions must be made.
I am sure that I speak safely when I say that the Mammoth took a looooooooooong time to sample. I waited months salivating for it I remember. I am not sure if AITB have begun further development but be aware that Niklas has a band he plays in and gigs a bit. Of course any updates about this will come from them.
Me? I have no desire to do eqs in the traditional sense of recreating a parametric but I do want to attempt as best as I can to respond to the community's needs and requests. So sadly I am out of this one.
I have made note of the sample rate request but as a developer I have a request in turn. It is easier to make requests as a consumer ( and I buy from all the other developers ) so I know how it goes. This time I have one in return. For folk like me to possibly grant your requests, do tell others about the product, brag about, tweet about it, youtube about it, blog about it, tell your naysayer friends about it, tell your influential freinds about it and give them demos, etc. and hopefully everyone wins.
For the record what Giancarlo and co have achieved here is nothing short of miraculous and the product really deserves greater exposure.
SOX SRC is the only SRC I use. I don't think any other software conversion (that I know of) compares, and I've tested all that I could get my hands on. I think option number 2, using SOX should be perfectly acceptable. My opinion, of course!
mr.tele wrote:SOX SRC is the only SRC I use. I don't think any other software conversion (that I know of) compares, and I've tested all that I could get my hands on. I think option number 2, using SOX should be perfectly acceptable. My opinion, of course!
Mmm, I don't know about up-sampling libs mr tele. With libs sampled at higher sample rates like 192khz it's not such a big deal to down sample but to upsample is a bit different. There's a lot of empty space if a lib that gets up sampled but it's mostly less important bits that get chucked when down sampling.
I would suggest 192khz as standard as well as libs that have been sample rate converted from the oringinal sampling using a high quality SRC program.