Samplerates: the higher the better, right? (Dan Worrall)

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
User avatar
Kalm
Posts: 343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016
Location: Austin

Post 28 Feb 2020

orthodox wrote:
28 Feb 2020
Kalm wrote:
28 Feb 2020


It's not fully equal if intermodulation is occurring. Our response to reconstruction may differ anytime the quality of aliasing or anti-aliasing happens. But in visual the samething happens. They are BOTH represented by a frequency domain. In this instance it would be color and no amount perception will ever allow you to see beyond a human limited frequency domain (infrared and ultraviolet) unless filtered to our spectrum somehow. But sample best entities would be represented through bits as that is a digital construction over something like frequency which is available in nature. We capture one and distribute in the other. We capture frequency and distribute samples to define a resolution, though resolution is actually occurring in the frequency domain since we as humans have limitations.
Intermodulation can only occur as a result of modulation, ie only when the signal is being processed. That has nothing to do with the quality of representation. If you get aliasing artifacts just from A/D conversion, this can be corrected by an LP filter before the conversion.

Here is an example that shows why image and audio digital representations are totally different. If you downsample a 1080 picture to 720, then upsample them both to 4K, they will be different and look different. Buf if you downsample a 48k audio to 44.1k and then upsample them both to 192k, they will be identical sample-wise, provided the original 48k audio did not contain frequencies above 22k, which we don't hear.
Intermodulation happens anytime two sources modulate. In other words anytime identical waveforms sum together creating sum and difference waves. But you also didn't grasp what I was saying earlier, the relationship between 1080p and 720p are bigger perceptional than 48k and 44.1k even on smaller size screens (I've used a lot of anime sites lol). The comparison is not so much that 1080p and 720p represent an understanding in quality, it's more so the original statement was trying to invoke a relationship of information perceived by the viewer to be more. There's the same amount of information in a 1080p as there is in a 720p screen as that relates more to bit depth to RESOLVE data. There is more information between sample rates since you are physically capturing more frequencies.

But also you can't really make the statement (provided the original 48k audio did not contain frequencies above 22k, which we don't hear) without agreeing to my previous statement of intermodulation distortion that could audibly change the quality of the sound. Which means they wouldn't be perceived the same if there is another difference. If no distortion were to occur then of course it would be perceived the same as 48k has 44.1k samples or frequencies in it anyways so reconstruction can be identical.
Courtesy of The Brew | Mac Mini Intel i7 Quad-Core | 8 GB RAM | Apple 1 TB & Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB | Reason 10 | Studio One 3 Professional | Ozone 7 | Pro Tools 12 | Adobe CC | Presonus FireStudio Project | M-Audio Axiom | And many plugs

User avatar
Kalm
Posts: 343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016
Location: Austin

Post 28 Feb 2020

TritoneAddiction wrote:
28 Feb 2020
guitfnky wrote:
28 Feb 2020


sure it’s needed. you keep stating you can definitively hear the difference. watching someone else claim they can hear a difference on youtube is completely irrelevant.

I’m not talking about a sine wave test like in the video. I’m talking about real world mixes. can you tell the difference? I very much doubt it. if you aren’t willing to prove it (to yourself at the very least) by doing a proper blind test, then why would anyone take your claim seriously?
Here you go.
This is just one sound from a track I'm working on.
Again there's not a BIG difference. But there IS a difference. Now if that little difference is there on every sound in a song, there's gonna be a different "feel" in the overall mix.



There's more noise in the 44.1 kHz to me, or might I say sustaining higher frequencies. almost like undithered material type noise.
Courtesy of The Brew | Mac Mini Intel i7 Quad-Core | 8 GB RAM | Apple 1 TB & Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB | Reason 10 | Studio One 3 Professional | Ozone 7 | Pro Tools 12 | Adobe CC | Presonus FireStudio Project | M-Audio Axiom | And many plugs

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1817
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 28 Feb 2020

so no on the blind testing then, got it.

and tritone, you’re asking me to do a comparison that requires lossless playback, but you expect me to do from soundcloud, which is a lossy format? I can’t take that seriously.

this is exactly what I mean when I say it seems like a strange point of pride for some people. not willing to even try to prove to yourself whether or not there’s a difference. I have no doubt you both think you can hear something, but placebo is a hell of a drug. 😆

User avatar
Kalm
Posts: 343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016
Location: Austin

Post 28 Feb 2020

guitfnky wrote:
28 Feb 2020
so no on the blind testing then, got it.

and tritone, you’re asking me to do a comparison that requires lossless playback, but you expect me to do from soundcloud, which is a lossy format? I can’t take that seriously.

this is exactly what I mean when I say it seems like a strange point of pride for some people. not willing to even try to prove to yourself whether or not there’s a difference. I have no doubt you both think you can hear something, but placebo is a hell of a drug. 😆
You must have some amazing bravado to not even listen. I gave you sources to hear a difference and you ignore it. So what you state is opinion as you can't prove your claims.
This has nothing to do with provide when two people attempt at trying to give some basis and examples on their claims while you literally ramble about what you think is true.

Until you actually partake in the examples, you don't have an argument. In other words, the sky isn't blue. Prove me wrong.
Courtesy of The Brew | Mac Mini Intel i7 Quad-Core | 8 GB RAM | Apple 1 TB & Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB | Reason 10 | Studio One 3 Professional | Ozone 7 | Pro Tools 12 | Adobe CC | Presonus FireStudio Project | M-Audio Axiom | And many plugs

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1817
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 28 Feb 2020

Kalm wrote:
28 Feb 2020
guitfnky wrote:
28 Feb 2020
so no on the blind testing then, got it.

and tritone, you’re asking me to do a comparison that requires lossless playback, but you expect me to do from soundcloud, which is a lossy format? I can’t take that seriously.

this is exactly what I mean when I say it seems like a strange point of pride for some people. not willing to even try to prove to yourself whether or not there’s a difference. I have no doubt you both think you can hear something, but placebo is a hell of a drug. 😆
You must have some amazing bravado to not even listen. I gave you sources to hear a difference and you ignore it. So what you state is opinion as you can't prove your claims.
This has nothing to do with provide when two people attempt at trying to give some basis and examples on their claims while you literally ramble about what you think is true.

Until you actually partake in the examples, you don't have an argument. In other words, the sky isn't blue. Prove me wrong.
why would I have to prove myself? I’m not the one making the claim that I can hear the difference. to put it another way, I haven’t made the claim. you have. yet you’re asking me to prove something I haven’t claimed. that’s weird.

still, I listened to tritone’s soundcloud examples, and they sound identical to my ears.

User avatar
TheDragonborg
Posts: 114
Joined: 10 Feb 2020

Post 28 Feb 2020

I like certain sounds to be crunchy... on my E-mu sampler I would set the sample rate to 11Khz... what wonders it does to chord samples...

User avatar
Timmy Crowne
Posts: 231
Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Location: California, United States

Post 28 Feb 2020

RECORDING at high sample rates doesn’t yield any audible difference as far as I know.

PROCESSING at high sample rates does usually yield an audible difference. The character of synthesis, filtering, and distortion will usually vary with sample rate. This is often true of older modules that don’t have onboard oversampling. Now whether this difference is “better” is subjective, but it’s there.

HeresJohnny312
Posts: 45
Joined: 26 Feb 2020

Post 28 Feb 2020

selig wrote:
28 Feb 2020
HeresJohnny312 wrote:
27 Feb 2020
These are the basic benefits in a nutshell. More information captured is better because less is approximated and there is more content recorded, then when dumping to cd quality or otherwise known as 16bit 44.1 there is absolutely the highest possible quality crushed into that 44.1, now in the same token as visual you can never shoot 720 and render in 1080 its still crap. but you can however shoot in 4k and crush to 1080 and it will look better than the 1080 shot and rendered to 1080. It basically ensuring highest quality, higher bandwidth, and also more information as well as higher headroom, now I think those few benefits are small yet worth making your cpu work a bit harder.... just my rant sorry! Most people can't tell but, then again most people can't decipher digital compression from analog optical compression.
You have made what I feel is a false equivalence with the video comparison. Video resolution is entirely dependent on screen size and distance. If you view a video on a phone from 2 feet away vs viewing a projection in a huge theater, you NEED higher resolution for the theater than for the phone. But the audio in BOTH cases needs the same sample rate because frequency response does not depend on the size of the room or the distance from the speakers.

You also mention more data is better, which is contradicted by the video in this thread because in some cases the higher frequency data will cause problems in the audible range. Also, with all sample rates NOTHING is "approximated" - it's either captured or it is not. There is no need to capture super sonic frequencies, just as there is no reason to capture ultra violet light with a video camera (which is a better comparison between audio and video). Or to put it another way, we cannot see ultraviolet light so there is no benefit capturing it, same as we cannot hear super sonic frequencies so there is no value in capturing them.

There IS value in oversampling to prevent aliasing, but that's an entirely different concept.

Side note: if you DO want to compare video resolution to audio, compare it to bit depth. In the theater vs phone example above, one could say that 12-16 bit audio is fine for the phone since it's played at such a low SPL level (so you don't need a wide dynamic range) if just because you are closer to the phone. But in the theater, the SPL could be much higher, and so you would be able to take advantage of a higher dynamic range such as 20-24 bit. Make sense?
You have made a few points however, If you cannot tell the difference of 12-16 bit on your phone that is evidence you are incapable of perceiving small details in the manner some professionals can that you cannot. This is not meant for an insult but rather proof that if you cannot see/hear something it does not mean it does not exist no matter how technical you describe your views. A sample rate is the rate at which information is captured, bitrate is the depth and the approximations work both instances when lowering rates. The sample is effectively captured faster meaning closer to analog not just the commonly perceived 20hz-16khz range but much higher frequencies also because of the ability to capture faster waves hence the faster sample rate, that does not mean it can only capture faster and higher frequencies that just means it captures them without more approximations closer to an analog inifinite. For professionals it is easy to hear the difference when as I said pitching down heavily, what you did not hear initially becomes terribly apparent when monitored using frequency and playback analysis. To be correct audio bitrate is to video resolution as audio sample rate is to video frames per second.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1817
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 28 Feb 2020

now we’re using tricks to identify the difference. no average listener would ever slow down a piece of audio in order to try to find some “a-ha! see, there is a difference!” moment. of course if you slow things down enough, you’ll hear a difference. because of course, there *is* a difference. the only relevant question from a consumer standpoint is, can you *hear* the difference. the answer for the average consumer is absolutely no. I doubt any one of us on this forum could tell the difference either, under proper scientific testing circumstances (yes, I’ll say it again, a blind test).

the point of the video is that as a practical matter, you’re better off saving your CPU power and drive space by recording at 48k and using oversampling plugins than you are by just recording everything at 96 or 192k. the audible difference is beyond negligible, to the extent that it’s essentially useless for human applications.

now if you’re going to do a lot of mangling where you drastically stretch your audio, sure, in that case it could be useful. but how many of us do that regularly? (remember, key word being ‘drastically’)

Timmy restated the main takeaways of the video very well.

User avatar
Kalm
Posts: 343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016
Location: Austin

Post 28 Feb 2020

Unless we’re talking about orchestral or sample base recording then there is no need to record at higher sample rates in general unless you’re an enthusiast since a mix is meant to correct imperfections and creative choices. It’s not like we listen to RAW mix vs RAW mix

I hate autocorrect
Last edited by Kalm on 28 Feb 2020, edited 1 time in total.
Courtesy of The Brew | Mac Mini Intel i7 Quad-Core | 8 GB RAM | Apple 1 TB & Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB | Reason 10 | Studio One 3 Professional | Ozone 7 | Pro Tools 12 | Adobe CC | Presonus FireStudio Project | M-Audio Axiom | And many plugs

TritoneAddiction
Posts: 2274
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

Post 28 Feb 2020

guitfnky wrote:
28 Feb 2020
still, I listened to tritone’s soundcloud examples, and they sound identical to my ears.
Well I can't do anything about if you can't hear the difference. I can hear the difference, which is why I choose 96000 whenever my computer can handle it. Again it's subtle. But it's there. And why would i choose a lower sample rate if 96000 sounds better to me?
I'm not really sure why the comparison would be invalid just because it's uploaded on Soundcloud. (Soundcloud is no longer shit quality btw.) It's on platforms like these (Soundcloud/Spotify/Youtube etc) where the music will end up for people to listen to it anyway. And if the sample rate differences can be heard through Soundcloud then I'd say that it does matter.

I've tried a couple of wav/mp3 tests before and I know how hard it can be to tell what is what, so I get your placebo point. I've experienced that for sure. But when it comes to hearing my own music that I've worked on for hours/days I tend to get a fined tuned ear to the details, since I've heard it hundreds of times. The sample rate I pick will impact some mixing decisions. For example, if I've worked on/mixed my tune in 96000 all this time then I'll typically experience a slightly harsher tone if I switch to 44100. Trust me, I've tried this many many times. It's not placebo.

User avatar
Jackjackdaw
Posts: 402
Joined: 12 Jan 2019

Post 28 Feb 2020

Here's an interesting article about the fairlight cmi sample rates and how it affects sampled sounds : http://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/the-f ... ained/1482

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 1817
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 28 Feb 2020

TritoneAddiction wrote:
28 Feb 2020
guitfnky wrote:
28 Feb 2020
still, I listened to tritone’s soundcloud examples, and they sound identical to my ears.
Well I can't do anything about if you can't hear the difference. I can hear the difference, which is why I choose 96000 whenever my computer can handle it. Again it's subtle. But it's there. And why would i choose a lower sample rate if 96000 sounds better to me?
I'm not really sure why the comparison would be invalid just because it's uploaded on Soundcloud. (Soundcloud is no longer shit quality btw.) It's on platforms like these (Soundcloud/Spotify/Youtube etc) where the music will end up for people to listen to it anyway. And if the sample rate differences can be heard through Soundcloud then I'd say that it does matter.

I've tried a couple of wav/mp3 tests before and I know how hard it can be to tell what is what, so I get your placebo point. I've experienced that for sure. But when it comes to hearing my own music that I've worked on for hours/days I tend to get a fined tuned ear to the details, since I've heard it hundreds of times. The sample rate I pick will impact some mixing decisions. For example, if I've worked on/mixed my tune in 96000 all this time then I'll typically experience a slightly harsher tone if I switch to 44100. Trust me, I've tried this many many times. It's not placebo.
that’s just it, there’s no reason to trust you. I don’t mean that in a harsh way, but that’s just the nature of human subjectivity. no one can know it’s not placebo without a proper test, not even you. that’s why it’s a placebo. you can’t expect others to take you at your word for that any more than I expect you to take mine. pick out the difference in a proper blind test and then we can talk about trust.

User avatar
Boombastix
Posts: 1137
Joined: 18 May 2018
Location: Bay Area, CA

Post 28 Feb 2020

TritoneAddiction wrote:
28 Feb 2020
I don't care what anyone says. When I'm working on music in Reason I can hear a difference between 44100 and 96000. Sure it's not a night and day difference, but with some sounds there's a difference. If I'm playing my mix in 96000 things sound smoother, less harsh. Drum samples, synths, they can both be affected by the sample rate.
So as long as my computer can chug along in 96000 that's what I'll do.
I made an analysis of a Subtractor waveform not that long ago in another thread. And yes, a big difference since it appears the Subtractor doesn't have oversampling in its oscillators.
Dan's example with Saturn at base sample rate vs oversampling would apply the same way to a synth that is generating a tone with over-tones.

But if you take a high end synth/saturation with oversampling built inside to avoid aliasing, then 44.1/48 is just fine.
Unfortunately, this info is often hidden from us, and running multiple saturators and synths that causes aliasing can/will be audible in the final mix, at least when filters are sufficiently open. Can be a cool effect in certain cases, but...

Wish RS had this info available, we can of course sit and run aliasing tests on synths and plugins to find out. Also nice if we had the options to over-sample any RE, x4, x8.
10% off at Waves with link: https://www.waves.com/r/6gh2b0
Disclaimer - I get 10% as well.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 909
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 28 Feb 2020

Keep in mind that when Reason is running with higher sample rate the CV rate is also faster, as it is samplerate/64 and thus you're getting smoother LFO movements or different random signals/values. This might result in altered sound.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

TritoneAddiction
Posts: 2274
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

Post 28 Feb 2020

guitfnky wrote:
28 Feb 2020
TritoneAddiction wrote:
28 Feb 2020

Well I can't do anything about if you can't hear the difference. I can hear the difference, which is why I choose 96000 whenever my computer can handle it. Again it's subtle. But it's there. And why would i choose a lower sample rate if 96000 sounds better to me?
I'm not really sure why the comparison would be invalid just because it's uploaded on Soundcloud. (Soundcloud is no longer shit quality btw.) It's on platforms like these (Soundcloud/Spotify/Youtube etc) where the music will end up for people to listen to it anyway. And if the sample rate differences can be heard through Soundcloud then I'd say that it does matter.

I've tried a couple of wav/mp3 tests before and I know how hard it can be to tell what is what, so I get your placebo point. I've experienced that for sure. But when it comes to hearing my own music that I've worked on for hours/days I tend to get a fined tuned ear to the details, since I've heard it hundreds of times. The sample rate I pick will impact some mixing decisions. For example, if I've worked on/mixed my tune in 96000 all this time then I'll typically experience a slightly harsher tone if I switch to 44100. Trust me, I've tried this many many times. It's not placebo.
that’s just it, there’s no reason to trust you. I don’t mean that in a harsh way, but that’s just the nature of human subjectivity. no one can know it’s not placebo without a proper test, not even you. that’s why it’s a placebo. you can’t expect others to take you at your word for that any more than I expect you to take mine. pick out the difference in a proper blind test and then we can talk about trust.
It's fine. You don't have to trust me. I get your point. We don't have to agree. You do you. I do me.
I thought that my examples would be the obvious proof that the difference can be audible on certain sounds, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

User avatar
eXode
Posts: 726
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

Post 29 Feb 2020

There is an audible difference in some synths like i.e. Subtractor and Thor when running i.e. 88 kHz vs 44 kHz due to the lack of anti aliasing or oversampling. The Comb filter in Thor in particular can change the timbre of a patch quite noticeable if you switch sample rate.

You can clearly hear the difference in this example. First is the 44.1 kHz bounce followed by the 96 kHz bounce. The same patch playing the same notes.

strange_pluck_44_vs_96.mp3
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
TheDragonborg
Posts: 114
Joined: 10 Feb 2020

Post 29 Feb 2020

eXode wrote:
29 Feb 2020
There is an audible difference in some synths like i.e. Subtractor and Thor when running i.e. 88 kHz vs 44 kHz due to the lack of anti aliasing or oversampling. The Comb filter in Thor in particular can change the timbre of a patch quite noticeable if you switch sample rate.

You can clearly hear the difference in this example. First is the 44.1 kHz bounce followed by the 96 kHz bounce. The same patch playing the same notes.


strange_pluck_44_vs_96.mp3
I kinda like the 44 version more... it's more subdued. Is this sound using FM synthesis? Sounds like it the FM depth had been increased in the 96 version. Keep in mind that most FM synths don't use that high of a sample rate (well mostly because of ROM limitations back in the 80s/90s) but more harmonics present from having 96khz will affect the sound. With an FM synth high sample rates aren't even necessary for the operators themselves and in fact could make things worse. FM synthesis works best with a pure sine waves (though some later FM synths added more wave forms but all were sinusoid based) and you do not need that high of a sample rate and in fact can be exactly the same as the frequency of the wave as there are no harmonics. Obviously the synths that used more than just sine waves or even samples would have a higher operator sample rate as there would more harmonics involved.

User avatar
zoidkirb
Posts: 267
Joined: 18 Nov 2018
Location: Brisbane Australia

Post 29 Feb 2020

Where are all the over sampling synths in Reason? CompLex-1 I believe does. Maybe eXpanse too?
Anyway, I've been experimenting with 96k and feel it does make a difference.

User avatar
eXode
Posts: 726
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

Post 29 Feb 2020

zoidkirb wrote:
29 Feb 2020
Where are all the over sampling synths in Reason? CompLex-1 I believe does. Maybe eXpanse too?
Anyway, I've been experimenting with 96k and feel it does make a difference.
eXpanse, VK-2 Viking, Zero, Antidote to name a few. :)

The "problem" with Reason is that higher rates also affect CV/modulation, so they'll go higher too.

User avatar
eXode
Posts: 726
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

Post 29 Feb 2020

TheDragonborg wrote:
29 Feb 2020
eXode wrote:
29 Feb 2020
There is an audible difference in some synths like i.e. Subtractor and Thor when running i.e. 88 kHz vs 44 kHz due to the lack of anti aliasing or oversampling. The Comb filter in Thor in particular can change the timbre of a patch quite noticeable if you switch sample rate.

You can clearly hear the difference in this example. First is the 44.1 kHz bounce followed by the 96 kHz bounce. The same patch playing the same notes.


strange_pluck_44_vs_96.mp3
I kinda like the 44 version more... it's more subdued. Is this sound using FM synthesis? Sounds like it the FM depth had been increased in the 96 version. Keep in mind that most FM synths don't use that high of a sample rate (well mostly because of ROM limitations back in the 80s/90s) but more harmonics present from having 96khz will affect the sound. With an FM synth high sample rates aren't even necessary for the operators themselves and in fact could make things worse. FM synthesis works best with a pure sine waves (though some later FM synths added more wave forms but all were sinusoid based) and you do not need that high of a sample rate and in fact can be exactly the same as the frequency of the wave as there are no harmonics. Obviously the synths that used more than just sine waves or even samples would have a higher operator sample rate as there would more harmonics involved.
I also prefer the 44 version. There's no FM in that patch, there's just two noise oscillators set to static, with a low density, each routed into a comb filter.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 909
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 29 Feb 2020

eXode wrote:
29 Feb 2020
There is an audible difference in some synths like i.e. Subtractor and Thor when running i.e. 88 kHz vs 44 kHz due to the lack of anti aliasing or oversampling. The Comb filter in Thor in particular can change the timbre of a patch quite noticeable if you switch sample rate.

You can clearly hear the difference in this example. First is the 44.1 kHz bounce followed by the 96 kHz bounce. The same patch playing the same notes.

strange_pluck_44_vs_96.mp3
The 96kHz version sounds like there's lots of intermodulation going on.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
zoidkirb
Posts: 267
Joined: 18 Nov 2018
Location: Brisbane Australia

Post 29 Feb 2020

eXode wrote:
29 Feb 2020
zoidkirb wrote:
29 Feb 2020
Where are all the over sampling synths in Reason? CompLex-1 I believe does. Maybe eXpanse too?
Anyway, I've been experimenting with 96k and feel it does make a difference.
eXpanse, VK-2 Viking, Zero, Antidote to name a few. :)

The "problem" with Reason is that higher rates also affect CV/modulation, so they'll go higher too.
Interesting. I have heard also that the cv is susceptible to buffer rate changes too.

Changing rates before bouncing stems will definitely something to be cautious about.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 909
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 29 Feb 2020

zoidkirb wrote:
29 Feb 2020

Interesting. I have heard also that the cv is susceptible to buffer rate changes too.

Changing rates before bouncing stems will definitely something to be cautious about.
You seem to be mixing up two things here. There is only buffer size and sample rate. The first determines latency and the latter also the CV rate.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
zoidkirb
Posts: 267
Joined: 18 Nov 2018
Location: Brisbane Australia

Post 29 Feb 2020

jam-s wrote:
29 Feb 2020
zoidkirb wrote:
29 Feb 2020

Interesting. I have heard also that the cv is susceptible to buffer rate changes too.

Changing rates before bouncing stems will definitely something to be cautious about.
You seem to be mixing up two things here. There is only buffer size and sample rate. The first determines latency and the latter also the CV rate.
No, Mattias warned that larger buffer size can affect CV too. This was at the 10.3 update. I've not personally noticed this issue yet.

Oh yes, I wrote buffer rate by mistake :redface:

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest