Gonna be my signature
hilarious.Reason Studios should make a deal with stillifegaijin and turn that into a t-shirt.
HAHA! They can have it. Would be a great t-shirt.TritoneAddiction wrote: ↑10 Sep 2022Reason Studios should make a deal with stillifegaijin and turn that into a t-shirt.
Here we go again.
I used to enjoy a drink myself. All good..stillifegaijin wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022Sorry. Very drunk post. Not trying to start anything. The whiskey got to me. My bad.
You can achieve all of that right now.RobC wrote: ↑10 Sep 2022Here we go again.
I'll add another reason, the 3rd one, I think:
Brick wall high pass filter your music above 20 kHz (or your own top hearing limit), especially if working all the way at 192 kHz for example. You will find a lot of good stuff happening. But you can bring it down only 2 octaves. Maybe 3, if you're fine with 10 kHz limit.
You can gate it, chop up with slices (it's mostly interesting clicks, knocks and transients in general for me), then speed up the tempo, so it matches the original song (or perhaps non destructive time "stretching", or rather alignment is possible, too). And just like that, you have a really awesome element for your song to play around with.
The higher the sample rate, the more octaves we can choose from - whichever sounds best.
But yeah, I'd love to simply oversample anything I'd like. Reaper can do it. The Reason Rack Plugin is compatible with 768.
Rhetorical: How many more reasons should I list?
32 bits are clipping safe, great for batch processing, and pretty much never need dithering.
Before people come with the 'you take a joke too seriously' - well, RS sees the "joke", too, and just like that the request gets ignored.
I could start complaining, too: what audible difference does it make to your music, to be able to choose your own clip colors?
At least what I suggest, opens actual, audible possibilities (with a little work) - EVERYBODY can learn how to take advantage of higher sample rates / oversampling. It's beyond easy.
I'm not joking with this request, hence I mentioned it a couple of times before, here and there.avasopht wrote: ↑10 Sep 2022You can achieve all of that right now.
Just downsample whatever you have (or set your synth to a lower octave). Exact same result (although you'd have to account for temporal settings, e.g., a 1ms compressor release would need to be doubled if you played a sample an octave lower).
Tbh, I wasn't sure if you were joking.
Now that you bring it up, ... ... ... I don't know why RS haven't offered the ability to have mixed samplerate projects. The RE SDK warned developers from the beginning that their RE could be resampled (back when there were discussions about using audio cables to transmit data).
It would be great if I could make one device run at 88.2kHz (like a Subtractor) when desired while the rest of the project runs at 44.1kHz.
That would also reduce unnecessary resampling (which currently happens when using oversampling). Basically, if Reason knows that these three compressors are all running at 96kHz, it can skip the resampling. But if on the other hand your project was running at 48kHz and you used 2x oversampling for the compressor, ... ... well, now you've just resampled that audio 4 times. IIRC iZotope did a video about that.
As RS mentioned in their roadmap, we will most likely see VST3 before M1
Well, 9MHz i don't know but it would be interesting if you could master to DSD.
deigm wrote: ↑08 Sep 2022Was the spider delay a known issue? I've never noticed itOvertherainbow wrote: ↑08 Sep 2022awesome they fixed the mixer faders bug. Also a great sign they did some job on the ol' spider.
Yes, it's a very long-standing issue, but it's also been mitigated for a long time by the fact that there's been alternative splitters and mergers by other devs (thanks JPOvertherainbow wrote: ↑08 Sep 2022Never noticed it myself. This is more of a nice gesture to me. But the mixer faders thing was doing my head in. I actually thought it was me who's been doing something wrong rather than it being a bug. Good riddance.
) that don't have the same bug. Nice to have the original equipment fixed eventually though.
I am dissapointedTo be clear, oversampling and sample rates are two separate things. You can have oversampling at 44.1 sample rate, for example.RobC wrote: ↑12 Sep 2022
I'm not joking with this request, hence I mentioned it a couple of times before, here and there.
It could be that there are stability and compatibility issues they would face. I just looked into developing that day, and noticed that REs only run at 192 kHz tops?
Of course, not everything needs oversampling.
I will need to totally disagree with you Seligselig wrote: ↑14 Sep 2022To be clear, oversampling and sample rates are two separate things. You can have oversampling at 44.1 sample rate, for example.RobC wrote: ↑12 Sep 2022
I'm not joking with this request, hence I mentioned it a couple of times before, here and there.
It could be that there are stability and compatibility issues they would face. I just looked into developing that day, and noticed that REs only run at 192 kHz tops?
Of course, not everything needs oversampling.
And just as important, higher sample rates do not necessarily mean higher frequency response when recording audio. It will also depend on sampling/reconstruction filter settings, which must be moved higher in order to take advantage of the higher sample rate - in many cases IIRC the filter cutoff is at a similar place but the slope is made more gentle (because it sounds better than a steeper slope), one big reason that cheap convertors sound better at higher sample rates and high quality converters tend to sound similar at all rates. Plus, higher rates can introduce distortions that are better avoided according to most.
Read more here:
https://sonicscoop.com/the-science-of-s ... n-it-isnt/
If you really want to record ultrasonic frequencies you not only need special microphones but convertors specifically designed to capture the higher frequencies FLAT rather than rolling off starting around 20 kHz.
So even if Reason allowed super high sample rates, most converters do not. Folks who record for SFX use specialized equipment to capture the ultrasonic frequencies accurately/flat, and if that interests you I would suggest you follow their lead with regards to the specialized gear required to do so.
..I know, I just mean, I would be okay with either solution.selig wrote: ↑14 Sep 2022To be clear, oversampling and sample rates are two separate things. You can have oversampling at 44.1 sample rate, for example.
And just as important, higher sample rates do not necessarily mean higher frequency response when recording audio. It will also depend on sampling/reconstruction filter settings, which must be moved higher in order to take advantage of the higher sample rate - in many cases IIRC the filter cutoff is at a similar place but the slope is made more gentle (because it sounds better than a steeper slope), one big reason that cheap convertors sound better at higher sample rates and high quality converters tend to sound similar at all rates. Plus, higher rates can introduce distortions that are better avoided according to most.
Read more here:
https://sonicscoop.com/the-science-of-s ... n-it-isnt/
If you really want to record ultrasonic frequencies you not only need special microphones but convertors specifically designed to capture the higher frequencies FLAT rather than rolling off starting around 20 kHz.
So even if Reason allowed super high sample rates, most converters do not. Folks who record for SFX use specialized equipment to capture the ultrasonic frequencies accurately/flat, and if that interests you I would suggest you follow their lead with regards to the specialized gear required to do so.
What I talk about, is not about high resolution recording, or listening, and I made that beyond clear, even in this thread.Jac459 wrote: ↑14 Sep 2022I will need to totally disagree with you Selig
All these science-based facts are just ... facts.
Now, you need to take into account the magic of marketing and placebo effect. If you put an "hires" sticker on a gear, and the user can see it. it WILL sound better. That is the fact of human placebo.
A 96khz recording ALWAYS sound better as long as the listener is convinced it sounds better
So even if having higher bitrate or resolution doesn't make any sense from a ... reasonable stand point, it kind of make sense from a marketing standpoint. Because you will find people buying it...
To me, I find it extraordinary than no scientific backed blind-test proof the superiority of hi-res and yet, it is the natural direction of the industry...
Even you agreed that running Subtractor at a higher sample rate can reduce aliasing artifacts for example. Or at least you could agree.
