EFX quality in 96Khz mode

When the internal clock is set to 96 Khz - there are only 2 FX slots aviable becasue of the increasing in sound quality - does this also aplies to the efects itself? Are they now operating also in Higher Quality or the still the same as when in 44.1/48?


after some months now with 4000 a think the FX are decent - not so bad - and with subtle aply of them and lot of tweaking they can be useful.. but i dont get over the distortion i think that the 2 XL had much more better one.. i didnt try yet doubling the distortion efect to both slots maybe it will get better.. but i recently found that the Quick FX resampling options are much better - there is also some kind of simple 2knob compressor/ limiter / called POWER / which can nice squish the drums i found that more useful then the FX compressor..

I have no confirmation at all, but I would think that all audio processes would be carried out at the global sample rate. I actually never even thought about it. I'm just very used to taking the trade offs that 24/96khz necessitates on any equipment. (I get a 20% at idle in Ableton because I use a 32 sample buffer at 24/96khz for example).

But yeah that's an interesting question. I'll probably look into the definitive answer today if I can find that info in the reference manual or here in the archives. I'm sure others users know the answer for sure too.

SP1200 wrote:When the internal clock is set to 96 Khz - there are only 2 FX slots aviable becasue of the increasing in sound quality - does this also aplies to the efects itself? Are they now operating also in Higher Quality or the still the same as when in 44.1/48?
..

If you set the system clock to 96kHz then the FX run at 96kHz. Why else would there only be two instead of four?

SP1200 wrote:with subtle aply of them and lot of tweaking they can be useful.

This is the major problem with the 4K effects - way too much tweaking for minimal gain. I would only ever use them as 'comfort effects' at most.

to Coz: well i am just curious if the overal quality of the FX increase litle bit with that headrom becasue i think the main quality significant by efex is the bit rate depth or how it is called - i mean 24.bit FX - 32, 64 bit - not increasing the frequency operation in this case..

I havnet made any test by far but it could be very subjective to spot a diference so i was just questioning the wide audience here

I wouldn't suddenly expect the reverbs to go from sounding like they were recorded in a tin can to Lexicon quality, but you can easily put it to the test.

I personally wouldn't want to halve the polyphony by working at 96k so I keep everything at 24/48.

The filter is all I really like out of the FX. I have an XL with no FX board so I've always been mostly using FX from outside my MPC's. Or if I use their compressors I may turn them off and replace them ITB with better ones. I hate to say it but most of my freeware stuff is better than MPC FX.

SP1200 wrote:to Coz: well i am just curious if the overal quality of the FX increase litle bit with that headrom becasue i think the main quality significant by efex is the bit rate depth or how it is called - i mean 24.bit FX - 32, 64 bit - not increasing the frequency operation in this case..

I havnet made any test by far but it could be very subjective to spot a diference so i was just questioning the wide audience here

Dude, you seem rather clueless about how these things work.

Processing something at 96kHz gives an extra octave of supersonic audio, it doesn't mean your FX algorithms change to sound different,

would you be so kind to explain in detail what you mean with the supersonic audio thing?

thankyou

to Coz: dude thats why i am asking.. teach us the language of your people

I know that the Fx are nothnig to sing about but they not completly usles in soundesigning process and as i said a like the Quick FX resampling algoryth called POWER much more then the compressor - but of course i open my DAW and i am in another level of FX thats without debate..

I personly prefer the 24 / 48 - to me it sounded the best and still get 4 fx slots..
and not to stay in 44,1 - is good acording to the ´ esoteric conspiracy teory ´i once read somwhere on this forum

but is the 44.1 - 96 really a audible diference on normal beat working? - as i know the 96 increase the dynamic range and headroom but that is good for recording or recording of acustic instrument i mean 909 kick stay 909 kick in 96? (i mean stored on hd not sampling the 909 in 96)

this from wikipedia:

"In digital audio the most common sampling rates are 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz and 192 kHz.[5] Lower sampling rates have the benefit of smaller data size and easier storage and transport. Because of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, sampling rates higher than about 50 kHz to 60 kHz cannot supply more usable information for human listeners. Early professional audio equipment manufacturers chose sampling rates in the region of 50 kHz for this reason. 88.2 kHz and 96 kHz are often used in modern professional audio equipment, along with 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz. Higher rates such as 192 kHz are prone to ultrasonic artifacts causing audible intermodulation distortion, and inaccurate sampling caused by too much speed.[6] The Audio Engineering Society recommends 48 kHz sample rate for most applications but gives recognition to 44.1 kHz for Compact Disc and other consumer uses, 32 kHz for transmission-related application and 96 kHz for higher bandwidth or relaxed anti-aliasing filtering.[7]"

in regards to the fx, higher sampling rates require more processing power hence the limited fx slots. personally, i run my mpc, ableton and eventide processor all at 48khz. i see no need to run them any faster.

From what I could find on the web, the EB4JS board is 24 bit, which would mean that it adds in some dummy bits when processing 16 or 20 bit audio.

But the FX board should have nothing to do with AD or DA conversion so 96Khz sampling has no relevance to it except that it cannot process quickly enough with that amount of zeros and ones and still run 4 effects at once.

Basically 24 bit 96Khz (1 min of sound = 16.5mb) has way more data than 16 bit 44.1 (1 min of sound = 5mb). The demands on the FX processor are more than tripled, so we are lucky that the FX are only halved!

In the end, for processing in the digital domain 24 bit is always better with regard to errors introduced by processing chain, but it probably isn't critical unless you will want to master the sounds professionally in the digital domain at a later date.

RepRSP wrote:would you be so kind to explain in detail what you mean with the supersonic audio thing?

thankyou

No I wouldn't - why are you using a sampler if you don't even understand the most basic concepts about sampling?
It's hard to know where to start 'explaining in detail' as you obviously aren't aware of the most simple things like the Nyquist sampling theorem.

The highest audio frequency encoded in a sample is half the sample frequency.
Doubling a frequency means it is "an octave" higher.
If you double the sampling frequency from 48kHz to 96kHz then the samples encode an extra octave at the top.
Your ears can only hear up til about 16kHz in any case.

feline1 wrote:Your ears can only hear up til about 16kHz in any case.

That may be true (definitely is in my case) but there are mics that respond up to 30-50Khz so why not capture it. Many musical instruments produce frequencies beyond the audible spectrum that actually affect how the audible part sounds because they are present in the air at the same time as the part you can directly hear.

There are also quite a few speakers that can reach 30Khz or more.

This is my in "a perfect world" scenario - if it can be captured then why not. For making music it isn't really necessary of course - just tweak until you get a good sound on a decent monitoring system and that will do just fine.

The main benefit to using higher sampling rates is that the crappy but essential brickwall filter can be brought in further away from the audio band (say about 40Khz with 96k sampling), thereby reducing the presence of the pre and post filter ringing side effect, which pretty much is in the audio band using 44.1Khz.

The old marketing line about CD - "Perfect Sound Forever" was just a total load of misguided 'good enough' type thinking. The reproduction of sound really is a black art, and so is digital engineering and grinding lenses for cameras!

the good warm openminded feeline.. After i bought the 4k i was reading 150 pages of the 4000 section here on forum / very very usefull not about the 4k it self more about how times, music gear bussines, companies and peoples expectations change during years / and Felline was my favourite always in good mood tolerant and patient something like the grumpy cat..

anyway - it´s the same with vitamines - you have 100g of vitamin C in a pill and 100g in a lemon and the body takes better and more from the lemon becasue somwhere there deep under the surface there is sun, rains, fresh air.. The same with analog synth vs VSTi in some cases you cant hear the diference in blind test what is what but there are the conducters the voltage, the old manufactures metal and plastic all that is there and it makes the diference.. That means that when something has all the frequencies beyond audible limit it will make a diference to sound cuted flat to audible spektrum..
this is what i think - in my opinion.. think and belive whatever you want.

So i will use the 24/48 setting and when sampling i will change it to 96 even it has no effect on it..

And felline - i dont have to know everything about the anatomy of a women to be a good lover - the same with sampling - i could make a goddamm superb pumpin drum kit program without to know what is nyquist.. peace