Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Pre-Release Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-15-2022, 09:56 AM   #41
daxliniere
Human being with feelings
 
daxliniere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,273
Default

Hey Justin,
Thanks for the answer.

Would you consider adding some logic to avoid unnecessary up- and down-sampling steps?
The reason someone would choose to use oversampling is because they are concerned about quality in some way. Introducing extra resampling steps seems like it's defeating the purpose a little bit, or at least is at-odds to it.
This would also help to minimise CPU load and latency.

Also, it would probably need to be handled if the "Never oversample" option was added since you might have a non-oversampled plugin in the middle of an FX chain which is otherwise oversampled.
__________________
Puzzle Factory Sound Studios, London [Website] [Instagram]
[AMD 5800X, 32Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX1080ti, UAD2-OCTO, FireFaceUCX, REAPER x64]
[AMD 5600X, 16Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX710, FireFaceUFX, REAPER x64]
daxliniere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2022, 01:20 PM   #42
kindafishy
Human being with feelings
 
kindafishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxliniere View Post
Hey Justin,
Thanks for the answer.

Would you consider adding some logic to avoid unnecessary up- and down-sampling steps?
The reason someone would choose to use oversampling is because they are concerned about quality in some way. Introducing extra resampling steps seems like it's defeating the purpose a little bit, or at least is at-odds to it.
This would also help to minimise CPU load and latency.

Also, it would probably need to be handled if the "Never oversample" option was added since you might have a non-oversampled plugin in the middle of an FX chain which is otherwise oversampled.
Yeah... Justin... I'm going to have to go ahead and counter this request with my own request for it not to be implemented in that way and to remain as-is. Unless it is an optional thing, in which case it would make everyone happy of course. Not sure how this could be configurable without being a little messy unless it was an all or nothing user preference.
kindafishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2022, 01:39 PM   #43
daxliniere
Human being with feelings
 
daxliniere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,273
Default

Interesting, KindaFishy. Any reason you'd not want to avoid extra up/downsampling steps, higher latency and higher CPU usage?
__________________
Puzzle Factory Sound Studios, London [Website] [Instagram]
[AMD 5800X, 32Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX1080ti, UAD2-OCTO, FireFaceUCX, REAPER x64]
[AMD 5600X, 16Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX710, FireFaceUFX, REAPER x64]
daxliniere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2022, 03:56 PM   #44
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxliniere View Post
Hey Justin,
Thanks for the answer.

Would you consider adding some logic to avoid unnecessary up- and down-sampling steps?
For now, no. There are internal design reasons for this.

Quote:
The reason someone would choose to use oversampling is because they are concerned about quality in some way.
I don't think people should choose oversampling because of vague concerns. If they have a particular compressor that they want to reduce aliasing on, or want to do some EQing close to nyquist, etc, maybe. But I don't think people should think "I want more quality let me turn oversampling on."

Quote:
Introducing extra resampling steps seems like it's defeating the purpose a little bit, or at least is at-odds to it.
Upsampling and downsampling is not a particularly lossy process.

Quote:
Also, it would probably need to be handled if the "Never oversample" option was added since you might have a non-oversampled plugin in the middle of an FX chain which is otherwise oversampled.
I am not planning on adding a "never oversample" option, also for design reasons.

Oversampling is being added as potentially very valuable tool, but we don't need to cover every possible use case, as it's also a very specific tool that most people should never need to use.
Justin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2022, 04:00 PM   #45
daxliniere
Human being with feelings
 
daxliniere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,273
Default

>>Would you consider adding some logic to avoid unnecessary up- and down-sampling steps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
For now, no. There are internal design reasons for this.
Couldn't they just be treated as 'mini FX chains'?
__________________
Puzzle Factory Sound Studios, London [Website] [Instagram]
[AMD 5800X, 32Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX1080ti, UAD2-OCTO, FireFaceUCX, REAPER x64]
[AMD 5600X, 16Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX710, FireFaceUFX, REAPER x64]
daxliniere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2022, 04:01 PM   #46
daxliniere
Human being with feelings
 
daxliniere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,273
Default

Either way, thank you for implementing oversampling. I didn't think I needed it, but I've been amazed at how much better some things can sound.
__________________
Puzzle Factory Sound Studios, London [Website] [Instagram]
[AMD 5800X, 32Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX1080ti, UAD2-OCTO, FireFaceUCX, REAPER x64]
[AMD 5600X, 16Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX710, FireFaceUFX, REAPER x64]
daxliniere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2022, 04:14 PM   #47
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxliniere View Post
>>Would you consider adding some logic to avoid unnecessary up- and down-sampling steps?


Couldn't they just be treated as 'mini FX chains'?
It gets more complex if you try to do that, which isn't to say we couldn't, but would rather not.
Justin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2022, 04:16 PM   #48
daxliniere
Human being with feelings
 
daxliniere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
It gets more complex if you try to do that, which isn't to say we couldn't, but would rather not.
Okay, understood! Thanks for the answer.
__________________
Puzzle Factory Sound Studios, London [Website] [Instagram]
[AMD 5800X, 32Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX1080ti, UAD2-OCTO, FireFaceUCX, REAPER x64]
[AMD 5600X, 16Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX710, FireFaceUFX, REAPER x64]
daxliniere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2022, 08:10 AM   #49
kindafishy
Human being with feelings
 
kindafishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxliniere View Post
Interesting, KindaFishy. Any reason you'd not want to avoid extra up/downsampling steps, higher latency and higher CPU usage?
There is a really great article here that explains it far better than I could, and it is from a trusted source -> https://vladgsound.wordpress.com/tag/tdr-ultrasonic/

Personally I do not want a plugin running at anything higher than 48 kHz to pass the audio buffer to a non-linear plugin in the same chain without having an ultrasonic filter placed before it.

From earlier in the thread (you must have missed it):

Quote:
Originally Posted by kindafishy View Post
I would think that if you want this, you should be using fx chain OS, not individual plugin OS.

Further to that, I think that individual plugins should do up/down individually and it is not superfluous. By doing this, it avoids the need to stick ultrasonic filters in front of every non-linear plugin. I don't think I would bother to use the OS feature if it has the behaviour you describe.
Cheers!

Hey Justin, this got me thinking. Any chance REAPER could provide a built in option for ultrasonic filtering to take place before a particular plugin? Just another menu option? That would really help to declutter sessions for those who make use of these things.
kindafishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2022, 08:29 AM   #50
daxliniere
Human being with feelings
 
daxliniere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kindafishy View Post
There is a really great article here that explains it far better than I could, and it is from a trusted source -> https://vladgsound.wordpress.com/tag/tdr-ultrasonic/

Personally I do not want a plugin running at anything higher than 48 kHz to pass the audio buffer to a non-linear plugin in the same chain without having an ultrasonic filter placed before it.
Ah, Vlad and Fabien are friends of mine! In fact, I introduced them.

I had completely missed this video and found it enlightening. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, KF!
I guess the best thing to do is think up some listening tests and see what sounds best.

Cheers!
__________________
Puzzle Factory Sound Studios, London [Website] [Instagram]
[AMD 5800X, 32Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX1080ti, UAD2-OCTO, FireFaceUCX, REAPER x64]
[AMD 5600X, 16Gb RAM, Win10x64, NVidia GTX710, FireFaceUFX, REAPER x64]
daxliniere is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.