#1
I downloaded the free redwirez impulse response pack, it comes with a different sampling rates or something like that, the problem I am willing to save a bit of hard drive space, so do I need all of these files, what should I keep? the 96khz-24bit maybe? or 44khz, what is the best one? anyway I am going to delete the syx files that comes for axe-fx.
anyway, is it worthy to buy the commercial pack, the big box pack? is it a lot better?
Last edited by MultiM at Jul 27, 2013,
#3
thnx man, but what is the difference? the higher the sample rate, the better the quality?
#4
Quote by MultiM
thnx man, but what is the difference? the higher the sample rate, the better the quality?


Pretty much yeah, as far as I believe the difference between 48khz and 96khz is almost unhearable, and you can easily make a professional mix with 44 or 48.
#5
ok but what about the big box pack? is it worth buying? there"s a lot of free impulse responses, is this one worth buying?
#7
forget about the disk space, I thought wave files takes a lot of space,because the free pack is about 70mega, but apparently, it contained a huge amount of files and a variety of bit rates,and syx files, so I am not worried anymore about disk spaces, but even though, if it's worth buying, I'll get some space, or store them in another place,so is it worth?
Last edited by MultiM at Jul 27, 2013,
#8
Hmm...sample rate and bit depth are not the easiest things but I'll have a bash.

When we turn sound into digital, what we're basically doing is taking lots of little snapshots of the sound to plot the shape of the wave.



The dots are 'samples' going from left to right, plotting the incoming sound waves like points on a graph.



Sample rate simply changes how often you take a sample. Recording at 44.1Khz (the standard rate for CDs etc), that means your digital converter is plotting 44100 samples every second. At 96k it's plotting 96000 samples a second.

So in that case surely more samples = more accurate to the original analog signal, right? Not really. Since sound is a nice smooth curve outside the digital world, hen you listen back to digital you're not simply 'joining the dots', but using them to recreate a nice smooth curve just like the original analog signal.

However, there's a limit to this. The sampling frequency determines the highest possible frequency that can be reproduced. The reasoning behind this is extremely complicated (although it helps to remember that lower frequnecies have a bigger, longer waves than high ones) and is known as the Nyquist Theorem.


Quote by Nyquist-Shannon Theorem
If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart.


It's ok, you don't have to pretend to understand that. But basically, you need your sample rate to be twice the maximum frequency you need to reproduce.

Human hearing starts as low as 15hz and maxes out at about 20,000hz (though most adults will only hear up to 12-16k), 44100 samples is basically the smallest amount needed to reproduce the entire range of human hearing.

Going up a step, a sample rate of 48k would be able to reproduce ultrasonic frequencies up to 24000Hz, outside the range of human ears but audible by many animals. 96k can reproduce up to 48000 hertz, which is audible by dogs, cats etc. In comparison, medical ultrasound devices are often much higher still up the scale, 300,000hz and more.


So why do people use higher sampling rates when 44.1 can cover the entire range of human hearing with exactly the same quality? Are we making music for bats or is there science to back up higher sample rates?

Honestly, it's a good question and the source of a lot of debate and argument among recording engineers.
  • The definite benefits of high sample rates are essentially limited to recording ultrasonic sound like animal communication for or scientific/industrial study. If you want to capture the mice in your basement's ultrasonic squeaking and transpose it down so you can hear it, you'll need a sample rate of 96hz at least, preferably higher.
  • Many people believe certain digital hardware/plugins work better at high sample rates, (though most high quality processors will internally oversample anyway to remove certain unwanted effects). Certainly having the raw audio at the same rate as your gear internally operates at removes the need for oversampling, so you're reducing the amount of processing being used.
  • Other people record at higher sample rates and then downsample later on simply because it improves the performance of their recording gear.
  • Some people do it simply because...well, they have the hard drive space to spare so why the hell not go for the highest setting?



There are a number of reasons to choose high sampling rates, but none of them are a simple 'it sounds better'. It certainly can produce better results under specific circumstances, and has various technical uses, but for the vast majority of musical recording projects 44.1 is absolutely fine.

Be wary of people who claim that they can hear a clear difference or that '192k just sounds more open, more airy' or whatever crap they're spouting. Audio is a field filled with expectations and confirmation bias and even mastering engineers with 'golden ears' have been known to spout absolute nonsense with no basis in science. High sample rates can actually be detrimental if you're using them for the sake of it, since it uses much more disk space and system resources, and


Bit depth is different, by the way; without going into a full explanation it's basically the up/down portion of that picture above.

Increasing the bit depth increases the dynamic range, meaning the difference between the quietest and loudest sounds can be larger. 24bit or higher should be used whenever possible during the recording process, although the final released mix will almost always be 16 bit. Simple really.
Last edited by kyle62 at Jul 27, 2013,
#9
thanks man that really helped ,then I'll stick.with the 44khz. ,but what about redwirez big box series,bwtter?
#10
I've never been big on RedWirez. They have some good impulses, but they give you so many that you have to go through hundreds of thousands of them just to find 5 ones you really like. It takes forever and frankly, I don't have time for that crap. Catharsis impulses are free and still my favorite by a long shot.
Quote by Dave_Mc
I've had tube amps for a while now, but never actually had any go down on me
Quote by jj1565
maybe you're not saying the right things? an amp likes to know you care.





www.SanctityStudios.com
#11
Quote by MultiM
thanks man that really helped ,then I'll stick.with the 44khz. ,but what about redwirez big box series,bwtter?

The free one they give you is exactly the same quality as the others in the BigBox series, I believe (possibly a few less mics).

However, unless you know what kind of sound you want you may end up buying cabs you don't particularly like. Their Bogner Uberkab with V30s is a really smooth, fat, versatile cab that complements the free 1960A nicely, that'd be my pick.

Also check out:

God's Cab http://signalsaudio.com/site/gods-cab/

Kalthallen Cabs http://cabs.kalthallen.de/

Mercuriall Cab http://mercuriall.iks.ru/cms/?p=145


I can't believe how many ****ing times I've said the word 'cab'. CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB
#12
haahaaha it's a thread about cabs, so no problem saying CABS! anyway thanks guys!
#13
Quote by kyle62

I can't believe how many ****ing times I've said the word 'cab'. CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB

Cabwalk. Cabcore. Cabcake. Cab Nebula. Cab's Cradle. Cabberwocky. Yo Cabba Cabba.
Have you gone completely insane yet?
#14
Quote by Cavalcade
Cabwalk. Cabcore. Cabcake. Cab Nebula. Cab's Cradle. Cabberwocky. Yo Cabba Cabba.
Have you gone completely insane yet?

CABCORE

When Redwirez do a pack of ultra-extreme br00tz cabinets, that's what they have to name it.