MadTracker - Forum - Madtracker and 96000 Khz-24 bits samples

Color scheme

Profile

FAQ

Forum

Help and support

Madtracker and 96000 Khz-24 bits samples

Reply to topic

Post new topic

Goto page 1, 2 Next

jcv_vidal
Registered User

Joined: 17 Apr 2004

Posted: Thu Nov 25 2004 21:12 Madtracker and 96000 Khz-24 bits samples
I've got a weird trouble with RC4. Roughly : I can't create instrument with 96000 Khz-24 bits samples. In fact, i can create them, but it sounds like white noise Let's say : I create a track with a 44100 Khz-16 bits bassdrum sample. Then i export the track as a wave at 96000 khz-24 bits. I get now a 96000 khz-24 bits sample (the track, in fact) that i can see and hear with - let's say - Goldwave. All is ok at this step. Then i create an instrument with the track as sample (strange idea, but why not). When i use this instrument, there is a very nice white noise sound If i use a "native" 96000 khz sample (a guitar recorded via the sound card, for example), the trouble is the same. The sound card is a DMX 6 Fire Terratec, and the OS is XP. Audio Tab in configuration is set like this : - DMX card (Wave) selected in the combo - 96000 Khz in frequency combo - 16 bits unchecked

Walter Vos
Registered User

Joined: 04 May 2003
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

Posted: Thu Nov 25 2004 21:41
I don't think madtracker supports 24 bit samples anyway. 16 nit 48000 Hz is the max I think. (96000 kHz is really really really futuristic )
what is hip? www.waltervos.nl

CHICAGO�lollie
Registered User

Joined: 05 May 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 25 2004 23:18
Why in the heck would you wanna use a 24-bit 96000kHz sample anyway?

jcv_vidal
Registered User

Joined: 17 Apr 2004

Posted: Thu Nov 25 2004 23:28
Results of researches

Walter Vos wrote:

I don't think madtracker supports 24 bit samples anyway. 16 nit 48000 Hz is the max I think. (96000 kHz is really really really futuristic Wink

)

You're right. An half, in fact. MT2.5 accepts 96 khz samples (good boy !), but never 24 bits samples, whathever the frequency is (nasty boy !).

Walter Vos
Registered User

Joined: 04 May 2003
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

Posted: Fri Nov 26 2004 13:49
Hehe, ok then sorry.
what is hip? www.waltervos.nl

N0N
Registered User

Joined: 20 Oct 2003

Posted: Sat Nov 27 2004 02:03
jcv_vidal , thank you so much for posting this. This whole 96000hz should have just dawned on me but omg, I now know why my music doesnt sound like professional cd's. I bought 2 cd's yesterday and compared them to my songs and damn mine are not even close. I seen this post read it and was like 'what the hell why use such a high sample rate'. I did some experamenting and now I know why, and thank you, thank you, thank you, I hope this will finally give me the quality songs I truely can be 110% happy with. And Yannick you should up mt to use 24bit, cause its dvd quality which means the ultimate studio quality too. Maybe its already planned for mt3, dont know, don't think this was ever brought up as an issue.
Last edited by N0N on Sat Nov 27 2004 12:30; edited 1 time in total

Elijah
Registered User

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Eh?

Posted: Sat Nov 27 2004 02:26
non. the thing about that quality is, for recording audio like you and me do... you need a good soundcard and the equipment to back it up. you know? but... thats another topic. we will start a mastering topic later.
- Elijah

N0N
Registered User

Joined: 20 Oct 2003

Posted: Sat Nov 27 2004 12:28
yes, I know. I need a new guitar and multi effect peddal. That setup cost me a whol $125 and the muti-fx peddal was 4 times what I paid for the guitar, hehe. Everything else is good, except maybe my mxl 990 microphone. But switching from 44khz to 96khz is a huge difference of sound. madtracker doesnt like me using 96khz, vst, and the eq's thou. Wont even let me play a whole pattern hehe, It would be nice to have a prerender option right now. I'll figure something out, I always do. And mastering topic would be a good idea, why hasnt one already been started? thanks Elijah

Elijah
Registered User

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Eh?

Posted: Sat Nov 27 2004 18:40

N0N wrote:

And mastering topic would be a good idea, why hasnt one already been started?

thanks Elijah

i think so... but we'll start another Twisted Evil

- Elijah

QBical
Registered User

Joined: 04 May 2003
Location: Utrecht , The Netherlands

Posted: Sun Nov 28 2004 11:00
Commercial cd's don't sound better because they use 24bit samples at an insane samplerate... How would you know anyway? The cd's you listen are all 44.1khz 16bit! And since we humans can only hear from 20hz to about 15/18khz it's imposable to actualy 'hear' the difference. Furthermore I think it's crazy to use 96Khz, why not use an multiple of 44.1, that's the rate it all comes down to... In most of the studios I've been we'd always use an samplerate of 88.2, wich is more than enough. If your mastering for DVD then 96khz is a good choise but we're talking about music-cd's here... But I agree that madracker should have the option to load 24bit samples, and the wave export should have more options to chose from ( for example the 88.2 samplerate ). But keep in mind that most VST samplers support 24bit samples. Never used it, but I think they dither it down to 16 bit for madtracker. But you can use your 24bit samples anyway... Now, back to the hangover :-&
PC: P4 HT 3ghz, 1gb ram, 500GB+ Storage, plextor DVD-rw, M-audo Audiophile 2496 Laptop: Apple Powerbook G4 15inch Other Stuff: Phonic MU802 mixer, Alesis M1 Active Mk2 Monitors, Ipod 2nd gen. 20GB, maxtor firewire HD 80GB

N0N
Registered User

Joined: 20 Oct 2003

Posted: Sun Nov 28 2004 12:22
So then it boils down to my equipment then. Or even my monitors, most times I do not here the same thing recording as I do playing. I guess I should look into that. As for the cd's, and sample rate I figured when lowering a sample rate say to fit it on a cd it gets better accuracy moment to moment, so yea 88.2khz would work also. (this will save on some hdd space sweet) And I wouldnt know, thats why I posted to figure it out . btw I can hear the differance in my head phones when using a guitar and distortion, it picks up a whole new level of chaos. I'm using a cheep ass guitar and effects set up, and I know thats lowering the quality right there, going to fix this soon I hope. so indebt, so many ideas, sigh. :S What I got is good for now, but untill I can afford such things I'll keep tweeking and experamenting. only thing I guess I can do. This was helpfull too thanks Qbical hehe took from the wrong end of the songs, am sapost to cut about 15khz - 20khz up, not -drop it to -90Db all the way across. I also need to work on my automation of faders, sence I dont use them I now see the need to.

LogicDeLuxe
Registered User

Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Location: Germany

Posted: Sun Nov 28 2004 20:12
It's not generally 96000 Hz is better then 44100 Hz. It's mainly a matter how good oversampling/resampling works in both software and hardware. I tested this problem with Cooledit/Audition and compared it with Madtracker at the best setting (125-point filters and sinc interpolation). I used a test sweep 1 Hz - 32000 Hz at a sample frequency at 64000 Hz. While Cooledit/Audition does a pretty damn good job at resampling in both ways, up to 96000 Hz and down to 44100 Hz (default filter settings). Upsampled to 96000 Hz: Downsampled to 44100 Hz: I can't confirm that for MadTracker. Upsampling to 96000 Hz is not that perfect than Cooledit, though it is a usable result, that some mirroring in the upper end is usually inaudible: Downsampling is much worse. There are heavy alias and mirror frequencies in the audible part: So if your Madtracker-Song sounds bad, you should check if your samples need downsampling. If this is the case, split the affected instrument into more sections (ie. make some preresampled versions of wide range sections) to avoid the need to resample that far. And of course "better resampling" should be added to the Madtracker's wish list. And be carefull when comparing to professional CDs, since there are too many sub optimal excamples, especially in pop music. The most comon problem is that CDs are mastered too hot, ie. they are dynamically compressed to death, hence they sound lifeless. The best produced CDs can be usually found in the late 80th like: Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" first edition prior 1996 (-22.91 dB total RMS) Yello "Flag" (-18.02 dB total RMS) The Alan Parsons Project - Tales of Mystery and Imagination (-14.12 dB total RMS) And here is an example for a far too hot mastered CD: Santana - Supernatural (-8.84 dB total RMS) By the way, if you have that album, you should compare it with the Supernatural live DVD (or even the VHS issue on HiFi equipment), what a difference! Standard VU meter leveling is usually considered -14 dB which is enough for most recordings, and probably wouldn't even had hurt the example albums above. Classical recordings are typically at about -20 dB. Of course this is meant for the finished premaster, and you might want to record your instruments even softer in order to avoid clipping.

Elijah
Registered User

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Eh?

Posted: Mon Nov 29 2004 00:49 wow..
nice posts, Qbical and Logic.. that sure gave me some insight on recording logic. i know what you mean about the pop songs now days. it seems that labels are having a 'battle of the loudest' whereas loudest definately does not mean best. peace.
- Elijah

mikx
Registered User

Joined: 05 May 2003
Location: Melbourne

Posted: Mon Nov 29 2004 04:26

QBical wrote:

Now, back to the hangover
:-&

lol! a reasonable answer for a man hung over.. Razz

it's true though, the battle of the loudest is on. its marketing! the louder songs captures more audience on the radio... *sigh* there goes real music...

N0N
Registered User

Joined: 20 Oct 2003

Posted: Mon Nov 29 2004 06:52
Hey logic, do you think you could post the samples you used for the pictures. I dont quite understand what you mean, I do better with ear vision then I am with pictures. But great post, very informative.

Reply to topic

Post new topic

Page 1 of 2

All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2 Next