6 ms·

24/192 is also great for digital synthesizers--if you're generating a waveform like a sawtooth that has theoretically instantaneous transitions, they can eat as

by evo 3mo ago

24/192 is also great for digital synthesizers--if you're generating a waveform like a sawtooth that has theoretically instantaneous transitions, they can eat as much frequency as you can give them. Running at 44khz loses noticeable high-end content. Most modern digital synths have already caught onto this and run internally at much higher sampling rates even if their output gets downsampled, but sometimes you run across a vintage plugin that runs at the host audio rate and working in a higher sampling rate is audible.

Blackthorn 3mo ago
You can generate perfect band-limited sawtooth waves at 44.1khz, there are multiple techniques for doing this and most production digital synthesizers use them. Oversampling gives you headroom for aliases for the rest of the synth that is more vulnerable to it.
- evo 3mo ago
  Yeah, I was oversimplifying a blit, the raw waveforms are usually okay, but I distinctly remember old-school VSTs where you couldn't achieve a nice saw lead at 44.1.
  - Blackthorn 3mo ago
    It's tough to tell without specific names, but I imagine a lot of particularly old* VSTs were written to use naive sawtooths rather than perfect band-limited ones, which would have terrible aliasing at 44.1 khz. Oversampling those would help a lot! * Some people are still making this mistake, despite information on the (many) ways to do it the right way being widely and freely available!
    - evo 3mo ago
      I wonder if there's also distortion or ring modulation stages where some of the energy above hearing range might spill into audible sidebands if they're not nyquist-limited first.
      - Blackthorn 3mo ago
        Yeah, that's the "rest of the synth" part that's more vulnerable to aliasing. There's some ways to do band-limited distortion but...they aren't nearly as widespread, easy, or universal as band-limited oscillators. Ring modulation is funny though because you'd ideally want the sidebands to modulate down by default rather than filter them out, that's why you're using it.
dist-epoch 3mo ago
No synth generates sawtooths by literally drawing a saw tooth in PCM. The distorsion you get if you do that is not subtle at all.
Applejinx 3mo ago
Hydrasynth aliases like a mad thing. My flagship synth ended up being Summit, and its oscillators are digital but run at a crazy high sample rate. Did likewise with some Chord Organ modules: that Teensy board it was built on could do chord audio at 300k and over a megahertz if you were just generating one wave as simply as possible. The freedom from aliasing really helped the sound, for all that it's a 12 bit analog output. A squarewave is a 1 bit signal…
nullc 3mo ago
> 24/192 is also great for digital synthesizers--if you're generating a waveform like a sawtooth that has theoretically instantaneous transitions, they can eat as much frequency as you can give them. So if your synthesizers do not use proper band-limited oscillators then 192KHz is _FAR_ too slow. You'd want to be running at hundreds of KHz, perhaps a few MHz. In reality synth software that doesn't sound like crap uses band limited oscillators and should work okay at 48KHz too. That said, even if the oscillators are band limited it may be the case the varrious modulations aren't band limited properly, as getting those wrong won't sound instantly wrong (in particular because you have to modulate to make it wrong, and the underlying change of the modulation may make it harder to tell its wrong). Though also in those cases if you're not counting on every step being properly band limited then 192KHz may be an improvement but you're still probably getting some meaningful aliasing. I think given how fast computers have become relative to digital audio there is probably a good case to just make any "modular synth" run at 32-bit 480KHz or even 4.8MHz through every stage that could process the audio. Maybe 192KHz really is enough to suppress the aliasing artifacts but I think to be convinced of that I'd want to see a system that supported both and validate that the difference between a downsampled 48KHz output from the two modes was below -90dB or something. Or otherwise you can just declare that the aliasing is part of the sound and then there are no right choices... 24khz sampling, 48k, 192k ... who cares, use what you like best. :)
- Archit3ch 3mo ago
  > I think given how fast computers have become relative to digital audio there is probably a good case to just make any "modular synth" run at 32-bit 480KHz or even 4.8MHz through every stage that could process the audio. 1. It should run at FP64 if you want to preserve filter resonances, etc. 2. At 10x/100x fixed-rate oversampling, even a modern "fast" CPU will have very few cycles per (higher-rate) sample to run the DSP for 1 "module" of the software modular. Forget about interconnected modules, multiple tracks, or polyphony. For this kind of "analog"-style processing, it's better to run adaptive-rate algorithms (think SPICE) instead of wasting compute on unnecessary extra audio samples.
  - nullc 3mo ago

by evo 3mo ago

Blackthorn 3mo ago

You can generate perfect band-limited sawtooth waves at 44.1khz, there are multiple techniques for doing this and most production digital synthesizers use them. Oversampling gives you headroom for aliases for the rest of the synth that is more vulnerable to it.

evo 3mo ago
Yeah, I was oversimplifying a blit, the raw waveforms are usually okay, but I distinctly remember old-school VSTs where you couldn't achieve a nice saw lead at 44.1.
- Blackthorn 3mo ago
  It's tough to tell without specific names, but I imagine a lot of particularly old* VSTs were written to use naive sawtooths rather than perfect band-limited ones, which would have terrible aliasing at 44.1 khz. Oversampling those would help a lot! * Some people are still making this mistake, despite information on the (many) ways to do it the right way being widely and freely available!
  - evo 3mo ago
    I wonder if there's also distortion or ring modulation stages where some of the energy above hearing range might spill into audible sidebands if they're not nyquist-limited first.
    - Blackthorn 3mo ago
      Yeah, that's the "rest of the synth" part that's more vulnerable to aliasing. There's some ways to do band-limited distortion but...they aren't nearly as widespread, easy, or universal as band-limited oscillators. Ring modulation is funny though because you'd ideally want the sidebands to modulate down by default rather than filter them out, that's why you're using it.

dist-epoch 3mo ago

No synth generates sawtooths by literally drawing a saw tooth in PCM. The distorsion you get if you do that is not subtle at all.

Applejinx 3mo ago

Hydrasynth aliases like a mad thing. My flagship synth ended up being Summit, and its oscillators are digital but run at a crazy high sample rate. Did likewise with some Chord Organ modules: that Teensy board it was built on could do chord audio at 300k and over a megahertz if you were just generating one wave as simply as possible. The freedom from aliasing really helped the sound, for all that it's a 12 bit analog output. A squarewave is a 1 bit signal…

nullc 3mo ago

> 24/192 is also great for digital synthesizers--if you're generating a waveform like a sawtooth that has theoretically instantaneous transitions, they can eat as much frequency as you can give them. So if your synthesizers do not use proper band-limited oscillators then 192KHz is _FAR_ too slow. You'd want to be running at hundreds of KHz, perhaps a few MHz. In reality synth software that doesn't sound like crap uses band limited oscillators and should work okay at 48KHz too. That said, even if the oscillators are band limited it may be the case the varrious modulations aren't band limited properly, as getting those wrong won't sound instantly wrong (in particular because you have to modulate to make it wrong, and the underlying change of the modulation may make it harder to tell its wrong). Though also in those cases if you're not counting on every step being properly band limited then 192KHz may be an improvement but you're still probably getting some meaningful aliasing. I think given how fast computers have become relative to digital audio there is probably a good case to just make any "modular synth" run at 32-bit 480KHz or even 4.8MHz through every stage that could process the audio. Maybe 192KHz really is enough to suppress the aliasing artifacts but I think to be convinced of that I'd want to see a system that supported both and validate that the difference between a downsampled 48KHz output from the two modes was below -90dB or something. Or otherwise you can just declare that the aliasing is part of the sound and then there are no right choices... 24khz sampling, 48k, 192k ... who cares, use what you like best. :)

Archit3ch 3mo ago
> I think given how fast computers have become relative to digital audio there is probably a good case to just make any "modular synth" run at 32-bit 480KHz or even 4.8MHz through every stage that could process the audio. 1. It should run at FP64 if you want to preserve filter resonances, etc. 2. At 10x/100x fixed-rate oversampling, even a modern "fast" CPU will have very few cycles per (higher-rate) sample to run the DSP for 1 "module" of the software modular. Forget about interconnected modules, multiple tracks, or polyphony. For this kind of "analog"-style processing, it's better to run adaptive-rate algorithms (think SPICE) instead of wasting compute on unnecessary extra audio samples.
- nullc 3mo ago