[LazyListener]

  I mentioned that in practice, it doesn't mean that producing music at so high sampling rate is possible.
 
For some reason, when I played that square wave my CPU load reached ~50% or so and this is only one synth doing one very basic thing. It caused my computer to lag, and I heard clicks and pops every sec or so. Of course I could still render it but I couldn't play it in real time (without the mentioned problems). Granted, producers will have better hardware than I but producing music involves a lot of processing. I don't think it's possible to have a combination of hardware and software that let's you to do the whole producing in 192kHz. At least not yet. They aren't (always) inherently limited but practically, they always are, to some extent.

 
We didn't really get into how "possible" it is to produce EDM at high sample rates, given today's hardware.  I've read some posts over at gearslutz.com (posted a link in one of my earlier posts) that show some producers are doing just that.  Not sure if it's 192, but at least 96 kHz.
 
What you showed was that synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.  At least that's what I got from your posts and experiments.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm assuming you did this, because like me, you interpreted Gregorio's comments that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res because the genre has limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There's an implication in that statement that electronic music in inherently more limited than other genres in dynamic range and ultrasonics.  I believe you showed that is not the case.

 

[LazyListener]

  Not at all. He showed a case of a software synth generating a signal deliberately chosen to produce ultrasonics, but would never by chosen to make music. He did not address all "synths", not even close. It's one specific case, and while it may occur in other software synths as well, it's not representative of "synths" at all, certainly not being used to produce musical signals.
If only it were that simple. The real limitation in producing sound in a synth is a combination of the usability of the tools, understanding of the technology, and a very strong artistic sense. The strong need of both technical aptitude and artistic aptitude occurs strongly in synth programming. That combination is rare in individuals, they generally favor one aptitude strongly over the other, but is the real limit.
Good you understand that.

He did that theoretical experiment to show that synths are not any more limited in dynamic range than acoustic instruments.  Therefore, EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres.  Any limitation of dynamic range in EDM stems from creative choice by the producers in order to generate the intended musical experience.  Sure, EDM may have more compressed dynamic range than other genres, like Classical, but again, that stems from creative choice, not from limitations of the equipment/instruments used to create the music.  I'm sure if EDM producers wanted to they could make electronic music with as wide a dynamic range as any other music genre.  Same goes for ultrasonic content.
 
Never said he addressed all synths.  Never knew any of our discussions had to apply to all synths.
 
I was not referring to limitations in producing sound in a synth (creative process).  I was referring to limitations of synthesizers themselves.  Their capabilities are typically limited by the processing power of hardware they run on, and of course the creativity of the programmers that create the synth software.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

What you showed was that synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.  At least that's what I got from your posts and experiments.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm assuming you did this, because like me, you interpreted Gregorio's comments that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res because the genre has limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There's an implication in that statement that electronic music in inherently more limited than other genres in dynamic range and ultrasonics.  I believe you showed that is not the case.

If music stuff don't contains ultrasonic content it is not reason obligatorily to use 44 kHz.
 
Analog filter of ADC is sloping. It catch ultrasound content besides synth (noise, interference, microphone and analog inputs).
 
1. For cutting ultrasound content and decimation to 44 kHz need use steep digital filter. In pro audio suppression aliases there about -170...200 dB. I suppose, such value need for "transparent" work with records. "Transparent" here mean "work and don't worry about degrading sound".
 
2. At output DAC we have sloping filter issue again. If we will oversample 44 kHz to higher sample rates, there need also steep digital filter with suppression -130 dB or better (level noise floor at DAC). Because analog filter is slope.
 
Thus for record 44 kHz need 2 times use steep digital filter with significant ringing instead 1 or 2 times of non-steep filters.

 

[LazyListener]

  YES, I am.  And here's why:
That's what some people are getting from your posts.  It's one post by one user, but he no doubt reflects many, many more who are not active participants.
 
The conclusion in that post  is completely wrong and misleading.  We already have several posts that seem to have been mislead by your misinformation.  
 
"Synths" is the first problem.  "Synths" were not used.  What we have here is one example of a specific software synth that was coaxed deliberately. and with effort, into producing ultrasonics.  That example doesn't represent "Synths" in general at all, nor their lack of dynamic or frequency limitations, it represents one specific case where the user deliberately forced the result.   
I'll give you a little credit for noting the situation was impractical, but that's not what some people are getting from this. 
 
To prove what Lazy is saying you'd have to look at the output of a huge number of synths, both software and hardware, of all the different types, sample a wide range of patches, look at the resulting spectra, then draw your conclusions.  Or, do what I did, look at the raw technology, the sample rates involved, and the practical application of synths in general.  
 
I have no idea why it's important to cling to the heavily biased theoretical example. The demonstration was good and correctly done, but has no relevance to the real world of "synths" producing ultrasonics.
 
The continual reinforcement of it is, in my opinion, irresponsible, as it advances an idea that influences incorrect conclusions by others.

I get what you're saying.  I do.  But Gregorio made comments that synths have limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There is an implication there, whether intended or not, that synths are more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.  There were even some comparisons being made with synths and acoustical instruments.  Apparently, Gregorio wasn't clear enough in his statement.  If I can see that implication there, others will too, as VNandor apparently did.  VNandor simply pointed out that synths don't necessarily have to have dynamic range any more limited than acoustical instruments.  Same with ultrasonics.  Now you're bringing up some synths but not all.  Doesn't matter.  We were discussing synths in general.  No one claimed that all synths have wide dynamic range or ultrasonics, just that some do or can be made to do so.

 

[pinnahertz]

What you showed was that synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.  At least that's what I got from your posts and experiments.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

You ARE wrong, and I've already corrected you.

I'm assuming you did this, because like me, you interpreted Gregorio's comments that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res because the genre has limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There's an implication in that statement that electronic music in inherently more limited than other genres in dynamic range and ultrasonics.

It is, and that's irrefutable. Take several examples of EDM and run them through the TT Dynamic Range Meter, and a spectrum analyzer capable of looking at ultrasonics.  Note the results. EDM is very DR limited, and has no ultrasonic content.  Now, do the same with another genre, like Classical, since it's been mentioned.  Note the results, and compare them.  You'll find way more dynamics.  

I believe you showed that is not the case.  

No, he did not. He showed that one software synth could be forced into generating a waveform with ultrasonic content.  His experiment had nothing to do with EDM or music of any kind.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
He did that theoretical experiment to show that synths are not any more limited in dynamic range than acoustic instruments.

The experiment showed nothing at all about dynamic range. It showed ultrasonic content only.

Therefore, EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres.  Any limitation of dynamic range in EDM stems from creative choice by the producers in order to generate the intended musical experience.  Sure, EDM may have more compressed dynamic range than other genres, like Classical, but again, that stems from creative choice, not from limitations of the equipment/instruments used to create the music.  I'm sure if EDM producers wanted to they could make electronic music with as wide a dynamic range as any other music genre.

You are contradicting yourself.  You say:
"EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres."
then:
"Any limitation of dynamic range in EDM stems from creative choice by the producers in order to generate the intended musical experience."
and:
"Sure, EDM may have more compressed dynamic range than other genres,..."
 
So...which is it?  It's not limited in dynamic range, but it has more compressed dynamic range than other genres?  Sorry, you can't have both, it's one or the other.
 
The fact is, the choices being made by EDM producers and musicians make it one of the most limited dynamic range genres today. It can't be both unlimited and limited at the same time, it's one or the other, and the choice is highly compressed, limited DR. That  limited DR partially defines the genre.

Same goes for ultrasonic content.

Not, not at all.  The issue of ultrasonic content is completely different.  The results of dynamic range limiting are all unmistakably audible, and the result of choice. Ultrasonics are not audible, not ever. Nobody's making an artistic choice to produce them or not. Incidental ultrasonics are not there in EDM because of a bandwidth limit of the device making the sound, or the bandwidth limit of the recording system. That's nothing like dynamic range. They are two entirely separate things.

Never said he addressed all synths.  Never knew any of our discussions had to apply to all synths.

You're once again contradicting yourself.

What you showed was that synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments.

Notice: you've used the word, "synths", that's more than one synth, and in context, "all" is easily implied because you related "synths" to an undefined number of "acoustic instruments". He tested exactly  one synth. He forced it to produce ultrasonics by generating a non-musical, unplayable patch, and taxed his system to do so. That simply does not represent anything more than his specific software synth in his specific application (non-musical).
 
The conclusion you're drawing goes like this: On October 15, 1997 Andy Green drove a car at 760mph/1223kph. So you conclude that "cars" can go up to 760mph/1223kph.
 
But the above is incorrect. The car Andy drove was powered by two huge jet engines producing 111,000 brake horsepower, and weighed 10 tons. It wasn't street legal, and couldn't turn a corner on a residential street. You can call it a "car" because it had wheels, engines, a means of steering, speed control, and stopping. But to make the statement, based on that experiment, that "cars" can go up to 760mph/1223kph is just plain misleading and incorrect.
 
VNandor tested one software synth creating an unusual patch chosen specifically for its potential to produce ultrasonic content, then had to render it to make it playable.  That's the software synth equivalent of a purpose-built supersonic jet powered car. 
 
To then conclude that "synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments" from that experiment is just plain wrong. He proved one thing, and one thing only: the specific software synth he used could be made to produce a waveform with ultrasonic content. That's it, nothing more.
 
I've already posted with regard to the range of other synths, a great many of which are still hardware-based.  As Gregorio posted, many if not most synths use waveform samples as their basis of sound generation.  Those samples are manipulated and combined to create new sounds.  It's a digital process that starts with samples, most of which are 44.1 or 48kHz sampling frequency and thus have no ultrasonic content.  The synths that use them don't create ultrasonics for that and many other reasons.  Analog synths, both vintage and modern, have some ultrasonic capability, but the waveform would have to approximate a square wave to do so.  Square waves are one of the basic waveforms analogy synths use, but they aren't very musical.  The first thing you do in creating a musically useful sound is to mix it with another waveform, and/or run that square wave into a filter...and there goes  your ultrasonics.  
 
You really have no idea what any other synth could create in the ultrasonic region, and none have been tested here.  But a good solid understanding of the technology tells the story.  Ultrasonics are rare to non-existent in synthesizer output, deliberate and extreme attempts to produce them notwithstanding.  

 

[LazyListener]

Quote:

  The experiment showed nothing at all about dynamic range. It showed ultrasonic content only.
You are contradicting yourself.  You say:
"EDM as a genre is inherently no more limited in dynamic range than other genres."
then:
"Any limitation of dynamic range in EDM stems from creative choice by the producers in order to generate the intended musical experience."
and:
"Sure, EDM may have more compressed dynamic range than other genres,..."
 
So...which is it?  It's not limited in dynamic range, but it has more compressed dynamic range than other genres?  Sorry, you can't have both, it's one or the other.
 
The fact is, the choices being made by EDM producers and musicians make it one of the most limited dynamic range genres today. It can't be both unlimited and limited at the same time, it's one or the other, and the choice is highly compressed, limited DR. That  limited DR partially defines the genre.
Not, not at all.  The issue of ultrasonic content is completely different.  The results of dynamic range limiting are all unmistakably audible, and the result of choice. Ultrasonics are not audible, not ever. Nobody's making an artistic choice to produce them or not. Incidental ultrasonics are not there in EDM because of a bandwidth limit of the device making the sound, or the bandwidth limit of the recording system. That's nothing like dynamic range. They are two entirely separate things.
You're once again contradicting yourself.
Notice: you've used the word, "synths", that's more than one synth, and in context, "all" is easily implied because you related "synths" to an undefined number of "acoustic instruments". He tested exactly  one synth. He forced it to produce ultrasonics by generating a non-musical, unplayable patch, and taxed his system to do so. That simply does not represent anything more than his specific software synth in his specific application (non-musical).
 
The conclusion you're drawing goes like this: On October 15, 1997 Andy Green drove a car at 760mph/1223kph. So you conclude that "cars" can go up to 760mph/1223kph.
 
But the above is incorrect. The car Andy drove was powered by two huge jet engines producing 111,000 brake horsepower, and weighed 10 tons. It wasn't street legal, and couldn't turn a corner on a residential street. You can call it a "car" because it had wheels, engines, a means of steering, speed control, and stopping. But to make the statement, based on that experiment, that "cars" can go up to 760mph/1223kph is just plain misleading and incorrect.
 
VNandor tested one software synth creating an unusual patch chosen specifically for its potential to produce ultrasonic content, then had to render it to make it playable.  That's the software synth equivalent of a purpose-built supersonic jet powered car. 
 
To then conclude that "synths are no more limited in dynamic range and ultrasonics than acoustic instruments" from that experiment is just plain wrong. He proved one thing, and one thing only: the specific software synth he used could be made to produce a waveform with ultrasonic content. That's it, nothing more.
 
I've already posted with regard to the range of other synths, a great many of which are still hardware-based.  As Gregorio posted, many if not most synths use waveform samples as their basis of sound generation.  Those samples are manipulated and combined to create new sounds.  It's a digital process that starts with samples, most of which are 44.1 or 48kHz sampling frequency and thus have no ultrasonic content.  The synths that use them don't create ultrasonics for that and many other reasons.  Analog synths, both vintage and modern, have some ultrasonic capability, but the waveform would have to approximate a square wave to do so.  Square waves are one of the basic waveforms analogy synths use, but they aren't very musical.  The first thing you do in creating a musically useful sound is to mix it with another waveform, and/or run that square wave into a filter...and there goes  your ultrasonics.  
 
You really have no idea what any other synth could create in the ultrasonic region, and none have been tested here.  But a good solid understanding of the technology tells the story.  Ultrasonics are rare to non-existent in synthesizer output, deliberate and extreme attempts to produce them notwithstanding.  

You and Gregorio have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees, and love to cherry-pick specific statements for arguments' sake.
 
EDM as a genre GENERALLY has limited dynamic range because of creative choice, not because today's synthesizer technology limits dynamic range or ultrasonics.  Better?  Happy now?  I'm sure you'll find something to pick apart in that statement, too.  Nothing is limiting electronic music producers from creating electronic music with the same dynamic range as other genres, other than creative choice.  Synthesizers (some, not all, never claimed all, you started arguing about some vs all) do have the ability to create music with wide dynamic range and ultrasonics, and at high resolutions.
 
When I said same goes for ultrasonics, that's to be taken in context with the statements I made immediately preceding that statement.  Yet you start replying about audibility.  Audibility had nothing to do with my most recent reply.  If it's not audible, it's not music.  Same is true for acoustical instruments.
 
When VNandor and I are talking about "synthesizers" we mean within the scope of the technology as a whole.  You're obviously smart enough to realize this, so I can only guess that you got picky about some vs all synths because it keeps your argument about dynamic range alive.  So, now I"m forced to send yet another reply to explain the obvious - that some synths have more limited DR than others.  But my argument wasn't even about that.  It was simply that synthesizers can have just as wide a dynamic range as acoustical instruments.  And synthesizers can feature ultrasonics just as well as acoustical instruments.  Some, not all.  Jeez!
 
The level of dynamic range compression in electronic music ultimately is due to creative choice.  If EDM producers wanted to, they could make tracks with very wide dynamic range, tomorrow.  (Some tracks already feature very soft and very loud sounds).  The technology (of synthesizers) allows them to do so.  If EDM producers wanted to include ultrasonics in their music for whatever reason, they can do so, tomorrow, not years from now.  Therefore, EDM as genre is no more inherently limited in terms of dynamic range or ultrasonics than any other genre.  Electronic music can have as much dynamic range and ultrasonics as acoustical music.  The reason it doesn't is due to creative choice and factors other than technological limitations.

 

[LazyListener]

  You ARE wrong, and I've already corrected you.
It is, and that's irrefutable. Take several examples of EDM and run them through the TT Dynamic Range Meter, and a spectrum analyzer capable of looking at ultrasonics.  Note the results. EDM is very DR limited, and has no ultrasonic content.  Now, do the same with another genre, like Classical, since it's been mentioned.  Note the results, and compare them.  You'll find way more dynamics.  
No, he did not. He showed that one software synth could be forced into generating a waveform with ultrasonic content.  His experiment had nothing to do with EDM or music of any kind.

I'm not wrong.  He discussed dynamic range as well and showed how he can manipulate the dynamic range to be something like 70 dbs delta.  Go back and read his posts if you must.
 
EDM is not INHERENTLY more limited than other genres in terms of the dynamic range or ultrasonics that can be produced.  See my previous post for more on this.
 
I've already said that EDM in general has a more compressed dynamic range than say, Classical music.  But that's the nature of the beast stemming from creative choice, not from some technological limitations of electronic music.  Electronic (synthesized) music is capable of the same dynamic range and ultrasonics as acoustical, recorded music.  Instruments used in Classical music can also be played at a more limited dynamic range, or the DR can be compressed after recording.  It all stems from creative choice and the desired musical expression.

 

[castleofargh]

quick question, is there something to test buffer problems? like maybe sending a test tone for an hour and record that in a loop with an app that would take note of changes above a given magnitude?
I messing around with virtual cables, vst host and plenty of VSTs, and of course for the most part I wish to use those stuff for watching movies too so I try to keep delays fairly low. but sometimes I get a full chain that apparently has no problem, but after a while some buffer somewhere decides he had enough for just and instant. I tend to end up noticing after a while, but I'd like it if there was some free tool for that where we can test 3 hours of audio and find how low in delays I can really go without trouble.

 

[VNandor]

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm assuming you did this, because like me, you interpreted Gregorio's comments that EDM benefits the least from Hi-Res because the genre has limited dynamic range and no ultrasonic content.  There's an implication in that statement that electronic music in inherently more limited than other genres in dynamic range and ultrasonics.  I believe you showed that is not the case.

I did this because he didn't seem to be aware of that some snyths are capable of creating content that could only be captured in 192kHz/24bit. But I agree on that in practice, this is meaningless and not only because how synths are used (creative choice) but due to the practical limitations of the synth. I really hope my stance is clear now.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
1. I'm not wrong.  He discussed dynamic range as well and showed how he can manipulate the dynamic range to be something like 70 dbs delta.  Go back and read his posts if you must.
 
1. EDM is not INHERENTLY more limited than other genres in terms of the dynamic range or ultrasonics that can be produced.  See my previous post for more on this.
 
3. I've already said that EDM in general has a more compressed dynamic range than say, Classical music.  But that's the nature of the beast stemming from creative choice, not from some technological limitations of electronic music.  Electronic (synthesized) music is capable of the same dynamic range and ultrasonics as acoustical, recorded music.  Instruments used in Classical music can also be played at a more limited dynamic range, or the DR can be compressed after recording.  It all stems from creative choice and the desired musical expression.

1. He discussed it theoretically and described a synth patch with 70dB of dynamic range which would be unplayable.  He did not demonstrate it.  
 
2. Yes EDM is inherently more limited.  IT's part of the genre.  Show an example of even one EDM track with classical music type dynamics.
 
3. When everyone creating the same genre makes the same creative choice it defines the genre.  You could compress classical music into a 8dB DR window, and everyone would hate it.  You could create EDM with wider dynamics than any piece of music on record, and everyone would hate it.
 
You can misapply technology all day long to make a theoretical point, it doesn't change the validity of Gregorio's core statements. 

 

[pinnahertz]

  I did this because he didn't seem to be aware of that some snyths are capable of creating content that could only be captured in 192kHz/24bit. But I agree on that in practice, this is meaningless and not only because how synths are used (creative choice) but due to the practical limitations of the synth. I really hope my stance is clear now.

Thank you!
 
@LazyListener, note he did not say he did this to prove anything regarding EDM and any benefit it may have in high res recording.

 

[VNandor]

  1. He discussed it theoretically and described a synth patch with 70dB of dynamic range which would be unplayable.  He did not demonstrate it. 
 

I can easily play the patch if I apply a sensible amount oversampling and I think I've already said that. Sure, my demonstration is theoretical but not that much. Still not practical enough to reach any real-world conclusion.

 

[pinnahertz]

  I can easily play the patch if I apply a sensible amount oversampling and I think I've already said that. Sure, my demonstration is theoretical but not that much. Still not practical enough to reach any real-world conclusion.

Thank you again.
 
And, though I really think the equine is deceased, the proof is of one synth, not many or all.  I would assume there may be others that could be similarly forced to do the same, but not many, and not by accident in real music composition.

 

[Lex2]

Most soft synths these days (early 2017) are tweaked to do oversampling internally (sometimes designed as a user-selectable choice from say 2X to 8X). These include most that are popular in EDM, including the U-He synths (Diva, Hive, etc), Sylenth1, Massive, Spire, and Serum. Practically speaking, higher sample rates will stress the machine's IO and CPU so there is no practical or auditory benefit to mixing down at anything higher than 24/96, though there is no stopping a person from setting up a DAW at higher rates for the intermediate work of mixing the track on a more powerful desktop. VNandor's results are fairly typical of what you can get these days with soft synths (not that EDM requires high rates).