John K

An old, bald as a billiard ball friend said once about hair. You got to lose it one hair at a time or all at once. Carry on for now in the present and let a hundred years up the road take care of itself. Words for the male ego to live by, myself included since I got more hair between my toes than on top of my head. John

Bapu, Craig, Paulo, We got to tread lightly on this. The young lady has more intelligence and subtle insight than any ten of us rude and crude guys put together, and more valuable than a diamond to have somehow dropped in among us to contribute. Her ancient Sam'sktra spell checker failed miserably, but yeah. You are right. Speak in tongues until current languages can represent the concept. Don't want to scare her off. Jyoti, company and family overrunning the place but have a rational answer to your question. Problem is with interpretation and translation. Will get back with you when the dust settles. John

Thanks Steven

In case missed, Fathom Synth just did a major overhaul. Drag and drop of the modulators onto a control knob. Intelligent truncation of effects after the note release that would drive CPU use down the drain. Many optimizations and new features. Still can get the synth to crackle and pop if the polyphony is too hi for the likes of complex pad presets, but way improved over previous builds. Much needed and required upgrade for anyone using this incredible machine. https://www.fathomsynth.com/home John

This link: http://synthblitz.altervista.org/ Nitroflex synth is now 64 bit. Improved CPU use. Revived a good clean 3 band parametric equalizer to the synth among the many pro effects. Recoded the Unison function to spread out the chorus/stereo field all over the map. Beautiful. I ran into this gem years ago as it evolved. A lot of the EDM presets were not to my liking or maybe use (there are over a thousand presets), but the core functions are powerful and unique, and many of the presets usable out of the box as is. I adopted Nitroflex as a go to engine to create Hammond type organs, washed in the blood church pipes and sweeping pads. So much under the hood. The respected dev has also updated the smooth mastering compressor VA RAXS to 64 bit. DEMON 80, three band compressor also out. Way worth the demos to download. John

Jyoti, For you, my dear, anything. Hit me with your best shot. If I have to plead igorant, will at least be honest and admit the issue unresolved for a few hundred years or so. Unless there are other closet mystics here who can provide an answer. Would have really loved to hang out with your Dad. He tried to get you on the straight and narrow. John

Thank you Blades The fog slowly starting to lift. John

Guys, Thanks for the advice and counsel. Have to study to understand it all so I can get back with questions with any intelligent content and not waste your time. Have used r8brain as a converter when conversion needed, based on the older data posted on this link. Most know about this but for those who do not: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ Things have gotten better over the years. Still cannot understand the argument that for CD purposes only, sampling at anywhere other than 44.1/16 provides any advantage since the finer data and resolutions have to be thrown out anyway to degrade to the standard, even if there were no consideration for aliasing artifacts. Interesting Oskald's comment that the CD resolution is undergoing evolution to a more advanced standard. Will try to get a handle on this with a little help from my friends. Hope all are warm and dry. John

Thanks Craig. Can understand lessening artifacts by downsampling from a higher resolution to get the CD out. Still don't understand why if the CD is a target, why not just do 44.1/16 and do away with any struggle trying to minimize artifacts in an extra conversion process that has to happen carved in stone. My understanding is that any advantage is dumped in the down conversion, and the conversion itself adds garbage even if possibly too subliminal for us to hear depending on what we used to convert with. Somebody set me straight so I can make sense of this. John

Too friggin drunk to read all the hard core advice here, so sorry if this is already covered. My opinion lay below layman, so may not be worth a hill of compost in the bigger, more informed picture. Maybe depends on what the target of the end product is. If you are translating to another system with thousand dollar monitors that need every nuance of a 192/24 or floating 32bit representation, then you got to go with the big guns. Some claim that 24 bit depth can record trails of faint reverbs or the like that merit the argument to record at higher bit rates.. Reference the depth of the noise floor. Twice, three or way more better than what the ancient rock and roll masters had struggling with an Ampex tape machine. 56 db s/n ratio was all they had, but they did magic. If the target is a CD boombox, you are stuck with the 44.1k/16 bit protocol. Everything you have oversampled is lost. Noise floor comes up to 16 bit obscuring the silent subtleties. All connect the dots points on the digital timeline are thrown out down sampling to 44.1 k. Anything oversampled to get pristine quality has to be degraded to make the CD. Anything undersampled has to be bloated up to an empty space with no added data. This why in my ignorance, since my target is eventually a CD, record at 44.1k and 16 bit depth, just do it the way it ultimately has to be restructured to make the CD and not having to worry about artifacts in the conversion. Something I found. My old PCI Delta 1010-LT allows recording at 22.5 k or whatever close. Gets beyond a curse of pristine digital unforgiveness and seems to throw in a bit of old analog goodness. My opinion, if you are going to publish a CD, do 44.1 k and 16 bit depth. All else upper and lower is lost until they update the CD standard, and you are at the mercy of the integrity of whatever you have chosen to up sample or downsample your final mix. My two cents. John

Hey Jyoti, Oh crap... Cool to reconnect with you sister. Dear Light in the darkness. I was so excited about sharing the gospel of my sublime presence that I forgot to do a spell check. It is a bit confusing, but think I spelled fowl wrong maybe. Didn't want to say birds because this would have been too... commonplace. Not Laureate stuff. As much as I can tell, it should have been... "From the fishes of the air to the FOULS of the sea" You can still nominate me for the Nobel prize after this minor correction. Love you kid, John

Let the good news spread throughout the land. Throughout the shining galaxies. From the mountain tops to the valleys below. From the fishes of the air to the fowls of the sea. I am here !!! (I think) (bloody cool, huh... Major honor to hang out with my old buddies and folks never met. When they shut down the old forum, was in the midst of irritating someone or something. Hope to pick this up where I left off.) Love you all, JohnKenn