PG Music Home
Other than uncompressed file sizes perhaps, what might the reasoning that BiaB does not at this time plan on supporting 96 kHz.

Thank you for your time!

Edd 8:30:50 PM
Are there plans to operate at 96 in the future?

Jerry 8:31:18 PM
Not at this time. We base many features and content updates on what is submitted on our Wishlist forums. If you'd like to see this feature added in the future, we suggest posting your ideas in our Wishlist forums, here: [a url="https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=3"]https://www.pgmusic.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=3[/a]
Why would they? The 44.1kHz 16 bit Audiophile files sound quite good.

You need better? The BIAB plug-in lets you use any libraries you want in your DAW.
Indeed, file size is the biggest part. The Audiophile edition is currently around 1.9TB at 16-bit 44.1kHz - if we were to increase that to 24-bit 96kHz it would be around 5.7TB.

In addition , currently zero companies make a 2.5" 6tb external drive or larger, meaning we would have to offer it on a 3.5" drive. This would no longer be very portable, as not only would the drive be about 5 times the size of what we currently offer, it would require a separate power supply for the drive.
I think 96K is overkill at this point. I could see an option for 48K for compatibility with video-oriented devices and/or where the sample rate is locked at 48K. My Roland MIDI synth is like that.

But since external drive size is an issue, this is perhaps an opportunity to revisit the method of delivery. Some of us would welcome an option for downloading the audiophile version in a lossless compressed standard (and preferably one that worked on both Windows and Mac operating systems.
I too think 48k would be good.
24bit or single-precision float.

I guess it would be feasible to offer 96k as an option with the proviso that the drive would be larger and probably that the price would be higher. I fully understand any reluctance to do that due to all the product/parts/shipping management issue that would occur, so I fully understand "not at this time".
Matt and I have had similar discussions about interfaces. When is "good" good enough, and where do we reach diminishing returns in both convenience and cost?

The 44.1kHz 16-bit issue came up with the new interface I installed the other day, but I am not unhappy with the sound quality at 44.1kHz 16-bit.

Then again, I have been too lazy to get off my rear end and go into the shop and build a tube audiophile stereo with custom exotic speakers I have had in mind for several years...lol

Personally, PG Music could send me any size hard drive, USB or not. I would have no issue dealing with any size drive.

Regarding cost, with my upgrade price, the audiophile drive is well within the range of "worth what it costs." I don't buy a new addition every year but generally every two years.

There are many things in BIAB I would like to see change, but 44.1kHz 16-bit is really not even on the list.

I also agree with Matt on the download issue. Many of us have gigabit internet nowadays. So large file transfer is not an issue.

Billy
Reality check:

Unless PG Music is going to re-record all of the samples at 96kHz 24 bit, they would have to upsample the existing audiophile files. Well, any of us who need the existing files at 96k can do that ourselves.

Likewise, a large number of older VI libraries were recorded at 44.1/16 but are now available at 48/24. Hmmmmm… I wonder how that happened? Properly and carefully done to samples that were well recorded, you won’t hear the difference.

I sometimes have to deliver audio @ 96k for HD DVD audio but I’ve had the ability to record at that resolution for a couple decades now. I can’t imagine the situation where I would ever have to deliver a BIAB project at 96k.

The largest 2.5" HDDs (mechanical hard drives) are 5TB. 2.5" form SSDs are available at 8TB now but they’re pricy by comparison. Although I’m sure that, if PG Music goes to the expense of re-recording Audiophile at 96k, those few clamoring for this won’t mind paying the extra few hundred bucks for delivery, will they? Frankly, I’d be happy to download such a product but I might have the minority opinion — or do I?
Originally Posted By: Mike Halloran
Reality check:
Unless PG Music is going to re-record all of the samples at 96kHz 24 bit, they would have to upsample the existing audiophile files. Well, any of us who need the existing files at 96k can do that ourselves.

100%
As it is the stone won't be squeezed for more DrealDrum "stems" in a hurry, which I'd have thought easy enough as they ought to have been recorded in the 1st instance. This makes me suspect that original, premix, files may have been erased for space and that, most likely, trickles a little. Upscaling, like upmixing, is used, in the main, by con artist/floggers.
I think re-recording RealTracks would be silly. They can’t duplicate them exactly, and I would rather have new ones anyway.

As I understand it, RealTracks were recorded at a bit rate of 24. That would be worthwhile having as an audiophile version option. To my knowledge, we have not been told what sampling rate was used to record existing RealTracks.
Way too much gets made of this. No one can hear the difference.
Right, and the OP has left the building with that one post.
Originally Posted By: Byron Dickens
Way too much gets made of this. No one can hear the difference.

Aye. As a young lad my hearing was measured to 26kHz, which was where the test kit ran out. Even that would have been unlikely to allow me to have heard the difference.

These days I sometimes don't hear kitchen timer beeps over the tinitus. Ho Hum.

IIRC someone at PGM said their recordings were made at 48kHz/24bit, but don't quote me ... that may be a false memory.

Sampling at 96kHz has benefits because the anti-aliassing filters can be gentler and have fewer phase artifacts. Once recorded, though, there's really negligible (possibly nil) benefit in a higher sample rate until one gets to the final digital-to-analogue stage, when up-sampling to allow a gentler filter can again be a benefit.
Originally Posted By: Mike Halloran
Unless PG Music is going to re-record all of the samples at 96kHz 24 bit, they would have to upsample the existing audiophile files. Well, any of us who need the existing files at 96k can do that ourselves.

Yep, but a better idea than that is to simply export at 96kHz. It doesn't matter whether the Realtracks audio files are upsampled before the tracks are rendered or after, so there's no need to store all of the data at 96kHz if BIAB can simply render the file and upsample on the fly.


Originally Posted By: Mike Halloran
Although I’m sure that, if PG Music goes to the expense of re-recording Audiophile at 96k, those few clamoring for this won’t mind paying the extra few hundred bucks for delivery, will they?



If we were to re-record ALL of the existing (past and present) RealTracks, that would involve thousands of hours of re-recording, possibly tens of thousands of hours, and likely hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid to the musicians to re-create the previous Realtracks. The "few" that are clamouring for 96k RT's would likely have to pay MUCH more than an extra few hundred bucks.


Originally Posted By: rayc
This makes me suspect that original, premix, files may have been erased for space

That's quite possible. I don't personally know whether the original files still exist somewhere, but keep in mind that we've been doing RealTracks since 2008 when a "large" hard drive was maybe 500gb. Back around that time I worked as a sysadmin for a publishing company with about 120 employees, and the entire company's storage across multiple serverswas around 16tb. PG being a smaller company likely would've had less than that, so I'd imagine after some time that the original files may have been deleted. This is entirely speculation, however.


Originally Posted By: Byron Dickens
Way too much gets made of this. No one can hear the difference.

In general, yes. Even young people with perfect ears would be hard pressed to hear the difference.


Originally Posted By: Gordon Scott
These days I sometimes don't hear kitchen timer beeps over the tinitus. Ho Hum.

Same here. I'd blame my days as a drummer (despite wearing ear protection), but sadly for me it's hereditary.


Originally Posted By: Gordon Scott
IIRC someone at PGM said their recordings were made at 48kHz/24bit, but don't quote me ... that may be a false memory.

I don't know the answer. It's possible that some of the recordings were made at 44.1/16, since in many cases the recordings were done halfway across the world from us, and going back to 2008 when we started we may have opted for 44.1/16 simply to be able to transfer the files faster over a slow internet connection. Again, purely speculation.


Originally Posted By: Gordon Scott
Sampling at 96kHz has benefits because the anti-aliassing filters can be gentler and have fewer phase artifacts. Once recorded, though, there's really negligible (possibly nil) benefit in a higher sample rate until one gets to the final digital-to-analogue stage, when up-sampling to allow a gentler filter can again be a benefit.

Correct, however oversampling provides that same benefit even when recording at 44.1kHz.
Originally Posted By: Simon - PG Music
Originally Posted By: Gordon Scott
Sampling at 96kHz has benefits because the anti-aliassing filters can be gentler and have fewer phase artifacts. Once recorded, though, there's really negligible (possibly nil) benefit in a higher sample rate until one gets to the final digital-to-analogue stage, when up-sampling to allow a gentler filter can again be a benefit.

Correct, however oversampling provides that same benefit even when recording at 44.1kHz.

I hope I didn't mislead there. High sampling rates, e.g. oversampling, at the interface between analogue and digital is essentially always beneficial, whatever the final data rate.

The essential bit is not particularly the final sample-rate, but the 'clean'-ness of the filters, mostly those used for anti-aliasing the sampling. Most or all of us know how high-Q filters sound when used on synthesisers ... for good fidelity we want about the lowest Q we can manage.

44.1kHz is perfectly fine for most people. It does seem a shame, though, if one needs to up-sample to 48kHz.

(FWIW, I had a quick look at some datasheets from a while back ... a TI part with a 2014 datasheet offering 192kHz sampling at 24bit. Similar had been done well before that by using multiple ADCs. Several parts today offer 768kHz at 32-bit and around 120dB s/n.)
I think we are in some agreement here. I would like to see options for the Audiophile version that would include 44.1 or 48K sampling rates to match equipment requirements, but I would most like to get 24-bit files for the added headroom while mixing. I believe we were told 24-bit files were recorded.
Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
I think we are in some agreement here. I would like to see options for the Audiophile version that would include 44.1 or 48K sampling rates to match equipment requirements, but I would most like to get 24-bit files for the added headroom while mixing. I believe we were told 24-bit files were recorded.

That's the real issue for me, too. Although I render to 24 bit, I convert to 32 bit float in my DAW for the additional headroom when mixing. Much faster to get a clean mix that way.

Yes, but the Audiophile version would no longer fit onto that 2TB spinner that I and many others wish wasn't required.

Don't get me wrong—it's ok to make that still available for those few who still want it, complete with 44.1/16 files, I suppose, but the ability to download the Audiophile tracks at 48k/24 if that's how they were recorded would be nice.

I have a hard time believing that increasing the server capacity at PG Music would cost more than the manufacturing and "free" shipping associated with the current product.
Mike, you're more on top of these things than I am: what standard would you recommend for lossless downloadable audio files from PG Music that would serve both Mac and Windows?
Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
Mike, you're more on top of these things than I am: what standard would you recommend for lossless downloadable audio files from PG Music that would serve both Mac and Windows?


Good question but I think the correct answer is It doesn't matter.

BIAB for Mac and Win use different schemes that are incompatible with each other and there's no universal standard that's compatible with both (FLAC is not supported by the MacOS). Zip and RAR do not save space and must be decoded so neither is a solution for the End User. In any case, there will always be two versions to download.

PG Music already has a partial solution, the Band-in-a-Box Install Manager. They just need to finish it to include this task.

If you have Komplete, IK Media, UVI or half a dozen other VI libraries, you know that you can just fire up the Install/License/Download manager (or whatever it's called), click on Update or Install and it will know not only the correct libraries but also where you want them installed. To quote the late Ron Popeil: "Set it and forget it!". All you have to do is enter your license info—some installers query your account and take it from there. iZotope's is not a good example, BTW, but I'm hoping that, now they are aligned with Native Instruments, this will improve.
As I've mused for years I dream of a double blind research project (with all the proper protocols) that would determine the accuracy to which audiophiles could differentiate the different bit files via a simple hearing test.

Just a slightly off topic ramble.

Bud
Originally Posted By: Mike Halloran
Originally Posted By: Matt Finley
Mike, you're more on top of these things than I am: what standard would you recommend for lossless downloadable audio files from PG Music that would serve both Mac and Windows?


Good question but I think the correct answer is It doesn't matter.

BIAB for Mac and Win use different schemes that are incompatible with each other and there's no universal standard that's compatible with both (FLAC is not supported by the MacOS). Zip and RAR do not save space and must be decoded so neither is a solution for the End User. In any case, there will always be two versions to download.
.....

I think Matt's question was inadvertently slightly loaded here, which also slightly loads the answer.
There is, or can be, a difference between "lossless audio format" and "lossless download" that skews both the question and the answer a bit.

Mike's absolutely right that there's no compression advantage by applying, e.g., .zip to an already losslessly compressed format, but there is a compression advantage of applying it to, e.g., a .wav file.

There isn't I think any real reason why .wav files shouldn't be compressed with, e.g., .zip for the download and decompressed onto the drive after download, to be used thereafter as the .wav files.

That's different, of course, from BIAB directly using a lossless format like FLAC for the file format on the drive.

I presume(!) that "(FLAC is not supported by the MacOS" means supported natively and that there's no fundamental reason why PGM shouldn't use the algorithm/library themselves, notwithstanding that Musocity suggests that there are other better-suited lossless format(s) around.
Thank you, Gordon. The ‘loading’ was intentional, since I don’t know if there is a lossless format that would work both for downloading and for use as audio in Win and Mac formats. But you are right to separate the two purposes, and in this thread the question relates primarily to downloading even larger files than the audiophile version uses now.
With hindsight the word "ambiguity" might have been a better choice. "Loaded" may tend to imply an attempt to mislead and I'm sure there was no such intent on anyone's part.
Thanks. Yes, it was indeed my intent to ask the broadest possible question and find out if there is something out there of which I am unaware.
Originally Posted By: Gordon Scott
With hindsight the word "ambiguity" might have been a better choice. "Loaded" may tend to imply an attempt to mislead and I'm sure there was no such intent on anyone's part.

No ambiguity. It was clear to me that you didn’t really grasp Matt’s question and you definitely didn’t understand my answer.

So, instead of asking questions, you “armchair experted” your way around this as you so often do and then followed it up with backpedaling.

As Matt knows, BIAB already uses lossless compression. It’s different for Mac and Windows. There is no scheme that works natively for both OS as I was trying to explain.

So, to clarify my answer, a proper BIAB installer will know from your serial number whether you need the Mac or Windows version. It already does this, BTW. I would like it to include the Audiophile version at 48k/24 which, apparently, is how they were originally recorded.

A number of companies have gotten away from downloading files separately. The BIAB Installer is a step in that direction. It’s not quite there, yet.
I’m willing to say I’m pretty sure a PG Music staffer said the RealTracks were recorded at 24-bit, and I’m not sure that info occurred in a public post I could reference. But as to 48K, I have no memory of being told that.
Originally Posted By: Mike Halloran
backpedaling.

I was trying to moderate what I thought might possibly have unintentionally appeared rude.
To you both.
YMMV.
I have to say that I was quite dismayed by Mike's post.

Originally Posted By: Mike Halloran
No ambiguity.

So presumably cannot he see that "lossless downloadable audio files" != "downloadable lossless audio files". That kind of ambiguity in a large section of my career could have had fatal consequences and I can tell you from first hand experience on several occasions that it isn't funny being accused "your software has killed someone". The accusation was never true.

Originally Posted By: Mike Halloran
It was clear to me that you didn’t really grasp Matt’s question and you definitely didn’t understand my answer.

I understood both perfectly well, thank you.

Originally Posted By: Mike Halloran
FLAC is not supported by the MacOS

It does not matter. FLAC and any other "not supopoerted by MacOS" formats are primarily the responsibility of the application, not the OS. If it had to be supported by the OS there would not be, for example, a multitude of music players for MacOS that play FLAC files.

In another part of my carreer I was involved with image capture of confocal microscope images, where the software scans a sample multiple times through the Z-plane, deconvolutes each image, recolours the image as it's usually taken in monochrome, and build a 3D image of the sample. I'm pretty sure nnot much of that is supported by the OS either, so obviously would also be infeasible.

Before accusing others of being an "armchair expert", please check your own understanding of things.
Don’t know if this video has done the rounds but for those that feel they require higher bit rates or greater sample rates this is worth a look. I guess it puts a big hole in the discussion and calls a lot of “noise” around this topic hype.

https://youtu.be/cD7YFUYLpDc

Have fun and fight away

Tony
Originally Posted By: Teunis
Don’t know if this video has done the rounds but for those that feel they require higher bit rates or greater sample rates this is worth a look. I guess it puts a big hole in the discussion and calls a lot of “noise” around this topic hype.

https://youtu.be/cD7YFUYLpDc

Have fun and fight away

Tony

The stairstep myth was debunked decades ago and he replays an old video showing why. This video doesn’t go into the 48/44.1 debate at all. Would hav been nice if it did. AV/Video/Streaming defaults to 48 and that’s why it’s important. 96 is just a multiple and that’s why it’s irrelevant.

Also, it doesn’t really go into bit depth and why that’s important but the follow up video does.

The third goes info when higher sample rates are advantageous. All four in the series are quite good.

external drive size is an Showbox jiofi.local.html tplinklogin issue, this is perhaps an opportunity to revisit the method of delivery. Some of us would welcome an option for downloading the audiophile version in a lossless compressed standard (and preferably one that worked on both Windows and Mac operating systems.
© PG Music Forums