Greg.

Gilles wrote:

Actually, the highest note on the piano is around 4300 Hz and low notes don't produce harmonics much higher than 7000 Hz, so it makes sense, though I haven't tried it myself.

RE: the 7kHz, I said words to this effect recently, however I can't find anything to substantiate this - do you happen to have a reference?

Greg.

Actually, this is a bit empirical for me. I just looked at some of my spectrum analysis graphs and never got any significant values above 7 or 8 KHz. (See my post in the "Two more pop-rock Yamaha videos" thread.)

8KHz is sometimes given when searching the web for this information but with no justification.

Still I managed to find the following reference under Google books which seems trustworthy and seems to agree.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=RUDTFBb...mp;f=false

By the way, my value for the highest note is off and closer to C#8 probably due to octave stretching.

Actually, the highest note on the piano is around 4300 Hz and low notes don't produce harmonics much higher than 7000 Hz, so it makes sense, though I haven't tried it myself.

RE: the 7kHz, I said words to this effect recently, however I can't find anything to substantiate this - do you happen to have a reference?

Greg.

feline1 wrote:

Jake Johnson wrote:

But it sounds better than that.

well it shouldn't
lol

Actually, the highest note on the piano is around 4300 Hz and low notes don't produce harmonics much higher than 7000 Hz, so it makes sense, though I haven't tried it myself.

I worry that the strike transients would have higher freqs, though, which would explain the loss of apparent brightness and amplitude when playing harder.

Jake Johnson wrote:

But it sounds better than that.

well it shouldn't
lol

Actually, the highest note on the piano is around 4300 Hz and low notes don't produce harmonics much higher than 7000 Hz, so it makes sense, though I haven't tried it myself.

But it sounds better than that.

well it shouldn't
lol

http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p...5650fc1742
The link is to a demo using 48KHz / 24KHz. Bare in mind that the quality of .mp3s' are not as good as .wav files!

The mp3 is 44.1 kHz, so here's also some resampling done to further change the sound. You should have made a 48 kHz mp3 as well.

Also, you could have explored more dynamic levels in that improvisation, so that we can hear what is exactly lost.

I'm still using my PTQ3 on 48k/48k.

Guys, are you nuts?

no but squirrels still like me!

The highest frequency pianoteq can produce is HALF the sampling rate it uses. Using 12kHz would mean no notes or harmonics above 6kHz!! That's not much better fidelity than your average telephone...

Greg.

I'm getting confused--I've always just kept both sample rates at 44100. I thought this was the default, but I may have changed the settings at some point and forgotten...

It is the default, and that's how I run mine too.

What I meant was:
Given that the idea posed in this thead is to try to save a *lot* of CPU cycles by reducing Pianoteq's sample rate a lot,  rather than dropping it to 11025Hz, we can get back a *bit* more fidelity, consuming only slightly more CPU cycles,  by increasing it to 12000Hz. But to do that, we have to *also* change the device rate to 48000Hz - 12000Hz simply isn't listed as an option if the device rate is 44100Hz.  If we restricted the device rate to 44100Hz, that limits us to 11025Hz and 22050Hz, with no intermediate settings - it's a big jump.

Greg.