UltraRes vs NormalRes

Which one UltraRes?

  • 0:00-0:17 is UltraRes

    Votes: 114 69.1%

  • 0:18-0:36 is UltraRes

    Votes: 51 30.9%
  • Total voters
    165
Clark Kent said:
So after giving the answer the UR stock has gone up by 50% in the poll. :lol

I didn't get the clips mixed up. IMO you should easily be able to use your ears to tell which low end is tighter. I personally prefer the sound of the second part and I tweaked the preset in UR mode. I'm more than happy to share the preset I used for this so people can try it out. The IR is free, the patch is my live rig patch.

One thing that I did notice while opening my session again is that UR is a bit higher in volume. It's small... I mean you guys didn't really notice it that much, but my RMS meters are giving me almost 1dB more volume. So actually I should've probably lowered the volume of the UR version but I'm afraid it would make the normal res IR stick out as being better since people usually prefer more volume because it's same as more energy etc.
Click to expand...

If you cut the volume (everything else being the same) to make the levels match aren't you essentially cutting bass and lowering the other frequencies since the extra energy in ultra res is coming from the low end of the frequency spectrum? (At least in contrast to each other)
 
NeoSound said:
If you cut the volume (everything else being the same) to make the levels match aren't you essentially cutting bass and lowering the other frequencies since the extra energy in ultra res is coming from the low end of the frequency spectrum? (At least in contrast to each other)
Click to expand...
If you cut the volume, you're cutting every frequency by exactly the same amount. The tonal balance is the same.

So, yeah, you're "cutting the bass and lowering the other frequencies." Or "lowering the bass and cutting the other frequencies." Or "cutting the treble and lowering the other frequencies." Or... :)
 
fremen said:
I never said which of the two versions I like more, never entered in that debate. I even didn't give it a critical listen, my guess was a very quick one based mostly on the waveform. I did hear a subtle difference but if I wanted to do do a real critical listen, I would have use headphones or shut down the loud fan that keep things bearable here (it's sweating hot in Mauritius, we are basically between two cyclones). However, your choice of either A, B and C points is highly debatable, these are twisted ways of looking at things
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying anything about your reaction to the samples. I was talking about the majority reaction.
 
Clark Kent said:
So after giving the answer the UR stock has gone up by 50% in the poll. :lol
Click to expand...

Just so you know I did't vote as I thought it would be unfair after having given the answer. After going back for a second listen I agree with what has been already said, the first clip has a bit more low end to it but that's it. Put into the context of a mix it would be very doubtful anyone would even hear it.
 
I'm a little late to the party here, but I voted and haven't read the thread yet. On my speakers, I prefer clip 1. It has a little more honk/growl/mid range, which I like. Is that the ultra-res? Hell if I know. It sounds better than what I have dialed in and I'm not on the new firmware, so I'm going with that one.

Edit: Just read the answer. Weird, but I still prefer clip 1.
 
Jay Mitchell has posted this in another forum about UR. Validity?


"The data in an "Ultrares" IR contains less information than the original IR from which it was derived.....To produce an Ultrares IR, the tail beyond approximately 20ms is decimated: lowpass filtered, then downsampled. Based on the frequency content of this tail - it cuts off very sharply at 2500 Hz - the decimation ratio is 8:1. IOW, the sampling rate used by the algorithm that processes the tail is 6kHz rather than the system rate of 48kHz. The demand on CPU goes down approximately as the square of the decimation ratio. This process has been in use for decades, for exactly this purpose (reducing cpu demand). Here's a page with an overview of decimation: http://www.dspguru.com/dsp/faqs/multirate/decimation."
 
lester said:
Jay Mitchell has posted this in another forum about UR. Validity?


"The data in an "Ultrares" IR contains less information than the original IR from which it was derived.....To produce an Ultrares IR, the tail beyond approximately 20ms is decimated: lowpass filtered, then downsampled. Based on the frequency content of this tail - it cuts off very sharply at 2500 Hz - the decimation ratio is 8:1. IOW, the sampling rate used by the algorithm that processes the tail is 6kHz rather than the system rate of 48kHz. The demand on CPU goes down approximately as the square of the decimation ratio. This process has been in use for decades, for exactly this purpose (reducing cpu demand). Here's a page with an overview of decimation: http://www.dspguru.com/dsp/faqs/multirate/decimation."
Click to expand...

Does not matter.

What counts: Did i hear a difference between High-res and Normal-res? No. Did i hear a difference between Normal-res an Ultra-Res? Yes. Will the 8K RAW.ir sounds different than the Ultra-Res? We`ll see, when Cab Lab feature that. Will Ultra-Res IR capture sound more accuracy than High-res capturing comparing to the actual miced Cab? Test it for yourself.

Is Ultra-Res an improvement in accuracy and CPU usage compared to High-Res? Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom