Voxengo Premium Membership - All Voxengo Plugins For a Fixed One-Time Fee
Forums     Discussions     Announces, Releases and Discussions Wishlist for new plugins


Last

Next

Previous

First



No, this is not possible to do the way you are descibing.

How about having a conversation with.

www.tobybear.de

He's written a program called Minihost.  I can't help feeling you and he might be able to make a beautiful upsampling baby ;)

Kind regards

Dave Rich.


Good idea!  A VST-plugin-wrapper-upsampler thingy! (is that a good name?  Voxengo VST Plugin Wrapper Upsampler Thingy)

I'm a registered user of Tobybear's MiniHost, and it is getting more and more advanced all the time.  In case you didn't know, it's written in Borland Delphi (Object Pascal language + Borland VCL class library), and Toby has released excellent Delphi components for VST and ASIO hosting, and a VST plugin framework.  And they're all free and come with full source code.

There's also another open-source VST/ASIO host thing, called VSTHost: http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm

This one is written in C++.

The upsampler-wrapper could boost the quality of a lot of plugins by raising the Nyquist frequency of filters and oscillators, reducing aliasing and increasing sound quality.  I think a lot of VST instruments would benefit from it!  And the rest of the VST engine (Cubase) could still run at a lower speed, without needing the CPU overhead for ALL processing.  Just use the extra quality where you need it the most. (though upsampling and downsampling would of course add some per-plugin overhead)

Suggestions for the hypothetic plugin:

- it should work for VST instruments as well as effects (i.e. ones that don't process MIDI)

- it should have an "automatic" quality option, which would enable upsampling only for non-realtime audio rendering

- it should enable upsampling up to 192kHz

- it should be configurable with DLL names, like "Upsample_192_MyPlugin.dll" would wrap "MyPlugin.dll" in the same directory, using 192kHz internal rate

- why not provide a "downsampling" or "arbitraty resampling" option as well?  Downsampling could be used to reduce CPU stress when working with high sampling rates.  It could also make it possible to use plugins which aren't, say, 192kHz compatible.  There have been cases where a plugin doesn't work with 48kHz, but works at 44.1kHz (or some other hard-coded fixed sampling rate which has been used for, say, precalculating filter coefficients), so the resampling wrapper would enable using such "broken" plugins.

The plugin would have to convert VST time-stamps (buffer sample offsets) between different sampling rates (internal upsampled rate vs. "outer" host's rate), but other than that I guess it would just pass all the events as-is to and from the plugin.

I don't claim it will be an easy piece of cake, but if you guys actually make it, it will very likely become a huge success.


I personally think an integrated 'Quality' switch works much better and much more reliable.  Thus I'm not really keen on developing such general-purpose plug-in.  BTW, why not ask Tobybear about one?  This should be easy to do for him as far as I can envision this.

I'll do that,

I can see your point of view- a general host plugin would involve a huge amount of possible issues which I guess if you just include a quality upsampling button in your plugs (which I'd love to see btw - esp in gliss EQ) you would avoid.

Kind regards

Dave Rich.


I just thought that it could be something someone might be willing to pay for.  And since Aleksey has state-of-the-art resampling...


Dave, 'Quality' switch in GlissEQ already offers you oversampling: Normal/High is the same as no oversampling/2x oversampling.

is it?

ahh didn't know that aleksey, I always run it on high anyway. so at 2x at 44.1 it's running at 88.2?

the pultec runs at 192 and has a beautiful sound to it - do you think this is something only achievable at 192, or is it overkill?

I'd be all for a 4x oversampling function on your EQs if it truly was going to bring that "sound".

HarmoniEQ sports some of the same sound to it, I'm guessing the harmonics go up into the supersonic and it's running at hi-res?

Kind regards

Dave Rich.


Yes, at the High quality it runs at 88.2.  I'm not sure 192k gives considerably more improvement over 88.2k when processing 44.1k audio, but of course it should give some improvement, even if its small.  But probably filter design also counts here.

HarmoniEQ also runs oversampled - hence its very high CPU usage.

This topic was last updated 180 days ago, and thus it was archived.  Replying is disabled for this topic.

Last

Next

Previous

First