HIGHER RESOLUTION = WORSE SOUND..?

[♔Chello]

HIGHER RESOLUTION = WORSE SOUND..?

In the past, everyone was happy with just 8 bits, but then came 16, 24, 32 and even 64 bits.

In addition, the resolution can be varied in Hz; 32 bits from 44100 Hz to 384000 Hz.

I have been using 32/384kHz for several years now, but have the option of using 64/768kHz with Mac.

What is the advantage of high resolution ?
First of all, the limit for distortion is much higher; you can modulate the signal much higher without distortion occurring. Theoretically.
The higher the resolution, the larger the file.

Using high resolution on synths/keyboards presents an immediate problem:
There is not enough RAM

Many piano samples are about 1GB in 16 bit/44100 Hz, and if the resolution is doubled to 32 bit, the space requirement is doubled to 2GB.
Conversely: If the resolution is halved to 8 bit, the same sample only takes up 500MB of space.
This means that much larger samples can be used with 8 bit, and it is widely understood and accepted that the larger the sample, the better the sound.

Dietmar Delissen at Deebach uses only 8 bit, and has proven that his sounds are at least as good as Kronos.
He also has a long-standing background in developing sounds for Wersi, and has unique expertise in the area.

Korg has gone from 16 bit to 24 bit many years ago, which is believed to be the reason why their sound is better.

With Kronos; yes - but with Pa5X..?
NO.
Why ?

Because the Pa5X uses more effects than ever before, which results in a compressed sound image; especially when the Limiter is used.

The compression causes a greatly reduced dynamic range, which can be easily seen with a signal meter; the signal strength is almost at max all the time, without moving much, which in practice means reduced dynamic range (zero to max).

The big difference between the Kronos and the Pa5X can be found precisely in such a comparison; the Kronos has a much larger dynamic range than the Pa5X, even though the samples are largely the same.


I am of the opinion that this excessive and senseless use of effects ruins good samples and high resolution, because even 32 bit is unable to control the negative compression effect that results in reduced dynamic range.

[♔Chello]

I have also had the Deebach MAX Plus, which is based on the Medeli A-1000, the predecessor of the AKX-10.
This had insane sounds, but was otherwise hopeless to work with, as the layout and interface were extremely primitive, and the keyboard was of the simplest type, not intended for advanced users.
The keybed was however reasonably good; better than mid-range from Yamaha and others.
It also had a degree of velocity I have never experienced on others; regardless of model.

Later I bought the Deebach BlackBox, which I used with the Yamaha A-3000.
This box's contents were supposed to be identical to the MAX Plus, but this was by no means true - the box's sounds were terrible.
And this was with the A-3000, which is a really good keyboard.

So there is every reason to wonder how Deebach has managed to create such good sounds as they have with the MAX Plus, which is based on the super cheap Medeli A-1000..!

I've also had the Medeli AKX-10, which is the worst I've ever tried, with a keybed that couldn't follow my movements..!

Deebach's follow-up to the MAX Plus is based on the Medeli AKX-10.
But this model is MUCH worse than the A-1000, even though it looks great, with one of the best displays on the market.
NONE of the insanely many features work satisfactorily.
ALL the mixing is terribly poorly done.

Deebach's Dieter Delissen is one of the world's leading sound engineers, but can't do basic mixing at all.
It's almost strange that his sounds are so good, when he doesn't understand other things.


BUT THINK:
What if Deebach had used a Genos or a Pa5X..?!