First, I don't know about the internal processing in Kontakt, which means I'm on tangents. Sorry.
Second:
This is a big pet peeve in my bonnet of mixed metaphors that I argue with all the time. I would never presume to tell someone they didn't hear something they say they did.
As I post all the time, double-blind tests are extremely useful, but they aren't the only thing that's useful. It's much easier to hear the difference between things - and there's pretty much always a difference - when you're in control of A and B. Sometimes it takes a while to train yourself what the differences are (after which you could often hear them in a double-blind test).
There's also a difference between listening sessions; we're not always equally sharp. Plus I've found there's usually a very short period when you can hear extremely subtle differences, after which your brain seems to have a mind of its own and you aren't sure anymore.
My experience is that people aren't usually fooling themselves when they hear something. Our ears are incredibly sensitive over a huge logarithmic range of amplitude and 1000X range of frequency - and that's before the brain software in between those ears comes into play, which is another huge thing.
So if Norbz heard something, my reaction is to ask what he heard and why that is, not to tell him reflexively he's delusional.
(I know, EvilDragon didn't actually say that.)
***
Now.
There several things going on here. One is simple "speed up/down the tape" sample rate variation. I can't see how the bit depth would matter, because you're not changing amplitude. But in theory the sample rate would matter if you create frequencies above 1/2 fs and the filtering does audibly bad stuff.
Time-stretching/compression and pitch shifting with formants are a whole other kettle of fish, of course, because they have to do some fancy processing. That's going to depend on the algorithms, the material, and the context (for example, if you speed up a full orchestra, the hall reverb is going to shorten along with everything else).
***
None of this answers shapednoise's original question about gain. However, there's a common misconception that more bits = more headroom. More bits means you can record at a lower level and get the same low-level detail, so in that sense it's sort of true, but 0dBFs is 0dBFS no matter how many bits you're using to represent the peak.
(Edit: and it is true that 32-bit internal processing of 24-bit recordings does give you more bits, so maybe I'm just being surly.)
I think you just lower the levels of the samples if they distort and leave it at that.
Second:
Your results are irrelevant unless you did a controlled double blind test which showed you could tell the difference in bit depth with an accuracy better than chance
This is a big pet peeve in my bonnet of mixed metaphors that I argue with all the time. I would never presume to tell someone they didn't hear something they say they did.
As I post all the time, double-blind tests are extremely useful, but they aren't the only thing that's useful. It's much easier to hear the difference between things - and there's pretty much always a difference - when you're in control of A and B. Sometimes it takes a while to train yourself what the differences are (after which you could often hear them in a double-blind test).
There's also a difference between listening sessions; we're not always equally sharp. Plus I've found there's usually a very short period when you can hear extremely subtle differences, after which your brain seems to have a mind of its own and you aren't sure anymore.
My experience is that people aren't usually fooling themselves when they hear something. Our ears are incredibly sensitive over a huge logarithmic range of amplitude and 1000X range of frequency - and that's before the brain software in between those ears comes into play, which is another huge thing.
So if Norbz heard something, my reaction is to ask what he heard and why that is, not to tell him reflexively he's delusional.
(I know, EvilDragon didn't actually say that.)
***
Now.
There several things going on here. One is simple "speed up/down the tape" sample rate variation. I can't see how the bit depth would matter, because you're not changing amplitude. But in theory the sample rate would matter if you create frequencies above 1/2 fs and the filtering does audibly bad stuff.
Time-stretching/compression and pitch shifting with formants are a whole other kettle of fish, of course, because they have to do some fancy processing. That's going to depend on the algorithms, the material, and the context (for example, if you speed up a full orchestra, the hall reverb is going to shorten along with everything else).
***
None of this answers shapednoise's original question about gain. However, there's a common misconception that more bits = more headroom. More bits means you can record at a lower level and get the same low-level detail, so in that sense it's sort of true, but 0dBFs is 0dBFS no matter how many bits you're using to represent the peak.
(Edit: and it is true that 32-bit internal processing of 24-bit recordings does give you more bits, so maybe I'm just being surly.)
I think you just lower the levels of the samples if they distort and leave it at that.
Last edited: