Wave Editor upsampling

audioengr · « **Reply #40 on:** 18 Sep 2009, 03:50 am »

Quote from: bob stern on 17 Sep 2009, 08:13 am

If the Sample Manager user manual is accurate, it does not let you fiddle with the iZotope SRC cutoff frequency and slope as you can in Wave Editor. Instead, it merely has a slider ranging from low to high quality.

I don't see any benefit in converting from 16 to 24 bits before converting from 44.1 to 96. Wave Editor converts all audio to 32-bit floating point for its internal processing. Wave Editor will dither the 16-bit input if you check the "Dither" checkbox in Preferences > General.

Bob - all you have to do is listen to a track done both ways and you will understand why I recommend doing it this way.

Steve N.

bob stern · « **Reply #41 on:** 19 Sep 2009, 02:29 am »

Steve, if you have time, the developers of Wave Editor probably would find it helpful for you to report this as a bug. I doubt they intend the 1-step method to be inferior to the 2-step method.

http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/support/helpdesk/index.php?pg=request

audioengr · « **Reply #42 on:** 19 Sep 2009, 06:03 pm »

Quote from: bob stern on 19 Sep 2009, 02:29 am

Steve, if you have time, the developers of Wave Editor probably would find it helpful for you to report this as a bug. I doubt they intend the 1-step method to be inferior to the 2-step method.

http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/support/helpdesk/index.php?pg=request

Done.

Steve N.

ccoshm · « **Reply #43 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 03:59 pm »

Quote from: bob stern on 22 Aug 2009, 06:25 pm

Instead of using the default presets, you probably should experiment with the Cutoff and Slope sliders. See my post in another forum:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Resampling-under-OS-X#comment-24712

Has anyone toyed with the different options? If so, please post impressions.

bdiament · « **Reply #44 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 04:37 pm »

Hi Steve,

Quote from: audioengr on 1 Jul 2009, 02:48 am

Quote from: mercman on 30 Jun 2009, 11:07 pm
Steve,

I have been playing with iZotope RX Advanced in my Mac and have had great results upsampling my CDs tracks to 88.2/24. Is the iZotope SRC in Wave Editor the same as RX Advanced? For some reason I seem to like RX Advanced better. I guess I need to play with this stuff some more.

No, Wave Editor uses the 64 version, not the Advanced. I'm sure the advanced is better, otherwise how could they get so much more for it?

Steve MN.

Just found this thread.
If I recall correctly, the designer of these, Alexey Lukin, said the algorithm is the same in both. RX has other capabilities beside the 64-bit SRC that account for its price.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

audioengr · « **Reply #45 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 06:33 pm »

Quote from: bdiament on 19 Oct 2009, 04:37 pm

Hi Steve,

Quote from: audioengr on 1 Jul 2009, 02:48 am
Quote from: mercman on 30 Jun 2009, 11:07 pm
Steve,

I have been playing with iZotope RX Advanced in my Mac and have had great results upsampling my CDs tracks to 88.2/24. Is the iZotope SRC in Wave Editor the same as RX Advanced? For some reason I seem to like RX Advanced better. I guess I need to play with this stuff some more.

No, Wave Editor uses the 64 version, not the Advanced. I'm sure the advanced is better, otherwise how could they get so much more for it?

Steve MN.

Just found this thread.
If I recall correctly, the designer of these, Alexey Lukin, said the algorithm is the same in both. RX has other capabilities beside the 64-bit SRC that account for its price.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

Barry - thanks, yes I discovered this myself.

Steve N.

ted_b · « **Reply #46 on:** 21 Oct 2009, 05:11 pm »

Sorry if this is a slight hijack but...I downloaded the trial copy of Sample Manager..my goal being to test a few AIFF 16/44 to 24/88 or 24/96 isotrope conversions before springing for this somewhat watered down but still workable batch processor version of Wave Editor. Problem: Every AIFF file I attempt to try comes up with a yellow triangle and under the waveform portion of the screen, says "bad audio file". They play fine via iTunes/Amarra? Any ideas? I suppose I should ask this on the AudioFile Engineering forum, but those questions are much more in depth; there doesn't seem to be a general newbie section.

thx
Ted

Edit: AudioFile support sent me a beta release, and all is well. I moved a few of my faves to the SSD so i can now do a comparo of SSD redbook vs HD reddbook, and SSD redbook vs SSD 24/96 resampled.

kaka · « **Reply #47 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 04:56 am »

In Sample Manager something like that happens - if you use iTunes to convert aiff to aiff then Sample Manager can pick them up for Upsampling.

No, I can't explain it.

ccoshm · « **Reply #48 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 03:00 pm »

Quote from: ted_b on 21 Oct 2009, 05:11 pm

Sorry if this is a slight hijack but...I downloaded the trial copy of Sample Manager..my goal being to test a few AIFF 16/44 to 24/88 or 24/96 isotrope conversions before springing for this somewhat watered down but still workable batch processor version of Wave Editor. Problem: Every AIFF file I attempt to try comes up with a yellow triangle and under the waveform portion of the screen, says "bad audio file". They play fine via iTunes/Amarra? Any ideas? I suppose I should ask this on the AudioFile Engineering forum, but those questions are much more in depth; there doesn't seem to be a general newbie section.
thx
Ted

Edit: AudioFile support sent me a beta release, and all is well. I moved a few of my faves to the SSD so i can now do a comparo of SSD redbook vs HD reddbook, and SSD redbook vs SSD 24/96 resampled.

This exact problem has kept me from purchasing this program.

Audioclyde · « **Reply #49 on:** 25 Oct 2009, 11:03 pm »

All, I've been playing around with the demo version of Sample Manager this weekend and converted a few of my AIF files, 1st to 24 bit per the advice, then upsampled to 96k (I use a MW Transporter so I'm limited to 24/96 by the Transporter).

I think I like the upsampled files; my question is whether anyone has experimented with the various dither options?

Thanks in advance,

Randy

ted_b · « **Reply #50 on:** 25 Oct 2009, 11:15 pm »

I've not played with dither options but have a/b'd some HD-based, SSD-based and upsampled (two-step phase, 24/96). Although I don;t hear much difference between the SSD redbook and SSD upsampled, the difference between either and the HD-based tracks are quite substantial. The move to SSD (not allowable for much of my library due to size) brings out better detail, a lower more controlled bass response and cleaner less cluttered soundstage. The Sample managed SSD's were no worse, of course, but nothing noteworthy yet. Keep in mind I chose some of my best recorded pieces.....my demo cuts. In hindsight I should have chosen some harsh sounding things too....and will on next try.

claytontstanley · « **Reply #51 on:** 7 Nov 2009, 07:15 pm »

I wrote an applescript that automates the process of converting 16/44.1 flac, first to 24/44.1, and then to 24/96, using a combination of 'Sample Manager', 'Max', 'Flac Tools for OSX', and 'Steel Bank Common Lisp'. All of this software is free, except for Sample Manager, which uses the same SRC as Wave Editor, and it costs about the same as well. Sample Manager is intended more for automation of rather simple processing routines (e.g., what we're trying to do here), whereas Wave Editor has a much larger set of processing tools available but can't be automated nearly as easily.

My applescript works by keeping a 'source' directory synched with a 'destination' directory, where all 16/44.1 flac files in the source directory will have a 24/96 processed flac copy in the destination directory. Tag information is moved to the processed flac file as well.

If anyone is interested in getting a copy of this code, send me an email, and I'll take the time to polish it...

-Clayton

kaka · « **Reply #52 on:** 7 Nov 2009, 08:13 pm »

Sample Manager itself can get close
If you use the update inplace option it can be made to churn away doing two passes over a batch of files, the first pass 16->24, the second 44.1 -> 96. There is a limit to how much it can do in one batch though, something like 8 CDs of AIFF files (with 4Gb of ram) before it breaks

My AIFFs were from DBPoweramp, and Sample Manager doesn't pick them up until the they are converted from AIFF to AIFF in iTunes

Audioclyde · « **Reply #53 on:** 22 Mar 2010, 01:10 am »

I've been playing around some more with upsampling via Sample Manager (Wave Editor's younger, cheaper brother

). I had been converting to 24 bit, then upsampling to 96khz and liked it almost all the time. Now I've been upsamping to 88.2 rather than 96 and definitely prefer 88.2....seems to be just more natural. I had noticed a post on another site by a recording engineer that strongly urged folks to try 88.2, since its a direct multiple of 44.1, and I tend to agree that to my taste its better, smoother and more natural.

Any downside to this?

Thanks,

Randy

path73 · « **Reply #54 on:** 23 Mar 2010, 04:27 am »

Hello,
Could you give a reference to this post by a recording engineer?
I am using Secret Rabbit Code on-the-fly upsampling with Foobar 0.8.3 with Off-Ramp 2 I2S and I definitely prefer 88.2 over 96kHz and thought it might be related to the particular upsampler I use. Never heard of anyone having the same impression!
Seems to my ears that there is a kind of over-resolved "softness" to 96kHz that tends to remove some of the "body" (or "flesh" or "weight") of voices and instruments. I get the impression of a sweeter than natural sound with 96kHz, sort of a candy version of reality, that gets annoying over long listening sessions.
The only downside that I see in my setup, is that my Northstar DAC needs first some 96kHz material (a few seconds is enough) before it can play 88.2kHz. After that it can play 88.2 for many hours!
It would be interesting to know how it compares to 176.4kHz, since it is a direct multiple of 44.1 too (never tried it myself).
Happy listening,
/patrick

Audioclyde · « **Reply #55 on:** 23 Mar 2010, 11:31 am »

Patrick,

I gleaned these impressions of others from a couple of threads regarding upsampling over on the computer audiophile forum; like everything, it seems to be both system dependent (i.e. subject to different DAC and software performance) and subject to personal taste....a number of people weigh in over on that site with their opinions & theories.

Interesting stuff to read and play around with.

Best,

Randy

ted_b · « **Reply #56 on:** 23 Mar 2010, 01:03 pm »

Another big variable is your DAC and it's sweetspot. All DACs have sweetspots; they have sample rates and bit depths at which they are best rendered, even if they accept higher ones, etc. Your 24/192 DAC might sound sweet at 96k but his at 88.2k, using the same resampling techniques, etc.

Many recording engineers (I'll include Barry Diament and Bruce Brown for two) say that the very good resamplers (and use Izotope as one example) seem to easily get around the exact-multiple math problem from before. Barry mentions it here and on CA many times.

Brucemck · « **Reply #57 on:** 23 Mar 2010, 05:43 pm »

Is there a reasonably priced Windows program that has this code?

audioengr · « **Reply #58 on:** 23 Mar 2010, 06:52 pm »

Quote from: Brucemck on 23 Mar 2010, 05:43 pm

Is there a reasonably priced Windows program that has this code?

Not Izotope. There is Adobe Audition, but its expensive.

Steve N.

bob stern · « **Reply #59 on:** 24 Mar 2010, 02:06 am »

But not most people's idea of reasonably priced.
http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/buy.html