[bob stern]

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?

I think the SRC is the same.  The web pages for iZotope RX Advanced identify the SRC using the same term as Wave Editor: "iZotope 64-bit SRC".
http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/
http://www.izotope.com/tech/src/

I think the reason for the huge price difference is that iZotope RX Advanced has many other tools for restoring audio from old recordings.  The iZotope RX Advanced user guide has 74 pages, of which only 2 are devoted to SRC.
http://izotope.fileburst.com/guides/iZotope_RX_Restoration_Guide_v_1.pdf

[bob stern]

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

[audioengr]

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

Thanks for you input Bob.  The Wave Editor is a great value at $79

Steve N.

[mercman]

iZotope 64-bit SRC? I believe are the same in Wave Editor and iZotope RX.

[cfmsp]

That's my understanding as well, Steve.

Clay

[jtwrace]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on this...

Why would using Wave Editor be better then letting the DAC upsample to say 88.2?  I'm a bit confused on how this all works.

[indirstr8s]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on this...

Why would using Wave Editor be better then letting the DAC upsample to say 88.2?  I'm a bit confused on how this all works.

The Wave editor is used in an offline way to up sample the songs and it is totally done in Software.
This facilitates the usage of better precision and better filters as there is no HW cost and ample time is available to do the operations. The wave editor might take 15 minutes to up sample a 4 minute track.

The up sampling in the DAC will most of the times be of lesser quality as the operation need to be done on the fly and better implementations are more costly to implement in hardware.
Also clocking becomes more complex as up sampled clock needs to be derived from the input sample rate and thus may be more prone to jitter.

[cfmsp]

Why would using Wave Editor be better then letting the DAC upsample to say 88.2?  I'm a bit confused on how this all works.

Two reasons:

One, the algorithms for upsampling vary.  iZotope's seem to be the best.

Two, using Wave Editor allows one to do upsampling off-line, rather than during playback.

clay

[jtwrace]

Very neat.  I'm just a little worried that I might not be able to figure it out.  The good thing is that it's not expensive.  How hard is it really?

[jtwrace]

Anyone willing to do some screen shots on how to do it?

[firedog]

Am I understanding correctly that this is only for MAC users, and that there is no PC version?

[KingStyles]

I do the stepped upsampling using izotope rx advanced. Its as good as wave editor and it is pc compatible. Downside is the price.

[audioengr]

Am I understanding correctly that this is only for MAC users, and that there is no PC version?

Adobe Audition is probably the closest thing for PC other than Izotope.

Steve N.

[tdangelo]

I do the stepped upsampling using izotope rx advanced. Its as good as wave editor and it is pc compatible. Downside is the price.

in Resample do you mean steep or stepped?  I don't see stepped in RX Advanced Resample.  Steep has options like linear, no anti aliasing & ultra steep.  If steep is what you mean what option/s do you use?
Thanks
TOny

[KingStyles]

By stepped I mean I do the upsampling in steps. First I rip the file to flac and let jriver find it so it has all its associated data and picture with it. Then I use dbpoweramp music converter to change it into a wave file and save it to folder 1 on my desktop. I then use izotope with batch processing to dither folder 1 to 24 bit and save it to folder 2 on desktop. I use medium noise shaping and normal dither amount. I then use batch processing again to upsample folder 2 to 96000 and save it to folder three on desktop. I use 32 filter with 1 cutoff shift and 1 preringing settings. i then take folder 3 and use dbpoweramp music converter to convert it back to flac and save it back to the original folder now as a 24/96 flac file. When I open up jriver again it automatically finds  the 24/96 songs and puts them in with the 16/44 songs. The associated data and picture automatically jumps to the new files so I dont have to input anything.(tags or picture) Then I erase the contents of folder 1,2,3 and the original 16/44 files. I find the music is smoother but it has better detail. The whole process takes about 1/2 hour per cd. Its really not that bad to do once you get the hang of it.

[tdangelo]

thanks for the info King.  I'll have to give it a try and see what I hear.  I've bought quite a few 24/96 CD's and haven't been blown away by their sonic quality   

[6rs]

Hi
I have Amarra and a Weiss Dac2. Based on this thread I did the 16 to 24 bit conversion of some of my ripped CDs, then the upsampling from 44.1 to 96.6 kHz, using Wave Editor. The sound is indeed so much improved that I want to do it with my whole library (ca 400 Cds).
Now I have seen that Sample Manager could be the way to go for the this task as it allows batch processing. Since it is from the same company and appears to use the same algorithms Wave Editor does the sound quality should be the same as well. Has anyone tried it?
Thanks, Bruno

[bob stern]

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.

[6rs]

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 downloaded the (almost) fully functional trial, and indeed there is just this slider. That is perfect for me though, I do not have the nerves nor knowledge to make good use of directly adjusting the parameter.

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.

Thanks for the tip, I will try. In the end, 24 Bit might be advantageous, as it provides more headroom for the digital volume controls? Also, Steve reported in this thread that he did some testing and preferred the sequence: 16->24Bit, then upsampling.

[6rs]

deleted double posting