AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Empirical Audio => Topic started by: audioengr on 19 Jun 2009, 04:28 pm
-
I needed to get a good software upsampler to re-write files, so I compared several using this tool:
http://src.infinitewave.ca/
The iZotope RX advanced is definitely the most accurate, but very pricey at $1199.00
There is however the 64 version of iZotope embedded into Wave Editor at only $79.00.
http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/waveeditor/ (http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/waveeditor/)
I downloaded this to my Mac Mini and did some experiments yesterday. The "high-quality" setting for upsampling to 96K is excellent. An improvement over the 44.1 file without changing its character or focus.
Highly recommended.
Steve N.
-
I had used izotope in the sample manager from audiofile-engineering.com to upsample some of my 88khz files and down sample some from 192khz, as amarra does not handle them correctly. Cost $79. Batch processing is possible. I initially faced problems with the output aiff files in iTunes. But they worked by enabling an option called "remove all un-necessary stuff" or something similar. But enabling this option also removed the album art and other info, which had to be filled again. I asked the support of this issue and they pointed me to a beta version, which worked nicely with all the song info intact in the output aiff files.
-
I had used izotope in the sample manager from audiofile-engineering.com to upsample some of my 88khz files and down sample some from 192khz, as amarra does not handle them correctly. Cost $79. Batch processing is possible. I initially faced problems with the output aiff files in iTunes. But they worked by enabling an option called "remove all un-necessary stuff" or something similar. But enabling this option also removed the album art and other info, which had to be filled again. I asked the support of this issue and they pointed me to a beta version, which worked nicely with all the song info intact in the output aiff files.
If the album art was removed, how did you add it back?
Steve N.
-
I had used izotope in the sample manager from audiofile-engineering.com to upsample some of my 88khz files and down sample some from 192khz, as amarra does not handle them correctly. Cost $79. Batch processing is possible. I initially faced problems with the output aiff files in iTunes. But they worked by enabling an option called "remove all un-necessary stuff" or something similar. But enabling this option also removed the album art and other info, which had to be filled again. I asked the support of this issue and they pointed me to a beta version, which worked nicely with all the song info intact in the output aiff files.
What did Amarra not like about your HiRez files? Was it user error or Amarra issues. If the latter then not a great story if you paid $1k+ and now need to buy addtl processing/software to get around issues...I realize it's nowhere near your initial investment, but still...at Amara's prices I expect more...wayyy more.
Not to beat a dead horse, but to pay $1k-$1.5k for a transport, or even cables, and have to do addtl things to improve performance...well, we're used to that every day. To have to pay those same thousand-plus dollars for software, for what we expect for "free-to-somewhere-around-eighty-bucks" is setting the expectation that it should be the end all, be paradigm changing, be revolutionary....maybe even be erotic! :)
-
I don't really understand why people bristle at paying money for software. You'll pay $1,000 for cables that make a marginal difference to the overall quality of sound, but if you find software that makes a dramatic improvement, you're only willing to pay $100.
A Benchmark DAC is about $1200 new, a Wavelength Cosecant about $3500, the Empirical Audio Overdrive Signature is $3700, and a Wadia Series 9 about $20,000.
If Amarra for $1500 makes the $1200 Benchmark sound like a $3500 DAC but for only $2700 ($1500 + $1200), what's the hang up?
If it makes the $3700 Overdrive sound like a $20,000 Wadia but for only $1500 more, where is the great crime in that? It doesn't need to be revolutionary and it doesn't need to cook me dinner. It only needs to improve the system more than what $1500 would otherwise buy me elsewhere in the audio chain.
I have not yet heard Amarra, so I'm making no claims as to what Amarra can or cannot do. But I have no pre-conceived notions that software should be less than $100. If it costs $1500 and makes my $10K stereo system sound like a $20K stereo system, I'll happily purchase Amarra and pocket the savings.
-
You misinterpreted my point; my bad! I have been in software sales and sales management for 30 yrs. We get tens of millions for the same code that is sold for thousands in different markets (we called it value pricing ;) ) so I'm not saying software doesn't make a difference, or doesn't have a real part in the whole investment of the audio chain. In fact, I think software is the next frontier for audiophile sound. However (and my point was) the expectation level up to now is that most software is either free or of very little investment cost, especially so early in this very new immature market. iTunes, although not literally free (ad space, costs of downloads,etc.) it is nearly so...and is getting better all the time (hence the threads that talk about comparing improved v8.2 to the latest Amarra, etc.). The comparison between free and $1500 is quite a religious sell. If the average cost of player software is somewhere around $10 up to now, then $1500 is 150x (and that's giving amarra a break, i think the average cost of decent Foobar-like player software is closer to $0). Your analogy for 150x improvement does not stand up as well. Nevermind that this $1500 now relegates your system to MAC only, no FLAC files, no other lossless codecs at all, no discs, wav and AIFF only....
I have probably $100k invested in my system, give or take. I am certainly not going to balk at another 1.5%, i just want to know it is a legit and proven solution that can't be had for far less......but to simply argue that $1500 makes a $1200 DAC sound like a $3k one..begs the argument that a $0 player makes a $1200 DAC sound like a $2500 one...much better bang! Don't compare it to the improvement, compare it to what else can be used to make similar improvements. As one CFO once told me, if I accepted all these value propositions to save me millions a year I'd spend the company broke.
Steve, I'm sorry...take this thread back.
-
Ted - I have found that the effect Of Amarra is about the same magnitude as putting a $1500 Pace-Car in the chain.
Back to the thread: Interesting findings. The way the wave editor works is you must upsample and convert to 24-bit in separate steps. The 24-bit conversion happens when you save the file.
So, to make a long story short, I tried first upsampling 16/44.1 files to 16/96 and then storing them as 24/96. Then second I did the opposite, I stored the file as 24/44.1 and then upsampled it to 24/96 and stored again under a different file name. I use the best quality setting for upsampling.
The second method is far superior to the first. The imaging and dynamics are not only preserved, they are enhanced, much like with Secret Rabbit Code, but better. There is no softening of the sound, just more and better. Image seems to get deeper and wider, more 3-D.
This is a best method I think. Give it a try.
Steve N.
-
Steve,
Is this process time consuming / difficult?
-
Steve,
Is this process time consuming / difficult?
It takes about 3-4minutes to do each track. If you have good tracks on CD that you want to preserve/enhance, there is no other better alternative.
Steve N.
-
FWIW to those interested, I use Weiss Saracon. At $800, it's a bit cheaper than iZotope, and sounds very good. User interface is clean and easy to use. Mac friendly. Sample rates to 384KHz including a DSD option for those who want to pay a bit more.
-
I don't really understand why people bristle at paying money for software. You'll pay $1,000 for cables that make a marginal difference to the overall quality of sound, but if you find software that makes a dramatic improvement, you're only willing to pay $100.
A Benchmark DAC is about $1200 new, a Wavelength Cosecant about $3500, the Empirical Audio Overdrive Signature is $3700, and a Wadia Series 9 about $20,000.
If Amarra for $1500 makes the $1200 Benchmark sound like a $3500 DAC but for only $2700 ($1500 + $1200), what's the hang up?
If it makes the $3700 Overdrive sound like a $20,000 Wadia but for only $1500 more, where is the great crime in that? It doesn't need to be revolutionary and it doesn't need to cook me dinner. It only needs to improve the system more than what $1500 would otherwise buy me elsewhere in the audio chain.
I have not yet heard Amarra, so I'm making no claims as to what Amarra can or cannot do. But I have no pre-conceived notions that software should be less than $100. If it costs $1500 and makes my $10K stereo system sound like a $20K stereo system, I'll happily purchase Amarra and pocket the savings.
But you haven't heard the software.
-
Steve,
I used WaveEditor as you recommended. I first saved the 16/44.1 file to my external drive as 24 bit in a folder. I then opened this file and converted it to 96. I left the name of the song the same and dropped it into iTunes. I now have both the original and new song together in iTunes. The only problem is that I can't play the darn music loud enough tonight to tell how things sound! The wife has a headache!
Did you try 88.2 sample rates?
The artwork transferred to the new file just fine. AIFF files.
-
Steve,
I used WaveEditor as you recommended. I first saved the 16/44.1 file to my external drive as 24 bit in a folder. I then opened this file and converted it to 96. I left the name of the song the same and dropped it into iTunes. I now have both the original and new song together in iTunes. The only problem is that I can't play the darn music loud enough tonight to tell how things sound! The wife has a headache!
Did you try 88.2 sample rates?
The artwork transferred to the new file just fine. AIFF files.
I have not tried 88.2. I am doing this for RMAF and we plan to do only 96 there. I am also using only wav files. I tried an AIFF and it was very close, but I think the wav was a bit better. I'll have to do more comparisons.
Steve N.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Two questions:
(1) Anyone know if it is possible to "automate" the conversion process so that approxmately 500 songs could be converted to 24/96?
(2) Does a "native" 24/96 file use considerably less processor resources than converting a 16/44 file on the fly? Is that amount "meaningful"?
-
you can batch file process in iZoTopeRX Advanced with as many files as you choose with whatever SRC profile you want (i.e., the popular minimum phase profile), but not sure with WaveEditor. I haven't measured for your second question, but intuitively there wouldn't be any on the fly or real time processing once you've converted the files so the processor load should be much smaller (and of course the quality of the conversion should be superior unless you're dealing with a dedicated hardware filter that would otherwise be doing the work).
-
Two questions:
(1) Anyone know if it is possible to "automate" the conversion process so that approxmately 500 songs could be converted to 24/96?
(2) Does a "native" 24/96 file use considerably less processor resources than converting a 16/44 file on the fly? Is that amount "meaningful"?
In answer to (1) Sample Manager can do that, though perhaps in a couple of batches
It is based on the iZotope algorithms too
-
I'd like to find something like a simple tutorial on using Wave Editor for upsampling. When I open the demo of the application, I see more going on there than I can sort out, and no basic instructions. Any suggestions?
Dan
-
I'd like to find something like a simple tutorial on using Wave Editor for upsampling. When I open the demo of the application, I see more going on there than I can sort out, and no basic instructions. Any suggestions?
Dan
Its actually dead simple. You just read a file into it and then the music display appears. Then you can either store it as 24-bit, or you can run various DSPs on it, including the resampler. These are selected from a second window.
Steve N.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
iZotope 64-bit SRC? I believe are the same in Wave Editor and iZotope RX.
-
That's my understanding as well, Steve.
Clay
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
Anyone willing to do some screen shots on how to do it?
-
Am I understanding correctly that this is only for MAC users, and that there is no PC version?
-
I do the stepped upsampling using izotope rx advanced. Its as good as wave editor and it is pc compatible. Downside is the price.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 :( :scratch:
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
deleted double posting
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :thumb:
-
Hi Steve,
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
-
Hi Steve,
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.
-
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. :cry:
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.
-
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.
-
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. :cry:
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Is there a reasonably priced Windows program that has this code?
-
Is there a reasonably priced Windows program that has this code?
Not Izotope. There is Adobe Audition, but its expensive.
Steve N.
-
But not most people's idea of reasonably priced.
http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/buy.html
-
But not most people's idea of reasonably priced.
http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/buy.html
Bob,
you can purchase the iZotope SRC cheaply by picking up a copy of Wave Editor - $79.
cheers,
clay
-
Hi Bob,
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
I too have found benefit in performing all processing (including SRC) at longer word lengths.
I don't believe this is a bug, so much as how many software applications function. Many audio apps will save their temporary files at the word length of the original file - even if their internal processing is 32-bit.
I've found benefit to processing longer word length sources, even with apps that process internally at 64-bits. I don't know if all the apps I have are saving their temp files at the source word length but in all the comparisons I've done (which occur regularly around here as I beta test a lot of ware), I consistently get better final results if I first take the source file and save a copy at a longer word length and process that copy.
To be clear, I'm defining "better" as sounding closer to the unaltered original. Many SRC algorithms I've tested tend to add spurious harmonics, manifesting in a brightening and hardening of the sound when compared directly against the original file -in both upconversions and downconversions. iZotope's SRC is, to m ears, the first I've heard that does not do this.
On another note, regarding something I read elsewhere in this thread, I would not agree that upsampling adds "space" or "air". If it did, I would consider the algorithm colored and reject it. With an algorithm as fine as iZotope's, I think any space and air may the result of moving the lowpass filtering -and the artifacts it engenders- further away from the audible spectrum.
Just my perspective.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
-
you can purchase the iZotope SRC cheaply by picking up a copy of Wave Editor - $79.
Hi, Clay! I know, but I thought the OP was asking about Windows alternatives.
-
Hi, Clay! I know, but I thought the OP was asking about Windows alternatives.
guilty as charged. I was thinking OS X.
[insert smiley for sheepish grin]
clay
-
It looks like all the Audiofile Engineering software (includes both Sample Manager and Wave Editor) come as Universal Binaries, which means that they can run on both PPC- and Intel- based hardware.
You don't have to buy a new Mac to take advantage of all the great OS X software out there. The majority of the software can run on dated PPC hardware.
OS X 10.4 runs great on old 'Mirror Drive Door' G4s, which you can get for a couple hundred bucks on Craigslist. OS X 10.5 runs great on the beefier G5s, which you can get for around $500. And, 10.6 is just awesome, and you can run it on a first generation Macbook, which you can get for around $500 as well.
I'd highly recommend a G5.
I know you were looking for Windows solutions, but sometimes you need both a Windows box and Mac box laying around, if you really want to take advantage of all (e.g., Foobar2000, Sample Manager, Wave Editor) that's out there...
-Clayton
-
I am playing with the Izotope RX demo for kicks. If upsampling to 24/xx I take it no dither should be applied and no noise shaping, correct?
-
I am playing with the Izotope RX demo for kicks. If upsampling to 24/xx I take it no dither should be applied and no noise shaping, correct?
The only time I use Dither is when I change the gain on a track, like normalizing etc..
Steve N.
-
I finally downloaded this wave editor, now called Triumph, as a free 15 day demo.
I've tried the 2 step process (saving as 24 bit then saving again as 88.2, 96, or 192 sample rate) but the change is so subtle that I can't hear any difference! I tried every combination and there no way I can distinguish any sample rates with the native version. My MHDT Stockholm is a high res dac and my source is a Salk Stream Player, Linux based music server, which also plays hi res files.
I'm saving files as wav using Isotope using the render feature. I'm either doing something wrong or my rig isn't resolving enough to pick up the difference.
-
Ern
I'm with you playing wav is were I heard the most improvement
Sometimes higher rates help sometimes they hurt