Wave Editor upsampling

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 41680 times.

cfmsp

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 33
Re: iZotope RX Advanced $1200
« Reply #60 on: 24 Mar 2010, 10:13 pm »
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

bdiament

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 201
    • Soundkeeper Recordings
Re: Wave Editor upsampling
« Reply #61 on: 24 Mar 2010, 11:47 pm »
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


bob stern

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 43
Re: iZotope RX Advanced $1200
« Reply #62 on: 25 Mar 2010, 01:29 am »
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.

cfmsp

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 33
Re: iZotope RX Advanced $1200
« Reply #63 on: 25 Mar 2010, 01:49 am »
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

claytontstanley

Re: Wave Editor upsampling
« Reply #64 on: 28 Mar 2010, 05:32 pm »
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

wushuliu

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3343
  • “Forget it, Jake. It’s Internet-town.”
Re: Wave Editor upsampling
« Reply #65 on: 24 Dec 2011, 06:48 pm »
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?

audioengr

Re: Wave Editor upsampling
« Reply #66 on: 24 Dec 2011, 11:33 pm »
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.

Ern Dog

Re: Wave Editor upsampling
« Reply #67 on: 20 Apr 2014, 10:18 pm »
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.

fridays

Re: Wave Editor upsampling
« Reply #68 on: 21 Apr 2014, 12:34 am »
Ern
I'm with you playing wav is were I heard the most improvement
Sometimes higher rates help sometimes they hurt