Wave Editor upsampling

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/

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.

indirstr8s · « **Reply #1 on:** 19 Jun 2009, 04:52 pm »

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.

audioengr · « **Reply #2 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 08:35 pm »

Quote from: indirstr8s on 19 Jun 2009, 04:52 pm

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.

ted_b · « **Reply #3 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 09:17 pm »

Quote from: indirstr8s on 19 Jun 2009, 04:52 pm

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!

wilsynet · « **Reply #4 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 09:51 pm »

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.

ted_b · « **Reply #5 on:** 20 Jun 2009, 11:16 pm »

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.

audioengr · « **Reply #6 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 01:57 am »

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.

jtwrace · « **Reply #7 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 02:21 am »

Steve,

Is this process time consuming / difficult?

audioengr · « **Reply #8 on:** 21 Jun 2009, 05:46 pm »

Quote from: jtwrace on 21 Jun 2009, 02:21 am

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.

serengetiplains · « **Reply #9 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 04:57 am »

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.

hadden · « **Reply #10 on:** 22 Jun 2009, 01:01 pm »

Quote from: wilsynet on 20 Jun 2009, 09:51 pm

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.

mercman · « **Reply #11 on:** 23 Jun 2009, 01:19 am »

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.

audioengr · « **Reply #12 on:** 23 Jun 2009, 01:29 am »

Quote from: mercman on 23 Jun 2009, 01:19 am

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.

mercman · « **Reply #13 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.

audioengr · « **Reply #14 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.

Brucemck · « **Reply #15 on:** 21 Jul 2009, 03:30 pm »

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"?

silverlight · « **Reply #16 on:** 21 Jul 2009, 03:43 pm »

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).

kaka · « **Reply #17 on:** 10 Aug 2009, 10:32 am »

Quote from: Brucemck on 21 Jul 2009, 03:30 pm

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

drubin · « **Reply #18 on:** 22 Aug 2009, 02:36 pm »

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

audioengr · « **Reply #19 on:** 22 Aug 2009, 05:49 pm »

Quote from: drubin on 22 Aug 2009, 02:36 pm

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.