Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Boyd]

Jerry Tubb wrote on Wed, 31 May 2006 03:43

Look forward to doing a Saracon vs Barbabatch shootout. 48/96k to 44.1kHz. Best Regards  JT

Done this a million times.  It won't even be close.

[Matt_G]

Quote:

Done this a million times. It won't even be close.

Actually Barbabatch sounds more transparent to the original source file then Saracon, read my previous post.

Matt

[Barry Hufker]

While I am a Barbabatch fan -- and while I'll agree "what sounds good *is* good," to determine if product A is better than product B, there has got to be some solid, professional testing.

Anecdotal evidence is fine for that individual, but only double blind listening tests and correctly performed measurements can determine which is "better."

Having said that, Barbabatch is better!  So there!!

Barry  

[cerberus]

so if you put the audioease test sweep into barbabatch or saracon, what is different that comes out of saracon?
uh...nine hundred dollars from your bank account?

at three times the price of what many are using now, (mine has cost me nothing since 2001), it ought be an order of magnitude better...do we need a double blind test to hear that?

i think dsp-quattro costs less than 200... btw; the programmer claims his src is as good sounding as peak 5 or barbatch.

jeff dinces

[Bob Boyd]

Matt_G wrote on Wed, 31 May 2006 17:34

Quote: Done this a million times. It won't even be close. Actually Barbabatch sounds more transparent to the original source file then Saracon, read my previous post. Matt

Interesting.  It's been a while but I'll have to try it again.  I know I tried it with Barbabatch 4 but I'm not sure what version it was.  

Whenever I've upconverted 44.1 to 88.2 with Barbabatch, it always seemed to lose some top end detail comparitively.

I'm also using an SFC2, not Saracon so I'm not aware of what may have changed in the code.

[Jerry Tubb]

Matt_G wrote on Wed, 31 May 2006 10:04

check out this website http://src.infinitewave.ca/.... It shows detailed passband & transition FFT's from the majority of SRC algorithms available today (both on the PC & the Mac) including Weiss Saracon, Barbabatch, Peak 5 etc.

Very interesting graph comparisons... looks like they've updated them recently.

Saracon, Barbabatch, Peak 5, PT 7 Tweakhead, & Sonic HD look very good & pretty comparable. Of course it's the sound that counts... hearing is believing!

Noticed these are 96k to 44.1k SRC examples.

Is it possible that some softwares sound better on the upsampling, others on downsampling?

Bob Boyd wrote on Tue, 30 May 2006 08:59

The "lite" version (stereo, 96k PCM) is $900.

Looks like I'll be  trying Saracon "Lite" : )

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 31 May 2006 10:50

When this thread first appeared, I brought it to Audio Ease' attention.  They said a 64 bit version is in development.

Now that's interesting news, hopefully they'll have an upgrade path.

Looks like we're headed for a Saracon vs Barbabatch shootout at some point.

Cheers  JT

[Matt_G]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 01 June 2006 11:55

While I am a Barbabatch fan -- and while I'll agree "what sounds good *is* good," to determine if product A is better than product B, there has got to be some solid, professional testing. Anecdotal evidence is fine for that individual, but only double blind listening tests and correctly performed measurements can determine which is "better."

The way I see it, the goal of sample rate conversion should be to remain as transparent & invisible as possible. This has very little to do with comparing the sound of one SRC to another & everything to do with comparing each SRC to the original source file to check for transparency. Meaning it should sound as close to the source file as possible without any obvious colouration. Null testing can also help in the aid of this.

Matt

[Arf! Mastering]

Null testing SRCs can be deceptive - the null is easily broken by tiny level discrepancies and differences in dithers.  Since my name was mentioned in this thread, I'll add that I have Saracon and R8Brain, but do 99% of my SRC with the Weiss hardware SFC2 because it is real-time and what-you-hear-is-what-you-get.  My processing chain combines analog and digital hardware and often there are three different sample rates in the chain at any given time.  For example, 48k source, DAC to outboard, re-capture at 88.2k for digital tweaks, real-time SRC to 44.1 for printing and monitoring the master files.  The sound of the SFC2 in this configuration is quite fine.  For batch, I'll use Saracon and sometimes R8Brain.  All of the above turn in professional level results.  No SRC is perfect and the differences between the best ones are very small.  Features and work flow make the final difference.

[dcollins]

AlanS wrote on Thu, 01 June 2006 21:10

No SRC is perfect and the differences between the best ones are very small.

Unless used as an upsampler, then it's reported to be "better" than the source.

Potentially better than perfect!

Agreed about trying to null-test things like this.

DC

[Barry Hufker]

Tony Faulkner had a great idea akin to this subject.  This takes a bit of visualization and I hope I make it clear.

1. Using a Paqrat or Apogee PSX100 (or any similar device spreading two channels of 88.2k/24 bits across 8 tracks), record your music.
2. Because the stereo recording is laid across 8 tracks, the arrangement of the recording would be this: Even tho' the entire sampling frequency is 88.2k, the effective sampling rate for each track is 44.1k because of the bit splitting between tracks.
Track 1: Left Channel odd samples (Most Significant 16 bits,)
Track 2: Right Chanel odd samples (Most Significant 16 bits,)
Track 3: Left Channel even samples  ""
Track 4: Right Channel even samples ""
Track 5: Left Channel odd samples ("bottome" 8 bits, equalling 24 bits when added to Track 1)
Track 6: Right Channel even samples ("bottom" 8 bits, equalling 24 bits when added to Track 2)
Track 7: Left Channel even samples ("bottom" 8 bits, equalling 24 bits when added to Track 3)
Track 8: Right channel odd samples ("bottom" 8 bits, equalling 24 bits when added to Track 1)

Normally after recording, one would play back thru the Paqrat or PSX100 to restore a stereo stream of 88.2k and 24 bits.  Instead:
1. Pan tracks 1 and 3 left, with the faders at zero.
2. Pan tracks 2 and 4 right, with the faders at zero.
3. Pan tracks 5 and 7 left, but lower the fader 96 dB.
4. Pan tracks 6 and 8 right, but lower the fader 96 dB.

Listen to the music.  You have effectively reduced the sampling frequency to 44.1k, while retaining all 24 bits.  Because you haven't used an antialiasing filter, the sound should be more open than it would be otherwise because there are no phase shifts due to the antialiasing filter.

NOTE: Music with a great deal of high frequency content won't sound good with this method because of all the aliases.  But classical and jazz should do well.

Barry

[dcollins]

Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 02 June 2006 12:33

Because you haven't used an antialiasing filter, the sound should be more open than it would be otherwise because there are no phase shifts due to the antialiasing filter.

The filters never have any phase-shift as they are FIR's....

Quote:

NOTE: Music with a great deal of high frequency content won't sound good with this method because of all the aliases.  But classical and jazz should do well.

Why is this approach better?  When the proper implementation works with any music?  Or did he just like the sound of a little aliasing?

DC

[Barry Hufker]

I can't speak for Tony, but I tried it and found it quite interesting.

I was working on an acoustic guitar project.  When the guitarist came in, I had him listen to the two samples.  All I said was is there one you like better than the other.  I believe I played the Faulkner method first and then the conventional version.  He immediately picked the first say it was more life-like and more natural sounding.

Give it a try.

Barry

[jtr]

"Chiming" in late here...

I've always found Barbabatch to be a good general purpose SR utility- it does other things as well. Even if you eventually decide something else is more to your liking, Barbabatch is one of those utilities that (in Mac land) solves a ton of annoying file conversion problems.  Sort of a Swiss Army Knife of conversion programs, and well worth the money.
You don't really begin to appreciate it until you get that one project for a multimedia developer or broadcaster where you need to convert 150 sound files from one format to another AND do SR conversion, or something else. The user interface is very good.

[Bob Boyd]

no doubt.  I use it for mp3 and mp4/AAC encoding all the time.

[Jerry Tubb]

Just thought I'd mention there's a new update for Barbabatch - v.4.0.36.

http://www.audioease.com/Pages/BarbaBatch4/versionhistory.ht ml

I discovered it yesterday, was still using v4.0.29 from last year.

JT