R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac  (Read 15856 times)

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #45 on: March 29, 2007, 06:34:31 AM »

checked out wave editor:  made hash out of 32 float files.  
didn't know they had a simpler app with the izotope src (which i still haven't heard.)

jeff dinces

Matt_G

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2007, 10:32:36 AM »

cerberus wrote on Thu, 29 March 2007 20:34

checked out wave editor:  made hash out of 32 float files.  
didn't know they had a simpler app with the izotope src (which i still haven't heard.)

jeff dinces


Hey Jeff, when did you try WaveEditor? which version? It's up to 1.2.10 now. Initially they had a few bugs handling some file headers, but I think they've well & truly sorted that out as I haven't had any problems for a long while. SampleManager is up to 3.0.8 & it has had the iZotope MBIT dither & 64bit SRC since version 3.0. It's primarily a batch convertor.

Matt
Logged
Matthew Gray Mastering

Brisbane Australia

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2007, 03:14:43 PM »

hi matt;
it was wave editor 1.1.x.  i tried it in january.  i guess it was the header issue, but i could not figure out how to fix it with soundhack or other apps that can re-write the header.  

sample manager seems more suited for my needs, so i will be demoing it soon.  thanks for the infos.

jeff

Roland Storch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 406
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2007, 06:13:48 PM »

In Sonic Studio soundBlade you get a SRC with no additinal cost - licensed by iZotope.
http://www.sonicstudio.com/pdf/pr/iZotope_SSLLC_SRCMBit.pdf

Will do a comparison next week between soundBlade and Barbabatch.
Logged

Yannick Willox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2007, 04:15:18 AM »

Nobody checked the graphs:
> check out this website http://src.infinitewave.ca/....

and especially the r8brain PRO minimal phase against ALL of the others ?

???
Logged
Yannick Willox
Acoustic Recording Service

Matt_G

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2007, 07:15:09 AM »

Yannick Willox wrote on Sat, 31 March 2007 18:15

Nobody checked the graphs:
> check out this website http://src.infinitewave.ca/....

and especially the r8brain PRO minimal phase against ALL of the others ?

???


If you're looking at the graphs alone nothing beats the "iZotope 64bit steep, no aliasing"graphs. Sure the R8 Brain Pro one is a  close 2nd but it's for PC only & we are discussing Mac only SRC options. The iZotope SRC is available on the Mac platform in the form of Sample Manager 3 & Wave Editor 1.2. At the moment there is only options to change the quality from low to high with a slider. Version 1.3 of Wave Editor (due soon) will feature all the advanced parameters for adjustment (see attached graph). They will also put the advanced feautures in Sample Manager 3.2 when it's released.

Matt
Logged
Matthew Gray Mastering

Brisbane Australia

Ralf Kleemann

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 183
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #51 on: April 01, 2007, 06:27:43 AM »

Matt_G wrote on Sat, 31 March 2007 13:15

They will also put the advanced feautures in Sample Manager 3.2 when it's released.

That's very nice to know, looking forward to the update. What I also like about the company is that they are open about forthcoming releases and features. At Apple, you would already have been sacked for posting a screenshot to a forum... Wink

Now that you posted the screenshot, could you elaborate which of the sliders is doing what, and to what benefit?

Best regards,
Ralf

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #52 on: April 01, 2007, 03:57:11 PM »

I have just done a sweep from 20 Hz. to 40kHz, at 96K and 24 bit.  I then converted from 96k to 44.1 kHz at 24 bit.  I used three methods: 1. Soundblade; Peak and Barbabatch.  Of the three, Peak comes closest to the ideal of being "out" by 22050 Hz.  It has a fairly smooth fade just before that frequency.  Second is Barbabatch which extends a little more past 22050 with a lesser (not as steep) fade out.  The worst plainly, simply, dramatically is the conversion by Soundblade.  I don't believe this to be one by Izotope.  I couldn't find that in my list of plug-ins if it did indeed come with the program.  So the one written by Sonic is nothing less than terrible, extending well past 22050 and is sure to cause aliasing.

Barry
Logged

Bob Boyd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #53 on: April 01, 2007, 09:26:14 PM »

The current SRC in sB is not iZotope's nor is it evidently the classic SRC that so many people refer to liking from the older system.  While it has gotten some positive feedback, I find the current "built-in" SRC as utilitarian in nature.  As mentioned before, Sonic has licensed iZotope's for implementation at some point.

I'm watching iZotope and trying the Sample Manager demo but at this point in time, I'm using Weiss Saracon.  Great SRC.
Logged
Bob Boyd
ambientdigital, Houston

http://ambientdigital.com
http://myspace.com/ambientdigital

Twitter: @bobboyd


Look, I know it's mean.  But sometimes the end justifies the mean.

Matt_G

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #54 on: April 02, 2007, 10:34:40 AM »

Ralf Kleemann wrote on Sun, 01 April 2007 20:27

Matt_G wrote on Sat, 31 March 2007 13:15

They will also put the advanced feautures in Sample Manager 3.2 when it's released.

That's very nice to know, looking forward to the update. What I also like about the company is that they are open about forthcoming releases and features. At Apple, you would already have been sacked for posting a screenshot to a forum... Wink

Now that you posted the screenshot, could you elaborate which of the sliders is doing what, and to what benefit?

Best regards,
Ralf


http://www.izotope.com/tech/src/ This covers the design info quite well.
Logged
Matthew Gray Mastering

Brisbane Australia

Matt_G

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #55 on: April 02, 2007, 10:45:35 AM »

Bob Boyd wrote on Mon, 02 April 2007 11:26

The current SRC in sB is not iZotope's nor is it evidently the classic SRC that so many people refer to liking from the older system.  While it has gotten some positive feedback, I find the current "built-in" SRC as utilitarian in nature.  As mentioned before, Sonic has licensed iZotope's for implementation at some point.

I'm watching iZotope and trying the Sample Manager demo but at this point in time, I'm using Weiss Saracon.  Great SRC.


It's funny Bob, I used to like soundBlade's current SRC (which isn't the iZotope at the moment). I still think that despite the aliasing it can sound great on certain material, can't explain the affect I hear but it kind of has a smooth soft sound which is great on some stuff.

The iZotope SRC on it's high setting in WaveEditor can be a touch on the bright side but is likely the steepness of the default filter setting. See the attached image of the 'high quality' default setting in the current WE 1.2 version. With these being adjustable in 1.3, I bet we will get an amazing sounding SRC suitable for any style of music. With iZotope products it's all about high quality but giving the consumer all the options to create just what you need. MBIT+ is another example of having many options.

Matt
Logged
Matthew Gray Mastering

Brisbane Australia

Roland Storch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 406
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #56 on: April 02, 2007, 06:33:20 PM »

Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 01 April 2007 20:57

I have just done a sweep from 20 Hz. to 40kHz, at 96K and 24 bit.  I then converted from 96k to 44.1 kHz at 24 bit.  I used three methods: 1. Soundblade; Peak and Barbabatch.  Of the three, Peak comes closest to the ideal of being "out" by 22050 Hz.  It has a fairly smooth fade just before that frequency.  Second is Barbabatch which extends a little more past 22050 with a lesser (not as steep) fade out.  The worst plainly, simply, dramatically is the conversion by Soundblade.  I don't believe this to be one by Izotope.  I couldn't find that in my list of plug-ins if it did indeed come with the program.  So the one written by Sonic is nothing less than terrible, extending well past 22050 and is sure to cause aliasing.

Barry



Barry, I told Oliver Masciarotte from Sonic Studio about your measurements and he allowed me to post his reply here in this thread:


"Our SRC is designed to sound good, not fall within a old textbook example of anti-aliasing. In brief, all anti-image (when creating a file) and anti-alias (when playing back) measures are designed to reduce the audible artifacts of sampling.

The ?old school? thinking was that the designer tried to provide a flat frequency response in the passband, sever cut in the stopband (usually with a high order, low pass filter) and to hell with the group delay. A more modern approach, which we use, is to provide both flat frequency and phase response in the passband, controlled roll?off in the stopband and minimize overall group delay as much as possible. So, response above the Nyquist frequency is not severely cut, it is controlled, with an appropriate roll?off that reduces artifacts while preserving both passband ripple and, equally as important, phase response.

An interesting sidenote is that the poster seems to not have done any listening tests, since he says, ? and is sure to cause aliasing??Well, had he actually listened to these three versions, he would find they all sound different and he should pick his method/tool based on how it sounds with music, not solely based on measurements with tones."

I don?t want to add something here as long as I didn?t compare Barbabatch and soundBlade?s SRC by hearing. Hopefully I can do the comparisons this week an will tell my impression here again.
Logged

cerberus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2651
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #57 on: April 02, 2007, 09:08:22 PM »

...and pigs do fly.

jeff dinces

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #58 on: April 02, 2007, 10:54:47 PM »

I would be first to agree things can measure well and sound like crap -- and vice-versa.  I will conduct a listening test as soon as I can, but in the meantime, I suggest looking at the graphs at this site: http://src.infinitewave.ca/(previously posted in this thread).

Looking at phase, soundBlade doesn't do any better or worse than Barbatch or Peak.  Looking at the graph of a 1kHz tone, as I read it, there's a "shitload"* of aliasing -- much more than the other two and much higher in level than the other two.  And I do understand about frequency roll-off and group delay.

Again, I'm no expert (but I am a proud soundBlade owner)so if someone wants to educate me I would be sincerely appreciative.  Otherwise, SB's roll-off is doing what I suggested, which I suggested before reading the graph.

Barry


* In my new measurement system, I have done away with both Imperial and Metric measurements.  Everything, no matter its size, weight, mass, speed, etc. comes in "shitloads".  The only exception is "shit," which comes in "buttloads".

Example: really good sample rate conversion may cost a shitload of money.





Logged

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: Sample Rate Conversion for Mac
« Reply #59 on: April 02, 2007, 11:23:52 PM »

Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 02 April 2007 19:54

Everything, no matter its size, weight, mass, speed, etc. comes in "shitloads".  The only exception is "shit," which comes in "buttloads".



http://www.cartalk.com/content/read-on/2000/03.10.html

Because someday you might need this information.

DC
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.176 seconds with 18 queries.