R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.  (Read 4544 times)

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2010, 04:01:43 pm »

zakco wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 20:37

breathe wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 05:19

Apparently I was underinformed.  Audiofile's Sample Manager software is supposed to be even better than Barbabatch.

Nicholas






Sample manager is a fantastic little program. Even without the included izotope SRC and Dither.


It's been a while since I looked at it but as I recall the Izotope SRC was one of the best, if not the best, performing ones in the above linked comparison.
Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

Michael Brebes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2010, 05:08:23 pm »

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 14:42

Here's a question: All the examples on that page are 96 to 44.1.  Are there less artifacts from 88.2 to 44.1?  Is this a dangling integer thing?


From a purely mathematical point of view, there should be less artifacting with the 88.2 to 44.1 conversion since there is an even 2 to 1 relationship.
Logged

maarvold

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2010, 06:59:13 pm »

Berolzheimer wrote on Wed, 15 September 2010 13:01


It's been a while since I looked at it but as I recall the Izotope SRC was one of the best, if not the best, performing ones in the above linked comparison.



When I got BarbaBatch, I stopped using TweakHead.  

When I got iZotope RX, I stopped using BarbaBatch.  But you have to experiment with the 3 parameter settings in the iZotope SRC (Filter steepness, Cutoff shift and Pre-ringing) to really get the very best results.  
Logged
Michael Aarvold
Audio Engineer

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2010, 07:16:13 am »

Michael Brebes wrote on Wed, 15 September 2010 22:08

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 14:42

Here's a question: All the examples on that page are 96 to 44.1.  Are there less artifacts from 88.2 to 44.1?  Is this a dangling integer thing?


From a purely mathematical point of view, there should be less artifacting with the 88.2 to 44.1 conversion since there is an even 2 to 1 relationship.


Again, this is a myth and not true.

This statement is founded on the misconception that it's merely a matter of stripping away every other sample, when in reality any SRC stage is a lot more complex than that no matter the original and target sample rates.

The math is the same regardless of 88.2->44.1 or 96->44.1 etc, simply put.
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor

Michael Brebes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2010, 01:29:06 pm »

Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 16 September 2010 04:16

Michael Brebes wrote on Wed, 15 September 2010 22:08

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 14:42

Here's a question: All the examples on that page are 96 to 44.1.  Are there less artifacts from 88.2 to 44.1?  Is this a dangling integer thing?


From a purely mathematical point of view, there should be less artifacting with the 88.2 to 44.1 conversion since there is an even 2 to 1 relationship.


Again, this is a myth and not true.

This statement is founded on the misconception that it's merely a matter of stripping away every other sample, when in reality any SRC stage is a lot more complex than that no matter the original and target sample rates.

The math is the same regardless of 88.2->44.1 or 96->44.1 etc, simply put.


This statement is not founded on the misconception of stripping out every other sample.  The advantage is that sample points are always going to be equally weighted against each other, instead of the positional balance of the sample points constantly changing, as in 96k to 44.1k conversion.  That makes mathematically computation much more involved.  I didn't take 3 years of calculus along with other higher mathematics for nothing.  Please don't make broad statements unless you can back them up with more than "is a myth and not true", along with some poor assumptions.
Logged

Podgorny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1491
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2010, 02:29:16 pm »

Three years of calculus an expert on digital sampling theory does not make.

Suffice to say, many people much smarter than me have debunked the 88.2>44.1 myth.
Logged
"Nobody cares what the impedance is; all they care about is when you can walk into the room, set up a mic, turn the knobs, hit record, and make everybody go 'wow.'"

Otitis Media

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 564
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2010, 07:41:59 pm »

Doesn't most common SRC upsample to like 256 x F(s) and THEN re-sample at the target rate?

The whole 88.2->44.1 being "easier" thing is an ancient trope by now, and we should all know better.
Logged
Dan Roth
Hired Gun

tom eaton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3640
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2010, 11:25:37 pm »

I believe the point being made is that from 88.2 to 44.1, regardless of multipliers, the resultant samples are never interpolated from nearby data, but are modulated directly by the original data.  It makes intuitive sense to me, but I am by no means an SRC expert.

tom

Alexey Lukin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2010, 01:54:08 pm »

Speaking of myths... Mathematics of an integer-ratio conversion is indeed simpler than for a fractional-ratio conversion. This has made several historic SRCs sound better during "integer" conversion. However for many well-designed modern SRCs this is not an issue anymore: "non-integer" distortion components can be suppressed below -150 dB with a proper filter design.
Logged

Nick Sevilla

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2010, 01:33:31 pm »

breathe wrote on Sun, 12 September 2010 16:26

I'm just speaking from experience.  Downconverting 96k files from PT to 44.1 sounds like ass.  I have literally found nirvana with Barbabatch, especially in making MP3's.

Nicholas




breathe wrote on Mon, 12 September 2010 05:19

Apparently I was underinformed. Audiofile's Sample Manager software is supposed to be even better than Barbabatch.

Nicholas


I say you have no idea what you're talking about, and fortunately you found some kind people here to AGAIN start a useless thread.

Here's what you should do :

Stop posting here for a few year, and work as an intern in a professional environment.

Then come back and laugh at your own posts.

Cheers
Logged
-------------------------------------------------
It is quite possible, captain, that they find us grotesque and ugly and many people fear beings different from themselves.

www.nicksevilla.com

Tomas Danko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2010, 04:39:12 pm »

Michael Brebes wrote on Thu, 16 September 2010 18:29

Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 16 September 2010 04:16

Michael Brebes wrote on Wed, 15 September 2010 22:08

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 14:42

Here's a question: All the examples on that page are 96 to 44.1.  Are there less artifacts from 88.2 to 44.1?  Is this a dangling integer thing?


From a purely mathematical point of view, there should be less artifacting with the 88.2 to 44.1 conversion since there is an even 2 to 1 relationship.


Again, this is a myth and not true.

This statement is founded on the misconception that it's merely a matter of stripping away every other sample, when in reality any SRC stage is a lot more complex than that no matter the original and target sample rates.

The math is the same regardless of 88.2->44.1 or 96->44.1 etc, simply put.


This statement is not founded on the misconception of stripping out every other sample.  The advantage is that sample points are always going to be equally weighted against each other, instead of the positional balance of the sample points constantly changing, as in 96k to 44.1k conversion.  That makes mathematically computation much more involved.  I didn't take 3 years of calculus along with other higher mathematics for nothing.  Please don't make broad statements unless you can back them up with more than "is a myth and not true", along with some poor assumptions.


We should hopefully get someone such as Bruno Putzey or Paul Frindle enter this thread and lay it down in a more precise and technical way, otherwise I fear the dispute will just keep going on.

Alexey Lukin said it, basically. And the way the best performing SRC happens nowadays practically speaking makes the issue you described above of no consequence. There are even other reasons for when a non-evenly weighed scenario is a benefit to the final outcome.

Also, finding a lot higher a sample rate for the intermediate stage gives several benefits related to implementation (i.e. filtering and such things, that makes for a lot greater impact to the integrity of the end result than anything evenly weighed per above).

Again, it's not just about less complex math but more to it than that. As always with digital audio, the Devil is in the details of implementation (and not picture perfect math theory).

Cheers,

Danko
Logged
http://www.danko.se/site-design/dankologo4s.gif
"T(Z)= (n1+n2*Z^-1+n2*Z^-2)/(1+d1*z^-1+d2*z^-2)" - Mr. Dan Lavry
"Shaw baa laa raaw, sidle' yaa doot in dee splaa" . Mr Shooby Taylor
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up