Print

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

[dcollins]

Imagine wrote on Wed, 19 October 2005 14:01

Are you saying there's no difference between converting 96khz or 88.2 to 44.1?

Yes, all good sample rate converters are running many Mhz internally, so haveing an integer relationship isn't as important as it once was.  Has anyone ever compared the Lavry to the Weiss SRC?

DC

[blueboy]

When doing software SRC...would there be any benefit or would there be a drawback in converting a 48/16 file to 48/32 first, then performing a SRC to 44.1/32, and then finally dithering to 16 bits?

Is this just an extra step that could potentially slow down conversion, or could there be an improvement in quality?

Thanks.

JL

[Ronny]

blueboy wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 03:18

When doing software SRC...would there be any benefit or would there be a drawback in converting a 48/16 file to 48/32 first, then performing a SRC to 44.1/32, and then finally dithering to 16 bits? Is this just an extra step that could potentially slow down conversion, or could there be an improvement in quality? Thanks. JL

Good question. I see no reason to add 16 empty bits to a 16 bit file just to downsample it and the converter may add bits on the process anyway. I can only speculate tho and would like to hear what others say about it.

[Daniel Weiss]

BrianF wrote on Wed, 19 October 2005 15:47

I read about it in a PDF for the P2D application that Daniel makes. Maybe he's changed his mind or it's in the works (I hope) Brian

The P2D (PCM to DSD) converter is already available. The P2P is in the works and about two months off from release.

Here are some of the features:

- runs under Windows XP
- Can do all standard sampling rates from 44.1k to 384k
- Can do surround
- Supports lots of different audio file formats
- Has POW-R and flat TPDF dither built in
- Is protected with an USB dongle
- Is affordable (Price TBD)

The website shows the P2D, not the P2P yet.
See http://www.weiss.ch/p2d/p2d.html

Regards,
Daniel
www.weiss.ch

[chrisj]

Ronny wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 03:52

blueboy wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 03:18 When doing software SRC...would there be any benefit or would there be a drawback in converting a 48/16 file to 48/32 first, then performing a SRC to 44.1/32, and then finally dithering to 16 bits? Good question. I see no reason to add 16 empty bits to a 16 bit file just to downsample it and the converter may add bits on the process anyway. I can only speculate tho and would like to hear what others say about it.

The answer would be yes, because SRC radically changes all the sample values. We're talking almost every value there is going to be different from the one sampling frequency to the next, especially if the SRC is good quality.

So hell yes. Would this be after all other processing? Or as a prelude to processing? If so, you might want to convert to 32 bit (or 24), and then SRC, which would duly fill up all the empty bits with relevant information, which you can then use in further processing. Dither to 16 when you're totally done.

[Ronny]

Some of the digi eq's use a bit accumulator, for example the DM2000 runs at 32 bit and the eq's operate at 56 bit. After processing, the signal goes back to the 32 bit mix bus. I'm curious as to whether SRC's would use this type of configuration to up the bit depth for the sample conversion. If that's the case Chris, it wouldn't matter whether you add the 16 empty bits manually or the SRC does it, would it?

[Imagine]

Daniel Weiss wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 14:41

BrianF wrote on Wed, 19 October 2005 15:47 I read about it in a PDF for the P2D application that Daniel makes. Maybe he's changed his mind or it's in the works (I hope) Brian The P2D (PCM to DSD) converter is already available. The P2P is in the works and about two months off from release. Here are some of the features: - runs under Windows XP - Can do all standard sampling rates from 44.1k to 384k - Can do surround - Supports lots of different audio file formats - Has POW-R and flat TPDF dither built in - Is protected with an USB dongle - Is affordable (Price TBD) The website shows the P2D, not the P2P yet. See http://www.weiss.ch/p2d/p2d.html Regards, Daniel www.weiss.ch

Hi Daniel,

Any plans to make a Mac version of your converters?

Thx

[Daniel Weiss]

Imagine wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 06:34

Hi Daniel, Any plans to make a Mac version of your converters? Thx

Depends on how many inquiries we get for that and also how simple it is to port.

Daniel

[Imagine]

Daniel Weiss wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 23:23

Imagine wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 06:34 Hi Daniel, Any plans to make a Mac version of your converters? Thx Depends on how many inquiries we get for that and also how simple it is to port. Daniel

It seems more companies are creating software converters for PC than they are for Mac. It is a question of marketability, or is the task to make it Mac compatible, more difficult?

[Daniel Weiss]

Imagine wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 09:44

Daniel Weiss wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 23:23 Imagine wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 06:34 Hi Daniel, Any plans to make a Mac version of your converters? Thx Depends on how many inquiries we get for that and also how simple it is to port. Daniel It seems more companies are creating software converters for PC than they are for Mac. It is a question of marketability, or is the task to make it Mac compatible, more difficult?

It is not more difficult to make it Mac compatible, but the PC is more widespread in the audio world these days (I think). The porting requires us to get familiar with new toolkits and that means more development time.

Daniel

[Roland Storch]

OK.
Here is the first inquiry for a Mac version.

[Imagine]

Daniel Weiss wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 02:38

Imagine wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 09:44 Daniel Weiss wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 23:23 Imagine wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 06:34 Hi Daniel, Any plans to make a Mac version of your converters? Thx Depends on how many inquiries we get for that and also how simple it is to port. Daniel It seems more companies are creating software converters for PC than they are for Mac. It is a question of marketability, or is the task to make it Mac compatible, more difficult? It is not more difficult to make it Mac compatible, but the PC is more widespread in the audio world these days (I think). The porting requires us to get familiar with new toolkits and that means more development time. Daniel

Gee- I thought Mac had a stronger lead in the audio world. I remember PC being way ahead, but that was eons ago.

If you made a Mac version, I would buy it.