R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Fletcher => Topic started by: breathe on September 12, 2010, 07:26:03 pm

Title: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: breathe on September 12, 2010, 07:26:03 pm
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



Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: breathe on September 13, 2010, 08:19:56 am
Apparently I was underinformed.  Audiofile's Sample Manager software is supposed to be even better than Barbabatch.

Nicholas



Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Tomas Danko on September 13, 2010, 08:49:40 am
breathe wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 13:19

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

Nicholas


Spend some time here:

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

You can look at and compare pretty much every SRC out there, and educate yourself. Some of them look very good, the other ones you can just disregard unless you have to use them.

R8Brain is one of the best out there, and there is a FREE version as well. If it has all the bells and whistles you need, get it, forget about SRC issues and move on with life...

http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brain/

Check out the comparison (hint: less dark lines means better etc)

index.php/fa/15408/0/
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Otitis Media on September 13, 2010, 09:08:50 am
Oh, and you know that what you're putting IN to the mp3 encode/downsample is going to play a big role. Extremely limited material that's right up against 0dBFS is going to give the encoder fits. It's essentially a 256 band equalizer, and when you start removing stuff and reducing the bitrate, you're not going to be able to cleanly express that stuff if you've sent it a square wave.

In Pro Tools, are you using the best quality settings, btw?

How do you back up this statement with evidence, btw? Do you make an mp3 with Pro Tools and then with Barbabatch and try a null test? I'm not sure how you'd even back this up, but if you're going to CONTINUE to bait the forum with this statement, I'd like to see you back it up. Otherwise, you're just posting noise. It's pretty well proven that if you act like a professional here, the forum members are willing to listen and give you the time of day, but c'mon. Stop, or show us what the hell you're talking about with real data.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: breathe on September 13, 2010, 02:01:30 pm
Dan, this time I wasn't making a post to be condescending of either other software or the people who choose to use it.  I am genuinely thrilled with my experience of Barbabatch.  Not only does it downconvert files well, but the MP3's sound excellent.  Now that I'm using this software, when I want to show someone a track I mixed, I don't hesitate to play a Barbabatch-made MP3 of the 24/96 file in iTunes, vs. playing them the 24/96 file out of PTHD.

Nicholas



Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Otitis Media on September 13, 2010, 02:47:03 pm
I'm just not convinced that the SRC out of Pro Tools is *that* bad. Examples, please.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: J.J. Blair on September 13, 2010, 05:42:34 pm
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?
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: rankus on September 13, 2010, 09:07:06 pm


I've been using R8brain since it's inception... and life has been worry free Smile

Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: breathe on September 13, 2010, 09:08:56 pm
All I know on this subject is what I hear.  What kind of example would you like me to provide?

Nicholas



Otitis Media wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 11:47

I'm just not convinced that the SRC out of Pro Tools is *that* bad. Examples, please.

Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Otitis Media on September 13, 2010, 09:34:08 pm
Put up one of the mp3s that makes you so full of hate, and put up the same file xverted w/Barbabatch.

I wasn't trying to be a dick, but being a part-time journalist has made me keenly aware that you can't get away with making statements without evidence (at least for very long).
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: tom eaton on September 13, 2010, 09:52:30 pm
Wow, Dan.  You must be new to the internet.

Twisted Evil

t
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: zakco on September 13, 2010, 11:37:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Otitis Media on September 14, 2010, 12:09:26 am
Nah, I just have a byline. Can't hide behind an avatar, so at that point, if you want to be taken credibly, you need to back up your words. Unless your goal is to be a clown. Je ne suis pas un bete noir.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Tomas Danko on September 14, 2010, 07:07:40 am
J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 13 September 2010 22:42

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?


Unless you wanted Joaquin Phoenix to answer your question, it's pretty much been debunked years ago. You just find the lowest common denominator (or whatever them math geeks call it) for the source and target frequencies. I figure they tend to do it asynchronic these days, but should you be forced to go the synchronic way then yes 88.2 to 44.1 can produce a better end result.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: OOF! on September 14, 2010, 10:02:38 am
Sample Manager is a wonderful-sounding converter.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Berolzheimer 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.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Michael Brebes 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.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: maarvold 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.  
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Tomas Danko 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.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Michael Brebes 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.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Podgorny 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.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Otitis Media 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.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: tom eaton 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
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Alexey Lukin 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.
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Nick Sevilla 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
Title: Re: You can't do SRC in Pro Tools. You need Barbabatch.
Post by: Tomas Danko 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