Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?  (Read 7057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chilly Brioschi

  • The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15433
  • Gender: Male
  • Waiting for the next cladogenetic event, or Godot
    • Oceana North America
24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« on: August 30, 2008, 03:50:34 PM »
Hey all you DAW gurus!

I haven't changed my workflow or software in a few years.  (CEP/Audition 1.5 with a 0.5 bit noise dither)
Knowing the way technology moves, I'd guess that I'm missing something.

What is the best way to convert 24/96 to 16/44.1 these days?

Which Freeware does it best?

All stops out, which commercial software does it best?


TIA

"Peace is for everyone"
        - Norah Jones

"Music is the drug that won't kill you"
         - Fran Lebowitz

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2008, 07:01:55 AM »
You might want to define what you mean by 'which does it best'.  I assume that you mean more accurately. 

I'm sure I'm not qualified to answer this question, and I _KNOW_ I'm no guru, but I do know I haven't read anything that would compell me to think that conversion is no better OR worse in Audition 3.0 than in Audition 1.0 in terms of accuracy. 

Having said that, Audition 3.0 seems to have better workflow than 1.0 in that most processes are performed faster on my machine.  So if the definition of better is based on speed, then 3.0 is better than 1.0.  3.0 had some enhancements in terms of basic workflow features (fewer keystroke types of features), but honestly I didn't feel that there was all that much core feature-wise in 3.0 that isn't also in 1.0, but I'm not a power user for sure.

Having further said the above, I find that Audition 3.0 is a tradeoff on my machine because it seems to be a real RAM hog.  Slows down multi-tasking and causes frequent lockups on my machine. 

In the end, because of all of the above combinations of considerations, I've personally opted to stick with Audition 1.0.  If I had a bigger, newer machine, I'd probably go with 3.0.

Have no idea about other software packages, so cannot speak to those.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 07:09:23 AM by tonedeaf »

Offline live2496

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 692
  • Gender: Male
    • Gidluck Mastering
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2008, 08:37:12 AM »
You might want to take a look at these graphs...
http://src.infinitewave.ca/

As far as free programs R8Brain (free) is an excellent program for resampling.
http://www.voxengo.com/product/r8brain/

Gordon
AEA R88MKII > SPL Crimson 3 > Tascam DA-3000

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2008, 11:42:45 AM »
You might want to take a look at these graphs...
http://src.infinitewave.ca/

I know this isn't my thread, but I'm trying to learn too.  I'm not sure what the graphs should be telling us.  Can you please explain? 

First question is what is SRC?

Regardless of that though, I will try to at least state a little bit what I see.  It's obvious looking at the top graph vs. the bottom one that there are more lines in the top one (do stray lines = sample noise???)...the top says it's unfiltered while the bottom says its a filtered sample, so it looks like a filtered conversion from 96 to 44.1 yields maybe less noise???  (makes sense...filtering implies taking something like noise out of the sample)

But then, both tests are Audition 2.0.  So, since the original poster was asking about upgrades to software, are you also saying that Audition 2.0 includes this filtering feature and Audition 1.0 does not, or does it better than Audition 1.0? 

I guess I'd just like to have someone explain please what this information should be telling us...and more generally are these graphs or is this website used to determine how effective the various tools we use are at accomplishing the various functions that they perform?  If so, is there someplace that explains to dummies how to use the website.

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2008, 12:04:39 PM »
As far as free programs R8Brain (free) is an excellent program for resampling.
Gordon

I have a question about r8brain that was not addressed on their forum: 

Is there a way to perform batch conversions so that the sliding window will gracefully span file boundaries?

I'm thinking of the case in which a 24/96 recording is already split into tracks and the tracks are to be down converted to 16/44. 

The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2008, 01:18:24 PM »
You might want to take a look at these graphs...
http://src.infinitewave.ca/

I know this isn't my thread, but I'm trying to learn too.  I'm not sure what the graphs should be telling us.  Can you please explain? 

First question is what is SRC?

SRC = Sample Rate Conversion 

The link above is to a comparison of various conversion algorithms.
There is a help button on the page that explains each test and graph.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2008, 01:52:47 PM »
Thanks gutbucket.  That helps!

Offline live2496

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 692
  • Gender: Male
    • Gidluck Mastering
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2008, 09:22:16 PM »
Regardless of that though, I will try to at least state a little bit what I see.  It's obvious looking at the top graph vs. the bottom one that there are more lines in the top one (do stray lines = sample noise???)...the top says it's unfiltered while the bottom says its a filtered sample, so it looks like a filtered conversion from 96 to 44.1 yields maybe less noise???  (makes sense...filtering implies taking something like noise out of the sample)

But then, both tests are Audition 2.0.  So, since the original poster was asking about upgrades to software, are you also saying that Audition 2.0 includes this filtering feature and Audition 1.0 does not, or does it better than Audition 1.0? 

I find the frequency sweeps the most interesting. If you see what I would call a ghost image this indicates aliasing artifacts. Sample rate conversion down from a higher sampling rate to a lower one requires bandwidth filtering. A good filter (and a good algorithm I presume) would give you a clean sweep with no artifacts.

I wasn't making any inferences about Adobe Audition... I just thought I would present the link to the information and let the reader delve into it and make their own conclusions.



AEA R88MKII > SPL Crimson 3 > Tascam DA-3000

Offline live2496

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 692
  • Gender: Male
    • Gidluck Mastering
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2008, 09:27:08 PM »
Is there a way to perform batch conversions so that the sliding window will gracefully span file boundaries?

Not sure if I follow what you mean by sliding window? Is this in the pro version?

I have just used the free version and found it to be more than adequate for my needs. In the free version there is a batch conversion button that will convert all files in a folder. (I hope I am understanding your question ???)

P.S. The free version also includes a DLL. The developer has stated that if anyone wanted to do a command line tool for this they could do so by calling functions in the DLL. A command line based conversion tool should be possible if someone wanted to make one. That way scripts could be written to batch convert files.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 09:30:46 PM by live2496 »
AEA R88MKII > SPL Crimson 3 > Tascam DA-3000

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2008, 10:12:07 PM »
What I'd like to get a better handle on is the trade-offs made in various SRC designs.  I'm not sure exactly how a nice clean looking graph translates into sound quality and I really have no idea what the sonic implications are of improving one aspect (like say the aiming for a nice flat phase response) while sacrificing another (like introducing pre-ringing in the impulse response).  I really wish that site had sound samples that we could listen to in order to really understand what's going on and what those design trade offs mean.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2008, 10:38:29 PM »
Is there a way to perform batch conversions so that the sliding window will gracefully span file boundaries?

Not sure if I follow what you mean by sliding window?

Lots of noise shaping/dithering algorithms do not work on discrete samples but work on a group of neighboring samples to calculate the value for a specific sample result.  As the file is processed, this group moves along the file.  That moving group of data is called a sliding window. 

The issue I'm considering is that there is always some non-ideal performance of the algorithm when the window is not full.  So at the beginning or end of a stream when the window is being filled or being drained, the results that are produced are not the same results that would be produced if the window was constant.  This isn't an issue if the signal fades in and then fades out because the window can be padded with 0s and the behavior is correct for a signal with a slightly longer leader or trailer.

Where a problem occurs is when a show gets tracked and each track is batch processed as a discrete stream sequence.  The sliding window sees a discontinuity - most likely a step impulse - at the beginning and ending of each track.  When the batch processed tracks are concatenated at playback, there is discontinuity in the noise shaping at each track boundary. 

I don't know if it would be audible but it is there and I consider it less than ideal.  Samplitude addresses this by creating a virtual contiguous stream for processing of multiple files concatenated and track bounced.  Any tool could be written to do this since it's just a matter of saving some intermediate results when the window slides across the file boundaries.  I don't know about r8brain, so I was asking.  There are times when my workflow would be easier if I could just cut everything up with CDwave and batch process the 24/96 files to 16/44 instead of using samplitude.  Or when I get 24-bit master tracks from someone and want to make CDs.
The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2008, 10:39:58 PM »
I really wish that site had sound samples that we could listen to in order to really understand what's going on and what those design trade offs mean.

Didn't Brian do this and post the results here somwhere?  If he still has the master track anyone could extend the comparison set as new tools are released.

edit: here it is http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,51478.0.html
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 10:41:41 PM by Lil' Kim Jong-Il »
The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline live2496

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 692
  • Gender: Male
    • Gidluck Mastering
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2008, 10:44:43 PM »
What I'd like to get a better handle on is the trade-offs made in various SRC designs.  I'm not sure exactly how a nice clean looking graph translates into sound quality and I really have no idea what the sonic implications are of improving one aspect (like say the aiming for a nice flat phase response) while sacrificing another (like introducing pre-ringing in the impulse response).  I really wish that site had sound samples that we could listen to in order to really understand what's going on and what those design trade offs mean.

If you follow the discussions on Bruno Putzey's forum on REP they may discuss stuff like this from time to time.  
example: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/19917/12697/

Also dither and sound shaping. Most of it way over my head.



AEA R88MKII > SPL Crimson 3 > Tascam DA-3000

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15700
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2008, 10:59:31 PM »
Thanks live & Kim Jong, I'll check those out.  Hopefully I won't get overly deep. :-\

'Kim, do you personally use the SRC in Samplitude or output files to R8Brain? and do you hear a difference?  I'm just getting into Sam and have wondered about which way I'll end up going work-flow wise. I'll comp it at some point, just wondering about your opinion.  Sure would be nice if I don't hear a difference.  ;)
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: 24/96 to 16/44.1 Best Practices & State of the Art Software?
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2008, 11:17:22 PM »
'Kim, do you personally use the SRC in Samplitude or output files to R8Brain?

I use samplitude all the way through.  I have a workflow that starts with the raw 24/96 from the 722 and ends with 24/96 and 16/44 track sets.  Then I flac them.  I wish I knew of a flac plugin for samplitude.


I have not done a lot of comparisons because I generally listen to 24-bit at home and MP3 in the car.
The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.098 seconds with 40 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF