Topic: is there a UV22 plug-in for Soundforge

[cbd]

I have been converting my 24/96 shows I tape with the 744 to 16/44.1 using the built in options that come with Soundforge. I have been wanting somehow to integrate or get the UV22 dithering to use instead.

does anyone know if this is available somewhere & if so where

I found this information at the apogee site: http://apogeedigital.com/products/uv22hr.php

but it just talks about the software & now whether its a seperate program or if its compatible with soundforge


and yes I know its available for wavelab but I'm one of those dumbasses who learned how to use SF & am (1) scared & (2) time deprived for a steep learning curve with a new program

[jmerin]

nope just in wavelab

[cbd]

nope just in wavelab

um, that's not the answer I wanted to hear

[sygdwm]

pm sent

[Gordon]

I find wavelab easier to use than soundforge for the most part.  the resample and dither is easy and it does it much faster.

[fozzy]

I went from SF to wavelab and have never looked back.  Actually I still use SF for and normalizing or editing but that is so infrequent (only used it twice in the past 6 months or ~65 shows).

[Brian Skalinder]

Have you considered dithering schemes other than UV22HR?  For all the hype it gets, I didn't like it as much as a couple/few others in my comp:

ftp:  tapers.org
dir:  /drive1/gear_comparisons/dither
l:  ftp4all
p:  ftp4all

FYI, I don't use the highest noise shaping settings on the two other dithers I prefer, even though that's what I used in the comp.

[cbd]

I have been suing the ones built into SF &  I don't have any specific complaints but I don't like them as much as I used to like the UV22. Not everyone is an apogee fan but I have always been.

[todd e]

I have been suing the ones built into SF &  I don't have any specific complaints but I don't like them as much as I used to like the UV22. Not everyone is an apogee fan but I have always been.

then use your mme.  i don't think that you can say you are 'hearing' that apogee sound, if you use an A>D in the 744 and the dither after the fact.  the A>D was already done.

i agree that using the uv22 dithering algorithm is preferrable, but to me it doesn't make much sense seeking out that particular uv22 if you aren't using an apogee in the front end of your rig.

just an opinion. 

did you get wavelab yet?  lemme know.

[mhibbs]

I have been suing the ones built into SF &  I don't have any specific complaints but I don't like them as much as I used to like the UV22. Not everyone is an apogee fan but I have always been.

then use your mme.  i don't think that you can say you are 'hearing' that apogee sound, if you use an A>D in the 744 and the dither after the fact.  the A>D was already done.

i agree that using the uv22 dithering algorithm is preferrable, but to me it doesn't make much sense seeking out that particular uv22 if you aren't using an apogee in the front end of your rig.

just an opinion. 

did you get wavelab yet?  lemme know.

I'd disagree.  *Part* of the ad1000 sound (which I assume is what we're really talking about) IS uv22.  Since the ad1000 is 20bit, uv22 is part of the end result of running it.  Certainly the analog stage impacts the sound as well, but I don't see anything wrong w/ seeking out uv22hr.  You aren't going to necessarily end up w/ the ad1000 sound as a result, but you aren't going to get there w/ the mme either in my opinion.  Different dither algos do sound different...no harm in seeking out  one you like (the industry likes it too).

would definitely agree on wavelab...the speed is a big improvement over SF.  And the ability to do DVD-A (although confusing) is cool too.


mitch