Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: optimizing wavelab for 24 bit  (Read 15708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RRobar

  • Mac Design Geek
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5197
  • Gender: Male
  • "It's allgood ....brah!"
    • Headway Graphixx
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2003, 09:56:40 PM »
Actually samplitude 2496 was my fave software. I had the 90 day fully functional trial version and really liked it. However, I could not afford it so when it expired I went to "Shareware". I had not heard about adobe buying syntrillium. I'll have to check out the adobe sites and see if I can find it.
Need Graphic Design Work? Goto http://www.headwaygraphixx.com

rabhan

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2003, 10:48:33 PM »
well, i just found CEP 2.0, i guess i will use wavelab for recording and CEP for resampling and dithering. how do you do it with CEP?

DaryanLenz

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2003, 11:40:42 AM »
I have a funny program that allows you to snag the "demo" of samplitude and unlock it if you happen to want it... ;)  I have all the other programs we are usually talking about as well!



Daryan

rabhan

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2003, 11:52:37 AM »
i just got CEP 2.1 and samp 6.0. which should i use for the resample and dither since wavelab isnt up to par for doing it. also, how do you do it with those apps?

DaryanLenz

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2003, 12:31:54 PM »
I am not sure, as I use wavelab for just about everything.  What is wrong with wavelab for dithering?

D

rabhan

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2003, 01:05:03 PM »
re-read this thread my friend

Offline dklein

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Gender: Male
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2003, 11:01:30 PM »
Well I guess dithering in Wavelab (4.0c) isn't the same as other kinds of processing like resampling.  I just dithered down a 1.7GB 24/44.1 to 16/44.1 without any problems.  And it took all of a minute and a half to do it.
KM 184 > V2 > R4
older recording gear: UA-5  / emagic A62 / laptop / JB3 / CSB / AD20 / Sharp MT-90 / Sony MDS-JE510
Playback: Pioneer DV-578 > Lucid DA 9624 >many funny little british boxes > Linn Isobarik PMS

rabhan

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2003, 11:16:02 PM »
if i can record with wavlab and dither with it also, should i use CEP or SF for resampling?

Offline mterry

  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Gender: Male
    • recordings
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2003, 11:53:14 PM »
So, just one basic thing to make everything clear for myself. When recording in 24bit with WL, I want to it for a 16bit float file, or keep it at 32bit?
"That's deplorable, unfathomable, improbable!"

"Then we played Davidson, and they wore us out. Davidson controlled us - other than Kentucky - as well as any team all year long"
- Bill Self on PTI (2/28/11)

DPA 2012 > Apogee Mini-Me > Tascam DR-100mkIII

Offline dklein

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Gender: Male
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2003, 08:12:54 AM »
if i can record with wavlab and dither with it also, should i use CEP or SF for resampling?
I'm just trying to figure this out as well, but it sounds like if you need to resample, sometimes your choices will be:
use CEP (or SF but I haven't tried it) because wavelab can't do large files
OR
split your file into smaller pieces that wavelab can handle

I think that resampling in wavelab with 16 bit temp files sounds like a bad idea.  Any processing that uses a temp file should be in at least the same resolution as your source file or you're just throwing it all away.  32 bit float would be the best if you're going to use more than one processing step as it will maintain maximum accuracy until it's time to step down to 24 or 16.

KM 184 > V2 > R4
older recording gear: UA-5  / emagic A62 / laptop / JB3 / CSB / AD20 / Sharp MT-90 / Sony MDS-JE510
Playback: Pioneer DV-578 > Lucid DA 9624 >many funny little british boxes > Linn Isobarik PMS

Offline dklein

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Gender: Male
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2003, 08:19:24 AM »
So, just one basic thing to make everything clear for myself. When recording in 24bit with WL, I want to it for a 16bit float file, or keep it at 32bit?

Here I don't think it matters - when recording, you are using whatever you are set to record in.  There's no use of temp files and there's no processing.  As soon as you go to change some characteristic of the file (like volume, sample rate, eq), the use of temp files kicks in and as above, I think you really need to keep at least the same word length (or bit depth or whatever you want to call it).  Not that it will screw up your file or anything, but you'll just be tossing that extra resolution out and doing so without the use of dithering.  No point in returning to 24 bits and dithering when you've already hacked it to 16.  

Does that make sense?  I know that your actual file will still be 24 bits but you won't have the fine detail of 24 - sample values will be at x or y but not the points in between (that they could have been with 24 or 32 bit resolution when processed)....I think...
« Last Edit: September 21, 2003, 08:20:17 AM by dklein »
KM 184 > V2 > R4
older recording gear: UA-5  / emagic A62 / laptop / JB3 / CSB / AD20 / Sharp MT-90 / Sony MDS-JE510
Playback: Pioneer DV-578 > Lucid DA 9624 >many funny little british boxes > Linn Isobarik PMS

rabhan

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2003, 04:53:59 PM »
okay, so i recorded LOS last night. i want to resample from 48 to 44 in something other than wavlab. i am trying CEP2.1. it took over 10mins to open a 1.2G 24/48 file and i selected convert sample rate and it looks like it is going to take like over 15mins to do it. i have a P3-1.1G and 640MG ram, now when i used WL4.0g, it opened the file in 3secs and only took like 5mins to resample the data. wtf is the deal with CEP?

DaryanLenz

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2003, 04:58:33 PM »
CEP has always been slow for me, especially trying to resample.  I am not sure of settings or anything to make it quicker as I use wavelab for just about everything in 16bit.  I use CEP 2.1 for matrixing only pretty much...and I suck at that as of late too!



Daryan

rabhan

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2003, 05:00:05 PM »
now it is doing some phase 2 thing, taking another 12 minutes.....CEP is starting to piss me off!

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18868
  • Gender: Male
Re:optimizing wavelab for 24 bit
« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2003, 05:05:43 PM »
now it is doing some phase 2 thing, taking another 12 minutes.....CEP is starting to piss me off!

CEP has some decent failure recovery stuff it handles in the background with temp files, so on the first opening of the file, it takes a while.  All subsequent openings of the same file should be swift.

Also - are your temp files on a different physical disk?  This should help significantly.

As for the two phase thing, here's kinda how it works:

Editing

[1]  save "undo" info
[2]  perform processing

Saving

[3]  flush WAV file
[4]  save WAV file

You can skip [1], but not [3].  And it doesn't always do [3].  I'm not sure when or why, necessarily.  I always skip [1] - if I flub it, I just close the file, re-open the original, and start again.

Perhaps CEP takes longer to do the resampling because it's a higher quality resample?  Dunno.
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.064 seconds with 39 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF