Topic: Dither/resampling/temp file tests in Wavelab

[dmonterisi]

umm, it's pretty goddam expensive, Ray...can't say anything more than that.

[Ray76]

no more info needed Damon.  Thanks man.

[dmonterisi]

lol, here's the waves platinum bundle for a sweet $3150.00...hopefully, they include free shipping.

http://powermax.com/cgi-global/generate_css_temp.cgi?p=de-wpta

[heath]

waves is VERY expensive, but is a phenomenal package of plugins.  if you have the coin, it's worth it--if not, there's others that can do a similar job.  plugins have gotten WAY too expensive.  I'd almost rather buy an outboard processor to run my signal to for processing for possibly less money.

[Ray76]

lol, here's the waves platinum bundle for a sweet $3150.00...hopefully, they include free shipping.

http://powermax.com/cgi-global/generate_css_temp.cgi?p=de-wpta

DAMN! yeah, they can keep that.

[Kyle]

this obviously doesn't deal with creating 24/96 tracks, but to do that, all you need to do, is line up the wavs as above.  after adding fades, drop generic markers where you want the splits to be, then go with Tools > Auto Split > at markers...follow the prompts and save the individual files directly. 

I have CDWAV 1.94.5 and I was under the impression that it will handle 24/96 files, although I have not yet tried it. Is my informatoin incorrect? Thanks!

[Ray76]

this obviously doesn't deal with creating 24/96 tracks, but to do that, all you need to do, is line up the wavs as above.  after adding fades, drop generic markers where you want the splits to be, then go with Tools > Auto Split > at markers...follow the prompts and save the individual files directly. 

I have CDWAV 1.94.5 and I was under the impression that it will handle 24/96 files, although I have not yet tried it. Is my informatoin incorrect? Thanks!

yes it handles 24/96 and seemingly no limits on file size...

[dmonterisi]

this obviously doesn't deal with creating 24/96 tracks, but to do that, all you need to do, is line up the wavs as above.  after adding fades, drop generic markers where you want the splits to be, then go with Tools > Auto Split > at markers...follow the prompts and save the individual files directly. 

I have CDWAV 1.94.5 and I was under the impression that it will handle 24/96 files, although I have not yet tried it. Is my informatoin incorrect? Thanks!

yes, i believe that's fine...the reason i have been using wavelab to do the 24/96 splits is so that i can insert split files continuously without actually creating a 24/96 file larger than 2 gigs. what i mean is if i have an hour and a half set, the first hour (approx) would be the first 2 gig file and the last half hour would be a second file.  with this approach, you can open both in wavelab by inserting the second file through the edit > insert audio file > at end.  then sink track markers and create the 24/96 track files without actually having to create one long file or otherwise maniuplating multiple files through cd wav.  if all your 24/96 files are under 2 gigs, this isn't a concern, but it seems to me to be a good way of dealing with it.

[Kyle]

this obviously doesn't deal with creating 24/96 tracks, but to do that, all you need to do, is line up the wavs as above.  after adding fades, drop generic markers where you want the splits to be, then go with Tools > Auto Split > at markers...follow the prompts and save the individual files directly. 

I have CDWAV 1.94.5 and I was under the impression that it will handle 24/96 files, although I have not yet tried it. Is my informatoin incorrect? Thanks!

yes, i believe that's fine...the reason i have been using wavelab to do the 24/96 splits is so that i can insert split files continuously without actually creating a 24/96 file larger than 2 gigs. what i mean is if i have an hour and a half set, the first hour (approx) would be the first 2 gig file and the last half hour would be a second file.  with this approach, you can open both in wavelab by inserting the second file through the edit > insert audio file > at end.  then sink track markers and create the 24/96 track files without actually having to create one long file or otherwise maniuplating multiple files through cd wav.  if all your 24/96 files are under 2 gigs, this isn't a concern, but it seems to me to be a good way of dealing with it.

right-o. Thanks for the info. I like the idea of using Wavelab to split tracks - takes an additonal step out of the process. One other thing - this may have been covered - sorry if I missed it - does tracking in Wavelab create sbe's? I do not like using shntool. Thanks again and a big +t for the info!

[F.O.Bean]

fwiw kyle, the newest versions of flac frontend have the 'fix sbe' option and it has worked flawlessly for me the past year or so!

i dont believe 24-bit recordings have sbe's anyway tho kyle, only 16/44.1k stuff

[dmonterisi]

yep, bean's got it right, there are no sbe's with 24/96 files.  if you want to use wavelab for tracking 16/44 files, there is a way to do it, using cd splice markers instead of generic markers.  it's discussed in the other thread in this forum entitled "tracking in wavelab or something similar".  the flac frontend option to fix sbe's apparently is a good fix, but i also think the less manipulation of the file the better, so if you can cut them w/o sbe's, that's probably best.

edit to note: this is the thread i was referring to:

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=47914.0

[Brian]

alright, Damon, I just read this.

like, heath,  i need to re-read this again later tonight   i'm still digesting the alcohol i drank last night, i'm still at work, and don't want to say something completely idiotic, like i know i am capable of doing

BTW - in short, i don't know why anyone would track the show first before resampling and dithering.  also it sounds like your computer can't handle 32-bit float editing.  Can you go into detail about your computer system. specs?  I personally would want that option if i was doing major editing or something like resampling and dither of high res files too.

[dmonterisi]

alright, Damon, I just read this.

like, heath,  i need to re-read this again later tonight   i'm still digesting the alcohol i drank last night, i'm still at work, and don't want to say something completely idiotic, like i know i am capable of doing

BTW - in short, i don't know why anyone would track the show first before resampling and dithering. 

i think the reason that people have been tracking then batch processing is for simplicity.  if you're goin to create 24/96 tracks, then it's simple to run a batch process on all the 24/96 individual tracks to create 16/44 tracks.  it also prevents having to manipulate the 2 gig files to a certain extent.

also it sounds like your computer can't handle 32-bit float editing.  Can you go into detail about your computer system. specs?  I personally would want that option if i was doing major editing or something like resampling and dither of high res files too.

 

i was able to accomplish 32 bit float ediiting on a single 24/96 track, but not when trying to resample 1:50 of 24/96 to 24/44.  it is a p4/2.0/1gig ram.  not ideal by modern standards for sure.  but it didn't seem to me that my computer couldn't handle 32 bit float.  midway through the resampling process, i got the dreaded "cannot create files larger than 2 gigabytes" message from wavelav.

what i'm curious about is why you say 32 bit float ediing is so important.  what about how 32 bit float editing is superior to say 24 bit temp files?  and i'm hoping that someone can share something more than "it is best to work at the highest resolution possible."  I agree that as a guiding principle, this is good advice, but I'm specifically curious as to what would make it so important that it would be worthwhile to chop up 24/96 sets into smaller files to allow 32 bit float manipulation.

[Brian]

yeah your computer is fine.  i misread.  like i said,  i'm a little tired right now

i can't really put it simply why 32-bit float point editing is better.  it has to do with the calculation of bits so that your computer doesn't have to guess. here....read this and try to wrap your head around it. i can't really myself

http://www.mactech.com:16080/articles/mactech/Vol.02/02.07/FloatPoint/

[dmonterisi]

http://www.mactech.com:16080/articles/mactech/Vol.02/02.07/FloatPoint/

 

here's the first two parts, give me a break.

"12 Kflops - Forth goes inSANE"

You might have noticed my frequent complaints about the slowness of the Apple 80-bit SANE routines and the non-availability of a reasonably fast 32 bit floating point package in Forth systems (and most other programming languages, for that matter, Fortran being the only exception).

The scaling that is necessary if you want to do rapid calculations in Forth (using integer arithmetic) is a nuisance, and it is almost impossible to implement general purpose mathematical routines without floating point. Since I needed to run this machine as fast as possible, I set out to write a set of single precision real arithmetic routines.

IEEE 32-bit real numbers

The number format that we are dealing with is the IEEE standard and defined as follows:

bit 31 (highest bit): sign (0 = positive)
bits 30Š23 : exponent (offset = 127)
bits 22Š0 : fraction part (23 bits with the 24th bit always =1)

That is, a real number has the form

(+/-)1.xxxŠxxx * 2yyy,

where the exponent yyy is obtained by subtracting 127 from the stored exponent; only the fraction part of the mantissa is stored because the integer part is always 1 by definition (otherwise, the fraction part will have to be shifted left and the exponent decreased until the integer part is =1; this is called normalization).

The highest exponent, 255, is reserved for special cases: with zero mantissa it designates positive/negative infinity, and with non-zero mantissa it is a 'no-number' (Not a Number or NaN). This latter case is used to mark the results of undefined or illegal operations, such as 0/0, infinity - infinity, square root (-x), etc. The type of 'non- numberness' is indicated by the value of the mantissa.

Floating point arithmetic is thouroughly treated in D. Knuth's 'The Art of Computer Programming', Vol.2. Taking this excellent book as a guidance, the job to write the single precision routines becomes manageable. We'll first consider addition.