Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: SRC isn't suppose to take this long  (Read 1463 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline taper420

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1039
  • Gender: Male
SRC isn't suppose to take this long
« on: February 06, 2008, 06:15:15 PM »
Now I know there's different qualities of SRC. Even in quicktime you have 5 different options ranging from fastest to best (quality). I've used quite a few different programs and they all seem to take around the same time (for the best setting). Except AudioDesk / Digital Performer. For some reason SRC in these programs seems to take an obscenly long amount of time. Am I alone here? Has anyone else noticed this? And based on the quicktime formula, am I to assume that since it takes the longest it is of the utmost highest quality?

easy jim

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: SRC isn't suppose to take this long
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2008, 07:42:21 PM »
Now I know there's different qualities of SRC. Even in quicktime you have 5 different options ranging from fastest to best (quality). I've used quite a few different programs and they all seem to take around the same time (for the best setting). Except AudioDesk / Digital Performer. For some reason SRC in these programs seems to take an obscenly long amount of time. Am I alone here? Has anyone else noticed this? And based on the quicktime formula, am I to assume that since it takes the longest it is of the utmost highest quality?

Same experience.  On the other hand, I learned to my chagrin last weekend when playing with a friends Protools rig that 'bouncing' a mix in ProTools is a realtime process :o vs. ~ a third - half of realtime length in AD/DP.

DP is quite a bit faster than AudioDesk at SRC, however, and conversions take closer to the realtime length of the audio (24/48 -> 24/44.1) vs. as much as 2x realtime audio length using AudioDesk in "best."
« Last Edit: February 06, 2008, 07:47:55 PM by easyjim »

Offline wbrisette

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2855
  • Gender: Male
    • Homepage
Re: SRC isn't suppose to take this long
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2008, 07:08:27 AM »
My workflow is a bit different, but I use the Izotope SRC and don't find it too bad. Granted I'm running on a quad-pro, so that probably has something to do with it, but I can do a 60 minute file in less than 3 minutes with WaveEditor and Izotope.

Wayne
Mics: Earthworks SR-77 (MP), QTC-1 (MP)

Editing: QSC RMX2450, MOTU 2408 MK3, Earthworks Sigma 6.2

Offline John Kary

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: SRC isn't suppose to take this long
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2008, 09:57:57 AM »
Visit this link for the ultimate SRC comparison: http://src.infinitewave.ca/
Then compare all the software you have available, find the one that exhibits the least amount of phasing and aliasing and use that one :)

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.04 seconds with 28 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF