Topic: software recomendations

[mmmatt]

is the speed directly related to the quality?  i.e. is slower more precise?

[pfife]

Well, in a sense.  When resampling, if you use the most sensitive setting, it takes way longer, and it is more accurate.  

But, if you are talking about the same setting on 4.5 and 6.0, I would say there is no difference in quality...  this last statement is a bit of a guess though.

[nic]

Well, in a sense.  When resampling, if you use the most sensitive setting, it takes way longer, and it is more accurate.  

have you timed a resample with sensitivity set to 1, then set to 4...they take the same amount of time.
its the anti-aliasing that takes so long in the resample!

[pfife]

Well, in a sense.  When resampling, if you use the most sensitive setting, it takes way longer, and it is more accurate.  

have you timed a resample with sensitivity set to 1, then set to 4...they take the same amount of time.
its the anti-aliasing that takes so long in the resample!

Nope... never have, but I thought I read it somewhere.   I have never had an interest in resampling at a lower quality than possibile.
Is the anti-aliasing the aspect that changes dependent on how sensitive it is?

I usually start it, and leave, and then come back...

[nic]

I only did it because I was curious as to the difference.
not sure exactly, but the anti-aliasing is some special algorithm/mask that is applied before the actual resampling...Ive tried it with/without...sounds better with anti-aliasing.

if SF did multitrack, I wouldnt use Digital Performer on a Mac!
I love SF

[pfife]

Agree.  I think it's a great program as well.  I am really surprised that sensitivity makes no difference in processing time!

You mention Waves bundle - do you ever use the ultramaximizers in that bundle?  

[nic]

no, I use the Renaissance plugins(RComp and REQ4 or 6).

if I need(very rarely) multiband compression, I use Masterworks in Digital Performer

[mmmatt]

Thanks guys +Ts to all!