Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: taper420 on February 06, 2008, 06:15:15 PM

Title: SRC isn't suppose to take this long
Post by: taper420 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?

Title: Re: SRC isn't suppose to take this long
Post by: easy jim on February 06, 2008, 07:42:21 PM

Quote from: taper420 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?

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."

Title: Re: SRC isn't suppose to take this long
Post by: wbrisette 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

Title: Re: SRC isn't suppose to take this long
Post by: John Kary 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 :)