Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Resampling Algorithms compared  (Read 5271 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jerryfreak

  • No PZ
  • Trade Count: (31)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 6205
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Resampling Algorithms compared
« on: October 06, 2007, 02:17:24 AM »
check it out, old article, but new to me:

http://www.bias-inc.com/products/peakPro5/resampling/peakResamplingWhitePaper.pdf

I've been using soundforge, which isnt the best (though i bet the errors are inaudible.

incidentally, wavelab looks really really bad.

I think i'll use audition from here on out.

I'd love to see a similar comparison of dither algorithms, although thats maybe a bit more subjective, where resampling is all about *accuracy*
Unable to post or PM due to arbitrary censorship of people the mod doesn't like. Please email me using the link in my profile if you need to connect

Offline libfab

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Gender: Male
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2007, 02:43:29 AM »
Interesting article, with an embedded link to http://src.infinitewave.ca/ .
It would be interesting to test a few open source apps like SSRC, which is reputedly better than SRC, or PPHS.

Offline twatts (pants are so over-rated...)

  • <://PHiSH//><
  • Trade Count: (16)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9941
  • Gender: Male
  • Lego made a Mini-Fig of me!
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2007, 02:58:26 AM »
I used to use SF5.0...  Now I use Audacity, though I'm still getting used to it...

I'm curious as to the consensus here, as I've jsut entered the 24bit realm...

Terry

***Do you have PHISH, VIDA BLUE, JAZZ MANDOLIN PROJECT or any other Phish related DATs/Tapes/MDs that need to be transferred???  I can do them for you!!!***

I will return your DATs/Tapes/MDs.  I'll also provide Master FLAC files via DropBox.  PM me for details.

Sony PCM R500 > SPDIF > Tascam HD-P2
Nakamichi DR-3 > (Oade Advanced Concert Mod) Tascam HD-P2
Sony MDS-JE510 > Hosa ODL-276 > Tascam HD-P2

******

Offline Nicola Fankhauser

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2007, 04:13:17 AM »
hi

graphical evidence seems pretty clear, however it's not clear at all how this translates into audible problems. sometimes less precise algorithms produce more appealing results (dithering for example).

I'd love to see audacity in the comparison, though.

regards
nicola

Roving Sign

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2007, 06:06:20 AM »
I think Brian did some informal comparisons a while back - should be a link around...

Offline JackoRoses

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Gender: Male
  • lost cause
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2007, 07:31:33 AM »
check it out, old article, but new to me:

http://www.bias-inc.com/products/peakPro5/resampling/peakResamplingWhitePaper.pdf

I've been using soundforge, which isnt the best (though i bet the errors are inaudible.

incidentally, wavelab looks really really bad.

I think i'll use audition from here on out.

I'd love to see a similar comparison of dither algorithms, although thats maybe a bit more subjective, where resampling is all about *accuracy*
than you so much for this link. I say the pic on WL4 really takes the wind out of all the fluffing it gets. I use it myself because I haven't heard anyone say anything bad about it really. I would like to see a WL5 comparison but I don't think the difference would be much. The "whats new" pdf file that comes with WL5 makes no mention of reworking or improving any algorithms.
I'm going to look into adobe audition right now.
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/jackoroses
AKG ck61's/ck62's/ck63's/480b's > zaolla's/Dogstar silver cables > optimod V3  > zaolla spdif> HD-P2
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. "
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Big Brother is here and he is watching you.

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Gender: Male
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2007, 01:35:33 PM »
I'd love to see a similar comparison of dither algorithms, although thats maybe a bit more subjective, where resampling is all about *accuracy*

A while back, I posted a dither comp I performed:  http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,51478.0.html
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) > Roland R-05

Offline jerryfreak

  • No PZ
  • Trade Count: (31)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 6205
  • The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2007, 03:20:48 PM »
just to be clear, i expect resampling to be 'transparent', it shouldnt add a flavor.

Dither, on the other hand, can make a source sound different (better?), although its primary task should be to translate harmonics and imaging from the -96 to -115 dB range into an audible 16-bit waveform, while masking any rounding errors into the LSB of the resulting waveform. All while remaining as true as possible to the original 24-bit file.

Thanks for the links brian. I'm gonna try to do a shootout of the different algorithms i have available to me:

3 settings on the ad2k
3 settings in soundforge
wavelab
audition

I'll normalize the waveforms to -40 dB peak to try to bring out the sound of the dither


unfortunately, i cant include the v3's ANSR as theres no digi-in
Unable to post or PM due to arbitrary censorship of people the mod doesn't like. Please email me using the link in my profile if you need to connect

stirinthesauce

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2007, 05:11:58 PM »
just to clarify on wavelab.  There are 3 types of algorythms for dithering.  The internal wavelab, apogees old uv22 and their renowned uv22hr.  I'm betting (though not positive) they were testing wavelabs own (internal) algorythm.  If using apogee's uv22hr, this is a proven standard...with I'm sure better algorythms out there.  Just wanted to post this so someone doesn't assume that wavelab is poor, just don't use their algorythm.  And why when you have apogee's dithering scheme available?

Offline JackoRoses

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
  • Gender: Male
  • lost cause
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2007, 05:48:08 PM »
Yes but it also was testing the resampling part of wavlab as well which introduced a lot of noise from their tests and what other plugins are available to use besides what wavlab gives you for resampling?
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/jackoroses
AKG ck61's/ck62's/ck63's/480b's > zaolla's/Dogstar silver cables > optimod V3  > zaolla spdif> HD-P2
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. "
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Big Brother is here and he is watching you.

stirinthesauce

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Resampling Algorithms compared
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2007, 11:07:17 PM »
Yes but it also was testing the resampling part of wavlab as well which introduced a lot of noise from their tests and what other plugins are available to use besides what wavlab gives you for resampling?


I'm an idiot  :P  I was thinking dithering, not resampling. 

I record in 24/44.1 so resampling is not an issue.  For the other times, I guess I need to look at using samplitude or cubase, of which I have.  Or protools which I soon will have.

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.071 seconds with 35 queries.
© 2002-2025 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF