Resampling my music collection


Suppose I wanted to do a static resampling of my music collection in the form of lossless audio files. Would there be an advantage to resampling to 96 kHz rather than 48 kHz? The only quibble I have with 96 kHz is that it would make the files twice the size.

One of the reasons I want to do a static resample is that if I want to do any DSP during playback, I don't have to worry about the resampling ability of the DSP software that I use.
dnewhous

Showing 10 responses by dnewhous

If I resample my music statically then I don't have to worry about the mediocre real time resampling ability of various playback software. Obviously, I won't be using the same software to do a static resample that I would for playback.

resample ability = the quality of the resampling
Jtwrace, I am not a Mac user and will not become one until they have an equivalent to PowerDVD. And by equivalent, I mean support 100% or more of PowerDVD's features. The full, retail version of PowerDVD.

I also need software that can resample and apply de-emphasis with 64 bit precision. The only thing I've found that does what I want is SOX (Sound Exchange). The fact that it is free is actually a turn off, but there isn't any payware that will do what it does.
Neither Soundforge nor Wavelab do de-emphasis without a plugin, and the only plugin I've found that does it, the Waves Q10 plugin, does it with 32 bit precision, which just doesn't cut it.
That's a misnomer - 32 bit floating point is only 24 bit precision, and a digital filter needs twice the precision of the source to prevent round off errors.

Jtwrace, that site is fascination. ProTools is the obvious reference to compare all others.

Amazingly, SSRC, freeware, is by far the best resampler, beating ProTools significantly!
Nevermind on SSRC. The "high precision" version was a plugin for foobar2000 that is no longer available.

Adobe Audition of all the commercial software comes closest to matching the performance of Pro Tools.
In case you didn't notice, Wave Editor only works on Macs, and Adobe Audition costs less than a new computer.
The problem is that you seam to think Wave Editor would be a good idea for me. If you aren't recommending that I buy the product, why are you even mentioning it?
Onhwy61, this is not rocket science. Any other DSP process will do its own resampling if it encounters 44.1 kHz audio, and the quality of that resampling will be entirely unpredictable.
I didn't know this thing had a quote feature.


any other DSP process could be, say, a Meridian 808 CD player that upsamples to 176.4KHz

Learn to read by inference. By "any other DSP process" I mean any other software based DSP process, and I'm obviously excluding resampling when I use the phrase.
More explicitly, "any DSP process that is software based and not resampling," but it isn't elegant to write that out.


what makes you think that the software you will get your hands on will have some hidden gem software algorithm in it that has not yet been

I don't really understand the question. I think that Adobe Audition has the best resampling based on the link that was provided earlier in this thread. That's what I intend to use.

Adobe Audition can do de-emphasis with the Q10 plugin, but Q10 is only 32 bit. I have resigned myself to doing de-emphasis with sox, spitting out a 24 bit file, and then resampling it with Adobe Audition. Of course, not every CD I own has pre-emphasis, but a lot of the best ones do.

then wouldn't it be more elegant to find some software based DSP that also uses a quality SRC?

Wouldn't it be more powerful to use the best software resampler there is so I can then use whatever DSP I want?