Learn to read by inference. Dnewhous, This is some something I try extremely hard NOT to do on Audiogon!! You MUST be new to this forum?? Keep trying your "read by inference" & see how much trouble you land yourself in! ;-) I've been down this path before (& so have many others here) - it's not something you want to try here on Audiogon, IMO. However, you can choose that style if you want to.... You need to understand that nobody knows what you are thinking - over here we are all communicating thru writing. There is no face-face contact, no way to see your facial expressions thus no way to know what your angle of the argument is. You need to be explicit.
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.
Ach, now we are getting clearer! why the heck did you not write this before?? what's with the "elegance" thing?? Brevity while excluding important info is NOT elegance! It's called "incomplete information". There is NOTHING "obvious" about your excluding resampling from the DSP process. It "obvious" ONLY in your mind & no one else's. In due course you'll learn to not assume anything! ;-) Anyway, we have wasted enough time extracting the required information from you. All the best in your resampling your music collection.... |
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? |
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. |
08-29-09: Dnewhous
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. Dnewhous, do explain this statement of yours as you seem to have lost me w/ your argument. According to me, any other DSP process could be, say, a Meridian 808 CD player that upsamples to 176.4KHz OR, say, a Emm Labs CDP that also upsamples to CD format & even to DSD format. These are just 2 products that come to mind ASAP. what is entirely unpredictable about their resampling process?? Also, 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 incorporated in these 1st-class products?? It's entirely possible that I'm missing something here. Thanx. |
Any other DSP process will do its own resampling if it encounters 44.1 kHz audio That's nonsensical. Even if your statement were true, which it's not, then wouldn't it be more elegant to find some software based DSP that also uses a quality SRC? |
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. |
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? |
Many have reported great gains with up sample conversion rather then up sample conversion on the fly. I figure for the $79 for W.E. why not? Small price to pay and learn something in the process. No brainer IMO.
BTW-I wouldn't up sample my whole collection. Just the favorites. |
I don't see the point of your wanting to resample. How is resampling any different than any other DSP process you might apply? |
I use Mac for my computer audio so I'm all set there. At the $79 that Wave Editor costs, it MUCH less then Adobe Audition. Do you really think that A.A. would be better for me still? |
In case you didn't notice, Wave Editor only works on Macs, and Adobe Audition costs less than a new computer. |
Dnewhous
Wave Editor still looks really good to me...for $79 |
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. |
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! |
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. |
This is also a neat tool: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ |
Dnewhous
What about http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/products/soundforgefamily.asp |
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. |
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 |
From a pure engineering perspective, upsampling to 96KHz would be better - the DAC analog filter will have less of an effect on the hi freq of the music. You trade off disk space vs. audio quality - disk space is relatively cheap today. 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 what do you mean by "resampling ability"? * whether the DSP software can upsample or not? * OR, how good a job it does upsampling? If you are talking about how good a job it does upsampling then you have the very same issue to resolve w/ the software you are going to use to upsample to 96KHz, no? OR, are you telling us that you can buy a much cheaper, hi-end static upsampling software compared to a unit that(supposedly) does on-the-fly upsampling? |
I have the same interest. I just started my quest to do it...I know that Wave Editor can do it http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/waveeditor/ and Amarra is working on finishing it up. Some have reported great results. Yes, file size will be larger but disk space is much less expensive then your music. The other thing I would consider is if you really need to do all your music. I'm not just b/c some of it I really don't listen to critcally. I'll be curious to read others thoughts on this. |
