SRC and Dithering settings (in general)*

I just listened to your sample and I can tell you that I definitely do not hear my file like that on my computer.

Did you use the QuickSFV file I sent you to check if the file you downloaded is the same as the one I have on my hard disk.

In case you are not familiar with this program here's some info and a place where you can download it: http://www.quicksfv.org/overview.html

If the file is not the same that could be the explanation. If it is, then it must have something to do with your audio configuration.

 

Grant and Barry,

I am currenty uploading two new sample clips, this time directly in WAV format, for your consideration. I have accompanied a QuickSFV file so that you can check their integrity if you want because I have had problems trying to upload them to a couple of services.

I have finally decided to upload them to Rapidshare, because it works and accepted the 117 Mb they amount to.

Also, given that these files are new, the 44.1/16 one is directly derived from the 192/24 clip so they both are the same length and start at the same place.

I know that the fact that they are WAVs has resulted in larger files, but I wanted to address Barry's doubts regarding files converted to FLAC and any problems that this conversion might be creating for you Grant when you play them back.

The upload is at 65% at the moment. I shall post the link as soon as it is done.

 

Well, it so happens that Rapidshare divided the files into three different links. Here they are:

http://rapidshare.com/files/200031039/Nick_Drake192_4_.wav.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/200031041/Nick_Drake44.1_4_.wav.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/200031044/Nick_Drake192_and_44.1_check_4_.sfv.html

I await your impresssions.

BTW, I read the following statement on top of the page where they gave me the links:
"Your file has been saved and can now be downloaded 10 times. It will be deleted after 90 days without download."

 

Has anyone here downloaded the new files?

 

The Mac is in the middle of a batch process.
When it is done, I'll download.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.cm

 

Thanks, Barry.

 

OK, I listened to your new samples. Very nice, and very close. but, I heard the same thing I hear on my conversions, that drop in soundstage. the good thing is that the clarity and freuency response is stilll there.

Perhaps i'm just too anal about this stuff. You think?

 

Yes, I think you are being a little too anal. IMHO, the slight soundstage drop is due to having gone to 16 bits. As I always say, even in the best cases 16 bits just sounds flatter less 'deep' and commanding than higher bit depths. If this were not the case, why use something other than 16 bits for the final versions?

In my experience, what these transparent SRCs do manage is to keep much of the detail and the timbre of the instruments of the original.

I am glad to read that we are getting the same results. I would now like to hear Barry's take because I am sure he'll be using iZotope's SRC as benchmark.

 

Correct! For my purposes, I want to take most of my wirk to redbook. For much of what I restore, I see no need to keep a hi-rez version around.

 

Grant, did you get to see the high frequency DSD noise on the 192/24 file this time?

 

Funny they call that "Rapidshare" but make you wait.
Then they download at a deliberately slowed speed while pushing their "Premium" service!?
What a joke.
Only one file at a time too.
I'm doing it for you Metoo but I'll never visit that site again.

YouSendIt.com and TransferBigFiles.com provide better service and no bs.
****

Edit: I'm sorry Metoo. I got one file and now they tell me I've reached the download limit for free users.
I'm done.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

It took me a good 40 minutes to download it all. I also hate Rapidshare. I have a Live account. I would use it if it weren't so complicated. Microsoft.

 

Unless there is hiss on that sample, no.

 

Just open it in Audition and check it with the the frequency graph. You will notice the gradient of noise on the top part of the window.

BTW, did you hear the tambourine on the left channel near the end of the song? It is barely noticeable, and even less so on the 44.1 file.

 

Yeah, I forgot to tell you that they have a waiting time of 15 minutes between each download for free users.

I am sorry that you are having to go through so many loops. The truth is that I tried two different services that are more straightforward before and both failed me. One because it had a 100 Mb upload limit, the other one because it would hang on me. This is why I chose Rapidshare because, hassles and waits not withstanding it is quite dependable. But, believe me, it was a last resort scenario.

In fact, I uploaded the three files together only to find that they had separated them after the fact and given each a download address. What can I say? Sorry for the inconvenience, Barry.

I'll take a look at Transferbigfiles.com, I didn't know about it. [Note: I just went to this website and it says, "I certify that I own the rights to the file(s) I am sending. I understand any abusive files will be removed." I think I rather not use it for these purposes, even if they are only sound clips.]

As to YouSendIt, is there a way to upload files to it without having to sign up?

 

Sure. I use it all the time and I'm not signed up. Just fill in an email address, even a hotmail or yahoo address works.

 

Thanks, I'll take note for next time.

 

Barry, what was the one file you downloaded this time? Was it the 192/24 one? If so, I can upload the 44.1 to YouSendIt so that you can have both.

 

Sure! That's how I do it! but I did sign up without having to pay also.

 

Barry, if you downloaded the 192/24 file and still have it around, could you make a downsampled file at 44.1/16 from it with both iZotope's SRC and MBIT+ dithering and upload it so that Grant and I can compare it to the results of the SoX-downsampled file? I think it'd make for an interesting comparison.

 

Hi Metoo,

I apologize but it looks like I have to pass. I have some jobs to get out and deadlines are tight. Doing a conversion on the 192k file will tie the machine up for a few hours - which would bring the paying jobs to a dead stop.

I just had a discussion about this with a colleague. All the really good SRC I know tends to take quite a while - often something like 45 minutes to convert a 5 minute track from 96k to 44.1k. At 192k, at least with my current machine, it can take hours.

I don't mind because I'm getting a better sounding end result and tend to do these conversions in over night batch processes, starting them up before bed time and waking to a new set of files.

Was it last year that I had several different SRCs and several different dither/noise shaping algorithms on the Soundkeeper site? In a way, I'm sorry I deleted those files. Some folks might have still found the comparisons useful.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Yiikes! That's a lot longer than the SRC's we use. Even when I tried out the best settings on RX Advanced, it took only about 10 minutes to convert an entire 20-minute recording of an LP side from 192 to 44.1.

 

Hi Stefan,

A number of factors could be responsible.
First, my machine is a G4, a little over 5 years old. In computer years as you know, that adds up. Still, it does what I need it to do, though now that I'm recording at 192k, things are slowing down a bit.

Even several years ago, when I first started beta testing a few SRC algorithms, it still took about 45 minutes for a 5 minute, 96 to 44 conversion. And that was before I was using the 64-bit SRC.

RX Advanced processes at 32-bits vs. 64 for the 64-bit SRC. I believe this has something to do with the relative speed as well.

Since nothing I've heard comes close to the sound quality of the 64-bit SRC, I just continue to use a batch process for this, so the speed (or lack of it) hasn't bothered me.

I wonder how much faster this would be on a brand new Mac. I would guess I'd still use the batch processor.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Yes, computer speed could be a factor. Mind you, my dual-core Athlon is about four years old now so it's by no means a speed demon!

I think what we're really trying to determine in this thread is what are the best options available to those of us who do this as a hobby. It seems obvious that one of the best choices would be RX Advanced, but that's $1200 so out of the range most of us can afford for hobby use. There are several choices available from either SRC routines built into audio editing software we already own or else as freeware. None of these are going to hold a candle to the big, expensive pro products, but out of these, we`re trying to determine which ones are the most transparent. I guess that's why Metoo was hoping to get your feedback, as you do have a highly respected set of ears there! Yes, the obvious response is that each of us needs to learn to listen for ourselves and determine what sounds best to us. Nonetheless, your opinion is valued.

 

No problem, Barry.

What surprises me is the long time it takes your computer to downsample.